Vista - Microsoft's Motivation Behind WPA/WGA/SPP

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6713/983/

Good article and so true.

Alias

So their motivation is to make the illegitimate users go legit? What a
surprise.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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? Hell, it's too expensive in the first
world market, but it still sells. 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.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Alias~-" <notever@aolhell.net> wrote in message
news:uYjzRN0%23GHA.3860@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6713/983/
>
> Good article and so true.
>
> Alias

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.

>
> 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.

> "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.

> "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.

>
> "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.

>
> "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.

> Hell, it's too expensive in the
> first world market, but it still sells.

For now.

> 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.

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.

Alias

"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

I see you are still using User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)

Why not Linux? Save your $200 a month for something more important.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Alias~-" <notever@aolhell.net> wrote in message
news:uYjzRN0%23GHA.3860@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6713/983/
>
> Good article and so true.
>
> Alias

Good answers, but why butt your head against a brick wall. Microsoft haters
will always ignore/hate licenses, think profit is greed and piracy
(stealing) is okay.

Richard Urban wrote:
> I see you are still using User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)

Yep.

>
> Why not Linux? Save your $200 a month for something more important.

Um, I dont' live in the third world and I make much more than that. I
have legit XP on all three of my computers. That said, I am about to
start testing Linux as soon as I have time.

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

Well right at this monent I'm downloading Unbutu
I'll see how I go with it I've used linux Redhat before which took a lot of
getting used to but they say Unbutu is a lot better

I'll still buy Vista and install it on a desktop that intend to leave as it
is
On average I change my whole system at least once a year that will now have
to happen with the system I run Unbutu on
Thanks to all the restrictions MSFT have imposed I will no longer have the
luxury of changing the system on which vista is installed

I earn plenty of money however I prefer to keep my money in my pocket and
not hand it over to MSFT

"Alias~-" <notever@aolhell.net> wrote in message
news:uYjzRN0%23GHA.3860@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6713/983/
>
> Good article and so true.
>
> Alias

Sometimes it's just fun.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:O$vYty1%23GHA.1784@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> Good answers, but why butt your head against a brick wall. Microsoft
> haters will always ignore/hate licenses, think profit is greed and piracy
> (stealing) is okay.
>