Don't Buy The Full Vista

[stevesh]

This: http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080403#story1 suggests that you can buy the 'upgrade'version of Vista and install it on a clean hard drive.

Edited April 3, 2008 by stevesh

[MikeJ]

Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's legal to do it. And the way that article reads, is like saying just because a person leaves his door unlocked at home after someone breaks in, means he supports someone breaking in again, is kinda ludicrous.

 

If cost is an issue, there are other alternatives.

[Madmanmcp]

This was originally discovered during Beta Testing and has been discussed and debated ever since. The original intention was to be able to "Upgrade" a computer that had a qualifying Version but not do an upgrade, instead they wanted a "clean install" without having the leftover junk from the previous version. This is "supposed" to be only possible with an "Full" version of the Vista program. The "hack" that is described was actually the same one used with the XP Upgrade version (and I believe it may have come from even an earlier version) to get around the limitation of a clean install from ONLY the FULL version.

 

Some folks believe using this hack is ok if they have a valid version to upgrade. MS believes that EVERYone is just trying to beat the system and get the OS for a cheaper price. I believe its a little of both.

[DWD]

Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's legal to do it.

<start sarcasm>

 

I don't think you fully understand computers and the internet.

 

If you can download something on the internet...it's yours. Copying is not stealing if you wouldn't have bought it anyway or if it's priced too high or if the money would go to someone evil. Vandalizing a website and causing the owner to incur expenses in restoring things is not like vandalizing a real business. It's all just one's and zeros so chill out. All those words that come with programs don't mean anything. Copyright is just a tool of government and business to oppress the masses. Anything big is evil. It's OK as long as I'm a student. If it sucks, you don't have to pay for it. If you're forced to use it, you don't have to pay for it. No harm, no foul. If a rule is stupid, you don't have to follow it.

 

And the sign said anybody caught trespassing would be shot on sight

So I jumped on the fence and yelled at the house, Hey! what gives you the right

To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in

If God was here, he'd tell you to your face, man you're some kinda sinner

 

Sign Sign everywhere a sign

Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind

Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign

 

CSN&Y man!!!

 

</end sarcasm>

[stevesh]

No, I'm thinking that if Microsoft sells me a CD that does something they don't want it to do, it's on them. Seems like all the big brains at MS could figure out a way to stop this if it were important to them.

 

I don't think you can reasonably call this 'illegal' - it's not really even a 'hack' as far as I can see.

[Madmanmcp]

The debate continues

 

it's not really even a 'hack' as far as I can see.

hack

[very common]

 

1. n. Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not well.

 

2. n. An incredibly good, and perhaps very time-consuming, piece of work that produces exactly what is needed.

 

There are lots of different interpretations of the word "hack" and you have a lot of company with your view here. I am on the other side on this one.

 

I don't think you can reasonably call this 'illegal'

 

MS does and I wouldn't want to argue the point in court with all of MS's high powered lawyers.

Shortly after the hidden upgrade method was published, Microsoft officials publicly stated that the procedure would violate Vista's end-user license agreement. Section 13 of the Vista EULA (PDF version) says, "To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligible for the upgrade."

 

Just because you can do something and a company doesn't go back and block it from happening, doesn't make it legal. You just found a way around an intended purpose...or you hacked it

[TCH-Bruce]

 

Being a software developer myself it pisses me off when people try to get around licensing agreements. You do not own the software EVER! You buy a license to use it. If you don't like the terms of the license then don't buy it. As Mike said, just because you can doesn't make it right.

 

 

Now that I've said that, I think Microsoft trys to suck every dollar they can from you. I don't agree with it and think all they need to do is drop the price to something reasonable and people would quit trying to get around it. I think $50 a copy is reasonable. Think of how many copies they would sell.

[stevesh]

Just because you can do something and a company doesn't go back and block it from happening, doesn't make it legal. You just found a way around an intended purpose...or you hacked it

 

 

I guess my point was that if MS wanted to stop this they could, very easily. EULA or no, I think you have a responsibilty to mitigate the damage to the extent that you can. If someone noodles out my email password and is reading my mail, and I find out, would it make sense for me to yell and complain and sue, or would changing the password seem like the obvious action? (Simplistic example, I know, but the principle is the same).

 

Very interesting comments here, though.

Edited April 4, 2008 by stevesh

[TCH-Bruce]

Steve, it's not the same. Come on now.....

[MikeJ]

I guess my point was that if MS wanted to stop this they could, very easily. EULA or no, I think you have a responsibilty to mitigate the damage to the extent that you can.

 

It's people that take this approach of "if it's possible to do, than it's ok to do, the vendor should make it impossible if it's not" that cause DRM (Digital Rights Management) to be implemented and results in things like movies that won't play on all players, songs that you purchased that won't play on all of your players or that you can't copy to any device you own like you want, and as is the case above, require you to carry two CD's (if you hadn't lost the first one already) with you to do a fresh install on a machine that you already had a windows license for but may not currently have windows running on.

[Head Guru]

 

Here is my rant. What pisses me off is the blantant misuse of any software license. I was standing in line today at Micro Center purchasing a copy of MS Server 2003 SBV for a client. The guy in front of me asked the cashier if he could install the software he was buying on multiple computers. The cashier told him of course he could and that it was so easy to get around the licensing agreements. She went on to tell him how to get around the Windows XP activation.

 

Everyone Lies and steals software. I guess this is a fact of life eh?

[Madmanmcp]

I guess my point was that if MS wanted to stop this they could, very easily.

 

Thats where most folks are wrong in their thinking for several reasons. One is the fact that the cat is already out of the bag and there are millions of these disk already on the streets. During the first couple months after its release there were discussion about MS possibly fixing it and folks were talking about gobbling up all the currently available Upgrade disks so they would have them before it was fixed. Two, developing software is a long, EXPENSIVE process with the possibility of breaking other things in the process. MS more then likely did a cost analysis and figured it was way more expensive to fix then to let it go.

[stevesh]

Steve, it's not the same. Come on now.....

 

Bad analogy, I guess. How about this. I leave my beloved classic Ferrari GTb in my garage, with the garage door open and the keys in the ignition. I go overseas for a week, and when I return, my car is gone. Yes, the scumwad who stole it is the bad guy, but don't I have some culpability due to my failure to implement the most basic security procedures? Maybe I'm missing something.

[Samrc]

Everyone Lies and steals software. I guess this is a fact of life eh?

I disagree. Granted it's not the norm, but there are many folks out there that do follow the rules.

 

I do not steal software or accept other people's software copies, I burn backups for myself but do not give my software to others, when I move software to a new machine I remove it from the old, installations of the software are limited to no more machines than allowed (usually pc & laptop) and this is shocking....I actually buy software and try very hard to get the real thing not a chinese knockoff with a stolen serial number!

 

Sometimes it means I wait a while. Sometimes I skip upgrades for the products I like most. I respect the fact that someone or a team of someones wrote that code and allow me to use it for a time. If the software is not open-source, known to be free, then the creator of the software should be compensated for their efforts! Love open-source products, or freeware (if known to be spyware free) but sometimes it is not the same as paid software.

 

Pricing is a factor. Some software is overpriced. Period. But that still does not justify stealing it.

[Madmanmcp]

but don't I have some culpability

 

It means you made a HUGE mistake...its doesn't make its legal or your fault. The person can still go to jail for stealing the car. Try as much as you want at an analogy it will not change the fact, its illegal to steal, a car or software. Using the software in a way that it was not intended, in this case buying a cheaper version of software and using it to perform like the more expensive version is illegal. Just because you can and the maker didn't fixed the problem doesn't make it ok.

[stevesh]

Well, it doesn't seem like all you guys could be wrong, so I guess I'll have to reconsider my position.

[DWD]

Well, it doesn't seem like all you guys could be wrong, so I guess I'll have to reconsider my position.

Now that is a very mature statement...and very unusual for the internet. It's one thing for someone to have always done "right" (whatever that is) because they always believed that was the course of action to pursue...but an entirely different thing for someone to intellectually come to the conclusion that their course of action was incorrect and that they should change their ways. To me, at least, that is the person with the higher morals, one who acts against his national disposition to do what is right.

 

Well played stevesh.

[Christine]

I agree with DWD on the maturity level of that statement and how rare it is to have mature conversations and debates on-line. Most people hide behind their computer and talk trash they would never do face to face. I love these forums.

 

That being said, think of it this way: You spend time and money on a studio, sound equipment, hours practicing, writing, singing. You make your cd. You have invested a lot of money with an expectation of a return by selling your music. Through the course of making your sales available on-line someone inadvertently made a mistake and your "music" is vulnerable to anyone who wants to download it. You have run out of money to reprogram the site and cannot afford to hire someone. You really expected a return for your investment, think about all the promotion you paid for? You've tapped out your parents. Your pregnant girlfriend gave you her last $500. Your part-time job at Taco Bell barely covers your car insurance let alone gas. You've put in over two years of hard work and passion, and over $20,000 after doing the math, just to watch your music walk out the door. Even after you politely asked people to do the right thing on your site and not steal - reminding them it's a crime and telling your sad story - they continue to download it.

Sure, if you were going to spend that much time and effort you should have atleast planned out the security on your site better - but how could you? You're an artist... not a technological genius.

Your parents turn their backs on you and tell their aquaintences that you are dead. Your friends stop calling. Your best friend steals your girlfriend and they raise the baby as their own. You lose your job at Taco Bell because the manager says you don't have the Taco Bell spirit anymore. Years later you are spotted selling flowers by the side of a freeway exit. You are allergic to flowers.

 

You can't even steal thoughts and words - plagiarism. I imagine software is a bit more tangible.

 

I'm having a lot of fun in here - you guys are great...

[stevesh]

You guys are going to embarrass me here. I appreciate the compliments, but the fact is I can be as hard-headed as the next guy.

 

It's just that it's unusual to express an opinion on forums like this one and have no one agree with you. I'm still not completely convinced, but I'm thinking about it.

 

I'm still not persuaded that Microsoft doesn't have a responsibility to change future copies of the Upgrade CD to remove the Full Install option, hack or not.

[Mission]

If Microsoft was giving away Vista, I wouldn't want a copy.

[DWD]

Ordered a new desktop Friday...long story short...Windows XP Professional.

[flashram]

This fresh install option isn't something that is only been new for the past couple of issues of windows, it has in fact been around since the first releases of windows. Many OEM and resellers used this way to do fresh installs over drives that had previously been a DOS version when windows came out. The fact that you can do it, is legal, as is the fact you can copy the windows CD's as well as a backup quite legally. In fact a lot of Microsoft Software in Business is allowed to be installed twice, once on the work computer and once on the home computer or laptop of the person using the program under the licencing agreement. Microsoft understand that someone isn't using the software at work when at home and vice versa, or when using a laptop. This fact has been around for years.

 

The thing that Microsoft did back when they first brought out Windows 98, was increase the price to a point that people no longer thought it was worth it, and that started the piracy levels increasing exponentially year after year. Now it is a Billion $ industry in piracy and Microsoft still haven't got it in their heads that the software is basically just too high for people to care any longer and seek it through other sources (read here piracy). Much like a lot of other software that are running down the same path, like Adobe Software, Plug-ins for software etc, they are all being pirated, cracked and put up on sharing platforms where links get around among people pretty quickly sharing these pirated version, using up just your bandwidth to download.

 

Until they realise some time down the track hopefully sooner than later, that the price is just too restrictive to people in this day and age of electronics, it will continue to happen.

 

Example, Microsoft gives away a lot of software to third world countries, good luck to them, but then they are worth probably half of what the American debt is at present anyway. They also have lots of specials that run at times where depending on whether you are a student or not, you can acquire legitimate software like Microsoft Office 2007 for $79Aus yes that is correct. So if that is the case, then why do they charge others such high price for their software like $1,100 for Office isn't an unknown figure.

 

If everyone in the world didn't buy any Microsoft Software or products for just 1 week, that would bring the company to it's knees and maybe then they would wake up and listen to the masses that have told them for several years now that competing against piracy isn't going to work the way they do it today. They need to bring back a more realistic price and I think people would actually purchase the software legitimately. And they Microsoft could spend their $$$'s on better things, like getting windows to actually work properly and not suck all the resources up of a machine.

 

Just my 2 cents on this whole debate.

 

Piracy is illegal no matter how you try and justify it to anyone, and those that do it should be incarcerated, fines don't work.

[TCH-Bruce]

Hate to say it Peter but you are wrong. Yes, you are correct they allow their other software titles to be installed on two computers, like Word, Excel, FrontPage, etc... We're talking about the operating system here. That has always been licensed to one CPU/drive for as long as MicroSoft has been in business unless of course you buy a multiple license pack.

 

As for Vista, I'm with others in this thread, I wouldn't want a copy even if it were free.

[cajunman4life]

"While I'd thank the guy that informed me I left my keys in my unlocked car, I'd shoot the one who noticed and decided to drive off with it to 'demonstrate the problem.'"

 

Having said that, I happily use FreeBSD at home (with Mac OS X on my (Apple) laptop). I use OpenOffice.org for office related stuff (which works good enough for me... if I ever need full office for something I can use a work PC).

 

Just my $0.02.

[flashram]

I don't want Vista either, don't get me wrong. But Windows did have multi licencing back in the early days of Windows 3, yes I still had disks for it, just chucked them all out as we are in the process of moving, along with DOS disk's, Office and a whole lot of very old software. It was back when Windows 98 came out that things changed with The OS's Bruce, but I do know that this thread is about single licencing which I agree with, maybe I didn't state that the right way. Was more trying to say that Pirating isn't good for anyone, nor is overly priced software either, and that is basically where these issues really need to be addressed and that would certainly curb piracy to a large degree.