A Microsoft executive sent out a snotty email chastising anyone who has been encouraging people to purchase the Vista upgrade and install it without owning a valid Windows license. People discovered long ago that the Vista upgrade, which costs half of what full license costs, will install on new hardware without verification of a previous install. Microsoft's Eric Ligman points out, to those people who weren't aware, that this is just as much a violation of the license as "borrowing" an install disk from a friend.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-10
For that matter Microsoft <em>must</em> merge the 32/64-bit distributions or face being left lagging come the next generation. 64-bit chips are common, but currently the entry bar to using 64-bit software is obscene - aided by Microsoft's Vista versions malarky.
Binary fatness/bit-depth should be absolutely transparent to the user. If it's not transparent it won't be adopted, and installing a whole new OS with strict driver requirements, and then downloading 64-bit specific files from a download page is just too much right now.
Can anyone enlighten me to how it's done on Linux? The Mac model is really delightful for the end user, they download the same app as everybody else, and the whole process is transparent to the hardware.
Member since:2007-08-29
On Linux, basically you download and install a 64-bit version and not everything works. ;p
After installing the 32-bit libs it's transparent for just running binaries, but you have to --force-architecture to install 32-bit packages, and some closed-source stuff won't work if the makers can't be arsed to make a 64-bit version (e.g., flash).
Member since:2005-08-11
"For that matter Microsoft <em>must</em> merge the 32/64-bit distributions or face being left lagging come the next generation. 64-bit chips are common, but currently the entry bar to using 64-bit software is obscene - aided by Microsoft's Vista versions malarky."
No. The cost of changing to the 64Bit version of Vista when you own a copy of 32 Bit Vista is almost nothing. For me, it is 7 bucks cdn, They just send you a new disk that allows you to install the 64 bit version, which invalidates your 32 bit version. It also comes already ont he disk if you own Ultimate. Annoying, sure, but surely it is not obscene
Member since:2005-09-15
64 bit is fairly transparent on Linux as well. (Keep in mind OS-x is based on bsd unix so there's some similarities). Software in Linux is mostly downloaded from repositories which detect whether you need 32 or 64bit software. It used to be necessary to install 32 bit libraries in your 64 bit Linux but now even multimedia software is 64 bit so that is no longer necessary.
Member since:2005-07-24
I agree fully, but with a different price range in mind.
I wouldn't mind purchasing Windows if the price for it was say $59.99. The Home Basic version, except just call it Windows Vista.
Then, you could buy the Aero desktop crap and other goodies ( ala MS. Plus ) for $39.99.
Then split off other rarely used features into stand-alone additions, for varying prices ( say $9.99 to $99.99 ).
Discount bundles could be created on one disc, and multi-license copies could be purchased for an additional 30% per host machine.
In fact, multi-license would simply mean that one disc would come with X number of license keys.
I think the peeps at MS would be surprised that revenues would increase.
Why? Well, few would have a problem buying at least the full base version of Windows for $60, especially considering they don't have to hassle with cracks, they'll know that Windows Update will always work, and they can be assured that future updates will not undo their existing cracks. I'd pay $60 for that if I used Windows ( I managed to get everything I ran on Windows to work under WINE in Ubuntu, and I wrote my own version for the rest in BeOS ).
Heck, I can promise you that many small-time techs have probably installed 50-60 copies of pirated Windows versions because their customers can't afford to pay the tech AND then pay $180 or so to Microsoft ( or even $135 ). $60 is much better. And this brings me to my best advice to Microsoft:
Create an affordable 100 PC licensed version, providing the stickers et al, provide 2 discs and permit making up to 100 copies total ( law says you can make all you want anyway here (U.S. of Texas :-)) ). Then, require the purchaser to carry a certification. A+ should even be enough.
Meet those requirements, each license costs $25, and the fee isn't due until the key is used. Once the key is used, the account on file will be charged, and a credit card billing or a paper bill could be sent out.
I promise you, that will bring in more money in one year than it would cost to setup the entire operation twice.
My $3.50 to the Loch-Ness Monster.
--The loon
Member since:2005-08-07
I was reading along nodding my head slightly when I came across these words and found myself suddenly wrapped around a telephone pole....
These small-time techs are nothing more than thieves if they're installing cracked copies of Windows on a customer PC.
These thieves are picking their own pockets, because their customers will stop supporting them when the next update rolls around and the updated WGA *.DLLs rat them out and that's bad enough in itself.
But every time one of these fools poop in their own nest it makes it harder and harder for honest techs to earn a living making small repairs and doing OS installations.
In the last month alone I've had at least ten people suggest I find ways to "fix" their install without having proper install media or licenses.
The reason they think this is okay is because of foolish thieves like the ones you mention!
Maybe if these so called small-time techs would stop enabling these people and tell them what the real cost of Windows ownership, there'd be some changes. Maybe there would be more people using alternative OSes. Maybe BeOS would still be around...
I hope anyone thinking they can get away with selling customers infringing copies of Windows gets caught and the book thrown at them, because they're the ones who've helped get us in this fix we're all in today!
--bornagainpenguin
Member since:2007-06-26
"I am not stealing Vista. I use Linux and Mac OS X on my home computers and Windows XP at work."
Both OS X and Linux at home and work on this side of the internet wire.
I also have a Vista box at work, hidden away behind a cubicle wall, just to passify the managers who have anxiety over a user `NOT` being on the bleeding edge of Microsilly's latest and greatest marketing product.
If Bill and Steve as-well-as his team of billionaires want to grab the last dollar in your wallet or bank account for features which, should by all the reasoning of a normal mind, be in a single version of Wind Vista - who should blame them?
Edited 2008-04-19 16:28 UTC
Member since:2005-09-15
excellent point evangs! Every other business person (except RIAA and MPAA) out there would see this as a sign that they have priced their product farther than the market will bear. But since they are a monopoly they ignore what the market decides completely and thus whine and use leverage in congress instead to get their way.
Member since:
2005-07-07
I am not stealing Vista. I use Linux and Mac OS X on my home computers and Windows XP at work.
If MS feels so strongly about preventing users from (ab)using upgrade licenses, they should just unify their prices like what OS X does. The argument on OS X goes is that because all Macs come with OS X, any retail version of OS X that you buy is going to be an "upgrade". In a similar vein, every PC you buy is going to come with some version of Windows. So why not reduce the retail price of Vista and get rid of the upgrade version?
In fact, the upgrade versions cost more than the OEM version that many places are selling. So why don't they just streamline the product line and merge the OEM/uypgrade/retail versions?