One thing for sure is that my readers don't lack for opinions, particularly when it comes to Microsoft. In fact, responses to my recent story about the Windows Genuine Advantage validation requirement were so varied I think we need to run a quick poll to see what consensus there is.
Many theories abounded on what lies behind Microsoft's decision to require validation for future XP updates. "This isn't about piracy," wrote one reader. "It's about training users of Microsoft's products to expect product validation. First it's just for downloading enhancements. The next step is to run validation each time Windows or another MS product is started. Once users become accustomed to that routine, it's a short jump to making people pay for their software on a per use basis. Microsoft wants that kind of recurring revenue."
Many others, however, felt Microsoft was perfectly justified in trying to discourage piracy this way. "I don't believe that Microsoft is blaming their customers," wrote another reader. "I believe they are trying to convince people to buy legitimate software from a legit business and move away from buying pirated software from some fly by night business operating on the Internet. Maybe when their software shuts down, people will learn that you get what you pay for. Don't be a dough head. Purchase real software from people who work hard to create it. I'm sure that you wouldn't want someone obtaining your life's work for free."
Some expressed concern about the security implications of Windows users finding it harder to get updates. "If 25 percent or more of Windows cannot be updated, it's that many more machines open to virus/Trojan infections that turn them into viral spreading machines," wrote another reader. "These updates are primarily to repair defects in the original release of the software -- defects which should not have been present in the first place. Imagine if you had to bring your car in to the dealer once a month for 'updates.'"
Still others actually welcomed the opportunity to find out whether their software was legitimate. "It's far too easy for a shady company to sell an organization 10 new computers with only one legal license of Windows or without a legal license at all," a reader wrote. "I work for an organization which paid for a vendor to come in and install a Windows XP upgrade on roughly 10 or 15 computers. I found out when I tried to upgrade the computers to Service Pack 2 that we don't have a real Windows XP CD ROM, just a burned copy, and we don't have a Certificate of Authenticity. I am very grateful that Microsoft wrote Service Pack 2 so that it won't install on those computers because now I know that I need to buy the necessary licenses and make sure that we're legal so that if we're audited we have only legal software running on our computers. I'm just glad that I found the problem before someone did an audit of our systems and found it for us."
But there are those who aren't nearly as happy with their Microsoft experience. "Microsoft is just putting the squeeze on legit customers," wrote another reader. "I was the admin to a charity house, who bought a legit copy of 10-user XP Pro, and was doing a clean install of their machines in order to take care of some garbage that accumulated on them. Microsoft's customer dis-service wanted roughly $250 from us! Just for calling! Face facts, piracy isn't going away, even if this plan does fly. No customer service, increasing DRM-unfriendliness ... It's easier to convert to Linux, like I did, and save a bundle on Anacin alone."
So let's have a poll to see where your opinion falls on this spectrum. Do you think Microsoft's Genuine Windows program is 1) a reasonable move that should help deter software piracy, 2) a necessary if somewhat painful step to come down on rogue OEMs and re-seller, 3) a basically futile but not terribly Draconian attempt to hinder counterfeiters 4) yet another anti-piracy scheme that only really punishes honest customers, or 5) one more good reason to move to Linux? Cast your vote, view the poll results, and post your comments here.
12:42:07 AM 
|
