Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 7 Leaked To Pirates By Microsoft?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the viral-marketing-usually-comes-back-to-bite-you dept.

Microsoft 236

nandemoari writes "The beta version of Windows 7 has been widely distributed through torrents and other file sharing systems. But now some commentators claim Microsoft deliberately allowed the package to get into the hands of pirates. 'I'm not being critical here, as some Microsoft Watch commenters will surely claim. It's rather smart marketing. Microsoft fills a big news void with something bloggers and journalists will write about. The suspense of stealth downloads from torrents and races to post the best screenshots first make the Windows 7 leak buzz all the more exciting. For other people, there is delight in seeing Microsoft squirm because Seven leaked early. Not that I see much squirming going on.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304143)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

And you were expecting what?

When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304275)

I just heard the news on talk radio. Jett Travolta, son of scientologist/actor John Travolta, was found dead this morning at his Bahamas hotel. No other information was available. Even if you don't think scientology sucks, you probably agree that Battlfield earth was a festering pile of shit. Let's hope he anna nicoles himself in a couple weeks.

Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304561)

Lets post all the "Stayin Alive" jokes under this thread...

Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304281)

and the universe's biggest douche award goes to the parent. congratulations, now get off the internet and go inbreed with the rest of your racist family.

That's no leak (-1, Flamebait)

Senes (928228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304155)

That's just 1.0. Nothing to see here, I advise waiting for the service pack to come out.

Re:That's no leak (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304187)

Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?

You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon. Therefore we can dismiss the theory of the blue interior of watermelons as being pure speculation and guess work, not science. You can not say something is true without demonstrating how it is not false, and you can not say something is not true without demonstrating how it is false. Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously. If one could demonstrate clearly that the watermelon appears to indeed be blue inside, without being able to demonstrate what colors it is not, we still have no absolute confirmation of its color. That is to say asserting something is the way it is, without being able to assert what it is not, is a useless claim. Therefore, in order for any theory to be confirmed to be true, it must be shown how to both validate and falsify its claims. It is circular reasoning to be able to validate something, without saying how to falsify it, or vice versa. This is the nature of verification and falsification. Both must be clearly demonstrated in order for a theory to be confirmed to be true or false. Something can not be proven to be true without showing that it is not false, and something can not be proven to be not true, unless it can be proven to be false.

Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest. In the event that evolution is not true, there should be a clear and defined method of reasoning to prove such by demonstrating through evidence that one could not possibly make any alternative conclussions based on said evidence. It is for this reason we must be extremely skeptical of how the evidence has been used to support evolution for lack of proper method of falsification, especially when the actual evidence directly contradicts the theory. If it can be demonstrated how to properly falsify evolution, regardless if evolution is true or not, only then can evolution ever be proven or disproved.

It will now be demonstrated that Darwin never told us how to properly falsify evolution, which will also show why no one can claim to have disproved or proven the theory, until now. It must be able to be demonstrated that if evolution were false, how to go about proving that, and while Darwin indeed made a few statements on this issue, his statements were not adequate or honest. In order to show Darwin's own falsification ideas are inadequate, rather than discussing them and disproving them individually, all that needs to be done is demonstrate a proper falsification argument for evolution theory. That is to say if the following falsification is valid, and can not show evolution to be false, then evolution theory would be proven true by way of deductive reasoning. That is the essence of falsification; if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true.

So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method, and would therefore prove evolution to be true in the event this falsification method can not show evolution to be false. As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true. This would confirm the accuracy of this falsification method, which all theories must have, and show that Darwin did not properly show how evolution could be falsified, in the event that evolution was not true. In order to show evolution is not false (thereby proving it to be true), we must be able to show how it would be false, if it were. Without being able to falsify evolution in this manner, you can not validate it either. If something can not be shown to be false, yet it is said to be true, this is circular reasoning, since you have no way of confirming this conclusion. Example; If we told a blind person our car is red, and they agreed we were telling the truth, the blind person could not tell another blind person accurate information regarding the true color of the car. While he has evidence that the car is red by way of personal testimony, he has no way of confirming if this is true or false, since he might have been lied to, regardless if he was or not.

So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such. To say evolution is true, without a way to show it is false, means evolution has never been proven to be true. If evolution be true, and this method of falsification be valid, then by demonstrating the falsification method to be unable to disprove evolution, we would confirm evolution to be right. Alternatively, if the falsification method is valid and demonstrates that Darwin's validation method does not prove evolution, then evolution is false indeed.

Firstly, the hypothesis. If evolution is incorrect, then it can be demonstrated to be so by using both living and dead plants and animals. The following is the way to do so and the logical alternative to the theory. The fossil record can be used as well, but not as evolution theory would have us believe. In order to properly falsify something, all biases must be removed, since assuming something is correct without knowing how to prove its false is akin to the blind person who can not confirm the color of someones car. Since evolution has not correctly been shown how to be falsified, as will be demonstrated, we must be open to other possibilities by way of logic, and ultimately reject evolution by way of evidence, should the evidence lead us in such a direction.

If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design. This would predict that all life since the initial creation has been in a state of entropy since their initial creation, which is the opposite of evolution. If this be true, then animals and plants are not increasing in genetic complexity or new traits as evolution theory would have us believe, but are in fact losing information. This would explain why humans no longer have room for their wisdom teeth and why the human appendix is decreasing in functionality. The only objection to this claim that evolution theory would propose is that evolution does not always increase the genetic complexity and traits of an organism, but rather, sometimes decreases them as well. This objection is only made because we have only ever actually observed entropy in living creatures, which suits the creation model far better than evolution, which shall be demonstrated.

If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution. For example; the creation model states that life was created diversified to begin with, with distinct "kinds" of animals, by a supernatural Creator that did not evolve Himself, but rather always existed. Without going into the debate on how such a being is possible to exist, it must be said that either everything came from nothing, or something always existed. To those who say the universe always existed; the claim of this hypothesis is that the Creator always existed, which is equally as viable for the previous logic.

In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined. A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!

The idea of kinds is in direct contrast to evolution theory which says all cats share a common ancestor, which the creation model does not hold to be true. If evolution theory is true, the word kind is a superficial label that does not exist, because beyond our classifications, there would be no clear identifiable division among animals or plants, since all plants and animals would therefore share a common ancestor. The word kind can only be applied in the context of the creation model, but can not be dismissed as impossible due to the evolutionary bias, simply because evolution has not been properly validated nor can it be held to be true until it can correctly be shown to be impossible to falsify.

One must look at the evidence without bias and conclude based on contemporary evidence (not speculation) if indeed evolution is the cause of the diversity of species, or not. It must also been demonstrated if the clear and distinct species do or do not share a common ancestor with each other, regardless that they may appear to be of the same family or design. In order to verify this, all that needs to be done is to demonstrate that a lion and cheetah do or do not have a common ancestor; if it can be demonstrated that any animal or plant within a family (cats in this case) do not share a common ancestor with each other, this would disprove evolution immediately and prove supernatural creation of kinds.

However, since lions and cheetahs are both clearly of the same family or design, and can potentially interbreed, we must be careful not to overlook the possibility of a very recent common ancestor If such is the case, this does not exclude the possibility that the two are originally from two separate kinds that do not share a common ancestor previous to them having one. It is therefore necessary to build an ancestral history based on verifiable evidence (not homogeneous structures in the fossil record) that can clearly demonstrate where exactly the cheetah and the lion had a common ancestor. If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias, and this test is performed between two or more of any plant or animal life without ever finding anything to the contrary, we can confirm with certainty evolution did not happen, and that kinds do exist.

In the event that fossils are too elusive (compounded with the fact that they can not be used as evidence of common descent due to circular reasoning e.g. homogeneous structures), then there is a superior and far more effective way to falsify evolution. Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy) that the first lifeforms increased in complexity and size by introduction of new traits, slowly increasing step by step to more complex life forms. Notice that the addition of such traits can not be attributed to the alteration of old ones, for obvious reasons, since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.

That means a bacteria becoming able to digest nylon is a mere mutation of already existing digestive capabilities, and can not be classified as an increase in traits. Evolution theory would predict that the process of gradual change and increase in traits is an ongoing process, and therefore should be observable in todays living animals and plants through new emerging traits that any given plant or animal did not possess in its ancestry. Those who say such changes take millions of years and can not be observed today only say so because no such trait has ever been observed to emerge or be in the process of emerging in contemporary history, which is what the creation model predicts. If evolution theory be true, we would expect that at least one animal or plant would contain a new trait or be in the process of growing such a triat over its known common ancestors (that is not simply a multiplication or alteration of a trait it already had).

At this point, the fossil record can not be used as evidence to prove that evolution can produce new traits due to the fact that two animals that appear to be of the same family (T-rex and Brontosaurus, dinosaurs), while they do indeed exhibit distinct trait differences, may not have a common ancestor, but rather were created differently with all their different traits. It is therefore of paramount importance to show a single instance of such an increase of traits exists within a provable ancestry (stress provable) in contemporary times, and not assume anything concerning where the traits in the fossil record owe their origin. If it can not be shown that any animal or plant living today (or very recently deceased) exhibits any trait variance that can clearly and thoroughly be proven to be a new addition over its (stress) provable ancestors, compounded with the reasoning that two similar animals (such as a penguin and a woodpecker) do not necessarily or provably share a common ancestor, then evolution is clearly absent entirely, and supernatural intelligent design and creation is thereby proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, should any two animals or plants within a family (a palm tree and a coconut tree) be proven to not share a common ancestor, or if no provable increase of traits can be demonstrated to be in its beginnings or actively present in the animals and plants living today over their provable ancestry, then The Bible is correct when it says God created all the animals and plants as distinct kinds with their traits to begin with. This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.

Re:That's no leak (3, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304357)

if you s/Darwin/Microsoft/, (or stop reading after the first half) this comment would be +5 insightful.

Summary: Theory: Microsoft intentionally leaked windows 7. Since it's not verifiable, it's garbage and should be ignored.

Re:That's no leak (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304511)

Insightful? It's about the most redundant thing I've ever read.

Re:That's no leak (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304859)

What I would like to know is how many bong hits it takes for that kind of 'insight'...

Re:That's no leak (5, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304371)

Actually, the interior of a watermelon is very nearly black until it's cut open. Light has that strange effect, you know.

Re:That's no leak (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26305025)

Then how come I hear everyone say things like "they're all pink on the inside"? They're talking about watermelons, right?

Re:That's no leak (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304407)

VFX? [] Is that you?

Re:That's no leak (2, Insightful)

klasikahl (627381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304945)

What is it about Slashdot that attracts racist first-posters and religious zealots?

Re:That's no leak (1)

jcuervo (715139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26305031)

Re:That's no leak (1)

klasikahl (627381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26305153)

Granted. However, Slashdot in particular seems to attract these morons in droves. They seem to be suspiciously missing from other websites that are more devoid of intellectual value (digg).

Re:That's no leak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304983)

And thus, you spent a very long time explaining the simple way science works. There's a reason we have Theories, Theorems, Laws, and many other "almost there" types of titles in science: a good scientist understands that s/he doesn't know everything and that new evidences is always just around the corner.

Science understands that it can only prove or disprove things to the best of its ability with the tools and knowledge available at the time, and good science always leaves room for itself to be proven incorrect and corrected.

That, right there, is why the teachings of Intelligent Design cannot be included in Science class and fit only in a Theology course. Several of the tenets of ID have been observed false, such as the age of the earth. In science, if empirical evidence says your hypothesis is incorrect, you have to change your hypothesis to fit the evidence. As we go, we do this with the Theory of Evolution (continue to note, we don't even call it a Theorem, or a Law, or any of the other most binding of scientific titles). Evolution, itself, is evolving. Creation, on the other hand, was written by people thousands of years ago, with far less scientific evidence than we have, and is stalwartly refusing to budge even in the face of new evidence.

tag: hypocrisy? (4, Informative)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304175)

Hmm... let's see ... pirated software, where even having it is proof that it's pirated, as it's not released yet. And yesterday's news on WGA convictions. []

That's not hypocrisy -- that's a trojan horse.

nonsense (2, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304571)

What nonsense? Those pirates were making millions of dollars by illegally selling code developed by Microsoft at great expense. It's not as if MS is suing individual users like the RIAA does. It doesn't make any sense think they will go after anyone who "pirates" Windows 7 beta.


In theory this is bad news for Microsoft: it would represent mass piracy and lost revenue.

Huh? A beta copy of Windows 7 represents mass piracy and lost revenue? The beta expires in July anyway, even if it's production quality. I guess any tripe will get posted on Slashdot if it's anti-Microsoft.

Re:nonsense (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304699)

Those pirates were making millions of dollars by illegally selling code developed by Microsoft at great expense.

Yet, as users today get hooked on pirated Microsoft software, companies in future will cater to them by paying for original Microsoft licenses.

How much does 20 volume licenses of Microsoft Office Standard cost?

Re:tag: hypocrisy? (2, Insightful)

Dadamh (1441475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304705)

I maintain that the entire article is moronic anyway. The fact of the matter is that there's no real reason to believe that MS would bother releasing their beta junk to the world as a pirated system, particularly since pirates (and those that pirate) don't really make good software testers in the sense that they don't write bug reports to Microsoft. That said, I think a real, official open beta would be a very interesting move. MS could get a lot of real-world testing done, and be protected from lawsuits and too much flak for bad crashing and bugs by hiding under a 'beta' umbrella. That, and they could always make the beta lack enough features that people would feel the need to purchase the real product later, or make the beta self-destruct on a timer.

Re:tag: hypocrisy? (3, Interesting)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304949)

There's one thing you're not quite taking into consideration: patents. MS can't release anything in any form (including beta) and then file for a patent. They need to file for the patents first, and only once the paperwork hits the US PTO can they release a beta.

They may have a claim here that they didn't really release it, so it probably won't count against them when it comes time to file patents.

thats BS (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304707)

You know that WGA is part of the system. No one deceived you to download it.
You could have downloaded an Ubuntu install.
So, whose fault and problem is this?

Re:tag: hypocrisy? (2, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304807)

No decent pirate will run win 7 as an operating system. I assume that the ones that got it are selling copies to less than able PC users.

Re:tag: hypocrisy? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304867)

If it's given to you by the company who wrote it is it still piracy?

Leaked out of... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304183)

... the goatse man's ass [] .

Which the pirates gladly eat from.

Of course they did (1, Insightful)

SonicEarth (1246632) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304201)

Did they leak the beta intentionally? Of course they did. It's a great way to generate buzz about the new OS for virtually no cost.

Buzz?!?!? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304273)

Did they leak the beta intentionally? Of course they did. It's a great way to generate buzz about the new OS for virtually no cost.

Buzzz?!?!? You get excited about Windows?!? ... Pervert!

Re:Buzz?!?!? (5, Funny)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304611)

Perversions make this life fun :)

I guess thats one way to get Beta Testers (2, Interesting)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304213)

Then again, perhaps this won't get the best testers.

The copy which is available has a built-in 30 day time limit and, unlike previous editions of Windows 7, 'enthusiasts' don't seem to have found a way around this yet. While this is pretty normal practice for test editions, it would make it possible for Microsoft to leak the software without it affecting the final product.

Anyone tried to reset the clock yet?
On another note, since virtually all of the market for MS Vista is folks who buy a new computer (that isn't a Mac), what good is it to MS to offer something like this up? Is it in the hope that developers will bite? Is this some attrition for Vista?

Re:I guess thats one way to get Beta Testers (1, Interesting)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304331)

Is this some attrition for Vista?

In a sense, I think it is. It's not that Vista is a bad operating system, it is in fact a very good operating system, and will be getting much of the same praise Vista would have had it launched today with todays drivers. 7 can be likened to an OS X point release (hopefully they'll price it as such). Windows 7 will be Vista SP3, re-branded.

Re:I guess thats one way to get Beta Testers (5, Interesting)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304429)

I think drivers were only one piece of the problem, and a fairly small piece at that. The generally viewed performance and requirements are what really caused Vista to tank in the eyes of consumers. Good as it may be for some, not everyone has a new computer or a desire to buy a new one. Couple that with bad performance on budget laptops and there's your whole case right there.

Re:I guess thats one way to get Beta Testers (4, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304565)

Also the fact that literally nothing was in the same place as it was in XP meaning there was a learning curve right out of the box in finding where the settings have been moved to. I know I got a bit more than frustrated when I tried to actually do anything in Vista. It wasn't because it was slow, (I didn't really notice it being "fast" either) but everything was renamed and/or moved around so much it made changing things a bit of a hunt and peck routine I haven't had since Win95.

Re:I guess thats one way to get Beta Testers (2, Interesting)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304605)

drivers and software in general. Vanilla vista ran pretty well on old or budget computers, give or take some crappy intel GPUs that made even XP lag some... But OEMs would bundle it with anti-virus softwares that had known performance issues in Vista, versions of Nero that were incompatible, same with codecs... it really trashed the performance. AVG, one of the more popular free anti-virus, had serious issues with Vista back then (not sure about now, didn't hear anything about it in a while). That really hurt it.

OEMs are supposed to provide some added value in the form of a good configuration of the machine, and they always sucked at it, but they failed HARD at Vista's launch, up to a bit after SP1 (in my experience. The OEMs still shipped crappy configs a month or so after SP1 came out...).

Re:I guess thats one way to get Beta Testers (4, Insightful)

twicesliced (909083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304727)

That was the exact problem. Despite being given plenty of warning, many software developers (applications and drivers) did not adjust to the new environment in time for its release. Couple that phenomenon with weak integrated GPUs that should never have been certified for Vista, and that's that. I've run Vista flawlessly on Athlon XPs on nForce2 chipsets and Socket 478 Pentium 4s on Intel 865 chipsets, so old hardware isn't the issue. Windows 7 is just a stripped-down, modular Vista with a streamlined user interface; the big difference is that drivers and applications are finally up to speed.

Re:I guess thats one way to get Beta Testers (4, Interesting)

lmpeters (892805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304773)

I've never yet had to use Vista myself, but in my limited experience helping friends who do use it, the "budget laptops" issue looks to be a serious one. A friend of mine was given a budget laptop for work, but he couldn't get wireless networking to work and asked me for help.

The first thing I noticed was that it took something ridiculous like 10 minutes to start up, and was incredibly slow even when no applications were running. So I went to the "System" control panel, and discovered the laptop had only 384MB of RAM.'s a new laptop, that ships with Vista, and it falls short of Vista's minimum RAM requirements? I never did figure that one out.

I finally told him that the first thing he needed to do before I could help him was to get a laptop that met or exceeded Vista's minimum system requirements. I didn't hear anything about it after that.

Re:I guess thats one way to get Beta Testers (1)

nsheppar (889445) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304959)

Windows 7 will be Vista SP3, re-branded.

Is that a good thing?

Re:I guess thats one way to get Beta Testers (4, Funny)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 5 years ago | (#26305021)

Whether it's Windows 7 or not, there's one thing that's guaranteed: it's going to be a pane.

Re:I guess thats one way to get Beta Testers (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304389)

Good idea! Reset the clock to Decemeber 31st and see if it zunes.

Re:I guess thats one way to get Beta Testers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304887)

The only thing funnier than that whole suggestion is the fact that "zune" is now a verb.

Re:I guess thats one way to get Beta Testers (0, Redundant)

jcuervo (715139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26305105)

Zune is now a meme.

If authenticode is cracked this time, there will B (3, Interesting)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304237)

These pirate trackers also have working versions of both XP and Vista that have working Microsoft validation. Supposedly this isn't possible, Microsoft is tracking re-used keys, etc etc - except that the pirates have found a way around it, and all those pirate distributions of XP that come bundled with tools like Adobe and Nero all can be patched using Microsoft Windows Update.

I wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole, even if they were reviewed file for file for viruses and you ran a firewall that blocked outbound connections like Comodo or Zonealarm, because if they want to create a zombie machine, they'll do it using SSL for the control channel.

Windows 7 can't be patched online yet, but after release if these sites have copies that can be, then I doubt Microsoft would be so happy.

As to whether or not this is some MS developers idea of a viral marketing campaign: we give those guys in redmond too much credit. I don't think they like seeing it in the wild, esp. with the comments flowing in about how it's no better than Vista.

Re:If authenticode is cracked this time, there wil (3, Funny)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304427)

Wait.. I thought windows 7 WAS window vista; It was a trick to get some dumb model/actors to actually try it and say nice things on "hidden" camera.

Re:If authenticode is cracked this time, there wil (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304581)

I wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole, even if they were reviewed file for file for viruses and you ran a firewall that blocked outbound connections like Comodo or Zonealarm, because if they want to create a zombie machine, they'll do it using SSL for the control channel.

This is why (if you have any sense) you either:

A - Run Windows in a VM and only turn on networking when you need it (VMs also have the added advantage of being able to revert to snapshots, in case anything untoward happens).
or B - Only plug in the network cable when you need to.

I seriously cant imagine anyone stupid enough to run a pirated OS on a box with 24/7 Internet connection (the risks are just too high).

Re:If authenticode is cracked this time, there wil (2, Interesting)

Kaboom13 (235759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304789)

Conspiracy theories of mythical "pirate" rootkits aside, the source of these installations that require no activation or cd key is from Microsoft themselves. They released this version to Universities who have licensed with MS to provide copies of Windows to all their students. They couldn't be bothered to make a system to issue/track cd keys so they released it without a need for any.

Re:If authenticode is cracked this time, there wil (0)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304777)

"esp. with the comments flowing in about how it's no better than Vista."

Could you elaborate? Win 7 is so much better than vista that I'm using beta 1 as my main box. In fact, I'm considering switching my XP box to win 7 as well, as its been running for 4 years and feels kludgy, and no amount of registry cleaning and spyware detecting is making it faster again.

I can't possibly see how anyone who has used vista for more than an hour could say that win 7 isn't any better. It feels like XP without the Fischer Price skin. The only thing XP may be faster in is network transfer speed, synthetic benchmarks that don't mean anything in the real world, and perhaps openGL apps.

Re:If authenticode is cracked this time, there wil (4, Informative)

bmajik (96670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26305125)

I may be misunderstanding you, but Authenticode is a technology used to verify the publisher of binaries so that there is some assurance "lol32.exe" is worth running.

As such, Authenticode isn't an anti-piracy feature insamuch as its an anti-malware feature. As and end user, you'd not want want this to be busted.

You may be thinking of WGA and WPA, the former being the "Genuine Advantage" stuff that Windows Update and MS Download center look for, and the latter being Product Activation [that cares about keys and key activation, etc].

The latter two are most certainly anti-piracy features and confer no functional/usability advantages to the enduser who isn't concerned with the legality/legitimacy of their installation.

Re:If authenticode is cracked this time, there wil (1)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26305239)

You are correct, I conflated the terms.

Windows 7 Rap (4, Funny)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304247)

Delighted to see MS squirmin'
But they ain't wrigglin'
Cause they leaked 7 on the Bay
Seen sunshine and made hay
Now bloggers are talkin 'bout
That the new OS is out
But I see a frown
Cause their computer is down!

Re:Windows 7 Rap (0, Redundant)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304395)

Flamebait? It was supposed to be funny!

Re:Windows 7 Rap (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304615)

And that's why you should take a few minutes to metamoderate.

Forgot something... (4, Funny)

SIGBUS (8236) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304851)

Burma Shave.

Well, I'm glad it was leaked *before* the beta (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304249)

It has happened in the past that Microsoft has blamed their tech beta testers for leaks... at least we can't get blamed for this one.

Re:Well, I'm glad it was leaked *before* the beta (2, Funny)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26305053)

Releasy early, release often?

Well, I'm convinced. (4, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304263)

The TFA sums up evidence as: "it's what I would do" and "MS doesn't seem too worried".

I don't doubt they did leak it on purpose...but TFA gives no some personal projecting.

Re:Well, I'm convinced. (3, Funny)

vistapwns (1103935) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304363)

You must be new here...

Re:Well, I'm convinced. (3, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304375)

You mean a journalist whose sole job is to report on Microsoft is making a baseless claim to get attention and traffic to her website? I'm shocked!

Re:Well, I'm convinced. (3, Interesting)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304559)

The kicker is that the baseless claim she made was that Microsoft did something to whore attention without any fundamental basis ("performance improvements"!?! Where is that new filesystem we were promised back in 2001?)


Re:Well, I'm convinced. (1)

jcuervo (715139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26305201)


Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Happened before (2, Interesting)

slugtastic (1437569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304295)

Though for different reasons, this was tried before [] .

Re:Happened before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304603)

Microsoft has been doing this for years. In the back office, they make sure their software is pirated far and wide. In the front office, they whine to the legislators and press about the horrors of "lost" sales and how badly they need laws passed to give them control over -[distribution channels]- -[people's computers]- -[what features are on consumer electronics]- etc. Thanks for the DMCA guys and HDCP "protection" that makes two expensive pieces of hardware I bought not work with each other for no meaningful reason.

then why (4, Informative)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304305)

would microsoft send me a take down notice to remove windows 7 files uploaded onto our hosting servers by one of our customers last week?

Re:then why (4, Funny)

gilgongo (57446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304365)

would microsoft send me a take down notice to remove windows 7 files uploaded onto our hosting servers by one of our customers last week?

Because this is supposed to be black ops. Not even Microsoft knows they're doing it.

Still - this is all just hot air. There is no way we will ever know whether MS leaked 7 on purpose or not.

Re:then why (4, Interesting)

InlawBiker (1124825) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304373)

Because the clever marketing people who 'leaked' the beta do not communicate with the licensing and piracy teams.

I know the answer to your question (1)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304537)

They do this for precedent. What MSFT didn't tell the pirates is that they used the Windows 7 files to trace their network as they were all trojan horses with call-home scripts built in. Although the pirates rewrote the scripts and now they act as a nice lava-lamp plugin, mostly for decoration (and Slashdot karma/irony).

Re:then why (1)

slugtastic (1437569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304569)

Because it also benefits them? "Look at what those meany pirates did!"

Re:then why (3, Interesting)

Bertie (87778) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304823)

1) It's Microsoft. Frequently, left hand and right hand are barely acquainted. And in this case, they've probably deliberately been kept apart.

2) Like a magician, they're making a big show to distract you, so you don't notice what they're up to with their other hand.

3) They have to be SEEN to be doing the right thing, even if they're not. And they wouldn't be alone in this, there's a lot of ot about. Can somebody remind me of the fairly well-known American band whose album got leaked before release to torrent sites last year, causing takedown notices aplenty, only for it to transpire that the person who leaked it was their manager?

Re:then why (1)

Bertie (87778) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304849)

Ah yes. Buckcherry. Someone linked to it [] above.

I RTFA (3, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304341)

And there is about zero substantiation. No unnamed sources. No evidence.

Slashdot -- speculation for nerds and rumors that matter.

Re:I RTFA (2, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304495)

It's obviously a slow news day here, and I'd much rather see rumors than more idle.

If you come here for the quality journalism, well... I've got some bad news for you...

Re:I RTFA (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26305103)

What would you do if you had unnamed sources?

I for one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304361)

Am preemptively putting on my tin-foil hat

Leaked? Doubt it. (1)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304369)

More like they've gone for the alleged tactic of the early Windows releases and just turned a blind eye to it, knowing that the end user base only benefit them in the long term...

Re:Leaked? Doubt it. (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304535)

benefit (and possibly grows).

There has long been the suspicion that Microsoft fostered piracy because an IT person monkeying around with a Microsoft product at home might recommend it at work when asked. Or a business might eventually grow a conscience (or an auditor) and convert a bunch of pirated seats into legit ones. You know, the whole "Try before you buy" tactic.'s brilliant! (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304553)

no...I think it's more plausible that they were some how involved.

it's actually quite brilliant.
It is a change in tactics for sure but judging from the crap they got from Vista, it makes sense to try a new method to beat their competitors.
It also allows people to believe the good "reviews" more especially those based on the leaked version since to the public, there isn't a "Microsoft bias" attached to it. It's not like Microsoft winked and blinked at the journalists to get them to say things.
And if the journalists reviewed it poorly, then Microsoft can chuck it up to being a unstable pirated copy.

But there is one concern, if it does turn out to be true, how will this affect the "fight" against piracy? Can some savvy lawyer use it to say that it's not "copyright infringement" but a sneaky/viral marketing technique?

PR (3, Interesting)

Sta7ic (819090) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304391)

Guess we're again seeing that any PR is good PR. W7 is getting 'geek' exposure while it's still sounding squirreled up in development. Cruise various forums and blogs, early feedback from the tech-savvy. Makes enough sense to some of us. Whether or not this was planned very far up the line is a good question, but it's not too bad. If the source, rather than a distro was released, OTOH...

Leaked videos! (5, Funny)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304421)

Here is a link to leaked videos of the KDE 4.2 beta! []

There are numerous of those on that site, Youtube.

Me thinks too much credit hath been bestowed (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304435)

> It's rather smart marketing.

And we've grown so accustomed to that phrase being associated with MS up to now...versus vast parts of the online world having shown contempt at MS for decades. Got it, thanks :)

I can confirm (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304457)

I'm admin for one of the P2P bittorent sharing web-site. I often get money to upload music or so called DVD screener from their respective copyright owners or agents. If it get 5k or more leechers they get free publicity and tons of people go and buy genuine work.

It should by posted under "Threats for '09" (5, Funny)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304541)

Windows 7 has been widely distributed through torrents

Does that qualify as a distributed virus attack?

Re:It should by posted under "Threats for '09" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26305019)

Here is a link to leaked videos of the KDE 4.2 beta! []

There are numerous of those on that site, Youtube.

COME ON!!! 47 seconds of eye-candy software is what an Operating System software means to you?? They should allow me to do a little more.

Hanlon's Razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304599)

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Not now, not later, hopefully not ever. (0, Troll)

ExtremePhobia (1326407) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304601)

Windows 7 = Vista? haha now that piece of crap makes a little more sense! I always thought it seemed a little... unfinished.

That aside, people always bust window's for issues and I can't imagine that a pre-pre-release of their operating system can be in too good of shape. Really a good idea to put it out there?

This is so exciting! (4, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304609)

Waiting for Windows 7 is like waiting for the new Ford Taurus to come out!


Re:This is so exciting! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304835)

or even the Dacia Sandero...

Re:This is so exciting! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304879)

Waiting for Windows 7 is like waiting for the new Ford Taurus to come out!

No kiddin. Let's go back to trivial updates to Mozilla making the front page.

How's that fun? (1)

Bridger987 (1443147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304631)

If they leaked the software to pirates, then where's the fun in downloading it? I thought that the whole point of illegally downloading software was the thrill of doing something you shouldn't be. :D

No, it wasn't leaked to 'pirates' (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304651)

I speak and work with one of the main PR reps who works on the Windows 7 account. Without going into any details, the leaked build was officially sent to a group of testers about a month ago, to ensure that it'd work for the media release/update of the latest build Windows 7 at CES.

I know he's a little upset with the group since it was supposed to be confidential, but with all the positive reviews he's not too peeved.

Dont forget beta testing (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304667)

crowds will beta test it for microsoft. much better than actually rolling out, and then patching the thing.

They've got previous. (0, Troll)

Bertie (87778) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304673)

Yeah, they do this. They don't really mind the rampant piracy in developing countries because people couldn't afford the genuine article anyway, and they're playing the long game, hoping to get you hooked on their stuff, so they can make money out of you later. Even if you didn't pay for their stuff, if you're using it you're not using the other guy's.

So in this case, people downloading 7 is fine by them because hell, at least it's not Linux, and they've probably already bought a copy of Vista or XP anyway.

See also Adobe not really minding broke students pirating their Creative Suite software because they know that when they graduate they'll expect their workplace to cough up a pretty penny for it.

Leaks are more exciting (2, Insightful)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304679)

Well, leaks sound a lot more exciting than previews. Previews are held back by NDAs, pre-configured pre-tweaked setups, and perhaps time limits as well. There's less criticism, less peeking under the hood, and "preview" just has a connotation of being biased or at least very reserved, and perhaps the usual OS previews are not as technical and investigative as we would like.

Eggbrook (1)

Eggbrook (981740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304725)

It makes perfect sense that MS gave this thing to pirates early. They are trying to get lots of people into the new OS to make up for vista. Since pirates are often times the most critical of software (since we get it for free and toss it if its shit) they want people to know about it. It worked, I have seen news on the "leaked ISO of Windows 7" on just about every tech blog i've read. So I'd say they did a good job.

Isn't this the apocrphyal strategy used elsewhere? (1)

swb (14022) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304733)

I seem to have heard the leaked-to-pirates-intentionally idea more than once..

Ever think it might be revenge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304783)

"Avast yee pirates yee ole Bios arr about to be wiped"

Blue Screen (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304809)

yes what a beacon of honest reporting this site is. please it drives me nuts when post pull "facts" from websites like these with a clear agenda.

This is retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26304873)

I'm typing on a computer that's logged into corpnet at Microsoft right now. (I'm TS'd into my home PC - yes I am not an idiot who wants to lose my job by posting on these forums).

It's SO EASY to get a copy of Win7 off the corpnet. Microsoft has no significant leak control on it. This isn't a conspiracy, it's just someone on corpnet - and there are about 50,000 of us - who leaked the binary. Give it a rest with the cloak and dagger bullshit already!!!

Don't write shit about shit that you don't know shit about. Go and get a coloring book to play with or something, stop acting like you are industry experts.

Ha, I've practically had it foisted on me (4, Insightful)

zullnero (833754) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304899)

By MS guys at various events. And no, MS knows full well that Vista was a failure, and generating underground hype for their next rev is kinda a big deal for them. It's worked for them in the past, and they figure it'll work for them again.

Anyway, that's what I heard from one of their employees. But it's not a new thing, I've known a lot of folks who would tell me, off the record, that they know they're a little too "carefree" with their software for many years. The general thought there is that they'd rather have their stuff pirated than not used, but the business folks and shareholders wanted the WGA crap inserted to make themselves feel better. While taking a very broad shot at the pirates that were burning, repackaging, and reselling their stuff. Those are the types of pirates that pretty much anyone can agree are assholes.

Torrent users are awesome Beta Testers (1)

guerilla7 (1335189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26304991)

Yep, I think so too. MS did this on purpose.

Welcome to the internet (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26305045)

I am seriously amazed this is news. This has been happening almost as long as piracy has been around. I used to release for several groups, and helped run sites. We had several people who were friends with industry people (sometimes software producers (but this was rarer), mostly movies/music/tv). This is how we got PRE's ages before the movie/album/show was released. There were instances of people stealing the property, but this was unsustainable and so those people were only able to provide us with 1 or so releases. The people who continually delivered were often from the marketing/producers/execs from the big parent companies and similar. However, there were some people who worked in development, or at cd presses, however this was a much smaller subset of releasers, as this section always got the most scrutiny on security.

I am perpetually amazed by how little people actually know about the scene. It provides us with so much awesome, yet very few people understand it.

DO NOT WANT (1, Insightful)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 5 years ago | (#26305187)

Sorry, I have definitely given up on MS and will only give a crap about them when PAID to.

// Reasonable rates, btw

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?