I have a heated debate with some of my friends saying that since the Window XP has ended. They can install pirated Window XP into thier computer. The reason is becaue there is some games and devices still work on XP and not on the latest Windows.
So that is why I am asking to all the good guys here whether it is alright or not to install pirated Windows XP so that I can close my friend's mouth once and for all.
Any opinion is very much appreciated.
Jump to PostThey can install pirated Window XP into thier computer.
Wrong. Ending support does not end Microsoft's copyright (link).
it is alright or not to install pirated Windows XP
Not. …
Jump to PostSo when do OSes like 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, and XP become 'abandonware'?
Jump to PostSee the article in the link I posted. The answer: long after you're dead.
Jump to PostIf you want a DOS 3.1 compatible OS, there is FreeDOS - reverse engineered (legally) and open source. Works fine; however, there are no (to my knowledge) any legal open source clones of Windows NT or later. Wine under Linux is as close as it gets, but with a gazillion …
Jump to PostThere's always ReactOS
They can install pirated Window XP into thier computer.
Wrong. Ending support does not end Microsoft's copyright (link).
it is alright or not to install pirated Windows XP
Not. You could potentially be sued by Microsoft, fined and/or jailed for theft.
That's what I thought.
Thanks!
So when do OSes like 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, and XP become 'abandonware'?
See the article in the link I posted. The answer: long after you're dead.
If you want a DOS 3.1 compatible OS, there is FreeDOS - reverse engineered (legally) and open source. Works fine; however, there are no (to my knowledge) any legal open source clones of Windows NT or later. Wine under Linux is as close as it gets, but with a gazillion caveats - such as performance, compatibility (some applications and games work ok, but many others don't), and stability.
I do use Wine on Linux for a number of applications, including Sparx Enterprise Architect (they spend a lot of cycle$ to be sure it runs well on Linux/Wine), and some other tools. A lot of other cruft won't run (or install) on Wine at all, in which case I run them in a legal copy of XP in a VirtualBox VM.
You could potentially be sued by Microsoft, fined and/or jailed for theft.
Potentially yes but not very likely. Given the fact that those OSs are not updated or supported anymore, there wouldn't be a way for Microsft to know you've installed a pirated version of XP. If I wanted XP installed bad enough, for the reasons the OP has stated for instance, I would go ahead and install it.
In saying that, I'll stick to 07 and 08 on my computers, I like them better (at least I like 07 better).
I still wonder whether Window XP will still have the "Window Geniune Advantage" message on a pirated Windows?
i think because updates are over you can use a key for xp(but not a crack)
Microsoft wont be worrying about xp piracy anymore.Anyway its not legal!!!
Moral: if you want to use pirated XP its ok, but just keep it to yourself!!
Dont involve in selling copies ,posting on the internet etc.
I for one will not use pirated Windows XP as I am using Linux for my old hardware which is running just fine and thats all I need. One thing for sure they will not get any help from me if there is any problem if they insist on pirated Windows.
i think because updates are over you can use a key for xp(but not a crack)
Microsoft wont be worrying about xp piracy anymore.Anyway its not legal!!!
You're an idot if you believe that.
Let's try to keep things civil.
Someone mentioned DOS. Actually, Microsoft released the source code some early versions of dos. It's interesting to read through. (It's actually licenced under a semi-open source licence.) So you can compile it and redistribute it for educational purposes.
I'm also going to mention something that might seem a bit silly. Installing a pirated version of Windows XP is not illigal. Pirating Windows XP is illigal because you don't have the right to copy it (copyright). If you got it through a direct download, or buy it from some sketchy store, you can argue that you had no idea it was pirated. Copyright targets the people who copy without the right too. So in that case, your a victom of software piracy. The DMCA states that cracks are illigal. So it would need to be pre-cracked or hidden away from the user who can argue ignorance.
The end of support has absolutely nothing to do with copyright as has been mentioned.
It should be legal, to punish Microsoft for discontinuing it.
I believe the copyright should end as soon as the product is no longer manufactured.
I believe the copyright should end as soon as the product is no longer manufactured.
What happens if you're part of a small software company, and you only support the latest version because you don't have the resources to support older versions?
If ending support means that the older version suddently becomes free game - well clearly it's not going to end well.
Another example might be the linux kernal. Imagine if unsupported versions of Linux were no longer protected with "copyleft" (which is using copyright laws to protect so called "free software"). That means you could grab an old version of the kernal, upgrade it, and use it in a closed source project.
Microsoft support pisses me off and they make me want to go out of my way to find a pirated key for Windows 7 Home Premium. HP will not install correctly on my new hard drive. Windows Professional will. I cannot use (for obvious reasons) my HP product key to activate the version that would install on my hard drive so I now have a trial version of Professional as my OS. After many (MANY) hours of work on this pc, with many different suggestions to solutions, I decided to try Microsoft support. What a joke! He told me that my iso was corrupt, even though I told him it was the 3rd burn and that pro was working off one burn. He told me to re-buy windows 7, which costs $100. I asked him how happy he would be with such advice and he closed the session. WTF? I am so choked right now. And just so you all don't think I'm too crazy, check out this video from Youtube, which is a continuation of another video this guy made about problems with installing Home Premium.
Seriously though, I am so frustrated by the so called help from MS that getting a pirated key for pro doesn't seem like a bad thing. However, I will not.
What happens if you're part of a small software company, and you only support the latest version because you don't have the resources to support older versions?
Then don't make a new version! Keep the old version or update it. The whole problem is new versions leaving users of the old version high and dry.
If ending support means that the older version suddently becomes free game - well clearly it's not going to end well.
It ends well to those who still need the old version when the idiot software company refuses to sell it. Stop thinking of only the company that makes the software. Think of those who need it and suddenly can't get it.
Another example might be the linux kernal. Imagine if unsupported versions of Linux were no longer protected with "copyleft" (which is using copyright laws to protect so called "free software"). That means you could grab an old version of the kernal, upgrade it, and use it in a closed source project.
To keep your copyright, don't discontinue it. Thats the way it should be.
Then don't make a new version! Keep the old version or update it. The whole problem is new versions leaving users of the old version high and dry.
It's the same thing. Windows 8 could have been release only as an upgrade. Then the company can say "we only support updated versions".
It ends well to those who still need the old version when the idiot software company refuses to sell it. Stop thinking of only the company that makes the software. Think of those who need it and suddenly can't get it.
That's on the company, and that is the problem with vendor lock in. I'm not saying the company isn't at fault. I'm saying that changing the law to "unsupported software is no longer protected by the law" is a bad way to fix it.
To keep your copyright, don't discontinue it. Thats the way it should be.
No, that's not the way it should be. We only have a limited number of resources, and maintaining old software just to keep a copyright isn't helpful because it takes away from software that should be the focus of development. Fixing vendor-lock in shouldn't involve breaking that. Especially if the company in question made a responsible change from version to version.
Say for example that you have an open soruce fork of Eclipse. But then something happens and you no longer have time to support it. Well, since it's unsupported, that means that your fork is not free game and no longer proctected by an open source licence? That means that you can make a closed source version of your fork? All of the effort gone into a free Eclipse has just been taken away because of one small fork.
Another example of a problem would be linux 2.x.x. Support will soon die, and if that ment that it's copyright would be lost, that means you'll have closed-sourse versions of linux (imagine all of that contributed code taken away). The change between Linux 2 and 3 was responsible, and no one wants to use linux 2.x.x anyways (even if it did, it's still availible).
Another example might include the responsible change from python 2 to python 3. Python 3 is a better language, and the change is being taken slowly and carefully. With the argument "don't make a new version", then everyone is loosing out on a great language. With the argument "support python 2.1, python 2.2, python 2.3, etc and python 1.0 and python 1.1 etc... until copyright is no longer needed", then you'll need to put so many resources into maintianing old software that you'll never get any work done on the product that no one uses.
Again, I'm not saying that vendor lock-in is good. But the sulution isn't to abolish copyright on unmaintained software.
Then don't make a new version! Keep the old version or update it. The whole problem is new versions leaving users of the old version high and dry.
It's the same thing. Windows 8 could have been release only as an upgrade. Then the company can say "we only support updated versions".
Selfish shelfish selfish!
That's on the company, and that is the problem with vendor lock in. I'm not saying the company isn't at fault. I'm saying that changing the law to "unsupported software is no longer protected by the law" is a bad way to fix it.
It is the ONLY way to fix it: make a penalty for not supporting old software. Products should not be deprecated. People PAID for them, and then suddeny they lose what they paid. That is FRAUD!!! Microsoft should be prosecuted for fraud for deprecating XP and 7.
No, that's not the way it should be. We only have a limited number of resources, and maintaining old software just to keep a copyright isn't helpful because it takes away from software that should be the focus of development.
Then DON'T CHANGE IT!!!!!
Leave it alone, so the old users can keep using it. WE DO NOT NEED OR WANT THIS HUGE RUSH OF CHANGE!!! We want things to remain the same for long periods of time, so we can keep doing what we have been doing without the expense of a complete change over every three years!!! The rush to upgrade is the SCAM!!!
Fixing vendor-lock in shouldn't involve breaking that. Especially if the company in question made a responsible change from version to version.
There is no such thing as a "responsible change from version to version" when real-time software is involved. A new version of the operating system is almost guaranteed to make the real-time system malfunction. All real-time systems are operating-system dependent and hardware dependent.
Your entire idea that nobody wants to use old versions of software is wrong:
Scientists doing a 10-year or 20-year scientific study need a ceteris parabus environmrent for the study to be valid. This means "all else is the same." In other words, they should not be making any changes, including upgrading the computers used or replacing any software. But the business environmnet makes such studies impossible to have, because they don't even sell the same equipment 10 years later.
People who spend a substantial sum of money for a scientific data collection system or a music production studio do not want the whole thing to be made obsolete because some computer software company wants to force everyone to change the operating system, and then discontinues the old one and stops support.
People have files that are old, and need to use them. I got out some old spreadsheets from 1991 I needed the data from, and I can't find any software that can read them today. So because software companies have to have this horrid rush to change, I lost all of my data.
We need STABILITY, not frenzied change.
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.