Very true. Most people who sell them don't really know the product they expect us to buy - just look at the adverts PC World make... Get my drift?Originally Posted by dangel
I also feel a change is on the way with Macs... Not a massive market gain, but a dent in the invenerability that users percieve they have against viruses, etc. The main reason they are not considered a target IS because of the market share. Just imagine what might happen if that share increased...
Matt.
The world is a great big Onion - try to cut it, and you are likely to cry...
Well, its not surprising.
Product Activation, Windows Genuine Advantage, Office Genuine Advantage and the new EULA...Can't you people see that this all a big initiative from Microsoft?
Back in 1998, Bill Gates said...
Guess what? We're in the "next decade", its too costly for most people to leave, and Microsoft is here to collect."As long as they are going to steal it [software], we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
If you think things are starting to get uncomfortably more restrictive, you ain't seen nothing yet. As time goes by, the noose will tighten even further.
And they don't give two hoots if a few enthusiasts get upset over this, because the majority of Windows users don't even know or care. (That is, until it affects them in a serious way...By then, its too late).
Here's an analogy to get you thinking.
(I've read somewhere, I think it was ArsTechnica...And again in a Yale research paper).
There's two ways you can cook a frog...
(1) Boil the water first and throw the frog in.
The problem is, the frog is likely to see what's going on, and jump out of your hands before you can cook it. (Smart frog!)
(2) On the other hand, if you put the frog in the pot first, and then gradually heat the water to boil, the frog won't know its in trouble until its too late. (Bye frog!)
So what does frogs, Windows Users and MS's "anti-piracy" initiatives have in common?
MS is taking the (2) approach and gradually introducing these "anti-piracy" initiatives such that no one with a clue will notice much. By the time they figured out wtf is going on, they're that poor frog, trapped inside a boiling pot of water!
And this is the point I want to make. It is WRONG to take the passive or "sit back and wait" approach. If you do so, you're merely reaffirming that Microsoft now owns you. This is because you depend on them! It all means that they have the power to do whatever they want with you...And they're doing it right now, and they know you can't do anything about it...Or can you?
You can hit back. By looking at OR even trialling alternatives. It doesn't matter if its Linux, OSX, or some other. And it doesn't matter if it results in success or failure. The goal is to reduce your dependence and reliance of Microsoft solutions as much as possible, as well as become aware that there is things outside the Window. (pun intended).
What does this do?
(1) It opens a door for you. Anytime you feel the noose tightening too much, you can switch to an alternative, and reduce your reliance more and more, as alternatives become more mature.
(2) It makes you aware of alternatives. The thing Microsoft fears most is the average consumer starting to become aware of the alternatives. It means they have choice to leave!...Haven't you notice the "Dell/Acer/Toshiba/etc recommends Windows XP" labels on websites?
Notice almost every x86 laptop comes with those stupid "Designed for Windows" stickers? This is all part of a bombardment campaign to the average Jane/Joe PC user. Essentially, this results in the user not knowing anything other than Windows is all and everything they need for computing! (Yeap, the psychological game).
The overall message I want to convey is that, its your right as the consumer to say what you want and what you don't want in a product. You can't just sit on your arse and expect someone else to do the work for you. You have to put the effort in. (Whether its looking at alternatives and such).
Microsoft is analogous to a drug dealing tyrant. They get you addicted and dependent on them, and then they can do what they want with you. The hardest part with any addiction is to break it. To reduce your reliance on it. To break free.
If you don't, you really shouldn't complain.
Its your choice. But its your choice to choose wisely.
To be fair any business would rather you buy the product rather than steal them. Thats why you get security tags on items in shops.
Microsoft has taken a slightly relaxed view in the past as its been about getting the presence on as many machines as possible, partly to get people "hooked" and partly to impose their dominance as a major OS provider.
The real money for Microsoft is in Corporate licencing and OEM licencing to the big OEM's (e.g. HP, Dell etc). Retail sales are chicken feed in terms of money to Microsoft, but unfortunately not to the retail customer.
Software company equate one pirated copy as one lost sale. Personally I don't think this is true. Most people cannoy afford to buy every piece of software and they are selective in what they buy.
Intel i5 2500k @ stock
Thermalright SI-128 (Bolt-through)
Asus P8Z68V/Gen3
2x8Gb DDR3
ASUS GTX 670 DirectCU II 2Gb
I don't think that's true. Crackers and Hackers (security researchers) target certain products for a variety of reasons. The "we're more popular, so we're hit more" is a poor cliched excuse. Crackers take attack Microsoft solutions because they are easier to break than other OSs. And its always fun to red-face Microsoft everytime their PR/Marketing people think their new whizz bang new security feature will make them invincible.
If you've actually talked to people in the security field and ask them, you'll know its an all out joke. (assuming they're nice enough to tell you what is exactly wrong with Windows). No one can't mention the words "security" and "Microsoft" in the same sentence and keep a straight face.
Although its a joke, its a very profitable joke. Microsoft, through the last 20yrs or so, have caused the development of a huge security industry that lives to protect MS solutions...Its a Multi-Billion dollar one at that. (so you can see why Symantec and such are a bit pissed off when MS tries to make things less easy in Vista...So yes, Microsoft did create their own monster).
Despite all the security hype about Vista, its not "bullet proof" as you all are led to believe. (Talking about slapping on security features does NOT make the overall solution safer if the solution or the implementation is weak).
Here's a few examples.
(1) Address Space Layout Randomization (or ASLR)
This idea came from an open-source project called PaX. The basic idea is to try and prevent poorly coded apps from being a security issue. (Its not foolproof as there are ways around it under some scenarios, but it gets most common issues).
So what's wrong with Vista's implementation? Well, its weak to be effective.
(Its very weak compared to the original PaX implementation).
(2) PatchGuard
Introduced in 64bit versions of Win2k3 and XP, there's already information on how to break or bypass this. Last I checked, the Vista implementation of PatchGuard is already broken! (Which is scary, because Vista isn't even out yet!)
(3) Data Execution Prevention (or DEP)
Again, introduced in Win2k3 SP1 and XP SP2...And guess what? Yeap. You can bypass this too!
(4) And in recent times...
There is now an issue with WinXP's firewall/ICS implementation. If you use your WinXP box as a router to share your network connection, I suggest you consider reading up on it...Or even buy a cheap router instead.
Do a search on Google of the above, and you can see I am not lying to you.
My point is, despite the nonsense you are led to believe, MS solutions aren't safe. You have to do quite a bit to maintain your box. MS has to make compromises in their implementations simply because they're under a deadline, userability concerns or because some weeny in upper-management thought its a cool idea.
Their attempt to prove their Vista has strong security by taking it to a Black Hat conference was nothing more than a marketing exercise. Of course, they were left red-faced when a female Polish hacker compromised their Vista box. They tried to resolve one of the issues, (the Polish chick suggested three possible ways to resolve the issue), but they have taken the "quickest" or "easiest" approach. They are under a deadline, remember?...Unfortunately, its gonna cause more problems later on.
Anyway, just think about how much crap you have to install ontop of a typical Windows installation. Think of all the services you need to disable and the necessary tweaks you need to make to improve your odds against threats.
A well-designed OS wouldn't need all that anti-malware crap. At most, you need an AV solution and that's it.
So what about Apple?
Apple was smart enough to base their OSX on proven Unix technology. They've effectively taken open-source solutions, made some changes, dumbed it down, made it pretty, so anyone using OSX doesn't need to read much on how to operate it. So what's wrong with them?
(1) They're arrogant. Arrogance can be considered weakness when you can lead your foes into believeing something. In the case of security, being arrogant is a bad idea. Arrogance will cost you.
(2) They're a bit lax when it comes to security patches. (as in the response time to resolve security issues is slow). Put it this way, when a hacker threatens to release detailed information about possible OSX related security issues, you know something is not very right!
(3) When problems appear, deny first. (If they accept that they're imperfect, then it will tarnish their "superiority" or "we're better" image).
(4) Marketing. When they say there are no viruses on OSX and such, what they don't emphasize is that Windows viruses don't work on OSX or Unix/Linux based solutions. Of course, the average Jane/Joe isn't gonna know that, are they?Their marketing primarily pokes fun at PCs, pointing out and making fun of them. Overall, it promotes superiority that has a cult-like following. (Under such fanatics: everything sucks, Apple owns all).
(5) Not flexible. I don't agree with the original opinion that the author has made regarding enthusiasts won't need to mod or customise their solutions, because Apples are "better designed". That's just plain nonsense.
Its a fact that modders prefer PCs because of their flexibility. They want the freedom to do whatever they want with it. If the video card isn't beefy enough? Get a new one. If something breaks, you can open it up and swap that part out. You don't have to piss fart around waiting for the Apple Service Centre to get your box repaired. (So you benefit from the quick turn around times).
With a PC, you can install any OS you want with it. (Linux, Windows, BSD, OS/2, some variant of BeOS, etc...Even OSX, despite the "legal issue"). With Apples, you have to masturbate around with the EFI solution. (Thank you Intel for developing nonsense like that).
The point of implementing EFI is to make it difficult to run anything other than OSX, unless Apple says so. (which was demonstrated by their introduction of BootCamp..."Oh look! You can now run Windows on a Mac!").
Overall, I can point out allot of crap that Marketing will try to hide from people. The problem I have, is the way they send out the message when they advertise. Its really manipulating words such that if you don't pay attention you fall for BS. And that annoys me. Deceiving people to make money. I guess that's why I do engineering instead of advertising! (find out the facts from all the BS they dish out).
You're a cynical so and so, Stmok - I like that!
Thanks for providing your opinion for both sides. I don't think my post was commenting on MS products, but I can see where you are coming from...
I have friends that are Mac users (sun shines out of it's backside, etc) and agree that these people believe the hype. I agree that they are misguided, but also believe that the popularity of something makes it more of a target, as well as how good something is. You only need to look at the media to realise that those who push themselves in to the spotlight have a more critical eye cast upon them - does this make sense of my original post?
Take care.
Matt.
P.S. Looking forward to the next tirade... :-)
The world is a great big Onion - try to cut it, and you are likely to cry...
I think there's hype on both sides but the biggest change in either camp is that MS are at least *trying* to do something about security - there's been a marked shift from the attitude of old. Of course it's far from perfect (nothing ever is) and yes, like any commercial company they're working to deadlines etc. and so hacks go in instead real fixes - but I'd rather they reduced the overall lever of exposure than did nothing at all (which is pretty much what happened in the past). Sure, Vista isn't going to be bulletproof (in fact MS' security team are pretty up front about this) but will it have the level of exposure to malware of XP? Seems unlikely - I just hope they manage to push 'non admin' as being the mode for normal use to Windows users but it's going to be a hard sell (as is UAC) despite the benefits.
MS don't have the luxury of 'no compromise' solutions - simply because the public howl about such things - I've read nothing but derision about UAC for example and yet it's basically a good idea. People aren't willing to wait for it to improve (it has immeasurably since the public Beta) and forums are full of people saying they'll run as admin and turn UAC off thus cementing the real problem with Windows security - the users. Am I invulnerable in linux running as root? No. Same applies in Windows land - and yet 99.9% (*) of Windows users run just like that meaning all virii and malware run at the same hyper-elevated level. Whoops. Quite a big 'whoops' too..
Perhaps i'm not enough of a cynic but i'd rather evlaluate Vista on it's merits and against it's real competitor - Windows XP. Will it be less secure than that?
(*) Source: my mum
Last edited by dangel; 02-11-2006 at 12:40 PM.
Crosshair VIII Hero (WIFI), 3900x, 32GB DDR4, Many SSDs, EVGA FTW3 3090, Ethoo 719
I have to agree with dangel. I've fixed many PC's over the last few years. Almost all that were broke by a security problem(virus, spyware whatever), were almost completely caused by user ignorance or just plain blondeness. Especially since SP2.
Most recent example of a friend who pirated a high end corporate version of zonealarm. Which is a pretty good firewall, actually it's a very good firewall, until of course he started blindly clicking yes to every question box that popped up. Needless to say after a few months of this and spending every spare moment on limewire his PC was running like Christopher Reeves.
A little bit of education would go a lot further than most software ever will, unless they completely lock down vista, but then everyone will cry about how MS is treating them like children and they cant do this that or the other.
i think you misunderstand. microsoft aren't penniless in the streets because of piracy - on the contrary, they're only as big as they are BECAUSE of piracy.
take office as an example. microsoft office: £300. lotus smartsuite: £75. pirated microsoft office: £0. no, the prices aren't current. they can't be - smartsuite's gone the way of the dodo, courtesy of the cheaper competing product (i.e. pirated office).
everyone's hooked on microsoft software now - meaning microsoft are free to raise prices and implement draconiam restrictions as they see fit, and it's too late to do anything about it.
remember, the first hit is always free
one thing to consider, just because its in the eula, doesnt mean ms will enforce it - they may just have put it in as a way of stopping people taking the piss - so they're able to clamp down on licence keys being used on, say, 10 machines in 6 months - but 2 or 3 a year will be let to slide under the net.. the reality really remains to be seen
hughlunnon@yahoo.com | I have sigs turned off..
..and that isn't going to change, new restrictions will be circumvented (quickly) as per usual and people will continue to get their 'fix' (lol) for free.
My personal view of piracy is that for personal use it generally doesn't do that much harm - many's the program i've pirated as a student and ending up making a purchase order for once i joined the working masses. Everything in the workplace has to be legit, and thus there's always a steady stream of punters lining up with their cash for your product (if it's any good).
On another note has anybody thought about the fact that Apple are as bad or worse? It's not as though you can run OSX on any hardware you like (legit.) now is it? One wonders what would happen if they decided to do a shrink-wrap OS like MS does - would they be any less restrictive? If you look to iTunes as an example..
Crosshair VIII Hero (WIFI), 3900x, 32GB DDR4, Many SSDs, EVGA FTW3 3090, Ethoo 719
Apple provide os x shrink wrapped with no cd key or any copy protection at all. They don't support pcs as that would open them up to a whole heap of support issues, hence the mac only restriction
They are also far cheaper £89 for full version of os x no restrictions. Or £139 for upto five machines!
That said apple have it easier when it comes to OS piracy as every copy or almost all have to go on apple machines that at some point have had a legitimate copy of an Apple OS on them, bought and paid for. This isn't necessarily the case in the windows world.
Well you both neatly sidestepped my point and then brought it back up again later in your post (kind of )Apple provide os x shrink wrapped with no cd key or any copy protection at all. They don't support pcs as that would open them up to a whole heap of support issues, hence the mac only restriction
They are also far cheaper £89 for full version of os x no restrictions. Or £139 for upto five machines!
That said apple have it easier when it comes to OS piracy as every copy or almost all have to go on apple machines that at some point have had a legitimate copy of an Apple OS on them, bought and paid for. This isn't necessarily the case in the windows world.Anyway, yes, they do have copy protection it's linked to that ikkle TPM chip in your Apple hardware. It's that which the hackers fudge to get it running on generic hardware. It isn't that Apple are safeguarding _you_ by doing so, moreover it's driven by commericial considerations - i.e. they want to sell you their hardware _and_ software.
Price? More difficult than you think - people often point to the fact you have to pay for yearly upgrades - five of those for five years of XP being on the market shall we say? You elduded to why the 5 machine's price was so low - it's because you're buying the Apple hardware in the first place (often at a premium) and have already paid for licences for whichever version of OSX came with it..
Swings and roundabouts really, I don't think there's a lot in it either way (although we could argue the point ad infinitum pointlessly).
Perhaps I'll clarify - if Apple produced a version of OSX that wasn't linked to their hardware, would they be any less restrictive than MS? Again, I nudge you towards their history with DRM-ed music..
Last edited by dangel; 02-11-2006 at 05:21 PM.
Crosshair VIII Hero (WIFI), 3900x, 32GB DDR4, Many SSDs, EVGA FTW3 3090, Ethoo 719
No, probably more so... The iTunes protected media is a joke! I have five downloads from them, yet because the media player I have is a Samsung YP-U1 I cannot play them away from the PC. Is this comparable to anti-trust? I know there was a lawsuit a while back, but Apple appears to have won that time - unlike Microsoft...
Matt.
The world is a great big Onion - try to cut it, and you are likely to cry...
Microsoft have just announced a change inteh licence terms for Vista :http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...ing-terms.aspx
Looks like Microsoft listened
That's great imo. I'm actually surprised they've listened like that [before the release]. shows at least someone in MS cares about the general feelings on the netMicrosoft have just announced a change inteh licence terms for Vista :http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...ing-terms.aspx
Looks like Microsoft listened
Excellent news indeed. And we should acknowledge MS for for responding positively to this issue rather than trying to spin this any more. This certainly makes a difference.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
