Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Microsoft has made it 100% clear that they will not support Windows 3.1x and earlier (soon to go up to Windows 98 in 2003). Once a company abandons support for a product, and they can no longer make a profit from it, due to it being outdated, or for whatever reason, that company should not care if their old products, (that they currently do not sell), are available for download on the internet.
Windows 3.1x may be old, but it is still a very good GUI. We know that. While I do not agree with about half of post #5 of message 7300, there are parts I do agree with. An example of where I agree would be, that technology just compiles upon its self and is ever evolving, and with advancemants and easier production ease, products generally do become cheaper. Why is the Operating System genere different than the rest of the world in that way? Whoever posted response #5 to message 7300 is right in that aspect.
When I bought Windows XP home edition, it was the same price as Windows 98 SE, $209.67. This does not make sense to me. Generally in other areas of retail and manufacturing, when a product is improved, the older one becomes cheaper. The reason for this is becausee the older versions of software often have veunrebilities, and other bugs that have not been corrected. After all, if Microsoft created the perfect operating system, (no bugs, choice of installing IE or not, more privacy, better UI, better customizability, and a better liscencing agreemant), logicaly they should devalue all previous OS's that were earlier released.
Such as, instead of selling Windows 98 SE for $209.67, Microsoft could sell it for $50.00. Microsoft might be afraid they would lose money that way. Yes, they would in the short term, but if they released all copies out to the stores that they had in storage, and stopped producing it, the sales would skyrocket for the OS, and Microsoft would be actually making money legitimatly. However, once all of the copies of the previous OS were sold, they would not have to produce any versions of that OS, because it is outdated.
Microsoft should relicense OS's not supported by them to the freeware liscence. They would not have to make it a GPL liscencing term, but at least they could stop bitching about all of the "illigitimate" copies of thier unsupported OS's on the internet. If it were freeware, it would save both Microsoft the time it takes to track down these sites and close them down, and it would also save the people who download it and the servers who host it from fear of legal reprecussions. In short, Microsoft will not make any profit from thier unsupported OS's anymre, so they should just release it as freeware.
Still dosent change the fact tham M$FT is fu#king us over with thier anti-capitalist, pro-communist ways.
0 
ANTI-CAPITALIST???--Microsoft is capitalism in corporate form! They represent the epitome of the capitalist ethic.
I'm not saying that capitalism is bad--or good, for that matter--but to call Microsoft "anti-capitalist"...
Microsoft *is* bad for *other* capitalists, of course.
It's the open source community that are the communists.
Kinda funny how one philosophy seems to work so well in software and so poorly in politics.
By the way, if you think Microsoft is being a b---tard about abandonware NOW, you need to take a look at this:
PCs for Kids, a charitable, non-profit orginization in Autralia, were recycling old, obsolete computers and giving them to poor children who would otherwise not have them. Local businesses donated the machines, which would have otherwise been sent to a landfill. Keep in mind that these computers were very old and incapable of running modern software.
Microsoft forced this charity to stop, telling them that although the software was obsolete, out of publication, no longer sold, and no longer supported, they would have to pay for it. Since the software was no longer available for sale from Microsoft, Microsoft told them they'd have to buy new copies of Windows Me for each computer. Of course, these machines couldn't run Me and would need to be upgraded.
The copies of Windows on these computers were donated from corporations, who paid for SITE licenses, not individual user licenses, and therefore PCs for Kids were breaking the license agreement.
Incredible, isn't it?
Businesses donate obsolete PCs running abandoned versions of Windows to a charity that's going to give them to needy children who can't afford computers, and Microsoft not only intervenes to stop them, but tries to get them to BUY the new product???
In the end, Microsoft, in their infinite generosity, donated a FEW licenses to PCs for Kids, but not nearly as many as were needed.
You can find more about this on the 'Net.
Here's a few links to some news articles about it:
http://it.mycareer.com.au/breaking/2001/07/16/FFXHC2W94PC.html
http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/01/0816.html
0
Communism dosn't work in our society because of a flaw: All of us are somewhat selfish. That dosn't mean that communism is bad: It's aim is good. Open source works because the developer has run out of money or time or whatever. No one has enough time or money to make a big change or upgrade to the software, so loose groups of people dedicate some of their free time to developing it JUST FOR FUN.
Yes, M$ is very greedy... But any one of us can't do anything about it. We have to "team up", but who has the time nowadays.
0
It is pathetic how micro$oft puts thier own "needs" over a charitiy that is trying to brige the digital divide. Microsoft may be in the bussinus of making money, but when they STILL bitch about thier previous products that they do not sell, support, or even acnowlage the existanse of, it is a sad atate of affairs.
The CEO of Micro$oft, Bill Gates, has stated himself "DOS is dead." Generally when a company acnowlages that a product is outdated, it is normally abandoned. Most companies do not care if a person aquires a product that the company made at some time in the past and now no longer supports, or sells.
If I were in the software industry, I would only care about my 3 most recent releases. For example, If I were running micro$oft, I would only care about Windows 98SE, Windows ME/2000 and Windows XP. I would release all previous versions as freeware, but not under the GPL liscencing.
The way I see it, When a product is outedated, obsolete, or no longer supported, the company who made it should not care if that product is freely availble on the internet, or freely available in whatever form. If I were bill gates, I would release DOS 1.2 through Windows 98 version 1. Those products are no longer supported by microsoft, so why does micro$oft care if these unsupported products are freely available? I fail to understand that logic.
It would not suprise me, in the year 2040 when the patent for Windows 1.01 runs expires, they repatent it. That would be the typical practice of a corrupt corportation like microsoft.
I have recently upgraded to Windows XP, but this is as far as I will upgrade. I will not upgrade to thier new "longhorn" project when it is released. With the cost of M$ OS's running at $200 today, how expensive will thier products be in 2 years with the release of "longhorn"? Too damn expensive if you ask me.
Microsoft Office XP Standard Edition retails for $475.00 where I live. Star Office, A Microsoft Office 2000 compatibe package is free, and it offers more features than M$ Office 2000. It has a word processor, spread sheet, internet browser, fax software, email client, presentation program, and a photo editing program. To have these features from a micro$oft office suite, it would retail for around $600.00. I downloaded and installed Star Office 5.2, and I have no regrets. I will not pay for M$ Office, which has less features, when I can legally download Star Office from their company's website. If you are interested in Star Office 5.2, you can get it at www.sun.com/staroffice. I would take a look, this program has not dissapointed me.
0
Microsoft making their software difficult to support over a long haul and NOT making it abandonware is a good thing in that it encourages Open Source and Free Software.
If you are in need of free software written by people who love the job, the BSDs or Linux are what to use.
If you want old software for old computers warez are easy to find.
The OS market is saturated enough, if Microsoft discounted their old OSs they'd cut into revenue from new versions. They owe more to their stockholders than to fans of their superseded software.
0
Just adding a few words:
I donīt think that Micro$uck has no rights to make a profit with their work,what I donīt think fair itīs that said company sells so damm expensive their products.
Micro$uck cries like a bitch for piracy,but still its the number one software company,and Billy its one of the wealtiest man in the whole world.
When a business itīs losing money ,you have to close it,it is Micro.... closing?,no,of course.
That means that despite the high level of piracy with MS programs,theyīre makinīa lotta money,and want more,in my town thatīs called greedĄ
If MS sells their products with fair prices,and let the pņoor use their abandoned software,MS will make more money tahn ever. Why?,because the base of users of MS products will grow a whole lotĄ
And,as a real good capitalist should know,the more you sell,the more you make a profit.
But sometimes,greed itīs not a good advicer.
I donīt say that MS should be a charity org.,but if they donīt make,and support,say,Win 3.x,they should let other people use it,and that will leadém to "upgrade" to modern MS products,and....
fill the blanks.
Thatīs my humble opinion.
0
I believe Windows 3.11 should be freeware, they are not making any money on it, they are not supporting it, their website denies the exsistance of it, and I have yet to see 1 brand new copy of Windows 3.1 in a store. I personally think Micro$uck is screwing the respectibility of their business of it. Now I am not saying Micro$oft does not deserve money for their O/S's when they are being made and supported, but I do believe they are being one of the biggest s.On to the Capitalisim thing, MicroSuck is a mixture of the non-ownership of Captitalisim and the ever raising of money factors of capitalisim (I am not saying one is good or bad, I am just saying it's not one or the other here), and here's my explaination on this. I have a friend who's father was a respectible computer repair guy, he told me something about how the software industry works (most evident with Windows). When you buy a copy of Windows, your not buying the software for yourself, your buying the PRIVELAGE to use the software on your computer. How I see that is so basically you don't own the software for yourself, that is kind of communist, as, in a communist society, you don't own anything, kind of like a bribe thing with the software, and the whole IE thing is like a Dictatorship, "You Use my O/S so you must use my Browser!!!". The reason I don't like this is because when you buy Windows, you get the CD-ROM, and the PAckaging, therefore you are free to use it as you wish after you pay the money, and I believe in a capitalist society this is wrong. My belief as an American is when you paid your hard earned cash for a piece of software, you own that piece of software, that serial number on the software makes that particular number of the software yours, and as long as you own all the damn computers it goes on while it's IN PRODUCTION AND BEING SUPPORTED, your in the right. This is my biggest complaint with Windows XP and why even if I Had a Pentium IV instead of a 486 I would refuse to use it, you have to buy multiple copies to install on my computers. And the discount for it ain't enough, but this comes under my next section.
The Capitalist side of Microsoft is that they are constantly getting richer and raising prices on Software and trying to make money. This can be good or bad, but Microsoft is not out to do any favors. Well, they are not making money on Windows 3.11-1.0 so they cannot bitch and moan about it anymore. They DONT SUPPORT it, DONT MAKE IT, and DONT ADKNOWLEDGE THAT IT EXSISTS. They are too busy trying to push what I think is an overpriced piece of software to begin with.
And the overpricing comes in what Micro$cum calls packaging these days. Back in the days of 3.11 you got your moneys worth, you got everything in hard and soft copy, with my copy of 3.0 it came with 3.5" and 5.25" disks, and a long and big manual that could tell you everything you needed to know, now they send you a box with a little leaflet and a CD with all the documents in need of an O/S to read (which is a pain in the ass when you have no O/S upon which to read it).
This is just my own $.02 on Windows and DOS, and if you ask me, DOS is not dead, DOS is alive and well, it's just Bill trying to make more money by sounding hip and new.
0
the fact of the matter is microsoft owns the copyright on those products, and regardless of whether or not they make, support or use copies of it to wipe bill gates ass, they can do whatever the hell they want with it as long as that copyright exists. software isn't any different than any other product that was made with the expectation of being able to recoup the costs of producing it and perhaps make a profit (even if its a bloated, obscene amount). that's why they don't appreciate piracy. if you don't agree with this concept, that is tough. make your own damn operating system, like the linux people, and then do whatever you want with it. or, just pirate it like everyone else that doesn't want to pay for it, or cannot get it any other way. or, actively agitate for change in our laws and society. granted, we DO live in a messed up, greed-driven world, but whinning about how microsoft should do this or that with their product, does not change the fact that they created it and subsequently own it. (well, they did not really create all of it, since bill gates, did steal quite a bit from apple, but that's another subject all together.)
0
M$ does not realize there is a profit to be made from old software, and no longer sell, support, or acnowlage the existance of Windows 3.1x; Why do they care if we and the populus of the world use it? I bet I know why. In some stupid way, they are trying to eliminate compitition, even from themselves. When will they realize that thier effort is futile?
When I search on hotbot.com for abandonware, the search turns up about 50,000 results, and more are launched every day. The only way that abandonware trading/"piracy" is going to end, is to eliminate the source of the problem: the human race. But who wants that? Certianly not me.
Microsoft should just realize that thier efforts are in vain, and relicense 3.1x as freeware. They think that would make them lose money, but actually, it would actually save them money from invesitigating all of the abandonware sites. Microsoft, I fail to understand you, and so do many others.
Some more evidence that Micro$oft is f@#king us over:
Yesterday when I was in staples, I saw thier invintory form to order Ofice 2000 Pro. Guess how much just the CD set cost? $10.00!! Do you know how much the LICENSE cost? $397.00!! and that was not the customer's price, that was the store's price. Considering it is a common practice to mark up items at least 50%, it would cost the end user $595.50!! And that is with a low markup rate.
I think it is time they realize that charging outlandish prices for thier software will make them lose cusotmers. They have lost my bussinus in the office utilities area. When there are equal products available for free, I will use the free alternatives. I will never purchase an office suite from microsoft as long as Star Office is available on my burned CD (which is legal because it is licensed under the GPL/Free licensing term), or on the company's web server.
0
every version opf linux is free. it only costs money if you order an cd-rom version of that particular installation. pbs.
0
When a company takes out a copywrite on a product, it will last 70 years after the first production date. If an individual takes out a copywrite, it will last until 50 years after that individual's death.
0
We have to take the PC back from this jerk- Bill Gates.
Not only should DOS & 16 bit GUI (win3.1) be free, he has to change his End User Lisence Agreement (which basically says you never own what you pay for, never can re-sell it, never use it as you wish, etc).
we should also hack his other products.
He does not play by any rules- not even by the rules of the system that made him the richest man.
The only way is by revolt. Let him sue every Tom, Dick and Harry that copies his software, and we'll sue him right back for giving us OS and software that doesn't work.Why do you guys even upgrade to junkware like XP?
0
Do you want to take back a little pice of the pie that M$ has taken from you? See my Website if you do! My links/ downloads page is still under construction, but every thing else is up.
0
Microsoft's position has a weakness. If they lease you a thing, they should have to provide a version that works all the time.
Someday a class action suit could hit them in their profits. That is where the action is. There is no point pointing out that Microsoft is not nice about outdated software, but someone could ensure that future software works all the time.
Has anyone else had this experience? Windows 9XX will erase the serial number from your Maxtor IDE hard drive if you experiment with it too much. I first encountered this by moving a hard drive from one computer to another, not a pirate action.
The legality of the second time was a little marginal, but this has happened to a Windows ME installed Maxtor IDE hard drive now. (I used a Windows ME from an eMachines
computer on the MAXTOR drive for a week until a full version of Windows ME got to me.
It worked fine until I installed the legal version at which time it erased the serial number on my hard drive.)
That I PAID for the software that erased my drive serial is what is wrong with Microsoft. It is as if Windows as opposed to NT is for people Microsoft does not think should have computers--thus the bad experience.
Nobody but Bill Clinton can ignore criticism as well as Microsoft does.
0
Interesting info fred.That's why I call MS software "viruses". The definition of a computer virus is a program that performs functions you never asked it to do. Hence, Virus 95, Virus 98, Virus 2000, and now the Mother of All Viruses, Virus XP.
I wish there was a user group who were willing to sue MS over specific issues. I'd join and go in on the lawsuite.
Thanks fred
0
1. I always thought copywrite lasted twenty five years and no more.
2. What a pity IBM did not persevere with OS/2.
3. What a pity Digital Research did not develop their, not Microsoft's, invention DOS, with its own GUI.
Surely, what is needed is some SERIOUS, commecially supported competion for MS operating systems! It is almost as if any real contenders have been bought off or worse.
Good to see there are some strong views on the subject; that must be good.
J.G.
0
WIndows 3.11 was a good operating system I still use it as my router on my 486 :). But I do know why Microsfot wont turn there older software into freeware. Well because people like me take free s--- to the limit. If there going to give one version free they will give more free say in 10 years they have Windows XP Pro as freeware well s--- I wont want the new Windows. And every 10 years I will patiently wait for the newest OS. BUT since alomost no new s--- supports Windows 3.11 and Windows 95 I think it should be freeware. Like say Windows XP Home Edition crashes (which it dose so often) and you scratched the cd. Now we all know you must chuck up $200.00. Mabey you cant. Well why not get the freeware version from another pc and copy it to a cd. Then you will have the backup Windows 95 untill you can get Windows XP Home again. Thats the way I think it should go. Sorry for the late response
0
windows products sucks. please use linux.
it got gui of choice you use... kde is best...get linux. dont get win 3.11 or win xp... it is crap of buggy products.
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
