Re: Re-Acticatining Windows XP
From: Steve N. (me_at_here.now)
Date: 10/17/04
- Next message: trin: "re modem problem with sp2"
- Previous message: Carolina: "Can't see my desktop!!!!"
- In reply to: Bruce Chambers: "Re: Re-Acticatining Windows XP"
- Next in thread: Jupiter Jones [MVP]: "Re: Re-Acticatining Windows XP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:22:39 GMT
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Steve N. wrote:
>
>>I agree, I don't advocate lying or piracy practices, but then again,
>>if MS honored their vast, solid and dedicated user base they
>>wouldn't
>>subject their customers to such idiocy in the first place.
>>
>
>
> What "idiocy?" Trying to protect intellectual property from
> theft?
No. You obviously missed my point, which was BTW, customer satisfaction
and ease of use.
> Is the shop-keeper imposing "idiocy" upon his honest customers
> because he has to lock the shop at night to protect his merchandise
> from his dishonest "customers?"
No. Again you missed my point. I do not advocate stupidity or theft.
Come on Bruce, you are obviously smarter than this.
> Are you imposing "idiocy" upon your
> neighbors because you lock your house's doors and windows to
> discourage burglars?
FYI, I don't have to lock my doors in my neighborhood. We watch each
others' property, like normal, real, live, honest and caring human
beings do.
> Granted, to many honest people, WPA _is_ a minor
> inconvenience.
Minor inconvenience? Not when the obviously flawed WPA for no apparent
reason locks you out of your own computer and personal data files.
Confusing? Frustrating? Definitely, especially for the average person.
> But I don't blame Microsoft; I blame the people who've
> been violating copyright law and the EULA to distribute software as
> they see fit, thereby making some sort of copy protection necessary.
> And, of all the various copy protection mechanisms I've encountered,
> WPA is actually one of the least inconvenient.
Of course you wouldn't blame Microsoft for anything Bruce, you are tied
hand, foot and nose to them.
> Perhaps you'd prefer
> one of these other common means of software copy-protection:
>
> 1) The hardware dongles that must be attached to the parallel port to
> enable an application to work?
Works for me. No problem there and 100% effective. I prefer USB
hasp-keys, though, no need to power down before inserting one. :)
>
> 2) Faxing a notarized document signed by a company officer certifying
> the number of installations before being sent a code to enable the
> software?
I have never seen this sort or requirement in over 20 years of IT work
involving hundreds of thousands of application installations and
registration procedures while working for private industry, universities
and public education institutions.
>
> 3) Performing the application installations at bizarre hours of the
> night because you have to call another time-zone during the
> installation in order to obtain the necessary registration code from a
> live company representative?
A couple of times I needed to make a phone call to get a correct install
code due to a printed typo.
>
>>WPA issues aside for a moment, why have at least seven different
>>releases of Windows XP (Full Retail Pro, Full Retail Pro Upgrade,
>>Full
>>Retail Home, Full Retail Home Upgrade, OEM Pro, OEM Home, OEM Pro
>>Tablet, not to mention all the other possible OEM install media
>>variations), at least three of which are the most widely marketed
>>and
>>severely crippled as far as ease of repair and recovery are
>>concerned?
>>
>
>
> Would you want to pay $300 for a full version of WinXP Pro when
> all you need is a $200 Upgrade version? (The difference in price
> between full and upgrade is a "reward" for product loyalty, by the
> way.) Would you want to have to pay $300 for a full version of WinXP
> Pro when you don't need or want all of its networking and security
> features, and the much less expensive WinXP Home will suit your needs
> perfectly?
I made no complaint about the specific differneces between Home and Pro,
nor about Retail vs. Upgrade versions. Re-read what I wrote. I mearely
stated the fact that with at least seven (7) different releases of XP no
wonder the average consumer would know next to nothing about the
capability differences between Full/Upgrade and OEM versions and their
limitations.
> Microsoft, by providing different versions and licensing
> options, in providing their customers with some degree of choice. The
> Media Center and Tablet PC editions require very specific and
> specialized hardware components, so it makes sense, from a business
> point-of-view, to provide these as only OEM versions available on
> hardware platforms specifically designed for the purpose. How many
> people, beyond perhaps a few thousand really dedicated hobbyists
> worldwide, would actually want to build their own Media Center or
> Tablet PC? There would simply be no "return on investment" for
> Microsoft to develop the necessarily more hardware-tolerant versions
> of these two products for the retail market. (Personally, I can't
> even see _any_ use for a Media Center PC, for which other technical
> solutions don't already provide options. And a pad and pencil does
> everything I'd ever use a Tablet PC to do, and a lot less expensively.
> But that's just me.)
Again, you skirt the issues I presented, those being customer
satisfaction and ease of use.
>
> The choice of recovery mechanism is entirely the choice of the OEM
> provider, and therefore the choice of the people who purchase their
> product. Microsoft has _nothing_ to do with this. Microsoft requires
> the OEM distributors of its software to provide a recovery mechanism.
> Legally, the OEM has met it's contractual obligation to Microsoft by
> providing a means of returning the PC to its ex-factory state, whether
> it's a Recovery CD or a Recovery Partition. They are not legally
> obliged to provide a true installation CD as part of the sale.
Which is a mistake from the point of view of the average consumer.
Please don't make me repeat myself.
> Were
> Microsoft to try to insist that the OEMs provide their customers a
> real installation CD, the OEMs - and most of their customers, to whom
> the higher costs would be passed - would start screaming "Monopoly!"
> and "Unfair business practices!" at the tops of their lungs.
They already do anyway, and rightly so. The U.S. court system has even
found MS guilty of monopolistic practices at least two times I am aware of.
> Reputable, customer-service aware OEMs, like Dell and Gateway, do
> provide a full OEM installation CD, that does permit custom
> installations and repairs.
Not always.
> Many uncaring OEMs, such as Compaq, HP,
> and Sony, however, in an effort to save pennies and reduce their
> support costs by having to hire support people that can only say "Boot
> from the Recovery CD to return your PC to its original condition,"
> provide only a CD bearing a disk image of the hard drive as it left
> the factory. Essentially, it boils down to a variation of "You get
> what you pay for."
And one of my points was a suggestion to make EVERYONE pay the same
price for the same product, do not provide crippleware for a discount to
the unsuspecting masses; they see "Windows XP" and think it's the real
deal. If the complete, uncrippled package is really worth $300 then let
everyone pay that much for it, and make it WORK consistently without
normal folks having to jump through flaming hoops to get help when
something goes wrong.
>>Now toss in all the trouble folks seem to have with WPA and it looks
>>to me like MS has made a few big mistakes as far as keeping their
>>customers happy goes.
>
>
> WPA, like anything else, is not perfect.
That's for sure.
> It is unfortunate that a
> very few (it's a fraction of a single percentage of all the many
> millions of WinXP users -- not counting those who create their own
> problems by trying to do something they shouldn't have) do have
> problems with WPA. I think (but don't know, as I've no crystal ball)
> that Microsoft strives to minimize these problems, while balancing the
> effort required against any additional costs that must eventually be
> passed on to their customers. In software development, as in all
> other endeavors, perfection is a goal, but is also inherently
> unattainable. This is simply a fact of life.
What do they call it in a military situation? Oh yeah, "collateral
damage". The problem I tried to address is that common people pay hard
earned money and expect a certain level of performance from what they
bought and when it does not (for whatever reason) they are told "too
bad" and "you should have...". "Buyer beware" is more salient now than
ever before.
>
>>What ever happened to "the customer is always
>>right"? What ever happend to the idea of Microsoft Windows making
>>computing EASIER for the average person?
>>
>
>
> Does the "average person" have a Unix- or Linux-based PC? Where
> are all of the OS/2 Warp workstations? How about the household
> Solaris machines?
What the heck does that have to do with this discussion? You're grasping
at straws here, Bruce. Either that or I just don't follow your train of
thought with this.
> Microsoft achieved its overwhelming market share
> precisely because it *did* make computing easier for the average
> person. I think that it's become too easy. All too many people have
> bought into the various PC/software manufacturers marketing claims of
> easy computing. They believe that their computer should be no harder
> to use than a toaster oven; they have neither the inclination or
> desire to learn how to safely use their computer.
Microsoft achieved its overwhelming market share _without_ WPA. And
maybe using a computer _should_ be as easy as using a toaster oven,
especially when advertising says so. It nearly has been in the past, so
why complicate it all unnecesarily with so many releases of XP, WPA and
all that? They _already_ had the overwhelming market share of home
computing OSes and apps with Win9x and MS Office (excellent products,
BTW). And I _completely_ disagree with your thought, "I think that it's
become too easy." It _should_ be that easy. We actually do have the
technology to make it so but the big boys are milking the process for
all they can get.
>
>>The average person shopping for a computer these days has no idea of
>>the repercussions of buying something that is supplied with no
>>viable
>>means of doing a simple repair install, running recovery console, or
>>doing a hardware upgrade, while keeping their data and installed
>>programs intact.
>
>
> And whose fault is this, other than that of the computer users,
> themselves? If a person is too lazy too learn how to safely use and
> maintain his/her own computer, he/she shouldn't own one.
Oh yeah, here we go again with calling normal people lazy and stupid.
Normal people have a job (if not two!), a family and important life
responsibilities to attend to, and you know what, these same normal
people are the folks who are really paying for all this. You know what
else? Normal people are not crooks, they happily pay for what they get,
they are honest and have no desire to get something for nothing. If you
don't think so then maybe you're hanging out with the wrong people.
> A computer
> is, first and foremost, a tool. Depending upon a computer for to
> accomplish one's tasks, while deliberately remaining ignorant of its
> proper and safe operation, is like a carpenter or mechanic who refuses
> to learn to safely maintain and operate his power tools: a danger to
> himself and others.
So help educate them and quit ridiculing them.
>
>>They don't have a clue as to the important
>>differences between these seven (or more) releases of Windows XP,
>>now
>>do they?
>
>
> Then they should put the same product research and thought into
> into buying a computer that they use when buying a car or household
> appliance.
The normal people I talk to everyday do just that. At a point they give
up trying to understand all the ins and outs of all this technobabble
and just buy the most affordable PC they can find. They don't have time
for this, they've got lives to attend to and they just want a computer
that works as advertised.
Steve
- Next message: trin: "re modem problem with sp2"
- Previous message: Carolina: "Can't see my desktop!!!!"
- In reply to: Bruce Chambers: "Re: Re-Acticatining Windows XP"
- Next in thread: Jupiter Jones [MVP]: "Re: Re-Acticatining Windows XP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
