Tag Archives: Microsoft

Two views of Microsoft’s licensing model

Posted on by

When Microsoft released Windows XP, they included a new licensing feature.  You have to activate the software before you can use it.  When it’s activated, the software examines the system on which it’s installed, makes note of the configuration, and registers with Microsoft’s site.  (Yes, I know that’s somewhat simplified.)  In any case, if you change your system configuration (upgrade the hard drive or video card, for example), Windows will tell you that you need to re-activate.  If you do that more than once or twice, the software won’t automatically re-activate—you need to talk to a Microsoft representative to tell them that you aren’t installing on a second machine.  I have two friends who regularly make changes to systems, one of whom hates this new licensing scheme, and one who thinks it’s great.  I thought their contrasting viewpoints were interesting.

Ken is a gamer.  He’s always upgrading his system, and having to call Microsoft to re-activate the software whenever he switches out the video card drives him nuts.  He’s gone back to Windows 2000 because of it.  He’d love to use XP, but the licensing is just too much of a burden.

Dave works for a company that sells and services computers.  He configures computers for clients, maintains the office machines, and is always testing new hardware.  He’s on the phone with Microsoft on a regular basis to re-activate a license on one machine or another.  And yet, he doesn’t mind.  Why?  Because it keeps him and his business out of trouble.  With the new licensing scheme, there’s no way that he can be accused of installing a single copy of Windows XP on multiple computers.  That’s a big win for him, because he’s “inherited” clients from integrators who played fast and loose with licensing previous versions of Windows and left him to clean up the mess.

What do I think?  In the three years I’ve had this particular system, I haven’t opened the box once.  The new licensing scheme would be no burden at all as far as I’m concerned.  I don’t think.  I’ll let you know once I install this copy of Windows 2003 on my server.

Microsoft’s anti-spam plans

Posted on by

In Toward a Spam-Free Future, Bill Gates describes Microsoft’s anti-spam initiatives, including MSN and Hotmail filters, upcoming filter technology for Outlook, Outlook Express, and Exchange, and proposed or suggested legislation.  For reasons I’ve outlined before, I disagree with legislative attempts at controlling spam, but I have to applaud Microsoft and other companies (AOL, Yahoo, Earthlink, and others) for finally taking a stand and actually trying to do something about the problem.  I still think that the most effective method of controlling spam would be to design and implement a new email protocol, but our industry leaders lack the backbone to take that big of a step.  In this respect they’re like Congress—wring your hands, complain about the problem, and pass meaningless resolutions to make it look like you’re doing something.

I don’t know if the third paragraph of the article was intended to be humorous, but I laughed out loud when I read it.  The thought of somebody spamming Bill Gates with offers to get out of debt or to get rich quick sure tickled my funny bone.

The Microsoft decision

Posted on by

To a giant yawn, the judge reviewing the Microsoft case today said that everything’s okay, Microsoft has been duly punished, and the dissenting states can go pound sand.  In other news, the sun set in the west.  I doubt that anybody’s surprised by today’s ruling.  I’m surprised, though, by those people who are disappointed by it.  It’s not like they didn’t know it was coming.

There’s nothing to see here.  Move along.