Vista RTM already on filesharing networks

[YankeesWin]

i dont understand why everyone gets so surprised over stuff like this. the same people that design the stuff.....crack it. If there are people out there capable of writing the code, there are people out there just as capable that can crack it.

 

[greylica]

Hey Stash -> I hate piracy and I am helping to stop it. I am helping people to switch to Linux.

Second, the segmentation only turns what can be powerfull in an limited piece of software, XP was better explained in his limits. Even the Retail

Linux -> You can mount as you want. Workstation or Server.

You can tell me there is no product comparison between Windows and Linux.
I can tell you yes, There is no product comparison, and outside of U.S. Linux continue scaling it's marketshare faster like a rocket. And I am praying to Microsoft for SUE more and more people for piracy. They all will be so scared that they will nevermore turn back to Microsoft, it will definetly help Linux too. Tecnicians in other coutries will no longer have to fear after the switch.

Microsoft can help to stop piracy charging people or sueing them,

Linux can help to stop piracy liberting people.
Help Microsoft stop piracy, Do not download Pirated Vista !!!
Download any Linux instead !!!

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Seeruk
Yup there is already a heap of cracks out there.

How many of them are genuine I don't know but I know that one works where you simply replace a couple of files with some from RC2 and then you can use ya beta key to activate.

Whodathunkit indeed!

Which causes it to still expire next year, so they aren't going to loose too much sleep over it.

Yep. Still, having Vista RTM for free for ~7 months isn't a bad deal. And by that time there will be a crack for sure.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
yeah, and lesson is to make it cheaper, software pricing is artificially controlled: DVD is worth $1, ignoring value of content. While in other goods, such as cars, clothes, food cost of manufacturing is near retail price.

$299 for vista vs. free torrent... tough decision

I luckily will have legal copy from MSDN.

Really, so the years of development for Vista cost next-to-nothing?

Yeah, don't you know Vista is made entirely from copy-paste code from F/OSS software.

 

[masteraleph]

Originally posted by: greylica
And I am praying to Microsoft for SUE more and more people for piracy. They all will be so scared that they will nevermore turn back to Microsoft, it will definetly help Linux too. Tecnicians in other coutries will no longer have to fear after the switch.

When was the last time that you saw MS sue a person for piracy? The only lawsuits I've seen have been for against people selling illegal copies of Windows. Surely you don't think that those people should be immune to lawsuits, do you?

 

[Markbnj]

You're missing the point. Without scarcity, there is no price, no matter how much was spent in production

That's a great point, but I think you should look at it a little differently. Of course there is scarcity. How many people, or teams of people, can produce an operating system with all the other value components that Windows has? It's not like they are bottling tap water and putting the name of a local hill on it.

It has been limitations on the mechanisms of distribution that have created an artifical _lack_ of scarcity. The product of their effort is only available because they have had to send all the bits in a reproduceable form. If it were a tangible thing we wouldn't be having the argument. If, as someone else suggested, you could clone a car, you can bet that debate would be long and loud, and the automakers would make the RIAA look like Santa Claus is clamping down on that ******.

Key schemes, activation, DRM, copy protection, are all attempts to limit the holes in the distribution model to make the intangible products these companies sell behave more like tangible goods. They have every right to enjoy the economic benefit of the real scarcity of their products. In the case of, say, the music business I think they are long-term fighting a losing battle. All the big companies add between the artist and consumer is distribution and marketing, both of which the net does better. Microsoft isn't in that boat. They are the source of the value in what they sell. And it will keep getting increasingly harder to steal their stuff.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: masteraleph

Originally posted by: greylica
And I am praying to Microsoft for SUE more and more people for piracy. They all will be so scared that they will nevermore turn back to Microsoft, it will definetly help Linux too. Tecnicians in other coutries will no longer have to fear after the switch.

When was the last time that you saw MS sue a person for piracy? The only lawsuits I've seen have been for against people selling illegal copies of Windows. Surely you don't think that those people should be immune to lawsuits, do you?

That's not what he's saying.

He's talking about casual but deliberate infringing use. He wants MS to sue those people, like what the RIAA is doing. And you know what? So do I. It is more advantageous for them to let people use cracked versions, occasionally creating problems by changing its authentication scheme, than it is for them to actually try to seriously impede "piracy"; they truly do risk losing a good portion of that sizeable group to Linux, which would dilute their market share, which is arguably more important for them than maximized revenue in the short term, because it maximizes revenue in the long term.

 

[jgis19]

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: masteraleph

Originally posted by: greylica
And I am praying to Microsoft for SUE more and more people for piracy. They all will be so scared that they will nevermore turn back to Microsoft, it will definetly help Linux too. Tecnicians in other coutries will no longer have to fear after the switch.

When was the last time that you saw MS sue a person for piracy? The only lawsuits I've seen have been for against people selling illegal copies of Windows. Surely you don't think that those people should be immune to lawsuits, do you?

That's not what he's saying.

He's talking about casual but deliberate infringing use. He wants MS to sue those people, like what the RIAA is doing. And you know what? So do I. It is more advantageous for them to let people use cracked versions, occasionally creating problems by changing its authentication scheme, than it is for them to actually try to seriously impede "piracy"; they truly do risk losing a good portion of that sizeable group to Linux, which would dilute their market share, which is arguably more important for them than maximized revenue in the short term, because it maximizes revenue in the long term.

 

[jgis19]

What he said!

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

You're missing the point. Without scarcity, there is no price, no matter how much was spent in production

That's a great point, but I think you should look at it a little differently. Of course there is scarcity. How many people, or teams of people, can produce an operating system with all the other value components that Windows has? It's not like they are bottling tap water and putting the name of a local hill on it.

You're right, of course. But they're not the only ones producing operating systems.

It has been limitations on the mechanisms of distribution that have created an artifical _lack_ of scarcity.

It seems to me like you have that directly backwards. The natural distribution model of software (bittorrent or ftp or cheap cds in the mail) leads to a complete lack of scarcity. DRM and activation and the like create scarcity by making it hard/impossible to reproduce the product as easily as it should be.

The product of their effort is only available because they have had to send all the bits in a reproduceable form. If it were a tangible thing we wouldn't be having the argument. If, as someone else suggested, you could clone a car, you can bet that debate would be long and loud, and the automakers would make the RIAA look like Santa Claus is clamping down on that ******.

Key schemes, activation, DRM, copy protection, are all attempts to limit the holes in the distribution model to make the intangible products these companies sell behave more like tangible goods. They have every right to enjoy the economic benefit of the real scarcity of their products. In the case of, say, the music business I think they are long-term fighting a losing battle. All the big companies add between the artist and consumer is distribution and marketing, both of which the net does better. Microsoft isn't in that boat. They are the source of the value in what they sell. And it will keep getting increasingly harder to steal their stuff.

Yep. And for people who like microsoft's software and judge it worthwhile to support the development with license fees then it's a lovely deal. Clearly you fall into that category and that's cool. I think most people don't like that setup so well though (at least out of those with enough technical proficiency that they could choose to pirate). Many people simply choose to pirate which is a pain because it forces microsoft to make the other windows users deal with activation. Lots of others have the self control to chose something else (or do it for technical reasons). Hell, I probably send more money to openbsd than the average person pays for windows (although Office is another story). My point is that for a large number of people, the model of paying for proprietary software doesn't make sense and it's that market for which the scarcity is artificial and problematic.

 

[Markbnj]

It seems to me like you have that directly backwards. The natural distribution model of software (bittorrent or ftp or cheap cds in the mail) leads to a complete lack of scarcity.

Hmm, why is that the "natural" distribution model for software? You might as well say that the "natural" distribution model for music is CDs, or cassettes. The developer puts the effort and investment in one end of the pipe, and the value comes out the other end for the user. In between might be any number of distribution mechanisms, and I don't see why one is more natural than another. What you seem to want to say is that the natural model for software is open and freely copyable. I think that's a fairly one-sided view . The development community has been trying to restrict the ability (or at least the desire) of people to copy software since Bill Gate's open letter to the BASIC community back in 1980-something.

And for people who like microsoft's software and judge it worthwhile to support the development with license fees then it's a lovely deal.

Well, somehow all investment has to be supported. Open Source can and will continue to garner investment through the volunteer efforts of people, but even those people have to support themselves. I think it's interesting tha most corporate use of FOSS operating systems is coming in through channel VARs who support it for-profit.

 

[Nothinman]

Hmm, why is that the "natural" distribution model for software?

Because just about everyone has a broadband connection to the Internet these days and given the choice of downloading something yourself or getting a CD/DVD via a local store or the mail just about everyone will choose the download option, just look at Valve's Steam service. And even back in the '90s before everyone had a good connection download.com, shareware.com, etc were all very popular.

The development community has been trying to restrict the ability (or at least the desire) of people to copy software since Bill Gate's open letter to the BASIC community back in 1980-something.

One portion of that community, the other portion that started in Universities and on the Internet aren't.

 

[stash]

Because just about everyone has a broadband connection to the Internet these days and given the choice of downloading something yourself or getting a CD/DVD via a local store or the mail just about everyone will choose the download option, just look at Valve's Steam service.

That's assuming everyone who uses or wants software is connected to the Internet, a very large assumption in the United States. While the US makes up the largest percentage of broadband users worldwide, and the percentage of Internet users using broadband in the US is approaching 80%, it now ranks 20th in the world in terms of the most wired countries. Less than half of all households in the US have broadband, compared to over 80% in South Korea.

Or if you look at the numbers by population, the US still ranks 19th with less than 17 lines per 100 people, compared to 26.5 per 100 people in Denmark.

Source: http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0607/

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

You're missing the point. Without scarcity, there is no price, no matter how much was spent in production

That's a great point, but I think you should look at it a little differently. Of course there is scarcity. How many people, or teams of people, can produce an operating system with all the other value components that Windows has? It's not like they are bottling tap water and putting the name of a local hill on it.

It has been limitations on the mechanisms of distribution that have created an artifical _lack_ of scarcity. The product of their effort is only available because they have had to send all the bits in a reproduceable form. If it were a tangible thing we wouldn't be having the argument. If, as someone else suggested, you could clone a car, you can bet that debate would be long and loud, and the automakers would make the RIAA look like Santa Claus is clamping down on that ******.

Key schemes, activation, DRM, copy protection, are all attempts to limit the holes in the distribution model to make the intangible products these companies sell behave more like tangible goods. They have every right to enjoy the economic benefit of the real scarcity of their products. In the case of, say, the music business I think they are long-term fighting a losing battle. All the big companies add between the artist and consumer is distribution and marketing, both of which the net does better. Microsoft isn't in that boat. They are the source of the value in what they sell. And it will keep getting increasingly harder to steal their stuff.

In a way, yes, there is scarcity, but it's a very different kind of scarcity. The variable costs are very, very low, potentially insignificant even. You don't think that changes things drastically?

As for there being an artifical lack of scarcity, I have no clue what you're talking about. I may hate the way it is implemented, but I don't disagree with the utility of copyright (if done correctly); I think there's too much scarcity created by our implementation of copyright (primarily on the issue of length---but that is another thread entirely).

If you could clone a car, then the auto makers should leave the industry of building cars on a mass scale and enter the industry of car cloning but retain the industry of designing new cars.

And yes, I realize that companies are trying to make the intangible behave like the tangible. I abhor this. The free exchange of ideas is vital to science, technology, and culture. And I realize that "free" in this context does not mean "without price". If you want to make money from information, convince people that your idea and its expression is worth it and collect before distributing (such a system will need to be experimentally found---I realize how many problems there would be). Set your price, people pay, and when the price is reached, release the work under some kind of permissive license. You get paid, and people get to spread your idea.

Yes, it's somewhat outrageous and full of perils (especially lemoning and fraud on the part of potentially any party). So is DRM.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

It seems to me like you have that directly backwards. The natural distribution model of software (bittorrent or ftp or cheap cds in the mail) leads to a complete lack of scarcity.

Hmm, why is that the "natural" distribution model for software? You might as well say that the "natural" distribution model for music is CDs, or cassettes. The developer puts the effort and investment in one end of the pipe, and the value comes out the other end for the user. In between might be any number of distribution mechanisms, and I don't see why one is more natural than another. What you seem to want to say is that the natural model for software is open and freely copyable. I think that's a fairly one-sided view .

It's natural because it's the most efficient. If microsoft trusted everybody they would not have an activation scheme. It's like if you ordered a book from Amazon. You pay, they mail it to you. You don't have to phone them up for a key to open the book because Amazon knows that it's not worth your time to photocopy the book to share with your neighbor.

But since software is not physical if you have an internet, microsoft could expediate the process by giving you an ftp account or something once you've paid and you can download it yourself.

Where software differs from the book example is that it is worth your time to copy it and give it to your neighbor. It's a much more efficient way to get a copy of the software. But since people can't be trusted to play by the rules, microsoft must put extra effort into building a system that fundamentally cripples the efficiency of the distribution of the product.

The development community has been trying to restrict the ability (or at least the desire) of people to copy software since Bill Gate's open letter to the BASIC community back in 1980-something.

I only vaguely remember said letter (links? I'll search too) but you're statement sounds pretty one sided There's a sizable development community that puts all its efforts into increasing the ability to copy software.

 

[greylica]

Most of Ideas here s OK for me. But i have also to show some points.

YES - Microsoft SUES PEOPLE outside U.S. and use other countries policy to enforce that.
Here in Brazil they are doing exactly this in Campinas, Sao Paulo, Curitiba, and so on. I guess the problem too is XP Professional SP2 without the bothering registration is found in the so called Cucarachamarket, and is cheaper than Starter Edition,
Starter Edition is a Totally trashed version with limited usability. Linux is a 10000000X Better than any Starter Edition. Because in only one month people are starting to use their 3 windows limited and is a deception for all of us. Even GIMP are limited cause only 3 Windows is alowed. 128 or 256 Limited RAM usage. There are some Home Editions Limited to 256MB of RAM only... They are doing a party here.

Look at the casual piracy in China, Brazil, Paraguay, India, yes, India. Microsoft was loosing a great amount of marketshare in India with 1 Billion people. IBM came first and help Linux growth on maketshare in India. Microsoft started to get desperate and mounted a develop center at India, faster than a bullet. The casual piracy is because people knows that Windows is cheaper in the piracy market, and they do not want to be so limited the way Microsoft wants. Many friends of mine trashed Starter Edition and get a cheaper version of XP Professional. I tell them that I will not help this insanity, I tell them they can be SUED, tecnicians can be SUED, Cucarachamarket can Be SUED , all of them can be SUED. What they do ? Risk themselves by the cheaper version. The advantage of the cheaper version is it's usability,
Yes, I have licensed software, I have 5 machines, Work with Blender and switched by the limitation Microsoft imposes with 2gb per app and 4GB per Windows. In a Machine capable of PAE this is a limitation. They never solved PAE in Windows XP. Instead of this, every time I call them they offer a new software, and then I tested IT. I've downloaded a version of 2003 Server Enterprise Trial Edition, The same problem was found, and no matter if 2003 recognizes my RAM, only 2Gb per app is alowed. Linux takes off this limitation imposed by a wrong aproach from Microsoft. If PAE exists, it have to function in my vision.
Windows is not cheaper than Linux, You have to buy Office ( or Download OO, but before we did not really have a choice, yes, staroffice exists but no interoperability at all cause Microsoft never did what they have to do to facilitate the conversation for interoperability until Free Software Blows the door ), you have to have Anti-Virus, Antispyware, Firewall ( before SP2), anti-this, anti-that and so on.

For all of the defects, all of limitations, all of complements that I did not found in Windows I decided to switch. The first time it was too dificult, but for now is a pleasure to use Linux.
For 27 Days I did not restart My computer and it works every day, I installed programs, compile anothers, use, reuse, burned DVD, Work with Blender, GIMP, INKSCAPE, JASHAKA, GAIM, FIREFOX, OO, all at the same time and no one jitter. No one problem, and it's very, very, very faster.
Linux is cheaper than Starter Edition. And more easy to use, and all of my family uses now, Linux is the best thing that ever happened in my entire life.
Then I tell the others, stop piracy, stop fear, stop copying a thing that is not yours, and never will be, stop to use... But they did not heard me. After a couple of times trying to help them, I desist, let them suffer, they deserve Microsoft.

But the problem under Windows X Linux and is a darwinist selection that is being made, only one will survive and we all know this, Microsoft at the same time helps humanity but make it suffer, They will be juged for the problems, not for the benefits, they do not offer benefits anymore like it was in 98/2000 era. They only offer problems now, but like the darwinist selection saids, they will fight with all of arms to survive.

The scene has changed a lot in relation to 98/2000 years, today electronical distribution will gain more and more space, and is cheaper than any other manner of distributing information. The Linux adapts itself better than Windows in this new scene. If Microsoft did not adapt himself, they will loose all. When they finally make free Windows all of problems will disappear, They can do services instead of sell software. The darwinist selections apoint this to be the future, and no more litigations, nevermore. No more software patents or copyrights to SUE people. I Guess they have fear of open the Windows software, all of people will see the defects, and then they will not have a chance to try to sell the new version.

I Will help Free and Open Software. I decided for me, my family and for all of my friends, I decided for liberty, it's my side. Everyone have rights to understand software and computers. It cannot be limited to a few people anymore.Never more.
And I remember when they stop people to understand computers, When we have basic to develop ourselves our programs, I guess we where more happy with the possibility of control. Linux takes back the happyness of computerworld, of discover computers and controls it.

Ohhh, excuse-me for a bad english...

 

[stars]

Greylica your english is fine. We appreciate you sharing your views.

 

[Markbnj]

Because just about everyone has a broadband connection to the Internet these days and given the choice of downloading something yourself or getting a CD/DVD via a local store or the mail just about everyone will choose the download option, just look at Valve's Steam service. And even back in the '90s before everyone had a good connection download.com, shareware.com, etc were all very popular.

No, you're missing the point. It's not the idea that the software is delivered over a network that is "natural." It's the idea that it is delivered in freely copyable form. You can still get protected software over the network: the developer's ability to protect their investment doesn't change anything regarding availability to authorized users. What we have here is nothing more or less than the idea that software should naturally be free and unemcumbered vs. the idea that it is a product protected by the ownership rights afforded to its creator.

As for there being an artifical lack of scarcity, I have no clue what you're talking about. I may hate the way it is implemented, but I don't disagree with the utility of copyright (if done correctly); I think there's too much scarcity created by our implementation of copyright (primarily on the issue of length---but that is another thread entirely).

I find it hard to believe that you have no idea what I meant . But I'll try again anyway: if you could not copy software, it would be a lot scarcer, don't you think? To regard something as less scarce, and thus less valuable, because it is easy to steal seems a little self-serving.

And yes, I realize that companies are trying to make the intangible behave like the tangible. I abhor this. The free exchange of ideas is vital to science, technology, and culture.

Again, this is more than a little self-serving. It's always been illegal to copy books, for example, and hand them out. They are tangible products, but the words and thoughts can be copied and distributed just as easily as software. Software isn't "thoughts and ideas." Algorithms are ideas, stemming from thoughts, but implemented software is a product of someone's effort. It is no more naturally free and subject to unrestrained distribution than any other product.

I only vaguely remember said letter (links? I'll search too) but you're statement sounds pretty one sided There's a sizable development community that puts all its efforts into increasing the ability to copy software.

Not the people who are responsible for employing thousands of programmers and their managers, all of whom have to feed their families. Every person who works on FOSS has to put food on the table some other way, or perhaps sell add-on services related to FOSS. In that latter case, there's nothing really new about providing software cheap, or even free, and then selling the services needed to support it.

Ulitmately, as with every other time this debate comes up, you have people on one side who believe in some egalitarian and collectivist notion that the best software comes from people who are motivated by something more than dirty desires for profit, vs. people who believe software is a product like any other, and that the people who create it have a right to protect it and profit from it. Count me in the latter camp.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
...
Every person who works on FOSS has to put food on the table some other way, or perhaps sell add-on services related to FOSS

Just thought I'd point out that this is not even remotely true. Especially with the more popular programs, such as the linux kernel or Samba, almost all the development is done by developers paid to work full time on their projects.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: Markbnj
...
Every person who works on FOSS has to put food on the table some other way, or perhaps sell add-on services related to FOSS

Just thought I'd point out that this is not even remotely true. Especially with the more popular programs, such as the linux kernel or Samba, almost all the development is done by developers paid to work full time on their projects.

Are you talking about real free and open source software? Or are you talking about open source software that has been sucked into a commercial value package? Isn't that the debate right now? Part of the point behind the Samba team's appeal to Novell to bail on the MS patent deal is that they don't want to see the FOSS community divided up into "true" FOSS and FOSS that has gone commercial.

So, what is free, really? Does it mean a bunch of people volunteer to create software that some huge integrator sucks up and provides in a value package that has to include support, update subscriptions, etc.? If so, then the FOSS community has become just an IP engine set up to feed its powerful allies, who happen to be huge commercial outfits that compete with MS. If it really means _free_ then who is paying all those people to work on it? George Soros? Or does it mean free to individuals but companies pay?

All of these compromises seem fairly distant from "thoughts and ideas must be free," or what we might term "the Stallman model." It may be that the "Free" ought to be dropped from FOSS. Just call it OSS. Open source is a straightforward technical debate about the SDLC, or can be viewed as such. As soon as you throw "Free" in there, it gets messy.

 

[Bozo Galora]

well, I just noticed that yesterday a 4.49GB AIO (All In One 8 pk. 32bit/64 bit) Vista torrent appeared.

****sigh****

and I would bet that MS will nuke the beta keys on Jan 30 - not Jun 07

Putting aside morality and legality issues, one could argue.....

Despite all the piracy, Bill Gates is still the richest man in the world, and has been for a very long time

Despite all the piracy, MS stockholders of substance have all become wealthy

MS got to be the #1 defacto O/S by GIVING AWAY the software to vendors, in effect elbowing out any competition.

MS has over time used the most vicious monopoly capitalism maneuvers to advance its place in the market

MS fought to the bitter end (and still) to stop its embedded features (browser/playermessenger etc.) from becoming modular and optional.

Windows is now a world resource for productivity and computer use, so that its role as a business model has been superceeded by its actual need by the human civilization at large.

MS should quietly ignore when pirated by people in poor countries - $400 vista is a whole years salary in some places. Not being avail to third world masses relegates them to permanent second class.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: Markbnj
...
Every person who works on FOSS has to put food on the table some other way, or perhaps sell add-on services related to FOSS

Just thought I'd point out that this is not even remotely true. Especially with the more popular programs, such as the linux kernel or Samba, almost all the development is done by developers paid to work full time on their projects.

Are you talking about real free and open source software? Or are you talking about open source software that has been sucked into a commercial value package?

Well, I mentioned the linux kernel and Samba. I don't know how much more free and open you can get than either of those. A lot of companies depend on F/OSS software and contribute a lot of money to the foundations set up for those projects which pays the developers. Granted, Linus Torvald doesn't have the billions that Bill Gates has, but from what I've read, he and the other kernel devs make pretty good livings.

And I'm just using this as an example, there are many more F/OSS projects with well paid developers. I had read an pretty informative article about how the funding of F/OSS software works, but I can't remember where I came across it now, and I can't remember much on the specifics, but I do remember that the point of the article was that very free and very open software projects get pretty good funding on their own.

 

[greylica]

MS should quietly ignore when pirated by people in poor countries - $400 vista is a whole years salary in some places. Not being avail to third world masses relegates them to permanent second class.

I don't think so. I guess they have to simplify products instead of lauching too may versions and launch a version cheaper like U$80 by sample for retail and do not accept calls for this products for direct support. Tecnicians will solve in the soho market and stop piracy/sue people forever. The major problem of Microsoft.
The OEM is cheaper. But leaves to the OEM the support. But the support for problems that are Microsoft problems are not supported. In this case what OEMs can do about .What can we do ?
So many users here in this forum post threads about problems that are not OEM related problems, We not see normally anyone blaming HP, DELL, SUN, etc by hardware issues. The Vast Majority is Microsoft problems or misuse/don't know how to use the computer. The majority of people buy computers but do not know how to use it, and this is the second major problem for support.
If support to the product is expensive, Then why Microsoft is expensive too ?
And about the new EULA ? You do not have the rights to solve the problems by yourself, and if there is a problem that are not OEM related, what will happen, Should we wait forever ?
Thats why I think Microsoft is overpriced at all. They want all of the " clean " money, But do not want the maintenance nightmares of the users. This way I can gain a river of money too. Windows is overpriced for me and for you too.
Let's look at Linux/Microsoft prices, here in Brazil, to format a machine with Linux/Windows, people spend U$18,00 or at maximum U$35,00 for a complete format and rebuild of systems. If a tecnician have to do this for a Virus four times at U$25, a U$400,00 will turn to U$500,00 ( for the user, course, people are in charge, suffer idiot, suffer !!! ),

Linux you paid for the service and the DVD , You can contribute with codes, making the software itself free for everyone, and everyone will understand how to mantain. It will be cheaper for everyone. Free, and almost 2 formats needed U$50,00.

But for me,really the prices have to be thinked in other way, cause I am not the blame for the problems that aren't caused by me and then, calculating depretiation we attain:

Windows have to be as U$300,00 ( U$100 overpriced by the formats) and then you have to buy an Anti-Virus and renovate after 1 year, more U$ 100,00 ( U$ 100 overpriced ), well, Windows value is only U$200 right now, Software depreciation after a year ( based on the price to upgrade ). At least 15% for year, and After four years 60%, and U$200 - 60%= U$80

Well, we found U$80 is the right value for Windows Retail with all of the problems Windows has. This is the right Value for Microsoft leave Windows to the market without any support. You loose U$320,00 for problems

U$320,00 can pay a RED HAT with great support and U$50,00 stays for you, they have an Long Term Support until discontinued.
U$320,00 + U$48,00 can pay 2 MANDRIVA subscription and CD/DVD Set, and you can distribute it in an entire University. ( suport for 2 Machines , course the rest is by yourself)
U$320,00 can Pay Canonical (Ubuntu) for 3 year in Brazil with local support services.

All of them full of stuff you can Use from them or From Users...
Anyone really calc the TCO ?
This calc make sense for me, And the OEMs must be well paid to answers users problems instead of Microsoft itself.

 

[WT]

Hah, if anyone found the Chinese website hosting one of the torrents, the included product activation code is a clue as to the authenticity of that torrent:

license key :
GLAD2-SEEUH-AVEAS-ENSEO-FHUMR

Found this digging amongst the MS newsgroups, so no I am not a torrent specialist, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[Bryan]

Nice. Wonder how many people will get fooled on that one.... :thumbsup: