I heard that Microsoft is setting up a database that would include every illegal user's IP. They would also diffuse small programs so that illegal copies of winXP would stop working after upgrading windows...
Does anyone knows about that ?
Printable View
I heard that Microsoft is setting up a database that would include every illegal user's IP. They would also diffuse small programs so that illegal copies of winXP would stop working after upgrading windows...
Does anyone knows about that ?
Well, if it just has their IP that'd be totally pointless because most users online have dynamic IPs, meaning it changes every time they get online because they dial into the internet using a regular modem. They could probably, however, get the some other number that's stored in the registry and ban that one from updating anymore, but I'm sure the number could easily be changed. I've heard of them doing something similar to this, but not the exact same thing you speak of. Not sure if they really are, but like I said, it'd be pointless.
well, that sux.....
I'm all for OpenSource, especialy when it come's to MS< they'r software is Over priced, and the'v only done a half-assed job!
- Noia
It is part of their service pack 1 release. It will fuX0r up the updates for you. You can read about it here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25629.html
Indeed, quite interesting... But I don't really think that it would stop warezed winXP. There seem to be so many ways to overcome this sort of protection...
True. But, under MS's new service pack. It won't let you update it.Quote:
Originally posted here by sniper001
Indeed, quite interesting... But I don't really think that it would stop warezed winXP. There seem to be so many ways to overcome this sort of protection...
The problem I see here is. What about people that have legit copies they paid for but their registration number has been stolen. This will hurt large companies that have a multi seat license with a corperate registration number. They would have a mess with a couple of hundred machines unable to update the security or patches....
Quote:
The beta of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP has now shipped to testers and, as previously advertised, it declines to install if you're using a leaked WinXP licence key. But - again as previously advertised - it doesn't deactivate your installation, just stops you applying the service pack.
I think this is targeting keys that were leaked during the beta testing and such... I believe a large number of them leaked, and they still worked.Quote:
The problem I see here is. What about people that have legit copies they paid for but their registration number has been stolen. This will hurt large companies that have a multi seat license with a corperate registration number. They would have a mess with a couple of hundred machines unable to update the security or patches....
I don't think it could really effect the companies with the multi-seat licenses, unless they are using one of the leaked keys, which in theory they shouldn't be, because no corporation should run a beta of any Windows OS, so they shouldn't have one of the beta keys...
Now, if you've installed a legitimate copy using a leaked key, there are work arounds, which I know you all can find........ I'd link to it, but I fear that it would just be abused...
Hummm... M$ gonna have problems soon...
Anyway, do you think it is possible to bypass this "protection", for example by douwnloading the XP SP1 from a win2000 based machine and then install it on your xp box ? Or by downloading the corporate version of the patch, so that it would not chech your xp ID ?
I think you can download the individual product updates, just not in the bundled service pack...Quote:
Originally posted here by sniper001
Hummm... M$ gonna have problems soon...
Anyway, do you think it is possible to bypass this "protection", for example by douwnloading the XP SP1 from a win2000 based machine and then install it on your xp box ? Or by downloading the corporate version of the patch, so that it would not chech your xp ID ?
It'll end up being a lot of trouble to run leaked copies as the update site will block leaked copies, you'd have to download and install the individual updates for every machine you have...
Fear not however, if you have a legitimate copy, but are using a leaked key, there is still hope for you.... you can reactivate your copy of XP with a new key.... but shhhh, lets keep that a secret...
Hmm there is already a method for that SP1 thing.
The truth is MS is going to lock down computers that has stolen keys. One thing they are sure of is most of the illegal copies use FCKGW-xxx-xxx something key. What MS is doing is the SP will lock the computer that uses that cd key.
So all you have to do is to change the cd key. I dont think that it is right to post here how to change your cd key and get a original key for your mechine.
here is a web page explaining how to break the new security for WinXP.
http://www.windowsxp.nu
(I hope I am not breaking any rules of AO by giving out this webpage)
Block, not lock... you simply won't be able to apply the updates easily, which if your using a lot of leaked keys, will become a pain in the ass.... but you will still be able to use your installation, just won't be updated....Quote:
Originally posted here by Sharez
Hmm there is already a method for that SP1 thing.
The truth is MS is going to lock down computers that has stolen keys. One thing they are sure of is most of the illegal copies use FCKGW-xxx-xxx something key. What MS is doing is the SP will lock the computer that uses that cd key.
So all you have to do is to change the cd key. I dont think that it is right to post here how to change your cd key and get a original key for your mechine.
here is a web page explaining how to break the new security for WinXP.
http://www.windowsxp.nu
(I hope I am not breaking any rules of AO by giving out this webpage)
/me shakes his head at Sharez
hmm I thought it was lock ok..
Lets start thinking this whole issue in MS's point of view. There are around 8000 people in MS just working for Windows. And these 8000 people if they are good enough to program a O/S they must be getting a shitload of money. Thinking that MS spend something like between 2 to 5 years to release XP. They must have spent some money on it. So they want to get the flower from degir seeds. They want to earn some money. That is normal BUT it is true that MS sells its products real expensive. I mean why go buy a O/S for over 100$ when you can buy it like 5$. I think MS MUST(!) half their priceses. In that way people might consider buying their products. They will accutually make more money than they do now. Because more people will but it. I bet more than %50 of home users dont have original copies.
I always see flames to MS. Ok I accept the fact that they are trying to monopoly and they suck. But think in this way IF MS didnot exist do you think that the computer world will be where it is now?
*wonders why he posted this under this topic hmm :confused: *
If MS halves the cost of its products... it will also half its staff, leaving everyone worse off.... What exactly are you comparing it to as being too expensive!?!? something that is free? Your dreaming..
Why is it that everyone ignores that microsoft is just like any other company, and it has responsibilities to its stakeholders.... How much do you think it costs them to make a product.... You've got salaries, development equipment, research and development and marketing...... your easily looking at 100's of millions of dollars, most likely more than that.....
Now, once you've made a reasonable return on a product, the companies move on and begin the cycle again... that's when the prices go down..... so, of course one of their new OS's is going to be expensive, they are trying to make back their expenditures....
Lets do the maths on this shall we... lets say they earn next to nothing, *like me*, and are on around $17K US a year...Quote:
There are around 8000 people in MS just working for Windows. And these 8000 people if they are good enough to program a O/S they must be getting a shitload of money
8000 X 17,000 =... ummm, one moment.. *breaks out calculator* $136,000,000 per year
Now, lets put that by a realistic number for what it takes MS to pump out an OS..
136,000,000 X 3 = $408,000,000..
Now, you look at just that.... and how much they charge for their operating systems... and you see that its not that much, especially considering I've left out many other financial factors...
Okay, I agree with you, MS is a company just like other ones, it has to make benefit. All right.Quote:
Why is it that everyone ignores that microsoft is just like any other company, and it has responsibilities to its stakeholders.... How much do you think it costs them to make a product.... You've got salaries, development equipment, research and development and marketing...... your easily looking at 100's of millions of dollars, most likely more than that.....
But don't forget that MS always tries to impose users to use HIS OS, not any other.
And very often, (that's not to say every time) when a new windows version is commercialised, it's always full of bugs (jsut look at all the "security fix", the "service pack", immediately available . You'll say that the perfect software doesn't exist, yet. Maybe, but I think MS should make *serious* efforts to improve the quality of his products.
Another thing : MS is trying to gain 100% control on his users : for example, in the latest winXP, there are a lot of "hidden" functionnalities that always redirect to microsft, or its affiliates. In the Explorer, when you're browsing a directory that contains audio files, what does explorer offers to you ? "Buy music on the Internet". Of course, it redirects you to a MS affiliate. And also : the 404 errors, when using internet explorer : when attempting to reach a non available page, windows automatically redirects you to the MS search engine, MSN.
So in conclusion, this SP1 for XP is certainly another attempt to gain more power on the end users, under cover of software protection.
Concerning the prices, i think that they are too much expansive. But MS can sell his products at this prices, because, there no other choice !
Linux is certainly not the best choice for newbies, and there are definitely too few applications for Mac. Windows is very user-friendly, that's why all contructors choose this os, instead of linux, or other unix...
We're not debating the reliability/security of MS here... That would be kinda one sided, as most MS OS's require a lot of work to keep secure *not that the alternatives don't either*... But look at this side of it.... Microsoft can only do limited beta testing, mainly because people don't play by the rules and share the beta copies... again, hitting MS where it hurts, in the $$...Quote:
And very often, (that's not to say every time) when a new windows version is commercialised, it's always full of bugs (jsut look at all the "security fix", the "service pack", immediately available . You'll say that the perfect software doesn't exist, yet. Maybe, but I think MS should make *serious* efforts to improve the quality of his products.
We are discussing the blockage implemented in the service pack, and I say, good on Microsoft.. I mean, they fork out lots of money to develop a product, sure it's got its problems, the patches are the way to fix that.... Now, why, in any sense, shouldn't they try to stop people who didn't pay for the product in the first place, getting the benifit of their further expenditure??
I fully support this blocking.. Piracy is a big problem for Microsoft, and they are trying to protect themself from it... If this upsets you, that a company is trying to protect themselves, prepare to be very upset in the future, because more of them are going to start doing it.....
Do the ~figures (we can't do it exactly, there are too many variables), with the size of Microsoft and its yearly expenditure in its projects, its not charging that much, when it could charge more... people would bitch and whinge, but as you said, there really isn't much else out there, so people would be forced to take it....Quote:
Concerning the prices, i think that they are too much expansive. But MS can sell his products at this prices, because, there no other choice !
Linux is certainly not the best choice for newbies, and there are definitely too few applications for Mac. Windows is very user-friendly, that's why all contructors choose this os, instead of linux, or other unix...
How so? I mean, its piracy protection doesn't affect legitimate copies of XP.. only the illegal copies that are being used....Quote:
So in conclusion, this SP1 for XP is certainly another attempt to gain more power on the end users, under cover of software protection.
Yes but matty 100$ is alot of money.
if 20 000 people buys their products that makes 2mil. 20 000 is nothing.
minimum(!) 1 milion was sold JUST to some companies.
Which makes MS to get alot of money.
What I am saying is IF their priceses was halfed I am talking about my self for the product they produce the effort in it I will spend 50$ or so.
Which brings another subject. I dont really think that MS cares about home users. Because he does not get anything from them.
Home users are divided into 2.
1) Computer wiz
2) new computer buyers that has a Compaq sticker.
the first group no one buys original products. The second group dont know damm about computers and dont need new products. When they learn they go to first group.
Thats what I think of MS correct me if I am wrong please.
Your kinda correct...
Microsoft doesn't really care about home users....
Home users don't really produce that much revenue for MS.. sure, they will always keep something special in the cookie jar for the home user, but MS is after corporations.....
Now, Microsoft charges corporations quite a lot for using their software... why would this be? I mean, its not like that expenditure from a corporation actually gets them anything.... oh wait... what do they use the software for.... working... and what does the working get them? $$$$.. If you think about the costs of purchasing the software against what it enables business's to do, you'll see where I'm coming from.....
You'll also notice that there are two versions of XP, Home & Professional.... that was Microsoft's effort of giving the home user a price cut... if you choose to go with XP Pro, that's your choice, but don't start complaining because you have to pay more for something aimed at businesses, since they have more money to spend....
As for other products, they have versions of those aimed at different consumer groups.... such as student's and the like....
Quote:
Originally posted here by sniper001
In the Explorer, when you're browsing a directory that contains audio files, what does explorer offers to you ? "Buy music on the Internet". Of course, it redirects you to a MS affiliate. And also : the 404 errors, when using internet explorer : when attempting to reach a non available page, windows automatically redirects you to the MS search engine, MSN.
So in conclusion, this SP1 for XP is certainly another attempt to gain more power on the end users, under cover of software protection.
These options can very easily be changed. My IE doesn't do auto searches for me. And when I do a search from the address bar it goes to google. Can't blaim them for making it work that way by default, but they do give you the ability to change settings.
Yes, you're right, but you have to do it manually. Otherwise the defaul tconfig brings you to msn.Quote:
Originally posted here by mohaughn
These options can very easily be changed. My IE doesn't do auto searches for me. And when I do a search from the address bar it goes to google. Can't blaim them for making it work that way by default, but they do give you the ability to change settings.
So? Heaps of companies have defaults which benefit them or their associates.. its quite normal....Quote:
Originally posted here by sniper001
Yes, you're right, but you have to do it manually. Otherwise the defaul tconfig brings you to msn.
You also seem to be forgetting that the defaults in this case are often what people want... I've seen heaps of people who actually like msn.com (why escapes me, but they do)...
The ligit corp license of XP dosen't use product activation, but includes a hook that you must upgrade every two years and pay in advance, still not recieve any discount from the PC manafacture and get another copy of XP (MS tax). Our company is bulking at it all and will take the two years to migrate away from MS products, and encourage contracts to include alt software.
OK...lets look at this....M$ sells software to its employees at cost plus a certain percentage to cover their expenditures and give the employees a price break. This is an admirable practice and I wouldn't begin to dispute its fairness. I will, however, use it as an example of how bad the price-gouging actually is. A FULL version of winXP (not the upgrade) is $299 at full retail, but the price in the cost plus scenario is less than $35 per copy. I know this because I have SEEN the receipt from an employee-purchased copy. This works out to a total profit margin in excess of 500% at full retail, to be divided between M$ and the wholesaler/retailer. If auto dealers practiced this same margin formula, a Yugo would sell for a price of $50,000 or above...not quite a fair system in my humble opinion. M$ is a CASH COW that pays NO dividends...the profits DO NOT go back to the investors...all they get is the face value of their stock, M$ keeps ALL the profits. Most other large companies have a debt load that they must service, yet they still manage to pay dividends to their shareholders. M$ has NO DEBT LOAD to meet. Yes development costs money, but its not as expensive as M$ would have you believe it is. I hope you don't take my tone as insulting, but I get pretty passionate and defensive when I'm on the receiving end of the shaft...especially one as big as this one.Quote:
Originally posted here by Matty_Cross
Now, once you've made a reasonable return on a product, the companies move on and begin the cycle again... that's when the prices go down..... so, of course one of their new OS's is going to be expensive, they are trying to make back their expenditures....
Lets do the maths on this shall we... lets say they earn next to nothing, *like me*, and are on around $17K US a year...
8000 X 17,000 =... ummm, one moment.. *breaks out calculator* $136,000,000 per year
Now, lets put that by a realistic number for what it takes MS to pump out an OS..
136,000,000 X 3 = $408,000,000..
Now, you look at just that.... and how much they charge for their operating systems... and you see that its not that much, especially considering I've left out many other financial factors...
Cost price + X% would cover the amount it costs them to make what you hold in your hand. That is, packaging, manual, CD etc.. It wouldn't factor in the price of developing it that greatly... I get a similar discount at my work, although that is a PC manufacturer... I get charged cost price of components + 20%... Now, that doesn't factor in a lot of the costs that are incurred ie, shipping, storage etc... So while the example is a good one, I don't think its really that accurate...Quote:
Originally posted here by allenb1963
OK...lets look at this....M$ sells software to its employees at cost plus a certain percentage to cover their expenditures and give the employees a price break. This is an admirable practice and I wouldn't begin to dispute its fairness. I will, however, use it as an example of how bad the price-gouging actually is. A FULL version of winXP (not the upgrade) is $299 at full retail, but the price in the cost plus scenario is less than $35 per copy. I know this because I have SEEN the receipt from an employee-purchased copy. This works out to a total profit margin in excess of 500% at full retail, to be divided between M$ and the wholesaler/retailer. If auto dealers practiced this same margin formula, a Yugo would sell for a price of $50,000 or above...not quite a fair system in my humble opinion. M$ is a CASH COW that pays NO dividends...the profits DO NOT go back to the investors...all they get is the face value of their stock, M$ keeps ALL the profits. Most other large companies have a debt load that they must service, yet they still manage to pay dividends to their shareholders. M$ has NO DEBT LOAD to meet. Yes development costs money, but its not as expensive as M$ would have you believe it is. I hope you don't take my tone as insulting, but I get pretty passionate and defensive when I'm on the receiving end of the shaft...especially one as big as this one.
MS may not pay dividends, but it puts the profits back into operations... This is, strangely enough, quite common.. Many companies do it.. And its not that they are giving their customers nothing, its just a different method of shares.... With those types of shares, your meant to buy when the shares price is low, *a good time would've probably been when the Anti-Trust Case was fully blown, and people actually thought MS would get split up*, and then sell them when you think their value has peaked... Its a different method, and one which can has quite successful results.. *ie, you may not get a small amount each month/year/whatever, but when you chose to sell when the share value is high, you can make a killing*Quote:
Taken from: Microsoft Investor Relations FAQ
Microsoft does not currently issue dividends on common stock or have a direct stock purchase plan, choosing instead to reinvest profits into operations. Although our Board of Directors periodically reviews this policy, Microsoft has announced no plans to change the policy.
On the markup... ever been seen the mark ups movie cinema's have? that popcorn that you just paid 5$ for... you just brought the next 3 weeks worth of popcorn for the company...
Also, the figures I gave where really not that realistic... if a Microsoft programmer is making that little money (~17K), then a level 1 help desk technician is earning just as much as them, so they are getting screwed.... it really should be more like 45K at least.... and it didn't factor in things like other general staff members / management and such....
As for your tone... why would I take it as insulting... You expressed your points quite well, didn't use foul language, and didn't resort to screaming M$ SUCKS GOATS or something similar you normally see from people involved in discussions on MS...
All in all, the conversation we are currently involved in is pretty pointless, because we'll most likely never know the figures we require to figure out exactly how good or bad Microsoft is charging the customer.... Also, we've kinda drifted away from the original thread topic... I think that's my fault though.. ;)