Oh come on everyone, how can anyone take this seriously. Even in the old days it was very obvious that the whole strategy was simply to worry people into buying their license. I know that it was theoretically possible to detect a faint signal emitted by a TV when switched on and receiving but I'm firmly convinced that the detector vans were nothing but dummies designed to worry people. Furthermore whenever I have met people who worked for the licensing folk they would always clam up and say absolutely nothing, neither confirming nor denying my theory. Even if they strongly suspected someone of viewing without a license they had no right of entry so unless someone chose to let them in or managed to photograph a television they could never make a case. Even if this new technique works it is still likely that it would be far too expensive to implement and pay for a fleet of vans, drivers and technicians. What will actually happen is that apart from the odd van for worrying purposes, they will look on their database for a particular density of people without licenses that makes it worthwhile to send inspectors round. Unless they have a right of entry things will stop there. If they have a right of entry and the right to seize and forensically analyse the contents of the occupant's computer then they may have a case. Since I consider the price of the license to be fabulous value, I find it much easier just to buy one.

I have for a long time felt that Microsoft will sooner or later switch from selling outright licences to a system where we are all forced to pay annually and since with Windows 10 we are pretty much forced to accept updates whenever MS chooses to post them we may not even have the choice of opting out and sticking with the release we have paid for or been given by MS. Worse still, whenever windows changes in a way that screws other applications, those will all have to be updated as well (more money). Given the way that Microsoft has completely lost the plot with respect to mobile systems (mobile/cell phones) future revenues will rely more and more on a shrinking market of desktop PCs. Who knows, perhaps MS will spin off and maybe even sell its Windows business as it focuses more and more on its cloud and services businesses.

> I should have thought it was perfectly obvious. Their computer works. Its costs nothing to stay as you are. It takes no time to stay as you are. If you choose to upgrade you have to buy Windows 7 or (heaven forfend) Windows 8. You may need to buy a new computer. Your old device drivers won't work, so you may need to buy new devices (yes really!). Your old software will require an update or you will have to install some Virtual Machine software - this won't quite work with all the (very) old but perfectly serviceable applications you have. You probably can't do it yourself so have have to employ a tech to do it for you. You will waste a lot of time getting it all to work exactly as you want. Since stuff increasingly works on the web, all you really need is a browser that's kept up-to-date. The downside of cloud based stuff is that you are increasingly vulnerable to governments and to black-hatted persons who may withhold access to/spy on/steal/corrupt or otherwise harm your data. Equally worryingly there is a trend toward no longer selling software licenses but reverting to the old mainframe business model of renting it. Software rental costs only go in one direction. Windows 8 exists almost entirely for the benefit of Microsoft. We didn't choose to have it appear and it offers little that is of real value except to software developers, who can sell new versions, and hardware manufacturers. If Windows 8 provided lots of genuine benefit, people wouldn't be grumbling. >