Sunday, February 10, 2008
Vi$ta? No Thanks!
The Random Tech Guy doesn't not recommend Vista for anyone or for any application. He highly encourages avoiding it at all costs (use 2000, XP, Ubuntu Linux or best yet a Mac), and encourages others not to use or recommend Vista. He also helps people removes Vista from machines that shipped with it and upgrade to other legitimate operating systems.
Micro$oft Phone Home
Since the release of XP the one thing I can't understand it why a person who pays for an OS and runs it legitimately would use something that needs to phone home to prove it is real (and usually without your knowledge). Things like Windoze Product Aggravation and Windoze Genuine Validation (sorry no good pun for that one yet) are just sad. M$ says they are used to reduce piracy. Piracy hasn't decline. M$ claimed that the new "technology" in Vi$ta has helped curb piracy. Blogger and users alike shot shot back that it is because no one wants to pirate Vi$ta. As usual Microshaft needs a reality check. Vi$ta is s@#t in a box with the M$ logo. I wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy, and now that it like XP it not only wants initial validation, it wants another every 180 days, and more if you want to download certain products. The system is so convoluted and confusing that I even found others trying to get to the bottom on the phenomenon.
These new "technologies" make the products more expensive, since M$ has to waste R&D money on this crap. It also takes up your bandwidth. That's right every time it does a check it is using bandwidth you likely pay for. Why isn't M$ giving all legitimate customers who are victims of their back-orifice like tools a rebate for using their bandwidth? Why doesn't M$ just trust their user to manage their own machines, licenses and software?
Worst of all this is like an illegal wire tap. Though claims are made that the validation is "straight forward", it often does so without asking the customer first (they call this "transparency"). Even if it did, if the customer canceled the check either the software would deactivate or would create a violation of the license agreement.
These new "technologies" make the products more expensive, since M$ has to waste R&D money on this crap. It also takes up your bandwidth. That's right every time it does a check it is using bandwidth you likely pay for. Why isn't M$ giving all legitimate customers who are victims of their back-orifice like tools a rebate for using their bandwidth? Why doesn't M$ just trust their user to manage their own machines, licenses and software?
Worst of all this is like an illegal wire tap. Though claims are made that the validation is "straight forward", it often does so without asking the customer first (they call this "transparency"). Even if it did, if the customer canceled the check either the software would deactivate or would create a violation of the license agreement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)