| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
22% of Windows Installs Non-Genuine | |
|
||
| Time: 01:08 EST/06:08 GMT | News Source: BetaNews | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft disclosed Monday that over one in five Windows installations were deemed non-genuine through the company's Windows Genuine Advantage program, which requires users to validate their operating system before downloading updates from the company. Since WGA launched in July 2005, over 512 million users have attempted to validate their copy of Windows, Microsoft said. Of those, the non-genuine rate was 22.3 percent. 56,000 reports have been made by customers of counterfeit software, which grants that user a free replacement copy of Windows. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:51:36 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 1/23/2007 7:38:45 AM |
|
In reality, does MS think that pricing an OPERATING SYSTEM at $400 is going to cut back on these numbers?
I suspect Vista will be the most pirated piece of MS software since Windows 95/98, and they are bringing it upon themselves. Oh, and this number includes false-positives, which are well documented. TL This post was edited by TechLarry on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 07:39. |
| #2 By 37 (76.210.78.134) at 1/23/2007 8:07:57 AM |
| If MS wanted to charge 5 billion dollars for Windows Vista Home Upgrade, they should. |
| #3 By 3746 (71.19.41.232) at 1/23/2007 8:42:43 AM |
|
#1
If you want to buy Vista Ultimate it is 399 retail. The OEM version will be a lot less. Plus the majority of people won't even buy or need everything that is in Ultimate. Most are going to get Vista when they buy a new computer and they will be paying a lot less. As it is pricing is inline with OS X and extremely fair for what you get. Besides people would pirate Vista if it was 50 bucks. I guess I come from the world of really high end apps where paying 20 grand per seat and monthly fees on top of that for support. Even 399 for ten years of support and fixes does not seem high to me at all. 39.90 a year - just cut out the starbucks a couple times a year and you are set. |
| #4 By 72672 (70.98.2.226) at 1/23/2007 3:53:09 PM |
|
#3 -
Your point about most people not paying $399 -- or needing to -- is well made. The question, however, may not be whether $399 (or some lesser price) is too much for an operating system, or even whether a $50 OS would be pirate-proof. The question is whether I perceive the value I get from an operating system to be worth the price. An OS, in my mind, is still just that -- an operating system. That is, it is software that stays in the background and provides the connectinos between me, the data, the applications, and the outside world. Somehow, I have trouble finding $400 worth of value in that proposition -- not to mention the cost of the significant hardware upgrade I would have to undergo to run it. (I'm not counting that right now because I really need to upgrade anyway, regardless of OS.) The idea that you can amortize the cost over 10 years is just a bit silly in today's computing world. No PC operating system has lasted unchanged for that length of time; not Linux, not Apple, not good old DOS, and certainly not Windows. Nor will the hardware to run it on last that length of time. A 3-year-old amortization -- at most -- is more realistic. And I'm just a bit allergic to paying $133 to $200 a year for an operating system. |
| #5 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 1/23/2007 4:09:54 PM |
|
"No PC operating system has lasted unchanged for that length of time; not Linux, not Apple, not good old DOS, and certainly not Windows."
Munich is still running NT 4.0 for the most part ... althought I heard they recently bought some used Windows 2000 licenses. NT 4.0 is 10 years old. "And I'm just a bit allergic to paying $133 to $200 a year for an operating system. " 50$ once with a new PC from Dell ... somewhat more for Ultimate. 199$ for an OEM copy of Ultimate. 66$ a year over 3. 40$ a year over 5. This post was edited by NotParker on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 16:11. |
| #6 By 3746 (71.19.41.232) at 1/23/2007 8:59:45 PM |
|
#4
The point is that hardly anyone is going to pay 399 for the OS. Most will get OEM copies. Most won't even get ultimate to begin with. Do you know many home users that need to access a domain? So using the 399 number when the majority are going to be paying far less creates a false sense of the real cost of the OS The point I was trying to make with 10 years is that is how long it will be supported. Most people would have moved on long before that - either a new OS or computer. But that doesn't mean the computer cannot be in use somewhere for that long. Would the OS X model be better? Charging 129 per version of OS X for what amounts to pretty small upgrades. If you upgraded to every version of OS X since it came out you would be looking at a bill of 645 (up to Leopard when it comes out). Seems like a pretty steep bill for 6.5 years worth. And of course you don't need to upgrade to each version. But the same goes for not needing to upgrade to Vista. Windows XP is going to still work fine when Vista arrives. |
| #7 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 1/24/2007 8:21:09 AM |
|
Duplicate. Sorry!
This post was edited by TechLarry on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 08:28. |
| #8 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 1/24/2007 8:21:32 AM |
|
I repeat myself.
IT IS AN OPERATING SYSTEM TL |
| #9 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 1/24/2007 8:22:24 AM |
|
#4,
You get it. Thank you :) TL |
| #10 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 1/24/2007 8:27:54 AM |
|
#6 writes:
"The point is that hardly anyone is going to pay 399 for the OS. Most will get OEM copies." Well, maybe not. Please remember, Microsofts license change to allow transferring the OS to as many new computers as one wishes (as long as it's only installed on one at a time), does NOT apply to the OEM version. It only applies to the full retail version. Once the OEM copy is installed on a computer and activated, that OEM copy is locked to that computer. Forever. This is nothing new, really. OEM copies have always been like that. The tricky part comes when the enthusiast, who is the person most likely to use an OEM copy, decides to upgrade a hard drive, cpu, NIC, System Board, or any combination of these. At what point does Microsoft call it a new computer and deny re-activation? This is unknown territory at this point. No one really knows. And don't forget, the OEM version is NOT cheap. It's still $200. For an operating system. These are things that have more than one self-building enthusiast, including myself, wondering if the full version isn't a safer route to go, which brings us back to the $400 cost of Ultimate. For an operating system. TL |
| #11 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 1/24/2007 6:22:59 PM |
|
#10 - Enthusiasts would, if they conform to the definition of the word, "enthusiast" certainly have retail copies of every OS they were using. It seems terribly inconsistent to me, for an enthusiast to do otherwise. People who are enthusiastic about cars, RC aircraft, surfing, guitars, art, or any interest, invest large sums of money opposite those interests.
Similarly, enthusiasts are very clear on the details relating to their interests, and in this context, they would have a clear understanding of the licensing models and they would know that an OEM "equipment CAL" has more restrictions on its use than a full retail version of Vista, XP Pro, or 2000 Pro would have - it wouldn't be a dominating consideration, to an enthusiast. As similarly, less well resourced enthusiasts would have prepared, tracked Vista's development cycles, attended numerous events [earning free copies of all kinds of software and Office 2007 - off-setting other costs] and they would have saved up for Vista. Finally, an enthusiast would not even consider running any Vista version short of Ultimate edition, which by definition, is designed and priced for enthusiasts who want all that Vista has to offer. An enthusiast, would insist, despite having access to less well presented, versions of Vista, which might otherwise be available [as at MSDN, TechNet Plus, or a voucher from an event], on purchasing a fully boxed - perhaps even autographed, version of Windows Vista Ultimate edition - simply to have the packaging, which is itself an experience that is new [the OPK experience]. I am not able to reconcile the definition of the word enthusiast within the context you've suggested it be used. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:51:36 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
