5 ms·

Being nearly 50years old, what frightens me about MS is that they think they can sell an OS which they can remotely turn off without out a court warrant and the

by BobG 20y ago

Being nearly 50years old, what frightens me about MS is that they think they can sell an OS which they can remotely turn off without out a court warrant and then its up to you if your business hasn't gone bankrupt to sue them . This just shows complete and utter contempt for their customers.Which will do for them in the long run.My next box will be linux. Maybe the apple setup etc looks attractive to the younger generation but its only superficial. They have their own history of arrogant greed too. Bob G

erdos2 20y ago
I recently acquired a Mac Book Pro. There was precisely one Windows program I wanted to run on it (SuperMemo) under Parallels, which received good reviews. Rather than wait to purchase a copy of Windows from the local CompUSA, I used an OEM copy of Windows from a defenestrated a DELL box (I replaced Windows with Debian). After installing XP as a guest OS under Parallels, I activated XP online by purchasing a product key through the Genuine Advantage program. But that wasn't good enough for Microsoft. Microsoft informed me in their emailed order acknowledgment that I was some kind of felon: "To convert your counterfeit Windows XP software to a genuine copy of Windows XP using the new Product Key, you will need to download and run the Windows Product Key Update Tool on the same computer you used to purchase the electronic license for Windows XP." The following week I received in the mail a Windows Genuine Advantage Kit for Windows XP Professional; it contained a letter asserting that I had "submitted a counterfeit report" with my order, and that this report would be "treated as confidential." Moreover, "...Microsoft's anti-piracy team investigates each and every lead we receive. Since investigations are ongoing and extremely confidential, we are unable to provide you with the status of the particular lead you have submitted. The length of time to bring about enforcements varies depending on the nature of a particular investigation." Hateful monsters! Frightful miscreants! I suppose I deserve this for having anything to do with Windows.
- grauenwolf 20y ago
  Technically it isn't a legit copy of Windows. OEM versions are usually tied to the computer they are originally sold with. Personally I don't think it is fair, but that's how licensing works under a monopoly. Jonathan Allen
  - BitGeek 20y ago
    Tied how? Certainly not legally. When you buy the computer you buy a license... no court would uphold charging people for something and not letting them have it. The "shrinkwrapped" license agreements are not really enforcable... at least not in a legitimate (eg: competant) court.
    - fishcar22 19y ago
      Actually yes legally. You never buy the software. You are always buying the right to use the software under a set of circumstances. OEM Licenses are licenses sold under the basis of being tied to a single physical piece of hardware.
- Goladus 20y ago
  The language makes it sound more like they are going after people who mass-produce illegal copies of windows.
- linuxiac 20y ago
  That is how convicted felons think, everyone else is a felon, or is going to be one! But, yep, you now deserve this for having anything to do with multiple convicted felon and pirate Microsoft. Nobody of integrity openly deals with convicted felons, for the taint will corrupt our customer trust. We all switched a decade ago. Where were you? Well, never too late!
brett 20y ago
You bring up a hilarious caveat to "No one is even afraid of Microsoft anymore." The people now afraid of MSFT are not their competitors but instead their customers.
- BrandonM 20y ago
  I did a presentation a few months ago on Microsoft's DRM technology in Vista: http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~mintern/601/presentation.pdf http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~mintern/601/presentation.pdf It was when I first read about that and researched it that I realized just how bad it was. It's like the customer isn't even #2 or 3 anymore. It goes something like: 1. Money 2. Killing competition (including open source) 3. Hollywood 4. Locking out hobbyists and increasing licensing restrictions ...I'm sure I'm missing some... n. Serving the customer
  - william42 20y ago
    More like this: 1. Fucking the customer then everything you mention
weblivz 20y ago
They're are easy target and i had this discussion over drinks with some friend last night. I actually think their software in the last few years and what is coming through is getting great respect from hackers. Also, a few things to remember. 1. Search in only 10% done. 2. Pervasive devices are taking over as the key interface to systems. 3. Collaboration is the big wave on the web. 4. Privacy/Trust - things like google apps work for some data (and are a great addition) but add in trust and privacy in business and they're screwed. Open ID is thinking about identity, but there's a long way to go. For these reasons there is a long way to go before anyone can be considered alive or dead. I for one think Google will be overtaken by someone in the not too distant future as well. It may be a resurgent Microsoft - remember Netscape. Oh, the have an ace in their cards. Ray Ozzie is Chief Software Architect (a position Gates himself used to hold) and created probably the more powerful collaboration software in its time at Groove. He's been very quiet recently and his emergence may be their resurgence. Not everyone is going to want to create 5 minute web 2.0 software to get bought by Google - a big change will emerge as happened with Netscape and AltaVista. Stay tuned.
- alive88 20y ago
  important post with some meat to follow up. Next Gen Search is exciting to think about. Pervasive - I personally want to degadgetize and surround myself with inexpensive, pervasive technology. (Why isn't bluetooth inexpensive?) Collaboration - If you listen to MS talk, they are significantly ahead in collaborative technologies. I can't speak to that, but would personally like a movement toward open document formats. OpenID - why are they important? I should do more reading, I might not understand the scope of that project. web 2.0 is bubblific. good luck to those hoping to make a quick buck. I wish better luck to those that aspire to create value, change computing and create sustainable business models.
BitGeek 20y ago
Don't be silly Bob. Apple is not arrogant nor greedy... unless you're a socialist who thinks that all companies that actually sell software are "arrogant and greedy". The stallman cult thinks this and they have gone so far as to have protests against Apple when they sued microsoft! That's how twisted their socialist thinking is-- they support the monopolist against the underdog! If you're 50 years old, get a mac, you'll find that its a hell of a lot easier to use than Linux. To claim that its "superficial" is to not understand the real advantages of the Mac... alas, I suspect too many people like you reject microsoft and then reject Apple (because of FUD spread by MS or linux fans) and then go back to microsoft when they discover that Linux is a damn hard to administer desktop (for most people.) I have been using unix for 20 years and I only run Linux in particular situaitons because generally the admin load is just not worth it. Why deal with it when Mac OS X is so much better? So, I use it on servers, but only when I am not able to use apple hardwware (They make great servers too....) The thing about Apple is, its far better than people think... and most people have never tried it, and yet many of these peopel have a negative impression of it based on propaganda from MS proponents.
- stolennomen 20y ago
  Its very difficult to be honest and altruistic when your sole reason for being is to make money. This is the motivation for these men that run businesses. Or do you suppose their motivation is to bring happiness to people? Morals and money dont really mix very well. When a companies board of directors sit down to discuss the bottom line, how often do you think moral issues are discussed? Ive never heard any in all my years in the IT industry.
  - BitGeek 20y ago
    That's a very sick and twisted view of the world-- and it is from Karl Marx. The reality is, you make money when you bring happiness to people. You make people happy and they want to give you money they want to buy more of your products because they want to keep being made happy again, or made even more happy. Thus, the happier you make your customers the more money you make. Further, making people happy, and making money are intrinsically moral things. Trading with people is honest and moral. Those who talk of altruism speak of violence. Altruism is the destruction of your self to benefit others. (Literally). Thus socialists throw around the word "altruism" (and "Sacrifice" and a lot of other code words) to try and make it seem moral-- but at the root of it, what they are doing or advocating is putting a gun to your head and taking your money (and your money is just a representation of the labor you put in to earn it.) So, don't you talk to me about morals-- when its clear you are advocating an immoral ideology. The bottom line is this: Free people trade with each other and profit by trades that make people happy. This trade is moral, it is honest, and it is right. It is intrinsically peaceful. Socialists oppose free trade, they believe in forcing people at gun point to "trade" on terms that the socialist approve of. This is not peaceful, this is not moral, and obviously the people who are having their lives threatened are acting under duress--- duress is not compatible with happines. So, the next time you hear "sacrifice" come out of the mouth of a politician -- realize its not him that will be sacrificing-- its you and he's putting a gun to your head to get richer. That is the language of the thief and the looter, the socialist and the immoral. This is so obvious that I shouldn't have to say it-- but its amazing how twisted people's minds get when they are subjected to socialist propaganda day in and day out. To think you just said people doing things that make them happy, because they make them happy is immoral!

by BobG 20y ago

erdos2 20y ago

I recently acquired a Mac Book Pro. There was precisely one Windows program I wanted to run on it (SuperMemo) under Parallels, which received good reviews. Rather than wait to purchase a copy of Windows from the local CompUSA, I used an OEM copy of Windows from a defenestrated a DELL box (I replaced Windows with Debian). After installing XP as a guest OS under Parallels, I activated XP online by purchasing a product key through the Genuine Advantage program. But that wasn't good enough for Microsoft. Microsoft informed me in their emailed order acknowledgment that I was some kind of felon: "To convert your counterfeit Windows XP software to a genuine copy of Windows XP using the new Product Key, you will need to download and run the Windows Product Key Update Tool on the same computer you used to purchase the electronic license for Windows XP." The following week I received in the mail a Windows Genuine Advantage Kit for Windows XP Professional; it contained a letter asserting that I had "submitted a counterfeit report" with my order, and that this report would be "treated as confidential." Moreover, "...Microsoft's anti-piracy team investigates each and every lead we receive. Since investigations are ongoing and extremely confidential, we are unable to provide you with the status of the particular lead you have submitted. The length of time to bring about enforcements varies depending on the nature of a particular investigation." Hateful monsters! Frightful miscreants! I suppose I deserve this for having anything to do with Windows.

grauenwolf 20y ago
Technically it isn't a legit copy of Windows. OEM versions are usually tied to the computer they are originally sold with. Personally I don't think it is fair, but that's how licensing works under a monopoly. Jonathan Allen
- BitGeek 20y ago
  Tied how? Certainly not legally. When you buy the computer you buy a license... no court would uphold charging people for something and not letting them have it. The "shrinkwrapped" license agreements are not really enforcable... at least not in a legitimate (eg: competant) court.
  - fishcar22 19y ago
    Actually yes legally. You never buy the software. You are always buying the right to use the software under a set of circumstances. OEM Licenses are licenses sold under the basis of being tied to a single physical piece of hardware.
Goladus 20y ago
The language makes it sound more like they are going after people who mass-produce illegal copies of windows.
linuxiac 20y ago
That is how convicted felons think, everyone else is a felon, or is going to be one! But, yep, you now deserve this for having anything to do with multiple convicted felon and pirate Microsoft. Nobody of integrity openly deals with convicted felons, for the taint will corrupt our customer trust. We all switched a decade ago. Where were you? Well, never too late!

brett 20y ago

You bring up a hilarious caveat to "No one is even afraid of Microsoft anymore." The people now afraid of MSFT are not their competitors but instead their customers.

BrandonM 20y ago
I did a presentation a few months ago on Microsoft's DRM technology in Vista: http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~mintern/601/presentation.pdf http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~mintern/601/presentation.pdf It was when I first read about that and researched it that I realized just how bad it was. It's like the customer isn't even #2 or 3 anymore. It goes something like: 1. Money 2. Killing competition (including open source) 3. Hollywood 4. Locking out hobbyists and increasing licensing restrictions ...I'm sure I'm missing some... n. Serving the customer
- william42 20y ago
  More like this: 1. Fucking the customer then everything you mention

weblivz 20y ago

They're are easy target and i had this discussion over drinks with some friend last night. I actually think their software in the last few years and what is coming through is getting great respect from hackers. Also, a few things to remember. 1. Search in only 10% done. 2. Pervasive devices are taking over as the key interface to systems. 3. Collaboration is the big wave on the web. 4. Privacy/Trust - things like google apps work for some data (and are a great addition) but add in trust and privacy in business and they're screwed. Open ID is thinking about identity, but there's a long way to go. For these reasons there is a long way to go before anyone can be considered alive or dead. I for one think Google will be overtaken by someone in the not too distant future as well. It may be a resurgent Microsoft - remember Netscape. Oh, the have an ace in their cards. Ray Ozzie is Chief Software Architect (a position Gates himself used to hold) and created probably the more powerful collaboration software in its time at Groove. He's been very quiet recently and his emergence may be their resurgence. Not everyone is going to want to create 5 minute web 2.0 software to get bought by Google - a big change will emerge as happened with Netscape and AltaVista. Stay tuned.

alive88 20y ago
important post with some meat to follow up. Next Gen Search is exciting to think about. Pervasive - I personally want to degadgetize and surround myself with inexpensive, pervasive technology. (Why isn't bluetooth inexpensive?) Collaboration - If you listen to MS talk, they are significantly ahead in collaborative technologies. I can't speak to that, but would personally like a movement toward open document formats. OpenID - why are they important? I should do more reading, I might not understand the scope of that project. web 2.0 is bubblific. good luck to those hoping to make a quick buck. I wish better luck to those that aspire to create value, change computing and create sustainable business models.

BitGeek 20y ago

Don't be silly Bob. Apple is not arrogant nor greedy... unless you're a socialist who thinks that all companies that actually sell software are "arrogant and greedy". The stallman cult thinks this and they have gone so far as to have protests against Apple when they sued microsoft! That's how twisted their socialist thinking is-- they support the monopolist against the underdog! If you're 50 years old, get a mac, you'll find that its a hell of a lot easier to use than Linux. To claim that its "superficial" is to not understand the real advantages of the Mac... alas, I suspect too many people like you reject microsoft and then reject Apple (because of FUD spread by MS or linux fans) and then go back to microsoft when they discover that Linux is a damn hard to administer desktop (for most people.) I have been using unix for 20 years and I only run Linux in particular situaitons because generally the admin load is just not worth it. Why deal with it when Mac OS X is so much better? So, I use it on servers, but only when I am not able to use apple hardwware (They make great servers too....) The thing about Apple is, its far better than people think... and most people have never tried it, and yet many of these peopel have a negative impression of it based on propaganda from MS proponents.

stolennomen 20y ago
Its very difficult to be honest and altruistic when your sole reason for being is to make money. This is the motivation for these men that run businesses. Or do you suppose their motivation is to bring happiness to people? Morals and money dont really mix very well. When a companies board of directors sit down to discuss the bottom line, how often do you think moral issues are discussed? Ive never heard any in all my years in the IT industry.
- BitGeek 20y ago
  That's a very sick and twisted view of the world-- and it is from Karl Marx. The reality is, you make money when you bring happiness to people. You make people happy and they want to give you money they want to buy more of your products because they want to keep being made happy again, or made even more happy. Thus, the happier you make your customers the more money you make. Further, making people happy, and making money are intrinsically moral things. Trading with people is honest and moral. Those who talk of altruism speak of violence. Altruism is the destruction of your self to benefit others. (Literally). Thus socialists throw around the word "altruism" (and "Sacrifice" and a lot of other code words) to try and make it seem moral-- but at the root of it, what they are doing or advocating is putting a gun to your head and taking your money (and your money is just a representation of the labor you put in to earn it.) So, don't you talk to me about morals-- when its clear you are advocating an immoral ideology. The bottom line is this: Free people trade with each other and profit by trades that make people happy. This trade is moral, it is honest, and it is right. It is intrinsically peaceful. Socialists oppose free trade, they believe in forcing people at gun point to "trade" on terms that the socialist approve of. This is not peaceful, this is not moral, and obviously the people who are having their lives threatened are acting under duress--- duress is not compatible with happines. So, the next time you hear "sacrifice" come out of the mouth of a politician -- realize its not him that will be sacrificing-- its you and he's putting a gun to your head to get richer. That is the language of the thief and the looter, the socialist and the immoral. This is so obvious that I shouldn't have to say it-- but its amazing how twisted people's minds get when they are subjected to socialist propaganda day in and day out. To think you just said people doing things that make them happy, because they make them happy is immoral!