Let Users Bear the Burden of Updates: MS Latest Windows 10 Idea

I read this article today.  Apparently, Windows 10 users will be able to choose if they want to grab updates from PCs over a private network or, more disturbingly, from the Internet.

To be honest, I don't know why the author thinks users will love this P2P "feature".  All he worries about is the --very real-- potential risk of hackers getting new toys to play with.  However, I think he missed a very significant point, one that affects clients directly.

With this P2P updating idea, Microsoft can put the burden of the downloads away from its own servers (where it should be located) and re-locate it on the machines of its customers.

This means that the customer's PC will become slower as it will serve the updates to another client.  And who pays for the upload?  If my machine is uploading, it is using the internet connection that I pay for.  In other words, I am not only letting Microsoft use my machine to relieve the burden on its servers, but also letting this abusive company use my internet connection for free.


"Yes, Microsoft, come use my resources with no benefit for me and, while you're at it, please charge me a yearly (maybe monthly) subscription to use my own computer!  I will love that!"

What kind of a deal is that?  Why should Windows users be happy about it?

The only thing I am happy about is that I DO NOT USE WINDOWS, so that this abusive company cannot reap me off so shamelessly!

A no-OS-computer? You must be a pirate!

After reading this piece about a
Linux keyboard PC , I got excited. I've been looking for a nice computer that is sold without any operating system so that I can install my own. Yes, I'm aware of the existence of System76 (Ubuntu systems) and ZaReason (several Linux offers), but I wanted to try something else. Thus, I checked the vendor's page and, sure enough, there was a "NO OS" option. With a high heart, I selected the components of the system and submitted my request waiting to receive the quote with the price.

A day later, I received it and, with it, there came a surprise. The price was satisfactory ($555), but they had included Windows 7 Professional 32 bits and were charging me for it!

I immediately contacted the sales representative to ask why they were forcing Windows on me if I had explicitly selected a "No-OS system"(I changed the names):

Dear Sales Representative,

I have one question concerning the quote. Why are you including and charging Windows 7 if I explicitly selected the "NO OS" option? Can you sell it without Windows? I am not interested in paying for Microsoft software; I only want the computer.

Regards,

Mechatotoro

This was her answer, which I found rather strange:

Hi Mechatotoro,

We can sell the unit without the OS provided you do have OS licensing. I included the pricing info for the OS so that you can deduct the $176.00 price point if you do not need one included which would make the price $379.00. Attached is the revised quote.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Best Regards,

So, she said that she had done it because, that way, I could deduct from the price the cost of Windows (?!) as long as I had "OS licensing".

This showed to me that, thanks to Microsoft's dirty campaigns, you are seen as a pirate when you request a computer without any OS. Is it so unbelievable that a customer does not want Windows? So, I replied to her:

Hi, Sales Rep,

I am a Linux user and plan to install Linux to the computer. Consequently, your point about licensing (Microsoft license, that is) does not apply in my case. Your offer seems very attractive. Thanks.

The good thing about this exchange is that I could do the math. If the price of the No-OS unit is $379 and Windows 7 costs $176, that means that Microsoft software accounts for almost 50% of the price of the system (46%)! From $555 to $379 for exactly the same computer...That is a considerable difference!

Another interesting point is that OEMs, companies that work with HARDWARE, not SOFTWARE, are actually doing the dirty work for Microsoft. If piracy affects the Redmond software vendor, it should be the one checking for licenses and doing the police work, not OEMs. I wonder how Miscrosoft is going to keep up with the abusive idea of the MS tax. Can they still bully OEMs assuming that No-OS necessarily implies Windows piracy? Can they get away with it in a world in which we see multiple OSs and users are aware of this today?

So, OEMs think that I'm a pirate because I don't want Windows? That's fine with me, really... Just give me the option NOT to buy Windows and we call it a deal!

UPDATE: The sales rep got back at me and said I can buy. It seems that I am on the clear now. Great! :-)

Microsoft Windows 7 Starter EULA and customer abuse

Today, as I was reading this post, I decided to pay Microsoft a visit and download a copy of their glittering Windows 7 Starter EULA. I read some requirements that unsettled me. Let me transcribe an excerpt of the Windows 7 Starter EULA to tell you why those conditions are simply outrageous:


"By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine its return policy. You must comply with that policy, which might limit your rights or require you to return the entire system on which the software is installed [...].

You may use the software as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not

• work around any technical limitations in the software;
• customize the desktop background
• reverse engineer, decompile [...]

Certain features of other Windows 7 product editions, including Windows Aero and the ability to change the desktop background, are not included in this software." (Microsoft Windows 7 Starter EULA)

I doubt that Microsoft lawyers seriously expect users to comply with those ridiculous terms and conditions. First, an interesting tautological falsehood is created if you must accept the software (Windows 7 Starter) with all its flaws and the license forbids you from "working around technical limitations". If you accept the conditions of this EULA and take Windows vulnerability to malware as one of the implicit "technical limitations in the software", the logical implication is that the EULA itself forbids you to install an antivirus solution to protect your Windows system. Of course, lawyers will claim that the clause refers to improving the OS itself, not "helping it" with additional software. However, the contradiction lies on the fact that the EULA makes the OS and the system an indivisible unit (remember: you must return the computer if you do not accept the license). Therefore, if hardware (tangible, made by an OEM) is ridiculously bundled with software (intangible, made by Microsoft), why would they claim that other software running on the OS to protect it is not an indispensable part of the system? Because it is third-party software, not Microsoft's, they will probably say. Well, how about the hardware the OS is running on? Is not that third-party, too? Why is it that I must return the hardware if I reject the software (Windows), then? After all, the hardware was not made by Microsoft. I suppose that Microsoft representatives would say that it is because the OEM agreed to install Windows. If that is the case, then the OEM should be required to agree to the EULA, not the computer buyer.

The situation, however, becomes even more ridiculous with the second clause. The statement is categorical; there is not any ambivalence to it. I guess you can even rephrase it as a biblical commandment: "Thou shall not customize the desktop background".

Basically, dissatisfied people who found third-party programs to change the hideous Windows 7 Starter background are against the law. Yes, they are violating the Second Law of Microsoftics. Period. There is no argument about it. Nevertheless, I do not see Microsoft's legal war machinery aiming its weapons at them. Why not? Well, because the progenitors of the unpopular 7 Starter knew from the beginning that sober people would never comply with such buffoonery and that other software companies would palliate the situation which, in the end, saved Microsoft's face (yes, Starter seems to be a rival for Clippit's unpopularity). That is why the Redmond bully never filed a lawsuit against Oceanis, for example, even though the latter company produced a program designed exclusively to make users break the "unalterable background" law.

Interestingly, Microsoft's failure to launch an attack to force users respect the content of the Windows 7 Starter EULA spawns yet another contradiction: Can this permissiveness be taken as a signal of amnesty toward infringement? If so, then the whole content of the EULA goes void, which means that I can pirate Windows 7 without any concern. But you know how this would end: Microsoft lawyers would not hesitate to take me to court if I do.

I wonder what would happen if people realized how anti-democratic these EULAs are. Not only do these irrational licenses cut your freedom, but they also establish discriminatory policies against users who "rebel" against them. This looks more like fascism than anything else to me. (The image was censored because it depicted inappropriate content for Microsoft, I suppose. After all, any visual connection that you make between this company and fascism is perceived as such regardless of the clearly anti-democratic practices the company promotes. What attribution does this company have to "limit my rights" as an individual and transfer the execution of this violation to OEMs?)