Is this the reason for the new batch of anti-Microsofters?
-
Try to be logical for a moment - whoever is using the pirated software will also be using pirated and cracked XP, he will not have to activate anything. The whole activation will specifically "punish" the genuine copies owners, the pirated copies won't require activation.
whoever is using the pirated software will also be using pirated and cracked XP I'm not so sure about that. There's a lot of people out there who is using a copy of a friends Windows. I don't think all those people is interested in downloading cracks. Using a friens CD, might not seem as illegal as downloading cracked versions. Just my 2 cents... - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
-
Try to be logical for a moment - whoever is using the pirated software will also be using pirated and cracked XP, he will not have to activate anything. The whole activation will specifically "punish" the genuine copies owners, the pirated copies won't require activation.
As I said in a previous discussion: WPA is NOT designed to stop the determinied from getting around it, it is designed to stop the everyday casual theft that occurs without people thinking about it. I should know as before I started getting enough money I was the guy bringing home copies of the Windows and Office CD's to install on my home PDC and laptop. Now I don't need to, but more importantly I wouldn't be able to without specifically looking to crack it. I think you'll find amny people find it easier to steal software in this way when they don't have to physically do anything to steal it. It is easier to justify it that way. Most casual pirates probably don't want to be pirates. And of course, many still don't realise they can't just share their CDs. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
As I said in a previous discussion: WPA is NOT designed to stop the determinied from getting around it, it is designed to stop the everyday casual theft that occurs without people thinking about it. I should know as before I started getting enough money I was the guy bringing home copies of the Windows and Office CD's to install on my home PDC and laptop. Now I don't need to, but more importantly I wouldn't be able to without specifically looking to crack it. I think you'll find amny people find it easier to steal software in this way when they don't have to physically do anything to steal it. It is easier to justify it that way. Most casual pirates probably don't want to be pirates. And of course, many still don't realise they can't just share their CDs. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
Well, you could still bring it home from work if you wanted to because the MSDN Universal subscriptions give a version of Office XP that doesn't require a CD key or product Activiation at all. I was amazed. Jason Gerard, Master of Kung Foo
-
whoever is using the pirated software will also be using pirated and cracked XP I'm not so sure about that. There's a lot of people out there who is using a copy of a friends Windows. I don't think all those people is interested in downloading cracks. Using a friens CD, might not seem as illegal as downloading cracked versions. Just my 2 cents... - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
And if he gets the cracked version from a friend as a CD?:) As far as I know corporate buyers of XP will not be required to activate, only retails buyers will. I am sure most pirate copies of Windows are those that people take from the office and install at home (and maybe give to their friends), so activation will change nothing in terms of piracy. But the private individual who buys windows, or a pc with windows installed, or the small business will be affected, with the person most affected – the small time software developer. If I buy a new pc with XP installed and want to run XP on my other PC, and put my current version of win2k on the new machine, apparently I no longer have the right. Also if I want to install multiple test configurations, I no longer have the right. At present I can because I own msdn, but as far as I can tell even msdn users will be required to activate their XP – does that mean everytime I reinstall XP, or put a test installation on another pc I need to phone Microsoft up saying yes it is still me please give me another code. (it might just be easier to ask a friend to give me a copy from the office - activation even promoting piracy!) [OK I know it will run for 30 days, but it is the thought that counts.] I in fact own 3 pcs, but one jaz drive, one dvd, one cd rw, one scanner (scsi card) etc, and even though they are networked, often change the configurations, including swapping components. All I can see for now is that there is no interest for me to use XP as my main OS. I do not believe software should be tied to hardware, but to a person. If I buy a copy of some software I should have the right to reinstall it as I want on whatever machine I want, as long as it is me using the software. I am sure that most people who buy windows do not give it to someone else as they have paid for it so why should they give it to someone for free. So the problem will stay the same i.e. those who take their copy for free from the office, are those that are more willing to give a copy to someone else. Leo
-
After the posts I’ve left in this week’s poll discussion, I decided to do a little research to check I wasn’t just taking Microsoft’s word for it on the so called XP and .NET privacy issues and the latest "Look, Microsoft is the devil" topics. I've just spent nearly two hours reading up on countless respected news sites (and ZDNet ;)) about the latest week's anti-Microsoft proceedings and was scared at what I found in the majority of the cases. It seems many the so called ‘experts’ these reports quote from in their articles really need to do a bit of research into what the hell they are talking about. The problem is that is someone reads one of these news articles and accepts it entirely as fact; Microsoft is heading for some very big problems. If I didn’t know better I’d say that these reporters were deliberately spreading miss-information (heaven forbid such a thing). One example (which is by far the easiest to come across) what I like to call “The Angry Reporter Anti-Activation Article.” These are the guys and gals who go into great detail about how you are going to be forced to register all copies of Windows XP. Or, if they do manage to say “activation” rather than “registration”, they still claim that to be an invasion of your privacy, usually accompanied by the usual paranoia induced quote that Microsoft will use the information it gathers through the activation process for Marketing purposes. Like your country and a meaningless string of characters is really personal. Would you complain about having to keep a license plate on your car so a Traffic Warden might be able to tell if it is stolen? It’s exactly the same principle. Another example is the confusion between HailStorm and .NET. I define .NET as Microsoft themselves do: Microsoft® .NET is Microsoft's platform for creating and using Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based Web services. This platform will enable developers to create programs that transcend device boundaries and harness the connectivity of the Internet, as well as help them be more productive with their time. And I think of HailStorm as a collection of services written to run in .NET, for example the new Passport service and that calendar thingy. Whereas the vast majority of articles I came across that discussed the Passport/Hailstorm privacy issues we stating things that basically said, “HailStorm is also known as .NET”. I believe that was actually stated in those words on one account. Then they go on to say “Microsoft’s new .NET language will...”, and that
PLEASE DON'T OBFUSCATE THE ISSUE OF PRIVACY WITH PIRACY. People with legal copies of Win XP would have legitimate concerns of privacy. You may want to read these this article by Stewart Alsop: http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol.jhtml&doc\_id=203359 Microsoft certainly deserves credit for C#, CLR and other terrific innovations. Passport and Hailstorm are good but couldn't Microsoft have thought up of alternative architectures? Why should a single entity have so much info about citizens? No one except the government should. Maybe even the government shouldn't! Microsoft has failed miserably on the PR front as far as privacy concerns go. Besides, why does XP require Raw Sockets? Do they want a TCP/MS? http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010802.html --Neelesh
-
Try to be logical for a moment - whoever is using the pirated software will also be using pirated and cracked XP, he will not have to activate anything. The whole activation will specifically "punish" the genuine copies owners, the pirated copies won't require activation.
Right you are, sir! XP activation will simply punish the genuine retail user who are "helping out" their neighbours. Is this kind of piracy as bad as the one done by real pirates out on the sea? Or the professional crackers? Its a point of introspection. --Neelesh
-
Microsoft shouldn't have to port the CLR. That is up to the other platform owners/devlopers. Would you expect Unleaded fuel to work in all petrol engines? No, if you want to use it, you should be the one to 'port' the engine. Okay, that was a crap example, but hopefully you get my point. How about if Microsoft Kitchens Incorporated released a new worktop bracket that allowed you to fix the worktop to the top of the base units more easily. Now Microsoft Kitchens obviously update their base units to work with the new bracket, but why should they spend their time and money building a new range of base units for Linus Kitchen's? Businesses just don't work as charities. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
I guess you know this: Microsoft is porting it to FreeBSD. Corel has been hired by Microsoft for .NET porting. Mono (http://www.go-mono.net)is implementing it for Linux. GNU (http://www.gnu.org) has its own dotGNU initiative. Free software doesn't work off charity. --Neelesh
-
Microsoft shouldn't have to port the CLR. That is up to the other platform owners/devlopers. Would you expect Unleaded fuel to work in all petrol engines? No, if you want to use it, you should be the one to 'port' the engine. Okay, that was a crap example, but hopefully you get my point. How about if Microsoft Kitchens Incorporated released a new worktop bracket that allowed you to fix the worktop to the top of the base units more easily. Now Microsoft Kitchens obviously update their base units to work with the new bracket, but why should they spend their time and money building a new range of base units for Linus Kitchen's? Businesses just don't work as charities. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
I guess you know this: Microsoft is porting it to FreeBSD. Corel has been hired by Microsoft for .NET porting. Mono (http://www.go-mono.net)is implementing it for Linux. GNU (http://www.gnu.org) has its own dotGNU initiative. Free software doesn't work off charity. --Neelesh
-
And if he gets the cracked version from a friend as a CD?:) As far as I know corporate buyers of XP will not be required to activate, only retails buyers will. I am sure most pirate copies of Windows are those that people take from the office and install at home (and maybe give to their friends), so activation will change nothing in terms of piracy. But the private individual who buys windows, or a pc with windows installed, or the small business will be affected, with the person most affected – the small time software developer. If I buy a new pc with XP installed and want to run XP on my other PC, and put my current version of win2k on the new machine, apparently I no longer have the right. Also if I want to install multiple test configurations, I no longer have the right. At present I can because I own msdn, but as far as I can tell even msdn users will be required to activate their XP – does that mean everytime I reinstall XP, or put a test installation on another pc I need to phone Microsoft up saying yes it is still me please give me another code. (it might just be easier to ask a friend to give me a copy from the office - activation even promoting piracy!) [OK I know it will run for 30 days, but it is the thought that counts.] I in fact own 3 pcs, but one jaz drive, one dvd, one cd rw, one scanner (scsi card) etc, and even though they are networked, often change the configurations, including swapping components. All I can see for now is that there is no interest for me to use XP as my main OS. I do not believe software should be tied to hardware, but to a person. If I buy a copy of some software I should have the right to reinstall it as I want on whatever machine I want, as long as it is me using the software. I am sure that most people who buy windows do not give it to someone else as they have paid for it so why should they give it to someone for free. So the problem will stay the same i.e. those who take their copy for free from the office, are those that are more willing to give a copy to someone else. Leo
If I buy a new pc with XP installed and want to run XP on my other PC, and put my current version of win2k on the new machine, apparently I no longer have the right. Of course you do, providing neither your new PC nor the Windows 2000 one have an especially restrictive license. Together with 'activation' there is 'deactivation' whereby you can untie a copy of the OS from one machine to install it on another. How else do you think people will upgrade/replace their machines? Also if I want to install multiple test configurations, I no longer have the right You currently only have the right to use non-corporate version of any version of Windows on one machine at a time. You can still install more than one copy of Windows XP on your machine as you can currently. If you want to install it on more than one test machine then you will need to (and currently you will need to) choose the appropriate license (e.g. a developer license). ... even msdn users will be required to activate their XP. I doubt that would be the case. Development systems (both the ones we develop on and test machines) are by their very nature going to require re-installation of the OS (when we developers mess up the system ;)). If I buy a copy of some software I should have the right to reinstall it as I want on whatever machine I want, as long as it is me using the software. God no. That implies that you should be able to install work copies of software at home, seeing as you will be using both. That is piracy in it’s most obvious form. I am sure that most people who buy windows do not give it to someone else as they have paid for it so why should they give it to someone for free. So the BSC, etc, are all wrong? I have had many friends and colleagues come up to me and say, “I’ve just bought such and such version X.0. Would you like me to lend it to you?” Maybe you can’t see it happening but it does – everywhere. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
Right you are, sir! XP activation will simply punish the genuine retail user who are "helping out" their neighbours. Is this kind of piracy as bad as the one done by real pirates out on the sea? Or the professional crackers? Its a point of introspection. --Neelesh
Er... yes. Theft is theft. You can't use the starving man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family excuse here. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
PLEASE DON'T OBFUSCATE THE ISSUE OF PRIVACY WITH PIRACY. People with legal copies of Win XP would have legitimate concerns of privacy. You may want to read these this article by Stewart Alsop: http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol.jhtml&doc\_id=203359 Microsoft certainly deserves credit for C#, CLR and other terrific innovations. Passport and Hailstorm are good but couldn't Microsoft have thought up of alternative architectures? Why should a single entity have so much info about citizens? No one except the government should. Maybe even the government shouldn't! Microsoft has failed miserably on the PR front as far as privacy concerns go. Besides, why does XP require Raw Sockets? Do they want a TCP/MS? http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010802.html --Neelesh
[note, this answers the same questions which you posted in the poll discususion, and some of my quotes may be from there] You have only linked to articles I have already read. Try reading a few more and start comparing the differences. I am glad you remembered the Cringely article... I'm not so sure. Can you please point me to some link that says so? I'm using my home machine at the moment, so I can't check my browsers history from Friday afternoon, but rest assured I will post a couple of links on Monday morning. Why should a single entity have so much info on citizens? No one except the government should. Some would argue that even the government shouldn’t, but that isn't the issue we are discussing here. Microsoft will not have any more data than you are willing to give them, and they can only use it for purposes that you have previously agreed to. They are governed by the US equivalent of the British Data Protection Act 1980. You could give them your credit card numbers and they couldn't use them without your permission. Companies are covered by the same basic rules as the government when it comes to data assimilation and protection. People just assume Microsoft will break the law because they can (and I am talking about serious legal ethics here, not possible anti-competitive practises). David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
whoever is using the pirated software will also be using pirated and cracked XP I'm not so sure about that. There's a lot of people out there who is using a copy of a friends Windows. I don't think all those people is interested in downloading cracks. Using a friens CD, might not seem as illegal as downloading cracked versions. Just my 2 cents... - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
-
If I buy a new pc with XP installed and want to run XP on my other PC, and put my current version of win2k on the new machine, apparently I no longer have the right. Of course you do, providing neither your new PC nor the Windows 2000 one have an especially restrictive license. Together with 'activation' there is 'deactivation' whereby you can untie a copy of the OS from one machine to install it on another. How else do you think people will upgrade/replace their machines? Also if I want to install multiple test configurations, I no longer have the right You currently only have the right to use non-corporate version of any version of Windows on one machine at a time. You can still install more than one copy of Windows XP on your machine as you can currently. If you want to install it on more than one test machine then you will need to (and currently you will need to) choose the appropriate license (e.g. a developer license). ... even msdn users will be required to activate their XP. I doubt that would be the case. Development systems (both the ones we develop on and test machines) are by their very nature going to require re-installation of the OS (when we developers mess up the system ;)). If I buy a copy of some software I should have the right to reinstall it as I want on whatever machine I want, as long as it is me using the software. God no. That implies that you should be able to install work copies of software at home, seeing as you will be using both. That is piracy in it’s most obvious form. I am sure that most people who buy windows do not give it to someone else as they have paid for it so why should they give it to someone for free. So the BSC, etc, are all wrong? I have had many friends and colleagues come up to me and say, “I’ve just bought such and such version X.0. Would you like me to lend it to you?” Maybe you can’t see it happening but it does – everywhere. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
Over time there have been plenty anti piracy methods to tie a piece of software to a machine (e.g. one time installation from a floppy, dongles etc.), and all the companies that used them in the end stopped doing so because it drove customers away due to the only person being hassled with such procedures was the honest user. The person who did not pay used the cracked version and had no problems. What is the point of selling a protection system if someone else can buy the same product without it? I believe that the activation procedure will lead to more piracy, as the home user is now treated as a thief if he goes out and buys a copy, but if he brings back a copy from the office he can do what he wants with it. Actually the activation procedure is only going to touch a small percentage of installations, which should not even concern the general home user who buys their pc preinstalled and never changes it. But the person who is going to be hassled with activation is the more technically savvy, or the person who does a lot of installs, or software testing and ends up having to frequently reinstall. You apparently strongly support activation but at the same time feel it is not your problem because each time you need to reinstall you just pull out your msdn disk. As far as I know win XP on msdn will require activation, and until I read otherwise assume it will be the case. I assume you will be less supportive of activation when it is your turn to explain to the Microsoft hot line that your pc has legitimately gone belly up and that you have the right to do another install. http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpavlfaq.asp http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=21577 If you buy a new pc from a major vendor such as Dell or Gateway, apparently the windows install cd is now tied to the bios serial no (this is not specific to XP), so no you do not have the right to install it on another machine or upgrade your motherboard in such a case. http://content.techweb.com/winmag/columns/insider/2001/03.htm Apparently you believe that if your company buys something for you to use at work it is yours. I do not believe that. But if you go to work at a company as a freelancer for a couple of weeks and the company does not have msdn. If you own msdn you can install it on your pc there, use it and then uninstall it when you leave, leaving only the source code and your finished program. Now as activation is such a good thing lets assume microsoft extends it to all their products. Are you
-
After the posts I’ve left in this week’s poll discussion, I decided to do a little research to check I wasn’t just taking Microsoft’s word for it on the so called XP and .NET privacy issues and the latest "Look, Microsoft is the devil" topics. I've just spent nearly two hours reading up on countless respected news sites (and ZDNet ;)) about the latest week's anti-Microsoft proceedings and was scared at what I found in the majority of the cases. It seems many the so called ‘experts’ these reports quote from in their articles really need to do a bit of research into what the hell they are talking about. The problem is that is someone reads one of these news articles and accepts it entirely as fact; Microsoft is heading for some very big problems. If I didn’t know better I’d say that these reporters were deliberately spreading miss-information (heaven forbid such a thing). One example (which is by far the easiest to come across) what I like to call “The Angry Reporter Anti-Activation Article.” These are the guys and gals who go into great detail about how you are going to be forced to register all copies of Windows XP. Or, if they do manage to say “activation” rather than “registration”, they still claim that to be an invasion of your privacy, usually accompanied by the usual paranoia induced quote that Microsoft will use the information it gathers through the activation process for Marketing purposes. Like your country and a meaningless string of characters is really personal. Would you complain about having to keep a license plate on your car so a Traffic Warden might be able to tell if it is stolen? It’s exactly the same principle. Another example is the confusion between HailStorm and .NET. I define .NET as Microsoft themselves do: Microsoft® .NET is Microsoft's platform for creating and using Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based Web services. This platform will enable developers to create programs that transcend device boundaries and harness the connectivity of the Internet, as well as help them be more productive with their time. And I think of HailStorm as a collection of services written to run in .NET, for example the new Passport service and that calendar thingy. Whereas the vast majority of articles I came across that discussed the Passport/Hailstorm privacy issues we stating things that basically said, “HailStorm is also known as .NET”. I believe that was actually stated in those words on one account. Then they go on to say “Microsoft’s new .NET language will...”, and that
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do u want to know why people hate Microsoft?? Everybody wants FREE software. Most of the software they use is pirated. Hence they are afraid to give personal information to Microsoft. They fear of getting caught!! That’s the reason whey they make a big deal about XP activation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And I believe that is why everyone is so paranoid about giving Microsoft any data that could be used for anti-piracy measures, anonymous or not. If I wanted to pirate Windows XP, I would be too. It’s paramount to sending a receipt for some marijuana you just bought down the pub, to the police *. This is obviously the case. From M$ POV product activation is needed on two fronts, the first is making sure they have a revenue stream, as I have said previously, but far more important to them I would imagine is control of piracy. I would say their user base is at the point were the 10 % of people left not using Windows would be 80 % harder to convert than the previous 90% was. So it's an obvious way to grow their business to now target users they have and make sure they are legal. It's a quandry we all find ourselves in as developers - to what degree are we willing to inconvenience our paying customers to try and ensure people who have not paid cannot use our software ? But the best quote of all was from a certified Visual Basic developer who was saying that he would not allow employees in his company to use C# as it would tie them to Microsoft’s operating systems. I just couldn’t stop laughing when I read that – the pure irony of it – but it is a very scary revelation. That guy had obviously been fed this misinformation and swallowed it. And in today’s world where it is fashionable to be anti-Microsoft, I doubt his company is alone. You *did* say he was a certified VB programmer :laugh: Seriously, given that C# has been submitted to a standards committee, where does that put him with regard to VB ? What a clown... I'd suggest the anti trust case would be a big reason that everyone seems to assume M$ is guiltly on every possible front. Actually I hear Bill Gates was seen near a grassy knoll.... Christian Secrets of a happy marriage #27: Never go to bed if you are mad at each other. It's more fun to stay up and fight.
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do u want to know why people hate Microsoft?? Everybody wants FREE software. Most of the software they use is pirated. Hence they are afraid to give personal information to Microsoft. They fear of getting caught!! That’s the reason whey they make a big deal about XP activation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And I believe that is why everyone is so paranoid about giving Microsoft any data that could be used for anti-piracy measures, anonymous or not. If I wanted to pirate Windows XP, I would be too. It’s paramount to sending a receipt for some marijuana you just bought down the pub, to the police *. This is obviously the case. From M$ POV product activation is needed on two fronts, the first is making sure they have a revenue stream, as I have said previously, but far more important to them I would imagine is control of piracy. I would say their user base is at the point were the 10 % of people left not using Windows would be 80 % harder to convert than the previous 90% was. So it's an obvious way to grow their business to now target users they have and make sure they are legal. It's a quandry we all find ourselves in as developers - to what degree are we willing to inconvenience our paying customers to try and ensure people who have not paid cannot use our software ? But the best quote of all was from a certified Visual Basic developer who was saying that he would not allow employees in his company to use C# as it would tie them to Microsoft’s operating systems. I just couldn’t stop laughing when I read that – the pure irony of it – but it is a very scary revelation. That guy had obviously been fed this misinformation and swallowed it. And in today’s world where it is fashionable to be anti-Microsoft, I doubt his company is alone. You *did* say he was a certified VB programmer :laugh: Seriously, given that C# has been submitted to a standards committee, where does that put him with regard to VB ? What a clown... I'd suggest the anti trust case would be a big reason that everyone seems to assume M$ is guiltly on every possible front. Actually I hear Bill Gates was seen near a grassy knoll.... Christian Secrets of a happy marriage #27: Never go to bed if you are mad at each other. It's more fun to stay up and fight.
You *did* say he was a certified VB programmer lol. I never intended it it be interpretted that way. Honestly... to what degree are we willing to inconvenience our paying customers to try and ensure people who have not paid cannot use our software Death. Okay, maybe not death, but at least removal of one's hands. They do this in some mid eastern countries if you are caught stealing, so what's the difference? I'd love to see what a couple of public de-handing's would do for Microsoft's PR campaign. Not very handy i'm sure. (Okay, I know that was a bad joke, but I had to put one in there somewhere ;)). David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
Er... yes. Theft is theft. You can't use the starving man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family excuse here. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
"they say helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship" http://juraj.bednar.sk/work/prace/computer/freesoft/stallman.php Even the law differentiates between different kinds of crime. Not everything is in black and white. Often, there are many shades of grey. --Neelesh
-
You *did* say he was a certified VB programmer lol. I never intended it it be interpretted that way. Honestly... to what degree are we willing to inconvenience our paying customers to try and ensure people who have not paid cannot use our software Death. Okay, maybe not death, but at least removal of one's hands. They do this in some mid eastern countries if you are caught stealing, so what's the difference? I'd love to see what a couple of public de-handing's would do for Microsoft's PR campaign. Not very handy i'm sure. (Okay, I know that was a bad joke, but I had to put one in there somewhere ;)). David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
I don't see the big deal in paying for a new version of Windows. I like Win2K fine, and when I am ready to get a new PC, I assumed I would just get the next version of Windows with it. The thing that makes me nervous (and re-think wanting XP) is that MS owns (controls) so much. The OS, the Office Suite (with proprietary file formats that change with every new version), the web browser, the media player (which MS are using to push their own proprietary media format rather than the more popular .mp3 format), the CD burning software (now included in the OS), the email client -- they even own the desktop (and get angry when another company tries to get a 32x32 icon :eek: ). A little analogy to help explain: imagine you live in an apartment and the company you pay your rent to is the same one that you pay for your phone service, your cable, your utilities, and when you want to buy groceries, you go down the store that -- you guessed it -- is owned by this same company. Imagine that this company made an offer to buy your bank. Would you be in favour of that? What if the US DOJ had declared this company a monopoly? (The court upheld Jackson's ruling that Microsoft engaged in illegal monopoly behavior despite opposing his behavior.) Like I said at the top -- I'd feel nervous, but not about the cost of buying Windows XP. "das leid schlaft in der maschine" -Einstürzende Neubauten