Is That Pirated Software? 758
underpar writes "According to this ZDNet.com article, Microsoft 'has launched a pilot program in which some visitors to the main Windows download page are being asked to let the software maker check to see whether their copy of the operating system is licensed.' The check is not required, but after the desired 20,000 users go through the program they might change their tune."
Buyer's remorse (Score:5, Insightful)
P2P Updates (Score:5, Insightful)
So once again the ones that Microsoft leaves in the cold are the unwitting consumers who had their grandson install it for them.
Re:P2P Updates (Score:5, Funny)
Re:P2P Updates (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, if it's good enough for you to get your OS there in the first place...why not?
Re:P2P Updates (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a few days ago I updated this officially licensed and paid for XP box at work via official windows update. You know, service pack 2 and stuff.
Since then the virus scanner (antivir [antivir.de]) is broken - the guard-service will pop up, complain about a missing dll and die.
Uninstall/Reinstall of antivir didn't help (the dll-error seems gone but the symptom is the same).
Also the poor soul who has to work at that box reports that apps randomly choke for up to one minute and everything seems horribly slow now.
After a couple runs of the virusscanner, ad-aware and some other spyware-cleaning tools the box seems virus- and spyware-free. But the problems remain.
So, what exactly is funny about people pulling their broken patches from P2P?
I think paying for this crap in first place really is the funny part.
Re:P2P Updates (Score:5, Funny)
Re:P2P Updates (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:P2P Updates (Score:4, Interesting)
XP's magical disappearing configuration system. After all, if you've never needed it yet, it won't show it to you so you don't know you've got it. Its bad enough having to troubleshoot something over the phone, without knowing the 50 different paths to get there depending whether the person has chosen to disable the hiding functionality, disable the "new" control panel (note that in the new control panel, there are icons that you cannot reach from the groups it displays, most notably 3rd party extensions, but a few microsoft things too), etc.
Its a pain in the ass in Office too. I have to deal with people asking me how to do things that are right on the format menu..... if they've used them once. Of course, until they use them once, they have no idea Word can even do it.
Re:P2P Updates (Score:5, Informative)
What are talking about? XP has exactly the same paths as 2000.
disable the "new" control panel (note that in the new control panel, there are icons that you cannot reach from the groups it displays, most notably 3rd party extensions, but a few microsoft things too), etc.
Again, eh? Open control panel, click "switch to classic view". How could you miss it?
XP is just as easy to use, if not more. And with the stuff provided by SP2 (firewall, virus check, update checks), it's the obvious choice for a non-techy user.
Re:Goodbye moderation.... (Score:5, Funny)
What ever happened to judging people by their results...
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't want to be in their database. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of ironic that only users who legally aquire their copies have to go through the activation scheme.
Re:I don't want to be in their database. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that depends on what you think Microsoft is. Viewed as a private club their actions make perfect sense. Only the members have to go through the trouble of joining. You can sneak onto the course and play night golf, but if you get caught there may be consequences.
I don't agree with those consequences or even the registration at all...just pointing out the way I think about Microsoft.
Re:I don't want to be in their database. (Score:4, Insightful)
Baloney. The IBM Compatible PC was a cultural and economic landmark as significant as the Ford Model T. Microsoft rode that wave to dominance and never looked back.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't want to be in their database. (Score:4, Interesting)
I run SUSE 9.0 Personal edition for Work and internet.
Somehow the old saying; Windows is for fun, UNIX is for getting things done....seems more relevant today than ever.
Damned if I'm going to use a copy protected OS. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about the OP, but I don't trust copy protection software any further than I can spit a rat. Back when I was on the Apple II, I was playing a game called Wizardry when the copy protection software decided that it was only going to let the program boot on one particular floppy drive... and that one was going bad.
I ended up getting a cracked copy written over the original master floppy. Crac
Re:Damned if I'm going to use a copy protected OS. (Score:4, Interesting)
I ended up getting a cracked copy written over the original master floppy. Cracked, so the copy protection wouldn't fire, but not pirated... I only had the one copy and it was on the original media.
not to nitpick, but if it was cracked, then by definition it was pirated, regardless of your legality or license.... at least by today's standards (see DMCA)
not disagreeing with your post, just pointing out what a different world we live in now.
Re:Damned if I'm going to use a copy protected OS. (Score:5, Insightful)
The benefits of Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't understand why the average Joe doesn't get excited about Linux. The average Joe doesn't get the benefit of all the great CLI tools out there, so Linux is, at best, just a decent XP alternative, not something that quashes it into the ground.
If you just use the GUI tools on Linux and don't give a damn about the politics involved, it isn't *that* amazing of a system. It's just a decent OS without a number of commercial apps that people want to play with.
Naturally, every hacker looks at people that aren't using Linux and thinks to himself "what are they thinking?". For a programmer or a hobbyist or a hacker or a sysadmin, Windows is an infinitely worse OS. But most people aren't any of the above -- and Windows lets them navigate to the application that they want to use and open it.
I like Linux, and use exclusively it as a desktop system. Those of you familiar with me know that I like Linux quite a bit. I think that it might become the defacto desktop system in a couple of years. But it won't be because it's mind-bogglingly better and people are just reluctant to switch. For *hackers* it's mind-bogglingly better. For average folks, it's just another alternative.
Linux is a kernel, GNU is not platform centric (Score:4, Interesting)
"The problem is that most hackers are rabid about Linux because it's phenonmentally powerful if you code a bit."
So are BSD, MacOS, and (bet you saw this one coming) Windows. Most hackers are rabid about Linux because they got more than they were promised. They weren't promised anything. They didn't pay anything, and they got a whole lot.
I have a few friends that graduated with me from college with varying technical degrees, including CS, Math, Engineering, and Physics (what can I say, I'm a geek and hang out with geeks). Some close friends ended up at Microsoft. And even though they run Windows whatever at work, they still chose vi or emacs as their editor, bash and other shells, and awk and sed in their code along with their C#, C++, and Perl. One of them bought a shiny new laptop with his recent bonus and reused his old desktop (stuffing Linux on it) as a web-connected file server/bridge. He recently told me how he saved one of his machines at work by using a Knoppix CD! Just imagine an MS employee booting Linux, at work, to fix their Windows machine!
GNU isn't just about linux advocacy, it's a philosophical movement centered around the idea that by keeping code "free of ownership" we can advance society. From another perspective, the GPL is a way of saying, "I don't own this code. You don't own this code. The public owns this code. You can't build something from this code and distribute it without the code."
This is quite diametrically opposed to the philosophy that: "I work hard to create a software product of intrinsic value. It is my property. I sell you a license to use that property."
Many people who wrote utilities and published them under the GPL ported their utilities to Windows, BSD, Linux, etc. They also make pure Windows apps under the GPL, and others port these. Basically, it's not the Linux OS that makes for a great hacking experience, it's the fact that it comes with a bunch of GNU tools. But then there's CygWin and other GNU toolsets for Windows and BSD and MacOS.
The reason that Linux may be a threat to Microsoft is that there are a growing number of developers who got hooked on Linux because the development tools came with the OS, and they didn't want to pay MS (or Borland) for tools which promote Windows. Of course, there are also a great many people who still write free software for Windows (using DJGPP or other MSVC++) simply because Windows is the largest target audience of normal users, and they use it. But if the developers market is changing because of the availability of high quality tools, then Microsoft will react. Maybe too late, but it's in the cards.
Indeed, Microsoft already has done some reacting. 57,000 employees, including some of my best friends know that their job is on the line if Microsoft goes under, and from what my friends tell me, working at Microsoft is better than all of their previous jobs. Their reaction: http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/ [microsoft.com] Is this too little too late, or is it the beginning?
(getting back to original topic of activation, and tying back into the philosophy of property)
When I ask my friends about the activation stuff, they tell me that nobody who has a brain expects it to deter piracy, but they have to do something to attempt to prevent it from happening. DRM is an equal joke, but it is another way to protect information as property. Both of these measures do something very specific: they make it so that in order to copy the "property", you need to intentionally remove its "protection". This follows a fundamental principle that property is only owned by someone to the extent that they can defend it.
One more response to the parent poster:
"For average folks, it's [Linux] just another alternative."
In order for it to be an alternative for me, it needs to do everything that I need it to do. I need it to run the software I use (includes Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop and t
Re:The benefits of Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Same here, and same here, though I think Linux's advantages for a hacker vastly outweigh the drawbacks.
Why do you consider Linux to be a 'mind boggling' better platform for hackers?
* If I have a problem/missing feature and it's irritating me enough, I'm guaranteed the option of just fixing it myself.
* The POSIX toolset, large set of development tools and compilers available on a typical system, and easy hooks into the OS (like
* If I don't like the way my system functions, I change it. For example, Fedora's standard configuration currently stops any attempts to re-obtain a DHCP address if any attempt to get an address fails. I often work on flaky networks, and this drives me bananas -- I want the thing to keep trying to re-obtain an IP address even if an attempt fails. You can just open up
* Better (non-POSIX) tools. Windows doesn't have a "file" command any more than it has a "locate" command.
* Better remote access options. Using Windows remotely is a painful chore that *can* be done using VNC or the like. Using Linux remotely (stick with CLI programs, which is quite feasible) is a pleasure.
* Choice in what packages to use. As it happens, I don't like GNOME *or* KDE *or* Explorer very much. They all slap large icons on the screen, eat screen space, expect me to launch applications with my mouse instead of my keyboard, cover up my pretty desktop, and none of them (well, maybe KDE) use "viewports" instead of "virtual desktops" any more, where a window can lap over from one "viewport" to another. Easy fix -- just slap something else in. I use xbindkeys+gkrellm+sawfish, and have exactly the environment I want.
* Sandboxing capabilities. It's a bitch to, say, sandbox an unknown binary (or a server, to keep a server compromise from compromising the whole system) on Windows. It's much more reasonable on Linux.
* No bullshit. If I've identified a problem and I don't want to fix it myself, I file a bug report. With, say, Microsoft, I go to some low level tech support person, and maybe after a series of escallated issues, they admit that there's a bug. Maybe. And they don't call it a "bug", because they don't make products with "bugs". They call it an "issue". Their product doesn't have a bug -- *I* have an "issue". Then maybe somewhere the "issue" wends its way to the cloistered-away developers and perhaps, after some period of time in the mysterious black box, eventually gets released. In the open source world, if I know what I'm doing, I fire off a "there's a problem, here's what's breaking" message straight to the developer (and can do so to the guy that wrote the very line of code that's broken). I dump my bug into a bug tracker (heck, wishlist features go into the "bug tracker"). As the developers work on the thing and fix it, I have full access to every thing they've done, just as much as any developer does, and when the problem gets fixed, I know about it immediately.
* If I want to do something, there's probably a ton of actively-maintained and free libraries already out there that do just about everything I want (and if they *become* unmaintained, someone else can easily take up the torch -- I don't have to worry about reliance on some random third party). For example, two days ago I was working on a JPEG artifact removal idea. I wanted to do image processing (encoding, decoding, manipulation) and use a neural network. Two apt-cache searches and an apt-get download later, I
Why Windows users don't upgrade so quickly (Score:5, Informative)
In my environment, where we have good and competent central IT support, but do not mandate what our clients (researchers) can run on their desktops, we've found that a lot of people simply do not see any compelling reason to upgrade Windows. By and large, people move from one Windows version to the next when they get a new PC. This is in contrast to our Mac OS X population, who upgrade quickly, and our Linux population, who are in between.
Licensing is not an issue, since we have site licenses for Windows, Mac OS X, and other systems. We have a Windows subscription that allows us to upgrade any Windows install to any later version; and the same for Mac OS X. For Linux, it is of course no problem.
Today, about 60% of the computers on our network are running Windows, according to my p0f [coredump.cx] results. About 15% each are running Linux and Mac OS X, and the remainder are running a "classic" Unix or Mac OS Classic. Of the Windows users, about 60% are running Windows 2000, 35% are running XP, and the remainder are running Windows NT, 98, or older versions.
So why don't Windows users upgrade? My suspicion is that there is not sufficient benefit from upgrading to make up for two persistent problems: retraining oneself, on the one hand; and broken or lagging third-party software, on the other.
First off, major releases of Windows make substantial disruptive user interface changes. Windows users, in my experience, tend to memorize a lot of rote behaviors -- I do this to dial up, that to search for files, the other to set up printers. The upgrade from Windows 98 to 2000, and then from 2000 to XP, each make a lot of relatively gratuitous changes. (Contrast the XP Control Panel with the 2000 one. Even if you like the XP one better, you've got to admit it looks unfamiliar to someone used to the other.)
Second, a lot of third-party apps break when you upgrade Windows. The version of Matlab the user has installed on Windows 2000 quits working on XP, and so they have to rev Matlab as well. Oops, the Matlab script they got from NASA doesn't work on the new Matlab; gotta get the new one of those. And so it goes. Scientific software is frequently not particularly robust over operating system changes. So an upgrade is a lot more pain for our users than it might be for a business user who does nothing but Word, Outlook, and IE.
Some contrasts from the other platforms:
Our Linux installed base is probably around 90% Red Hat, and the remainder Debian or SuSE -- with almost all of the Debian systems being central IT servers, since we prefer it for its stability there. The Red Hat users are impelled to upgrade chiefly by the obsolescence of older releases: when Red Hat dropped support for 6.2, we had a big migration to 7.x; when they dropped 7.3, to 9; and now to Fedora and RHEL. The driving force behind Red Hat upgrades, for our users, is chiefly the assurance of support and security fixes. I expect that this will calm down a lot now for our RHEL users, who have been promised a stabler upgrade cycle.
(For our Debian systems, in contrast, the drive to upgrade (when a new release comes out!) is to have access to the vast new supply of native packages.)
As for our Mac OS X users, they are the quickest to jump on new releases. Why? I think it's because Apple promotes their new releases with lots of new user features: utilities, non-disruptive appearance tweaks, and speed improvements. I can't emphasize the latter too much: each release of Mac OS X has made it faster, and this is a big reason for a scientist (or a ordinary end user, for that matter!) to upgrade.
It's been said that Microsoft's chief competition today is itself, five years ago -- that is, rather than contending for market share against Apple, Red Hat, or SuSE, each new re
Windows is ALL about backwards compatibility (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with almost all of your other points, but this statement is simply not correct. Windows backwards compatibility has always been excellent. Hell, it's one of the few systems where people expect to be able to run 20-year old 16-bit DOS binaries and scream and holler when they no longer work.
In fact, Windows backwards compatibility with x86 binaries is what most computer historians acknowledge as the vehicle for IBM-compatible PC dominance for the past decade. The fact that new versions of Windows would continue to run old binaries (without patches, without recompiles, etc) has probably done more than anything else to keep businesses buying Windows so that ancient, proprietary business software will keep running. This saves lots of money and hassle, believe it or not. I know businesses still running on 12-year old DOS software because it still works.
However, I think that today this legacy software is starting to see its demise in favor of web applications which are largely platform-agnostic. So Microsoft, IMHO, spends WAY too much time worrying about breaking old software.
I've heard it explained in many ways, but most people tell me that they're afraid of being sued. Real, for instance, sued Microsoft claiming that changes between Windows 98 and Windows 2000 "intentionally broke" their player. So now MS is paranoid.
XP, for instance, has this insane system loader that can actually PATCH broken apps before they are run. Just take a look under the registry key "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contr ol\Session Manager\AppPatches". Every key listed there gets special treatment when it is executed on your system. There are even some binary blobs that are overlayed at specific memory addresses on-the-fly.
Microsoft has an entire division in Windows that works on Application Compatibility (AppCompat). If a bug is found in a Win32 API, and the fix ends up breaking ANY vendor's app, then either an app workaround is created or the fix is backed out. I think that's horrible (backing out fixes because it might break some old program), but it amounts to putting backwards compatibility ahead of fixing bugs.
Contrast this with Macintosh, where for years people EXPECTED to have to purchase new versions of Adobe Photoshop whenever a new OS or new hardware came out. This has allowed Apple to introduce dramatic changes over the years that broke tons of apps, but improved their systems' capabilities dramatically. Ditching the 68000 for PowerPC, for one. Switching to OSX was another radical change. In both cases they tried to have a "compatibility layer" for old programs, but lots of apps still broke. The win, however, was to take a gigantic leap forward in platform capability.
Re:P2P Updates (Score:5, Funny)
You should call Steve with that one for the next commercial!
I'm really hoping to do this with my mom and in-laws. Both are due for a new computer and I'll be recommending a Mac. Windows is great for enterprise, but not for for those who have trouble understanding how the microwave works.
Re:P2P Updates (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure what affect this will have on the people in other countries, (like Russia) but I doubt the effect will be noticable. The pirates will just introduce some russian site to give th
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:5, Insightful)
Say what you want, but Microsoft has made such a leap in terms of stability from Windows 98 to the NT/2000/XP code base that it is hard to even compare the two.
I will agree that the price that they charge is somewhat outrageous, but that doesn't mean you need to try to support your argument with points that are hardly valid anymore.
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:3, Insightful)
XP bluescreens whenever a kernel-space driver dies. It happens often enough; through it's nowhere as bad as 98.
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, the thing is that if the system you need crashes every few months, a Linux, Win2000 or WinXP would stay running for ever. But if Win98 fits you needs, by all means, don't listen to anybody and
Bluescreen is OFF by default in XP (Score:5, Informative)
(I leave my PC on 24/7 and only discovered this when I would return home and my PC was magically back at a fresh reboot state. For a while I thought I had a hardware problem because if Windows had crashed I would've seen a blue screen halt, right?)
While I get fewer blue screens then I did with 98, I get MORE blue screens than I did with Windows 2k.
Re:Bluescreen is OFF by default in XP (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, I don't get bluescreens OR reboots in XP in the whole time I've had the laptop, save once, and that was on the stock install. After reinstalling a fresh XP (day one), I have never had a single issue, and I keep my machine running for weeks at a time (not counting downtime for hibernation when going from home to the cafe).
If you get bluescreens in XP, check your drivers, update what you can, and see if there are
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:5, Informative)
You don't get BSOD's on XP, because XP is set to reboot instead.
[from http://aumha.org/win5/a/shtdwnxp.php]
Right-click on My Computer, click Properties, click the Advanced tab. Under "Startup & Recovery," click Settings. Under "System Failure," uncheck the box in front of "Automatically restart."
Do that, and you'll see all the typical BSOD's that you've been missing.
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not over priced just because its more then you want to spend. Untill you figure out how basic economics work, there's just no helping you. Or would you be OK with your employer deciding that your services are overpriced so they wont be paying you anymore (but dont stop showing up for work)?
But the whole point of the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
I got some nifty proof, too, a similar large company gives away it's disks, and has for years now-AOL. They afford it on the margin of a certain small (but still over-all large) segement of the population who will install their software and sign up for net service.
Microsoft could sell the OS on a disk for ten dollars or something like that, and charge another ten a year (something cheap) for updates, and still be billionaires.. Most folks would buy the disk and the legit key then. Note I said most, not all, but I think most would buy it, at least in western/industrialised nations with a decent enough median income.
Their price is not only ridiculous, it's outright scandalous. It's an affront to anyone who's thinking. If their products didn't come pre-installed on new computers, there's no way in heckfire they would sell for what they are asking. Keeping it as a "stealth" product via bundling and collusion with the vendors has been the ticket to their success, off the shelf sales are most likely no where's near where they make most of their money, at least with the base OS. 95 and 98 people were standing in line to get, by ME it slowed down, 2000 hit the doldrums, and XP although on maybe 1/2 the active boxes on the net came mostly with new machines when folks upgraded hardware. It's just lost any "new/shiny/gotta haveit" appeal, because we are 20 years into mass computer adoption now, 10 in a large way. People just aren't as gullible any longer. They'll upgrade with a new box, and that's it, as long as MS lives in delusion land where a simple computer OS is somehow "worth" well over a hundred dollars heading to 200$. Not happening when an entire new computer can be had for not much more than that..
IMO anyway-anyones MMV of course
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:5, Insightful)
If you need a Microsoft product to get your work done, you really are in a pickle aren't you.
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:5, Insightful)
So you spent more on SuSe Pro then an OEM copy of Windows XP Home would have run you. But you complain that XP is overpriced. Shesh.
But then you seem to have the opinion that any company that shows profit must be a rip off, so color me unsurprised.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:5, Insightful)
What your typical Windows user puts so much effort into is making it stop working.
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:5, Informative)
for info on the slipstreaming, check out: http://www.windows-help.net/WindowsXP/winxp-sp2-b
Also, the utility Nlite http://nuhi.msfn.org/ [msfn.org] will slipstream service packs and updates onto a disk image for you. It will also remove stuff off the windows disk, like drivers you don't need, apps you don't need, even Internet Explorer. Personally, I like that you can take MSN Explorer, Messenger, and other non need programs that are security risks. I haven't used the program yet, but it seems like a very nice one. You can also put the cdkey in the install program so you don't have to enter it when your installing. sweet.
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:5, Insightful)
So, stealing from the rich is justified? Oh, wait, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
50BILLION in the bank proves it.
50 Billion in the bank proves nothing beyond that they have a ton of money.
Look, if you pirate software, you're breaking the law, plain and simple. Stop trying to justify it - that's cheap and stupid because there is no justification for breaking that particular set of laws. Software is not a right and you do not have to be a pirate to make a living.
Pirate because you want to do it, pirate because someone made you do it, hell, pirate because it gives you a woody. But quit whining about how you're being screwed by the rich.
That's the excuse of the oppressed and I seriously doubt you're being oppressed by anyone except your parents.
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:3, Insightful)
And when you say things I disapprove of, without paying me $199.95, you're stealing from me. Sure, it's not a law yet, but once I bribe a few congressmen to tack a rider onto a interstate funding bill, it will be. And I expect you to chime in and tell everyone they must obey the law...
Software is not a right
But perpetual copyright is? Industry collusion for DRM to keep linux from booting on 2007 hardwar
Re:Gaming? (Score:3, Funny)
Really, though: a typical new game will cost me £30. I can get XP Home (OEM) from Scan [scan.co.uk] for £60.
Re:Buyer's remorse (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux is unusable
Funny thing, that... See, I have an ATI All In Wonder Radeon. I wanted to make my computer be my vcr, dvd player, etc (what can I say, I got divorced, got out with my computer, and that was it for entertainment). So, I used the software that came with it, and got something moderately functional. Not great, but functional. Then I decided I wanted a remote control for it all.
Now, before I tell you what happened, let me tell you about me: BS in CS, working on home computers for about 20
windows download? (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft lets you download windows from their site now?
Re:windows download? (Score:3, Informative)
How do they stand to gain? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who are these people? Being a freelance computer tech (and knowing many others in my trade), I know exactly who these folks are. They're the ones who got a particularly good deal when buying a home-made computer from someone's garage... or, more likely, those who had an OEM copy installed with their retail computer, messed it up dreadfully, and whoever worked on it decided to forego using the "restore disks" (which are often missing, since many people have no idea what they're for, and which are generally dreadfully broken in the first place) and install a questionable copy of XP. I've faced this dillema myself, before, but I always opt to try to fix the existing installation, or inform the customer that their decision to visit every gambling and porn site under the sun necessitates that they buy a new copy of Windows.
These are the folks who can often be genuinely uncertain whether their copy of Windows is legitimate. These are the folks who click "OK" on everything anyway. The question is what they have to gain from this knowledge, and, more importantly, what Microsoft has to gain.
What information can Microsoft harvest, exactly? They surely know how widespread these practices are; after all, they practically encourage them with their cutthroat OEM policies. Also, they insist (at least according to the article) that they won't treat those with an unlicensed copy any differently from those with a legitimate one. My guess, among other things, is they'll start harvesting illegitimate license codes (like they have in the past... FCKGW anyone?) and perhaps block them a year in advance.
Re:How do they stand to gain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Common sense says to me that if I've purchased a copy of Windows XP Professional then I've bought a right to use Windows XP Professional, so therefore I should be able to install Windows XP Professional from any install CD, whether it is mine or not, and still be perfectly within my rights as a holder of a licence to use Windows XP Professional.
I'm sure the law doesn't agree with me, but I don't tend to take much notice of laws which don't align with my (quite reasonable) idea of right and wrong. In that situation, on my own machine I wouldn't bad an eyelid and on someone else's machine I'd inform them of the situation (after doing a little more research than I obviously have here) and let them decide, and I'm sure their expectation would align with mine.
Fortunately, I don't use Windows XP Professional, so this will not be a problem I will have to face in the near future.
Re:How do they stand to gain? (Score:5, Insightful)
LS
Re:How do they stand to gain? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's copyrightable like a book.
It's patentable like a mouse trap.
It can hold trade secrets, like a glass of Coca Cola.
The consumer has to "sign" a contract to use it, like a cellphone account.
Advertising pitches can be included for a captive audience, just like a movie theater.
It's artificially expensive, like a diamond.
It's a recurring source of support revenue, like a lawn service.
It's creator can disavow all liability for anything that may go wrong, and get away with it, like... I can't think of anything else like that!
Nothing else can do more than a couple of those things. Software is just too good to be true.
Re:How do they stand to gain? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll have to give MS credit for that one, unlike those copy-protection Nazi gaming companies that geeks love.
Re:How do they stand to gain? (Score:3, Informative)
His unofficial answer was that as long as you held a valid certificate of authenticity and used that number in only that machine, then it was not a problem.
What I have been curious about is the situation where you purchase a used machine that includes an original valid certificate of authenticity.
Re:How do they stand to gain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Forcing OEMs to include "restore CDs" instead of installation media.
That is absolutely, utterly, completely insane. That, in my book, negates any problem with "pirating" XP after purchasing a computer with XP installed, because they've taken away your ability to install XP by itself without all the bells and whistles the OEM throws in.
This is an important point, because I've worked with Sony laptops that fail to work correctly with mission-critical software unless you blow away the installation and then redo it all by scratch, skipping the installation of the problematic software that Sony does not let you uninstall from the default setup. And Sony's reputation for worse-than-worthless tech support is more than justified in my opinion (crap, at work we even bought a support contract and I swear we're talking to the exact same group of front-line naysayers).
So what do you do in those circumstances? "Pirate" XP so you can use the software you're already licensed to use? Or give in to the Microsoft hegemony and give them even more money by purchasing an additional copy of Windows XP? Which do you think Microsoft expects you to do? That's right, you must give them money.
Sorry, but my vote, in all of those OEM instances, is to "pirate" XP. If Microsoft doesn't like it - then they can change their OEM licensing. That whole "people are selling OEM CDs on eBay" excuse for hobbling every computer owner is not defendable. Punish the people who commit the crime, don't arbitrarily punish everyone who might possibly commit the crime at some future point.
As far as what information Microsoft can harvest? Come on, it's an ActiveX control. They could harvest anything. Office 2003 activation codes, Windows XP activation codes - anything, everything.
What are they going to do with this information? Hasn't history taught you enough about what they do after gathering this information? Seriously. Since this is all implemented through ActiveX controls they could forseeably corrupt your software installation after finding "pirated" codes.
So much for their overhyped "security initiative" - it's obviously back to business as usual in Microserf-land.
Re:How do they stand to gain? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How do they stand to gain? (Score:5, Informative)
Likely use... (Score:5, Interesting)
uh oh! (Score:5, Funny)
oooooh, i'm shaking in my pirate boots!
Re:uh oh! (Score:5, Funny)
Mighty fine ye be looking too.
Here's a dubloon, shake it some more.
Arrrr... it gets lonely out at sea.
If the whole thing is optional - (Score:5, Interesting)
1.) Increase of unpatched, demon, zombie PCs
or
2.) Linux Migration!
You could probably piss a hell off a lot of people, who as TFA states "namely, people who bought a computer that they thought had a legitimate copy of Windows." You're gonna force them into buying a new copy?
And that still doesn't get around ordering a patch cd in the mail.
-thewldisntenuff
If you run it on Linux... (Score:5, Funny)
...will it find all your stolen SCO code?
And as the first Linux user clicks on the test... (Score:5, Funny)
It checked mine! (Score:5, Informative)
A few weeks ago I was trying a link to the next version of Windows Update, which was not publically released but someone had published it somewhere on the net. It checked my machine and told me my XP key was invalid. (My machine has a VLK 6n1 XP installed on it.) So there are indeed some windowsupdate URLs which do check and do reject!
p.s. I own three legal copies of XP of course, but the slipstreamed SP2 disc is just handy and the only one I keep laying around.
*puts tinfoil hat on* (Score:5, Funny)
Well well well, you learn something new everyday, my respect-o-meter for Microsoft has just gone up a tiny fraction.
Oh, wait, they're doing it now, back down it goes...
How do they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, so activation cracked copies will be fairly easy to ID, but if you've got a corporate copy (which most pirated releases are anyway) and a valid key there's no way to tell, surely.
Re:How do they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that when they start blocking these IDs, they also block the legitimate owners (just because one (ex-)employee copied the company CDs, doesn't void the license.) and they no longer can get their updates.
Actually if it did void the license it's even worse. Imagine you have just spent a few hundred thousand on MS-software and it's void just because some employee put it on a P2P-network.
It's funny that these things never turn up in TCO-studies...
Re:How do they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I tried it... (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you for your interest in Windows Update
Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.
You must be running a Microsoft Windows operating system in order to use Windows Update.
---
.
Firefox? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Firefox? (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you for your interest in Windows Update
Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.
You need to be running a version of Internet Explorer 5 or higher in order to use Windows Update.
Download the latest version of Internet Explorer
Once Internet Explorer is installed, you can go to the Windows Update site by typing http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com into the address bar of Internet Explorer.
If you prefer to use a different Web
Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how asking me if Microsoft can snoop around in my PC is going to give me a "better experience". It will be a worse experience, if for no other reason than having the experience interrupted to ask the privacy-invading question.
I don't even know where to start (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a time when Microsoft began blocking SP1 downloads for WinXP for users using one of a list of very common keys. I suppose it may have prevented a few people from downloading the service pack, but the vast majority of users who were using these keys either found a hack to change their key to something randomly generated, or simply downloaded the service pack elsewhere.
Go back a little further and try to remember the furore over the required online or phone registration of new WinXP installs. For the poeple who do not desire to pay for their operating system, this was a similar inconvenience. Easily circumvented, but an annoyance to legitimate users.
The music industry implements protection so weak that it can be circumvented by pressing the 'shift' key, but breaks CDs for legitimate users. Nobody who wants an illegal track or two is deterred by this. If they can't get the music off the CD they'll just go to a P2P network and download it from there.
Time and time again we see media providers and software companies implement these rediculous attempts to spite casual pirates. The only people they ever end up bothering are there own customers, and in the rare case there is a backlash and their sales are hurt by their own arrogance, who do they blame? Pirates, of course.
Re:I don't even know where to start (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, I seriously belive that Microsoft doesn't give a shit about power users pirating windows. I work in a computer repair store, I fix people's dumb ass windows problems all day, everyday. The fact that I have access to windows makes me better at my job. By being better at my job, more people can buy a microsoft PC, and not care if the screw it up, because they know that
If MS doesn't like pirated Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's apparently worked quite well to protect Citrix and MS Terminal Server from being used.
I believe MS likes having everyone use Windows, whether it's paid for or not.
What are people going to do, if they can't get Windows pirated? Buy it? Nope.
Spyware (Score:3, Informative)
Effective? I think not. (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Stop Windows Piracy! (Score:5, Informative)
My Greatest Wish (Score:5, Insightful)
....is that Bill Gates gets his greatest wish. I hopethat both Windows and Office become uncopiable - I really do. I hope for this with all of my soul. MS is king because everyone got it for free - make them pay - and OS will rule the day.
Microsoft should just give up on this stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
If Microsoft were smart, they'd keep working the OEM channels, cut the cost of a new copy of Windows XP Home to $100 with none of the product activation junk and charge $50 per retail upgrade. If Microsoft is so worried about people pirating its products, they should extend steep discounts to their customers who buy off the shelf copies. Microsoft could make good money charging only $50 for Home and $100 for Pro upgrades for Windows.
When in doubt, cut your profit margin down and try to sell more copies of your product. Since digital goods are so cheap to fabricate physical copies of, there is no reason why Microsoft couldn't experiment with much cheaper retail prices for a version of Windows. Hell, they might find that if they stop heckling their legitimate users and cut prices that the desktop Linux threat all but goes away.
Let's face it, what incentive right now would there be for people to choose desktop linux for small business and home use if Windows had a no hassle licensing system and was sold that cheap?
Jumping on the bandwagon (Score:5, Funny)
CIA has created a link from their home page, saying:
Internal sources indicate that the program will be made mandatory sometime during the next months.
Re:Ever entered the USA as a foreign national? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you answer No, when the answer is Yes, you are guilty of perjury, and may be arrested/deported on that charge.
Simply having some communicable desease or being a drug addict is not enough for a deportation, since by themselves these things are not against the law. Perjury gives government greater leverage in these situations, for good or bad.
An experience with activating WinXP (Score:5, Interesting)
Like many nerds with a job, I upgrade components in my PC frequently. I have a legitimate retail copy of WinXP Pro. I have a home-built PC, which sits happily next to my Powerbook G4. A couple months ago, I upgraded the motherboard and RAM, and took the opportunity to reinstall WinXP (as I typically need to about once a year). When I called the Windows activation department in Bangalore, I learned something new...
Lady: I can help you with activation. First I need to ask you a couple questions.
Me: Ok.
Lady: How many computers is this copy of Windows XP installed on.
Me: One.
Lady: Why are you reinstalling Windows?
Me: I bought a new computer case. (I just said this off the top of my head, not thinking anything of it.)
Lady: Well, I'm sorry. You can only activate Windows XP on one machine.
Me: It is one machine. I've transferred all the same parts to a new case.
Lady: You can't do that.
In the end, I had to call back and make up another reason. This was the dumbest thing I'd ever heard. The woman insisted that I could not change the case it's in, but I could change EVERYTHING ELSE. She kept telling me to read the license agreement.
The bottom line is that MS will slowly but surely reign in the piracy. This is just a first step. The Windows activation is pretty lame, because if you have a legit number you can just keep calling and (re)installing all over.
Re:An experience with activating WinXP (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An experience with activating WinXP (Score:3, Insightful)
Recently I purchased an Athlon 64, new motherboard, dual 120 gig SATA drives. I ghosted my WinXP partition onto t
Re:An experience with activating WinXP (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is how long can you make your customers feel like "naughty schoolboys" before they stop buying your product? Of course once they do stop buying it for that reasion, you can blame it on piracy and use that excuse to do even nastier things.
Re:An experience with activating WinXP (Score:4, Insightful)
Ummm...you lied. And when they check your HW ID, it shows that your HW has changed from the last install. A case swap wouldn't change any of that.
Re:An experience with activating WinXP (Score:3, Insightful)
I called back and made sure my words were coated with honey. I was able to activate the operating system using that route. Basically, their stupid
Go MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what I think about the whole thing (Score:5, Insightful)
2. If you have a legitimate copy you have nothing to worry about.
3. If you have a pirated copy and have nothing against Microsoft go buy a legal one NOW.
4. If you have a pirated copy and are against Microsoft, then STOP USING WINDOWS instead of whining that it's overpriced, bug-ridden and poorly designed. There are at least TWO alternatives right now (MacOS X, and Linux), so there should no longer be any excuses.
Microsoft shouldn't care about piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft should keep to the goals of keeping everyone addicted to their software so they can't switch to something free.
I'm not condoning piracy, it's immoral and wrong. But Microsoft's strategy should be to keep people hooked, not get every last bit of revenue on their golden goose. Their biggest fear should be the one guy who switches to linux, not the five people that are using a copy they downloaded off the Internet.
MS needs to get their pricing in line (Score:5, Interesting)
People do not enjoy using pirated copies. Especially when it's a pain in the ass or a worry, like getting service packs, etc. They do so because for them to buy legit copies of Windows would simply be too damn expensive. The cheapest I can do WinXP Home OEM edition for is around $150 Canadian, which is simply too much. Even $100 Canadian would be a stretch, frankly. Your average Joe would be satisfied buying an OS if it didn't exceed ~$75 Canadian. I'm not basing this off any direct studies, just my personal observations, but if WinXP was priced around there, I think I would sell FAR more copies.
Different demographics are all obviously different too. As a computer engineering student, I'd be surprised if any significant number of my colleagues were using legit copies of WinXP. Those who are, are usually doing so because it came with their laptops. MS will give us absurd discounts on Visual Studio, etc., but we're left to spend the big bucks on an OS?
Sure, analyzing the pricing on an OS may be a bit naive of me. But different demographics are willing to spend drastically different amounts of money on an operating system. When someone wants to buy a ~$400 system, it's hard to tell them that the OS will cost $150. Then I might turn around and build a system for someone else that costs 10x as much and they don't think twice to get me to toss it on there.
Here's an idea that's a real long shot. Suppose a motherboard manufacturer were to design a motherboard which is targeted for low end, budget users. It is somehow crippled so that it can't be used with the more expensive hardware, but it also comes with a rebate form or some sort of discount on WinXP Home. It would be a modified OS to run only on the motherboard it was shipped with or intended for use with, and the motherboard is set up so that it would be adequate for budget users but not for high end enthusiasts. It would encourage the low end users to purchase Windows instead of pirating it, and allow Microsoft to keep higher prices for the rest of the market. I see the potential flaws in my little scheme, but it's something to think about.
Doesnt work. (Score:5, Interesting)
FYI (Score:5, Informative)
Decode ......", where 'B'=0, 'C'=1, 'D'=2 ... we call the array "6 1 3 22..." base24[]
compute decoded = , the result is: 00 C5 31 77 E8 4D BE 73 2C 55 47 35 BD 8D 01 00 (little-endian)
The decoded result can be divided into 12bit + 31bit + 62bit + 9bit, and we call theses 4 parts 12bit: OS Family, 31bit: Hash, 62bit: Signature, and 9bit: Prefix.
The following computations are based on this product key: JCF8T-2MG8G-Q6BBK-MQKGT-X3GBB The character "-" does not contain any information, so, the MS product key is composed of 25-digit-character. Microsoft only uses "BCDFGHJKMPQRTVWXY2346789" to encode product key, in order to avoid ambiguous characters (e.g. "I" and "1", "0" and "O"). The quantity of information that a product key contain is at most . To convert a 25-digit key to binary data, we need to convert "JCF8T2MG8GQ6BBKMQKGTX3GBB" to "6 1 3 22
Verify
If you want to understand what I am talking about in this section, please refer to some Elliptic Curve Cryptography materials. Before verifying a product key, we need to compute the 4 parts mentioned above: OS Family, Hash, Signature, and Prefix.
Microsoft Product-key Identification program uses a public key stored in PIDGEN.DLL's BINK resource, which is an Elliptic Curve Cryptography public key, which is composed of: p, a, b construct an elliptic curve G(x,y) represents a point on the curve, and this point is so called "generator" K(x,y) represents a point on the curve, and this point is the product of integer k and the generator G.
Without knowing the private key k, we cannot produce a valid key, but we can validate a key using public key:{p, a, b, G, K}
compute H=SHA-1(5D OS Family,Hash, prefix, 00 00) the total length is 11 byte. H is 160-bit long, and we only need the first 2 words. Right lift H's second word by 2 bits. E.g. if SHA-1() returns FE DC BA 98 76 54 32 10, H= FE DC BA 98 1D 95 0C 04. compute R(rx,ry)= Signature * (Signature*G + H*K) (mod p) compute SHA-1(79 OS Family, rx, ry) the total input length = 1+2+64*2=131 bytes. And compare Hash and result, and if identical, the key is valid.
Producing A Valid Key!
We assume the private key k is known (sure, Microsoft won't public this value, so we have to break it by ourselves). The equation in the product key validation system is as below:
Hash=SHA(Signature*(Signature*G+SHA(Hash)*K) (mod p))
What we need is to calculate a Signature which satisfies the above equation. Randomly choose an integer r, and compute R(rx,ry)=r * G Compute Hash= SHA-1(79 OS Family, rx, ry) the total input length = 1+2+64*2=131 bytes, and we get the first 62bit result. compute H=SHA-1(5D OS Family,Hash, prefix, 00 00) the total length is 11 byte, and we need first 2 words, and right lift H's second word by 2 bits. And now, we get an equation as below:
Signature*(Signature*G+H*K) = r * G (mod p)
By replacing K with k * G, we get the next equation:
Signature*(Signature*G+H*k*G) = r * G (mod p) , where n is the order of point G on the curve
Note: not every number has a square root, so maybe we need to go back to step 1 for several times.
Get Private-key From Public Key
I've mentioned that the private key k is not included in the BINK resource, so we need to break it out by ourselves. In the public key:
K(x,y) = k * G, we only know the generator G, and the product K, but it is hard to get k. The effective method of getting k from K(x,y) = k * G is Pollard's Rho (or its variation) method, whose complexity is merely , where n is the order of G. (n is not included in public key resource, so, we need to get n by Schoof's algorithm) Because a user cannot suffer a too long product key, the Signature must be short enough to be convenient. And Microsoft chooses 62 bit as the length of signature, hence, n is merely 62-bit long. Therefore, the complexity
This is like the florida Drug search roadblocks (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet microsoft is watching IP addresses. If they see you turn around and leave when confronted they make a note. If they see a cluster from some company then the BSA will get a phone call. Obviously no one with pirated software and a brain is going to let them search. But of course it might uncover some cases of "shared" software between several computers.
Re:This is like the florida Drug search roadblocks (Score:5, Insightful)
If they see a cluster from some company then the BSA will get a phone call.
Most companies forbid employees from signing external contracts, why would a company allow them to submit corporate machines to potentially invasive tests by external auditors? People will click 'no' because it doesn't involve them, it involves their company.
They also confiscate your tinfoil hat (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously not many people, legal or otherwise, are going to click "yes". My guess is that Microsoft doesn't care. I think what they're trying to do is gradually acquaint users with the notion that these checks will become gradually more commonplace. After awhile, they may become compulsory. After all, if you heat the water up too fast the frog hops out...