Slashdot Mirror
Vista to Include Stepped up Anti-Piracy Measures
snuffin writes to tell us the Washington Post is reporting that Microsoft announced stepped up anti-piracy measures being implemented in their latest operating system, Vista. From the article: "If a legitimate copy is not bought within 30 days, the system will curtail functionality much further by restricting users to just the Web browser for an hour at a time, said Thomas Lindeman, Microsoft senior product manager." Ars Technica also has coverage available on this new development.
It would only make sense that they force user security down our throats at the time of installation. I don't agree with this or condone it, of course. It is also quite naïve of them to think that they can win the cat n' mouse game of license control with the hackers.
Just one more reason to stick with XP for those applications that only run on Windows. I'll buy in around SP5. I hope this keeps the hackers busy so they don't have free time to dream up mythical Firefox bugs.
My work here is dung.
Just what a business dependent on their software needs - an unproven "validity tester" shuts down your operations for three days while you're on ignore at the MS help line.
"Anything tastes good if you deep fry it."
I'll stick with OS X and XP under Parallels, no ways I am letting MS install software on **MY** computer that can prevent me from accessing **MY** data. EVER! And its not going anywhere near my corporate network either. Fat chance! What if someone uses the same key as me, does this mean they can lock me or my company down remotely? Yikes!
There is only one....
From the Ars article:
Unlike Windows XP, Vista will monitor the activation status of the computer even after the initial 30-day period. If the technology later decides that a key is no longer valid, through either a software update or via some other means, it will give the user another 30-day period to rectify the situation.
So, in other words, MS has every right to revoke your license for whatever reason they desire? Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?
Or, you know, use Linux, BSD, Mac OS X, or... hell I'd even use OS/2 before I'd use Windows again.
"Anything tastes good if you deep fry it."
I think we've heard this with every Windows release since 2000.
"Oh, but this one will stop pirates."
"Oh, but this one will be much more secure."
"Yes, we'll play more nicely with the standards."
Frankly? I hope they make the anti-piracy measures 100% effective. More people might be pushed over the tipping point, and give Linux a try.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Geeks with curiosity, knowledge and a hankering for tinkering have a choice.
Joe Muggle and his gramma and grampa don't have a choice. Not yet anyway.
Unless they buy a mac, that is. And then, they'll be at Apple's mercy.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
That's about how long it would take me to find and download a crack ;)
That's about how long it will take me to download Linux. As I said in this post about WGA, I'm no longer interested in playing MSFT's games. If I didn't have to have a Windows PC at home for my wife to do her job, I wouldn't be using Windows at all.
I *despise* Linux on the desktop but I'm not about to use a crack that could be open me to more attacks than using the vanilla MSFT OS, have to deal with MSFT, and pay the crazy price point that they want for Vista. Nevermind the fact that my current machines will probably run the OS like shit.
I'll suffer with OS X (which I also despise as a desktop OS), Linux, and my current interation of XP (heavily firewalled).
It's unfortunate that this will do nothing but piss people off. But will that change anything? Nope.
I can't believe why so many Slashdotters are complaining about the decision to limit internet access for a product that isn't activated/paid. Do you get better treatment at Wal-Mart for walking out with products that you ignored to pay for?
Microsoft is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on development and marketing of Vista, so it is only fair to ensure that piracy isn't as ongoing as it is today.
After all, it's your free choice to select from many other fully functional operating systems if you refuse to use Vista. Or even stick to a fully functional Windows XP.
Full Tilt
It'll probably be valid when you buy it. Are you going to trust Microsoft not to bork it after the fact?
Lemme know how that works out for you.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Brilliant!!!
All it takes for one non-technical person to somehow get a machine with a pirated/falsely tagged copy and he/she will tell all friends that Windows looks like shit and doesn't support any word processors or games - only a web browser. I am just waiting for screenshots of the damage in a "I am a PC and I am a Mac" ad early next year. XP Activation screen was already "featured" in this WWDC keynote.
I guess they are following the trend and missing the obvious.
For economic reasons, there is a maximum amount that people are willing to spend on software licences.
If you crack down on people making copies, that does not mean that they all rush out and pay for a new copy.
Some stick with what they have, some switch to Linux or ReactOS (eventually).
The copies served as free marketing. Some would get hooked and eventually buy a copy.
This is similar to music. Cassette/CD/MP3 copying did not kill buying music, it added to demand.
Too much copy-protection, drm and controls will not increase demand, and may actually decrease demand.
Id use linux if I didnt have to learn how to program so much. I installed linux, I thought yes this is good. I had to install some nvidia drivers. In windows you click one file. In linux I had to type out a lot of code. It gave an error saying install this first, I went to install that, it said install this other thing first...At that point I thought okay so if its going to be like this all the time I really dont think ill bother. I was having to learn about bizarre coding to install some graphics drivers. Im a bit of a geek but even i wasnt interested or understanding why I need to or would want to, so the average person isnt either.
If linux was more user friendly it would be more popular. Everyone knows windows needs a competitor, but until linux makes itself a lot more usable to the average person then its not even a competitor, let alone a viable alternative. We need a big company to make a decent rival, perhaps virgin or someone can come up with something
How does this make Microsoft any different from the writers of those blackmail viruses that encrypt your data and won't let you access it until you pay them?
I think Vista will be the last OS Microsoft ever puts out.
Once Google releases an OS, it's over for Microsoft.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
License is as it does. M$ is free to do whatever it wants with its licenses. It's just a legal document! Guess what, by downloading xp and not paying for it and clicking thru the license when you install, you're breaking the license terms! Guess what, in Vista they're trying to make a consequence for that! Sounds fair to me: it's their company, their product, their license terms, their right to do what the heck they want with their stuff. If you didn't want to use it you'd be using Linux already.
for the "I keep a windows partition for games" crowd out there, are your games as free as your OS? Guess what, that's breaking their license rules too! Will you complain as loudly here if your favourite game's developer implements an insurmountable copy protection that negates your ability to acquire it on newsgroups or irc? How about Photoshop? Nero? Etc???
for the crowd that managed to say "ho hum" to this, congratulations! You're probably the software developer that understands not wanting your product stolen. ;) If you're working for OSS and use OSS, then fine; the understanding is that you don't mind other people downloading and using, that's the point of what you're doing. You're missing the point of MS being a company, they're in business to make money. If you don't want to pay for your software, then don't buy it and get something free with a license that says it's that. Don't complain about something that prevents you from stealing it though, that'd be like complaining about the Sensomatics at the record store.
My server is a linux server, but I use Windows on my desktop. I own my Windows licence and my server is just happy being Linux. Does this arrangement make me a bad person? I thought I was just following the rules as stated by the respective software packages' licenses...
99% of home users get Windows preinstalled on their computer ("free"). There's really not much reason for most home users to upgrade, as every new version of Windows needs more hardware to run.
Only geeks who build their own computers need to buy an OS. Everyone else gets it for "free".
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Well, if that's how you feel, why didn't you stick with Windows 2000? It's a lot less bloated than XP, and runs every program just as well. But it doesn't have the crappy "activation" "feature".
My guess is you probably liked some of the few useful features (wireless, PPPoE, faster booting) or the useless, "bling" features, and in the end you upgraded after all. Or you got a new PC and you couldn't be arsed to demand one without XP (and the microsoft tax) installed.
So, if that's why it's likely you'll repeat the process with Vista, right?
Nah, they will just invent another crisis to keep the prices up. Much as the oil companies do.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Stop feeding the trolls. This person posted anonymously for a reason.
Not every install of a product is illegal even though it isn't activated. Essentially I take it that if you don't activate your product in 30 days you are to be considered illegal. The vast majority of users have no idea when and/or if their software is illegal.
Questions for me remain about how they will determine the illegal nature of the software. How often will they check. Looking back at their genuine advantage notification program it was a piece of shit that only the lowest form of life would have though up and/or sanctioned. That's my opinion. Your's may vary. It was deceptive in how they put it on and it was deceptive in what they were collecting and how they were operating. It also opened up the door for alot of other companies to copy Microsoft, hence you might have 10-20 different programs monitoring your computer software use and then reporting back to their servers. Microsoft is no more entitled to put their crap on my computer than any other software vendor is so that just opens a pandora's box. Give them license to do it and you give license to every other software vendor to do the same thing.
Microsoft isn't particularly bright. 40% of those identified as invalid were actually valid. How many of the Vista copies will be considered invalid and still be valid?
What Microsoft seems to forget is that there is no compelling reason to purchase or upgrade to Vista. XP is a solid OS which meets the requirements of the vast majority of the world's users. If Vista had some die for feature or they had some features that were critical or even compelling in some minor way maybe most people would be justified in opening their computers up to Microsoft's heavy handedness. The new version of the OS just has nothing of any real value for the average user to justify the exceptionally high cost of the software (even in upgrade), the enormous cost in hardware upgrades required, and then the repurchasing of software that is more than adequate for what we have today.
If you look at any software product that might be developed for Windows Vista you'll probably not find a single one that has any real upgrade value. What more can you do to an elephant other than feed it more and hope it grows? The beheamouth software of today doesn't need to torture our computers more in the future by adding bloat when everything is in them.
When we had the changeover from DOS to Win 3.x we had reason to upgrade. Protected mode applications, cooperative multitasking, memory management, consistent interface, etc. Everyone could learn the basics of a GUI and they'd have a chance at using any given software product that came out for the OS. When Windows 95 came out it gave us preemptive multitasking and a new interface with alot of major changes that helped in networking, and maintenance. You weren't forced to put up with any Microsoft bullshit about activation, DRM, lockouts, spyware, etc. It did have problems with the system resources, just as 98 and ME had that followed it.
2k and XP were great upgrades to the OS. Alot of existing hardware worked and worked well. It was well designed and it protected applications from crashing the whole OS. There were some seriously compelling reasons to upgrade to 95, 98, 2k, and XP. But Vista just doesn't have it. Even their security features beg the question about what will happen to XP's security once Vista is out. Will Microsoft extort our purchase of Vista by not protecting XP as well as they did Vista? It is mostly Microsoft's fault that XP has the problems they have today and by all measure the security in Vista has never been guaranteed to protect us any more. It hasn't even been hinted at. Right now Microsoft could say XP is the most secure OS on the market (whether that is true or not), just as they will say that Vista is the number one secured OS. Neither would be correct. The fact remains that if they believe it they will try to sell it.
From all that I have read people are able to hack the kernel already in Vista. T
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Nobody is making you buy Vista.
except the boss.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
My completely spiteful answer is I hope that M$ loses as much money as possible through whatever means possible, including piracy and customers lost due to stupid and inaccurate anti-piracy measures such as this.
Why do I wish them so much ill, do you ask? Because I've probably bought around 6-8 copies of Windows that I will NEVER use. I was FORCED to buy them due to Microsoft's predatory marketing practices, which forbid all of the major OEMs (which have the best prices by far--even for desktops, nowadays it's usually significantly cheaper to wait for a good Dell deal than to build from scratch) from selling desktops and laptops without a copy of Windows.
Our justice system has failed us. They convicted MS of monopolistic practices and utterly failed to do anything about it, and I've indirectly paid hundreds of dollars in license fees I am NOT using (I use Linux exclusively, except for a single gaming box.) They include BULLSHIT, UNENFORCABLE crap like "you may not resell this OEM copy", even though this clearly violates the first sale doctrine, and yet shitheads like eBay go along with it and won't let you sell your OEM copies of Windows. And it gets even better--now many OEMs (like Dell) don't give you any reinstallation CDs--you don't even have the option to make your own, anymore. So, even if I did use Windows, I'd be forced to use a pirated copy when it comes time to reinstall windows (and don't give me that "it's stable now!" crap. I have XP and while it's lightyears ahead of 9x, you most certainly can NOT use it regularly for YEARS without experiencing significant slowdowns and other problems, often unresolvable by malware removal programs.)
So, in conclusion: fuck Microsoft. They've stolen hundreds of dollars from me personally (and God knows how much nationally or worldwide), so don't expect me play fair if and when I'm ever forced to use Vista in the future.
I believe M$'s flat stock price in recent years is a direct reflection of WinXP (and Office) being both DRM'd and sold at double the price we were accustomed to paying for Windows.
Speaking as a M$ shareholder, I therefore consider XP's DRM/activation crap detrimental to my investment, and an irresponsible behaviour on the part of M$.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?