Microsoft and the Law
Apparently the employees at Microsoft are concerned that their profit sharing is not performing as it should. Microsoft may be one of the largest entities in the world, bringing in so much money that, at any time, its chairman and co-founder is one of the top three most wealthy people alive, the company may have, as employees, more millionaires than any other - but - it is not enough!
A blog entry, from Eric Ligman, gets very heated about the fact that people are using the upgrade versions of Vista to avoid the high cost of the retail versions. He goes into full charts, with many entries, to show that we should all be good little do-bees and pay full price for their product, unless we are authorized by owning a product that allows the upgrade use.
I won’t begin to debate the legality of this, as I’m sure that Microsoft can pay the right people to share its views.
My questions are 1] If you are so worried about it, why make it possible? Are you admitting that, as a company, you are unable to produce a process by which an (Microsoft speak) in-place upgrade can be accomplished without screwing up the settings of the machine? {What am I saying here, of course they can not - they can not even write software that completely removes itself from that blight on the entire world, the registry! This of course, causes all manner of later problems, and also brought about a cottage industry of products to deal with the shortcomings in Microsoft programming.}
and 2] Since it is clear that you are not the dictator of policy, why are you harping upon people to quit doing something that human nature, and Microsoft pricing structure, almost forces?
and 3] If fewer idiots without humor, like yourself, would concern themselves with fixing the many flaws of Vista and other Microsoft offerings, it would be much easier for the intended audience (the lawbreakers who don’t feel they have money to throw away) to take you seriously. Also, it would lessen the trepidation and ire of those buying, as they might know that every effort was made to perfect the product.
and finally, just a passing thought ] Why is it that users of Windows 98, 98SE, or Windows Me cannot claim upgrade privileges? Are you saying that we must purchase nearly every piece of slop you shovel, in order to get a deal on the next? Why should my my upgrade schedule have to mirror yours?
-
Tags: microsoft, upgrade policy, eric ligman, who are they kidding?
Hello Oracle,
I agree with your comments, but just wanted to add……..
We just had a big hoopla about “Earth Day” and it would seem that MS could really help out tremendously in this regard.
Instead of forcing all consumers to throw 5-10 year-old PC’s in landfills, why not design an OS that helps out those of us who would rather keep these things a little longer and squeeze some productivity out of them?
I’m thinking of a replacement product at the Win 98 level of “bloat” that would have advanced, stable code without all of the bells and whistles. They could market to consumers (home-PC) as an alternative and offer it at a reasonable price, say $19.95. I’m quite sure this OS would sell like hotcakes!
I suppose this sounds like the blubberings of a mad-man, but it is quite do-able. And believe me I have tried Linux alternatives, but they are a hit-and-miss where hardware support is concerned. And if all of those folks offering Linux alternatives can work for free, then why doesn’t MS try this as opposed to coming up with yet another OS (Vista) that makes people have to prematurely scrap hardware?