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
Printable View
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
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.
apparently its working
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/04/v...soft-rejoices/
Is it?
Or could it be that people just don't want even a bent copy of it? :DQuote:
Microsoft has let out word today that it estimates the counterfeit rate of Vista to be about half that of XP
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.;)
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
I wasn't talking about your area but India and China the average annual wages are:Quote:
I know people in my area that are making 14,000$ a year with a very nice PC or Notebook
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.
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.
Yes, I was talking about India and China, as I keep reading that over 90% of proprietary software in those markets is pirated.
Given that just about every piece of computer kit I see these days is made in China, they can probably get modest hardware reasonably cheaply for their region, but the software will be about the same as the EU and North America, or there would be grey imports.
I would imagine that a lot of the lower paid people don't see the merit in having to buy more expensive equipment just to run Vista.
Microsoft have begun to catch on, as I saw that they have started an "authorised refurbisher programme" which lets equipment refurbishers load a cheap copy of XP. Most of those machines end up being exported to developing countries so it doesn't impact sales in North America and the EU.
It isn't really the OS that is being pirated or counterfeited.
It is the user who is not authorized to use it because
he hasn't paid for the privilege. And this is on equipment that
you own. This is why copy protection will not work...
until they pass a law to install the Orwell chip into all
computers allowed on the market.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/opposing-drm.html
Hi rcgreen,
I don't quite agree. "Counterfeiting" and "Piracy" have a very specific meaning over here, and quite specific legal implications.
Basically it refers to producing replicas of items that are someone else's commercial product, and selling them for profit. [It does not include file sharing, by whatever means.]
The activity is a criminal offence, and is actively pursued by the Police, Customs & Revenue and Trading Standards Officers. The difference between the two is that "counterfeiting" is producing something and trying to pass it off as genuine, whereas "piracy" is just selling an obvious copy.
The user side is rather complex. As they did not purchase a legitimate copy; some legislations would consider that no contract subsists between them and the owner of the IP, so no licence is required.
:)
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.Quote:
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
The problem with alternative OS solutions is the learning curve.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
Agreed, we've moved from the fiscal to the philosophical.