And what do you think about calling Uncle Bill @ M$ for permission to install?

[traveler]

The problem of piracy and software duplication is very much on the mind of M$ these days. Remember Bill Gates is really no longer around. It's the next group of M$ers that are trying to make their billion.

BTW, an interesting story was told to me today. To make money in a remote foriegn country, a youngster will buy a cheap cd burner and peddle freshly made music cd's of the customer's choice on the street corner for a couple of bucks per. I see why the music industry is anxious.

[CrowdAds]

[tamarelle]

Hi Traveler

I find it hard to feel sorry for such a corrupt industry. Why are we charged $15 for a music CD? They can be produced for about 2 cents and the rest is g reedy people making HUGE profits.

The thing that irritates me most is the companies that charge vast amounts of money for CD's that contain music that has reverted to the public domain. WHO is making all the money on this music? Lawyers and middle men.

And Bill GAtes? He and his minions at Microsoft won't rest until they control every bit of music and software that can be accessed on a computer... and more. The XBOX is coming! Microsoft has taken the browser from netscape, the music players from realplayer, and is trying to capture the gaming industry with their sorry titles. Now they are trying to destroy the mp3 and replace it with their own format so that we are totally screwed and it doesn't matter if it works or not we'll be all using WMA one day because big brother insists on it.

whew! sorry about the rant but I just can't feel sorry for these people who would control our lives if they could. Now we are asked to sympathize with them and fork over more money and turn in anyone who does't follow RIGHT THINKING and its all so THX 1138.

Of course I don't believe in stealing, but to me the people in 3rd world countries are just having a taste of the fun stuff that can be produced and sooner or later they'll be following the corporate dogma just like the rest of us poor schnooks. Just like Napster, it's only a matter of time before all the fun things we do like downloading programs and divx and stuff will be impossible and we will be towing the line.

Our CD recorders will some day refuse to record pirated programs because Uncle Bill says so and the whole world can rejoice and get on that telephone line for a few hours trying to get their product activated. Won't everything be wonderful then?

And Bill and his minions will just rake in the money for things they had nothing to do with creating and all wil be righ with the world

Tam

[BladeRunner_abx]

A couple of points in the last post I really can't agree with, sorry - not looking for a fight

"Microsoft has taken the browser from netscape....."

But this was because Microsoft had and still does have the far superior product.
Once IE 4 was released, there was no longer any competition, Netscape was dire compared to it.
Even today, with Netscape 6, it still has issues displaying some valid HTML 4 tags.
In fact IE is the closest browser you'll get to truely HTML compatible.
That and such mistakes as adding support for a <blink> tag (That only Netscape understood and was widely used to make web pages flash on and off if you browsed to it through Netscape, IE ignored this invalid tag).
You really can't blame Microsoft for releasing a far better product.
And as for adding it into their OS, this made life really, really easy for users, they were no longer forced to install ISP's software on log onto the Internet from DOS and download a browser, switch on the PC and there it is.

"Just like Napster, it's only a matter of time before all the fun things we do like downloading programs"

Napster was bad, once again it was a way for people to steal things they didn't have the rights to own.
If you want to own an album then you should go out and buy it, not download it for free.
The argument on price is valid to a degree, we all know that there is a 1000% profit on CD's and then some, but that still doesn't give anybody the right to steal it, to own it without paying for it.
BMW's are very expensive, especially so here in the UK, is it right to steal it because of this?

What a lot of people seem to forget is that we have got Microsoft to thank for bringing some kind of "standard" in the computer world.
Agreed it isn't always 'The Standard' and sometimes it'a something Microsoft want to turn into the standard.
Without the likes of Microsoft we would still have systems that wouldn't talk to each other.
Microsoft Office alone has helpped many billions of people to create & share data & documents using a Standard Format.
Microsoft are nothing more than a victim of their own success, they hold the market in:
OS's
Office Packages
Internet Browsers
For one reason and one reason alone, they release the superior products.

[tamarelle]

Hey Bladerunner

Of course I am not offended Actually you made some very valid points and let me say that I agree with many of them.

I love Microsoft and have bought oodles of things.

I have bought stand alone versions of every Microsoft OS except ME (which sucks).

And I have Office 2000 and XP. Plus other things I more than pay my way. Despite the fact that Microsoft charges MUCH more than any one else for rougly similar products. They ARE better so I pay through the nose. However there are different kinds of "theft" and in many eras and places, charging exhorbitant prices for products was called USURY and was punishable by a jail term as well.

As far as NAPSTER, I disagree. I used Napster, and my taste in music happens to eclectic Most of the things I downloaded on Napster were things I have NEVER been able to find otherwise, because the industry doesn't make enough profit to sell them to me. Things like Jacques Brel, Nana Mouskouri, Siouxee and the Banshees, The Divinyls, etc. On those occasions when I did download current music, such as creed, etc, I would just download a few songs that appealed and that I could hear on teh radio anyway, and if I liked them enough I would go out and BUY THE CD. Even downloading the entire CD is not like owning the real thing with the cover art, etras, etc.

I think it has been proven that Napster STIMULATED sales and the greedy record companies were too stupid to see the light so a great harmless pastime was taken from us and I don't like being watched by big brother myself

Anyway, thanks for the input, and I do enjoy a nice debate

Cheers!

Tam

[JoeFrat]

Wow that thread is a long read.
I have to agree with Tam on the MS thing, their whole approach has been to slowly take the market over one step at a time. PA is just another method to make the herds follow the MS designed path for pcs. The microsoft plan, IMO, is to kill all competiton, be it by giving away software, buying the company that made the better product, or requiring their software, ala the whole justice department thing. I've always used windows, but I think the time has come for we, the "herd" to say no to MS and Billy boy.

Blade you say that MS had a far superior product, I disagree. The reason Netscape went down the tubes was the fact that MS offered theirs FREE. I still have my copy of Netscape 3.0 and it was far superior to anything MS had, but when they started offering it for free....well how can a company living off the income of their browser fight that? Not to mention the fact that IE is part of windows.....I've never seen a new machine with Netscape installed already, have you?

I believe that if I buy a piece of software, it is mine and if I so chose, I should be able to use it on any machine that I own. Yes this is not so at the moment, but it could be, and should be. If I can make 1000 copies of a video or cd that I bought for backup, and listen to them in my car, or watch them anywhere I go, why should I have to shell out $150 for each copy of windows? I'll tell you why, because gates' 45 billion aren't enough.

I have a beta of XP and so far, it's run pretty good. Where's the Netbeui support? Didn't MS start this protocol????? Not to mention raw socket support. Ya I know that can be disabled during the initial install, but I don't know too many of the average users know why to do that, so in essence that will fail.

I agree with some of what you say blade..but I think we need to stop MS before it's too late, not just on XP but on how they do business in general.

My humble $.02

[traveler]

Originally posted by JoeFrat
Wow that thread is a long read.
I have to agree with Tam on the MS thing, their whole approach has been to slowly take the market over one step at a time. PA is just another method to make the herds follow the MS designed path for pcs. The microsoft plan, IMO, is to kill all competiton, be it by giving away software, buying the company that made the better product, or requiring their software, ala the whole justice department thing. I've always used windows, but I think the time has come for we, the "herd" to say no to MS and Billy boy.

[snip]

I agree with some of what you say blade..but I think we need to stop MS before it's too late, not just on XP but on how they do business in general.

My humble $.02

Louder JoeFrat.

[traveler]

Welcome to the Forums, JoeFrat.

[BladeRunner_abx]

"Blade you say that MS had a far superior product, I disagree. The reason Netscape went down the tubes was the fact that MS offered theirs FREE. I still have my copy of Netscape 3.0 and it was far superior to anything MS had..."

Netscape 3 was the last good product from Netscape.
As soon as IE 4 was released there was no competition.
I tell you now, even if IE4 had cost money I and a lot of other people would have paid for it too.
IE 4 was fast and 100% compatible with all the web sites out there, Netscape even today has some compatability issues.
Do you remember the <blink> tag from Netscape?
It was ignored by IE as it isn't a valid HTML tag, but Netscape recognised it.
A remember seeing a lot of sites that put a <blink> tag at the top and bottom of the whole web page, browse to is using anything but Netscape and it was fine, under Netscape the whole page would blink on & off.
People don't always take the free option, they are happy to pay for good products.
Star Office Vs Microsoft Office, MS Office costs a lot of money but Star Office is yet to make any significant dent in MS's market share.
It's the same with IE & Netscape, if Netscape had the superior product people woule have continued to pay for it.
However Microsoft not only had the better product, they made iot free too - no competition.

[StarTraveller]

Originally posted by BladeRunner
However Microsoft not only had the better product, they made iot free too - no competition.

And there's not likely to be any competition now, is there?

Not many companies can see the point in developing a product that they have to give away to gain a market share. Not unless the owner is hoping that M$ will buy him out, anyway .

[BladeRunner_abx]

The only way you will 'Stop' Microsoft is buying voting with your cash.
Don't buy Microsoft products.
If you are so set against using their products or so set against the company as a whole, then why give them your money?
However this is NOT an invitation to steal the software.
You have to make a choice:

1. Don't support Microsoft, use a flavour of LINUX.
2. Don't support Microsoft, but still purchase their OS because you find it is the best option out there.
3. Support Microsoft and purchase their OS.

Those are your options, there is no "I hate Microsoft so I'm going to steal their software".
This is a massive contridiction anyway, if you hate Microsoft and their products why are you stealing it?
If you are stealing it because you like the product, then see option 2 above.

Microsoft should not be penalised for making and selling the better product.
OS2/Warp could and should have taken a massive market share.
Warp could do everything Win95 could do, but was out in the market a good year before Win95.
IBM couldn't market it, they couldn't convince developers and hardware manufacturers to support it 100%, so it died.
Is this Microsoft's fault?

When you buy a copy of software you are doing just that, you are purchasing a single copy to use on a single computer.

"I believe that if I buy a piece of software, it is mine and if I so chose, I should be able to use it on any machine that I own...."
Yes, this is what you believe, but it is not the license agreement that you agreed to the second you install a Microsoft OS.
Microsoft have told you what you can and can't do with the license you have purchased.
If you decide to break that license agreement then that is your own business, however, and there is no other way of putting it, you have broken both the license agreement and the law.

The simple fact remains, you either stick to the license that Microsoft set out or you don't use their software.
What gives anybody the right to ignore the agreement and do what they like?
It is both morally and by the law incorrect to do so.
MS will eventually move over to a subscription system, all your fears will be realised, however this is the only way they will find to totally stop piracy and illegal use of software above & beyond the license agreement.
This is in MS's plan, it wont be stopped, your only option is to not use MS products.

[JoeFrat]

Thanks Traveller, I love this place!

Blade:
A point so you know, I have always bought all copies of my software, unless they came bundled etc. I am a current subscriber to technet, so I have all the beta copies of windows os'es and programs. That being said, my point about the liscences is just what I think we should get. For the kind of money you pay for software these days I don't think that is an unreasonable request.

Yes I remember the tags. Netscape screwed the pooch on that one. 6.0 has got to be one of the worst browsers I have ever used, I think that AOHell is to blame for that debacle. But I must ask you, is MS IE that much better a product?

Sitting here on the laptop this morning, surfing for info and IE 5.5 just locked up....no reason I can see, just froze. 5 times in a 2 minute period. Not exactly a stellar run record imo. Not to mention the malicious activex problem and the weak security that ms has in all of their products

As for buying an alternate product. Well the point here is can you go and buy an off the shelf machine(compusa,staples,yer local pc builder)that has unix or linux as it's main os? Not easily, if at all. What does that mean? Well the average pc user has no choice for two reasons. 1. Not all of us, including me find using unix or linux very user friendly. 2. It's not readily accessible. Even if it was, MS would require the pc makers to use their os or else, which we all know that they do right now.

Sorry for long post guys

(edited cause I said thanks to the wrong guy )

[BladeRunner_abx]

"Not all of us, including me find using unix or linux very user friendly. 2. It's not readily accessible"

and there is the real point!
Until there is a Linux available that is:

A. Easy to install
B. Easy to use
C. Has a very friendly interface
D. Supports 99% of hardware available
E. Gets the support of application writers
F. Gets the support of games houses

Then it will never be as popular as Windows.
Now, can you honestly blame Microsoft because Linux isn't user friendly?

I was never accusing you of being a software thief, it's just a general term I use, for some reason or another people seem to think that stealing software and stealing somebody's car are two entirely different things - I'm sorry, I tar them both with the same brush!
MS don't realy have any control over what OS's are shipped with computers, but they can make it worthwhile for a PC manufacturer to supply Windows and Windows alone.
IE. If you only sell Windows we will sell you OEM Windows for $10.
If you sell Linux PC's too we will sell you OEM Windows for $30.

However, if a PC manufacturer honestly felt that Linux PC's would sell and sell well they would take the plunge, they would say to Microsoft "Hay, we'll take the $30 option please" but they know that isn't a viable option.
It's alos worth remembering that any PC manufacturer should be able to supply you with a PC with no OS installed (Even if it isn't listed that way on their site).
Also, if they refuse to do this, you can return your OEM version of Windows to Microsoft for a refund (As the license says, but you'd probably only be due $10).

[tamarelle]

That's my point about MS Bladerunner.

If they are selling ME Windows for $300, when they can easily afford to sell it for $10, WHO IS THE THIEF HERE?

If car dealer were charged $1000 for cars and sold them for $30,000 (roughly the equivalent markup I think) the Automobile industry would be IN TROUBLE with the government.

I'm very happy the Microsoft products but Bill Gates is a robber baron.

Tam

[TQ]

Originally posted by BladeRunner

The question here really has to be, why are you re-installing your OS so often?
WinXP is largely based on Win2k (So much so in fact that a lot of Win2k users simply wont bother with the upgrade).
Win2k is a very stable OS and simply doesn't need re-installing every month or every other month.

Well, I for one, have had to re-install Win2k twice in the last three months. I am about to re-install it for the third time this weekend. While it is a very fine OS, at least on one of my Win2k machines the need to re-install has become something of a regular exercise.
I think the question here, from my perspective, is why should it be anyone's business why I re-install my OS?

I'm not someone who has a knee-jerk reaction to Bill Gates. Frankly, I admire the man and think he personifies the American Dream.
This guy started very small and built himself up through astute, agressive business practices. I can't imagine the chaos of what the computer world would be without the standards Microsoft has imposed.
That being said, I'll wait until I read some reviews of product activation with the final version of XP. At this point, I am not pleased with what I know of it and its requirements, but I don't plan on buying XP anytime soon.
I don't think it's ever a good idea to buy a 1.0 version of anything, anyway.
So, I'll stick with Win2k for the forseeable future and see just what that future will bring.

[BladeRunner_abx]

"If car dealer were charged $1000 for cars and sold them for $30,000 (roughly the equivalent markup I think) the Automobile industry would be IN TROUBLE with the government."

Well that is almost the case here in the UK.
I buy a car for 11k here I can buy it in say France for 8k, however although the government have said they are looking into this usse, it has been the case for a long time.

You're forgetting we are talking about volume purchasing.
If you purchase anything in volume you will be getting a massive discount.
My $10 & $30 prices were just "taken out of the air" prices, I'm pretty sure OEM copies cost a lot more than that, even when Dell is the buyer.
But Dell will buy them 10,000 copies at a time or some crazy figure, so of course it will be a lot cheaper than somebody buying one single retail copy.