Releaselog

Microsoft: piracy rate of Vista is half the XP

Microsoft said it’s seeing piracy rates for Windows Vista that are half those of Windows XP. The decline in piracy rates is largely due to the fact Vista is much tougher to fake than XP. Microsoft VP, Mike Sievert, said: “Piracy rates are lower because it’s harder.” There are a variety of reasons for that, including the fact businesses no longer have volume licence keys that can be used to activate an unlimited number of machines. Another is the fact Vista machines that aren’t properly activated pretty quickly become basically unusable once they enter “reduced functionality mode”. For Microsoft, the gains have been significant. In its last profits call, Microsoft said five percentage points of Windows growth could be attributed to gains in piracy.

But Microsoft is making the experience a little less harsh for those running pirated versions of Vista. With Service Pack 1, Microsoft is doing away with reduced functionality mode in favour of putting prominent notifications on systems that are not found to be genuine. Non-genuine systems with SP1 will display a warning at start-up that the system is not properly activated. Users will have the option to “activate now” or “activate later”, though the second option won’t show up for a time. Users will also have their desktop background changed to white and a prominent notification placed in the lower right hand corner saying that the machine is not genuine.

Still, in a significant change, those with non-genuine or non-activated copies of Vista will still be able to use their systems. Also with SP1, Microsoft is closing two key loopholes that pirates have used to evade Microsoft’s security measures. One involves mimicking the process used by large computer makers to pre-activate their Vista machines, while the other extends the grace period that customers have to activate their machine, in some cases extending it for decades. Nice, but does Microsoft really think noone will crack it?

Source: Zdnet, Silicon 

Comments (180)

Feel free to post your Microsoft: piracy rate of Vista is half the XP torrent, subtitles, samples, free download, quality, NFO, rapidshare, megashares, sendspace, megaupload, filefactory, netload, crack, serial, keygen, requirements or whatever-related comments here. Don't be rude (permban), use only English, don't go offtopic and read FAQ before asking a question. Owners of this website aren't responsible for content of comments.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
  1. dnL
    December 4th, 2007 | 15:38

    Got to agree with 99. Madferret.
    I’m also using vista on a single core amd and 2gigs of ram.
    And I also haven’t got any problems running the stated games.
    Also I’ve got no problems multitasking with only 2gigs of ram
    actually, it works smoother than it did on xp.

    But then again I’ve got to disagree with 97. Madferret :p
    Since there’s no problems running xp on a machine with a duo or quad core processor and no problems running vista on a single core processor.

    and 98. Jao:
    you need to get your facts straight, I don’t know what kind of software from ‘98 you’re trying to run but I haven’t had any software compatibility problems while running vista, I know some have but those are pretty minor. I guess your friends are just too stupid to download the vista versions of software they want to install.

  2. ENT
    December 4th, 2007 | 15:42

    one year on XP still has 78% market share. In the month vista was released xp market share was 85%, vista now has 9% market share, this means only 7% of xp users have updated to vista with the rest coming from new computer sales.

    speaks for itself, the majority of people dont want vista
    source http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10

  3. liquidmonkey
    December 4th, 2007 | 15:42

    yeah, this is crap.
    let’s ask this same ????? in another year when vista finally does go mainstream. until then its only honest users and companies who use it. once the gen public gets in on it they will be eating those words.

  4. chocolate nutz
    December 4th, 2007 | 15:53

    @66 – is that like geek humour then? man you need to get out more..

  5. December 4th, 2007 | 15:58

    my windows are original o:)

  6. paco
    December 4th, 2007 | 16:07

    It’s not noone. It’s no one. Get it right. But thanks for the post. I enjoyed it.

  7. Streakfury
    December 4th, 2007 | 16:10

    I quite like Vista. I’ve got a machine that runs it well, so some of the issues people have mentioned here I dont have trouble with.

    But I’ve noticed that there are still issues. Crysis, for example, keeps crashing on me (and yes, I’m using a legit copy of both Vista and Crysis) without warning.

    Overall though, you cant say it’s worse than XP. XP is still good in terms of compatibility with software etc, but you’d think that Microsoft would learn it’s lesson from XP, so why would they miss out things in Vista that they’ve fixed in XP?

  8. Reader01
    December 4th, 2007 | 16:10

    What a glorious headline :)

  9. Devildog
    December 4th, 2007 | 16:15

    i concur that the reason the piracy rate is half that of XP is that the OS runs half as well as XP lol. what dumbasses thinking its due to more stringent anti-piracy measures. Does M$ really believe their own hype?

  10. mupet0000
    December 4th, 2007 | 16:26

    Vista is NOT harder to get cracked. Infact its much easier. Monthly released build of vista OEM Ultimate come out pre-cracked as Genuine. Windows update works and so does everything else.

    I should know im using the October build :P

  11. stimpy
    December 4th, 2007 | 16:49

    who wants to use a cracked version of a crap os anyway

  12. dnL
    December 4th, 2007 | 17:18

    @ 103 ENT, wether people want or not, they will have to move to vista sooner or later, Microsofts move with the dx10 was quite smart ;) And I wouldn’t trust that site of yours either, considering the price of vista, most people just download cracked versions of vista and the ones who buy the OS are mostly larger companies and I don’t really care what OS some companies like to use so meh..

  13. WhiteVampire
    December 4th, 2007 | 17:18

    Vista sucks.. no one wants it.. so why bother?!

    end of discussion.

  14. blob
    December 4th, 2007 | 17:25

    does it work on XBOX 180

  15. embøl
    December 4th, 2007 | 17:47

    I agree with everyone who shares my statement.

    The real answer to why the rate is half the XP, is because vista is idiotproof (see all the warnings windows pops up with its OWN PROGRAMS?!?), slow, and ugly.

    Noone wants to download that, do they?

  16. kar2n
    December 4th, 2007 | 17:53

    I just wanted to say Vista Sux too…i had no idea that over 100 people would jump on a comment board just to proclaim …VISTA SUCKS!!!..well i kinda did…anyway…VISTA SUcks…resource hogging software…bah humbug…lol

  17. blob
    December 4th, 2007 | 17:58

    I put the Vista disc in my cd player but I hear no sound.
    Do I need the 64bit or 32bit?

    Thanks for the pointless comments.

  18. bill
    December 4th, 2007 | 17:59
  19. dnL
    December 4th, 2007 | 17:59

    @ 116. embol
    If you can’t even turn off UAC then you’ve got to be quite teh hax0r, huh? And no, vista isn’t uglier than xp, lol.

    @ 117. kar2n
    If you’re using a Pentium 2 from ‘98, I guess it does hogg quite alot of resources, other than that it shouldn’t be a problem.

  20. mrcoolsoul
    December 4th, 2007 | 18:06

    Yep, XP sucked a55 when it first came out (seem to recall people complaining bout the Fisher Price interface, but once a SP or 2 were thrown at it and a few years passed, people wouldn’t want to be without it. Think of Vista as a work in progress and do the sensible thing which is stick with XP until Microsoft make the necessary changes, unless of course you really have to have DX10. In that case its dual boot or VMWare. IMHO

  21. blob
    December 4th, 2007 | 18:08

    Windows 3.1 FTW

  22. HigherIQ
    December 4th, 2007 | 18:15

    It’s funny to see some l337 wannabes here posting how Vista runs well if you have uber computer with 4gigs of ram, etc.
    Ya right. Go BS somewhere else.

    Most of us have tested Vista (and yes, we also have uber computers)… believe me, XP runs better. Sure Vista runs fine for basics (so do Macs lol), but obviously there wouldn’t be so many articles and people giving bad reviews about Vista if it was working as well as you wannabes claim.
    Just the other day, on the article about SP3 for XP, they talked about how much faster it was than Vista. Nobody is saying Vista doesn’t run… it’s just not as fast or smooth as XP. It will probably get there eventually, as was the case with XP, but in another 2 years the next OS flavor will be available, and am thinking it will be better to wait for than running Vista now.

  23. nin
    December 4th, 2007 | 18:33

    rotfl
    even ms should know how vista sucks

  24. chippxero
    December 4th, 2007 | 18:34

    Gotta say i agree with a lot of people on here.

    It’s pirated less as people don’t want it. The majority that did get it warned off a lot of the other people.

  25. dnL
    December 4th, 2007 | 18:37

    @ 123. HigherIQ
    If you mean I’m a 1337 wannabe (there isn’t many others defending vista). Then you should go read my earlier posts, so you don’t make a fool out yourself anymore.
    1. No, I don’t have an uber computer. I’ve only got a single core amd64 and 2gb of ram.
    2. Did I ever say vista runs better than xp?
    3. So vista runs fine for basics and benchmarks show that it runs fine for games, so where’s the problem?
    4. Vista might not be as fast as xp, but it’s smoother IMO.

    So I don’t know what you’re high on but please,
    do continue, I’m pretty amused at the moment.

  26. nexus
    December 4th, 2007 | 18:40

    ” Microsoft: piracy rate of Vista is half the XP”…

    because XP is less than half as crappy as Vista :P

  27. blob
    December 4th, 2007 | 18:44

    I agree that u ppl have no idea

  28. Fnx
    December 4th, 2007 | 18:52

    I’ve been using Vista for a little less than a year now, and I’m starting to regret it. The OS itself is pretty smooth and games work about as fast as in XP (although I had to install extra GB of RAM).

    Program and driver issues make me wanna go back to XP again, especially after reading about the SP3 speed boost :)

    My advice: Skip Vista and wait for Vienna, maybe MS will learn from it mistakes!

  29. busdriver
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:00

    uh-oh I have the oem pirated version

  30. Roasted Cashew
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:07

    Another reason I see is the magnitude of people out there with older computers and absolutely no wish to upgrade hardware or buy new computers to have a smooth running vista system. The enthusiasts market [gotta get the latest and greatest] share is relatively small compared to mundane mom and dad computer users.

  31. Fractal
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:25

    96: “Youz b da moron! sucha nub! nowz stfu… ya knaw wha i b sayns ya mee?”

    No. Git.

  32. dnL
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:31

    @ 129. Fnx
    I’ve been using 64-bit vista ultimate for half a year now and I haven’t had any driver issues but there’s been a couple program that I would’ve wanted to have but that didn’t support 64-bit vista, but there were other alternatives. I haven’t read about the SP3 that much, I guess I gotta do so.. :p

    @ 131. Roasted Cashew
    That’s a good point and I can’t say much about it, just that vista doesn’t require as much resources as people here think and that if your computer can run vista, it’s not a bad alternative. My computer is almost two years old and I can easily run vista and the newest games.

  33. [NZ]SoniKalien
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:40

    There are 2 types of people posting here: those who have tested Vista on their pc (properly) and those who are just saying Vista suxz because they think it makes them look cool.

    Well I love Vista (32bit). I’m running it just fine on my ‘underpowered’ pc – 3500xp (64bit), 1gb ram, 8600gt and a couple of sata drives. No dual core or fancy ram or anything. No problems with drivers, in fact it even picked up more than XP ever did.

    The real reason that M$ thinks that the pirate rate of Vista is half, is because it’s so much easier to crack than XP and they aren’t detecting (through WGA) the piracy.

    M$ and all you Vista haters – you’re misguided fools. Go sit in the corner.

  34. Nukem
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:41

    Ok everyone stop blogging for a second and read something:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

    For those of you who can’t read, here’s a summary:

    1. 32bit Vista vs 64bit Vista = no great diff.
    2. Some compat. probs using Vista – no surprise there.
    3. No support for OpenGL in Vista = no good for gfx professionals.
    4. Some games e.g. UT2004 slower on Vista than XP.
    5. CPU-intensive apps e.g. vid encoding = ~20% slower on Vista.
    6. Aero doesn’t drain laptops batteries any faster.
    7. Vista runs considerably more services = more resource hungry. (Well it’s an upgrade, what do u expect?)

    “Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP.”

    “If you really need your PC to finish huge encoding, transcoding or rendering workloads within a defined time frame … stay with XP.”

    “Vista [uses technologies such as] SuperFetch and ReadyDrive … to make Vista feel faster and smoother [than XP}.”

    *** “No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor.” ***

    So… Vista uses more resources to make itself look better and FEEL smoother (faster in multitasking) than XP. It handles app crashes better than XP.

    That’s it.

  35. FiXXeD
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:49

    Whats everyones prob??

    If XP does what you need, then stick to it..

    if ya Linux and it does what you need, same again..

    If they dont, then upgrade..

    SIMPLE!!

    Every OS is crap & Buggy when first released. Once a service pack or 2 comes out it will be acceptable as usual, and then we have to put up with all the whining about the next MS OS..

  36. Nukem
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:51

    By the way, it’s the same story with DX10.

    DX10 does not improve graphics in any great way. DX9 can do 99% of what DX10 can do. DX10 is an API upgrade, meaning the API code is more streamlined and better to program in. It has a few extra shaders.

    People have already gotten Crysis on XP to look almost exactly like Crysis on Vista, and it runs faster as well. The differences are extremely minor.

    http://www.crysis-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=11837.0

  37. FlyingElvi
    December 4th, 2007 | 20:45

    Vista is the most stable OS pre-SP1 that microsoft ever released.

    I love it for the Enhanced Video Renderer (EVR), the indexed Search and obviously DirectX 10. None of these are available on XP

    I can’t believe all the comments “Vista sucks” on a site where people download movies to watch but don’t have Vista to use the EVR !!!

  38. ENT
    December 4th, 2007 | 20:55

    @113, those are webstats they cant tell the difference between a legit and pirated version, all are included and people wont have to move to vista if they dont want to since game companies wont want to exclude the largest section of the pc market making DX10 a non issue

  39. z
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:03

    Harder to fake my ass, I had it cracked and updating 1 minute after I installed it.

    http://www.mininova.org/tor/858186 would make a nice accompanying post to this.

  40. mupet0000
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:21

    Trust me people, vista is not a sucky OS. Its not worth how much they charge though as it isnt much different from XP. Just looks a bit different.

  41. mr p
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:26

    lol @58 you said it best

    you win best comment award

    here take your free prize

  42. checksum
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:32

    My 2 generations old laptop(ubuntu) is outperforming my latest laptop(vista), in all the simple stuff like starting up launching apps etc.

    M$ really need to lift their game – the best thing they could do is what apple did – build a linux distro & slap their gui on top.

  43. Anonymous
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:52

    Lemons to lemonade (and a slap in the face for their consumer to boot).

    I think I’d draw and quarter my PR staff before they screw up and lose what was learned from South Park/Guitar Hero.

  44. dnL
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:53

    @ 139. ENT
    Sorry, my mistake, didn’t look at it, just thought it was “market share” lawl. And about the dx10, it makes a little difference so the hardcore gamers who can afford new computers will have computers that can easily run vista, so why not run it? Well anyways I’m getting kinda tired of this
    topic so cya.

  45. chris
    December 4th, 2007 | 22:29

    “The decline in piracy rates is largely due to the fact Vista is much tougher to fake than XP”

    Muahahaha that’s gotta be the joke of the year

    I could get Windows Vista for FREE (legally) and said no, thanks (admittedly, after trying a properly cracked version…)

    Vista = the ubercrap

  46. Kurt
    December 4th, 2007 | 23:01

    Okay, so I’ll admit, Vista is a pain in the ass and slow as hell, but I’ve gone from 1-2 virueses a week in XP to none since I’ve installed Vista about 8 months ago. Very, VERY secure. Always have McAfee running “just in case” but I don’t even think it works xD. Thanks Comcast. But that’s funny Microsoft thinks that once people get a pirated vista they’ll never go looking for ways to bypass activation and validation xD They’ll never learn

  47. thug_angel
    December 4th, 2007 | 23:47

    even if M$ provided vista as a freeware the user rate won’t go up..get over is M$ xp was the last and your best achievement..

  48. music
    December 4th, 2007 | 23:55

    pirates smart enough to not be bothered with vista, imho

  49. quack
    December 4th, 2007 | 23:55

    Heh… I don’t understand this new brand of MS Logic, why create a drastically flawed OS when you’re about to finally get round to having your last one work properly?

  50. Rick
    December 5th, 2007 | 00:19

    HAHAHAHA, VISTA SUCKS ASS THAT’s WHY IT’S LOWER….lol I BET MICROSOFT JUST CAME TO THAT ASSUMPTION JUST CAUSE.

  51. mivanx77
    December 5th, 2007 | 00:33

    We all know VISTA SUCKS… we should all go to Bill Gates house, punch him in the face, bring him to the offices and tell him to make an OS that is faster, lighter, and stable. Not fat, slow, and expensive.

  52. silentkills
    December 5th, 2007 | 00:53

    lawl…. i rckn its more like more pplz like using xp more than vista so no one cbf putting so much time and effort into it

  53. rlslog
    December 5th, 2007 | 01:54

    i have vista installed on a 256 mb /celeron 900 ghz works fine….

  54. nebula
    December 5th, 2007 | 01:59

    The piracy rate is low because nobody wants to install vista. They haven’t taken that into account.

  55. Madcotto™
    December 5th, 2007 | 02:00

    ok just wanted ad mine to the masses already, there a reason m$ and that is vista sucks. only good stuff gets copied to be copied is a great bit of Respect that vista wont have for a long time. come to me when it works

  56. []D[][]\/[][]D
    December 5th, 2007 | 02:21

    XP FTW i winz the intrawebz… ya kna wha i me sayinz yaaa mee!

  57. Asbestos
    December 5th, 2007 | 02:38

    The pirate community has a low priority on vista since it sucks so bad.

    If it maintained top on the list it would get cracked faster than saying youre gonna get sued for pirating.

  58. VistaDumBoy
    December 5th, 2007 | 02:47

    I think the WGA approved BIOS crack makes their sales look better.

  59. dubs
    December 5th, 2007 | 03:00

    I recieved a free full version of ultimate for participating in the vista beta and just recently went back to windows xp. i get almost double thr fps in my games under xp. there are some really cool features of vista but unfortunately ms decided to conentrate on going after the oooh ahh mac types that a great os was ruined out of the gate with all the bloat. heres to hoping for more service packs (i was running sp1 beta for vista)

    until then ill stick with xp. we wont even look at vista as a viable os till 2010 at the earliest. sux because we are a technology company that typicall lives on the cutting edge of technology. :/

  60. OFF
    December 5th, 2007 | 04:52

    All those claiming to be running Vista smoothly are just f****** r***** showing up their powerful machines… You suck. Go get a life.

  61. troof
    December 5th, 2007 | 05:26

    Hey can I post tech news too? I can read Engadget and re-post their stuff just like you!

  62. Anonymous
    December 5th, 2007 | 05:38

    bah… usenet is broken (not the binaries). Probably be switching to cheap cable and force a change in behavior.

    Got a pile of 50’s 60’s sci-fi to plow through anyways.

  63. philly
    December 5th, 2007 | 05:55

    I agree with everyone who says VISTA SUCKS!!

    I would rather stick with XP for another year (at least) until they fix that garbage they call an upgrade.

    WOW

  64. Fractal
    December 5th, 2007 | 06:47

    158: “XP FTW i winz the intrawebz… ya kna wha i me sayinz yaaa mee!”

    No. Git.

  65. alexs
    December 5th, 2007 | 09:14

    @166
    The reason why gamers choose XP instad of vista is due the over-rated memory usage that vista takes. XP takes 300-500MB max, while vista takes 800-1000MB memory. and a program that doesn’t work on vista, Mousefix (to decrease the mouse accuracy).

    Oh and by the way , vista is easier to crack than XP :) , we do not want vista this year or next year. Meybe in the next 3-5 years i’ll consider to change to vista. But not now, you dont need it anyways, why dont you need it? well if your an over-rated person that likes “better” security or better office programs, well probly. Vista will never be an Gaming OS!

    My point of view , you dont need Vista yet, you can still use XP for 3-5 more years!
    XP is far far better gaming OS

  66. Kusiami
    December 5th, 2007 | 11:32

    Its because Vista is half the OS XP is! hahaha

  67. asd
    December 5th, 2007 | 13:19

    @ 168. alexs

    Bad guessing on the numbers there.
    I’ve never had xp installation that used 300-500mb idle
    and no vista installation that has used even close too 800mb.
    I guess you simply don’t know what you’re talking about :p

    And in 3-5 years their new OS will be out…

  68. Nukem
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:17

    No seriously, stop blogging. I’ve already sorted it all out. No more needs to be said. Really.

  69. Big-Byte
    December 5th, 2007 | 15:40

    so it’s there a way to use DX10 under XP ???

  70. asd
    December 5th, 2007 | 17:21

    @ 171. Nukem

    I totally agree with you but I just had to >_<
    Since that guy was totally out D:

  71. majorG
    December 5th, 2007 | 18:45

    LiNuX rules!

  72. mrcoolsoul
    December 5th, 2007 | 19:07

    154…..WTF!!!! Hope that’s a joke. lol

    172. Not yet….but there is a project on the go to try and make DX10 work under XP. Wouldn’t hold my breath tho. In my opinion, as others have said on this post, programmers are just starting to squeeze the best out of DX9 at the noe. It’ll be a while before programmers learn how to get the potential out of DX10….and by that time MS will have rolled out their next OS which you’ll have to upgrade to for DX11.

  73. Big-Byte
    December 5th, 2007 | 20:30

    thank’s mrcoolsoul !!!

  74. alex
    December 5th, 2007 | 21:50

    Bad guessing?, i think YOUR wrong my xp is using 450mb IDLE and my vista on laptop takes 700-800 MB IDLE, By this i mean FRESH install , im not talking about your n00b toolbars etc installed. that will include over 500MB..

  75. embøl
    December 5th, 2007 | 22:02

    # 120

    didn’t say i couldn’t disable the uac, did i?

    I just stated that when the OS begin blocking it’s own services, programs, processes, whatever..

    - then rethink your great choice of getting Vista.

  76. Anonymous
    December 6th, 2007 | 01:15

    Crazy without a life line. Anyone else pulling up a chair, got marshmellows and weiners for all.

  77. KHAL3D
    December 9th, 2007 | 22:17

    loooooooooool pathetic!! hey MS, mark my words, when you force the world to use Vista by makin the only-for-vista users applications as u did with XP when we were using the previous OS’s, Vista will be cracked to da bone and u aint gonna be able to nothin about it! and you gonna find your lil statement upove embarrassing!

    till then, let’s stick to XP, and let’s give them sometime to fix the bugs in their stupid Vista! Peace

  78. Fvh597
    December 11th, 2007 | 19:21

    Hey guys, I am stuck with windows vista, does anyone know which is the best method to crack this program?

  79. somedude
    December 14th, 2007 | 13:29

    Obviously it’s because Vista sucks. Their argument doesn’t make sense. Once it’s cracked, it’s cracked – the people pirating it don’t have to do anything extra to get Vista as opposed to XP… well.. maybe they have to remove their brain.

  80. basIQ
    October 30th, 2008 | 22:50

    People who had it preinstalled, downgraded…why would you pirate it, if even the people who paid for it don’t want it….

    WILL IT BLEND??

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Leave a reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Hot info about new scene releases!