what prevents Microsoft from creating a version of windows that doesn’t allow cracks/activators to be used? Or detect it and disable the OS fully instead of warnings.
In: Technology
They make every attempt to do so. Hackers can reverse engineer their code and find workarounds for whatever passes for “security” there. They get access to this stuff in beta.
Cracks and activators work because they exploit parts of Microsoft’s activation process. They would have to remove activation entirely from Windows to prevent exploitation. For a simple metaphor, think of it as a door. They can lock it tight, but they door is still there and someone can learn to open it. They want to open this door because it makes them money, but they don’t want you to open it. So they make the best lock they can. Virus software does look for cracks and activators.
Two reasons they allow you to use unlicensed Windows are: 1. You may have been a victim of counterfeiting when you purchased the copy from someone and you need to report that. 2. They would rather try to get you to buy the product later than prevent you from using it.
Microsoft doesn’t care if you pirate their software. You are not their customer, you are small.
Microsoft’s customers are people with huge money. Governments, schools, business, militaries, computer manufacturers. Not Joe from Iowa.
Those people have enormous money and pay full price. Why even bother trying to stop Joe. Even all the Joes don’t add up to anything of note compared to your big customers. In fact even giving it away to Joe is probably a good idea, steal all the market share. So what I lose a little money, it’s worth it to control the market.
Complexity is one factor. Windows XP had 40 million lines of code. Windows 10 must have at least that many. That is a lot of potential places for an exploit to umm exploit something.
Design is another. Windows has evolved from a single-user, minimal security design into what it is today. It doesn’t have bad security per se but it can’t be as good as if the OS was designed from the ground-up with security in mind.
Identifying every running exploit isn’t easy either. It’s not like they are always a totally foreign thing in the system. They can make use of parts of the Windows code. And how would Windows know it’s own functions are being called by an exploit when the design of Windows allows for the exploits to pretend they’re part of Windows itself.
To answer the question, Microsoft could conceivably redesign Windows so that it vastly reduces the potential for exploits. But it would be such a mammoth task. It would take millions of man-hours. And during that time MS’s competitors would have a good opportunity to catch up or overtake MS in some core areas.
The Windows that most people use (consumer Windows on AMD/Intel CPU) runs on open architecture (any vendor can make the component and it’s expected to work). This means even the hardware can easily be replaced to allow cracks/activators. It’s also expected to run any compatible apps written by anyone. This means even if they ban one particular app, they can’t reliably detect its variant. Contrast this with a closed system where you can only run apps approved/built by the vendor like most game consoles/iOS devices.
When they *do* detect a broken activation, they don’t immediately disable the OS because it’s possible an enterprise user simply had lost connectivity to their server while trying to reactivate, and “oh, sorry, your employee can’t work because we dislike pirate” will invite lawsuits. Even in Office broken activation still allows opening and printing.
Also, consider they’re making less and lesser money from Windows, so it’s in their interest to just let people use Windows when it makes other Microsoft’s offerings, mostly Azure and Xbox.
If they did, people would go to the free stuff, like linux. Its different, theres a learning curve, etc, etc. But if MS really locked you out of using their products if you didnt pay , then people would learn. The thing is, if this happened, people would go to business and institutions and would expect to use the free stuff theyre used to, making this business/institutions not to pay MS for licenses. MS wants you to use their stuff and think theyre the only stuff computers work with. And theyve succeded. Business/institutions receive people who know how to use MS products, they have to pay MS for licenses since its better for them than training in free alternatives (if there are any at all). And when it comes to this big business and institutions paying, MS gets all the money back from letting average people pirate their stuff.
Nothing. IIRC their strategy used to be that they didn’t pursue pirates. If losing $100 was what it cost to hook someone into the Windows ecosystem, that’s only good for them. Even if they pay nothing, they are increasing the market share of Windows. The network effect works in their favor, even if some of those customers don’t pay. It’s better to have 70% market share where 15% don’t pay you than to have 5% market share where *everyone* pays.
If you’re an enterprise client on the other hand, they will *really* care then.
Latest Answers