Microsoft plans to market several versions of Vista but will distribute all of the OS bits with every product shipped so users can easily unlock and step up to more full-featured versions using electronic keys, sources said.
Microsoft to Ship all OS Optional Parts with Every Version of Vista
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I think this will be hacked as soon as it comes out. Hackers have a way of working so fast, software companies can’t keep up. I wonder how MS will protect itself from hackers and pirates!
Bytelynx
bytelynx.blogspot.com
Edited 2006-01-08 05:10
Agreed.Also I cant fathom why Vista coming in so many different editions anyways.
“I cant fathom why Vista coming in so many different editions anyways.”
If every CD will be identical (based on what the article is saying I think that’s the goal) then the difference between different editions will simply be the product key. Some customers might not like paying more when the only difference is the alphanumerical string on the sticker.
People who have no moral trouble with using key generators, on the other hand, will simply get the cheapest edition (or more likely download it as warez) and turn it into the most expensive edition just like that. Microsoft has had to deal with piracy before though, so this might not lead to any more lost sales due to piracy.
Either way, the outcome of this decision might be interesting.
I actually think it is a good decision, if you buy Vista, then you only have to pay what you will use it for.
Now, if you want to do more with it, then it is simply a matter of buying a key, and re-running setup to add the components, rather than having to get another install disk and starting again from there.
It don’t matter how many times you backup, something is always lost.
True. But isn`t everything hacked nowadays. Shooting down something just because it will be hacked like everthing else is just plain childish.
Microsoft wants to do the equivalent of selling you a house with some of the rooms locked and then make you pay extra money to get the key to those “extra” rooms?
Yet it’s somehow illegal to pick the locks to the house you own instead of paying for the key?
Why do people accept this kind of crap in the computer industry, does Microsoft not realize how ridiculous this is?
Honestly, I don’t see where the problem is. It is for the convenience of the user to be like that. For example, a lot of people bought XP HOME and then they were in situations where they were really wishing they had bought PRO. They had no other alternative but re-buy the whole OS and re-install it from scratch.
With this new strategy, you only need to supply a key to upgrade to another version, and you won’t even have to pay the full price of the base OS. This is a huge convenience for _everyone_ (including MS’ support group) and I don’t see why you have to shoot the idea down.
They should know about the product before they purchase it. The Microosft marketing machine hopes you will buy Home, not knowing about the benefits of Pro.
They hope you will buy Pro, and drown you in marketing schemes so that you will never learn about the benefits of Linux.
Nuff said.
>They should know about the product before they purchase it.
Many times the customers have NO alternative. Some people want the specific XXX model laptop that only comes with Home for example, or with only XP Pro. It’s not always a question of “know before you buy”.
I understand that, and that’s too bad.
Customers should indeed have a choice.
Alas, ignorance is not always bliss.
Many times the customers have NO alternative. Some people want the specific XXX model laptop that only comes with Home for example, or with only XP Pro. It’s not always a question of “know before you buy”.
nonsense, they can buy that specfic model of laptop if it comes with home, buy a
copy of xp or vice versa
You can’t possibly be serious…
Because they’re doing this to cut costs and maximise profits, NOT for the benefits of the customer. If they ship the exact same CD to everyone and they only get certain bits depending on the CDKey they bough with it, they will only have to press one set of CDs, but be able to charge varying ammounts for the EXACT same software.
But those reduced costs won’t be passed onto the end user
I agree 100%. It is a much more cost effective strategy. Paying only for the features you need.
I think it is plain stupid to worry about credit card nonsense before you even know for sure how the security methods are done!!
>>I agree 100%. It is a much more cost effective strategy.
Oh good lord! You don’t honestly think Microsoft would do this unless they stood to make MORE money off it than the old way, do you?
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer aren’t in business to save you money.
Please! you might be embarassed to know that your bias is showing
They want to sell different packages of components, at presumably different price points to presumably different user catagories. As a convenience for those who may want components from other packages as an upgrade they’ve placed them on the disc so that they won’t have to be downloaded. Yes they’re charging extra, but its probably cheaper than the mega-pro version that includes all the features you want. This isn’t Microsoft forcing you to pay for things you NEED, its making purchase of things you WANT easier. Theres not going to be a “Windows Vista: File System Edition” or “Windows Vista: Keyboard and Mouse Edition” for chrisakes.
They’re not locking you out of rooms you’ve already paid for, they’re letting you add on to your house. Would you feel better if the same additional packages had to be downloaded or if you had to purchase “Windows Vista: Super-Mega-Pro Edition” to get them all? Would that make you feel less cheated?
Isn’t the one-size-fits-all mentality of Windows something that we’ve cried for the change to? Isn’t a windows that is appearantly so modular that we can simply add components to exactly what we have wanted? Isn’t the choice to purchase exactly what we want and only what we want for a fair price a Good Thing? Will you only be satisfied when they give you everything for free?
Finally they take a step in the right direction and 2/4 postings are crying fowl. Typical knee-jerk anti-Microsoft sentiment or a case of “Carefull what you wish for”? You decide.
We want modular not a toll os. LOL!
Ms has 50 billion in the bank, why they got to play games with you. Why can’t they be like they been and give you the whole thing!
Oh no they got to rob you one last time before their OS revenue dies! And since according to Balmer Vista will be the last major OS release they want to get you good!
Where is it said that this is going to be the last major OS release from Microsoft?
http://news.com.com/Microsofts+big+bang+could+be+its+last/2100-1012…
You’re going to quote CNet on that? Your credibility has vanished.
Wow, this site quotes and has articles from CNet on it also, so I guess ALL of us have no credibility!
Windows only “Sucks” to people who are too bloody stingey or poor. Freeware normally will never be as good as a payed for product. What has Microsoft done to you? Asked you to pay for their operating system that cost them alot of developing time?
Ridiculous.
Please, how come OSX is better and has better features and is WAY more secure yet costs less.
I am not stingy or poor, I just get tired of being robed! NO one I know has ever gotten a virus or spyware when using Linux or Mac OS! Also no one I know has ever had to buy extra software like Virus Scan, Antispyware, Firewalls etc! When I use Windows I have to do all that and I am still not safe!
Please, Windows sucks to a lot of people, they just don’t know that there are things like Linux to replace it with. Once they learn they never go back to Windows.
Like my mother, brother, sister and Grandmother. They love Linspire Linux! They love just turning on their machine and NEVER having to worry about that latest virus, phishing, Spim, trojans, farming etc. When the day comes that Linux desktops are as insecure as Windows then I will shut up. But that day is not here yet and I really dont see it coming.
How does running Linux stop spam and phising?… I have an email account thats only setup on my linux box (yeah too lazy to set up on other machines) it still gets the standard “hi my name is ………. i’m the son of a wealthy …………… governor, etc, etc…. give me your bank details and you can have 70% of the money my father left.” and the “these pills will make you like a horse…. i kid you not my friend… like a horse” emails.
I think you miss the point.
He/She was prob. trying to say that many tools where you have to pay for in Windows, come free in Unix/Linux Os’s and are mostly as good or better than their Windows counterparts. Besides that Linux is a much less intressting OS to hack, since its userbase is lower..it is also more secure than Windows for this reason (and others).
Anti Spam filter are standard in most Linux e-mail clients like Evolution, Kmail and Thunderbird.
Better use them.
He didn’t read what I said. I didn’t say SPAM, I said SPIM. Spam over IM. Not regular spam. And phishing in the past has been more easy on IM cause it has been more easy at times to trick IE in the past with phony URLS.
If Linux was the computing monoculture, as Windows is now, then Linux would have malware, as it has flaws and users — simple fact.*
The problem of Windows malware is not totally due to Windows being a poor operating system, albeit this was once the case, since older versions of Windows were never really designed to be part of a network. And ActiveX integration with IE was a fatal mistake.
The real problem is computing monoculture, and the 1990s philosophy of features over security.
To combat malware, we need open standards with a diversity of implementations. ~Most~ exploits don’t target holes inherent to a standard, but programmer flaws in the implementation. If we had diverse implementations and no clear market leader, but rather, a highly competitive ecosystem of implementations, then it would be less easy for malware to propagate — unless malware writers found holes in the standards themselves.
This is the only reason the *nix world is more secure the Windows: better standards support, but diverse implementations. It’s more difficult for malware to spread when the underlying technology differs on every adjacent boxen. But this has also been the single greatest inhibitor to wider *nix adoption in the consumer and SMB marketplace.
We don’t want market leaders, even including Red Hat or Debian, or else this problem will just continue. Rather, we need Windows, OSX, Red Hat, SUSE, Solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD, BeOS, ReactOS, Debian, SkyOS — you name it! — we need them all to have healthy chunks of the market and adhere to standards.
What is the advantage of monoculture? The ability to buy software at the store and run it on your computer, without a knowledge of operating systems (Mr. Average just has to avoid that “Mac” stuff, which isn’t hard).
The disadvantage is that the convenience of a common platform creates a convenience not only for you the consumer, but for malware writers as well.
Therefore, our current most popular model for software distribution — bits on a physical medium — needs to somehow improve, or be replaced entirely. The Internet becoming the new distribution channel is probably the best way.
* I do believe that if Linux was the monoculture, however, malware would be a little less of a problem, since what is usually termed “Linux” is highly diverse at the binary level.
Edited 2006-01-08 20:54
That is not a simple fact. If that was a simple FACT then why don’t hackers take down the internet???
An overwelming amount of webservers run on Apache on Linux?? Sorry but holes are holes, if you have 5 machines on the market or 50 million machines!
And yea there are 100’s of different versions of Linux but they all START with the same kernel!
If you look over the last year and look at the security alerts for Linux you will see that most of the problems that have been found in Linux have to do with applications that run on Linux, like PHP, SAMBA, Apache etc. None of those are normally on desktops that run Linux. Like a few months back when the PHP hole was listed here on OSNEWS. Boy people were all over it as an example of how unsecure Linux is. Yet forgetting the point that that would not effect a single desktop user (Unless like me they test PHP apps on their desktop of something!)
The whole security through obscurity argument does not hhold water! The main reason is does not hold water is that most holes found are found by reseachers not hackers! They are taken advantage of by hackers after the fact! If Linux had the holes researchers would find them and point them out!
Fact two is that Microsoft seems to be spending MORE time studying Linux then working on their own product! Notice they never come out and say “Look at this hole and this security problem, Linux is less secure!” No they come out and say “Linux runs no faster on old hardware out the box then Windows XP”
So your point is that everything should be Linux? Sorry, but I support choice.
There shouldn’t be any computing monoculture, Windows, UNIX, or Linux.
And as you said, holes are holes, so even if the open source nature of Linux’s development process yields software with fewer exploits — and even if its structure of being a UNIX-like OS improves that further — if everything were Linux, then malware writers would focus on those ~few~ holes they could find in Linux!
That’s why we need diversity in technology, with ~standards~. I don’t want to see Windows go extinct, but I also don’t want to see it above 70% marketshare.
Edited 2006-01-09 01:25
I didn’t say you SHOULD NOT use Windows. My point is that Windows supporters have nothing to brag about, also that with all the money they have MS should be better!
Sorry but if Microsofts products were better then I would have nothing to talk about! 🙂
Ms has 50 billion in the bank, why they got to play games with you. Why can’t they be like they been and give you the whole thing!
Oh no they got to rob you one last time before their OS revenue dies! And since according to Balmer Vista will be the last major OS release they want to get you good!
Well, of course you’re right. And along with the OS, they should also throw in Office and VS.NET Enterprise. Hell, while we’re at it, would you like the keys to Balmer’s car?
I don’t have a problem of them selling it to me like they always have. Not they gonna nickle and dime me. I don’t like that.
I BET the top of the line version (Which is now pro) will cost 20 to 30% more. That is the problem I have.
And I hope the bottom of the line version will not be like over seas and only let you multi task 2 windows at at time etc.
And most people will say “MS spends so much money on research” Researching what? When is the last time they put out anything original, different, spectacular. It’s not like they are some drug company coming out with a new drug. MS has only come out with spectacular once! And that was when 95 came out. Since then NT, 2000, XP, 98 SE, ME etc. What in there was spectacular that has showed the fruits of research? How about in Office, or SQL server or Exchange?
Why is it that companies with 1/4th the money can seem to do almost as well. (And even better in some cases)
I don’t think Microsoft is doing this to make it cheaper or easier. they are probably doing this to cut down on piracy. MS will probably sell a base install disc to get
parts of vista loaded into the hard drive like the kernel and the installer,and a few programs, not the essantial programs that many depend on,etc. And when the user needs to download those essential programs to make the OS useable MS might first validate the OS to see if it’s legal probably using some sort of crytography, if it is legal then the rest of the OS will be installed. But i can be wrong.
Why do people accept this kind of crap in the computer industry, does Microsoft not realize how ridiculous this is?
Simple, people do what corporations tell them to do. I don’t think it’s so ridiculous if a large pool of customers like in the millions dish out even more cash to unlock the cd. this is like having the cumsomer paying twice for the same item.
Why do people accept this kind of crap in the computer industry, does Microsoft not realize how ridiculous this is?
This is hardly groundbreaking. Corporate commerical software has worked this way for years. So do shareware packages, and many consumer-oriented applications. It’s often easier to lock functionality features to the license/activation key in a single app rather than have to deal with multiple binaries with different functionality levels needing some kind of common key registration, and it’s often easier for customers to upgrade “on the fly” rather than having to re-install/redeploy applications with enhanced functionality.
Fair use DOES NOT come into play for the simple reason that you do not have a REASONABLE expectation to use software you did not pay for; it’s not the same thing as purchasing a DVD and having a REASONABLE expectation to be able to play it on any device or make a copy for backup reasons, that’s where fair use comes into play in many jurisdictions.
If you purchase a CD-Rom with MS and OS X versions of software, you are licensed to use one of those versions, but you’re not entitled to install the software on both a Windows and OS X machine at the same time, effectively having two copies of the software active. That’s a clear license violation. Or to use the OS X example that was brought up, fair use MAY allow you to hack OS X onto a compatible x86 platform, but you’d have to remove it from the Mactel machine you would have had to purchase to receive it in the first place. There’s no legal grey zone when it comes to license provisioning in the majority of jurisdictions (at least those that enforce that kind of thing), and it cannot be confused with fair use. Two seperate concepts.
As for activating features, it’s ultimately a convenience feature. You do not have a God-given right to hack the software because you seem to feel you own it. Posession is not ownership, any more than renting a DVD entitles you to copy it. If you download a commercial app for a 30-day trial, are you entitled to hack to registration code requirement because you “own” the binaries you downloaded that are now sitting on your hard drive? If you download a free shareware app that offers to unlock extra features if you register and purchase a nominal license, are you entitled to hack the registration code because you “own” the binaries you downloaded and copied to a CD-ROM?
I’m not an MS apologist, certainly don’t agree with their business tactics, but really, there’s nothing to see here. Microsoft is doing nothing that other application vendors haven’t been doing for years already.
Will it be hacked? Of course it will. But it will be a convenience to legitimate users that do prefer having legally licensed software. Surprisingly enough, there are many out there. And yes, it may ultimatley be piracy control for the “soft” violators, but certainly not for the hardcore hackers.
So, basically what he’s saying is that you have to use your credit card to access some of what your operating system should already give you, because you paid for it in the first place. I don’t approve of this predatory business standard. Open source software will give you all of what Microsoft can – for free, and without any strings (or credit card numbers) attached.
Giving your credit card number out every time you wish to “unlock” a certain feature of your operating system is basically a form of online banking. Given the ways that Microsoft implements their technologies, it may or may not be a secure transaction, depending on your computer’s individual Internet connection settings. It makes me nauseous.
All those credit card numbers revealed every day. Just for a simple feature that your computer should already posess by default.
dylanknightrogers.com
> you have to use your credit card to access some of
>what your operating system should already give you,
>because you paid for it in the first place.
NO, you did NOT pay for it in the first place. You only paid for the basic package.
Yes, but they gave you everything in the CD, but hidden away. Under fair use, those 1 and 0s on that CD are yours and you own them to do with them as you please. Including modifying for your own personal use.
The analogy of a house with additional locked rooms you have to pay to open is right. You’re not paying to add more content, you already own it – just can’t access it.
The analogy of a house with additional locked rooms you have to pay to open is right. You’re not paying to add more content, you already own it – just can’t access it.
Nonsense. You should compare licensing software to renting a house. The house is not yours, and you can’t just simply build extensions to the house– you’ll first have to discuss that with the real owner of the house.
Yes, but they gave you everything in the CD, but hidden away. Under fair use, those 1 and 0s on that CD are yours and you own them to do with them as you please. Including modifying for your own personal use.
But when I want to release my OWN modified version of the Linux kernel under the MIT license, or close it under a proprietary license, it suddenly is NOT fair use? Hippocracy, my friend, in its purest form.
Hippocracy indeed, I’m not going to deny that licensing is wrong but under europe law when I buy a CD, I own that CD, and every 1 and 0 on it, and no EULA or License can take that right away. (For now)
Not exactly. You own the physical media, but that’s it. You don’t become the owner of the intellectual property stored on it. That is why you cannot make legal copies of a given CD/book to everyone unless you have permission.
If you activate a part of a software without authorisation, you are in the wrong. While the house analogy is not excellent, it can be useful for explaining this situation: even if somebody got the keys to open your doors, they don’t become the owner of your property, nor they are allowed to take or change whatever they want to their likings.
European law is different, and reserves my fair use rights. When I purchase a CD, I own that CD and it is free for me to use and modify for _personal_ use. It is correct that I can’t distribute copies or modifications, that is indeed illegal.
If “activation” requires internet access, (which is oh so likely) then that falls under abuse of MS’s owned services and software and is illegal. If I modify the CD to allow access to hidden stuff, and those extras do not require communication with online servers, and I do not distribute my hack, I am not breaking the law. I’m simply changing 1s and 0s that I own a copy of for my use.
“You don’t become the owner of the intellectual property stored on it”
No, I become the owner of a bunch of 1s and 0s in my hand that I paid for. I don’t become the owner of “Windows” itself
. Americans must be used to having less rights or something if you don’t understand fair use law correctly.
(edit: +3rd paragraph)
Edited 2006-01-08 15:56
The word is “hypocrisy”, unless your desire was to invoke “ruled by horses”.
… or Hippocrates, the Doctor’s-oath guy, but then it would probably have been spelled “hippocratocity”.
Edited 2006-01-08 14:09
There’s a difference between modifying a Vista CD to unlock the extra features for PERSONAL use (so that only you will reap the benefits of the modifications) and releasing the Linux kernal under a different license to the PUBLIC.
There’s a difference between modifying a Vista CD to unlock the extra features for PERSONAL use (so that only you will reap the benefits of the modifications) and releasing the Linux kernal under a different license to the PUBLIC.
No there’s not. You’re breaching the license under which you are to use the software in either case.
While I’m all for fair use, I do not believe your interpretation here is correct, in software, the license gives you ownership, not the bits strictly speaking.
If the bits were on another medium, say another disc or downloadable, then your arguement would fall apart. Likewise, if you had obtained the bits by some illegal means you do not own them just because they are in your possesion. So your arguement that “I poses, therefore I own” stands on false legs in this case.
Software is truly unique in that it has no tangible form, and therefore laws for physical property are poorly equiped to handle its concerns. The closest analogy I can think of is music. Just because you buy the sheet music doesn’t mean you are free to create derivative works or to perform it in public. You need permision, usually at a fee, from the originator or current ownder of the music rights, which not-so-coincidentally, is called a LICENCE.
The mistake most of you are making is the assumption that you have paid for the physical disc itself, when in fact you are buying a certain feature-set contained on the disc. Both the use of the medium and the fact that the disc contains more than what you purchased is inconsequential.
I grow very tired of the attitudes of some FOSS extremists / anti-microsoft zealots. “Microsoft has so much money! They *OWE* it to me^H^H us to give us free stuff!” No company owes anyone anything for free, most certainly not simply because you say so. It sounds like the spoiled child of a wealthy father. “Daddy has so much money! He *owes* me a car when I get my license!” Don’t even get me started on the “They’ve never done anything right in the past, so anything they do now or in the future must be wrong” attitude. I’m not here to defend their spotted past, but what motive is there to change if their every move towards the better is second-guessed?
LE: Microsft, we want you to make some changes!
MS: Ok, we’re listening. Really, we actually are this time.
LE: I want you to untie Explorer and media center from the OS.
MS: Ok. Done.
LE: I want you to be more modular, secure, and adaptive to the needs of diverse individuals.
MS: Alright, sounds like a good idea to me.
LE: Um… OK, now I want you to give it to me for free.
MS: Well, we ARE a business but lets entertain this thought for a second…
LE: Oh, and open source too. Open Source is the One True Good in this earth. All other software is evil^H^H^H^H proprietary, bloated and buggy.
MS: Oh for chrisakes…
I grow very tired of the attitudes of some FOSS extremists / anti-microsoft zealots. “Microsoft has so much money! They *OWE* it to me^H^H us to give us free stuff!”
I’ve never seen a FOSS zealot make such a claim. Can you show me an example of such?
Don’t even get me started on the “They’ve never done anything right in the past, so anything they do now or in the future must be wrong” attitude.
Well, history tends to repeat itself…
Bottom of the first page of comments:
RE[2]: So let me get this straight…
By Windows Sucks (1.50) on 2006-01-08 06:18:49 UTC in reply to “RE: So let me get this stra…”
We want modular not a toll os. LOL!
Ms has 50 billion in the bank, why they got to play games with you. Why can’t they be like they been and give you the whole thing!
Oh no they got to rob you one last time before their OS revenue dies! And since according to Balmer Vista will be the last major OS release they want to get you good!
You’re right that history does tend to repeat itself, however history is also full of genuine change. I can’t predict the future, maybe the conspiracy theorists are right. But when I look at this plan I see good thing for consumers. I also see good things for microsft as others have pointed out, such as simplifying production and support. But since when is “win-win” a bad thing? just because one of the winners happens to be Microsoft?
RE[2]: So let me get this straight…
By Windows Sucks (1.50) on 2006-01-08 06:18:49 UTC in reply to “RE: So let me get this stra…”
We want modular not a toll os. LOL!
Ms has 50 billion in the bank, why they got to play games with you. Why can’t they be like they been and give you the whole thing!
I don’t think this guy is saying that MS should give out MS for free. I think he’s saying that MS should continue what they have been doing and ship out versions of Windows that have all (or most) of the features unlocked.
I wonder if you would have pulled the ‘micr0$haft winbl0ws’ card if the article had instead said “Microsoft to include all OS features in Vista base install”………
Probably not.
I’ll just buy the cheapest version and wait for hacks!
Actually I think that would be considered as illegal.
One thing is to hack it, to obtain fair use – like running a legal copy of Mac OS X x86 on a standard PC.
Another thing is to hack a legal copy of a product, to obtain something you did not pay for (basically a new product)
😉
And those hacks might include a portal to unlimited number of virus, worms,trojans,etc,and that is not good.
I would not worry about that, the “legal, fully paid version” will have enough of those anyway
HA,HA,Ha I walked into that one. your right, at least patches and upgrades will be release for the legal copy.
I’ll just buy the cheapest version and wait for hacks!
What the hell is the point in that? If you already know you’re gonna hack it, why the hell even buy it in the first place?
It’s like buying a gun and shooting someone. Maybe I won’t go to jail, because I bought the gun.
its called joking you f–king moron.
It’s really unfortunate how “purchasing” software turned into “licensing” software, but what’s this new development? Microsoft is going to ship extra functionality and convince users to pay again? It’s too bad legislation like the DMCA has diluted fair use, yet somehow most people don’t even know their rights are slipping away. Will there come a day when people think they’re buying software but can’t use any of it without paying again to register?
This is really nothing new. Most software have been licenced and not purchased for as long as I can remember.
The difference is that software companies now uses the correct word for it.
Neiter is the idea of unlocking existing functionality new, it have been around at least since the 1960’s in fact it was very common on mainframes in these days, and it probably still are.
Tell you what you should do….
Dig out the box that your first PC came in, and have a look at the EULA for the software that was included with it. The majority will bt Microsoft’s. In that EULA, it clearly states that you do not own the software you purchased, that it will always belong to Microsoft, and you have simply bought the right to use the software.
Now, the same EULA also says that if your PC gets hosed by using the software or any piece of software that tags onto it, (ie virus/trojans/spyware), then it is not the fault of the software and they are not responsible.
YOU accepted this ass-pounding by actually clicking the OK button when you were installing it.
Now, have a look at the license for FOSS software, and you will see why many of us around here love it so much.
Now, have a look at the license for FOSS software, and you will see why many of us around here love it so much.
Even under FOSS, the software doesn’t usually belong to you and you are only a licensee bounded by the terms of whatever license the program is distributed under. FOSS licenses also usually contain similar limitations of liability just as MS’ (and other commercial vendor) EULAs.
From GNU GPL:
—————-
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
———–
Now, have a look at the license for FOSS software, and you will see why many of us around here love it so much.
So, does that mean that if I buy FOSS software it means I get to sell it or that I can sue the developer if my software gets borked (virus, spayware,…)?
Actually the GPL is also restricting; I can’t relicense the software, can’t sell it and developers don’t give my any garantees – pretty much the same as MS’s EULA except I get to have it for free. But I bet most OSNews readers also got their EULA licensed software for free (in one way or another).
This has to be the most ridiculous idea since Product Activation. It’s like they are inviting crackers to take up the challenge and unlock all the features. What in the Hell are they thinking? It’s like they aren’t even trying anymore.
Edited 2006-01-08 05:55
Oh I’m pretty sure they have tought of that, hackers cracking the cd inoder to get access to the rest of the CD. I can only wait to see what Microsoft has in the cooker of dishonest to the consumer. I’m glad I got out of Micorsoft’s funland of broken OS
Why the hell is product activation ridiculous???
They’ll likely try and do what Apple is doing though I’m unsure how: TPM chip.
This has to be the most ridiculous idea since Product Activation. It’s like they are inviting crackers to take up the challenge and unlock all the features. What in the Hell are they thinking? It’s like they aren’t even trying anymore.
I guess this proves my predictions that we will see more idiots on OSNews in 2006.
Why are you whinning? You think someone who wants to run a warez copy wouldn’t download it if it weren’t already on the CD? The additional software on the CD is purely there for convenience. It does not belong to you until pay for it and it’s unlocked. If you do hack it it almost identical to downloading XP PRO when you payed for XP HOME. The only difference with Vista is that you were stupid enough to pay for something you knew you won’t run.
Many of you seem to be missing the point. Having a single disk image for Vista benefits both Microsoft and customers. For Microsoft, it simplifies the production process significantly. For customers, it allows a gradual approach. For instance, if you were to by the lowest common denominator edition for your computer, if you later decided to upgrade to the premium edition–which has, for example, virtual shadow copies for local files so you can back up to a previous version of a document–you would only have to pay the difference between those two product editions plus you wouldn’t have to go out to the store to get a new disk.
I have little doubt cracked versions will appear soon after Vista goes to press, but the advantages are great enough to warrant the risk.
How is this going to work with OEM installs? Most OEM installs now dont come with a Windows disk, just a hidden partition with the files to do a restore?
So are you going to install XP pro say (Which is a bigger install then XP home) but only get the features of XP home. Which means you gonna have a bunch of extra stuff installed or you gonna have a big ole hidden partition.
I hope that it’s a big ole hidden partition, cause if you do this big install but dont have access to all the files, I am SURE some hacker will figure out how to get to those extra files. Gonna be messy!
“Most OEM installs now dont come with a Windows disk, just a hidden partition with the files to do a restore?”
I wouldn’t buy a computer unless the actual OS install disk came with it along with the product-key (if the OS uses one).
As for software that I have to license rather than buy, I avoid that because I don’t pay for a license which can be suspended without my having any say in the matter. I pay for a disk with the software which I can use when I want and how I want within the bounds of morality and not law.
So you must be using Apple or Linux? Cause most of the companies like Dell and IBM/lenovo, Gateway, don’t give Windows disks or if they do they are not standard windows install disks. LOL!
“So you must be using Apple or Linux? Cause most of the companies like Dell and IBM/lenovo, Gateway, don’t give Windows disks or if they do they are not standard windows install disks. LOL!”
Actually Dell sends you a Windows Install Disc as well as discs with all the drivers for whatever machine you have purchased. No idea on IBM or Gateway, but Dell definitely does send you the discs. HP I know does not, and use the restore partition idea, but HP also puts on the machines a utility that will allow you to make 1 set of recovery discs for use to reinstall to that machine.
I am not sure about home machines but I know the Dells that I install come with a restore disk that is not a normal Windows disk. If MS give normal Windows disks people would be able to install Windows any and everywhere. And since there are as many if not more OEM versions shipped then boxed versions this would be a BIG problem for MS.
For one computer sellers (Mom and pop stores) would resell the OEM software, which many used to do.
The way MS put the breaks on that is by not giving straight install disks to builders.
“As for software that I have to license rather than buy, I avoid that because I don’t pay for a license which can be suspended without my having any say in the matter. I pay for a disk with the software which I can use when I want and how I want within the bounds of morality and not law.”
Even if you get the disc or not, you still have to license the software.
Not with Linux.
Not with Linux.
Ah, touche.
I think Microsoft realizes that it will be pirated by just as many people either way so why waste all the time, money, and energy on trying to make it impossible to crack (why install a security system on my house if i know it’s not going to work). They opted to go the route that makes it easiest for consumers to upgrade and easiest and most cost effective for them to produce.
I can’t say I am a big fan of Microsoft, but I think this was a good move on their part.
I believe this is what he is talking about
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9593_22-5915900.html
it basically says that microsoft plans to go to a more regular and shorter release schedule with minor updates and upgrades instead of a full fledged os every 4 or 5 years.
I havn’t seen any Vista beta versions, so I don’t know how Microsoft will do this. I only hope that they don’t use crippleware marketing, i.e. by giving me the impression that I have a certain function only to present me with a dialog where I can purchase an upgrade if I actually try to use it. That would be a big turn off for me and many other many people. When I am working I don’t want to be disturbed by having to make decisions wether to buy things or not.
Microsoft might actually be inviting people to a free version of their OS, if they are clever enough to do so. If it keeps a million from fooling with Linux, they might be able to justify it.
Anything is possible in the twisted logic of MS…..
How is this different from thousands of time/feature-limited software out there? It’s even done by corporations developing scientific/engineering software. If it’s okay for them, then it should be okay for Microsoft. Robbing customers? Hardly. Nobody will force you to unlock features. Same thing for upgrading or even using this specific OS. If you are uncomfortable with this, just look around…
Would I upgrade my software that way? Probably not. In fact, I don’t even plan to buy the OS. Yet, it does make a lot of sense. More convenient than going to a store. Don’t know if they plan to make available specific features (not only bundles), but if they do, you could get only what you really need.
As for cracking… Any person interested in piracy won’t have much trouble in getting a fully-unlocked copy of Vista. Thus, cracking won’t be much of an issue. Anyway, piracy is piracy, no matter how easy it is to bust the protection.
“How is this different from thousands of time/feature-limited software out there?”
Because this is an OS, Software runs ontop of OSes. I don’t want my OS to be like software, it should be a seemless interface. Apple seem to understand this idea. I don’t want an “expiring” OS that I have to “activate” and “register” and so forth. Shareware can keep that shit, and so can Vista
Because this is an OS, Software runs ontop of OSes. I don’t want my OS to be like software, it should be a seemless interface.
Uh, OSes are software.
Apple seem to understand this idea. I don’t want an “expiring” OS that I have to “activate” and “register” and so forth. Shareware can keep that shit, and so can Vista
So, use a Mac and don’t use Windows Vista or any Mac shareware. Or get a copy of Windows under the Open License program and you won’t have to activate.
If implemented right, I think it’ll be a great idea. You will be purchasing Vista Home or Vista Pro the same way you did with XP. The only difference now is that it will be easier to upgrade from one to the other.
I know many people liked the house and rooms analogy, but it doesn’t apply here because this is software, not houses. If it applied, then let me give you this analogy: you purchase the Vista Home CD and make a copy of it, then you say that you built another house and they won’t let you use it?
Now, if Microsoft starts annoying us to upgrade, that’s a different story. But you can’t just make that assumption and bash Microsoft for it.
Did anyone understand this guy’s analogy?
“I know many people liked the house and rooms analogy, but it doesn’t apply here because this is software, not houses.”
Looks like we have a winner for the Platitude of the Year award.
So, when it comes time to reinstall windows (and you know it will happen) can I use the same keys, or am I going to be forced to buy again the upgrades I want?
That’s very good!
It *can* actually help to reduce the number of different SKUs of Vista, and will be a lot easier to the costumer choose from (instead of looking at the store several different versions of the same product and not knowing which one is the best for them).
Probably, better for sellers too as they don’t need so many SKUs…
Also, I can imagine people with the really basic “Start Edition” begging able to easily upgrade their installations without worries and technical challenges.
Also I cant fathom why Vista coming in so many different editions anyways.
So that everyone pays as much as they can while giving them the impression that they get value for money, thus neatly exploiting people’s status angst. You can see that kind of product strategy in all kinds of markets, but it works best if you’ve got a monopoly.
Could you imagine Apple releasing 7 different versions of Tiger? As it stands now, Windows XP Pro comes with almost no useful software out of the box, so what are they planning to do? Strip out even more of the essentials just to get another $39.95 to turn on this feature and another $50.00 for that one? A standalone installation of Windows XP Pro is already the most bare-bones of the modern OSes I’m aware of. I can’t imagine that’s going to change with Vista. Ubuntu, Mandriva, and certainly OS X come with far more useful software out of the box.
Got to hand it to Bill though, he’s a genius at coming up with new and innovative ways to extract money from his dependents. Maybe by the time Vista ships it will just be the kernel for $299, and every feature will cost extra on top of that.
Excuse me? You have never used ubuntu or alike? At this time it’s more advanced than any windows around, and it’s most likely to be on par with vista when it comes out.
Second, they are asking way to much for their product, they put in a lot of time developing it, sure, but they have a profit rate of 90%, no other company has such profit rates, just because they have competition and can’t afford to ask soo way too much money for their product, but well, nobody can blaim them, anyone in their position would do the same.
But well, it’s like with nvidia or ati-cards. For example I got an nvidia-6800 card, it’s got less pipelines then the 6800 ultra or gt, but they ARE on the card, just disabled, so I paid less for it. But is it illegal to hack the solution and get use of the other pipelines? No, you only lose support if it cripples your 400€ card.
Offering a modular OS, sure good thing, but putting it on the same disk, sorry, that’s asking for hackers, and it wouldn’t be illegal, eula’s and licenses are not always that legal you know (Perhaps in the US, but well, it’s not the only country in the world you know). Rather make people just download the rest of the programs (for money), or make people buy another cd with the rest of the stuff on it. I sure wouldn’t feel guilty to use a hack key if the thing was just on my cd, but well I don’t need these keys :-), open source helps a lot.
I thought about this for a while, at first it sounded a bit evil as the features are already made, and even included on the distribution so why should you not get access to all the features. But i can understand the business view of this, and actually the user view too, these can be balanced in a way. It is about not using artificial limitations but having a fewer REAL features that not everyone needs or wish to pay for.
Take music sequencers, most of them sell a cheap “express edition” and an expensive “professional edition”. Some of these software has some really ugly artificial limitations which makes me mad such as limit on the number of virtual instruments you can use. “Pay us 200 more and we will give you the version where the limit is a lot bigger by changing one number in the code and recompiling it.” these artificial limitations suck. If these software developers don’t want to make their customers mad then do not make this kind of limits, limit on the actual feature-set. In music sequencers a nice way to give some extra value for the software is to include some additional virtual instruments or effects and so on. This way i, as a customer, can decide if i really need all those extra instruments or if my existing collection is enough for me. But for now most of the cheap version are unusable because of the artificia limitiations.
So, if Vista will give some real features that people can live without in the more expensive versions, then go ahead. But if for example only the most expensive version can run unlimited amount of applications or you can only use resolutions over 1024×768 in the “professional editition” then this system is bad. Even if the people would not need a new magical music player or some other extra feature they still can’t realistically buy those cheap versions if there are too much artificial limitations in the software, and thus everyone has to buy or upgrade to the more expensive version.
This idea makes a lot of sense. Like with the home/pro distinction. Sure they are essentially the same OS in almost every way, but pro has features that represent extra time spent by microsoft to make XP an OS for business, including multiproc support, IIS 5.1, and DACLs. They couldn’t truly get rid of DACLs for the Home edition because they are so ingrained in NT, so they made an “artificial” limit by making them harder to access. They disabled these features and sold the OS to the home masses who don’t need them at a cheaper price, which makes a ton of sense.
Microsoft hasn’t changed prices on their software in ages, so it is getting cheaper due to inflation. It’s also getting more feature-rich. Sure they are a monopoly and it might be cheaper if there were competitors, but there aren’t any and MS isn’t such a terrible exploitative monopoly (otherwise they would have raised prices).
Sure they’ve produced the software and given the code to you on discs, but if you’re not willing to pay for the cost of the whole package why should you get the whole thing? Does grandma really need IIS 6 on her box, for instance?
I still don’t get what is bad about it. At least what is bad now that was good before.
Before, you had two boxes containing two CD’s that are almost physically identical, except for the words Home or Pro on the box, and there was a price difference between them.
It has always been the case that what matters is the features and benifits you would get from the OS, not the actual bits on the CD. If they start adding files from the Pro edition to the Home edition installation, but make these features unaccessible, then it is exactly the same as releasing windows without the contents for the same costs.
All the functions can be invoked by a .reg file…
Not only can a business buy a volume license agreement for Windows, they may also have to buy a volume license agreement to unlock the parts of Windows they need. Absolutely brilliant.
hi
re:-
this makes sense
By PlatformAgnostic (1.50) on 2006-01-08 14:48:51 UTC
‘but pro has features that represent extra time spent by microsoft to make XP an OS for business, including multiproc support, IIS 5.1, and DACLs.’
XP home supports multiprocessors fyi.
cheers
anyweb
Edited 2006-01-08 22:22
XP home DOES NOT support multi processor configurations, at least not without being modified. XP home DOES SUPPORT multiple logical processor, such as dual-core or Hyper-theading, but not multiple physical processors such as a system with two or more seperate CPU chips.
Liscencing != owning…
If you don’t understand that then read up on it before you waste any more server space whining about this.
I think this is a case where anti-microsoft zealots are just looking for an excuse to complain.
Umm, these people probably won’t even pay for the cheapest version, but download a CD image off the net. Your naivete astounds me