MS License confirmation on downloads

[Spathiphyllum]

Microsoft might be testing a new download procedure as a precursor to setting up a new method to confirm your license.

May We Check Your License Please?

I wonder when they'll start confirming all downloads with data in their registration database? Fewer multiple installs from a single CD are on the horizon.

[jason]

I'm not surprised that MS is doing something like this, and personal feelings about it aside, they have every right to. When you buy a Windows CD you are buying a license to use that software on a set number of computers (usually one). If you install it on more than the allowed number of machines then you are effectively stealing from Microsoft. Microsoft is a business with a bottom line to meet. They offer their downloads as a free service, but doing so costs them money in terms of R&D, bandwidth, systems support, and the like. If a large percentage of those downloading patches (which are often quite large) from them are installing them on illegal copies of Windows, then MS is loosing money.

That said, I am glad to see that MS is doing this on an trial basis right now. There are a lot of times when one license can be legitimately used on multiple computers (for example, at work we have a site license for Windows XP and OFfice 2003, allowing us to install them on a virtually unlimited number of computers with a single license. Imagine the problems we'd have if, with the thousands of computers we have using that license, after one person downloaded the next Windows criticle update the site said "Sorry, someone using your license already downloaded this file. You can't have it."

--Jason

[Spathiphyllum]

Biases against Microsoft and inconveniences aside, I support their ultimate position to protect their product. I vehemently oppose their monopolistic practices but I equally oppose piracy and copyright violations and hope they are able to produce a satisfactory solution to that offense.

[jason]

Biases against Microsoft and inconveniences aside, I support their ultimate position to protect their product. I vehemently oppose their monopolistic practices but I equally oppose piracy and copyright violations and hope they are able to produce a satisfactory solution to that offense.

My feelings exactly. Cheers!

--Jason

[Vin DSL]

You know, I wish I could do that at work - show up for work one day, and keep getting paid for it, over 'n' over again - license my work, in essence.

That's the only thing I have against licensed software. You pay for it, but you don't actually own it. So, you end up paying for it over 'n' over again.

I wonder who came up with that idea...

[gerilya]

You know, I wish I could do that at work - show up for work one day, and keep getting paid for it, over 'n' over again - license my work, in essence.

That's the only thing I have against licensed software. You pay for it, but you don't actually own it. So, you end up paying for it over 'n' over again.

I wonder who came up with that idea...

Well, it is not that different from buying a CS book and then paying again for the new edition

[Jaded]

I buy it? It's mine. Now I agree that I shouldn't be able to copy it and resell it or give it away, but I should be able to put it on as many machines as I want....after all, I can only use one at a time.

And retail pcs? Kinda like have a bunch of people selling identical pigs wearing different dresses.

[jason]

A lot of software licenses have a clause that says you can install it on more than one computer, so long as you don't use more than one copy of it at once. Microsoft seems to be against this, of course.

--Jason

[Spathiphyllum]

...but I should be able to put it on as many machines as I want....after all, I can only use one at a time.

And there's the rub courtesy of your fellow man. Too many people run the software concurrently... assuming they have even bothered to acquire a non-pirated version in the first place. It is Microsoft's contention, and I would concur, that you cannot blindly trust the consumer lest you become unprofitable.

If piracy, theft, and multiple installs were prohibited, the cost per license might even come down, although others might argue that they wouldn't and another evil corporation would just line their pockets with the proceeds. But that's an argument for another day.

[Jaded]

My big complaint it the re-activation nightmare associated with XP. I have two machines; one with 98se used for report writing and one with XP Home used for video editing. I actually got the XP system to reboot once , after restoring a backup, by re-installing backup copies of the activation files but have been unable to duplicate the process.

Each time I redo the system partition (for whatever reason) I have to call MS and re-activate...it is a pain in the ... even after several hardware upgrades I had to re-activate.

And why should I have to pay more for a standalone copy of an operating system which a retail pc purchaser gets for pennies.

Does HP pay 200 bucks for each copy of WinXP it resells? Is 200 dollars the software price paid by an Emachines customer who buys a complete system for $500? It is on a grand scale.

And the potential reduction in price cited by Spath reminds me of the various promises made by the Insurance industry, Medical Malpractice Cap legislators, and the Utilities Deregulation proponents.

Insurance industry: If you require us to provide driver's insurance to everyone we will go broke...Lie

MedMal: By limiting the liability amounts of certain damages doctors will see lower premiums and patients will see lower bills...Lie

Utilities Deregulation: Allowing greater competion will force an increase in quality of service while driving down costs...Lie

[Spathiphyllum]

And why should I have to pay more for a standalone copy of an operating system which a retail pc purchaser gets for pennies.

Because it is a completely different chain of product distribution with different rules for profitability and a tweak of their overall business model. Every business exercises different pricing structures for different markets. There is barely a product alive that doesn't have variable pricing. I'm afraid we'd need an economics text to explain this fully so I'll stop here.

And the potential reduction in price cited by Spath reminds me of the various promises made by the Insurance industry, Medical Malpractice Cap legislators, and the Utilities Deregulation proponents.

I knew this was coming. Just substitute evil corporation with Insurance, MedMal, or Utilities. Need a new thread here.

But since these institutions are lying to us, then we should be able to pay whatever we feel like and to heck with normal market pressures. Same as with the software license. Since it is priced more than I want to pay, I reserve the right to steal their product with multiple installs. It's this kind of rationalization that gets companies in serious legal trouble when their software licensing gets audited. So Jaded... you're fired.

[Jaded]

Let me see if I understand.

Microsoft creates software and sells said software through various avenues of distribution thereby making tons of money.

Microsoft now spends time 'tweaking' an old product to make it look 'new'.

Microsoft's research and development (required to fix bugs) is very expensive.

The current state of affairs has brought Microsoft to the brink of bankruptcy.

I think the reality is more like this:

People buy super duper fast pc with windows operating system and connect to their phoneline to get on the information superhighway.

People get pc all screwed up and have to take it back to the store to get fixed *defraged* and *devirusized*.

People screw up pc again and convert it into a avant-garde piece of artwork.

Every home in America has a piece of pc artwork.

Retail sales of pc artwork decline (and MS OS sales alongside).



Now I also suspect as more people become more computer savvy, more people will start migrating to *OMG* other operating systems.

Then Microsoft will go broke because Bill Gates swill be dead and the corporate infighting will tear MS apart.

[Spathiphyllum]

It's Microsoft's perogative to create and tweak their product however they see fit. And charge whatever they want for it to boot (no pun). And make as much or as little as they want as long as they are not abusing others to maximize their market share. And distribute it in any myriad of ways. Monopolies are only illegal if they violate the law, obviously. But they are not obliged to yield market share just because there is competition nor are they required to charge the same fee for everyone under all conditions.

Now if someone doesn't like the way Microsoft rolls out new versions, they are free to create their own OS. Just ask Mr. Torvalds.

About that screwed up PC... it's not Microsoft's fault that a PC operator screwed up their system and turned it into art. That's like saying Toyota must "update" my Camry because I decided to take it off-roading and mangled the chassis. Now if they sold me a Camry with a faulty transmission and I couldn't get out of third gear, then they'd be obligated to update my car if I could prove ownership. And they would continue to be responsible for any future updates to my car for as long as my warranty (the legal contract) exists. Same with licensed software... the seller must provide any updates for as long as I carry a valid license and can present it when asked.

Maybe, in time, people will migrate more to other OSes. I know I have. The free market will decide which one dominates and what degree of wealth the creators/modifiers/distributors attain.

[ohio_webguy]

My 2 cents... This is from a US citizen’s viewpoint. Many other US citizens, or other people, may disagree. I am saying an opinion...

I think it is fine for Microsoft to check numbers to make sure they are legal. I also think for the other side that a computer has become such a part of the world that you need an OS that works for at least a basic system setup. What is that setup? I am sure others can answer that or come up with an opinion. From my opinion though, it should be able to allow you to run basic applications and access the Internet in a secure way.

Microsoft works on almost any PC and they are "the" company that provides the function of a computer. They have become something else now. A needed part of society in a way. Like Electricity and other utilities. There should be a basic Microsoft OS that is regulated. Beyond that, as a company, do what you want... Make a cutting edge system, XP for example, that makes the company money that is not regulated. By regulated I mean if a serious security comes up, fix it. The OS should allow the computer to get online secure and use the Internet, in a non-propriety way. That can even be dealt with by another company or group, such as Firefox does now.

To charge hundreds of dollars for an OS makes people not pay. Also because of the size of the company and money they have (BILLIONS) I personally do not feel like a thief if I run an older MS OS or ever use a current one.. In fact a current version of MS Xp Home should be about $30 in my opinion. This is a big point to me. The basic need of an Operating system and the high cost make me feel like I am not ripping off anyone if I load a OS that is not legal. This also forks into Mp3s and the millionaire artists saying I am stealing the music. At minimum wage US (5.15 an hour) you will work over 194 thousand hours until you make a million. Without paying any taxes. That is about 90 years of work. Bill Gates has over a Billion! Do the math. Yeah I feel guilty loading an OS from Microsoft

There are other choices out there. Linux and such but I feel that a person should be able to get online and access information without needing to know much about how it works. An Analogy? When you want to use a phone can you tell me how it all works? When you start your car do you need to know what is going on? People may argue you should but why?

Have you been out to a fast food restaurant lately? Where do all the ingredients come from and how to they process everything to make the final result? What about the supermarket? That can or frozen meal you picked out, do you know how the can was made, the food was made and how the refrigeration is created? Do you care? If so great but my point is a basic computer operating system that works on generic x86 parts should exist without a great amount of exertion on an average person. That OS should be very cheap if not free. Again I will say, make the best, cutting edge computing system in the world, charge what you want but for basic Internet information access and writing a letter the OS shouldn't be that much if anything.


What’s your opinion? What about if you take my idea and a basic OS was offered, not the deep technical aspect but what applications do you think everyone should be able to do on the Internet or with a computer?

[jason]

Microsoft has developed an "light" version of Windows XP. It will only allow three programs to run at a time and will only allow Internet access by modem, no networking support. From the sounds of things it will only be sold in developing countries that are trying to build up thier technology infrastructures, but the cost will be extremely cheap compared to other versions of Windows. Perhaps MS should offer this OS to people in the US who don't want more than to just go online...any thoughts?

Microsoft is a company with no government affiliation, and like every other independant company across the country they should be free to develop whatever products they please. So long as they have the proper business licenses, they opperate in accordance with existing law, and they pay their taxes, then the government shouldn't interfere with what they do. Now, if they are attempting to stifle competition, fix prices, or partake in other illegal activities then that's a different story, but if they aren't doing anything illegal then they shouldn't be subject to government regulation.

A computer is not a necessity. Yes, we as a society are becoming increasingly more dependant on computers, but if you didn't have one you could still function. The 2000 census reported that only about 50% of US homes have a computer. A computer, along with its operating system, is a tool that you get if you can afford it. Many people think of their cars as necessities, but I know people who don't own cars and rely on public transportation to get around. Likewise, most libraries offer Internet access these days, if you really need it. Although the Internet is a necessity for me to do my job, I do not consider it to be a necessity of life. Everything that I use the Internet for in my personal life I could do over the phone, buy at a store, watch on TV, or read in the newspaper.

As you mentioned, there are other operating systems that exist that are free. Windows is only familiar to you because you already use it. The first time you sat down in front of a computer you probably had at least a little bit of a learning curve to adjust to. There are newer Linux distributions that you can get up and running, in at least a basic configuration, without much work. It wasn't that long ago that Windows required a lot of tweaking and driver adjusting to get it to work correctly, either. If you don't think you should have to pay for your OS, then maybe you should acclimate yourself to one of these options.

There is also nothing wrong with running an older version of Windows. As computers improve and become capable of doing more things, Microsoft has every right to redevelop their products to take advantage of these new features. Their customers who want to do the same will buy the new products. Those who can live without the additional features don't have to. Microsoft continues to support older software for several years after it leaves the mainstream, however, there comes a time when it becomes financially unfeasible for them to continue to support a product that has an almost non-existant user base, at which time they drop support. At that point, if you choose to continue to use that software, you do so at your own risk--but you can still use it.

Microsoft is a company in a country that is built on free enterprize. In capatalist societies, companies make thier money because of success. Although you may not agree with some of Microsoft's business practices, they are a successful company and should be entitled to the money they have earned. Since you say it is alright to steal Windows because Microsoft has billions of dollars, is it also OK to steal other products like groceries or film? Companies like Nabisco and Kodak are also multi-billion dollar companies, and their pasts aren't entirely squeaky clean either, but we still buy their products without a thought. Why should software be any different?

--Jason