Vista DRM change?

[nihil]

Microsoft have announced dropping the "kill switch" that is supposed to disable functionality in alleged pirated copies of Vista.

More here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7126902.stm

[westin]

I read a little about this... it looks as though several legitimate copies of Vista had been flagged as pirated, so now instead of crippling the OS, it just nags you every so often.

[ArPaNET]

apparently its working

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/04/v...soft-rejoices/

[nihil]

Is it?

Microsoft has let out word today that it estimates the counterfeit rate of Vista to be about half that of XP

Or could it be that people just don't want even a bent copy of it?

As I have mentioned in other posts, a large proportion of pirated software is sold in markets where people cannot afford genuine copies.

Now, there is a pretty big difference between the hardware requirements for a decent version of Vista and those for XP and Win 2000.

Perhaps the claimed reduction is due to people not being able to afford the hardware either?

It would be interesting to see the breakdown by market.

[zallison]

I don't know about it not being affordable.

The hardware requirements are a little steep, but at the same time, a lot of pre-manufactured machines (HP, Dell, Sony...) are very affordable. I know people in my area that are making 14,000$ a year with a very nice PC or Notebook they grabbed at Walmart or Bestbuy for under 300$ that is running Vista just as well as my 3ghz desktop with 4gig ram.

Most of the people I've talked to that have, or had, pirated XP editions had them because they didn't like the idea of buying a new OS for every machine. While I agree with the complaint in part, I will also say that if the OS provided by microsoft wasn't so blasted expensive as a standalone purchase I would have 30 or 40 legitimate copies of Windows OS disks because of the amount of PCs I've had over the years.

200+ dollars for something that is required to use the machine without learning how to operate a free OS, is IMHO rediculous.. I guarantee if Windows (non upgrade) was available for under 100$ piracy would almost disappear. GG MS, you can take an idea from Apple and turn it into a multi billion dollar giant, why couldn't you steal the 100$ price tag also?

/endrant

[nihil]

I know people in my area that are making 14,000$ a year with a very nice PC or Notebook

I wasn't talking about your area but India and China the average annual wages are:

Skilled production worker:..............................India $1,900 China $2,390
Sales Rep:..........................................................$4,850..........$5,210
Accountant:........................................................$5,800..........$9,210

It is a whole different setup over there.

[zallison]

Yeah, after my rant ended and I went on about my evening I realized you probably meant the areas of the world with developing tech. Well, I can understand why piracy and sales of pirated software are common there.

I still say that if OS installs are going to have to be purchased, don't make it one of the single most expensive parts of the machine.

[Nokia]

will also say that if the OS provided by microsoft wasn't so blasted expensive as a standalone purchase I would have 30 or 40 legitimate copies of Windows OS disks because of the amount of PCs I've had over the years

I don't think that the price of MS software is an excuse to use a pirated version of it...if someone can't afford it then they don't use it, especially as there is a plethora of alternative Operating Systems around that cost the price of a CD to use.

[zallison]

I don't think that the price of MS software is an excuse to use a pirated version of it...if someone can't afford it then they don't use it, especially as there is a plethora of alternative Operating Systems around that cost the price of a CD to use.

The problem with alternative OS solutions is the learning curve.

Its not so bad when you have a younger mind that can adapt without force, but for many people that learned Windows - then went to an alternative, the change is so drastic that they'd rather go for the comfort of what they know- even if that means they do it illegally.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting priacy, I'm just saying that if the OS wasn't the single most expensive component in the PC that less piracy would occur as a result.

[nihil]

I feel that we are now drifting into some sort of moral debate.

My original comments were more directed at the economic aspects of the situation and the dilemma that it presents to legitimate vendors.

In a perverse sort of way they seem to be victims of their own commercial "success".

1. They cannot employ differential pricing because of the problem of "grey imports".

2. They cannot globally reduce prices because they are capitalist organisations and have stockholders.

3. They can't buy the legislators or influence the courts because the countries involved are hardly staunch allies. Anyway, pirated software sold in the local marketplace is actually good for that country's economy, so there is no political motivation to stop it.

4. The local populace are so used to the same product dirt cheap that it is almost a part of their culture to buy it.