The 'WINDOWS TAX'

[drag]

While I agree that, in practice, that "doing what average users do" doesn't require advanced features; I think n0cmonkey raises an important point. Computers are complex, sometimes difficult, systems that people generally don't use responsibly enough. And they exist in a hostile environment. A culture of nescient helplessness among users accustomed to useing deliberately crippled tools is really very dangerous. At best, it will mean a lot of people's documents getting nicked, and loads of zombies. At worst, it'll mean the reduction of all systems available to individuals to a level stupid and locked down enough for people who know nothing.

The 'secure by default' philosophy is very good for computing. That is, with no user interaction, the computer and the OS should be as secure as possible. If a user has to learn something, or has to do some configuration to 'lock down' a computer, then the OS design has failed in some manner.

Some spectacular failures in security as a result of failing the 'secure by default'..

IIS 5 is a paticularly spectacular failure. Microsoft configured IIS 5 to have all features activated, all these sample scripts, and all this junk to 'make it easy'. All it made easy, of course, was getting rooted.

Redhat from the 6.x and early 7.x era had the similar idea. They figured that since people complained that Linux was to hard to setup compared to a windows server that they should do what Windows does and setup everything to run by default with all the features enabled. This, of course, resulted in the first time you had a realy widespread worm attacks on linux machines and the ONLY time you ever had a Linux virus spreading itself in the wild.

Similar thing happenned with PHP and those worms. We've had a couple instances of worms attacking websites that are using PHP, and PHP-built web services because of shoddy programming on the part of the PHP developers combined with very insecure defaults and design flaws of certain web services that utilized PHP. If PHP hadn't had the bugs in the language, then it wouldn't of happenned. If the PHP-using web services hadn't had insane defaults, then it wouldn't of happenned. If administrators cared about security then it wouldn't of happenned.

With Windows it's insane to have it so that you can execute programs downloaded from email by doubleclicking on them. It's insane that a program can be launched simply by having the last three letters on the name be 'exe' (or one of about 20 other executable file types), especially if your looking at a file that goes: cool.jpg.exe

Security of this manner is a multilayered approach. Rarely is it just one problem with a system, usually it's multiple problems.

So the 'secure by default' approach requires that end users actively praticipate in ruining their security on the computer. And since most users are lazy and wouldn't take any action at all, then it is a very successfull approach. You have human nature on your side.

Send the system to the end users 'locked down'. Give them documentation on how to unlock features, then setup a automatic way to do updates and give them a option to turn that off... That's as good as it gets.

Good examples of "Secure by default":

OpenBSD, were secure by default is their motto. Absolutely the best OS you can get in terms of security anywere outside of a research lab and still be usefull for general computing.

Microsoft's IIS 6 is very secure and is good advertisements against Apache. They managed to avoid worms and such caused by problems with asp.net, scripts, and various other security issues by configuring the server to only allow static html pages by default and disabling all features beyond that.

 

[Phoenix86]

Secure by default has it's caveats too.

Just because a service is disabled by default doesn't mean it's secure. It needs to be secure when it's running. An OS that was secure by default, as well as being secure when configured (prevented you from making bad decisions) would be much more desirable.

This idea also requires the knowledge to secure it, this is a double edged blade. Sure it's good and all that the people enabling a service need to know something, but do they? How many companies hire a "server" guy to do: planning, maintainence, security, etc. These are becoming specialized fields: will the companies deploying these systems do what is needed? In my experience a corporate will not hire a specialist unless there is a LOT of need, for cost reasons. This is a reason many systems are not sure in the first place. The person planning/maintaining these systems doesn't have the skill set. Reality kicks in.

Security comes down to the admin., which is where we are at today.

 

[Markbnj]

Home sucks, and OEM limits your upgrade potential.

As long as you are running the o/s on one machine, it doesn't matter how often you upgrade. You call MS. They issue an activation key. End of problem.

 

[spyordie007]

And on top of it all the license is valid essentially forever, you can spread that $150 across 10 years if you'd like, yes there are people still running Win95, so that's about $15 a year to use Windows XP.

:thumbsup:

I agree. All things considered XP really is inexpensive. Even if you spent the full $300 at the end of 2001 that breaks down to $6.25/month. Considering how much time you spend using that computer it really doesnt cost that much.

Home sucks, and OEM limits your upgrade potential.

As long as you are running the o/s on one machine, it doesn't matter how often you upgrade. You call MS. They issue an activation key. End of problem.

I think he meant that if you build a new machine you cant bring the OEM license along (but you can with a retail license).

 

[Chosonman]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Why is Windows XP still so expensive while the price of parts and just about everything else is going down?

You're paying for a license to use software that has thousands of people on the development and QA teams and probably millions of man-hours of development into it and you're complaining about $150? Obviously MS isn't hurting for money, but do you have any idea how much money they've dumped into the development of Windows? And on top of it all the license is valid essentially forever, you can spread that $150 across 10 years if you'd like, yes there are people still running Win95, so that's about $15 a year to use Windows XP.

I'm not a huge fan of MS, but you can't really complain about their pricing when you look at someone like Adobe who charges over $500 for Adobe CS 2. Hell even Elements costs nearly $100.

Because, there isn't any real competition for MS and they can charge an exhorbant amount of money for Windows. And however much you want to laud MS's efforts into improving and developing Windows, they make WAY more than what the put into it and there are still security holes left and right. Maybe if the weren't so greedy and opened their source code up to developers there would be more security fixes and in less time and they wouldn't have to pay all that money for QA.

And comparing Windows to Adobe or any other professional grade software is not quite comparing apples to apples. First Windows is an OS that is required to run the thousand and thousands of titles that are developed for the Windows OS platform. Thus it is all but required when you build a computer now a days. You can't say the same thing about Adobe. Also, if I were to purchase a copy of Adobe I could use it on my computer regardless of if I upgrade, downgrade, side grade whatever grade because I own the software and can use it on whichever system I own. Not the same case with Windows, which control how and when you can use their software.

The fact remains if you plan on building or buying a mainstream PC these days you'll have to pay a lot more than what the basic parts would cost you because any which way you want to look at it, Microsoft owns you.

Originally posted by: Nothinman

People will say: "If you don't like it Get Linux!" '

If you already know about this why are you complaining? You have alternatives, no one is forcing you to buy Windows (except for PC manufacturers that won't sell you a box without a Windows license) if you really don't want to. Hell get a Mac, they have more frequent releases and they charge you for every one of them.

Are you sure no one is forcing you? If there were geniune competion among OS's would you really buy Windows if it were say $100 more than its competition? And who in their right mind would pay $2000 for a Mac when you could build a PC for $500?

 

[Phoenix86]

Every piece of software controls how you use it. Have you ever read an EULA? Funny you mention Adobe too, notice the new forced registration on version 7?

Compare the price of the OS to any given APP. Compare the price of the OS to a video card.

People aren't bitching about $500 video cards, they are buying them. You will get more use out of your OS than just about any piece of equipment. Heck most of our OSes around here will see a LOT of different hardware, so screw comparing cost of a single component, compare it to every component the OS has ever seen. It'd a drop in the bucket.

The only time it looks bad as a % of the purchase is when you are comparing it on the VERY low end of hardware. Remember, it's very easy to build a $1500 rig. Then of course you can always get a low end PC from <insert OEM vendor> with the OS included. The only thing this post proves is you shouldn't be building low-end rigs.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Sorry, I still think file encryption should be used by everyone. And permissions should be editable. XP home is trash.

Spoken by the true Linux user - seriously, not everyone works for the CIA.

The best way to make your computer secure is to never turn it on - but obviously we need to make compromises between security & usability. The odds are far greater that a user is going to loose their encryption key, than anyone is going to break in & steal their data.

In today's world, computers have become a necessity for everyday life, not just a luxory toy. Everyone needs to learn them, everyone needs to use them. Computers cannot become so complex that everyone needs to have extensive training just to turn them on.

 

[spyordie007]

The only thing this post proves is you shouldn't be building low-end rigs.

How true this is

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Secure by default has it's caveats too.

Just because a service is disabled by default doesn't mean it's secure. It needs to be secure when it's running. An OS that was secure by default, as well as being secure when configured (prevented you from making bad decisions) would be much more desirable.

Well only ship software you know doesn't have security problems goes without saying.

And it's impossible to make it secure under all configurations.

It depends heavily on the circumstances. Circumstances that are beyond the control of the developers. There are numerious times that a administrator may want to make a configuration change that is secure in one setting, like if he is using the software in a secure network, that is insecure in another setting, like if he is using the software on the internet.

So it's not usefull to design the software to second guess the administrator. The administrator is always right. Warnings and documentation are fine, but fighting the administrator is not.

My point is is that secure by default means shipping software that is as bug free as you can get it and set it up in such a way that even if it has problems it will not automaticly comprimise a system.

This idea also requires the knowledge to secure it, this is a double edged blade.

'Secure by default' method tries to set it up so that it requires knowledge to 'unsecure' it. So that way your already far ahead then what is most commercial software is setup as.

At least then you know that administrator took the effort to learn _something_.

Sure it's good and all that the people enabling a service need to know something, but do they? How many companies hire a "server" guy to do: planning, maintainence, security, etc. These are becoming specialized fields: will the companies deploying these systems do what is needed? In my experience a corporate will not hire a specialist unless there is a LOT of need, for cost reasons. This is a reason many systems are not sure in the first place. The person planning/maintaining these systems doesn't have the skill set. Reality kicks in.

Another big reason that many systems are insecure in the first place is that they were insecure by default. They were shipped with insecure configurations to make it 'easy' for administrators to use them.

For example: Redhat 7.1 and Windows 2000

Security comes down to the admin., which is where we are at today.

If the administrator is clueless or doesn't know what they are doing then there is nothing anybody can do to help them. They are screwing themselves.

The point of system design is to help out as much as possible. It's to make it easier to do things, like have a secure system. The easier you make it to do backups, to have a secure system, to do updates, and etc, the better off everybody is.

A moron administrator is a moron administrator. You could ship them a server encased in a concrete block and they'd still find a way to screw it up.

 

[Chosonman]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Every piece of software controls how you use it. Have you ever read an EULA? Funny you mention Adobe too, notice the new forced registration on version 7?

Compare the price of the OS to any given APP. Compare the price of the OS to a video card.

People aren't bitching about $500 video cards, they are buying them. You will get more use out of your OS than just about any piece of equipment. Heck most of our OSes around here will see a LOT of different hardware, so screw comparing cost of a single component, compare it to every component the OS has ever seen. It'd a drop in the bucket.

The only time it looks bad as a % of the purchase is when you are comparing it on the VERY low end of hardware. Remember, it's very easy to build a $1500 rig. Then of course you can always get a low end PC from <insert OEM vendor> with the OS included. The only thing this post proves is you shouldn't be building low-end rigs.

I don't see myself buying a $500 video card so your reference obviously doesn't include me.

Regardless of the fact you think $150-$200 isnt a lot of money someone else might feel it's too much money it's not up to you to force other people to believing what you think.
The bottom line is you me and everyone else who owns or buys a PC now a days has to pay Gates his dues and for no other reason than lack of competition right now.
I'm hopefull Linux, software makers, and the open source community will take the necessary steps if they haven't already to bring about to the PC world a variety of OS systems that will let the end user decide for themselves what they need and how much they are willing to spend for their OS.

 

[Nothinman]

Because, there isn't any real competition for MS and they can charge an exhorbant amount of money for Windows

You really think $150 is exhorbant? Have you looked at the licensing costs for other OSes?

And however much you want to laud MS's efforts into improving and developing Windows, they make WAY more than what the put into it and there are still security holes left and right. Maybe if the weren't so greedy and opened their source code up to developers there would be more security fixes and in less time.

Actually I think their real bread and butter is Office, even with MS' sales numbers I can't imagine them making a huge profit off of Windows with all of the cheap OEM deals they have compared to how much they actually spend on people, hardware and time on Windows. And security-wise Windows is a lot better than it used to be, because of competition and just plain bad press from exploits they've had to put a lot of time into security and it's paying off. Another aspect is that they've been moving a lot of their development over to .Net which is extremely difficult to exploit since it's managed.

And on top of all of that, even if they wanted to I doubt they could open their source code up simply because they don't own all of it. A lot of it is licensed from 3rd parties and retooled to fit into their products. For example, IE started as Mosaic and MS SQL was bought from someone else. I would be willing to bet that both still contain code that is owned by the original authors.

First Windows is an OS that is required to run the thousand and thousands of titles that are developed for the Windows OS platform. Thus it is all but required when you build a computer now a days. You can't say the same thing about Adobe. Also, if I were to purchase a copy of Adobe I could use it on my computer regardless of if I upgrade, downgrade, side grade whatever grade because I own the software and can use it on whichever system I own. Not the same case with Windows, which control how and when you can use their software.

I realize they don't perform the same function, I was just trying to show how bad commercial license costs can get. And it's not required, you can get a PC from Apple and run OS X if you'd like. And if you do choose Windows you can continue using the same XP licensen no matter how you upgrade or change your machine, you can even transfer it to new machines if it's not an OEM license. When you got the OEM license you got a discounted price and that restriction, it's a trade off.

The fact remains if you plan on building or buying a mainstream PC these days you'll have to pay a lot more than what the basic part would cost you because any which way you want to look at it Microsoft owns you.

Microsoft doesn't own me, I have 2 "mainstream" PCs and neither of them run Windows. If you want to run Windows apps and games, of course you're going to have to pay for a copy of Windows in which to run them.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Why is Windows XP still so expensive while the price of parts and just about everything else is going down?

You're paying for a license to use software that has thousands of people on the development and QA teams and probably millions of man-hours of development into it and you're complaining about $150? Obviously MS isn't hurting for money, but do you have any idea how much money they've dumped into the development of Windows? And on top of it all the license is valid essentially forever, you can spread that $150 across 10 years if you'd like, yes there are people still running Win95, so that's about $15 a year to use Windows XP.

I stil think it's a ripoff. You DONT get it for 10 years because soon as a newer operating system is released, you're put on the back burner and support for it is diminished substantially, eventually you're unable to download legacy updates that were released for it before..

The whole 9X kernel was going to be dropped just like THAT, despite windows me being newer than 2000, it was going to die with windows 98 and will.. You pay a lot for windows 2000 only to have microsoft shaft you by forcing developers to stop supporting that operating system for an arbitrary reason and not for a real reason like "well it's a 32bit OS, everything is 64bit now so therefore we need to move to 64bit now" but instead, "well it's old, it's pretty damn functional and stable but because I like money and it's not giving us money back to support it, I'm going to say F-U to those who bought it".

Windows XP isn't going to last forever, even if the liscense does because activation isn't going to work forever and when you feel like installing windows XP on that old machine 10 or 20 years in the future because you feel nostalgic, it just ain't goanna work. Copyprotection like this may work today but it sure as hell won't work tomorrow which is another reason I don't like "protection" like this...

 

[Nothinman]

I stil think it's a ripoff. You DONT get it for 10 years because soon as a newer operating system is released, you're put on the back burner and support for it is diminished substantially, eventually you're unable to download legacy updates that were released for it before..

10 might be pushing it, but even at 5 years you're still only paying $30 a year. Most people pay double that for a cell phone and triple that for cable per month. And even with diminished support most things run fine on Win2K, I'm using it at work without any problems.

The whole 9X kernel was going to be dropped just like THAT,

And from a technical standpoint it should have been, once Win2K was released everyone should have migrated. Hell I'd be willing to bet MS would have been giving away free Win2K licenses if it would have meant that they could stop supporting Win9X altogether.

instead, "well it's old, it's pretty damn functional and stable but because I like money and it's not giving us money back to support it, I'm going to say F-U to those who bought it".

Can you actually name something other than a game that runs on XP but not on Win2K?

Windows XP isn't going to last forever, even if the liscense does because activation isn't going to work forever and when you feel like installing windows XP on that old machine 10 or 20 years in the future because you feel nastalgic, it just ain't goanna work

So keep a ghost that's already activated handy =)

And you get like 2 weeks of use before not activating won't let you login, I'd say that more than enough 'nostalgia' time.

 

[drag]

200 dollars is a lot of money.

Spending 500 dollars on a video card, unless your requiring features that don't exist on a regular consumer style video card is going to make me look at you cross-eyed. It's a outragious price for a video card. If your rich and don't mind blowing money on something like that, then that's fine by me. But if you have to, say, use a credit card and go into debt to buy something like that because you don't have enough cash aviable.. then I'm likely to think that your priorities are messed up. (considuring that if you wait a month you'd be able to buy the same card at half the price)

Same thing goes with software.


However to keep some proportion... Keep in mind that Microsoft's 'tax' is more like 20-50 dollars per PC. That's a lot more accurate price when you buy a laptop or PC from a namebrand manufacturer.

A 100+ dollars for a copy of OEM Windows Home is only something that the 'little guys' and hobbyists have to pay.

If your objections to Microsoft is price, then that's silly. Plenty people go out and spend 2-3 grand on software that they can download off of the internet, legally, for Free.

 

[bersl2]

So, who how many people have gotten their MS tax money back? How many hoops did they have to jump through? Did they get real cash back, or just vouchers for more MS software?

(didn't RTFT)

 

[drag]

Well I read one article written by a guy that got money back from MS.

edit:
Here is the article that I am talking about. I guess he didn't go after the MS directly, but instead after the manufacturer. Oh, well. Forgot a lot of stuff.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7040

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Can you actually name something other than a game that runs on XP but not on Win2K?

Adobe Premiere Pro and above, fscking AVID newer versions.

Windows XP isn't going to last forever, even if the liscense does because activation isn't going to work forever and when you feel like installing windows XP on that old machine 10 or 20 years in the future because you feel nastalgic, it just ain't goanna work

So keep a ghost that's already activated handy =)
[/quote]
Thats a pretty rediculous request when I can't predict in the future what I'll come across that I may or may not want to install XP on...:roll:
And you get like 2 weeks of use before not activating won't let you login, I'd say that more than enough 'nostalgia' time.

 

[Nothinman]

Adobe Premiere Pro and above, fscking AVID newer versions.

That does suck if that's true. If you have a support contract with Adobe why not call them and complain? They might have a valid reason, but I can't think of anything that XP does that Win2K doesn't that Premier would need. And sticking with an older version of Premier is also an option.

Thats a pretty rediculous request when I can't predict in the future what I'll come across that I may or may not want to install XP on...

Not really, ideally with sysprep you should be able to restore that ghost to whatever you want as long as there are drivers. And you did say "on that old machine 10 or 20 years in the future" so I assumed you'd be attempting to install it on hardware you know it supports.

 

[Chosonman]

I predect home PC OS's will be free or nearly free in the within the next 10 years and it'll be no thanks to MS. Here's wishing...

 

[Nothinman]

I predict that those PCs won't come with a spellchecker...

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Adobe Premiere Pro and above, fscking AVID newer versions.

That does suck if that's true. If you have a support contract with Adobe why not call them and complain? They might have a valid reason, but I can't think of anything that XP does that Win2K doesn't that Premier would need. And sticking with an older version of Premier is also an option.

Thats a pretty rediculous request when I can't predict in the future what I'll come across that I may or may not want to install XP on...

Not really, ideally with sysprep you should be able to restore that ghost to whatever you want as long as there are drivers. And you did say "on that old machine 10 or 20 years in the future" so I assumed you'd be attempting to install it on hardware you know it supports.

Or how about you have a copy of windows Xp and you just recieved an old machine from a garage sale, how are you suppose to "ghost" it on there...?

 

[Nothinman]

Or how about you have a copy of windows Xp and you just recieved an old machine from a garage sale, how are you suppose to "ghost" it on there...?

If the machine is old enough to be supported and you have drivers the ghost method should work fine if you used sysprep.

 

[Chosonman]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I predict that those PCs won't come with a spellchecker...

You're a moron. Don't you have better things to do that troll?

 

[Nothinman]

You're the one trolling, complaining about the cost of Windows when pretty much every other piece of commercial software is priced similar or higher. Hell most games cost $60, that's 1/2 of the price for something that will be used 1/10 of the time.

 

[Chosonman]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
You really think $150 is exhorbant? Have you looked at the licensing costs for other OSes?

And you're the one person who decides what's too much money or not? Don't be so arrogant as to try to force your beliefs on others because you are no one to do so. As for licensing other OSes... Linux is free, got anything else to add? And no we don't need enterprise software for our home.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Actually I think their real bread and butter is Office, even with MS' sales numbers I can't imagine them making a huge profit off of Windows with all of the cheap OEM deals they have compared to how much they actually spend on people, hardware and time on Windows. And security-wise Windows is a lot better than it used to be, because of competition and just plain bad press from exploits they've had to put a lot of time into security and it's paying off. Another aspect is that they've been moving a lot of their development over to .Net which is extremely difficult to exploit since it's managed.

You think? Why don't you check your facts before you post. The stuff you just wrote is pure garbage. Because of competition? What competition? And bad press? You must be joking. If you create a product and charge everyone in the world to pay you, you better be able to back up that product. And what are you sayinga bout .Net? You made half a statement then just stopped.....

Originally posted by: Nothinman
And on top of all of that, even if they wanted to I doubt they could open their source code up simply because they don't own all of it. A lot of it is licensed from 3rd parties and retooled to fit into their products. For example, IE started as Mosaic and MS SQL was bought from someone else. I would be willing to bet that both still contain code that is owned by the original authors.

Um.. The Windows source code is theirs and no one elses, so YES then can open up the source code and let other developers work on Window related fixes, for FREE! But MS chooses not to for whatever convoluted excuse they choose to dream up.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I realize they don't perform the same function, I was just trying to show how bad commercial license costs can get. And it's not required, you can get a PC from Apple and run OS X if you'd like. And if you do choose Windows you can continue using the same XP licensen no matter how you upgrade or change your machine, you can even transfer it to new machines if it's not an OEM license. When you got the OEM license you got a discounted price and that restriction, it's a trade off.

So you're saying if I don't like Windows I should get a Mac? Why in the world do I need to buy an Apple when I choose to build a PC for myself? Where is the logic in that?

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Microsoft doesn't own me, I have 2 "mainstream" PCs and neither of them run Windows. If you want to run Windows apps and games, of course you're going to have to pay for a copy of Windows in which to run them.

You think so? Look at what is happening with Blue-Ray vs. HD-DVD. Microsoft supports HD-DVD while the majority of manufacturers support Blue-Ray(which they believe is the better technology) but because of Microsoft's cloute in the PC market, they can offer incetives to OEMs who live off a razor thin margine of 3% or less and cooerce them to use HD-DVD player in the systems rather than Blue-Ray. HP which in on the Blue-Ray board has already switched over to HD-DVD for unspecified reason, but you can't doubt Microsofts hand in the move. What does that mean for you in the end? You get whatever Microsoft decides is good for you.

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/show...QNG2ONUCQSNDBESKHA?articleID=175400242