Windows Vista: vista rc2 and micrsofts new improvments to it.

minor rebuttal for common sense

In reply to: Critical but mostly fair... by John.Wilkinson 

How far have we come from the common sense rules of our forefathers?

Why should I have to beg Microsoft to allow me to use my computer again after hardware upgrades? Didn't they already get their money in exchange for my right to run Windows? Ahh, but they don't trust me to stick to my part of the bargain.

You've pointed out the fact that Windows users agree to all sorts of things with the click on a EULA. Very true. But as a matter of practicality, almost nobody reads those things. Users are inundated with frequent EULA dialog boxes - written *by* lawyers *for* lawyers. Most users have resigned themselves to clicking through the dialog box so that they can get on with what they want to do. They can't understand the legalese anyway. Recently, pcpitstop buried a reward paragraph within their EULA and seemed to be surprised at how long it took somebody to claim the reward. I'm surprised that anyone ever claimed it.

Got to agree with you about the silliness of the security vendors. Microsoft has a history of releasing software with various shortcomings. Naturally, with such a large market, a cottage industry develops to fill the need. Frequently, Microsoft will absorb some company to fill the need and put the cottage industry out of business. Is it wrong for Microsoft to improve their product? - of course not. Is it fair for the cottage industries to demand that holes be left for them to fill? - absolutely not. . . . On the other hand, Microsoft was planning to close off a low level of system access. Since Windows isn't open source, we'd be putting a lot of faith that their code was tight and couldn't be taken over by a hacker for nefarious purposes. I seem to recall reading that virtualization technology could be turned against us by a hacker to create malware that would be undetectable by any current methods. All in all, I think that Microsoft should've stuck to their guns on this one - but I recognize the irony of trusting Microsoft when they won't trust me.

Licensing of software and copyright holders has gotten completely out of control. Why should Microsoft have the 'right' to restrict how I use what I paid for? Where do they get the chutzpah to declare that my license is invalid just because I upgraded my motherboard? They got their money for the license. The license isn't being used by anyone else. Can a hardware store sell you a hammer - but prevent you from using it to fix your neighbor's house? Or make it illegal to replace the handle? Or restrict you from loaning it to your brother? Or say that it can't be used anymore if you give it to charity? Microsoft and the multimedia industry both do these things with their licenses because they have the lawyers and the lobbyists and the technical expertise to get their own way.

I never liked being bullied on the playground. Thankfully, we can play with the Mac or Linux instead of Windows.