Microsoft sued over XP downgrades

"posted by : Be Real, 17 February 2009"

Hey Real, if you know so much..Why is it that I run XP Pro & I run Win Live One Care subscription & I DON'T have Malware prob's?
If an infection comes my way, ,Live Care picks it up immediately..no problem!!
The same is true with Vista,the reality is,as you probably know, that, if you don't have an AV running live from boot - shut down, then you are open to trouble.
Just connecting any device,or any disc,USB stick, whatever,without AV is just asking for trouble,I scan EVERYTHING as soon as I connect anything to my comp,before transferring any data across.
It's NOTHING to do with what OS your running,Vista is just as leaky as XP,it's just a question of time for the hacks to crack it,which they have,as any Chinese will tell you.
If MS went back to 2003 & built a secure core from there,making it Open Source,we wouldn't be where we are,would we?

"It is amazing how simple, direct and powerful this woman's lawsuit is. The claims are undeniably true".

posted by : James Mansella, 16 February 2009
Absolutely right,but, will she get the justice she deserves?
I think not,after all the EU dropped their case against MS,probably because, they were biting the hand that fed them.
I would like to think she would win,because it would be a win for one & all & MS are a pretty dumb ass lot when all is said & done.
They simply cannot see that their restrictive trade practises harm THEM commercially, through the publics eyes.
The people want total freedom of choice,NOT choice on any companies terms.
They cannot see that this principal is good for MS, as well as the consumer.
They don't want a portion of the pie,they want ALL of the pie.
That's why everyone wants to sue MS,people are just waiting to throw everything at them,they are just plain stupid.

Microsoft is using anti-consumer tactics to force people to follow their upgrade path. This is different from offering a better product with more consumer enhanced features that make people want to voluntarily upgrade.

For example, what if the car manufacturers installed a device that had to go up your @ss before the car would start (Southpark reference). Would people still be saying well then just go buy a motorcycle instead if you don't like it because this is a "NEW" feature design?

I could understand the "forced" upgrade idea or path if the newest version realistically and honestly gained over 50% share of the companies market by happy and willing customers, but to use monopolistic tactics to make people use a new product which has garnered a high level of consumer dissatisfaction is unacceptable. This is especially true of products that are or have become a basic "staple" of modern life.

Thus, forcing a monopolistic company like Microsoft to offer full support of the last version of their product until the new one has garnered majority use through voluntary means is the only way to prevent products of a monopoly corporation from getting worse. This theoretically means that Microsoft is forced to become a competitor with themselves which forces them to actually improve the product to the consumer's benefit.

Of course, MS's monopolistic tactic of having their OS on the majority of new computers by default makes the "voluntary" aspect of this litmus test hard to discern. OTOH, forcing MS to install both (and Linux) and allow the consumer to choose at first boot would be the fairest judge of consumer will.

Do you know what software is? Go do some programming yourself with something easy like Python, and you'll realise the answer! Its really just mathematical algorithms. Can you make copies of cars from GM with a simple click or command? How come you can with software? Software IS an intangible product. Its only made tangible because people try to make value out of it directly in order to justify a price for it. CDs/DVDs are tangible, but the software on those media are intangible. How can 1s and 0s be tangible and sold? I'm really not surprised you responded the way you did. Of course you'll defend your position in that way! You sell systems for a living! Do you really know what software is? Its not something burnt on media. (And your experience as a manufacturer doesn't reflect how it is world wide. Especially in places I've been around. Despite all the hype, no one is seriously interested in plonking down money for Blu-ray when cheap DVDs seem perfectly acceptable. Why does one need to buy the same movie again? Seriously? Not to mention the fact that Internet usage here is capped, so online HD content is a bust. Effectively, the Govt has to put ads on TV to try and encourage us onto HD. The problem is, it doesn't work well when most people can't afford an HD home solution or a decent system to offer good playback in this economic climate)...As for your UAC comment. No it was NOT expressly made to protect people. The point of UAC is to get people annoyed and developers aware of the access control levels and paradigms. (These have long been established in the *nix world since the 1970s). Microsoft's intention is to get people to break their habit of blindly using the Administrator account and being easy targets of malware...Be Real says = "There is no way to properly secure XP with a firewall. There are significant security "holes" in the code itself, code that interacts with the outside world. This is fairly common knowledge, I'm not sure how you missed it." == Eh, no. Do you know about XP's built-in mechanisms? The biggest reason for people to get infected with something is because they accept the default Administrator account and they've never been informed about the various features that can be used to prevent malware from happening. The first step after you've installed XP, the drivers and apps you need; is to setup a Limited User Account (LUA) for daily use, and set a STRONG password for the Admin account. This is recommended by at least two Microsoft bloggers who are security focused. Its even mentioned in Microsoft security notices about security problems being reduced if you do this! If you have XP Pro, you can also apply Software Restriction Policy (SRP) in a "default deny" stance, preventing various file types or folders of your desire from being able to run executables or whatever types of files you know is bad. Combining these two (LUA and SRP) built-in features, allows you to create a catch 22 situation for malware: Where you can save, you cannot execute. Where you can execute, you cannot save. This effectively negates the majority of malware in one go! The "firewall with HIPS" I suggested covers the type of malware that will still run in an LUA environment, but can't infect the machine. (Because you can't write into the "Windows" and "Program Files" directories as well as turn off critical Services under LUA!). It runs, but it isn't able to make permanent changes to the system! Under this scenario the HIPS component of such firewall, will alert you of anything trying to execute or call another app, and will give you notice to stop it or allow it to continue. Its up to the user to decide the course of action (ie: their brain...Common practice will have you deny things that you didn't intentionally initiate or enable). If you need to elevate privileges to Admin level while in LUA, you install and use SuRUN. (Like UAC, but for XP and less annoying). This whole approach effectively reduces the vulnerability profile of your XP system WITHOUT installing any anti-virus/spyware/malware apps...The paradigm is about PREVENTION of malware on WinXP systems. Its a concept I learned from using Linux. It works, and it has been tested by many who actually understand the mechanisms involved AND it costs XP users $0 (Yes, its free)...If everyone applied this, the profitability of the security software industry will nose dive...If you think I'm clueless, try it yourself. It works on a physical machine as well as in a virtual one like in VirtualPC, VirtualBox, etc. Its one less reason to bother spending money on Vista or Windows 7...Be Real says: "You can go run your linux on a 486 and enjoy your life." == Your unfortunate stereotypical view of a modern Linux user utterly fails in mass proportions on so many levels. You don't know me, you don't know what I do, nor do you understand what I use and why I use it.

Who, but a monopolist, could force a well-respected product off the market while replacing it with an inferior one, and not lose market share.

XP is to ISA as Vista is Microchannel. The difference is that IBM couldn't enforce a monopoly. Microsoft can.

1) Software is tangible, and companies cannot afford to support it indefinitely. Thus, they force us to move on with new products. No one forces you to upgrade you choose not to.
2) Microsoft does not charge for downgrades, manufacturers have the option to charge for the media. I am a manufacturer and have the legals right here. If I offer a downgrade, I do not pay any royalty to do so, but I have the option to charge for media. Media costs me money, lots of it, so I would absolutely pass that cost along.
3) Be Real also says: "This industry changes and evolves, largely due to consumer demand! People want new features as their lifestyle and how technology interacts with it changes." = Do you work in Marketing? Response: No, I do not work in marketing, but I live in reality. You apparently do not, but that is your free choice. You can go run your linux on a 486 and enjoy your life. My customers want BluRay, advanced photo manipulation, SATA, USB backup devices, all sorts of media creation, to connect their smartphones and sync them, wireless of all sorts, and tons more. How you claim all this is customers not wanting innovation shows your lack of vision. Which is fine, but incorrect to the masses I assure you. You go start a computer business that never evolves and let me know how that goes, I wish you luck and will eat my hat if you last.
4) UAC is an effort to protect users from themselves. This one makes me laugh actually. Ever try to install a program on a Mac? Perhaps you have not but I have and let me assure you it requires a password! Kinda like UAC come to think of it, hmmm.... Maybe there is something to this after all. Yeah it's annoying on both platforms, but it helps protect people from themselves. By that I mean people that click OK on everthing presented to them. I'm grateful for them, my company charges out many, MANY thousands of dollars per year to clean them up. Since UAC, that business has dropped significantly. We still have greater than 10 to 1 XP to Vista systems come in for malware issues, and those are adjusted numbers (considering the number of initial sales out)Hmmmm....
5) There is no way to properly secure XP with a firewall. There are significant security "holes" in the code itself, code that interacts with the outside world. This is faily common knowledge, I'm not sure how you missed it.
6) Our Atom-based sales are not bad, but the return rate is significantly higher than with regular notebook sales. It seems many people do want advanced features after all. I'm happy to get them into a nice full featured notebook that meets their needs.

Cheers.

Its all fair and well that people want to continue using XP, but I also see it as fair that people have to pay for the privilege. Its unreasonable to expect Microsoft to keep supporting and patching new hardware support for an old operating system.

Half the people who insist on XP over vista are misinformed or just plain against Vista. They're the type that if you could have XP looking exactly like Vista they'll insist it runs poorly and crap (even though its the same as Vista).

Vista isn't perfect, but x64 is much closer to perfection that x86 and always will be!

So why are people buying brand new speccy computers to run the same ancient software they were running before?

How come Microsoft doesn't support Windows 95 anymore? Sue sue sue!

Everything these days is about sueing and making a quick buck.

If you flatulated in an elevator, and someone fainted from the smell and hit their head, they could literally sue you and probably win too. Thats where society is at the moment!

Its the person's choice to accept XP and pay for it, so whats the problem?!

No one's forcing her to buy a computer with Vista. There are still MANY legit ways of getting XP.

Can I sue Samsung because years ago they stopped making a model of a TV that I want? I don't think so... so why can people sue Microsoft for no longer selling an OS made years ago?

Be Real says:
"This is like suing GM because you cannot still buy a new 2001 Chevy. It really is a ridiculous argument."

= Firstly, cars are tangible things. Once its made, its largely fixed. Software is NOT. Software is just maths and algorithms that are compiled for the computer to understand. Anyone can do this legally and for free.

Such things don't become obsolete and require constant upgrading in order to be profit from. Can you imagine if they start charging for the amount of maths you can learn schools?

This is pretty much what MS (and many software corporations) have done...Without the average Jane/Joe consumer realising, because they distract you with the GUI! You've been played, and you don't know it!

They legitimize this in legal form with patents and copyright. (Its commonly tooted under the umbrella term of "Intellectual Property").

The advent of open source software has proven this: Software is intangible, flexible and is really of no value itself. The value lies in how you can manipulate it to your requirements and uses. For business, it could very well be the support infrastructure surrounding the software. Like call-in tech support, consultation, and maintenance/security patches to fix the software.

Microsoft's whole business model relies on putting a tangible value on software. That is in the form of licensing. Its their code, so they can dictate whatever conditions they feel like.

There's really nothing stopping them from offering XP downgrades in the following manner:

(1) Set up a website that offers XP Home or Professional as a free download. (They don't provide the keys).

(2) To get a legitimate key; Vista users must phone Microsoft, tell them their Vista key and they'll be given the necessary details (needed for Activation) for the XP version they're qualified to downgrade to.

They won't do this because its not profitable. All this will cost them money in bandwidth and employing people to answer phones all day. So why not charge money for something when the opportunity arises? Who cares how old it is!

That's how businesses think: If you can squeeze money out of someone and get away with it, do it...Worry about the legal problems later.

Its kind of funny, because the software era before Microsoft existed, people would share and manipulate software to their needs. There was no premium prices to budget for; anti-piracy schemes like CD keys, online activation, and other nonsense to deal with.

Be Real also says:
"This industry changes and evolves, largely due to consumer demand! People want new features as their lifestyle and how technology interacts with it changes."

= Do you work in Marketing? Because that's the same type of BS they constantly preach about. Please come back down to reality. People don't want new features. People want to be able to use computers without all the trouble like security, stability, etc issues it brings.

Features that serve no practical purpose to the consumer is left unused or turned off. This is clearly represented by the differences in Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7 in regards to the "feature" of UAC.

Come to think of it; is UAC a feature due to consumer demand?

The computer industry is driven by stuffing as many new features in order to justify the consumer to upgrade. Do people really need Vista or even Windows 7 if they can do everything they need with Windows XP? Do people need to keep buying ever more powerful hardware? (The popularity of the Intel Atom in netbooks has proven this to be "NO!").

If you know how to properly secure Windows XP, would you really need to bother with newer versions of Windows?

And no, I'm not talking about installing anti-malware apps up the wazoo. I'm talking about using the features that are already there, but very few people use! You don't need anything more than a third-party software firewall with Host-base Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS).

She is not going to win this trial.

One reason is when you caugh up the extra money you buy Vista Buisness, which allows you to downgrade. So effectivly now you have 2 licences, but only 1 can be used at a time, so anytime she can go back to Vista.

Microsoft isn't going to 'sell' old defunt versions of its OS if it doesn't need too. Its like a AMD/Intel selling you a 586 CPU. Microsoft would rather people be running new OS, and the reasson is support and patches. It is easier to control a new product then an old one.

Maybe the Dumb lady needs to learn to buy OEM version of Microsoft XP. Some people are just stupid right? You can buy an OEM version when you buy a new pc, but support is different, since its not retail.

Why sue a company becuase of stupidity? If you are unhappy with a pc and its options it provides for OS, then don't buy it. Its not like someone is forcing her. Some people like to make a big stink over $58.00, in reality they are costing more then that consuming people time and complaining.

There is many customer PC builders that are happy to sell a PC with OEM software. THis lady needs to stop being so dumb and selfish, and she should go and support her local PC shop and go buy something where she has choice instead of bitching about it. Someone should sue her for being dumb.

When DELL/ACER/LENOVO/HP buy licences for laptops/desktops, then can only buy a VISTA licence, it just so happens one version is downgradable. So when buying a name brand pc you options are kind of stuck. Also why these companties only have VISTA, as they buy in volume at big discounts. So its not worth while for them to buy XP nor is it an option available to them as support for XP will be ending soon. I am sure if all companies sold XP and support died, they would get suid too.

Xp is going to get even harder to buy, so stock up on it now if you care.

For me it doesn't matter, Vista works great. And I can always go run windows 2000 if I want. Vista can be slower it some things, but then again it brings a lot of fancy technologies to the table.

All I can say, is if you have Vista, run a lot of ram and make sure video card is decent. No point running vista on slower computers but still it works on older PCs, i ran vista on computers that were 1.4Ghz single core.

Install any version of Linux and check to see how much memory its using in your little resource app.

I typically uses every bit of available memory, and its pretty quick to swap apps, open new apps, etc. The preload and keeping stuff in RAM until needed isn't the problem. Its Vista's huge footprint that is. Memory is cheap now, but the first and second generation of machines that came with Vista had 512MB or a gig, tops, which comes short of Vista's memory gobbling goodness. A 32bit Vista machine with 2gigs of RAM isn't that fast, but a 64bit with 4 is damn quick.

I still find fault in the OS requiring that much of the system resources on its own. That being said, the OEM's that sold underpowered Vista machines is a large portion of the reason for user's response to Vista. The other bit is due to MS releasing a dud that doesn't like old apps. We're not using Mac's, we expect backwards compatibility.

I still hate vista and will never use it. I'm a recording engineer and nothing works with it properly not to mention the latiency is god awfull. All my pcs have geniune copies of xp on it. However that being said i am running windows 7 and i have to be honest i'm liking that.

This is like suing GM because you cannot still buy a new 2001 Chevy. It really is a rediculous argument.

This industry changes and evolves, largely due to consumer demand! People want new features as their lifestyle and how technology interacts with it changes.

The question is not "Why do Vista and 7 use so much RAM?" It's "Why doesn't XP use the RAM I have available?" Paragraph, please. If it's there, 'free,' doing nothing; what's the point of having it? The caching system is what takes up (read: USES) most of your memory. Paragraph, please. Windows 7 using 900 MB of RAM on your machine is a bit unusual. I've ran 7 for several months and it doesn't go beyond 700 MB out of my 2 GB. Paragraph, please. It sucks up memory, so what? It feels snappier than XP, in my opinion. Either don't use it, or use it. There really is no need for you to tell people it sucks... Paragraph, please. It's people like you that ruined Vista's image in the first place. After the first service pack, it got a lot better.

Windows should be forced open source.
M$ made enough money with it over the years, payback time.
If you look in the stolen parts of Windows, stolen as in stolen from BSD among others.

It's time a government steps up and forces Microsoft to open source it.
They made enough money on it.

There isn't a single company that makes the same over a program.
On top they killed all competition.

Open Source it! YES WE CAN!

Time to do the right thing...even 007 has a movie about it!
And it shows the Carver Network (read M$)...still not clear?

Your argument is flawed. m$ is still selling xp (and calling it a downgrade) and by doing this they make people who want xp pay for vista+xp

I'm sorry but Microsoft wants a lot of money for their software and consumers have to ask themselves, is it worth it? Often you don't know until its too late. Its not like buying other consumer goods and getting your money back if you're not satisfied. And why shouldn't it work for years and years? I have no trouble servicing my 17 year old car. Who the hell is Microsoft to think they can just jerk everyone around after emptying their wallets?

Vista isn't so bad. Yes, it needs a shitload of ram - but if you got that and decent graphics, it is pretty nice for 'just users' like my mom. These people just want to listen to music, look at pictures, watch movies. And Vista does it. Ok, for powerusers or network admins (me) it is a nightmare. But for most home users it is a pretty good solution.

They should be had for misleading advertising because clearly XP is not a downgrade to Vista, its an upgrade.

Personally, the best way to get out of paying the Microsoft tax is to tell your laptop or PC supplier you don't agree to the license and you want the cost of the software refunded. In the UK they have no choice, without breaking the law, to give you a refund.

I simply then install Ubuntu. I have done this several times, and getting £50 - £75 back on each machine is very welcome indeed...

Vista is the 2008 version of Windows ME, another lemon in a long line of rotten fruit from Microsoft.

Frivolous lawsuits FTL. Microsoft has every right to stop selling XP licenses because they don't want to continue support for a 10 year old piece of code. Theres plenty of architectural improvements to Vista and are both evident and not evident. Under what you guys stipulate, Microsoft should keep Windows ME instead of switching to Windows 2000? Nonsense, it is the software vendors responsibility to upkeep their code for Vista, not Microsoft's.

It is amazing how simple, direct and powerful this woman's lawsuit is. The claims are undeniably true.

I hope they have to pay back everyone. I also hope EA games loses their arses and has to pay heavily for their DRM case in Spore too.

How many people will even plump for the next one, if "7" just fixes the mistakes made in Vista, its "8" we need to watch for.

goffee-freelance.co.uk

I
stand
corrected.
:-)

Besides Aero Vista and 7 suck.
____LINE BREAK HERE____
With Firefox, Photoshop, three IM programs, µTorrent, Winamp, and a few other programs I typically only use about one of the two GB of RAM in my computer with the page file disabled (as I don't leave junk running). Vista on a fresh install was using 1.8/2.0 GB, and 7 still managed to suck up 900 megabytes. With everything disabled in Vista save for critical services it still uses up 600 megabytes minimally...without being able to connect to the internet or do anything whatsoever.
____LINE BREAK HERE____
Then you have to remember that Microsoft doesn't care about design, eye candy is all we need right? I why would any one want to set their *ENTIRE* My Documents folder location in Vista or 7 on a different drive then Windows like you can in XP? I prefer to format my personal files when Windows kneels over instead of having them on a different drive! Plus since you have to manually change individual folder locations if an application automatically generates a new folder (such as a video game) and you don't catch it on Vista/7 then you'll lose that too (like losing 50 hours on a video game because the save file was stored on the C:\ will bother any one right?)
____LINE BREAK HERE____
Let's not forget priorities! With the booming economy the big spenders are out in full force! Why bother buying a 24 inch 1920x1200 screen for under $300 when you can buy a 1024x768 max resolution 15 inch for no less then $350 on Newegg! I'd rather look at oiled up tiny (CRT!) cancer screen then a thin wide screen LCD any way! Microsoft sure knows what people like!
____LINE BREAK HERE____
Oh and by the way INQ, IMPLEMENT LINE BREAKS FOR F$^&S SAKE! Thank you!
____LINE BREAK HERE____

The charitable organisation I chair recently paid extra for XP on our our new Lenovo desktop and then had to manually uninstall Vista to put on the XP operating system we had specified.

We had no choice, because our existing applications wouldn't work with Vista.

About time the EU stamped on Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly.

MS can stick its fake Vista sales up its a..haa that woman's Faye Dunaway isn't she I knew I've seen her before!
Vista-to-XP is an UPGRADE for all I know ...