XP -> Activation -> to be or not to be.

[DCCoolBreeze]

I have started a new thread because the one I was reading is up to 75 responses. I personally do not have a problem with activation. Microsoft does have the right to protect their software and if we do not like it we can go get our software from some other vendor. Microsoft is not maintaining our data. They explictly state that and no there is not a conspiracy by Microsoft to get our data. However, I do have a problem with activiation. As I understand it, activiation has a limit...somewhere around 10 or so. Well if this is the case (please let me know if I am wrong) then I have a problem with it. Microsoft has never been know to be a stable environment...registry corruption...hardware incompatibilities...other software incompatibilities...therefore, I may (and have had to) reload my software on numerous occasions...especially me because I test new software. If I have a limitation to the number of activations I can have...this is a problem. I should be able to load unload and load my software any number of times I want. The other problem with this is that if I can hardware...and I do...I need to reactivate...hence using another one of my limited activiations...not good.

Again I do not see a problem with activation. I see a problem with limited activation. Let's face it people, as the internet becomes faster and more reliable...and as more and more people start using it via cable modems and DSL...software companies will begin licensing the use of software as with main-frames. We will run the software from the vendor's site not load the software on our machines...it is just a matter of time....

Any comments?

 

[JimHorton]

DCCool,
<<They explictly state that and no there is not a conspiracy by Microsoft to get our data.>>
I don't think I can believe this.

I'll repeat my post from the previous thread:

Is there anyone out there who believes MS does *NOT* slither and skulk around your harddrive when doing the 'activation' procedure? Do you think Bill Gates ever said the words 'No, that would be wrong'? ........Excuse me, I had to compose myself after an uncontrollable bout of laughter.

Do you really think they *wouldn't*, say, check to see what competing apps are on your harddrive? Do you think they *wouldn't* go through that MS Money account to get a truer picture of your income spending habits?

What would stop MS from doing that? Integrity and honesty? OH NO, ANOTHER BOUT OF LAUGHTER......................

--Jim

 

[gunthnp]

ok microstof is after data
buy some stock in microsoft and look at your prospuctus less then half there money comes from software sales now days a large portion comes from what the sale of data to other companys so of course they're after data that make money off it
yes they make money doing other thing but if I sell data that means I have to gather something to sell and where do they get data? gunthnp
Have you ever woken up and realized you where not alive.

 

[JimHorton]

I personally have nothing against a company trying to protect it's intellectual property. But as has been said here before, there is a line as to where the methods to do so become intrusive, and MS has definately not just crossed that line--they've leapt over it.

The other problem is that some here say 'Well then, let the market decide--use another OS if you don't like it'. But some don't seem to get the fact that there is a logistical monopoly here, logistically and practically it is very difficult to go to Linux when you've years and years of development invested in MS apps--you can't just start using Linux and dump all your MSOffice-based apps.

When one has a monopoly, the rules of the market change. I'm a capitalist but there is no room for the rules of lassiez-faire capitalism when talking about a monopoly. It's simply wrong to just say to people &quot;Too bad, find another OS&quot;.

That would be like your local Electric Company, which owns the power lines, etc, saying: &quot;Starting next year, you'll all have to give us all your most private personal info, or we turn your power off&quot;. What's that you say? Go to a different electric company? Maybe in 10 years when someone invests billions in building the infrastructure--poles and transmission lines and nuclear plants, stringing the lines for each house, digging trenches all over creation. That's why the government allows, but regulates, companies where logistics and infrastructure issues make a monopoly necessary.

And I trust we're all intelligent enough here to know that MS didn't get where it is because of 'Innovation' HA! Or better technology. Please. They got there because of a truly unique market dynamic in a brand new industry where nothing was known about the rules of this new game. They got a lucky break with the IBM PC (and I don't fault them that, and they should still be able to make alot of money even due to dumb luck), and after they had their market solidified--by PURE market luck, right place/right time, and the natural need for standardization--they went from there to use extremely predatory (and illegal) tactics to maintain and grow their market share.

I wont go into all that, we've heard most of it before, but how difficult can it be to have, for example, a word processor that uses a private API, with fast and flexible features, when the competition is using the 'Public winAPI', no doubt loaded with no-op loops and other innefficiencies. (Oh, I do sound like such a conpiracy freak, don't I?) You can just hear the AMI Pro development team scratching their heads wondering how MS Word documents load faster, etc, etc. It wasn't because MS had better programmers, I can assure you that. Why do you think the source code is the most highly guarded secret at MS?
--Jim

 

[DCCoolBreeze]

Jim,

The problem with your logic is it is illegal. Let us assume that they sniff harddrives...that would be too time consuming. They would read the registry if they wanted this information. Let us assume that they do that...why...what do they get out of it? There is more than enough information in the marketplace that will tell them this information without them risking a lawsuit.

This somewhat reminds me of the argument that we dare not give the FBI and CIA the ability to monitor email. Heaven forbid they might read our mail...do these people understand what it would cost to monitor billions upon billions of email messages? Even with a so called sniffer that looks for specific codes or words. The resulting subset of the email would be incrediblly large. The resources, both person and machine, required to review this subset would be astromonical. The wasted time and expense. If they do a general scan then I want to know so I can stop my tax dollars from being wasted. The fact is, the will monitor suspected criminals and terrorists not you or me...unless of course, you have something to hide. Sometimes people like to think that somehow they are important enough to be monitored....perhaps we have wathced too many James Bond movies (by the way, even in movies the feds do not monitor just anybody...they monitor suspects) and they have caught the James Bond syndrom but the bottom-line is we are not important enough to them to spend the time to scan and then possibly review our notes to our friends and family...

The same with Microsoft.

So what will Microsoft get from my Registry??? Hmmmm they will get a list of software...oh my God they will see that I use Quicken...Textpad...oracle products and Microsoft. Is this data valid??? What does it tell them??? How much did it cost and how much will they gain from this information? As a scientist these are questions that need to be answered.

The sampling they get from knowing what software their XP users use is useless...again they already know what the hottest products are and why. What other information might they gain...oh no...they will know what hardware I use...no...no not that. This is also useless data. The registry does not maintain a list of buying habits so what is the data worth to a third party? If I had a business I would not buy it.

So look at the facts and state facts or assumptions that make sense. If you can state a good case and state examples of the conclusion you have come to, then it becomes creditable...until then it is only an opinion or a bias.

Have a great day!!!!

 

[JimHorton]

MS risking a lawsuit? By lil' ol' me? They stood up the the entire US Justice department and arrogantly scoffed at them. I don't think a suit by myself or even a class-action lawsuit by some individuals scares them away from this type of snooping. And as far as the 'whom does it hurt' question, there is the 'principle' thing. What would someone gain by following you around a mall with a note-pad writing down the stores you go into and what you buy? It's not illegal, but it sure is creepy. I'd complain about it--I don't care if the info is seemingly worthless.

<<So what will Microsoft get from my Registry???>>
Well, I never would have thought a seemingly useless list of names would be worth anything, but we all know lists are huge business--and how valid is that data anyway--what people write on those 'warranty registration cards'? You may not buy these lists, I may not buy them, but someone is buying them. I have personally met people who's job it is to sell these lists--these guys are making big money--and that's just salemen's commission.

If there is a chance to profit from what you and I consider useless information, I don't see why MS would not jump at it. To argue that it's useless information or not valid and therefore they wouldn't want it is just not a valid argument. Pet rocks were invalid and useless as far as I was concerned, but that guy made millions. And if I'd found out the rocks were from my property, I'd want a cut--even if I felt they were worthless.

And I don't believe that MS wouldn't snoop the harddrive. Technically, it's a no brainer. Find MS Money's path in the registry, go right to the data files--how long does that take? They wrote the encryption and file format so it's not like they'd have to 'hack' into it. And that type of info is *extremely* valuable. The news is littered with true stories of savvy businessmen who have done much more difficult and dangerous (from a legal standpoint) things, such as price-fixing, for a LOT less money than MS is making on this stuff. So do you really think Bill Gates, et. al., are somehow choir-boys and wouldn't do something far less risky for far, far more money?

Would you have suggested I was some kind of Elvis-is-still-alive conspiracy theorist had I suggested ADM was fixing prices? Or Big Tobacco was hiding health-risk data? You can think MS is benign all you want, but this truism remains: Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts abslolutely.
--Jim

 

[DCCoolBreeze]

You have some good points.

Microsoft had become arrogant and did take on the Feds but why are you not complaining about other major mergers. Why is Microsoft singled out? I do not believe in any monopolies and just because others get away with it does not mean Microsoft can but let's be consistent.

It would not take long to look at one application but for Microsoft to look at virtually all your apps is not really likely. But the next time you activate, check to HD access. I think you will see very little access. Now perhaps Microsoft has figured out how to read a HD without using the head...now that would be good...

No I would not state you were a elvis-is-alive conspiracy theorist for those companies because there has been hard-core evidence on these for years and given the evidence it made sense to accuse and prosecute. I just have not seen any evidence against Microsoft. I am not saying that they don't or that they would not. I just have not seen any credible evidence and, therefore, it becomes oppinion or bias.

Put yourself in Micrsoft's shoes. Would you like to be accussed of stealing if there was not real evidence? Perhaps they are not stealing...

By the way, I do not approve of some of the tactics Microsoft used in the past to get market share but then again look what happened to the market from the introduction of Windows95....a lot of people made a lot of money on the market boom and, like it or not, Microsoft was one of the major, if the the major catalyst to this boom

 

[JimHorton]

DC,
I didn't mention the other mergers because we were talking MS. I have bitterly complained about SBC, for example, merging with Ameritech. (I don't know where you're from but SBC is a group of former baby-bells, and the merge with Ameritech, the Midwest's baby-bell, essentially un-did the ATT breakup.)

Prior to the approval of that merger there was an ad-blitz by CUB, the watchdog group for utilities around here, portraying SBC execs as 'rustlers', in cowboy gear and kerchiefs over their faces. They talked of how the merger would embolden SBC to raise rates, lower service, cheat customers. Some complained that that was unfair to SBC. But that's exactly what they did--and it was proven. I've always supported CUB, and continue to do so--I put my money where my mouth is.

True, I have no proof of any wrongdoing in this area by MS. And I wouldn't want to be accused of stealing if I weren't doing so. But MS has made their bed--I didn't just wake up and dream this stuff up--it's years of seeing their known, admitted tactics, and also having a fairly good knowledge human behaviour that leads me to believe that this is what they're doing.

And you know, I myself might not do any differently than what I accuse MS of. It's human nature. So many Mr. Smith-goes-to-Washington wannabes have been indicted over the years. And I truly believe that many of them had good intentions before they got there. But that kind of power does things to a person. The human pscyche is rarely strong enough to resist the kind of temtation that such power presents one with. But that's precisely why we have laws.
--Jim

 

[DCCoolBreeze]

ABSOLUTELY. I agree!

Microsoft has done some dirty (some might say smart marketing) tricks to win market share.

However, I believe that absolute power does not have to corrupt. As you said, human nature tends to allow it to corrupt. I believe that we see more of this today then perhaps in the past...although it was definitely present in the past...no doubt. Over the past several decades, we have dropped the integrity bar. It is much easier to fall into the corruption and make an excuse for it then to fight the temptation. Especially when no one holds to to that high standard.

If you really want to eliminate some of these problems, help society value integrity, honesty and morales again. This will not eliminate the problem. We will never eliminate the problem. But, as with the normal distribution curve, it would eliminate 2+ sigma of it.

To a large extent people grow up and act in accordance with what they have learned. If we as a society supoort either covertly or overtly poor moral character then we should not be surprised when we see it. A couple of examples:

1. I was watching Monday night football a few years ago. (that ex coach can't remeber his name) showed a player who got away with a penalty. The referee did not see it. His response &quot;It's not a penalty if you don;t get caught&quot; Sounds innocent enough right? No what it is stating is it's OK to do the wrong thing as long as you do not get caught. So let me take that to another level. A terrorist blows up some store in Isreal and doesn't get caught. In accordance with his comment, it must not be a crime because he did not get caught. Obviously this is not the case so then where do you draw the line???

2. An obvious one is radar detectors. Thin about what this is telling our kids. Hey kids if you can afford something to help you get away with breaking the law then buy it. The last I remember, breaking the speed limit is breaking the law. Oh but it is not illegal to use radar detectors. So if it helps me keep from getting a ticket when I am speeding (breaking the law) then that is ok. So now we use another analogy. I own a gun and I have legally registered it. Nothing wrong with that. I also have a mask and gloves. Those are legal Now I decide to rob a bank. That is breaking the law but I do not want to get caught so I use the mask, gloves and gun. So I guess that makes it ok. Another example of this is O.J. Simpson. Whether he did it or not, he could afford representation that allowed him to go free. This, of course, is a little more expense than a radar detector...)

I guess I got a little off the subject. My soap box is integrity. No we are not perfect and, therefore, we make mistakes. But people with integrity try to do the right thing in all circumstances not when it is just convenient...

Good talking with you.

 

[gunthnp]

the thing is we do know microsoft is colleting data about you and things you do we know this because they sell it. and as you said just beacuse micorsoft is good at fighting lawsuits about what they are doing does not make it right.

P.S.
I agree with the need for integrity. gunthnp
Have you ever woken up and realized you where not alive.

 

[Niv3k]

You make some good points, and I just wanted to answer to one of your points: I do not have a radar detector. I have cruise control. I set the cruise control to 70 in a 65, 60 in a 55, and use my foot (and slower speeds) through construction zones.

I also know that I have passed over 20 cops while speeding this year, with cruise control set. They do not pull me over because I am not going fast enough for them to bother. I don't slow down when I see them, and some people will think that's arrogant, but it's not. It's just common sense, that the cop is looking for the guy doing 85 and/or weaving like a basket maker.

In other words, we do not (yet?/anymore?) live in a society where the slightest infractions are punished by chopping off your foot for speeding. If I install an old (illegal) copy of Win95 it's wrong. But for whatever reason I want 95 on my machine as a consumer, I can't buy it. Microsoft doesn't sell it anymore. Microsoft is not going to waste the time nailing me for a bad copy of Windows 95. (If I get caught)

If I am a small (three) person business, and I buy one copy of 2000 and put it on all three machines, MS will not throw me in jail, or even take me to court. (If I get caught)

If I buy a copy of XP, remove the key, and re-sell it for 20 bucks/quid/euros whatever, MS will press charges and sue me and want my customer lists, etc... (If I get caught!)

If XP only sells 10,000 copies in the first year and 2000 sells 150,000 copies and ME sell 300,000, then we (all the consumers) have told MS to drop XP and continue with 2000 and ME.

MS will push and push and push XP till their blue in the face. But I'm sick of having to get a new OS every two years. I was still using Win 3.1 in 96, (and I know some people who still use it!) I was still using Win 95 in 1998, I was still using Win 98 in 2000, and I plan on using 2000 until 64 bit PC's are cheap enough for home use.

I will take the opportunity to play with and configure XP should it come across. But I don't need it. For business? For home? For what? For work I HAVE to use 2000 (it's what 'they' gave me), for home, 98 is sufficient. So is Linux (RedHat 7.1). I surf the web, check my email, play some video games, and etc...

I WILL NOT BUY XP. I would buy win2k, if I was an IT manager in charge of purchases. I WILL buy Linux for home. And my 64-bit computer... That will run Linux.

 

[DCCoolBreeze]

I believe in balance not extremes so I agree we should not chop people's feet off for speeding but then again I would bet that not too many people would speed if they knew they would lose their feet and after 1 or 2 people lose their feet, I would venture to state that not too many people would have to lose their feet. On the other hand, we let people do 65 in a 55 because it is a small infraction and then their doing 70 and then 75 and then 80 and then 85 etc etc. A boundary has to be drawn and character needs to be taught.

What kills me is when someone gets pulled over for speeding and they get all upset as if the police forced that person to speed. This is what I call &quot;the immaturity factor&quot;

 

[Guest_imported]

People who are unafraid or unconcerned about Microsoft &quot;Sniffing&quot; or the like had really better wake up in a hurry. Hmmmm . . . now there was this social security number once issued whose only purpose in life was for the Social Security Administration. Then there were Defense Dept satellites whose mission was national defense . . . anybody seen their house on the terra firma sites ???? Or county collectors who get images of their friends and neighbors yards when they are supposed to be gathering data for property tax evasions . . . Besides, it's not Microsoft we necessarily are worried about . . . it's who Microsoft sells your data to . . . or gives out your info to, heck a Billion records or sites are nothing in an unattended crawler search. Anybody familiar with Microsoft's $.65 'on the dollar' of revenue capture for piracy bounty . . . since some of you people are acting illegally you are willing to let me scan your home machines right? I promise only to turn you in for the bounty if you have any software that has not been registered . . . Okay ????