"Alias~-" <notever@aolhell.net> wrote in message
news:%23E7VHJ1%23GHA.1224@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Rick Rogers wrote:
>> So their motivation is to make the illegitimate users go legit? What a
>> surprise.
>
> No, their motivation is greed. In an attempt to satisfy this greed, they
> rolled out WPA/WGA, etc.
This is capitalism, companies are driven by greed and profit motive. If they
flounder and fail to produce profits and pay dividends, shareholders will
move their investments elsewhere and the company will go under. The motive
behind these changes is to make it more difficult for the pirates and
discourage illegal distribution, and that also makes for more inconveniences
for the legitimate user.
>> Yes, the honest user will be inconvenienced on occasion by the new
>> security implementation. Just like I have to wait in line at the airport
>> to get through security, or wait at the police checkpoint to see if I'm
>> wearing my safety belt and have my vehicle inspected, or tolerate the
>> fact that I am being filmed as I shop at Wally World.
>
> You didn't buy the airport, police check point or Wally World and there's
> no way you could steal them so your analogy is seriously flawed.
It's my plane ticket, my car, and my items in the shopping cart. The point
was that we all have to deal with some security measures that previously did
not exist in all walks of life.
>> "Microsoft trusted its users to do the right thing and generally they
>> did"
>>
>> This was before the notion of "get it for free on the internet" existed.
>> The theives then were far and few between, now many have the attitude of
>> not paying unless you get caught.
>
> That's one theory. My theory is that MS allowed piracy before XP in order
> to saturate and control the market. Now they're trying to cash in. They
> lied and said that controlling piracy will lower prices. Vista is more
> expensive than XP.
Who knows, but watch out for the black helicopters, conspiracy is all around
us. Average prices have risen over the past 6 years (since XP's release),
and for high demand items prices will always be higher, that's basic
economics.
>> "There is a restriction on how many times users can transfer the boxed
>> copy of Windows they purchase to a new machine."
>>
>> While we don't know for sure that this will be the case, I do agree this
>> will be a bad move. However, this is a private company that has the right
>> to restrict how their software is used. If the imposed limitation is a
>> bad one, which I believe it to be, it will make itself evident in a small
>> backlash from the technical community. I say "small" because the truth is
>> that the majority get their copy of Windows with the system and never do
>> major hardware upgrades. The power user that builds their own machine is
>> still a very tiny minority.
>
> This minority may be a minority in your country but not here. Only idiots
> don't buy white boxes in Spain but, then again, all the ISPs push Usenet
> so I guess we have a more educated consumer here.
You're thinking locally, and the issue is global. Possibly Spain has a more
educated user, but the sad fact is that a majority of users worldwide are
the great unwashed. I could only wish that the consumer was more educated.
>> "There will be no long queues of users outside computer stores lining up
>> to buy a boxed copy of Vista Home Basic to load on their underpowered XP
>> computers"
>>
>> Start me up! Remember Win95 - those days, the days when only geeks had
>> computers, are gone. Computers are in the realm of the great unwashed,
>> the technically inefficient. This is why the transfer limitation will
>> probably not have any major affect in sales, as to most it simply won't
>> matter.
>
> Um, non geeks have been operating computers since the 60s.
Using, yes. Building, no. Non-geeks never messed with installing an OS then,
most don't now.
>> "The strategy is a risky one. Like pirate CDs and DVDs, the vast majority
>> of pirate Windows copies proliferate in second and third world markets.
>> The reason is that many users in those markets find Windows prohibitively
>> expensive. Can Microsoft force a significant proportion of them to go
>> legitimate? Perhaps, or perhaps it will simply drive them into the
>> welcoming arms of the Linux world."
>>
>> Risky? No, more like calculated risk, and probably a safe one based on
>> the points I've already given. It's not the geek's world anymore. Is it
>> too expensive in the tirdl world market?
>
> Yeah, when you make $200 a month, Windows is expensive.
When you make $200 per month and are squandering your money on computers,
you have your priorities in life all f*&^ed up.
>> Hell, it's too expensive in the first world market, but it still sells.
>
> For now.
I suspect it will continue to, and if it happens to slow (reduced demand),
then prices will be reduced to increase sales. Such is a market driven
economy.
>> Linux, as far as it has come along, is still the realm of the geek. Linux
>> could actually benefit from a marketing campaign, but that will never
>> happen as there is no profit motive in doing so.
>
> Word of mouth is the best advertising and there are retail chains here in
> Spain that will build you a box with Linux free if you buy the white box
> from them.
Sadly, that is not so. Word of mouth is probably the worst marketing
technique there is.
> Yes, you are right, MS' rip off scam will not be detected by Americans in
> the USA but, then again, they voted for someone who thinks he speaks to
> god for president.
He was the lesser of two (we)evils. Like choosing between Packard Bell and
Compaq and there are no alternatives. Niether is great, nor are they what
you want out of a pc, but you've got to choose one.
> Alias
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help -
www.rickrogers.org