Microsoft Withdraws Vista's Kill Switch
l-ascorbic writes "In what they are calling a change of tactics, Microsoft has removed the controversial 'kill switch' from Vista in SP1. This feature is designed to disable pirated copies of the OS, but had led to numerous reports of it disabling legitimate copies. It will be replaced with a notice that repeatedly informs the user that their OS is pirated. '[Microsoft corporate vice president Mike Sievert] added: "It's worth re-emphasizing that our fundamental strategy has not changed. All copies of Windows Vista still require activation and the system will continue to validate from time to time to verify that systems are activated properly." Microsoft said it had pursued legal action against more than 1,000 dealers of counterfeit Microsoft products in the last year and taken down more than 50,000 "illegal and improper" online software auctions.'"
If made____you____bitch
Did this____kill____switch
How 'bout__a______pitch
In a_______fine____triptych?
Burma___________Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I think a lot of users would be happier if they withdrew Vista entirely. I know I'm scrambling to see if I can upgrade my system to XP. Darn gaming addiction...
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
They probably hope that pirates will make Vista popular and that a fraction actually will buy Vista in the end ;-)
I guess this is one way to get Vista's adoption rate to go up. Just let it be pirated!
It's worth re-emphasizing that our fundamental strategy has not changed.
i.e. We're still gonna bend you over. The big guy named Bubba is still employed with us, but now we've taken away his lube.
OS/X : Hereround 155$. Probably nicest user interface, at least at Panther level very stable, rock solid foundation (BSD) a real shell and real scripting. Oh and it gives me fanboy privileges.
Vista Ultimate: ~700$. Nothing really to offer, exept maybe this floating waterfall background, which must eat a ton of resources. Requires activation, abuses 30% of my resources for Hollywoods satisfaction. Oh: And by default I'm a criminal software thieve pirate.
I'd wager that if i really chose option three I must be a blistering idiot, too.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
...until they start counting all pirated version of Vista among those "happily" using it in order to inflate their numbers.
A blog on ZDNet has this interesting bit:
This is software explicitly designed to make your computer less useful. It does nothing else for you. Why would "improving its back-end systems" ever make me trust it the least bit more?
Look, they can trot out lousy policy after lousy policy, but so long as they own the file formats, all else is moot.
Hence the ramrodding of OOXML, which, while painfully boring, is really under-reported in the geek press, like most imortant issues.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Maybe the notice should just contain a link to Ubuntu? =] "An error has occurred and Windows was detected on your drive. Please format disk and install Linux. Download Ubuntu here"
Just so you understand.
If I install a new motherboard in my PC that is not piracy.
If I format my old hard drive and install Vista on a new PC I built that is not piracy.
If I have to call to take down that nag screen then you must hire enough people that I never have to wait more than two minutes to get the nag removed. You must also offer a world wide toll free number so I can call no matter where I am and you must keep that number staffed until the sun goes nova or you go out of business.
Only then will any type of "activation" be acceptable.
Never mind OpenSuse is working just fine as is Ubuntu. Or maybe I will just buy a Mac.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
...isn't this one of Vista's most popular features?
Without that kill switch customers will be left with a slow, buggy OS.
What stops MS from turning the switch back on at any future date? Although MS may have "turned off" the kill switch, it remains a feature of the system as long as MS auto-update can make changes to the OS without the user's consent.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I suppose they realized that it would be just a matter of time before someone outside of Microsoft discovers a way to use the kill switch. And then every Internet-connected computer running Vista will die instantly. Hmm... Doesn't sound like such a bad idea after all...
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Excellent Microsoft, keep destroying the wide spread use of your own OS, frustrating your end users, and alienating the next generation of system/software engineers.
We'll be that much better off.
One of my XP machines pulled down a WGA update from Windows automatic updates yesterday.
Have they also somehow altered WGA in XP?
The get yourself a Vista RTM ISO off of BitTorrent and utilize the little app at the very bottom of this page to save your OEM license. I've done it and it works a charm.
The next thing you will know is that the popping windows will become paid banners i SP2!!
Whoah you must be the Goatse guy to pull numbers of that size out of your behind ;)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Microsoft said it [...] [has] taken down more than 50,000 "illegal and improper" online software auctions.'
So that means that Microsoft have been getting perfectly legal auctions taken down because they deem then "improper" then.
People can bitch about the apparent tunnel-visioned business model that they adopt with WGA. The fact of the matter is that if the tables were turned and Apple were the most dominant and pervasive OS, there would be similar tactics employed. You bet your life that Apple would hunt you down with their 'iCanDoNoWrong' activation software. It's just that way it is, being a monopoly, good or bad.
Microsoft is in business to make money and do the bidding of its shareholders, period. If one accepts that fact, then expect that they have to do something to protect their interests because it does affect their bottom line. Again, /. people might not care but then again, it's not your bottom line, on the line.
Not so many years ago, Steam arrived on the scene in the PC games world. Everyone moaned and complained. Groups formed to try and find ways to circumvent it (and I suspect they still do). Everyone said it was organised spying because the software had to 'phone home', nobody wanted to activate their game on-line. Now, Steam does a whole lot more than just phone home, it's practically Borg! Yet, I don't really have a problem with it. Maybe Microsoft could use their model instead? It certainly doesn't treat legitimate customers as potential criminals as far as I can see.
I accept that WGA is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. However, if one accepts that there is a global piracy problem for Microsoft to deal with, how would /. people solve it? Don't bother to chime in 'Make it free' or 'Make it Open Source and then I'll pay for it' or 'sell it for peanuts because no-one will pirate it then' - yeah, right. Business is business.
Microsoft has described the new approach as a "change of tactics". It said efforts to tackle piracy had seen numbers of fake copies of Vista at half the level of XP, the previous Windows operating system. Wow, even pirates don't want Vista. Speaks volumes.
(As basically everyone else is talking about Vista in general, thought I would too.)
I just upgraded my main machine last month (from athlon 3000xp / nforce2 / 2G ram / 6800gs, to core2quad q6600 / nforce 680i sli / 4G 800Mhz ram / BFG 8800GT) I felt I was reaching XP's limits on what I wanted, namely:
- can't access 4G ram, or higher. Maxes out around 3.25G
- can't run DirectX 10 (this is the total killer, for games)
- also, I'd have to reinstall if I wanted XP-64, so may as well go the whole hog
I use my PC for gaming, and music production (Cubase, etc). Over the last few weeks I've been painstakingly contacting the manufacturers of every peripheral/software I use, ensuring I won't lose the use of anything I currently am used to. That takes care of the driver issue.
The other main issues seem to be memory (4G should be enough for now), and general resource usage. I've looked into it a bit and found a bunch of services that are useless for me and will speed things up when disabled (ReadyBoost, Search index services for example) - but to be honest, this was always the way with any Windows installation - msmsgs, anyone? A bit of tweaking will always be necessary.
Right now, it seems hard for me to find something that doesn't work under Vista, and the new device driver stack, directx 10 and expansion to 64 bit seem worth it to me. Anyone been through a similar upgrade recently and have a story to tell?
Oh, ye of higher moral values. So I assume you work on your own farm, generate your own power, sew your own clothes, grow your own food, and hand built that computer you are using to type up your comments on? No - I didn't think so. You are just a part of the problem and the machine as the rest of us.
Do I wish that everyone had enough to eat, that there was no "want" in the world, there wasn't any resource shortages and no disease? and that everyone could go off and do whatever the hell they wanted all the time? Sure I do! But as much as I'd love to be off drinking, gambling, and cavorting with supermodels all day, I'm also a realist and realize that that is a fantasy world.
Capitalism isn't a religion - its a fact of life. It always has been. People need stuff, other people make and sell stuff. If you don't like that - then don't participate. (And you will very likely starve to death or die of disease.)
I don't get how Microsoft is "exploiting resources." They built a product, they can charge whatever the hell they want for it, and its their right that people aren't stealing it. Period. If you don't like the product, don't like the company, think they beat midgets with bats to make them right the code, or whatever your personal stick up your butt is with it, then JUST DON'T BUY IT. If you, and the legions of haters out there are so damned smart, then your lack of market share should make the product tank, will force Microsoft to go back to the drawing board and write a product a little more to your liking. In the meantime, shouting "YOU GUYS SUCK!" from every mountaintop is just pissing everyone else off and makes you look like a sheep that's joining the bleating crowd of the anti-Microsoft "religion."
I sig, therefore I am.
It really is not just a perception. These things seem so obvious to me to be a flaw somewhere, I wonder how quality assurance even passed that. On XP, you would just see the copy window flicker onto the screen and poof and the file would be there.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Until they completely pull DRM out of the kernel, I will never support the corporate adoption within our enterprise. In a perfect world, the DRM should only activate when "Premium Content" is being played. However, if we are copying gigabytes of .mp3 voice recording files (recorded phone calls to customer service, etc.) Vista just bogs down and stops. "It won't do that", we were promised last year while Vista was being readied for release. "It shouldn't do that" we're told when we encountered the problems, but it doesn't matter, Because. It. DOES.
With today's computers and today's work environment who DOESN'T work with or Manipulate multimedia content at some point? How could we possibly rely on an operating system that treats all multimedia content as special requiring extra inspection attempting to verify that I'm not trying to circumvent some nonexistent copy protection.
Windows Vista truly is the longest suicide note in history.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Uh, no. If you don't run your accounts as local admin, UAC prompts for a password.
Oh and one more followup to the UAC thing:
UAC Doesn't call out on a whim: Its when you do admin-based functions on your machine, such as
modifying files owned by another user to which you have no rights (hmm, sounds like you need sudo for this)
adding/removing programs
lots of 'system' level settings in the control panel
Regedit will even run without UAC prompt, and lets you access HKLU
If you take the common distributions, they all have the framework (but Ubuntu may leverage it the best).
Can you tell me honestly that Windows makes installing software easy intrinsically? Let's use the plugin example...
I browse to a flash site without a plugin install. *Firefox* helpfully points me to where to install it (note, Windows did not help me and Firefox had no Microsoft provided framework to assist/hook into). Adobe provides me a binary to run and install (retrieved through firefox) that takes after itself (presumably at least registering itself with the add/remove programs, the *one* interaction with Microsoft framework related to installs. You install it, it's done, and is now fixed at that version without manual effort to keep track of bugfix/security issues, and almost entirely without any help from microsoft, and instead the applications fending for themselves in a non-standardized way. This was the way it happened to work for a Flash plugin, but installing a java run time environment is different, which is different from installing a Valve game, which is different from installing an id game, which is different from installing Pidgin, etc etc.
Now, look at ubuntu. If you don't use the OS method to install it first, you browse, and firefox *asks the apt repository* for something appropriate and has the apt framework install and package manage it. This means any updates to flash plugin are tracked, and by the single update manager that tracks the whole platform. The framework is there to do so much more and help out application providers rather than leaving them to reinvent the wheel in many different styles and frustratingly different ways.
Another point is that people are *way* too quick to judge the general usability of Linux based on too wide a sampling of distributions. Gentoo has an audience, but it's not going to be a random non-technical person (unless it's a build from a friend/relative that's set in stone or actively maintained). By the same token, commercial apps wouldn't have to support umpteen different distros, support Ubuntu LTS releases and CentOS/RHEL and the rest can sort themselves out (hey, it's better than the current situation of people trying to eek by with Wine and running completely outside the parameters planned for/supported by the software vendors).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.