XP Service Pack 2 Bomb

[Joe Ross]

15. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES.
Notwithstanding any damages that you might incur for any
reason whatsoever (including, without limitation, all
damages referenced above and all direct or general
damages), the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its
suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your
exclusive remedy for all of the foregoing (except for any
remedy of repair or replacement elected by Microsoft with
respect to any breach of the Limited Warranty) shall be
limited to the greater of the amount actually paid by you
for the Product or U.S.$5.00. The foregoing limitations,
exclusions and disclaimers (including Sections 11, 12 and
13 above) shall apply to the maximum extent permitted by
applicable law, even if any remedy fails its
essential purpose.

since you didn't pay for it, the most M$ is liable for is $5.

[Nick Fury]

lol. Making money off of a free copy of windows.

[suneel112]

I hate Micro$$$$oft also. Why doesn't Bill Gates just stop caring, since the interest rates from Micro-$oftMoney can pay for all of M$'s expenses. Since I don't have the finger strenght (and I don't want to repeat what some dummies called "Microsoft Lovers" will call "Propoganda"), I will link you to this site.

I like Linux. I would run linux, except that my games will not run on it, unless I get WINE. Even then, the Microsoft Software Cartel controls so much of the software industry, they will have specially designed products to not run on linux. I wish that Bill Gates had been convicted back in 1997, before he bought media corporations to publicize the Clinton affair.

Alright, now you know that I HATE Bill Gates and Microsoft, even though you probably also learned that I am left of Nader (this is not true though, though some people would think it when I talk about politics schmolitics).

In conclusion, there should be a FIRST-wide boycott of Microsoft products. Since many of us are "techies" anyway, we should start a FIRST software company, where we MAKE OUR OWN SOFTWARE. (i.e. The Brotherhood of FIRST Software, Inc.) Games, technical programs, operating systems, anything. In fact, this boycott could even drive Microsoft into Bankruptcy (Never underestimate the power of FIRST ).

[evulish]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php...02-07-22&res=l
I think that completes my thought pretty well.

suneel112, Linux isn't your only option. Mac OS X can handle a much larger bunch of the latest games.

I hope I'm not the only one getting tired of Microsoft-flaming. I run Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, and FreeBSD.. they're each good for their uses.. (well.. Linux.. not so much.. actually Linux is a pretty thrown-together project and isn't very professional, fBSD on the other hand is quite nice). Also, I really respect Bill Gates.. you have to be pretty bright to create a multi-billion dollar company that stomps the rest of its competitors.

I'm getting tired of reading about people whining and complaining about Windows.. it's not like there are no other options! If you don't like it.. SWITCH!

</rant>

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by suneel112

I hate Micro$$$$oft also. Why doesn't Bill Gates just stop caring, since the interest rates from Micro-$oftMoney can pay for all of M$'s expenses. Since I don't have the finger strenght (and I don't want to repeat what some dummies called "Microsoft Lovers" will call "Propoganda"), I will link you to this site.

Propaganda? Maybe--but heavily biased, certainly. What are we supposed to do with this site? Laugh? Cry? Use it to topple Microsoft's evil domination of the proletariat?

That site, while offering some legitmate commentary on Microsoft's practices, completely fails to account for the fact that most of these practices are fairly normal, and accepted in most other sectors of the marketplace. If the quarrel is with large corporations in general, then several of their arguments are wholly legitimate ("predatory practices", for instance). If, as it seems, the quarrel is entirely with Microsoft, claims of "closed standards" and "backward incompatibility" and the like could be equally applied to numerous other computer-technology firms. Apple, for instance.

Also, the frequent claims of buggy software are foolish--look at Mac OS 10, and describe how the bugs in it's original release were fundamentally different from the bugs in XP. And many of them were fixed in 10.1 and 10.2 and XP SP1! While I admit that programmers can frequently be lazy, and quality assurance departments lax, It just isn't feasible for most software to be scrutinized to the level that we would wish (even in an ideal situation). With up to 50 million lines of code in a fully-featured operating system, and the need to bring it to market in a reasonable time, it is positively inevitable that bugs will exist--and when you do have the most popular products on the market, it is very likely that those same bugs will impact a greater number of people. And how big a project is an operating system, logistically? Thousands of programmers and quality testers are involved--you expect them to get it perfect, the first time?

Originally Posted by suneel112

I like Linux. I would run linux, except that my games will not run on it, unless I get WINE. Even then, the Microsoft Software Cartel controls so much of the software industry, they will have specially designed products to not run on linux. I wish that Bill Gates had been convicted back in 1997, before he bought media corporations to publicize the Clinton affair.

Alright, now you know that I HATE Bill Gates and Microsoft, even though you probably also learned that I am left of Nader (this is not true though, though some people would think it when I talk about politics schmolitics).

In conclusion, there should be a FIRST-wide boycott of Microsoft products. Since many of us are "techies" anyway, we should start a FIRST software company, where we MAKE OUR OWN SOFTWARE. (i.e. The Brotherhood of FIRST Software, Inc.) Games, technical programs, operating systems, anything. In fact, this boycott could even drive Microsoft into Bankruptcy (Never underestimate the power of FIRST ).

Microsoft considers Linux to be a competing platform. It's not unreasonable to favour your own platform over that of a competitor. So what's the problem?

The other accusation is laughable. I hope that was an attempt at humour, like the solutions you propose.

Edit: Some clarification up there...

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Propaganda? Maybe--but heavily biased, certainly. What are we supposed to do with this site? Laugh? Cry? Use it to topple Microsoft's evil domination of the proletariat?

That site, while offering some legitmate commentary on Microsoft's practices, completely fails to account for the fact that most of these practices are fairly normal, and accepted in most other sectors of the marketplace. If the quarrel is with large corporations in general, then several of their arguments are wholly legitimate ("predatory practices", for instance). If, as it seems, the quarrel is entirely with Microsoft, claims of "closed standards" and "backward incompatibility" and the like could be equally applied to numerous other computer-technology firms. Apple, for instance.

Also the frequent claims of buggy software are foolish--look at Mac OS 10, and describe how the bugs in it's original release were fundamentally different from the bugs in XP. And many of them were fixed in 10.1 and 10.2 and XP SP1! As it happens, programmers can frequently be lazy, and quality assurance departments lax. It just isn't feasible for most software to be scrutinized to the level that we would wish. With up to 50 million lines of code in a fully-featured operating system, and the need to bring it to market in a reasonable time, it is positively inevitable that bugs will exist--and when you do have the most popular products on the market, it is very likely that those same bugs will impact a greater number of people.

Microsoft considers Linux to be a competing platform. It's not unreasonable to favour your own platform over that of a competitor. So what's the problem?

The other accusation is laughable. I hope that was an attempt at humour, like the solutions you propose.

While true that OSX has had some bugs, the fixes were released fast and included other improvements, compared to just ONE service pack for XP so far. Also, it's the fact that the world is changing when it comes to computers is the problem. People now have power, and when that power is taken away by Microsoft and other corporations, then they angary. There's a difference between Jiffy Lube using those tactics since not many of us can go diagnose and fix a car, but many here can do that to a computer. Power for people is the change here.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by JosephM

While true that OSX has had some bugs, the fixes were released fast and included other improvements, compared to just ONE service pack for XP so far. Also, it's the fact that the world is changing when it comes to computers is the problem. People now have power, and when that power is taken away by Microsoft and other corporations, then they angary. There's a difference between Jiffy Lube using those tactics since not many of us can go diagnose and fix a car, but many here can do that to a computer. Power for people is the change here.

I'd argue that many of us (mechanically-inclined FIRST-people) can fix a car (or at least change the oil), and do have the power to make an informed choice in both situations--the car, or the computer. If Jiffy Lube decides "our oil will henceforth only work with a Jiffy Lube filter", I can switch out of protest (Castrol, Havoline, Mac OS, Linux), or I can ask myself, "for what I do with it, is their new filter-oil combination better, or worse". If better, why switch? Is it so odious that their products only work with each other?

And didn't you have to pay $20 (USD) for 10.1? And $60 (USD) for 10.2? On top of whatever OS 10 is worth in the first place? Both XP and OS 10 offer free hotfixes. It is therefore difficult to see why two (extra-cost) incremental releases are somehow superior to one free service pack.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I'd argue that many of us (mechanically-inclined FIRST-people) can fix a car (or at least change the oil), and do have the power to make an informed choice in both situations--the car, or the computer. If Jiffy Lube decides "our oil will henceforth only work with a Jiffy Lube filter", I can switch out of protest (Castrol, Havoline, Mac OS, Linux), or I can ask myself, "for what I do with it, is their new filter-oil combination better, or worse". If better, why switch? Is it so odious that their products only work with each other?

And didn't you have to pay $20 (USD) for 10.1? And $60 (USD) for 10.2? On top of whatever OS 10 is worth in the first place? Both XP and OS 10 offer free hotfixes. It is therefore difficult to see why two (extra-cost) incremental releases are somehow superior to one free service pack.

Nope, freedownload for the first one, shipping for the second.

What I mean with the car analogy is more on line with others. Microsoft sells what they offer, that's fine, but then act and provide serice like they are the only one, same as Jiffy Lube would do.

[Astronouth7303]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

It should be noted that the article claims that if you have an illegal copy of Windows your boot partition will be overwritten with garbage data. This is not the same as destroying hardware.

To the average consumer their computer is unusable, but to a skilled technician the data can be restored and a new operating system can be re-installed.

Yes, quite so.

Over writing the MBR (Master Boot Record) would just render the drive unbootable, meaning that if you have another harddrive with a bootable OS on it, you just swap their boot order. If not, just stick it in a working computer. ('skilled technician' is a little excessive, I could walk you through the trans-plant)

to repeat: All your files would still be there, but the motherboard doesn't know where the OS is.

(ps- has anyone found an article written by someone else that says the same thing? it wouldn't surprise me if this was a hoax.)

================================================== ====

Originally Posted by JosephM

While true that OSX has had some bugs, the fixes were released fast and included other improvements, compared to just ONE service pack for XP so far.

A service pack is a big change, not a bug fix. It's a version increment. Software has been known to fail with a different service pack. Frequently, programs say "for Windows XP SP1" or whatever is apropriate.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by suneel112

I like Linux. I would run linux, except that my games will not run on it, unless I get WINE. Even then, the Microsoft Software Cartel controls so much of the software industry, they will have specially designed products to not run on linux. I wish that Bill Gates had been convicted back in 1997, before he bought media corporations to publicize the Clinton affair.

Special care must be taken to write a game that supports multiple platforms. Many games by ID Software do this. Unfortunately, most game makers don't see Linux as being profitable. This is largely due to it's microscopic market share compared to MS Windows.

Think of it this way...
Let's say I designed a new gas pump system for fueling cars. It solves all the current problems including eliminating the problems with static electrricity at the pump making everyone safer. Unfortunately, instead of the usual circular opening, my connector is slightly larger and is square. We all know from the toys when we were toddlers that bigger squares can't fit in smaller circular holes.
I tried marketing the new device to car makers. Only 1 car maker is using the technology- Lamborghini. Now all I have to do is convince gas station owners to offer the new technology so everyone can enjoy it.

See the problem? The people who own gas stations don't want to support the very small base of users who own Lamborghinis. The end result? Everyone continues to use the inferior technology.

Microsoft has such a large installed Windows base that it's just not good business to develop for other platforms, especially 3rd ranked Linux. It doesn't matter whose technology is superior. All that matters is money, and right now developing for Linux abandons all that managers have learned in business school. It takes innovators like John Carmack from ID Software to develop on both Windows and Linux. He makes very little from developing for Linux because for him money is important, but innovating and advancing technology are foremost in his mind.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Nope, freedownload for the first one, shipping for the second.

What I mean with the car analogy is more on line with others. Microsoft sells what they offer, that's fine, but then act and provide serice like they are the only one, same as Jiffy Lube would do.

Maybe that's just for the media then--if you want it on CD, in a box. (The numbers came from a random online vendor, who still had them in stock--with Tiger on the way, they're likely not going to keep many around.)

[suneel112]

Tristan Lall, in response to a response you made earlier, I am not mad at microsoft for not putting their software on linux. Since I am cynical, I am even surprised that they put it on Mac (although Microsoft was originally Apple's Software maker). What I was saying is that the Microsoft Cartel controls so much of the industry (either owned or through "contracts"), that they can "coax" "independent" software writers (who shouldn't care about what OS they write for) to work only for them (this was an issue in 1997).

I am not a mac lover either. Though i highly prefer macs over pcs, I know that the reason not all commercial software is on a mac is because of the exorbitant royalties involved. Microsoft has less direct royalties (smart), but has "contracts" (smart, but very dishonest).

P.S. I hate to argue with die-hard Microsoft Fans. You are entitled to your point of view and I am entitled to mine, even if my point of view is that everyone should write their own OS (which it isn't).

[Tristan Lall]

I wouldn't characterize myself as a die-hard Microsoft fan. They have good products (Windows 2000, 2003, VS .net 2002, 2003, etc.), and bad products (Windows Me, PhotoDraw 2000, etc.), and many others that fall somewhere in between. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of any major company's competitive tendencies, but I can't fault Microsoft for being successful, by using standard commercial tactics. (Not to say that standard commercial tactics are always a good thing--but they are accepted in the business world.)

Speaking more generally, there's no need to be alarmist about it, or to do the "cool thing" (i.e. rebel against Microsoft)--just use what works for you. If that's a Mac, you'll pay more, but feel warm and fuzzy inside. If it's Linux, you'll pay less, but fight with it incessantly (if you enjoy conflict, this may be a positive thing...). If it's Microsoft--well, you know well enough what Microsoft represents. Make an informed choice, and feel free to change your mind, if you need to (i.e. no "Linux 4 evar").

[Adam Y.]

I'd hate to tell you but the video game makers are joining the fray. I read about computer games that have programs designed to detect any type of devices that could be used for illegal copying and it just shuts down the installer. Also other games have been known to worsten the graphics if any devices are detected essentially destroying the experience. It's definately out there. Just not as prevelant as before. This is a hoaz. Remeber that one congressman said the same exact thing about destroying illegal software.

[datatab1]

my father is a member of the windows xp support team. he says that windows XP SP2 will deactivate your windows if you don't have a valid key. so if you don't have a valid one, you're screwed if you install sp2 on your machine.