No, the maximum you can get IS X, you just will only get it for up to 15 minutes. Like it or not, they are upholding their end of the deal, even if they are using a technicality to not fully deliver.
Unless I've screwed up the math (entirely possible, it's late and I just spent an hour stuck in traffic), the maximum you can possibly get is (100+50)/2, or 75%.
That would be the maximum you could get over a 30+ minute period. For less than 15 minutes, you can get 100% and then it slowly decreases to an average of 75% as you approach 30 minutes.
Not trying to be a dick, but you do have the option of moving. Also, they clearly say when selling broadband "up to X", not "you will get X".
I think the 15 minute limit and cutting to 50% is extreme, but the idea of it is basically to keep a few people running torrents 24/7 from screwing everyone else on the pipe out of their bandwidth. They won't improve their network until they're forced to, but they could at least change it to say 3 hours and 75% of your max bandwidth, which would be much more reasonable.
If you read the ads / agreements, they always clearly say "speeds up to X". They do not say "you will get X". Time Warner (at least where I live) offers a "turbo" package for $10 more than their 8 Mbps - it clearly says "when bandwidth allows, speeds up to 15 Mbps using Turbo" - they make it clear that they only guarantee "up to 8 Mbps, and when there's not much activity on your pipe, up to 15 Mbps". So you are fully warned, at least if you bother to read what you're buying.
I think that Comcast is doing this the wrong way....maybe say after 3 hours of using your full bandwidth, knock you down to 95%, then for each hour that you're still maxing out your bandwidth, another 1% drop. I dislike throttling, but if there are a few users on a pipe hogging all the bandwidth and keeping others from really using what they pay for, then they should throttle it some. Of course, the BEST solution is for them just to upgrade their network.....but that's me being a crazy person! =p
Let's use a car analogy. There's a toll road that's significantly faster to get to your destination. They charge $20 to use the road for 20 miles, and you think that is unfair and outrageous.
Now, you can either bite the bullet and pay to take the road, or you can choose to take the alternate route. You do not get to take the road without paying the toll just because you think it's too expensive and wouldn't have paid anyway. That is immoral, illegal, and socially unacceptable.
Your analogy doesn't work. You still don't get the "no cost to produce" part. Here's your analogy, only applied to copying files. I come up on a toll road and it costs $20. Since it's faster, I want to take it, but $20 is absurd. I push a button in my car and an identical road appears (lets assume a wormhole into a parallel universe, only in this parallel universe, the road is free to use) and then drive on that identical road that does not cost anything.
You rationalized pirating Windows 7 because you would be better off with it and you didn't want to pay for it. You claimed you could stay with XP, but you want 7 instead. How is that not entitlement? If you didn't feel entitled, you would stick with what you paid for.
No, entitlement would be me saying "MS HAS to give me Win 7 for free, I deserve it". I've never said that. It is only because it is available at no cost that I will use it. It's like a public water fountain. If you're thirsty and it's there, you'll use it - but you don't think "someone owes me a free drink", it's just taking advantage of a free opportunity that's there.
It's obviously not socially acceptable, nor is it reasonable.
Believe it or not, you're in the vast minority. Most people (even the ones who foam at the mouth about how going 1mph over the speed limit is breaking the law) don't give a crap about getting ridiculously overpriced software for free. If they didn't get it for free, most people simply wouldn't use it.
Your entire argument rests on your fallacious thinking that copying a file is the same as taking a boxed copy of software (which did cost money to produce) off store shelves. It's not.
I think I've figured out why you're so upset about this. It's because you're foolish enough to pay for it, so you're pissed that others are smart enough to say "if it's free, I'll take it, if not, I won't use it". You're under the false impression that it's "I'm going to buy this at full price - oh hey, free!". It's not. It's "I'm not going to pay that price, so I won't buy it at all. Oh, free? I guess I'll take it then".
I never said that. I said if you want to use Windows, you have to follow the same rules as the rest of us and pay.
Actually, most people DON'T pay. MS pretty much gives it away for free to manufacturers, which most people then get whatever version of Windows when they buy their computer. It's only people (like me) who build our own system instead of buying some POS that get punished and have to pay their absurd amount.
If you can't grasp these concepts, you're beyond my help.
Sorry, but I'll never grasp the concept of turning down a freebie of something that's too expensive to buy. If someone offered you a free Ferarri, would you turn it down? I doubt it. Pirating an OS is the only way to get MS to stop raping it's customers. It's worked in China, where it now costs about $50 to buy, because the Chinese said "fuck that, I'm not paying that!" - now they have reasonable prices. It's a type of protest, like civil-disobedence back in the 60's. I want to pay money for a good product, but I won't pay an obscene amount just because the company is greedy. If people pirate your software, it's because the price is too damn high, not because people "want it for free". Lower your prices and the piracy rate will drop in proportion.
I built a quad-core, dual-video card desktop for $800 -- it's bullshit that they (and you) think the OS should cost $300.
First, I'll say it for the last jesus-fucking time. Copying a file (otherwise known as "copyright infringement") IS. NOT. GODDAMN. STEALING. Is it illegal? Yup. Are there plenty of unjust laws? Good god, yes! Illegal != immoral.
Second, the idiot was claiming that by not buying something, everyone else paid more. I proved that his argument was false. I never said anything about "being a customer". The price of Mt. Dew is the same whether I buy it or not. I don't buy pop anymore and just drink water, so by your moronic logic, I'm "stealing" from all the pop companies and causing everyone to pay more. That. Is. FALSE.
The fact that you don't realize that there is no rational reason for me NOT to pirate it (since I'm not going to pay the bullshit $300-$400) is why there's no point arguing with people like you. You lack the ability to reason or use logic. MS makes no money either way, so why wouldn't I pirate it? The only person that stands to gain or lose is me, since again, MS won't make a penny either way.
Pay for the services you use, and don't use what you don't pay for.
I gladly pay for a good service. That's why I'm going to buy Malwarebytes ($25 one time fee, no bullshit yearly charges for virus definition updates). I gladly buy movies at full price if they're good instead of downloading them like my friends do. I have no problem paying for something of value. However, $400 for a fucking OS is ridiculous, especially when MS could charge $50 a piece and still make a massive profit.
As for your subsidizing remark, do you know who actually subsidizes everything with MS? Businesses. Why? Because they're the ones dumb enough to pay MS's insane licensing costs instead of just switching to Mac or Linux. There is no reason to pay $500 per employee for Office when you can download Open Office for free. The same goes for a server - there is no reason to pay a fee for each user you want to connect to the network.
Stop pretending you're entitled to free shit because you don't like the person selling it.
When did I say that I was "entitled" to free anything? Never. I simply pointed out the facts that 1) since I refuse to pay an outrageous fee and 2) MS won't make or lose any money regardless of if I just don't use it or if I pirate it, there is no logical reason not to pirate it. If MS would actually lose money, then yes, it would be wrong and I wouldn't do it. However, they lose nothing if I copy a file, especially a file that I had no intention of purchasing.
You said before that I should just use Linux instead - by your own logic (or should I say lack thereof) presented in your horribly irrational arguments, each person who switches from Windows to Linux is a "thief" and forces everyone else to pay more.
MS has monopoly power (even though they're not truly a monopoly) and can charge whatever they want for it. Businesses will pay it because they're scared shitless to try something new and users will normally pay for it because they don't want all their software to turn into coasters.
If there are 3 million people who want the software, MS needs only charge $50.
That would be true, if there was perfect competition. However, we all know that there isn't much competition in the OS industry. You have the option of paying MS's extremely high prices or paying Apple's even more ludicrous prices. Again, unless you want to throw away all of your software, linux really isn't an option.
You don't think MS charges ridiculous prices......so how elses do you think that they make more money a year than pretty much any other company, regardless of industry?
Rather than just not buying the software, you pirate it as well, further reducing the number of paying customers, say to 1 million.
WRONG! If people do not want to buy it, the same number of people will buy it regardless of if those who won't pay the price pirate it or just don't use it.
You didn't cost MS any money, you did cost the actual paying customers money.
So by your lack of logic, you're arguing that every time anyone walks by an item and doesn't purchase it, everyone who does now has to pay more. This is completely and utterly false. I go to a car lot and buy a Mazda 3 - does the price of a Mazda 3 drop for everyone else? No, it stays the same. Does the price of every other car increase because I bought a Mazda 3? No, they stay the same.
Your lack of logic says that every time you don't purchase something you're "stealing" and harming everyone else. That is not the case. Take a fucking economics class.
If you really feel that MS is overcharging for Windows 7, then don't buy it. But don't pirate it and act like it's alright. Either you're pirating it because it's stealing and you want to stick it to the man, or you don't use it because you don't want to buy it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Good god you swallow the RIAA/MPAA's bullshit beautifully. Do you also think Obama can walk on water and that Al Gore is a real scientist?
Let's put it in terms of food, since you mentioned cake. You have a cake. I come along and snap my fingers and an identical cake appears next to yours. I eat that new cake that was created at no cost to anyone. You still have your cake and now I have gotten to eat cake. That is what copying a file is. It is NOT stealing. If I took a copy off a shelf, that is stealing. Making a copy that doesn't cost anyone a cent is not stealing, because nothing was taken. That's like claiming someone "stole" your picture because they ran it through a copier. I'm sorry that you're not intelligent enough to understand the difference between stealing and copying a file. This is slashdot, thousands of people here would be glad to explain it to you (though you still wouldn't get it because the tv didn't tell you to think it).
This is why companies are failing in the modern world - because they want to cling to 18th century business practices when things can be replicated at no cost. That means in order to keep customers, they need to lower prices to reflect the dramatically lower costs of the product. Why do you think iTunes is so successful while cd sales decline? Because even if you buy a whole album on iTunes, it costs about 25-50% less than if you bought the cd. That is a much more reasonable price than what cd's are priced at, so people flock to iTunes. I guess you think that's "stealing" as well because they're not paying the ridiculously high prices of cd's?
Either you're pirating it because it's stealing and you want to stick it to the man, or you don't use it because you don't want to buy it.
Or option C) I can use it and MS makes just as much money as if I didn't buy it. YOu're still not getting the concept of "regardless of my actions, their profit is the same" because I'm not going to pay $400 for it. Lets put it another way........the MPAA is going to give you $50 no matter what, now you can either give them a blowjob (like you seem to want to) or you can just take the $50 and go on your way. Either way, you get that $50 - so you then pick the choice that benefits you the most. MS is not losing any money because I'm not going to pay their ridiculous fee no matter if I copy it or just stick with XP. That's the point you're not getting. THEY. WILL. NOT. GET. A. FUCKING. PENNY. So, their profits stay the same and then it's a matter of sticking with XP or getting Win 7 for free. I've used Win 7 since the beta and it's a great OS and I'd gladly pay for it - but not $400. And no, $120 for a massively feature stripped "Home P.O.S. Edition" is not a viable alternative. The only reason that they do the different editions is to charge you more if you actually want the full OS (it's akin to Ford charging you more if you want all the seats in your car, then more if you actually want doors, then another fee if you want windows on the car, etc). You wouldn't put up with that bullshit from any other industry, why are you dumb enough to put up with it from software companies?
Basic game theory is flawed? I think Dr. John Nash would disagree with you...
I love to bi-polar slashdot mentality - if a company makes money, slashdotters bitch that they should give it away for free. If someone gets a product for free without causing the company to lose money, people (like you) bitch that people aren't giving the company money. Pick a side, either companies are free to overcharge and extort to their hearts content or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.
Either you're incredibly dumb or you're trolling. I'm not sure which.
If an author wants to charge $400 for a paperback book that should be between $8-$20, I will not buy it. I don't buy ridiculously overpriced things (sadly, apparently you do, and it was people like that who led to the current crap economy). Now, something that is an electronic file, you can copy at no cost and no one loses money. Can you follow that so far? Good. Now we get to the part that seems to be very difficult for you.
MS wants an absurd amount of money for Windows 7. I will not pay such an abusurd amount. I could use XP still, in which case MS makes $X. However, since it costs nothing to make a copy of Windows 7, I could get a copy off of the internet. MS still makes $X (with X being the same number, they did not gain or lose money from this), but now I have Windows 7. MS is just as well off either way, but now I am better off. If you ever took a basic class in game theory, you would realize that since I'm not going to pay an abusurd price and since MS does not lose money due to me copying Windows, the optimal choice is to copy Windows.
Also, if you bothered to ever read any of my comments, I specifically said if they charged a reasonable amount, I would gladly pay it. It's the fact that they want to charge 3-4x more than a reasonable amount that causes me to not pay for it (it's the same reason I do not buy from Apple, despite wanting one of their computers, because they massively overprice them). If they had a tangible product (a car, a book, a computer, etc), then they could get away with this because it would be costly to make a copy of it. However, with software / files, it costs nothing to make a copy, so their costs of production go to pretty much zip after they make the first copy.
Companies can charge whatever they want for a product. Consumers also have a right to not buy their product if they price it too high. However, if the consumer can get the product that they would not pay for without cost AND the company does not lose money (which they don't, since said consumer was not going to purchase it), one player in the game (the company) comes out the same in either situation and the other player (the consumer) comes out better if they copy it.
To quote Star Trek - "It's logic Spock, I thought you'd like that?"
Except that when you buy a student copy, they don't tell you this up front. I bought multiple items at once (really, considering I got XP, XP 64-bit, Office 2007, and *shudder* Vista (I'd never used it before and was curious....) for under $50 total, can you blame me for buying MS stuff?), but now I've learned my lesson.
I buy books by the hundreds. I also buy dvd's by the hundreds as well as video games (mainly for PC). However, massively overcharging for something like an OS just because someone doesn't buy a new computer is utter bullshit.
MS overcharges for Windows and I get a pirated copy - it's no different than if I used Linux except that now I can play my games that I own. MS makes no more money than it would have and I still get to use my software. Explain how that is a lesser solution than the alternative you propose of MS still not getting money from me, but me now being worse off by not being able to play my games?
Also, you are aware that pre-record industry in the mid-20th century, artists of all sorts were paid for performing, not selling copies of a recorded work. Back then they realized that it was about doing something they loved, not about getting rich.
Oh, and to the RIAA/MPAA fanboys who keep modding me troll, you really should look up the definition of troll. Just because you have no argument, it doesn't make me a troll.
Oh, I have paid for legit student copies of MS products. But they always come hamstrung with things like a 1 install limit, so if you reformat you're SOL. That's why you have to resort to piracy to be able to use what you actually paid for.
I do use Linux, on my laptop. I use Windows on my desktop for one reason - games. Also, copying a series of 0's and 1's is not stealing. If I take a copy of Windows from the store, that is stealing. No one loses anything by making a copy of a file.
People who pirate Windows are... wait for it... more likely to pirate other software, too.
Actually, the only other product I pirate is MS Office. Why do I only pirate MS products? Because they charge absurd prices for them. If they charged reasonable prices (say $100 for a FULL version of Windows 7, not some feature restricted upgrade version), I'd be fine with paying it. If they want to charge $400, well fuck them, I'm pirating it.
No, the software is purchased. I walk into a store and buy it. I do not get handed a contract saying "You get to use this copy of Windows / OS X / Photoshop for 36 months with the cost breaking down to $X per month....". THAT is a license. Walking in, picking it up, and buying it, that is a purchase. Just because they want to put something in the box that you cannot read until AFTER you have bought it where they try to claim that they still own it does not make it a license (which amusingly, stores do not accept returns on opened software, so you can't get a refund even if you want to not use the software because you don't agree to their bogus terms).
I'm sorry but folks who want clean water and clean air -- as opposed to what pours out of industrial plants -- are not the scammers.
And you didn't read a damn thing I wrote. People like Al Gore tell everyone ELSE that we have to sacrifice and live in the stone age "to save the planet" while they pollute just as bad as the worst industrial complexes do. THAT is what I'm complaining about, not people who want to clean things up.
The scammers are the insurance companies that want to force everyone to buy their inflated insurance costs under the guise of "healthcare reform".
Actually, that's your beloved Democrats who want to rape us with that. The entire "reform" bill is a joke that will do nothing but raise costs to unsustainable levels. Guess who'll get hit with the worst of those costs? The poor and the middle class. But your beloved Democrats claim that it's going to help the poor and middle class, so you lap it up even though the facts are plain for anyone who even heard of Economics 101 to see.
And compared to that you want to call a bunch of penniless hippies scammers? Please!
Al Gore and Co. are penniless? Interesting you say that, considering that they have hundreds of millions of dollars....but then again, a Democrat has never once let facts get in the way of their argument.
It's the kind of thing (refinement) that allows say BMW to charge 2 times as much for their sedans than some other manufacturers for the same class of car.
Bullshit. Show me prices on this. And no, a mid-size car from Chevy or Honda is not "the same class of car" - BMW makes luxury sports cars. Their prices are pretty much dead on with their actual competition (such as Audi). The cheaper cars may be the same SIZE car, but they are nowhere near the same class performance or luxury wise.
The same goes for Apple. On identical hardware (low to mid-range, not the uber high end), they charge 2-3x as much. I WANT a Macbook Pro (mainly for the hardware, OS X is fine, but nothing special), but for the prices of a Macbook Pro I can put down a decent downpayment on a car. Or look at a Mac Pro - those computers cost AS MUCH as a car. I own multiple Apple products, so I've got nothing against Apple. But to try to claim that they don't massively over price their products is a joke.
You're free to accept or decline, it's a contract.
No, it's not. It's "you sold it to me, it is now mine, I can do whatever I want with it as long as I don't violate your distrobution rights". In every other industry in the world, people are well aware of the concept of ownership. However, in the software / entertainment industry, people like you have this fucked up idea that after you sell a person a product, you still own it and have control over it. That's not how ownership works.
By buying the software, you now have the right to install it and use it however you please. You do NOT have the right to make copies and sell it / give it away for free, but you have the right to use it for your personal use however you damn well want. Just like how after you buy a car, you can do whatever the hell you want with it and Ford / Honda / BMW / etc can't do a thing about it.
Environmentalists could do with a lot more pragmatism and a lot less "durr I'm going to vehemently oppose anything short of ceasing all pollution overnight".
It could also do with a lot more of the primary environmental figures actually practicing even.001% of what they preach. The worlds worst polluters are the very people screaming about how we need to cut down on pollution (just take a look at Al Gore's massive homes and electricity usage - I read once that he uses something like 14 times more electricity than the average US citizen - not to mention how much pollution is caused by flying around in private jets all the time).
While I am all for reducing pollution, the environmentalist lobby group is one of the biggest scams in history.
Ok, it sounds like your problem is not with Windows 7, but with Steam causing problems with your system (since I'd never pay for something DRM-ed to hell and back like Steam, I've never put Steam on any of my systems) - so the problem is with Valve not having made sure that their program worked with Windows 7, which is inexcusable given how much time they've had to test it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the maximum you can get IS X, you just will only get it for up to 15 minutes. Like it or not, they are upholding their end of the deal, even if they are using a technicality to not fully deliver.
Unless I've screwed up the math (entirely possible, it's late and I just spent an hour stuck in traffic), the maximum you can possibly get is (100+50)/2, or 75%.
That would be the maximum you could get over a 30+ minute period. For less than 15 minutes, you can get 100% and then it slowly decreases to an average of 75% as you approach 30 minutes.
Not trying to be a dick, but you do have the option of moving. Also, they clearly say when selling broadband "up to X", not "you will get X".
I think the 15 minute limit and cutting to 50% is extreme, but the idea of it is basically to keep a few people running torrents 24/7 from screwing everyone else on the pipe out of their bandwidth. They won't improve their network until they're forced to, but they could at least change it to say 3 hours and 75% of your max bandwidth, which would be much more reasonable.
If you read the ads / agreements, they always clearly say "speeds up to X". They do not say "you will get X". Time Warner (at least where I live) offers a "turbo" package for $10 more than their 8 Mbps - it clearly says "when bandwidth allows, speeds up to 15 Mbps using Turbo" - they make it clear that they only guarantee "up to 8 Mbps, and when there's not much activity on your pipe, up to 15 Mbps". So you are fully warned, at least if you bother to read what you're buying.
I think that Comcast is doing this the wrong way....maybe say after 3 hours of using your full bandwidth, knock you down to 95%, then for each hour that you're still maxing out your bandwidth, another 1% drop. I dislike throttling, but if there are a few users on a pipe hogging all the bandwidth and keeping others from really using what they pay for, then they should throttle it some. Of course, the BEST solution is for them just to upgrade their network.....but that's me being a crazy person! =p
Let's use a car analogy. There's a toll road that's significantly faster to get to your destination. They charge $20 to use the road for 20 miles, and you think that is unfair and outrageous. Now, you can either bite the bullet and pay to take the road, or you can choose to take the alternate route. You do not get to take the road without paying the toll just because you think it's too expensive and wouldn't have paid anyway. That is immoral, illegal, and socially unacceptable.
Your analogy doesn't work. You still don't get the "no cost to produce" part. Here's your analogy, only applied to copying files. I come up on a toll road and it costs $20. Since it's faster, I want to take it, but $20 is absurd. I push a button in my car and an identical road appears (lets assume a wormhole into a parallel universe, only in this parallel universe, the road is free to use) and then drive on that identical road that does not cost anything.
You rationalized pirating Windows 7 because you would be better off with it and you didn't want to pay for it. You claimed you could stay with XP, but you want 7 instead. How is that not entitlement? If you didn't feel entitled, you would stick with what you paid for.
No, entitlement would be me saying "MS HAS to give me Win 7 for free, I deserve it". I've never said that. It is only because it is available at no cost that I will use it. It's like a public water fountain. If you're thirsty and it's there, you'll use it - but you don't think "someone owes me a free drink", it's just taking advantage of a free opportunity that's there.
It's obviously not socially acceptable, nor is it reasonable.
Believe it or not, you're in the vast minority. Most people (even the ones who foam at the mouth about how going 1mph over the speed limit is breaking the law) don't give a crap about getting ridiculously overpriced software for free. If they didn't get it for free, most people simply wouldn't use it.
Your entire argument rests on your fallacious thinking that copying a file is the same as taking a boxed copy of software (which did cost money to produce) off store shelves. It's not.
I think I've figured out why you're so upset about this. It's because you're foolish enough to pay for it, so you're pissed that others are smart enough to say "if it's free, I'll take it, if not, I won't use it". You're under the false impression that it's "I'm going to buy this at full price - oh hey, free!". It's not. It's "I'm not going to pay that price, so I won't buy it at all. Oh, free? I guess I'll take it then".
I never said that. I said if you want to use Windows, you have to follow the same rules as the rest of us and pay.
Actually, most people DON'T pay. MS pretty much gives it away for free to manufacturers, which most people then get whatever version of Windows when they buy their computer. It's only people (like me) who build our own system instead of buying some POS that get punished and have to pay their absurd amount.
If you can't grasp these concepts, you're beyond my help.
Sorry, but I'll never grasp the concept of turning down a freebie of something that's too expensive to buy. If someone offered you a free Ferarri, would you turn it down? I doubt it. Pirating an OS is the only way to get MS to stop raping it's customers. It's worked in China, where it now costs about $50 to buy, because the Chinese said "fuck that, I'm not paying that!" - now they have reasonable prices. It's a type of protest, like civil-disobedence back in the 60's. I want to pay money for a good product, but I won't pay an obscene amount just because the company is greedy. If people pirate your software, it's because the price is too damn high, not because people "want it for free". Lower your prices and the piracy rate will drop in proportion.
I built a quad-core, dual-video card desktop for $800 -- it's bullshit that they (and you) think the OS should cost $300.
First, I'll say it for the last jesus-fucking time. Copying a file (otherwise known as "copyright infringement") IS. NOT. GODDAMN. STEALING. Is it illegal? Yup. Are there plenty of unjust laws? Good god, yes! Illegal != immoral.
Second, the idiot was claiming that by not buying something, everyone else paid more. I proved that his argument was false. I never said anything about "being a customer". The price of Mt. Dew is the same whether I buy it or not. I don't buy pop anymore and just drink water, so by your moronic logic, I'm "stealing" from all the pop companies and causing everyone to pay more. That. Is. FALSE.
The fact that you don't realize that there is no rational reason for me NOT to pirate it (since I'm not going to pay the bullshit $300-$400) is why there's no point arguing with people like you. You lack the ability to reason or use logic. MS makes no money either way, so why wouldn't I pirate it? The only person that stands to gain or lose is me, since again, MS won't make a penny either way.
Pay for the services you use, and don't use what you don't pay for.
I gladly pay for a good service. That's why I'm going to buy Malwarebytes ($25 one time fee, no bullshit yearly charges for virus definition updates). I gladly buy movies at full price if they're good instead of downloading them like my friends do. I have no problem paying for something of value. However, $400 for a fucking OS is ridiculous, especially when MS could charge $50 a piece and still make a massive profit.
As for your subsidizing remark, do you know who actually subsidizes everything with MS? Businesses. Why? Because they're the ones dumb enough to pay MS's insane licensing costs instead of just switching to Mac or Linux. There is no reason to pay $500 per employee for Office when you can download Open Office for free. The same goes for a server - there is no reason to pay a fee for each user you want to connect to the network.
Stop pretending you're entitled to free shit because you don't like the person selling it.
When did I say that I was "entitled" to free anything? Never. I simply pointed out the facts that 1) since I refuse to pay an outrageous fee and 2) MS won't make or lose any money regardless of if I just don't use it or if I pirate it, there is no logical reason not to pirate it. If MS would actually lose money, then yes, it would be wrong and I wouldn't do it. However, they lose nothing if I copy a file, especially a file that I had no intention of purchasing.
You said before that I should just use Linux instead - by your own logic (or should I say lack thereof) presented in your horribly irrational arguments, each person who switches from Windows to Linux is a "thief" and forces everyone else to pay more.
*beats head against wall*
MS has monopoly power (even though they're not truly a monopoly) and can charge whatever they want for it. Businesses will pay it because they're scared shitless to try something new and users will normally pay for it because they don't want all their software to turn into coasters.
If there are 3 million people who want the software, MS needs only charge $50.
That would be true, if there was perfect competition. However, we all know that there isn't much competition in the OS industry. You have the option of paying MS's extremely high prices or paying Apple's even more ludicrous prices. Again, unless you want to throw away all of your software, linux really isn't an option.
You don't think MS charges ridiculous prices......so how elses do you think that they make more money a year than pretty much any other company, regardless of industry?
Rather than just not buying the software, you pirate it as well, further reducing the number of paying customers, say to 1 million.
WRONG! If people do not want to buy it, the same number of people will buy it regardless of if those who won't pay the price pirate it or just don't use it.
You didn't cost MS any money, you did cost the actual paying customers money.
So by your lack of logic, you're arguing that every time anyone walks by an item and doesn't purchase it, everyone who does now has to pay more. This is completely and utterly false. I go to a car lot and buy a Mazda 3 - does the price of a Mazda 3 drop for everyone else? No, it stays the same. Does the price of every other car increase because I bought a Mazda 3? No, they stay the same.
Your lack of logic says that every time you don't purchase something you're "stealing" and harming everyone else. That is not the case. Take a fucking economics class.
If you really feel that MS is overcharging for Windows 7, then don't buy it. But don't pirate it and act like it's alright. Either you're pirating it because it's stealing and you want to stick it to the man, or you don't use it because you don't want to buy it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Good god you swallow the RIAA/MPAA's bullshit beautifully. Do you also think Obama can walk on water and that Al Gore is a real scientist?
Let's put it in terms of food, since you mentioned cake. You have a cake. I come along and snap my fingers and an identical cake appears next to yours. I eat that new cake that was created at no cost to anyone. You still have your cake and now I have gotten to eat cake. That is what copying a file is. It is NOT stealing. If I took a copy off a shelf, that is stealing. Making a copy that doesn't cost anyone a cent is not stealing, because nothing was taken. That's like claiming someone "stole" your picture because they ran it through a copier. I'm sorry that you're not intelligent enough to understand the difference between stealing and copying a file. This is slashdot, thousands of people here would be glad to explain it to you (though you still wouldn't get it because the tv didn't tell you to think it).
This is why companies are failing in the modern world - because they want to cling to 18th century business practices when things can be replicated at no cost. That means in order to keep customers, they need to lower prices to reflect the dramatically lower costs of the product. Why do you think iTunes is so successful while cd sales decline? Because even if you buy a whole album on iTunes, it costs about 25-50% less than if you bought the cd. That is a much more reasonable price than what cd's are priced at, so people flock to iTunes. I guess you think that's "stealing" as well because they're not paying the ridiculously high prices of cd's?
Either you're pirating it because it's stealing and you want to stick it to the man, or you don't use it because you don't want to buy it.
Or option C) I can use it and MS makes just as much money as if I didn't buy it. YOu're still not getting the concept of "regardless of my actions, their profit is the same" because I'm not going to pay $400 for it. Lets put it another way........the MPAA is going to give you $50 no matter what, now you can either give them a blowjob (like you seem to want to) or you can just take the $50 and go on your way. Either way, you get that $50 - so you then pick the choice that benefits you the most. MS is not losing any money because I'm not going to pay their ridiculous fee no matter if I copy it or just stick with XP. That's the point you're not getting. THEY. WILL. NOT. GET. A. FUCKING. PENNY. So, their profits stay the same and then it's a matter of sticking with XP or getting Win 7 for free. I've used Win 7 since the beta and it's a great OS and I'd gladly pay for it - but not $400. And no, $120 for a massively feature stripped "Home P.O.S. Edition" is not a viable alternative. The only reason that they do the different editions is to charge you more if you actually want the full OS (it's akin to Ford charging you more if you want all the seats in your car, then more if you actually want doors, then another fee if you want windows on the car, etc). You wouldn't put up with that bullshit from any other industry, why are you dumb enough to put up with it from software companies?
Yes, you can, but when you paid for the product, why should you beforced to spend 30 min on the phone with support just to install it?
So according to you, upgrading your hard drive means you should have to pay for windows all over again? Idiot.
Student copies, not "academic" copies. And yes, they do put 1-2 install limits on them. If you'd ever bought one, you'd know that.
Well I like playing games, so it's either use windows or have a shit ton of coasters.
Basic game theory is flawed? I think Dr. John Nash would disagree with you...
I love to bi-polar slashdot mentality - if a company makes money, slashdotters bitch that they should give it away for free. If someone gets a product for free without causing the company to lose money, people (like you) bitch that people aren't giving the company money. Pick a side, either companies are free to overcharge and extort to their hearts content or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.
Either you're incredibly dumb or you're trolling. I'm not sure which.
If an author wants to charge $400 for a paperback book that should be between $8-$20, I will not buy it. I don't buy ridiculously overpriced things (sadly, apparently you do, and it was people like that who led to the current crap economy). Now, something that is an electronic file, you can copy at no cost and no one loses money. Can you follow that so far? Good. Now we get to the part that seems to be very difficult for you.
MS wants an absurd amount of money for Windows 7. I will not pay such an abusurd amount. I could use XP still, in which case MS makes $X. However, since it costs nothing to make a copy of Windows 7, I could get a copy off of the internet. MS still makes $X (with X being the same number, they did not gain or lose money from this), but now I have Windows 7. MS is just as well off either way, but now I am better off. If you ever took a basic class in game theory, you would realize that since I'm not going to pay an abusurd price and since MS does not lose money due to me copying Windows, the optimal choice is to copy Windows.
Also, if you bothered to ever read any of my comments, I specifically said if they charged a reasonable amount, I would gladly pay it. It's the fact that they want to charge 3-4x more than a reasonable amount that causes me to not pay for it (it's the same reason I do not buy from Apple, despite wanting one of their computers, because they massively overprice them). If they had a tangible product (a car, a book, a computer, etc), then they could get away with this because it would be costly to make a copy of it. However, with software / files, it costs nothing to make a copy, so their costs of production go to pretty much zip after they make the first copy.
Companies can charge whatever they want for a product. Consumers also have a right to not buy their product if they price it too high. However, if the consumer can get the product that they would not pay for without cost AND the company does not lose money (which they don't, since said consumer was not going to purchase it), one player in the game (the company) comes out the same in either situation and the other player (the consumer) comes out better if they copy it.
To quote Star Trek - "It's logic Spock, I thought you'd like that?"
Except that when you buy a student copy, they don't tell you this up front. I bought multiple items at once (really, considering I got XP, XP 64-bit, Office 2007, and *shudder* Vista (I'd never used it before and was curious....) for under $50 total, can you blame me for buying MS stuff?), but now I've learned my lesson.
I buy books by the hundreds. I also buy dvd's by the hundreds as well as video games (mainly for PC). However, massively overcharging for something like an OS just because someone doesn't buy a new computer is utter bullshit.
MS overcharges for Windows and I get a pirated copy - it's no different than if I used Linux except that now I can play my games that I own. MS makes no more money than it would have and I still get to use my software. Explain how that is a lesser solution than the alternative you propose of MS still not getting money from me, but me now being worse off by not being able to play my games?
Also, you are aware that pre-record industry in the mid-20th century, artists of all sorts were paid for performing, not selling copies of a recorded work. Back then they realized that it was about doing something they loved, not about getting rich.
Oh, and to the RIAA/MPAA fanboys who keep modding me troll, you really should look up the definition of troll. Just because you have no argument, it doesn't make me a troll.
Oh, I have paid for legit student copies of MS products. But they always come hamstrung with things like a 1 install limit, so if you reformat you're SOL. That's why you have to resort to piracy to be able to use what you actually paid for.
I do use Linux, on my laptop. I use Windows on my desktop for one reason - games. Also, copying a series of 0's and 1's is not stealing. If I take a copy of Windows from the store, that is stealing. No one loses anything by making a copy of a file.
People who pirate Windows are... wait for it... more likely to pirate other software, too.
Actually, the only other product I pirate is MS Office. Why do I only pirate MS products? Because they charge absurd prices for them. If they charged reasonable prices (say $100 for a FULL version of Windows 7, not some feature restricted upgrade version), I'd be fine with paying it. If they want to charge $400, well fuck them, I'm pirating it.
No, the software is purchased. I walk into a store and buy it. I do not get handed a contract saying "You get to use this copy of Windows / OS X / Photoshop for 36 months with the cost breaking down to $X per month....". THAT is a license. Walking in, picking it up, and buying it, that is a purchase. Just because they want to put something in the box that you cannot read until AFTER you have bought it where they try to claim that they still own it does not make it a license (which amusingly, stores do not accept returns on opened software, so you can't get a refund even if you want to not use the software because you don't agree to their bogus terms).
I'm sorry but folks who want clean water and clean air -- as opposed to what pours out of industrial plants -- are not the scammers.
And you didn't read a damn thing I wrote. People like Al Gore tell everyone ELSE that we have to sacrifice and live in the stone age "to save the planet" while they pollute just as bad as the worst industrial complexes do. THAT is what I'm complaining about, not people who want to clean things up.
The scammers are the insurance companies that want to force everyone to buy their inflated insurance costs under the guise of "healthcare reform".
Actually, that's your beloved Democrats who want to rape us with that. The entire "reform" bill is a joke that will do nothing but raise costs to unsustainable levels. Guess who'll get hit with the worst of those costs? The poor and the middle class. But your beloved Democrats claim that it's going to help the poor and middle class, so you lap it up even though the facts are plain for anyone who even heard of Economics 101 to see.
And compared to that you want to call a bunch of penniless hippies scammers? Please!
Al Gore and Co. are penniless? Interesting you say that, considering that they have hundreds of millions of dollars....but then again, a Democrat has never once let facts get in the way of their argument.
It's the kind of thing (refinement) that allows say BMW to charge 2 times as much for their sedans than some other manufacturers for the same class of car.
Bullshit. Show me prices on this. And no, a mid-size car from Chevy or Honda is not "the same class of car" - BMW makes luxury sports cars. Their prices are pretty much dead on with their actual competition (such as Audi). The cheaper cars may be the same SIZE car, but they are nowhere near the same class performance or luxury wise.
The same goes for Apple. On identical hardware (low to mid-range, not the uber high end), they charge 2-3x as much. I WANT a Macbook Pro (mainly for the hardware, OS X is fine, but nothing special), but for the prices of a Macbook Pro I can put down a decent downpayment on a car. Or look at a Mac Pro - those computers cost AS MUCH as a car. I own multiple Apple products, so I've got nothing against Apple. But to try to claim that they don't massively over price their products is a joke.
You're free to accept or decline, it's a contract.
No, it's not. It's "you sold it to me, it is now mine, I can do whatever I want with it as long as I don't violate your distrobution rights". In every other industry in the world, people are well aware of the concept of ownership. However, in the software / entertainment industry, people like you have this fucked up idea that after you sell a person a product, you still own it and have control over it. That's not how ownership works.
By buying the software, you now have the right to install it and use it however you please. You do NOT have the right to make copies and sell it / give it away for free, but you have the right to use it for your personal use however you damn well want. Just like how after you buy a car, you can do whatever the hell you want with it and Ford / Honda / BMW / etc can't do a thing about it.
Environmentalists could do with a lot more pragmatism and a lot less "durr I'm going to vehemently oppose anything short of ceasing all pollution overnight".
It could also do with a lot more of the primary environmental figures actually practicing even .001% of what they preach. The worlds worst polluters are the very people screaming about how we need to cut down on pollution (just take a look at Al Gore's massive homes and electricity usage - I read once that he uses something like 14 times more electricity than the average US citizen - not to mention how much pollution is caused by flying around in private jets all the time).
While I am all for reducing pollution, the environmentalist lobby group is one of the biggest scams in history.
Ok, it sounds like your problem is not with Windows 7, but with Steam causing problems with your system (since I'd never pay for something DRM-ed to hell and back like Steam, I've never put Steam on any of my systems) - so the problem is with Valve not having made sure that their program worked with Windows 7, which is inexcusable given how much time they've had to test it.