You seem to like taking the barest point and twisting it for yourself.

I said 'They're using Windows.'

You said -'That simply isn't true. UNIX has made an absolute fortune, not to mention that a lot of small businesses can't afford the licences for Windows NT server, and all the work stations.'

What do I care...you were talking about mircosoft, not unix. While you're at it why not start listing every software product that was ever made and made money to try and make your point! I don't have 3 hours to spend typing a reply that involves all your perceived contingencies.

I said 'A computer company faces serious problems if caught, and they can be caught quite easily, if they use unlicensed op systems.'

You said 'Neither is this. Many companies have been prosicuted for using illegal software, but many are still out there, using it. The OS is only part of the software used by companies, and home users account for more sales of Windows I would suspect.'

Of course there's still many out there doing it...I even worked for one! But that's not what I said. And they can be easily caught if just one auditor arrives on their door! And your suspected "home users account for more sales of Windows I would suspect" is a completely rubbish statement as you are still referring to the sale of the op system which gives MS the money to soar above all others.

I said 'That's why MS aren't poor...and they are effected by piracy of course...but it's only a small dint in their financial armour. They own the business computer market.'

You said 'Whether they can afford to lose money or not isn't the point. Microsoft, like any company, stives to attain maximum profits. Absolutely, under no circumstances, would Microsoft say "We can afford to lose this amount" lets no bother doing anything about it.'

Again, this is completely twisting things...did I once say that MS didn't care about losing sales in my statement? No. Only that they aren't going to fold because of it.

Last comments...using your example of half-life 2 I agree that it will be cracked, copied, and there'll be a loss of sale for the company, though they'll make a fortune regardless.

Although if MS made the game and didn't copy protect it, it probably wouldn't make as much as there'd be more pirated versions. So what's the difference here?

Vivendi spend years making what will be their new flag ship product, probably one of a tiny few products they'll release in the year. They really SHOULD protect it as much as possible. I know I would, and people like you moaning about their disc protection would be ignored...why - because capitalist company's will generally do whatever the hell it takes to make more money . But MS have other ways than protecting their disks...


I applaud MS for not protecting the discs so I can make backups for my important stuff (windows cd for example) but they are bastards in a 100 other ways without putting protections on disc to keep sales up. Once again...they own the market. If you couldn't backup the cds every computer business in the world will cry out as they need to back up that software, and that will make a difference. If a game has protection...who's going to cry out!? You!? The pirates!? What the hell would they care...protecting your business should be a right, not a law.