Why should, or better yet, Why would I want to pay any company to protect my computer for vulnerabilities same said company has put me in danger for in the first place? If the operating system has problems to begin with, why should they charge us to keep it safe?

I am not bashing anyone or company, just making a point. The point is, it seems to cost me more and more money every year to use the OS and software that I actually like.

Look at the lies MS is trying to spend: Your top questions:

1. Does Windows OneCare Live degrade my system performance?
Virtually all anti-virus programs have an impact on performance
because they must constantly monitor your system. But this is usually
unnoticeable to most users. If you are experiencing noticeable
performance degradation with Windows OneCare Live installed, please
check to see if you also have other anti-virus or firewall software
installed. We've found that this is the root cause of most performance
issues. Having more than one anti-virus product can also lead to other
problems, like blue screens or crashes, so we recommend that you keep
only one anti-virus application on your machine at any time.
2. Should I really uninstall my other anti-virus and firewall
software?
Like we said, we recommend you keep only one version of
anti-virus and firewall software on the same PC. Having more than one
version can cause severe conflicts, and can in certain cases lock up
your system.
3. Will anti-spyware features be included in Windows OneCare Live
eventually?
Yes, and you will be one of the first users to know when it is.
4. My Windows OneCare Live icon is yellow because I haven't backed
up-am I still protected?
Your anti-virus and firewall components are still helping to
protect you from malware and viruses, but unless you back up your data,
you could lose it. That yellow icon is to remind you that it is very
important that you regularly back up your files, pictures, data, etc.
5. Does the beta team really read my posts and e-mails?
Every single one-your feedback is solid gold to us. And more
testers means more feedback, so if you know someone who'd like to try
out Windows OneCare Live please tell them to go to
http://www.windowsonecare.com/.

That was an excerpt from an email they just sent me. It's BS. No other AV, firewall, anti spyware has slowed my computer down even half as much as WOC does and I have tried it on 20 different computers!

Don't know what you're talking about. Onecare hasn't slowed my computer down at all.

It has a small slowing effect on mine, but no where near that of symantec or McAfee Antivirus has done in the past and now. You combine that with their firewalls(ie Internet Security Suites) and it doesn't come close.

I've used separate programs before(firewall, backup, antivirus, tuneup, antispy...) and they are even worse. For what this one does, it doesn't slow my computer down as much at all.

IMO and My Computer

I can't believe they are giving the great gift of a discount for beta testers.

These people help them make the product better, figure out bugs and they just get a deal. That's sad.

good idea but will it have security flaws like most microsoft products

That seems like a fair price, especially considering that will cover up to 3 PCs.

Indeed, $50 for 3 PCs sounds much better.

I agree, and for what it does!

The $50 annual subscription covers up to 3 PCs. That's a great deal! Here is an excerpt from the Windows OneCare Team blog.

http://spaces.msn.com/windowsonecare/

"When Windows OneCare Live goes final in the U.S. in June, the subscription service price will be $49.95 per year. And here is more good news – many customers have told us they have more than one computer, and want OneCare’s security and system optimization features on all of them. We listened. For this same price, you’ll be able to install OneCare on up to 3 PCs per subscription!"

It goes on to say:

"Not a beta user yet? Don’t worry. There’s still time to download the beta directly from http://ideas.live.com , but remember, April 30th is the cut-off date to get on the beta and become a subscriber at this discounted rate."

how much did you get paid to post that?

I'm not exactly a cheerleader for Microsoft, but it seems no matter what they do they'll be slated by people.

Most new users seem to get sucked into using something like Symantec Norton Internet Security, which doesn’t have built in backup software and it’s limited to a single PC installation.

It’s backup software, antivirus, anti-spyware, and a firewall all in one, combined with a simple enough interface. For those who aren’t proficient, I’m sure it will prove useful. Less “Zombie” PCs would be nice.

I think $50 for three installations is pretty okay on the whole. When more and more software is being locked to a single computer only, it’s nice to see a slightly reverse on that trend and slightly fairer licensing.

I hope they do the same with Vista! :D

( I’ll still be sticking with my current security setup, but I’m just saying I don’t think it’s too bad. And sure, free software exists to do this stuff already, big whoop. )

MS is always behind. Telus(ISP) started offering a similar service(AV/Firewall/AS) for 3 comps at the same price($20 first year, $50/yr after) several years ago. Now...OneCare is likely higher quality because of what it's based on, but this idea is far from new. Actually, it's pretty much a mirror, and I moved away from Telus's long ago. It's better to mix and match the best products.

Troll.

So now you will have 3 very slow computers at the cost of $50 USD.

What is tis slow you keep speaking of? I have yet to see it on my computers.

50 bucks.............I am not amused.

Don't need backup (that's what RAID is for).

Got anti-spyware and Anti-vir from NOD32 for $40 already.

Nah...I'm set, thanks.

Firstly this product is aimed at the people who don't know what a virus is let alone RAID.

Secondly RAID is not the perfect solution for data recovery. It is more convenient but not perfect. Even with RAID1 where you have 100% redundency you should still backup regularly, after all if you system gets infected the virus will automatically be written to both volumes in the RAID array.

But I won't get a virus.

See, I don't suirf porn-sites, warez-sites, or crack-sites. Neither do I click on every link that pops in front of me. Nor do I open every email sent to me.

That, and I have NOD32 installed.

I have no fear of viruses or other malware. So RAID is the perfect solution for me.

And for those folks who don't know what viruses are...you think they're going to pay $50 to protect them from something they don't know exists?

Bravo!!! Standing ovation! WOC is a large, slow, and resource hog of a program that DOES slow ones computer down as much if not more than malware. I have beta tested it and it is larger than both ZoneLabs Security Suite and Avast Pro 4.6 together. God forbid that you launch a program in a hurry and it's the first time that is has connected to the internet, WOC will do nothing but block it and only tell you once in a while that it has blocked a program. Could cause you to hang with black screens for a while. WOC was not thought out well at all. WOC doesn't work well with many games and several apps that have to run as a server. The list goes on forever, and well I don't want to type it all. This is the worst program you could curse a home user with.

I guess Zone Alarm Firewall and AVG are just as bloated as Onecare because I'm still using the same amout of ram I was usign when I ran those 2 programs.

$50? I'd rather have SKPF + avast! home, and perhaps counterspy too(though I never seem to get any spyware).

To each their own...

same here about the spyware I update and scan week after week. Don't even pick up so much as a tracking cookie.

V GOOD

I could be wrong on this, but I believe there are two levels of "beta tester". First is people who are actually beta users and have downloaded it since November. This is the group that I believe will be getting the discount. Beta testers is the group who are actually testing it, getting feedback, gettinng the surveys to fill out, etc.

The reason I think this is true is because my account says I have a subscription untl September 19th, the day I signed up to test WOCL. It could be that after date I have to pay the $20 for the first year.

Of course I could be way off, so take this with a grain of salt.

as mutch as i like avast, i might consider 1care, anyone know if its dependant on: wmp, ie, ie core.

If not, what is it dependant on, my os is really slimmed down, i need to know.

Also since i "lost" my windows serial, will it work with a SeriAll.com serial?

OneCare only has to have XP SP2 installed. Other than that it's good (as far as I know). I've been using it since September and it's an awesome program.

Oh, and it will run a Windows validation. So if you can pass that, you're good to go.

"Oh, and it will run a Windows validation."

in that case not for me, i use xp pro corp with sp2, but i havent figured out how to bypass the validation effectively yet.

anyway, why on earth do they put validation on software you have to pay for, theres no validation on office 2003 pro, do thay want to earn money or not!????

warez version of onecare will probably comeout soon, but i still prefere to keep my protection software original.

If you're running a legitimately licensed and installed copy of Windows, then you should have zero issue with validating it (from a technical standpoint).

From a privacy standpoint, I suppose if you're paranoid about why Microsoft wants to know how many times people are pirating software... then maybe you would have a problem. I think it's absurd, but whatever.

Gee, a warez version won't run a security program... palpable irony.

when i used warez nav it worked. nav was once upon a time a security program too.

Software pirates are scum. There's plenty of open source and freeware alternatives out there. You have no excuse for your thievery.

payware is sometimes better than freeware. you should also lookup the definition of thievery. im quite sure that copying and possibly modifying dosent go under thievery.

I also applied for Beta Testing and tried to install it but there was no way of getting by the "Windows English US version" requirement.
If they use the right API's there won't be a problem to make it available for other languages already.

I have a question about OneCare: do some of you testers feel it's more designed like "a program for a friendly user experience (which is mostly MS style)" or are security concerns disabled and one does have to set up different connections/services oneself.

Apparently, you have no shame, self-control, or conscience.

Ergo, nothing I say will have any affect on you whatsoever. I'm done here.

i got plenty of self control. shame i dont have, nothing for me to be ashamed of, as for conscience, i m out of that tooo:)

probably why i can just do whatever i want,

and yes, you saying anything probably wont have any effect on me, unless you can reason with 100% logic, leaving morals and law out of it.

"I'm done here."

are you shure, im just starting to have fun.

Ahh yes, the old "copying isn't theft" argument...very compelling...apples and oranges when talking about IP and not physical property but very compelling. No really it is...

So in other words, you've tossed everything out that may make you a decent human being leaving only the parts that make you an Ahole...got it. Not surprising given your previous posting history and your illogical, incorrect and often immature standpoints. Makes alot of things about you clear now.

and youre the pope.

btw, in waht way dose shame and consience make a decent human being, ppl should not be generally ashamed or feel bad whenever thy screw something up, look to the future is what i say. What makes a good human are strong morals, self controll and optimisim. Morals vary from person to person, and there for cant be used in arguments. also one dosent call someone for an arsehole unless one knows them well enough(you dont know me), without looking like one himself.

i never did say IP is physical property, but the subject is very sensitive here in sweden since we have quite strong laws on personal integrity.

Shame and concience provide us with the ability to look beyond ourselves and to those around us which we effect, failure in those categories gives us arrogance and self centered actions such as stealing someone elses hard work.

Also, since your keen to look up definitions you might want to check your definition of morals since you just contradicted the actual meaning behind it.

Finally, I can call anyone I wish to an "arsehole", especially when they present themselves as one so fluently the way you do.

No you didn't say they were thats true. You just confused them with your claims that copying isnt theft.

"Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence." wikipedia

Im strongly against processed durgs (not natural stimulants like weed, shrooms, payote), i stand firmly against copyright and dmr, i believe in truth.

i think these justify as some of my morals. personally i think ive got stronger morals than most people, and i stand by them.

edit: and please do tell me where i "contradicted the actual meaning behind it.", because as far as i can see, that didint happen, maybe you should check your definitions.

No need...you just pointed it out yourself.

"These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members."

keywords being "a culture or group", not an individual. ergo morality is not defined person to person as you suggest above
("Morals vary from person to person, and there for cant be used in arguments.") but rather by society. Therefore they are valid in arguments relating to society accepted norms such as this.

In the context at hand, society has decided that stealing is immoral, condoning theft means you are deviating from moral behavior.

Incidently, you say above that you "stand firmly against copyright and dmr". I'm curious, do you mean to say that you do not believe that people should be compensated for their hard work and that their creations and inventions should just be given away to any tom peter or harry that comes along? If that is the case then you and I will never get anywhere in this discussion until you grow up some. If I have misinterpreted you, please forgive and correct.

This arguement won't be solved until you establish if you do or don't belong to the same "culture or group" (my guess is that you don't).

"In the context at hand, society has decided that stealing is immoral, condoning theft means you are deviating from moral behavior."

Here you are talking about stealing where citizen420 is talking about copying. That's the key part.

"This arguement won't be solved until you establish if you do or don't belong to the same "culture or group" (my guess is that you don't)."

I don't know of a single culture group that doesn't feel theft is immoral. If theft is considered moral in Swedan (my *guess* is it isn't) then i'll withdraw all my coments.

"Here you are talking about stealing where citizen420 is talking about copying. That's the key part."

That's just it, as noted above, when talking about IP (software, music, etc...) they are one in the same. Physical property is a seperate issue but in the case of IP the theft is not the actual copy but rather the unrealized profit. By taking Windows without paying for it, MS hasn't realized it's profit on it and therefore it is theft.

MS is a multi-Billion dollar company.

If they want to come after me for $199, more power to 'em.

I think theys got better things to worry about than little ol' me.

Same goes for just about any "popular" artist or software company.

How much money do you make on something you did 10 years ago? Why should anyone pay for Elvis tunes now? He's friggin' DEAD.

IP law is F'd.

morals can be individual, seriously look it up,
google: "define: morals"

as for IP theft, it is theft if you take the source code/work, and sell it/earn money using it, but if a person coppies it and uses the data privately, where is the theft, the creator has endless options for generating profit without having to fool people to pay for 011001100111010101100011011010110110100101101110011001110010000001100010011010010110111001100001011100100111100100100001
theft is material gain, if a company uses warez software, they earn money on it, and therefore in that case it is theft,

and do read this again,
"These concepts and beliefs are OFTEN GENERALIZED and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members."
now think about it, possibly even consider going back to school, an extra class in engilsh wouldent do you any harm, espessialy the reading part and vocabulary.

Totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You might want to take a few english classes yourself since you just contradicted yourself AGAIN. Read your own words very carefully...

"These concepts and beliefs are OFTEN GENERALIZED and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members."

generalized and codified by a culture or group. A culture or group precludes a view of one, your contention above is that morals vary from person to person, which given that a person is not himself a culture nor qualifies as a group means you have misinterpreted the term. Whether or not those "rules" have been abstracted is irrelevant...there is no group of one.

"as for IP theft, it is theft if you take the source code/work, and sell it/earn money using it"

Bulls***, by taking a copy without paying for it and using it you have avoided paying the copyright owner, thereby depriving them of their rightful profit. That's theft. Whatever YOU PERSONALLY consider to be the right or wrong way to market the product is irrelevant as the copyright HOLDER is the one who get's to decide how it wants to market and license it's copyright not you.

I have to say that Arakiel has made some very good points whereas you keep proving over and over again that you are no different than the common thief.

"OFTEN"
ie. not every time, did you google as instructed, you should.

heres a definition that might be easier to understand for you:
"ethics, the codes, values, principles, and customs of a person or society."

"by taking a copy"
how can i take a copy, i dont take the cd or whatever from the owner, i MAKE a copy (copy it myself). theres a differance.

"thereby depriving them of their rightful profit"

you are confusing theft with cheating.

need i say more

If somebody painted a perfect copy of a picasso, would they be a thief, no. the painting might not be considered original, but it still looks nice and can be used in exactly the same way.

In what way dose this differ from making a perfect copy of a grateful dead album, or any other. simple, the only differance is the art. appart from that nothing.

See, there's you entire problem. You are nly looking at it from a singl point of view. Try looing at it from the oint of view of he or she that makes the music or software. They are depending on this stuff selling for theit livelyhood.

"They are depending on this stuff selling for theit livelyhood."

What happened to:

In the case of the musician:
1.selling rights to use music in adverts/movies etc.
2.concerts
3.cd's (yes i still do buy cds, but only if i like the music enuf to have a high quality version, i currently own 73 original cd's)

in the case of the film industry:
1.cinema,
2.TV, channels actually pay to show new releases.
3.adverts, using the movie to showoff a product
4.DVDs (yes i still buy movies, currently own 15 original dvds)

in the case of software:
1.companies, they pay.
2.tec. support,
3.major deals with pc manufacturers.
4.cd/dvd, (also i do buy software, but about 1 year back threw out my orig win xp cose of stupid limitations, and reg etc, they would make more money im my case if there was no activation, i would buy then)

all of these ways to generate profit allready exist, and allow them to make a more than decent earning, im not against them, but ripping end users off for damaged digital data i dont like.

if anything, to be honest, downloading music has increased my audio-cd buying considerably. same applies to movies,

for someones whos 18, i think ive got more original media than most people i have met, im contributing more than the avarage person, is the fact ive got 25000 COPIED mp3s and 200 COPIED movies of poorer quality than the originals make me a thief, i dont think so, if anything P2P music gives artists publicity.

No there is a HUGE difference that you continue to ignore. There is only ONE version of the Picasso, and it's sale is unlikely. If you make a perfect copy of a Picasso (assuming such a thing was possible which it isn't) to hang in your home you haven't depreived the owner of anything, neither goods nor profit, since the sale would never have happened. A music artist on the other hand...or rather their publisher is activly being deprived of their rightful profit from the copyright by you making copies of their work for your own use. Ditto with software publishers. This is all covered under the fair use laws, by taking a copy without permission you have damaged the copyright holders abilty to get compensation for their copyright use just as taking a physical item from a store deprives the store of it's profit from the sale. Hence the reason copyright infringement is analogous to theft.

How you THINK the copyright holders should market or profit from their IP is irrlvant. it is not for you to decide what the holder can charge for their IP, only the holder has that right. I don't think the prices that I pay for gasoline are right or fair either, but that doesnt give me the right to tell the oil company to charge me less nor does it give me the right to steal the gasoline. I either pay it and drive or I don't and stay home.

"is the fact ive got 25000 COPIED mp3s and 200 COPIED movies of poorer quality than the originals make me a thief, i dont think so, if anything P2P music gives artists publicity."

yes it does make you a thief, I always get a kick out of the "free advertising" argument since the people making that argument then turn around and admit to keeping the track and still not buying the album. If an artist cares one lick about your "publicity" scenario they would/will provide the track themselves. Since most DON'T it can only be assumed that most feel your "publicity" isn't worth s*** since you still didn't buy the album anyway. Publicity and advertising are only as good as the sales they generate, by your own admission those sales are next to nothing by comparison to the amount you have stolen.

definition: "and codified by a culture or group"

you: "Morals vary from person to person, and there for cant be used in arguments."

are you blind as well as arrogant and self centered?

Here maybe this will help:

Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE

Note number 3

The rest of your post above is just desperate worming to try and avoid the BS your spilling.

i was giving crashoverride a few examples of how they generate profit since he semed convinced that they are dependant purely on sales.

"yes it does make you a thief,"
information/knowlage cant be stolen, it can be aquired. copying has never in the history of man kind been a crime, only recent developments have caused this to happen, and millions of people seem to disagree with the whole concept, atleast everyone who is sharing copyrighted material.

"Since most DON'T it can only be assumed that most feel your "publicity" isn't worth s*** "

actually that has more to do with the fact that they are signed to record companies. and get payed well enough, but there are plenty of artists earning good money and distributing their music via P2P for free.

they earn their money with events, and licensing their music for commercial use.

"information/knowlage cant be stolen, it can be aquired. copying has never in the history of man kind been a crime, only recent developments have caused this to happen,"

Copying and stolen are simply words. Words which have a definition. Language evolves, words change meaning, new words are created, old words are retired. Saying that copying has never meant something since the beginning of time is like saying that everything should always remain static and nothing should ever change. Change happens, viewpoints alter. That society we now considers IP "copying" to be analgous with theft is proof of that. One only needs to look as far as copyright law to see it.

"and millions of people seem to disagree with the whole concept, atleast everyone who is sharing copyrighted material."

yea gee thats a stretch, people who are stealing something refusing to admit that what they are doing is theft...boy how odd is that? /sarcasm

"actually that has more to do with the fact that they are signed to record companies. and get payed well enough, but there are plenty of artists earning good money and distributing their music via P2P for free.

they earn their money with events, and licensing their music for commercial use."

Which only reinforces that your "free publicity" is not as effective as traditional channels and therefore isn't worth a hill of beans.

arrogant and self centered? Well, i guess i can be at times, but blind i am not:)

appart from that, your posts still fail to show any evidance that copying=theft, and even if they did, i very mutch doubt you would be able to present a reliable source to back your claims up.

"4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE"
thats all a question of relativity, what i consider right and wrong might be differ from your point of view, and your point of view isint everybody elses.
morality can be as mutch individual as social.

Also i would very mutch like to know what academic background you have, since it might possibly let me see your point of view, even if i might not agree with it.

"appart from that, your posts still fail to show any evidance that copying=theft, and even if they did, i very mutch doubt you would be able to present a reliable source to back your claims up."

They have in several places, perhaps i'm not being clear. Copyright law covers most of the points relevant to this conversation under the topics of Fair Use. Now I won't pretend to know Swedish Copyright Law, however under US Copyright Law, Fair Use violations are determined based upon 4 points

1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2.the nature of the copyrighted work;
3.amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The most relevant point being factor 4. What factor 4 is saying is that by copying the work you have had an effect on the profit (market) of the holder, you have denied the holder their profit protected by law for their work that falls under their ownership. Even a small theft has a potential effect on the market, however small that effect maybe. By denying someone something that is theirs (in this case profit) you are in fact stealing. This compounds exponentially when you factor in file sharing.

As for my academic background, I have a bachelors degree in science with my focus being computer science. I am a programmer by trade so you can see my interest in how copyright law effects my work and why I might get upset when someone steals my livelyhood and brushes it off as their "right" in some wierd utopian pseudo-communistic world.

now that you explained it so well, i can see why you would be uppset.

you are probably wondering why im so loose on the issue, well...

the legal:
over here 1.1 milion people are using illegal P2P services out of a total of 9mil.
untill last summer it was legal to download copyrighted material, but then the entertainment industries seriously started pushing for change.

personal:
still in education, jack of all trades, carmechanic, and future college engineer in IT.

i must say tho, wouldent a resonable solution be if all downloaders payed, say $15/month, for unlimited use of P2P, and that money would go directly to copyright holders, without any middle men(eg. record companies) the revenue for the copyright holders would be based purely on how popular their download is. im guessing thet would be round 500mil/month to the music, film and software industries.

ps. i still do think copying isint stealing, but it might be a bit of good old fashioned cheating:) and saying "they stole my profits" isint the same as saying "they cheated me out of my profits".

Look I know that sales isn't the only thing bringing in the profits but they are a big portion of the profit. I was once like you as a matter of fact. I saw nothing wrong with what I was doing until I joined into a few chats much like this one with people that have views on P2P downloading much like Arakiel's. Just because you don't like the prices, doesn't make what you are doing right. In the end the guy that actually buys the products that you seem content to steel pays for your ignorance.

If everybody was thinking like you, they wouldn't make any money. So companies are worrying about a lot of "little ol' you's".

Wrong, jackass.

If everyone thought like me, music would be public domain and people would pay good money to go to concerts and buy band-related merch.

At the very least tracks would run a few pennies each and CD's would go for a whopping $2.00.

Don't tell me what things would be like if it were up to me. You don't know jack sh*t about me.

Companies are worried about their stranglehold on the market. They're concerned that their old ways are no longer producing the income they'd expected. They're worried they might actually have to change their business model. They couldn't really give two sh*ts about me and mine, the lawsuits are just a side-effect.

"Wrong, jackass"
No need to get personal here. You don't know jack sh*t about me. I can take it from people who really know me but not you.

"If everyone thought like me, music would be public domain and people would pay good money to go to concerts and buy band-related merch.

At the very least tracks would run a few pennies each and CD's would go for a whopping $2.00."

Just think about it a bit more. There are only so much concerts a band can give and people can go to. Those concerts are overpriced anyway. The money I save on cd's won't be earned back by concerts and merchandising. Also the lesser known bands will be hurt a lot.

I'm not impressted whith the program myself.
but no dought it will improve and become bloated like all MS Stuff is

no DOUGHT? way to slam MS and look like a moron all at the same time. congrats.

English is not everybody's first language. At least show some respect.

For this price and the ability to keep it up to date as well as it has done over this past year, I will stay with it. I have kept other cleaning utilities on the system and would run them once a month to further test if anything has slipped by - but none had.

I will begin using this as the only cleaning program come June. $20 is great for that first year and $50 for this product supercedes anything that Symantec and McAfee have on the market now. It is a one stop program that others charge a lot more for and run independently on the system.

I don't think they should charge beta testers anything for the first year. They helped build the software too.

agreed

ditto