Vista "reduced functionality" is coming

[svet-am]

Do you really not see how ridiculously 'tinfoil hat' a fear such as that is? Such a scenario would not ever eventuate because, straight and simple, it's about the only thing which could happen which would end up with an outcome in which the 'PC world' isn't a 'Windows world'. Should MS even contemplate trying such a move, to ensure its acceptance amongst their customer base they'd need to reduce the asking price for the new version to a pittance. They'd never be able to even recoup their development costs. It's a silly suggestion which isn't even a remote possibility, really!

I'm certainly not a tin foil hatter. But, it is actually more plausible than you seem to think. If you follow the legal rumblings, the various departments of justice (not just in the US, but worldwide) seem to be gearing up for another round of anti-trust suits specifically over Vista. If you recall from last time, the anti-trust solution that was most popular was splitting Microsoft into two companies: an OS company and a services/products company. Such a move could severely and directly impact how these servers operate. In fact, it could necessitate shutting them down. Again, like you said, unlikely but still _possible_. It's the possibility in and of itself that makes me uneasy about this.

It's pretty much the same principle that I find fault in Steam from Valve. Right now, I've got ~$250 in software that I've only been able to buy using Steam (granted, I bought them in the store but they required authentication via Steam). Should Valve go belly-up, I'll have no way to authenticate my games and I lose that investment. That makes me more than a little uneasy.

I understand what you're saying - "the likelihood of Microsoft making such a move is so unlikely as to be not plausible." However, that's putting an _awful lot_ of blind trust and faith in a company that seems to do whatever it likes and then hides behind the guise of "piracy prevention." When it comes to my OS, I'd rather not have to put blind faith in whether or not it'll function. Hell, I'd be OK with the Vista style of phone-home activation if it was just in Microsoft Office or other Microsoft user apps. But having it in the OS is what makes me uncomfortable.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

I've always wondered what they'll do when XP is EOLed. I hope they release a patch that disables activation legally.

 

[Catweazle]

Can't dig up any linkys with reference to it, but I can clearly recall Microsoft making statement on a number of occasions that if they ever decide to withdraw online/telphone activation for any of their products which require activation, they will provide users with the means to bypass the requirement before that facility is withdrawn.

I can't find reference to it on Microsoft's website, but I know damned well that they made such a commitment publically, back a fair while ago.

 

[MrGuvernment]

No one would be stupid enough to put an MS product on such a critical system that's why

You have got to be kidding me right? you do know that most of the worlds Email servers are, yup - exchange for large companies / top 500 et cetera

how many hi end secured systems are, yup ISA 2006/2007 2007 being the most secure system in the world with not a single exploit to date....?
How many retail stores use MS store front system (in costa rica alot i have seen)

as bad as some may think windows is, perhaps on the desktop, it's server market is more then adequate to handle any and all tasks, i also beleive that IIS growth is going up while apache is stalling? (could of been a biased article of course)

Windows is only as good as the person who set it up or the IT, no diff then linux, but the server packages are m,ore reliable and stable then the desktop segment, obviously.

 

[Azhar]

I'm curious how tolerant everyone posting here would be of these "minor inconveniences" when you desperately need information provided by medical imaging devices that happen to be affected by this issue? Most certainly, I haven't heard about it happening yet, but it scares the living bejeezus outta me.

No one would be stupid enough to put an MS product on such a critical system that's why

You'll be surprised how many critical machines are loaded with Microsoft products. Besides, smart businesses who uses Windows on such highly critical machines would use corporate licenses that doesn't bug you about activation like other licenses do.

 

[:LJ:]

I've always wondered what they'll do when XP is EOLed. I hope they release a patch that disables activation legally.

They'll have to be very careful how they do it - if they push Vista too much in the process, I suppose that might be considered anti-competitive practice

 

[eeyrjmr]

You have got to be kidding me right? you do know that most of the worlds Email servers are, yup - exchange for large companies / top 500 et cetera

how many hi end secured systems are, yup ISA 2006/2007 2007 being the most secure system in the world with not a single exploit to date....?
How many retail stores use MS store front system (in costa rica alot i have seen)

as bad as some may think windows is, perhaps on the desktop, it's server market is more then adequate to handle any and all tasks, i also beleive that IIS growth is going up while apache is stalling? (could of been a biased article of course)

Windows is only as good as the person who set it up or the IT, no diff then linux, but the server packages are m,ore reliable and stable then the desktop segment, obviously.

...

You'll be surprised how many critical machines are loaded with Microsoft products. Besides, smart businesses who uses Windows on such highly critical machines would use corporate licenses that doesn't bug you about activation like other licenses do.

There is a difference between mission-critical and life-critical.
Hence why you won't find Windows running aircraft or important medical systems. AIX isn't even stable enough.
For starters on airplanes they do not allow software that is non-deterministic so much so that there is a debate going on (for the last few months) whether VHDL is classed as software or firmware/hardware

Sure in a big company where they are making ££££ every hour a downtime of their servers is critical to them an cost them alot, but the cost of a human life in infinitly more and thus why windows won't get into such systems

 

[TopGun]

I'm sure they're would be a hell of a lot less piracy if Microsoft didn't
charge $200+ for something that isn't much better if at all than XP.

 

[Azhar]

I very much doubt it. Games cost 30-60 bucks and piracy for that is also rampant.

Pirates want "free", not "cheap".

 

[DrDoU]

as long as you have a good copy i do not think microsoft will mess with any one.

 

[MrGuvernment]

...




There is a difference between mission-critical and life-critical.

Doh me -1 . don'teven know what AIX is, i figured it would be some windows or *nix OS.

 

[MrGuvernment]

I'm sure they're would be a hell of a lot less piracy if Microsoft didn't
charge $200+ for something that isn't much better if at all than XP.

Price is irrelevant, you could charge $10 for windows and people would download it. why you ask? because they can............ and you dont have to spend $200, %90 of people dont need the Ultimate edition and wont use %80 of the added features EVER or even know about them, they just want to sound cool and say "MAN!@! i got vista ULTIMATEEE i ruleeeee!" pick up home or home premium or grab some OEM's for $140, same price as XP.

 

[zacdl]

No one would be stupid enough to put an MS product on such a critical system that's why

Now, what a nice little strawman argument for you. You are too vague in your original statement above- so you can backpedal later:

There is a difference between mission-critical and life-critical.

Nonetheless- you said critical. MrGuvernment was right. The majority of Fortune 500 companies all rely upon Microsoft to run their servers (And not just email or domain controllers- they even control the majority of website servers within F500 companies). It's even a GROWING percentage of Windows systems- meaning these huge companies are opting for Windows over other OS.

You have got to be kidding me right? you do know that most of the worlds Email servers are, yup - exchange for large companies / top 500 et cetera

Now back to your other comments:

Hence why you won't find Windows running aircraft or important medical systems. AIX isn't even stable enough.

Now- this is true- and nobody will doubt it. Once more- you crafted a strawman argument and threw words into their mouths.
Any high-reliability systems like this are generally custom built to serve a single purpose- thus why there is no need for it to do other functions than what it HAS to do (Which would open up security vulnerabilities in ANY OS). Quite simple really- and not much to argue about. If I build a system to do EXACTLY what I want it to- it works. If some other company or organization is prebuilding this OS for use in *many* configurations that you don't need- is when the problems come into play.

 

[Catweazle]

^

Oh FFS! Argument for the sake of argument going on there. And it's ridiculous argument at that. eeyjmr was perfectly correct in what he said, so there's no point in carrying on about the way that he said it.

The example of critical life-support medical equipment was a poor illustration to use in this discussion, because such equipment does not and would not run on a 'touchy' desktop OS. Insofar as it is 'computer' it is one which has its own very muchg stripped down, stable and secure embedded OS. Whilst it might interface with a desktop PC or network of desktop PC, it won't depend upon such things, and will be capable of being used without them. The notion of a life-support system shutting down because Windows had gone into RTeduced Function Mode is quite ludicrous!

I understand what you're saying - "the likelihood of Microsoft making such a move is so unlikely as to be not plausible." However, that's putting an _awful lot_ of blind trust and faith in a company that seems to do whatever it likes and then hides behind the guise of "piracy prevention." When it comes to my OS, I'd rather not have to put blind faith in whether or not it'll function.

Disagree. In making the comment you refer to I'm not placing 'blind trust and faith' upon Microsoft at all. I'm placing it upon the pressures of marketplace realities that Microsoft is subject to.

 

[Ethug]

Before Vista came out some of the people in this forum were saying MS would never dare force updates for piracy fighting purposes. They would supposedly never do exactly what they are doing now with the stealth updates.
LOL@those people