Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Blasted and Sued in China for Hijacking PCs - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Blasted and Sued in China for Hijacking PCs - Linux ; After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom: > Chinese fume at Microsoft anti-piracy > > ,----[ Quote ] >| China's vocal bloggers seemed stunned that their computers seemed to have >| phoned Microsoft ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Blasted and Sued in China for Hijacking PCs

  1. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Blasted and Sued in China for Hijacking PCs

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Chinese fume at Microsoft anti-piracy
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    >| China's vocal bloggers seemed stunned that their computers seemed to have
    >| phoned Microsoft for the anti-piracy tool without asking.
    >|
    >| "The computer is mine", one angry blogger penned, "Microsoft has no right to
    >| control my hardware without my agreement", the poor fool thought.
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...microsoft-anti


    Let them eat cake. (Linux)

    --
    Do not worry about which side your bread is buttered on: you eat BOTH sides.

  2. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Blasted and Sued in China for Hijacking PCs

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Chris Ahlstrom on Thursday 23 October 2008 02:22 : \____

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Chinese fume at Microsoft anti-piracy
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>| China's vocal bloggers seemed stunned that their computers seemed to have
    >>| phoned Microsoft for the anti-piracy tool without asking.
    >>|
    >>| "The computer is mine", one angry blogger penned, "Microsoft has no right
    >>| to control my hardware without my agreement", the poor fool thought.
    >> `----
    >>
    >>

    http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...microsoft-anti
    >
    > Let them eat cake. (Linux)


    Let them eat sabayon and mint.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    "We should dedicate a cross-group team to come up with ways to leverage Windows
    technically more."
    --Jim Allchin, Microsoft
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 140 total, 1 running, 139 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkj/6LoACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5WTwCgsRPZOKXCm3BbZgfbrngo9nRN
    42MAmQFvrQpPd7pIOuqKJu8uh3V76Ywm
    =mctj
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  3. Re: [Rival] Microsoft Blasted and Sued in China for Hijacking PCs

    On Oct 22, 10:22 pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    > > Chinese fume at Microsoft anti-piracy


    > > ,----[ Quote ]
    > >| China's vocal bloggers seemed stunned that their computers seemed to have
    > >| phoned Microsoft for the anti-piracy tool without asking.


    Microsoft has the legal right to enforce their copyright. If their
    tactics are too draconian, and people don't like how Microsoft is
    treating them, they should switch to something else, like Linux or
    FreeBSD.

    Microsoft charges what they think their product is worth. If you
    don't agree, you should use Linux.

    > >| "The computer is mine", one angry blogger penned,


    The HARDWARE is yours, but the software is Microsoft's.

    > > "Microsoft has no right to
    > >| control my hardware without my agreement", the poor fool thought.


    So long as you are using Microsoft's software - illegally, they have
    every right to stop you from using it, and forcing you to either stop
    using the illegal copy, or get it properly licensed by paying
    Microsoft for it. The other alternative is to use other software,
    like Linux.

    I have no sympathy for someone who deliberately purchases a machine
    with "No OS" then installs a pirated copy of Windows, and then gets
    upset because Microsoft is enforcing their copyright.

    The problem is that not everybody knows that they aren't getting
    "Genuine Vista". There are retailers and vendors who will purchase
    quantities of PCs with no OS, add some memory, and install a pirated
    copy of Vista on it, which allows them to almost double the price of
    the computer.

    The customers don't find out until the screen turns black that their
    copy was pirated. But they paid for what they thought was a machine
    with a legitimate copy of Windows. Often, a phone call to Microsoft,
    providing details about the vendor will net you a free "legitimized"
    copy, and will send Microsoft "agents" to raid the store, often
    accompanied by law enforcement authorities. Of course, vendors who
    get caught are pretty much given the choice of licensing windows for
    every PC they sell, or going to jail, because they've given up their
    negotiating leverage of claiming that not everybody wants Windows.

    On the other hand, there are more and more retailers selling "No OS"
    systems AS "No OS" systems. Often, you can pick up a copy of Linux in
    the magazine section of the same store, or a nearby store in the
    mall. I was recently at an airport where I could pick up a "No OS"
    laptop for about $400, and the magazine containing Linux (SUSE 11) for
    about $15. A similar computer running Vista was available for about
    $1200, though it had 3 Gig of RAM instead of 1 gig, and a 200 Gig hard
    drive instead of a 160 gig hard drive.

    This is important. A Linux system with 1/4 the memory and 1/2 the
    storage can do twice as much as the fully loaded Vista system.

    Microsoft's first design principle is "Memory is cheap, CPU is cheap,
    and hard drives are cheap, use as much as you can". Part of that is
    because Microsoft's REAL customers are the OEMs, who are trying to
    sell lots of new computers at premium prices. HP, Dell, and Sony WANT
    Microsoft to use so much of these resources that people HAVE to
    purchase new computers to get the new OS.

    The problem is that this time, it backfired. When people and
    corporations evaluated Vista, they were looking at systems that were
    huge with memory and hard drive and CPU. These machines should have
    been blindingly fast. Instead, they were even slower than their
    predecessors on machines with 1/4 of the resources. As a result, many
    corporations are sticking with XP, and many individuals are simply
    putting off PC purchases, causing pain for Dell, HP, Sony, and Lenovo.

    What has been really interesting is the sub-notebooks from ASUS and
    ACER, which seem to work substantially faster and seem to have plenty
    of extra head-room even with 4 gig of solid-state drive and 512 meg of
    RAM and seem to run twice as fast as XP. The same PCs running Windows
    XP require 160 gig hard drives and 1 gigabyte of RAM (which adds
    50-80% to the price). The same PCs running Vista seem to need 3-4
    gigabytes of RAM, 200 gigabyte 7200 RPM hard drive and Dual Core CPUs,
    each running 50% faster than the Linux CPUs, and STILL run slower than
    XP.

    > >http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...chinese-fume-m...


    > Let them eat cake. (Linux)


    Many companies are looking much more seriously at Linux. The biggest
    problem with trying to run XP on new hardware is that there often
    aren't XP drivers for the peripherals, because Microsoft only wanted
    the vendors to support Vista. On the other hand, the PCs can run
    Linux quite easily, and this lets them run under VMWare. The overhead
    is not that bad, so XP running as a VM on a Linux machine runs as fast
    as it would in native mode, but you also have the ability to run
    browsers, media players, and even Open Office or Lotus Symphony in the
    native Linux machine. As a result, XP is only needed for those
    special "Windows Only" applications, and they can't tell the
    difference between XP native and XP as a Linux VM.

    Ironically, the GOAL is just to get XP running on machines that were
    designed to run Vista, and the SIDE EFFECT is that the end users get
    the speed, performance, and flexibility of Linux.


  4. Re: [Rival] Microsoft Blasted and Sued in China for Hijacking PCs

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Rex Ballard on Saturday 25 October 2008 21:49 : \____

    > I have no sympathy for someone who deliberately purchases a machine
    > with "No OS" then installs a pirated copy of Windows, and then gets
    > upset because Microsoft is enforcing their copyright.


    It's very good that Microsoft flexed its muscles. Chinese Linux advocates will
    have plenty of ammunition's and many Chinese bloggers are furious. They pass
    on the knowledge.

    Microsoft has already issues a 'damage control'-esque formal response.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkkDovYACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5tGACdGqseMsoF5R 9f3oK0Pfptk2pC
    MiYAn19pX/+QM7jUhejc7K88Q+xNcGHq
    =GLVk
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  5. Re: [Rival] Microsoft Blasted and Sued in China for Hijacking PCs

    Rex Ballard wrote:

    > Microsoft has the legal right to enforce their copyright. If their
    > tactics are too draconian, and people don't like how Microsoft is
    > treating them, they should switch to something else, like Linux or
    > FreeBSD.


    Be realistic.



    > Microsoft charges what they think their product is worth. If you
    > don't agree, you should use Linux.


    That's right. But according to Homer and a dozen other cola idiots, MS
    forces Windows on everyone. Lately this Robin T. Cox moron accuses MS of
    violating the human rights of Chinese by offering Windows for sale at a
    price he doesn't like.


    > The problem is that not everybody knows that they aren't getting
    > "Genuine Vista". There are retailers and vendors who will purchase
    > quantities of PCs with no OS, add some memory, and install a pirated
    > copy of Vista on it, which allows them to almost double the price of
    > the computer.


    Bull****. Vista adds maybe $50 to $100 to the price of a PC.



    > Often, a phone call to Microsoft,
    > providing details about the vendor will net you a free "legitimized"
    > copy, and will send Microsoft "agents" to raid the store, often
    > accompanied by law enforcement authorities.


    Often, huh? Then you shouldn't have a problem finding just one single
    report of MS raiding a store along with authorities. Just one will do, Rex.



    > On the other hand, there are more and more retailers selling "No OS"
    > systems AS "No OS" systems.


    Dell has sold systems with FreeDOS for years. But how can that be, as cola
    and Linux idiots never tire of telling us that MS controls the OEMs?




    > Often, you can pick up a copy of Linux in
    > the magazine section of the same store, or a nearby store in the
    > mall. I was recently at an airport where I could pick up a "No OS"
    > laptop for about $400, and the magazine containing Linux (SUSE 11) for
    > about $15. A similar computer running Vista was available for about
    > $1200, though it had 3 Gig of RAM instead of 1 gig, and a 200 Gig hard
    > drive instead of a 160 gig hard drive.


    hmmm... Dell has 2gb RAM, 250gb hard drive, Vista Home Premium desktop
    systems (no monitor) for $310

    http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...s~inspndt_530s



    > This is important. A Linux system with 1/4 the memory and 1/2 the
    > storage can do twice as much as the fully loaded Vista system.


    Sez you. The rest of the world says "bull****".



    > Microsoft's first design principle is "Memory is cheap, CPU is cheap,
    > and hard drives are cheap, use as much as you can". Part of that is
    > because Microsoft's REAL customers are the OEMs, who are trying to
    > sell lots of new computers at premium prices. HP, Dell, and Sony WANT
    > Microsoft to use so much of these resources that people HAVE to
    > purchase new computers to get the new OS.


    Why would they have to do that. Any old P4 from 800mhz/512 RAM and up will
    run Vista just fine.


    > The problem is that this time, it backfired. When people and
    > corporations evaluated Vista, they were looking at systems that were
    > huge with memory and hard drive and CPU. These machines should have
    > been blindingly fast. Instead, they were even slower than their
    > predecessors on machines with 1/4 of the resources.


    Bull****.


    > As a result, many
    > corporations are sticking with XP, and many individuals are simply
    > putting off PC purchases, causing pain for Dell, HP, Sony, and Lenovo.





    > What has been really interesting is the sub-notebooks from ASUS and
    > ACER, which seem to work substantially faster and seem to have plenty
    > of extra head-room even with 4 gig of solid-state drive and 512 meg of
    > RAM and seem to run twice as fast as XP.


    You'll be sure to show us some 3rd party benchmarks real soon, right?


    > The same PCs running Windows
    > XP require 160 gig hard drives and 1 gigabyte of RAM (which adds
    > 50-80% to the price). The same PCs running Vista seem to need 3-4
    > gigabytes of RAM, 200 gigabyte 7200 RPM hard drive and Dual Core CPUs,
    > each running 50% faster than the Linux CPUs, and STILL run slower than
    > XP.




    >>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...chinese-fume-m...

    >
    >> Let them eat cake. (Linux)

    >
    > Many companies are looking much more seriously at Linux.


    You've been saying this for 7 or 8 years.



    > The biggest
    > problem with trying to run XP on new hardware is that there often
    > aren't XP drivers for the peripherals, because Microsoft only wanted
    > the vendors to support Vista.


    MS doesn't control what hardware vendors do.




  6. Re: [Rival] Microsoft Blasted and Sued in China for Hijacking PCs

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:59:05 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > Rex Ballard wrote:
    >
    >> Microsoft has the legal right to enforce their copyright. If their
    >> tactics are too draconian, and people don't like how Microsoft is
    >> treating them, they should switch to something else, like Linux or
    >> FreeBSD.

    >
    > Be realistic.


    Rex realistic?
    Never gonna happen.


    >
    >> Microsoft charges what they think their product is worth. If you
    >> don't agree, you should use Linux.

    >
    > That's right. But according to Homer and a dozen other cola idiots, MS
    > forces Windows on everyone. Lately this Robin T. Cox moron accuses MS of
    > violating the human rights of Chinese by offering Windows for sale at a
    > price he doesn't like.


    I've been trying to drill this simple concept into Robin T Cox's skull for
    2 days now.
    I've broken at least 10 drill bits.


    >
    >> The problem is that not everybody knows that they aren't getting
    >> "Genuine Vista". There are retailers and vendors who will purchase
    >> quantities of PCs with no OS, add some memory, and install a pirated
    >> copy of Vista on it, which allows them to almost double the price of
    >> the computer.

    >
    > Bull****. Vista adds maybe $50 to $100 to the price of a PC.


    True.
    I think it might even be less.


    >
    >
    >> Often, a phone call to Microsoft,
    >> providing details about the vendor will net you a free "legitimized"
    >> copy, and will send Microsoft "agents" to raid the store, often
    >> accompanied by law enforcement authorities.

    >
    > Often, huh? Then you shouldn't have a problem finding just one single
    > report of MS raiding a store along with authorities. Just one will do, Rex.


    Well Microsoft did used to show up at the Computer Shows like KGP and
    others checking out the various vendors selling OEM copies of Windows
    bundled with a dead disk drive or something to make it legal.
    I saw it myself once.
    There was nothing they could do however because it was completely legal.


    >
    >> On the other hand, there are more and more retailers selling "No OS"
    >> systems AS "No OS" systems.

    >
    > Dell has sold systems with FreeDOS for years. But how can that be, as cola
    > and Linux idiots never tire of telling us that MS controls the OEMs?


    COLA Linux loons prefer to blame others for Linux's failure on the desktop.

    >
    >
    >
    >> Often, you can pick up a copy of Linux in
    >> the magazine section of the same store, or a nearby store in the
    >> mall. I was recently at an airport where I could pick up a "No OS"
    >> laptop for about $400, and the magazine containing Linux (SUSE 11) for
    >> about $15. A similar computer running Vista was available for about
    >> $1200, though it had 3 Gig of RAM instead of 1 gig, and a 200 Gig hard
    >> drive instead of a 160 gig hard drive.


    > hmmm... Dell has 2gb RAM, 250gb hard drive, Vista Home Premium desktop
    > systems (no monitor) for $310
    >
    > http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...s~inspndt_530s


    Another Rex fantasy.

    >
    >> This is important. A Linux system with 1/4 the memory and 1/2 the
    >> storage can do twice as much as the fully loaded Vista system.

    >
    > Sez you. The rest of the world says "bull****".


    It can't.
    I run Ubuntu and Windows XP and my daughter's Gateway runs Vista.
    All are on par with each other in terms of speed.
    The same machine runs Windows XP and Ubuntu and it's a toss as to which is
    quicker.

    If you load up Linux with eye candy it gets slow just like any other OS.

    >
    >
    >> Microsoft's first design principle is "Memory is cheap, CPU is cheap,
    >> and hard drives are cheap, use as much as you can". Part of that is
    >> because Microsoft's REAL customers are the OEMs, who are trying to
    >> sell lots of new computers at premium prices. HP, Dell, and Sony WANT
    >> Microsoft to use so much of these resources that people HAVE to
    >> purchase new computers to get the new OS.

    >
    > Why would they have to do that. Any old P4 from 800mhz/512 RAM and up will
    > run Vista just fine.


    My 3ghz P4 ran it fine. I just didn't like Vista.

    >> The problem is that this time, it backfired. When people and
    >> corporations evaluated Vista, they were looking at systems that were
    >> huge with memory and hard drive and CPU. These machines should have
    >> been blindingly fast. Instead, they were even slower than their
    >> predecessors on machines with 1/4 of the resources.

    >
    > Bull****.


    Newer versions of Linux require more horsepower as well.
    Linux does have an advantage that you can use a light version like DSL if
    you want though.



    >
    >> As a result, many
    >> corporations are sticking with XP, and many individuals are simply
    >> putting off PC purchases, causing pain for Dell, HP, Sony, and Lenovo.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> What has been really interesting is the sub-notebooks from ASUS and
    >> ACER, which seem to work substantially faster and seem to have plenty
    >> of extra head-room even with 4 gig of solid-state drive and 512 meg of
    >> RAM and seem to run twice as fast as XP.

    >
    > You'll be sure to show us some 3rd party benchmarks real soon, right?


    Corporations are always behind the curve in terms of desktops especially.
    They usually have pre-planned technology refresh time frames and rarely if
    ever jump on the latest and greatest.

    Rex should know that.

    >
    >> The same PCs running Windows
    >> XP require 160 gig hard drives and 1 gigabyte of RAM (which adds
    >> 50-80% to the price). The same PCs running Vista seem to need 3-4
    >> gigabytes of RAM, 200 gigabyte 7200 RPM hard drive and Dual Core CPUs,
    >> each running 50% faster than the Linux CPUs, and STILL run slower than
    >> XP.

    >
    >
    >
    >>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...chinese-fume-m...

    >>
    >>> Let them eat cake. (Linux)

    >>
    >> Many companies are looking much more seriously at Linux.

    >
    > You've been saying this for 7 or 8 years.


    It's been longer than that.


    >
    >
    >> The biggest
    >> problem with trying to run XP on new hardware is that there often
    >> aren't XP drivers for the peripherals, because Microsoft only wanted
    >> the vendors to support Vista.

    >
    > MS doesn't control what hardware vendors do.


    Driver development is expensive.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

+ Reply to Thread