View Single Post
Old 01-20-11, 01:19 PM   #78
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,808
Default Re: Windows 7 SP1 RTM

ir123, I don't mean this as an instigating comment, but I've been following your post history here and it seems like you often want to pick a fight just for the sake of it. I realize that you have a different opinion from the majority. That's a great thing, especially if they are conclusions you've come to independently from a counter-culture. But you're so bellicose with your statements that its hard to hear the signal for the noise.

Originally Posted by ir123 View Post
What do you mean "this isn't a problem"? Just because you don't mind having special sauce spyware in your own computer at all times, I don't see what gives you the right to dictate to others that they must accept an secret mechanism running on their systems. It's completely illogical to dismiss the concerns without any explanation.
I say that this isn't a problem because it doesn't effect the overwhelming majority of users in any visible way. Most people choose a computer that runs Windows, then choose to give all of their personal information to Mark Zuckerberg.

And it certainly does NOT give me a "right" to dictate what others must run on their systems. There are other operating systems available.

Originally Posted by ir123 View Post
The bottom line is that by the design and nature of tWAT, MS by their very own EULA is not liable for anything that goes wrong.
This is an understandable concern. The fact that MS can remote shutdown a product you paid for is very valid. Again, the content of your message was clouded by its delivery.

Originally Posted by ir123 View Post
Yes, it was. And as of now, or until SP1 rolls out to the updates, it was an optional update, disabled by default. Which is why I'm now wondering if SP1 makes it mandatory.
Another good point.

Originally Posted by ir123 View Post
Given this comment of yours, I have one suggestion: Please have the foggiest clue of what you're talking about. Have you seriously drank that much of the koolaid over the years that any of this is stopping pirates, or that it's even meant to? MS has no intention of stopping pirates, only keeping the ignorant, mediocre suckers paying 3 times for a license, including the hordes of grotesquely inefficient companies paying their MS tax. I can assure you that neither tWAT nor anything MS has done has ever curved piracy, and perhaps it has contributed to it instead.
I'm a Systems Administrator. That doesn't mean much, but I've spent some time in the client, desktop, and server support industry. I know as a fact that Microsoft's anti-piracy measures have reduced piracy. By how much - I have no idea. It might not be a noticeable amounts. I'm fairly sure that "casual" piracy has decreased significantly. Microsoft's biggest victory was moving from Volume License Keys to a limited number of MAK keys and relying on KMS. Windows XP was pirating hand-over-fist with VLK keys.

With that said, I'm sure that there are populations who are angered with the DRM and pirate just for the spite of it. I'm not saying that you're wrong about that. I'm just thinking that the people who are upset over it are outnumbered by those who were able to casually pirate the OS previously.

It's just like putting locks on your shed outside. If someone wants in bad enough, they will get inside. But you'll keep out all but those who really want to get in.

Also, I've met tens of thousands of college students and thousands of individuals with computer problems and I have NEVER heard of anyone paying for a Windows OS license more than once for a machine. I realize that my individual experience doesn't speak for the rest of the nation, but I find that argument hard to believe as a result.

Originally Posted by ir123 View Post
Then you lack imagination, or you're lying.

I doubt it. You seem like you'd like to hear what you want to hear. But I'll indulge you. MS should be broken up like the phone companies were to end their predatory practices. That would be a good start, then good results could be built on top of it. Now please, if you would, certainly explain to me that MS being allowed to do whatever it wants is the only option. That has never been outlined before, and I'd like to hear it.
I don't think that you and I are on the same page on "what the problem actually is". My statement regarding "not seeing an alternative for Microsoft" was in response the question I asked myself which was "How does Microsoft curtail casual piracy". The entire industry is struggling with answering this question. I'm a huge fan of DRM free music, and its gutsy to be in the business, IMO.

What question are you answering?

Should Microsoft be allowed to crush the competition due to its monopolistic position in the industry? Of course not. IE vs Netscape was a disaster. However, how far are you willing to break up the company? Apple is able to create a fantastic product (for many users, not me) because they can bundle a ton of features into a single package. While I do not believe it is fair for a company the size of Microsoft to crush competitors due to its sheer size, I also believe in a set of consistent rules.

I don't believe that Apple should be able to bundle broad software and hardware if Microsoft cannot do the same. I honestly don't care if they both should be able to or if they should both be forbidden - I just want consistency.

Should MS be allowed to do whatever it wants? I'll say no, but its qualified. Microsoft's two largest products are Windows and Office. I have a difficult time seeing a Microsoft that has been broken up into multiple companies. Where do you draw the line in the Operating System? Should they remove Calc, Paint, Solitaire etc because they hurt the competition? If you do strip the OS down only to its core, what kind of product are you selling? Would anyone even want it?

I didn't write "I would love to hear some options" because I enjoy typing endlessly in forums. (Even though you couldn't tell this wall of text. LOL) I enjoy listening to opposing points, especially when there is a good argument to back it up. Anything that makes me critically think about things that I take for granted is a very good thing.

I used to be on the same page as you with terms of MS "Anti-Piracy" measures and their market monopoly. But times have really changed, IMO. On my campus, and from some statistics from the Chronicle of Higher Ed, Macs comprise over half of student machines. The future is in mobile devices, and Google/Linux and Apple have the corner on that market. There is less and less that you need a PC running Windows to do. I can't think of but a handful of users over 25 who even need more than a web browser.

I really do value your opinion and want to know what you think. I just wish you'd keep your nuts out of my mouth while you're explaining things.
Q is offline   Reply With Quote