As readers of a Beta website we all should be familiar with the great value that beta testers offer to a company developing software. Many of you (me included) have been rewarded by either money or hardware/software compensation for the time we take in running down bugs and providing expert feedback. In this case MS offering the Vista beta for free is not all that strange. They want us to run it and test it for them. Of course their beta really should be Alpha and their shipping code is normally beta quality and full of bugs (What was that line: screw fixing all the bugs, ship it...beta test in the field).

As for the bittorrent downloads and subsequent CAD letter I can find nothing here to get outraged about. It is their software, their rules.

I could argue that it is our software !

We just pay them to make it for us :-)

Therefore our rules ?!

Power to the consumer

Actually, you pay them AFTER they make it for you, if you want to be technical

Do they not get paid AFTER they start making it in the first place... Or at least get paid in the introduction/training towards leaning MS protocols. I mean, I'm no genius, but even I have never had a job where I was paid before I worked for 2-3 weeks first. Technical, it's all in the eyes of who is actually paying these guys. We pay MS and MS pays the writers whether when we pay for Win98 now and the writers get paid with that money to then build WinME.

You don't get the product until you pay for it... in this case using it is a luxury because you are testing it for them before you can buy it. Quit complaining.

Uh... you have it the other way around, it's a luxury for M$ to have beta testers willing to test their products, without them, there would be NO product.

You are wrong, microsoft only has to give a call out for beta testers, those who want to test it, will. If only 500 people test it, guess what, only the bugs found by those 500 will be caught/fixed. So its not a matter of luxury, but a matter of who wants to test.

And if NOONE tests it, guess what... it doesn't get approved. I was NOT talking about numbers of beta testers, just stressing without ANY, you don't have a product. So, I am still correct in what I said.

Wrong, if they dont have any beta testers then they would resort to in house testing, and more so. They would probably hire people as a permanent beta testing staff.

Look at this: Microsoft puts a cap on Vista beta downloads @ http://www.vnunet.com/vn...osoft-defends-cap-vista

I think this is an anti-competitive measure. What MS should do is to provide a clear MD5 hash for its releases. Linux will never have gotten too far without P2P.

If this sharing is still not legal, I wonder what is.

who are they competing with?
seriously think before you type.

you can go comparing windows distribution to linux as one is open source and one if not, one is supposed to be controlled.

it is microsofts property to do distribute as they want, and they dont have to give it to anyone. i dont know where your sense of entitlement comes from but it is unfounded, just because it is a public beta does not mean they want everyone on the planet to have it, and just cause its a public beta doesnt mean they want some inexperianced moron using it.

You really can't compare Linux distribution via P2P with this.

There are too many MS haters out there that would love to screw things up for them whenever the opportunity arises.

And do not expect people to dilligently run hash checking for a 3.2GB download. It just takes ONE ignorant user who runs a tampered copy to make false bug report and probably wasted hours of troubleshooting for the engineers.

Im confused, you can download it off Microsoft for free - I just did. Wouldnt this just free up bandwith for them? If I were microsoft I would let this happen, saves them money.

It looks like the integrity of the product is more important than making sure everyone gets it. You can be sure that with the attitudes shown here and the probable abuse we may never see MS do this again.

an md5 checksum, or digital certificate, would be about as adequate in verifying the integrity of the iso

what theyre really after is to sell more copies of their beta2 dvd

I guess being Microsoft, they have to be extra paranoid about stuff like this. There are so many MS haters out there who would do anything to screw them up.

This forum being one of the many proving grounds for that very statement.

They do something they have never done before, in accedence to customer requests, and offer the Beta for public download.

All of the sudden, all of these people think MS owes them each a personal, super-fast download connection to their servers.

MS haters don't need MS to screw up, when MS gives them what they've asked for, they'll simply ask for more, and whine about how bad MS is for not having done it already.

Reminds me of a bunch of spoiled rich kids, when Daddy cuts 'em off.

At least Microsoft isn't ripping people off by charging an outrageous $30 for the Vista beta media like they did for the public Windows XP Preview Program. It would have been alright if Microsoft gave people who participated a discount on the final XP release. You should never have to pay anything except for the cost of media + shipping to get beta software mailed to you.

...

"No-one *needs* or is *entitled*
to this release, and therefore,
no-one has any right to b****
about how MS distributes it..."

...

True. But one might suppose Microsoft had better
things to do than generate more bad publicity for
itself going after a harmless and friendly site.

As the PC Rat has been saying: Microsoft is
shooting itself in the foot so often, it's going
to run out of feet !

Yeah, what Microsoft did was legal. And, sure,
they have a right to do it. Yet it only reinforces
the public image of Microsoft as a corporation
which bullies it's friends as well as it's adversaries.

...

The Computer Rodent

...

Could you imagine what it would do to the rep of the yet to be release OS if the torrented version became comprimised? I'll agree they might be a little on the paranoid side with this; but I am surprised they allowed it at all...I wouldn't have if I were them. People are complaining that the beta isn't bug free, you can bet they would be calling it insecure if their download was tampered with...despite the 2 having nothing to do ith each other.

I would hardly consider this a shot in the foot... lets not lose site of the fact that they are giving away the beta version of their newest OS. How can they be shamed for protecting its integrity?

...as opposed to simply not offering it to the public, as they've done for every other OS they've released.

My God, people. This is proof you will take *anything* to slam Microsoft. They *give* you the Beta to play with as you wish.

...you don't get it "fast" enough and you sit here and moan on and on about it.

Do you have *nothing* better to do than bash Microsoft?

yes attempting to bash you seems to be higher on his list.

Were talking about BETA code people. Its not life ending. Be patient. Order the damn DVD if you can't get the download to work.

If the MS site won't let you in, maybe its because 12 million people are attempting to download it EVERY DAY. Its popular software, not bad for some crappy ass, buggy software, that no one uses and isn't open source huh?

I think this speaks volumes for people that contend Windows sucks. That's why people are b****ing they can't get their hands on the new beta.. right...

Hmm, sounds like adobe — PDF's free, but YOU can't use it. Now it's Microsoft's turn — Vista Beta is free, but YOU can't help users get it!

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

first of all, PDF's are still free, you can't CREATE them without a license. Secondly, vista is NOT free, its in beta.

Third, its their product, they can freely distribute the software as they see fit.

Last, I am tire of you people that keep bashing companies for their LICENSE agreement. Maybe Chris can't read like so many others, but the EULA is there for a reason. YOU AGREE to *THEIR* rights for the product. If they don't want you distributing THEIR product there isn't anything wrong with that.

I am sure they have good reason. Its not controlled code. People will download it from some other "apparent" legal site, and if MS doesn't contest it, people will ASSUME its an official site.

You obviously never distributed code or are not a programmer, becuase you would know that when you make changes, especially in BETA, its very difficult to control. If they have to pull the beta for whatever reason, ALL mirrors would likewise be affected. Since this site isn't a MS official mirror or deemed as a "backup" they don't want calls from people downloading code from a site not under their control

I know you won't understand it, and that's ok. But its NOT HYPOCRISY.

That's because too much demand, and I bet you as a MS hater want to download it too.

Just think of it as your phone bill... you want to be in control of who gets there hands on it and how. ;)

"Last, I am tire of you people that keep bashing companies for their LICENSE agreement."

i think a crappy licence agreement is a good reason to bash a company

as you like to quote, how many people really read the EULA
you can blame peoples ignorance, and you can blame companies like MS for taking advantage of this ignorance
i'd rather focus on the million dollar corps that should know better
:-(

Agreed, a license agreement is a pretty huge part of the user interaction with the product and is certainly open to criticism.

I have a very low opinion of EULAs and they're ripe for abuse. However, I do agree with you on the rest. It's interesting how many people bash Vista *before* they even try it out. I could understand if they had used it and didn't like it. However, if one can't be bothered to try something out and then complains about it, they're just stupid and a waste of people's time. I have used Vista myself and like it. I can see room for improvement (of course), and yet Vista seems to be the best OS MS has released so far.

there's that control thing again

honestly now, why?

they know if it's been altered or not, and if it hasn't, why pull it?

lmao..

Simple, really.

They could not guarantee it, thus, they pulled it. When distributed through their own servers they can.

Besides, why should they spend the resources to QA someone else's tracker? (That they have no control over)

If someone wants it, they can either DL it from MS, or get the CD. No-one *needs* or is *entitled* to this release, and therefore, no-one has any right to b**** about how MS distributes it.

There's no need to guarantee a beta release, so I can't believe that had much to do with it. It sounds like Pirillo was trying to help them distribute something they haven't really been doing a good job with.

I suppose a conspiracy theorist would suspect they are trying to getting the DVD charge, but I have a hard time believing that one. To me it just seems like Microsoft generated some bad publicity here with little benefit.

BTW...for those who haven't been able to get the download, there is a website out there that uses the Google cache to make it available. I got the whole download in about an hour and a quarter. I'm not going to put the web address here; don't want to generate a cease and desist order.

No need to guarantee a beta release? What if someone breaks the code and it gets distributed, who takes the heat? Who's product gets the black eye?

So, if I download or send someone to download from an unknown site, that has a Vista version build 5365. Maybe MS distributes a new code called 6300. That other site is under no obligation to maintain the current code.

So what happens? You have 2 codes of different builds being downloaded. I realize people can have private sites to download code, and you can't do anything to stop those. But if you announce your site as a mirror, and broadcast that you have official code, then other people will ASSUME it has MS blessing when it doesn't.

Plus, it very plainly states on the EULA, which Chris and his brilliant idea, should know that that it CLEARLY states "This software may NOT be redistributed".

What the hell do you think that means? It means you can't distribute it! DUH!

There are VALID reasons why these type of safeguards exist, but I am not going to try to explain them, just know, that because you can't figure them out, doesn't make them less valid.

You understand it. I understand.

Why are people so ignorant of such things?

I think people don't bother to read.. maybe they are just illiterate.

In this case? They have failed to recognize quality and integrity over their own desire to acquire it.

blah, blah, blah. It's simple, it's a beta, you send it out like other betas, with NO guarantee of anything. Downloader beware.

Face it, rijp, you'd be just as willing to take that position as any other, as long as you could call somebody an idiot, ignorant, etc.

Whoa! Back up a little Mr. Wizard. You act like this is the only beta ever released. Each year hundreds of software betas are released and many are offered from multiple download sites. As is stated below, it's a buyer beware type thing.

I grant you that Microsoft has the absolute right to prevent distribution if they so choose, but the people here who point out that maybe the given excuse doesn't wash may have a point, too. Sounds like Microsoft wanted control of the distribution, and some people are suggesting they could have chosen a less restrictive position.

So his point is not valid because he likes to antagonize? There are no guarantees with Vista other than Microsoft's being sure that you receive there code only. I'm no fanboy, but that is a step any good business would take.

Sounds like Microsoft wanted control of the distribution

And this is a problem ... why?

what step:
don't distribute what i'm freely distributing?

Yes.

don't distribute what i'm freely distributing?

When it comes down to control of the *source* of distributuion, yes. This is their product, they need to be able to make sure what people are gettingis the real thing. The *only* way they can do that is to lock down distribution.

*sigh*

I didn't say it was a problem, did I?

THere are way too many companies that don't take that step for it to be accepted as standard. MS certainly has the right to do this (they own the product), but some people are suggesting there might have been a better way to get things done.

Oh, and let me answer for many people here - yes, most of rijp's comments are invalidated by the fact that he acts like an immature child who can't make a comment without some childish insult. Hell, if BetaNews had the function, he'd be the most plonked person here.

I haven't heard a way suggested that makes sense. This is a "first come, first served" and "while supplies last" situation there is really no need to meet a demand. I am sure that MS has more than enough testers at this point.

I agree that rijp lacks tact, but honestly, to ignore a valid point because of the delivery is not real smart.

"I agree that rijp lacks tact, but honestly, to ignore a valid point because of the delivery is not real smart."

Yeah, but it sure cuts down on the headaches. If he wants attention, he should learn how to act human.

As for your other statement, I think Pirillo's way made sense. You don't. We'll agree to disagree and move on, eh?

Since this is a discussion forum, and I failed to see you point I was curious to know why you thought unauthorized distribution was okay... if you are content we'll just disagree.

Sucks, but I understand where they're coming from. It's not very hard to hack a torrent, and with DHT, it can spread from legit trackers like wildfire.

It *would* be nice if MS set up their own tracker, though. Torrent the ISO and post the checksum on the website.

I agree.

I think that Microsoft had no choice to close the torrent tracker site down, even though they were "clean" though.

Sooner or later, people would have simply searched up for "Vista" and "torrent" and started downloading without even verifying if their download is coming from a sponsored or approved tracker.

For those who are eager to try it, consider the wait definately worth it! I know I'm going to have trouble going back to XP once Vista beta expires. :)

Vla

Should have an RC available by then. ;)

Indeed.

I think the prerequisite to having access to the RC is that you activate your beta 2 key, although I'm not 100% sure on that.

Vla

Not hard, considering they allow 10 activations per key, and let you have 2 keys per email addy.

we know there are other valid places to download vista from. newsgroups for one.

But what people fail to understand is that Chris broadcast this as an alternative, in DIRECT violation of the EULA.

This is sort of ironic seeing has how Vista is going to have p2p capabilities built into it's BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer System, used to transfer files over idle bandwidth, so as not to slow down your internet connection when you're using it).

They try to help Microsoft and Microsoft craps on them.

That's great. :)

A typical Micro$oft move. "Don't make it easier for users to download. Charge them $6 for a DVD.

As if Chris Pirillo would ruin his future by changing the code.

MS did not control the tracker. They could not guarantee it would not be modified. Yes, they could trust Chris, but Chris is human. Perhaps he lets a friend on the server?

Far fetched, perhaps, but out of MS's control, and therefore, untenable.

No one is making money on a $6 dvd...

Why don't they just write their own BT client like Blizzard does with the WoW updates? It's that simple. Or better yet, they can implement that model in a white paper one of their researchers released about a year or two ago.

Why?

So if I burn CDs on XP and start distributing it for free on the street without the license it should be okay?

Who is this Chris Pirillo that everyone is out here to defend? I have never heard of this man. I drive a truck in Indiana. Does he work for Microsoft?

Oh right he was on TV for two years, then he setup a website. Thats it? Dang, Bill O'reilly has been on the TV for much longer has written more books and has a very popular website and I still dont trust him.