True or urban legend?

[AlecWest]

A friend told me that Windows XP OEMs now being sold may have a modified SP2 (SP2b?) and come with an "upgrade coupon" for Windows Vista. He implied that this modified SP put a "time limit" on how long XP would function ... and that after the time limit passed, users would be forced to upgrade to Vista.

It sounds kind of far-fetched to me. But then again, after reading the Vista licensing agreement, I'm beginning to get a little paranoid about Microsoft - and wouldn't put it past them to do something like that.

[InXess]

Never heard of it. All they can do is stop supporting the OS (no new drivers and stop live tech support). If it was true blogs would be buzzing.

[Poppa_Meth]

I'm pretty sure SP2b is just the original XP SP2 OEM with some of the more recent fixes and patches also included. I installed this on my mother's PC a in January and have had no issues. Never saw anything about a time limitation.

[me-eyes]

As far as I'm aware it is the UPGRADE COUPON (not the copy of XP) that will expire after a set date - after this date you'll have to pay the full retail price shouuld you want to install Vista on your PC.

[AlecWest]

Thanks, all. I suspected it was an urban legend. Of course, if you're paranoid (grin), you could imagine such an urban legend being started by Microsoft itself ... to discourage future XP OEM sales (and steer customers toward Vista).

[mh2360]

All they can do is stop supporting the OS (no new drivers and stop live tech support). If it was true blogs would be buzzing.

With WGA validation, Microsoft are capable of disabling Windows XP whenever they want. I can't see them ever doing that though...

[ron spencer]

they can't disable XP...only if you are wacky enough to have WGA installed. If you don't then no stopping....why have WGA anyway, esp with autopatcher around. Does anyone really goto windozeupdate site and download? Foolhardy if you do....

[mh2360]

they can't disable XP...only if you are wacky enough to have WGA installed. If you don't then no stopping....why have WGA anyway, esp with autopatcher around. Does anyone really goto windozeupdate site and download? Foolhardy if you do....

Sadly the vast majority of windows users are those that go by whatever "dummies guide" they can find in the book store. These no doubt tell them to always keep their system updated through windows update, set to automatic download no doubt.

[InXess]

All they can do is stop supporting the OS (no new drivers and stop live tech support). If it was true blogs would be buzzing.

With WGA validation, Microsoft are capable of disabling Windows XP whenever they want. I can't see them ever doing that though...

Correct. That could be seen as the ultimate in anti-consumer actions. Don't think that any company would ever seriously entertain such thought.

[ZAPPER]

All they can do is stop supporting the OS (no new drivers and stop live tech support). If it was true blogs would be buzzing.

With WGA validation, Microsoft are capable of disabling Windows XP whenever they want. I can't see them ever doing that though...

Correct. That could be seen as the ultimate in anti-consumer actions. Don't think that any company would ever seriously entertain such thought.

We are not talking just "Any" company here.

Ain't no doubt about it, MS has had a pretty big hand in how many, if not most, folks use a computer. For the most part I am happy with XP Pro, shucks, I was happy with 98se or whatever it was. But when they start to omit features and reduce backwards compatibility, get too greedy and try to control your computer after you have installed a bonified version, I am just starting to get a wee bit disapointed with 'em.

[ssj2_goha]

Why "upgrade" to vista? and worry about all the M$ crap. It's stuff like this why I actively promote MAC OSX. It's a better OS and you never "have" to upgrade and Apple can't disable it.

Sorry I had to say it.

SSJ2_goha

[Ron B]

Hey, wait a minute. I use Windows Update on the computer that's hooked up to the internet, but I don't go auto, I pick the updates I want and read what they are before I download and install them.
What about the patch for the new Daylight Savings Time? MS could slip something in there if they wanted.
If MS disabled software people had paid for fair and square, they'd be sued off the planet.

[guns1inger]

Let's see. OSX is on service pack 4 ? Sorry, they don't call them service packs, do they. They call them by vicious animal names to to sound tough and cool - so that would be Tiger. Of course, Apple also throw in a few little bonuses to justify charging their acolytes for the privilege of getting their new animal name de jour.

Sorry - had to respond

[mh2360]

If MS disabled software people had paid for fair and square, they'd be sued off the planet.

It's not as simple as purchasing a CD, you are actually purchasing a "license", which under certain circumstances can be withdrawn by Microsoft. People normally click OK quickly whenever a licence agreement pops up just to get rid of it, but by doing that you are accepting whatever terms and conditions are in it.

If (hyperthetically), Vista's license agreement stated somewhere that it could only be used for say, 1 year, and a year after installing it you find that you can't log in, then it's tough luck, it's not Microsoft's fault you didn't read the license agreement, but you accepted it's terms nonetheless.

There was some concern with Windows Vista that the purchased license only applied to one particular machine, meaning that once activated, it could not be transfered to another computer. So if in 6 months time you purchase another system, then the license could not be transfered to this machine.

They have changed this now (i think).

[ssj2_goha]

Let's see. OSX is on service pack 4 ? Sorry, they don't call them service packs, do they. They call them by vicious animal names to to sound tough and cool - so that would be Tiger. Of course, Apple also throw in a few little bonuses to justify charging their acolytes for the privilege of getting their new animal name de jour.

Sorry - had to respond

.....OK, that is just plain wrong..... OSX 10.0 ---> 10.4 are not service packs. the 10.X is a version number so it's OSX 10.1 is version 1, Version 4 is the current version. There are major changes between the different versions, not just security patches. I advocate use of OSX but I do use windows, and I make software for windows so I really don't have anything against windows users, though it might seem that way sometimes. I just think M$ manages windows badly.

[JohnnyMalaria]

.....OK, that is just plain wrong..... OSX 10.0 ---> 10.4 are not service packs. the 10.X is a version number so it's OSX 10.1 is version 1, Version 4 is the current version. There are major changes between the different versions, not just security patches.

Hmmm. Sound like service packs to me. Each Windows service pack introduces changes as well as security patches. New APIs are added, for example.

Hmmm #2. If they aren't service packs, then it seems Apple upgrades its OS far more frequently than Microsoft. And, IIRC, new Apple OS offerings make existing hardware and software redundant to a much greater extent than Windows.

[ssj2_goha]

.....OK, that is just plain wrong..... OSX 10.0 ---> 10.4 are not service packs. the 10.X is a version number so it's OSX 10.1 is version 1, Version 4 is the current version. There are major changes between the different versions, not just security patches.

Hmmm. Sound like service packs to me. Each Windows service pack introduces changes as well as security patches. New APIs are added, for example.

Hmmm #2. If they aren't service packs, then it seems Apple upgrades its OS far more frequently than Microsoft. And, IIRC, new Apple OS offerings make existing hardware and software redundant to a much greater extent than Windows.

Fist i meant they are not security patches at all. Second, what do you mean "makes hardware redundant". Third, YES Apple does up update the OS more frequently than Microsoft, why do you make that sound like a bad thing? Oh and to be specific the 10.V.X (V is the version being 1 to 4) releases are the security fixes. YES Apple does release Security fixes, I never said they were perfect, i just said the 10.X versions are completely different from version to version.

OK i'm done now if you have anything else to say please drop by the Windows VS. OSX thread I started.

[thecoalman]

With WGA validation, Microsoft are capable of disabling Windows XP whenever they want. I can't see them ever doing that though...

The question was asked in a another forum "Who is the most powerful man in the world?"... My answer was Bill Gates for the reason stated above. Hypothetically speaking suppose Old Bill sets a date in Vista where it just stops working unless you pay MS and sacrifice your first born for the update, illegal yes it would be but on the other hand what's to stop him? He'd have a gun to the head of the entire world and there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about it.

[ssj2_goha]

With WGA validation, Microsoft are capable of disabling Windows XP whenever they want. I can't see them ever doing that though...

The question was asked in a another forum "Who is the most powerful man in the world?"... My answer was Bill Gates for the reason stated above. Hypothetically speaking suppose Old Bill sets a date in Vista where it just stops working unless you pay MS and sacrifice your first born for the update, illegal yes it would be but on the other hand what's to stop him? He'd have a gun to the head of the entire world and there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about it.

I would LOVE that day........... Because people would switch to OSX or UNIX/LINUX.

[InXess]

dream on...

[thecoalman]

I would LOVE that day........... Because people would switch to OSX or UNIX/LINUX.

I think you missed my point, if something along those lines happened it would be catastrophic.

[ssj2_goha]

Well seeing as it was a joke on my part..... Yeah it would be bad. But seeing as Bill Gates is being stupid lately I wouldn't put it past him. And a word to the wise read those EULA from now on

[JohnnyMalaria]

And a word to the wise read those EULA from now on

Absolutely. I'd start with the iTunes Store EULA:

20. Changes. Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. Such updates, revisions, supplements, modifications, and additional rules, policies, terms, and conditions (collectively referred to in this Agreement as "Additional Terms") will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement. Your continued use of the iTunes Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms. All Additional Terms are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.

i.e., Apple can change the terms of the EULA at will and you are deemed to have accepted them - even if you don't know about them.

So, you should check this URL every single time you use iTunes, since that's the only way you will know:

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html


Nice.


EDIT: And OS X 10.4 introduces:

By agreeing to the EULA, you allow the company to collect and use data about your computer, including what software you've installed.

4. Consent to Use of Data. You agree that Apple and its subsidiaries may collect and use technical and related information, including but not limited to technical information about your computer, system and application software, and peripherals, that is gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, product support and other services to you (if any) related to the Apple Software. Apple may use this information, as long as it is in a form that does not personally identify you, to improve our products or to provide services or technologies to you.

Astonishingly vague and wide open.

[jagabo]

All EULAs say this:

1) This software isn't guaranteed to do anything. If it doesn't work for you -- that's your problem. We already got your money.

2) We (the corporation) have all the rights. You (the user) have no rights.

[SCDVD]

Time for some more KookAid

[mh2360]

With WGA validation, Microsoft are capable of disabling Windows XP whenever they want. I can't see them ever doing that though...

The question was asked in a another forum "Who is the most powerful man in the world?"... My answer was Bill Gates for the reason stated above. Hypothetically speaking suppose Old Bill sets a date in Vista where it just stops working unless you pay MS and sacrifice your first born for the update, illegal yes it would be but on the other hand what's to stop him? He'd have a gun to the head of the entire world and there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about it.

I would LOVE that day........... Because people would switch to OSX or UNIX/LINUX.

What if either through some bug/error/stupidness with the WGA system or even some disgruntled Microsoft employee, the WGA system was set to disable XP systems?

Personally I don't trust Microsoft enough to let them decide if my PC functions or not.

[InXess]

If there was ever a doubt whether paranoia is infectious this thread is a proof that it is.

[ZAPPER]

If there was ever a doubt whether paranoia is infectious this thread is a proof that it is.

Who's paranoid? I am not paranoid, just because I cover my monitor at night to keep them from reversing it and looking into my house while I am sleeping, doesn't mean I am paranoid!

[guns1inger]

You know if you have an Nvidia GFX card they can see through your cover. That's what PureVideo is all about. And they can see you in HD . . . . . .