Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 RCs Shut Down To Force Updates
nk497 writes "The release candidate for Microsoft Windows 7 will expire June 2010, and the software giant will let users know they need to pay to upgrade by shutting down the system every two hours for three months. According to Microsoft: "The RC will expire on June 1, 2010. Starting on March 1, 2010, your PC will begin shutting down every two hours. Windows will notify you two weeks before the bi-hourly shutdowns start. To avoid interruption, you'll need to install a non-expired version of Windows before March 1, 2010. You'll also need to install the programs and data that you want to use.""
How long until someone crackfixes this? TIA.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
Has Microsoft gone mental?
What is totally mental, and I mean running around the supermarket without your pants on shouting "where is the mustard" mad ...
Here is what Mental Microsoft has to say on the matter
I get it, you learned a new word: mental. Please, try to use it in moderation and only when discussing things with your too cool for school third grade friends.
Really, you sound surprised. Didn't they warn us about this anyway? That's why the general populace was not supposed to install this. For savvy users with their old image on a backup drive it's a minor inconvenience.
Can one automagically revert to the legal Windows (if any) they had installed before they installed Windows 7? Of course not, this would make sense. And provide an easy way out of migration. For those who need an ill formed & flawed car analogy: It is like taking a new car for a test drive only to return to the dealership to discover that your old car has been crushed into a cube.
My work here is dung.
Did everyone think MS was giving away a free OS??? I've come across people in other forums literally cussing out MS as if this is some dirty trick.
Never underestimate the stupidity of some people. Like they think you have two options with Windows 7...either download the free version or go the store and buy the version that costs $100.
Morons.
I'll go further than that. I'm glad they did it. I assume they're going to stop issuing downloadable security updates to the RC in March. As a user of the internet, I feel that there are already far too many unpatched Microsoft OS based Zombies lying in wait to do horrible things to people. It seems that a pre-release OS which could be in the wild for years without updates (by design) is a threat to the rest of us.
Why is this being posted over and over on very tech site?
Who cares?
You're installing a beta or a release candidate. Do you expect it to be supported forever?
And are we really surprised Microsoft put in just a tiny bit of protection to prevent the average joe from continuing to use Windows 7 RC forever?
I'm not sure why people keep bringing up this issue. It's a release candidate being released for evaluation of software that isn't free. If they didn't disable it after a certain date, people would continue to use it indefinitely, and then would expect support as well. By forcing people to upgrade to the release version, it ensures they're not using an old, buggy release candidate. (Whether the final release will be better remains to be seen, of course, this is a Microsoft product, after all :-)
Everyone is given fair warning about this before installing the RC (which shouldn't really be on production systems anyway). If you don't like what you see, then stop using it, otherwise upgrade to the release version when it comes out.
A method to upgrade to release without having to completely reinstall would be nice, but they've never done that in the past and I wouldn't expect to see it done this time, either.
Whilst modded "funny", it's this preconcieved notion and the spite of the *nix community that actually makes their arguments look far poorer.
I took a RHEL class (instructor FROM RedHat) a while back, and 1/4 of the class was dedicated to bashing Windows. Oddly enough, most of his complaints were from a lack of knowledge, not because of the OS, so what does it say when you keep pushing that kind of attitude when people are trying to make *nix more successful and widely received?
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
--um if there's a 'whoosh' here it's yours dude.
What is bad about this is the way MS forces you to upgrade - by erasing the disk, along with the OS and ALL of your data, then installing a licensed copy and reinstalling all of your apps and then the data. What could be more inconvenient? What could waste more time? What could be more stupid?
Why not just have a menu item to click on to buy a valid license key with a credit card - LIKE EVERY OTHER NORMAL VENDOR DOES!
I just activated a copy of Photoshop Express this way, it's a convenient, easy $90 for Adobe. Doesn't anyone at Microsoft have a triple digit IQ?
You mean there are people out there who actually pay for Microsoft's OS's?
That's about as dumb as paying for music...
You're not *entitled* to sweet shit all in an RC version of software. They aren't saying "You can use it for a year, but for 3 months we're going to make it difficult." They're saying "You can use this, but it's not meant to be long term, and we're going to make sure you don't forget that."
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Is that why my XP box has been on for 10 days, and 4 minutes?
I love when people bash Windows based on their experiences from 10 years ago.
Ubuntu crashes this box more than XP does...
Oddly enough, most of his complaints were from a lack of knowledge
See also:
In summary, people who don't know a system will claim it's inferior to the one they do know to justify their ignorance.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Wait, so the OS initiating a shutdown (one of the OS's functions) after it passes a clearly defined date, in accordance with the licensing terms you agreed to on an OS you are getting for free to use for testing purposes is illegal? MS has been perfectly clear from the start what this release is for. They would be fully within their rights to have the os stop functioning completely after the date. The only way they would be responsible for damages is if it intentionally damaged the hardware in some way. Heck, if it accidentally destroys the hardware, they are still in the clear because they made it perfectly clear this was a no guarantees testing purposes build.
This is the ultimate non-story that makes the community look bad because it's pointless anti-ms rabble rousing instead of actual legitimate criticism.