Alias~-

Rick Rogers wrote:
> "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.

To the exclusion of caring about their paying customers? Ever hear of PR?

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.

It also costs MS more to pay the activation phone people and the
programmers for their sleazy and greedy anti piracy programs.

>
>>> 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.

Maybe you accept Bush's FUD. I don't.

>
>>> "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.

MS has lied and said that stopping piracy will lower prices, not me.

>
>>> "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.

Then move to a civilized country ;-)

>
>>> "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.

False. I know a lot of non geeks who can install Windows.
>
>>> "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.

Perhaps having a computer will enable someone to make more. How is that
"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.

I have yet to see MS lower its prices for anything. Can you give me an
example?

>
>>> 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.

LOL! And you believe that?

>
>> 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.

Yeah, the one who gave a big tax break to the largest corporations. Nice
choice.

Alias