An interesting opinion on XP (long post).

[Widowmaker]

"Originally posted by http://www.computerbits.com/archive/...taedt0110.html
October 2001 Volume 11 - Number 10

Network Community

Windows XP product activation: part 3 ... by Ted Mittelstaedt

Last month was part 2 of my series on the Microsoft Windows Product Activation (WPA) scheme, the new
serialization scheme from Microsoft that will be on the retail versions of Windows XP. In it I
overviewed the scheme and mentioned some of the myths and some of the real reasons for it.
<sniped>
I hinted last month that Microsoft has some serious reasons for pushing WPA that are unrelated to
getting a few pirate businesses to clean up their act. You won't see the reasons discussed most
places because Microsoft is scared to death of their getting out.

Damage Control

In a nutshell, WPA is a response to the finding of the anti-trust trial. One of the central problems
with the trial, from Microsoft's point of view, is the finding of fact that Microsoft is now a
monopoly. The appeals court upheld this finding. From Microsoft's viewpoint, the damage this has
wrought is far worse than even breaking up the company. Now every government of any country in which
they do business is legally justified to regulate them. And this regulation is coming with lightning
speed.
Microsoft knows that they cannot get this finding of fact dismissed right now, but it's certainly
possible in the future. Monopolies usually are deliberately broken up specifically to create
companies that are notmonopolies. So, now one of the central goals of the Microsoft corporation is
doing whatever is necessary to prove at some time in the future that they are no longer a monopoly.
In short, they must lose market share.

Have Cake, Eat It Too

Now, the key to understanding this is to understand that they need only prove they aren't a
monopoly: there's no stipulation that they must prove that they don't make most of the money in the
software market! Their goal is to seek out exactly how to have their cake and eat it too. So they
want to split the operating system market right down the middle, 50-50.
On one side of the market are all the businesses that have money, who don't want to pirate, as well
as all the honest home users who pay for their software. On the other side are all the greasy kids
who trade crack among themselves, and all of the slime businesses that don't pay for the copies of
software that they use. As long as Microsoft only has 50% of all customers, numerically speaking,
it's perfectly fine from the courts' point of view if the 50% who are not are all folks who don't
pay their bills!
Microsoft knows what their sales figures are, and they know how big the PC market is. On one hand
the courts are telling them that they are a monopoly and everyone runs their software. On the other
hand their own sales figures that tell them that they have sold nowhere near as many copies of
Windows as there are PCs in the market. It must be immensely frustrating to them: they are being
punished for a bunch of people ripping off their software. At the least this must stop! If indeed
90% of all computers out there do run Windows, then by gum they better have sold an equivalent
number of copies!

Redefinition

So the answer is obvious: redefine Windows customers in the software market as paying customers.
They will then make the argument that everyone who isn't a paying customer of Windows must be
running a competitive operating system. (if they are stealing the OS they are effectively not in the
market to be counted, as they are not customers of anyone).
All that's left then is picking some figure that the court agrees with from the various research and
survey groups as to the total number of PC computers installed, then subtracting the paying Windows
customer figures that they get from the site licensing program, and from the WPA program. The number
left over is the number of installations they will argue are not running Windows.
Consider: Microsoft already says in their WPA FAQ that in 2000, 12 billion dollars were lost to
piracy. Microsoft knows that they are never going to get any money out of those pirates -- these are
scum who have proven that they won't ever pay for anything and they will just find a way around it.
So, if you can't get money out of them, then you make lemonade. You claim that since this 12 billion
dollar group has never purchased Windows, then they must all be running Linux. If you can make such
a claim stick, then you can fundamentally damage the reasoning that was used to declare you a
monopoly.

Make It Stick

WPA serialization is what will make that stick. It's a flawless argument because if the opposition
proves that this 12 billion dollar group is actually running your product, then you can simply claim
that it's impossible because they never paid for an activation key.
If that argument fails, then you can ditch it by claiming that if they are Windows users, they still
aren't customers since they aren't paying, and thus don't count in the market percentage
calculation. It's an argument that should help Microsoft immensely. Even if invalidated there's no
way for the opposition to make use of it. Getting serialization counts from WPA and site licenses is
integral to this argument.
This reason is legally fascinating. But it and the reasons for trying to force this onto the market
I mentioned last month are dwarfed by the giant reason of them all, and that's the ability to sunset
software.

.................Continued below due to length.

[Widowmaker]

Sunset Software

I'll use myself as an example of the type of customer that Microsoft does not want to see in the
computer industry. In 1995, I purchased an upgrade copy of Windows 95. (I had a preexisting copy of
Windows 3.1) Half of the $250 cost of a full install of Windows 95 was paid out to Microsoft
sometime in 1993, (by the Win3.1 purchase) and half in 1995.
Since that time I have gone through several hardware platforms. The older hardware systems are now
either in my junk box, or they are running FreeBSD. So they are no longer in the Microsoft stream.
However, I'm still running that same copy of Windows 95. I have no reason to upgrade to the new
version. All of the vendors selling me computer hardware have seen fit to make their hardware
backwards compatible to Windows 95, and I see no reason this will change either. All the application
vendors that I might buy Windows software from (actually, very few as I haven't bought any new
Windows software for years now) have also seen fit to test their applications on Windows 95.
In short, I'm the Microsoft Customer from Hell. Every year that I refuse to upgrade to a new version
of Windows, the yearly revenue Microsoft extracts from me is less and less. As of now, I've only
paid about $30 per year for the ability to run Windows 95 on my system. In 2003, that cost will have
dropped to $25. And as the years continue to pass that "toll" will get lower still.
Now, I'm just a single customer. But, what happens if a lot of Windows customers start doing this?
The financial impact, from Microsoft's perspective, is devastating. And the indications are that
more and more and more people are doing the same thing that I'm doing. It is for this reason, not
piracy, that Microsoft sales have gotten slower and slower in the past few years.

Shaking The Stick

Microsoft has tried various things to stop this. The first is threatening that if I didn't upgrade
to Windows 98, the next version of Windows wouldn't allow me to upgrade from Windows 95 directly. I
didn't upgrade, and they backed off, because Windows ME upgrade allows upgrade from Windows 95.
Then they tried this threat again with Windows XP. If I don't upgrade as soon as XP is released,
within a few months I will not be able to for the cheap upgrade cost. The only problem is, guess
what? If I had played by the rules and upgraded to Windows 98, and then Windows ME, I would have
paid moremoney in upgrade costs than if I simply didn't upgrade and bought the XP full installation.
So once again, stalling on upgrading has rewarded me financially. In fact, the way that Microsoft
has been running things, releasing a new OS every 2 years, if a customer skips every other OS
upgrade, they pay the same as if they upgraded every 2 years. If the customer skips every 2
upgrades, like I did, then they save money even though they are paying full price.
Microsoft isn't stupid and they saw the futility of this. With the old Windows licensing, the
Achilles heel is that once that CD is sold over the counter, it's out there forever. For example,
what happens if I get tired of messing with Windows and opt out, and just sell my copy for a few
bucks? When someone else buys it they are denying Microsoft a potential sale of a new Windows copy.

Planning Obsolescence

The way to solve this is to somehow make sure that if they release a copy of Windows, at some point
in the future it will become impossible to run it. What they would be doing is tantamount to selling
a car designed to have the engine explode when the odometer hit 100,000 miles. The hook that makes
this work is the lure of new PC hardware.
If you reread everything that Microsoft has published regarding WPA on XP, you will find that
nowhere do they guarantee that they will continue to supply XP activations forever -- even if the
customer is a legitimate owner.
Instead it is going to work like this: in 2001, Microsoft will release XP. A customer will buy it
and activate it. Two years later in 2003, that customer will buy a brand new clone PC, and get
another activation code. At the same time Microsoft will release a new OS, named Windows XQ. Then,
two years later in 2005, Microsoft will announce that XP will reach End Of Life in 2006, as by then
it will be 5 years old, and will have been replaced by XQ, and an upcoming release named Windows XR
due out in 2006.
Now, in 2006, our customer will have owned his PC for 2 years, and will start getting that feeling
in his bones to run out and upgrade to new hardware. He does so and installs the Windows XP copy
that he bought in 2001, five years earlier. It asks for an activation code and he calls Microsoft,
which says "Sorry, we are no longer supporting that. If you want an activation code it will cost
$100 or you can purchase Windows XR for $89.00 from a retailer."
In this scenario, the customer is screwed. Legally, Microsoft isn't forcing him to deinstall Windows
XP and buy a new copy. He is the one who triggered the chain of events by buying new hardware. So
nothing in the law helps him. But he is effectively forced into buying a new version. Furthermore,
since he probably won't be able to upgrade directly from Windows XP to Windows XR (without buying
Windows XQ) he will have to pay full price for Windows XR. Thus, he will have not saved any money by
not buying Windows XQ.

Prescription: Subscription

In summary, it's easy to see Microsoft's master plan to screw you if you continue to run Windows.
Every two years, you will be required to pay Microsoft $100, or every 4 years you will be required
to pay them $200. Every 4 years you will be forced to upgrade and will have to go through a new
learning process with new OS software. There will be no alternative. Then, if that's not bad enough,
on the off years between releasing new OS versions, the exact same thing will be happening with
Microsoft Office, and you will be paying them the Office fee.
Much has been written about how Microsoft would like at some point to move everyone to a
subscription plan, where you just pay them a fee every year for use of the software and get all the
upgrades when they are released. Everyone who has written about this has claimed the market will
pooh-pooh it and it won't happen here. But what nobody seems to understand is that with WPA in
Windows XP, that Microsoft will effectively have a subscription system in place-right now. If the
customers all buy XP and it doesn't flop, then all that will remain is to see how long it takes
before everyone realizes what happened while they weren't looking."


Not my post (obviously) but it is an interesting if alarmist opinion.

[[AK]Squidly]

Oh my, why doesn't this scenario scare me? Probably because I don't wait 5 years to buy a new machine. My cycle is more on the order of 1 1/2 or 2 years.

[Zorro]

More proof that M$ software piracy is <cough> bad... I dunno if you guys happened to catch this post I did over at TW. It's seems oddly appropriate to quote it here now...

Having NOT just acquired M$ Windows XP Professional Corporate Edition (sans registration) and M$ Office XP Professional (OH so happy they put FrontPage in that ) on Morpheus, I thought I might share my feelings on the matter.

There are a couple of arguments regarding software piracy that I feel merit some audience.

First, software publishers claim that piracy drives up the prices of their products for everyone. Essentially, the logic goes that developers are forced to have the people that actually pay for their software finance those that don't. They claim that if everyone were good little boys and girls that they wouldn't have to charge so much for their valuable product. In effect, this is an outright lie. M$, for example, has produced their last two major products in a way that is virtually un-piratable. If, indeed, Windows and Office XP were completely un-piratable, why is it that M$ has not only neglected to lower the prices on these two products, but actually raised them from their last release? Office XP Professional is available for $579 US for the full version and $329 US for the upgrade from Office 97/2000. Windows XP Professional goes for $299 US for the full version and $199 US for the upgrade from Windows 2000 Professional. Conversely, Office 2000 Professional sold for $499 US for the full version and $299 US for the upgrade from Office 97/95. Windows 2000 sold for $249 US for the full version and $149 US for the upgrade from Windows NT 3.5x Workstation. So, what gives!? Tell me, what justifies the increase in price for the product when M$ has virtually guaranteed that a MUCH larger percentage of their userbase will be using something other than a pirated version of the software? Additionally, any user that wants to run the new version who has more than one computer in their household has to pay for additional licenses for their household. That, to me, is dispicable, and more than justifies my NOT pirating M$ software.

Second, most software developers will say that they lose tons of money every year to piracy. That argument seems to knock their first argument in the head, doesn't it? If we're all paying to finance those who choose to pirate, why would the developer lose money? Hmmm... Taking that bit of information out of the picture, this argument is pretty flimsy, especially for an organization like M$. The core money makers for M$ are their OS and Office Productivity Suites products lines. 60% of that business is from large corporations on MOLP programs. Even though M$ gives volume discounts for these large purchases from these organizations, they still make about 50% of their PROFIT in this sector. An additional 30% of their revenue is derived through OEM distribution to PC manufacturers; furthermore, this accounts for another 20% of their overall profits. These two markets only account for about 1/6th of the total piracy that M$ sees when it does surveys, and it accounts for 70% of their profits. This is why the corporate editions of the XP products exist: M$ is not AT ALL concerned about piracy in this sector. Only 10% of their gross revenue comes from people plunkin down their personal fundage and buying the software retail for their home PCs. Only about 2 in 5 copies of these products (prior to XP, of course) in the home sector are actually legit, but M$ is only losing a token amount of business here. All it means is that instead of Billy G. lining his pockets with 2.5 billion dollars a year, he's only getting a paltry 2.4 billion dollars. Boo F-ing Hoo!

Now, before I get too terribly flamed, I am in no way endorsing stealing software from developers whose sole market is to the home consumer. Game developers would lose their shirts if piracy was much more widespread than it already is. This is one of the reasons why there's more developer focus on consoles these days over PCs: it's a lot tougher to pirate console games. But when it comes to guys that charge entirely too much money for the products they sell, especially those whose market is business/education-centric (M$, Adobe, Macromedia, etc.), I haven't a qualm in the world about NOT warezing the hell out of 'em.

But you shouldn't...warez is bad...

(Thank you Tribalwar for turning off searching, making me have to dig through 160 pages of history to find my friggin' post.)

[the wolffman]

tribalwar's search feature is disabled for a reason - there's a bug in the search program. if too many people search at the same time, the mysql database overloads because it can't handle that many requests. when the database overloads, the disks get fried.

that prompted them to turn off the search engine.

[[AK]Bribo]

This is an interesting article. I'm not sure if anyone's done any game benchmarking but as far as business software goes, Win 2000 beats Win XP hands-down for performance.

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc...029tcwinxp.xml

[[AK]Squidly]

I've noticed no degredation whatsoever in the games I've been playing. That might be the result of my systems' ungoldy power...

A big plus for me is this - when I get UE's in Tribes (and they do still happen from time to time), I don't end up having to reboot my system or hit ctrl-alt-del/end task a million times.
One ctrl-alt-del and end task, and I am ready to reload T2 without fail.

So far it seems the hype about not having crashing apps taking down your system is true.

[Zorro]

Gotta love that separate memory allocation per win32 application... heh... That's been an ability of Windows NT since the beginning, and it comes from its UNIX roots (the NT PM was the guy that wrote VMS for DEC).

[[AK]Squidly]

It's nice to finally have the stability of NT in "ready for gaming" package like Win2000 or WinXP.

[Dr_K]

My early impressions of XP vs 98SE have been mostly very good and the only frustrations have been with legacy drivers for my scanner (Visioneer 8600). My SB Live is acting better, my games and productivity software run stable (even my wife is happy, cause her Ami Pro still runs great). The one or two legacy software bits that choked at all (do to a driver conflict) dumped to the desk top without crashing the computer which is very nice. Over all, I'm satisfied (though not happy to spend the bucks for it, but, heh, I'm cheap )

[[AK]Bribo]

I have a copy of Win XP Pro in my greedy little hands. This is the corporate version, too, no online registration process required. Woot!

Now deciding whether to bite the bullet and go for it or not. I've heard some conflicting stories, mostly good reports. But my boss's boss - who is a big time gamer - has had nothing but problems. Lots of BSDs, lockups, re-installs, etc.

Decisions... decisions.