Win Vista (in)security and unbelievable license restrictions [Archive]

Doom9

5th October 2006, 11:42

Even Vista is still too convenient for most people to contemplate a move.. while the UI change and the DRM might be drastic, for everyday work is still is enough. And the alternative has several weak points:
No consistent UI. You have different window managers and a lot of software that doesn't stick to any UI conventions.
No consistent API: That's one main reason why developers are put off by *nix. For instance, the kernel API is constantly in motion. If you are a GFX card company, you could write a driver for W2K, and it still works in XP.. so basically you had 6 years of quiet on the API front and can concentrate on optimizations only. On Linux, you have to at least recompile for every new kernel. The W32 API, while complex and cumbersome (in my eyes at least), it is halfway consistent and has remained so since its inception. A software company is more willing to invest on a platform where they have some certainty that they won't have to adapt their product a bunch of times a year just because the underlying OS has changed.
Documentation for developers: I'm by no means an MS fan, but I recently had to port an application that permits searches in a user's personal directory from Outlook/Exchange to Notes. And getting started with the former was a lot easier than with the latter.. with Microsoft you have a huge collection of documentation, and resources to get help (MVPs in the newsgroups as well as MS staff that help out).. it took me a lot longer to get a basic overview of what I had to do with Notes. The bottom line here is: MSDN makes it easy for developers..

As a non developer, the latter two points may appear benign, but even when there's a demand, somebody needs to write the application, and with a good documentation and a stable API writing that application gets a lot easier.

Sirber

5th October 2006, 12:16

I don't see any point to move to Vista, except DX10.
Fancy GUI? no need
Fancy DRM? no need
Fancy Security Center? no need!
Fancy WPA? no need :devil:

Sharktooth

5th October 2006, 13:01

Sadly Doom9 is right... *nix community needs to be less "sparse"...

Inventive Software

5th October 2006, 13:31

I see no reason to upgrade to Vista, especially as my rig has only just had XP installed on it. XP does the job, and when I get a new computer, it'll be running XP, 98 and Ubuntu side-by-side. XP for everything else Ubuntu can't run, and 98 for a couple of apps that don't like XP at all. Vista will only become a necessity when games released in 2 years incorporate DX10 properly. Even then, it doesn't have the unified shaders that game developers and graphics card manufacturers want.

Sirber

5th October 2006, 13:50

Sharktooth

5th October 2006, 14:56

Why VMWare? VirtualPC is free now...

Sirber

5th October 2006, 17:06

Why VMWare? VirtualPC is free now...Ever tryed to install ubuntu or any GUI linux in VirtualPC? screen is sall scrwed :(

anyway, VirtualPC should be good for Win98

UofC

5th October 2006, 17:42

MS is like darth vader. The user like luke. Mac is princess leala, all pretty with the cool hair do. Darth is bent on taking over the word by any means and luke is out to stop him.

Vista will be hacked sooner or late and the balance will be restored to the IT force but not before darth takes a hand or two off before the fight is over.

Thus ends the story. Reinforcing how much of a geek I truly am.

Sirber

5th October 2006, 17:52

Do you have the same story but ala Star Trek?

UofC

5th October 2006, 18:32

Do you have the same story but ala Star Trek?

One upon a time far far in the future there existed the borg aka MS and the trekies aka end user. Mac was that cute psychic lady who reads your mind and does it all for you.

The borg strove to assimilate everything in the universe and the trekies fought to keep them at bay knowing that the borg could never be stopped.

And they fought and stuff. Photon torpedoes, phaser ... The battle raged on and on with each side taking one step forward and one back.

But in the end the borg won and we all ended up using windows. You will be assimilated. :scared:

Sirber

5th October 2006, 18:41

The starwars version has a better ending :(

Sharktooth

5th October 2006, 20:07

The star trek story is more "realistic"...

Shinigami-Sama

5th October 2006, 23:56

I have to agree with shark and doom
I"ve been reading up on Unix for my unix class and it seems that every differant flavor does something differnt that shouldn't be differnt but just is
M$ has tried to make it as easy as they can for devs do things and there fore make the M$ market bigger by adding their products
now Vista comes along and to my understanding has a new API that makes it so that they have to relearn how to use it
now if there is new *nix kernal release that is POSIX required and unifies the APIs to have better interoperblity this would arguable be the best time for devs to port over and increase the market of the *nix systems

also
with all these security and anit-piracy policies
what about users that buy from shady retailers like my baba did
she has a horribly pirated copy of XP; one they didn't even both to put the horrid label on straight; and no its not a volume licence copy either
so what about those poor people?

and they way they have set this up looks like they're going to make it difficult for the third party compaies that makes the anti-spyware and virus and such

Sharktooth

6th October 2006, 03:04

LOL at the prices...: http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/editorial/windows_vista?camp_id=email_w23_vista

And they hope there will be some crazy a$$ that will buy it?

foxyshadis

6th October 2006, 04:04

They hope you'll buy basic, and 3 months later get the itch to spend another $50 to upgrade (or $250 for ultimate). But with the price as it is, I doubt anyone will be feeling the heat to adopt; it'll all trickle in from the OEM market until retail prices come down.

kypec

6th October 2006, 08:00

Do you guys think that WinXP (Home or Pro) prices drop once the Vista is released?

foxyshadis

6th October 2006, 09:15

Old releases of the OS get dropped when a new one comes out, they stop shipping whatever's in warehouses, and microsoft only gives new licenses to volume customers. Most retail activity moves to the grey market, aftermarket sources, and perhaps wholesale dealers, though some retailers will probably dump their copies on the market instead of trading them in for Vista.

Sirber

6th October 2006, 12:10

XP Home SP2 is still 250$ CAD here :(

Sharktooth

6th October 2006, 12:54

Well, in Italy, the WinXP PRO OEM version costs 160 euros (including VAT) to the system builders while the Retail costs about 500 euros to the end users...
Not so cheap...

Sharktooth

6th October 2006, 16:05

Another interesting article, this one is about WGA and Vista security...: http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1838/

As i already said in another thread... they will never learn...
Microsoft is going to find a way to cut their own throats.

Sirber

6th October 2006, 16:10

wep

they don't learn and we don't buy/install.

Sharktooth

6th October 2006, 16:18

I would like to hear some words from official or even unofficial MS representatives.
The end user must know what he is going to buy (and the risks it involves) before he pays for something that will be potentially a risk for him...

Sirber

6th October 2006, 16:33

The end user don't care much usualy about what they get.
As they don't know thet their PC crawl with spyware.
They "yes" on everything they see whitout reading.

Sharktooth

6th October 2006, 17:04

Ah yeah, they dont read... but if you tell them in a clear way they will listen...
Something like: Dear User, you're buying an unsecure product with about 154 known security flaws of which 29 are critical flaws reported months ago and still not fixed. Are you sure you want to pay 500 euros for that product (Win XP Pro Retail)?

(source: Secunia)

EDIT: Wanna laugh? Just to compare WinXP Pro (XP Home is not much better) security level (http://secunia.com/product/22/) to the major linux/BSD distros:
http://secunia.com/product/10611/
http://secunia.com/product/10796/
http://secunia.com/product/8808/
http://secunia.com/product/4368/
http://secunia.com/product/9020/ and http://secunia.com/product/12165/
http://secunia.com/product/5307/ and http://secunia.com/product/530/
and finally http://secunia.com/product/6778/

Sirber

6th October 2006, 17:36

Well, flaw in distro is different than a flaw in apache, which affect multiple distros.

Sharktooth

6th October 2006, 17:40

Apache is a server package... WinXP PRO and Home are not meant to be installed on web servers as well as desktop linux distros...

Sirber

6th October 2006, 17:53

I think their UAC will be so bothersome we'll have to disabled it like the (in)security center in XP, as well as the "reboot reminder" at each 3 minutes...

frodeste

6th October 2006, 18:31

I think their UAC will be so bothersome we'll have to disabled it like the (in)security center in XP, as well as the "reboot reminder" at each 3 minutes...

I disagree. It just works now, at least on the build I am using now.

Sharktooth

8th October 2006, 03:42

Uhm... Vista continues to impress me (negatively): http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34915

Sirber

8th October 2006, 03:43

hahaha

very good article!

[edit]

however, this article (http://digg.com/gaming_news/Vista_gaming_will_be_10_to_15_per_cent_slower_than_XP)

Sharktooth

13th October 2006, 16:19

LOL, Probably M$ engineers didnt find a solution for blue pill... so what to do? They just forbid you to run Vista on a VM...
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/193300234

Also it will not be possible to transfer your RETAIL license over another computer more than one time (so if i decide or am forced to change PC two times i should buy another Vista license...)

Thanks goes to M$ for the new restrictions! I invite ALL users to stay away from that POC.

Eretria-chan

13th October 2006, 19:59

I beg to differ on UAC. It's not bothersome at all, really. I don't see why people get mad why a little box pops up now and then that you have to accept...

All about the worries is that... I really doubt that anyone wants to buy Vista legally. However, everything will be cracked in time. No DRM crap, no WGA, etc...

And I really find it sorry for Microsoft when all users complain that the OS eats resources. If a game eats all resources, you don't complain, but when an OS does...? Is it all really that different if it works in the end? Those requirements are far below what today's computers are capable off. Why can't Microsoft increase the requirements too, if game makers can?

And then it's the patch guard... is it really wrong? Sure, 3rd party vendors will be locked out, but as Microsoft has stated, Kernel patching was unsupported and DANGEROUS. They have a good reason to block out software. They ARE API that Microsoft has added that allows security softwares to function in Vista. I beg to differ, but there ARE at least one firewall and four anti-virus software out there that WORKS with Vista. Wow!
You shouldn't listen to all that McAfee and Symantec spews out. They don't like Microsoft because Microsoft is stealing their market with their new security applications (which are kind of crap, btw). They want to put a leash on Microsoft so they can thrive. It's called Monopoly.
But then again, is really wrong for Microsoft to include their security software in the OS? I mean, in pre-XP, you had to get a firewall & anti-virus yourself before venturing out on the internet. In XP, load & up & surf. Okay, sure, the firewall was kinda crap and full of holes, but it would suffice a little. At least until you could get a new software firewall and anti-virus that were good.

Would you rather fork out $100 of extra stuff just because Windows doesn't come with those tools? I sure wouldn't. That is a problem nowadays - a lot of software cost and it adds up. But Microsoft is throwing in free tools and although not of great quality, they often suffice for general work. Are you with me here?

Sirber

13th October 2006, 20:21

And I really find it sorry for Microsoft when all users complain that the OS eats resources. If a game eats all resources, you don't complain, but when an OS does...? Is it all really that different if it works in the end? Those requirements are far below what today's computers are capable off. Why can't Microsoft increase the requirements too, if game makers can?I play with a game in fullscreen, I don't play with the OS in fullscreen. OS is for work.

Eretria-chan

13th October 2006, 20:59

Hard Core Rikki

13th October 2006, 23:10

...until retail prices come down.

I strongly doubt they will, at least any significantly. Unlike real world goods, wich get cheaper to manufacture and thus get sold cheaper and cheaper, I dont think any Windows version has been variably priced. Their monopoly allows 'em to enforce that "one price fits all" policy.

Sirber

13th October 2006, 23:36

Do you complain if a big program (aka photo editing or video editing software) have high requirements? Then why can't and OS have a little higher requirements? They are nothing compared to today's standards.Imagine this:

I have 2GB RAM and I play with my RAW pictures:
Nikon Capture NX: 600MB RAM
Photoshop CS2: 300MB RAM
Photomatix Pro: 500MB RAM
Opera: 200MB RAM
plus all the crap that runs on my PC.

I don't want the OS to swap my running apps so it can have fun making fancy graphics and effects and eating all my RAM with useless buffers and crap.

Inventive Software

14th October 2006, 01:23

I'm gonna hold out until 2008 or 2009 before I even think about getting Vista, when Microsoft will actually get their fingers out of their DRM'd asses, and LISTEN to what the public really wants!

Shinigami-Sama

14th October 2006, 02:13

Do you complain if a big program (aka photo editing or video editing software) have high requirements? Then why can't and OS have a little higher requirements? They are nothing compared to today's standards.
an OS is a supporting platform
not an application ment to create a fancy UI with little or no functionality

games are ment to be fancy, that is their purpose. an OS is ment to be productive

Sirber

14th October 2006, 02:42

@Shinigami-Sama

good post! :D

Sharktooth

14th October 2006, 02:57

Firewalls and security tools are useless...
if your system is "safe" all that crap will only eat memory and CPU cycles without doing anything good.
Personally i have no antivirus nor antispyware nor firewall nor antishit installed... and my system is pretty fast and productive. i dont want 800MBs of allocated memory at system startup (like Vista does) just coz the OS is full of bloatware.
I want a fast, responsive and reliable OS that's able to run my applications and games. M$ gone the opposite way...

Sirber

14th October 2006, 03:08

I run ClamWin (non resident) and Windows Defender (resident). As firewall, my dlink does it. SW firewalls on Win32 are just POS.

Shinigami-Sama

14th October 2006, 04:10

everytime I turn a firewall on XP, any XP, I get hacked and numerous bugs arise; I'll stick to hardware firewalls that allow me have full LAN functionality and security
as for AV I use nod32 currently
been looking into getting a volume licence with a couple buddies for Panda, seems like a good one, to bad it costs so much

leave high level security to people that know how to do it. M$ needs to stick to the low level security. Leave the real world securing the pros. albiet symantic and macafee are far from pros, they do a better job than anything M$ could pull out their asses.

Sirber

14th October 2006, 09:45

mcafee is POS as well as notron AV. Norton is getting like M$, more effort is put on the memory hog user interface than on performance.

Eretria-chan

14th October 2006, 12:43

an OS is a supporting platform
not an application ment to create a fancy UI with little or no functionality

games are ment to be fancy, that is their purpose. an OS is ment to be productive

Perhaps it needs those resources to be fancy.

Imagine this:

I have 2GB RAM and I play with my RAW pictures:
Nikon Capture NX: 600MB RAM
Photoshop CS2: 300MB RAM
Photomatix Pro: 500MB RAM
Opera: 200MB RAM
plus all the crap that runs on my PC.

I don't want the OS to swap my running apps so it can have fun making fancy graphics and effects and eating all my RAM with useless buffers and crap.
Imagine this:

All your software is taking too much memory and poor Windows have nothing left to work with. Windows fault or apps fault or your hardware's fault?

I find some here very paranoid. Software firewalls are not a bad thing. I used a good one on XP all the time with no problems. And I don't see this problem with memory cunsumption people complain about... if you have a good PC, then it won't matter.

an OS is a supporting platform
not an application ment to create a fancy UI with little or no functionality

games are ment to be fancy, that is their purpose. an OS is ment to be productive
Who are you to judge what the OS does with the resouces? Maybe it would like to be fancy so users have fun using their computer and maybe it uses the resources to be productive and more stable.
Computer makers have been putting too little RAM in all machines nowadays and that is hardly Microsoft's fault.

Sharktooth

14th October 2006, 13:05

foxyshadis

14th October 2006, 13:32

always OS fault. The memory manager is part of the OS.
The OS should manage resources for APPLICATIONS not for itself.
Stop talking BS. You have no clue of what you're talking about.
If you want a car that looks cool with neons and stuff but cant reach 50KPH then go buy it... but most customers want other kind of cars...
800MB of allocated memory at startup is just RIDICULOUS.

The memory manager is deisgned to free it when another application allocates memory. What's so hard to understand about that? The OS doesn't just suck it all up and leave every other application with the last 100MB to share, it eats away at the cache as necessary (same way .Net garbage collection works) and only eats up what gets deallocated. Not swapping out other stuff at will. While the caching might not always hit the right files, it'll speed up some things and not affect others, since it only happens when I/O queues are empty. Additionally, it can be disabled. You and Sirber just sound petulant.

I haven't tested the final implementation, I don't know if it'll be hot or the next nt indexing service, but neither have you, and most I know who have say it's just one of those ways vista feels more responsive than xp. Saying the idea is bad is like saying the idea of drive indexing is bad, since that makes huge caches on your hard drive and reads it at idle times too, but many good and popular ones have come out since google's.

I strongly doubt they will, at least any significantly. Unlike real world goods, wich get cheaper to manufacture and thus get sold cheaper and cheaper, I dont think any Windows version has been variably priced. Their monopoly allows 'em to enforce that "one price fits all" policy.

That's true, I was thinking of the OEM price. You can often find XP Pro for the same price as XP Home these days, especially for Acers, which might be $50 or less of the total price of the machine. But retail it's still as if it was released yesterday.

Sharktooth

14th October 2006, 14:06

The memory manager is deisgned to free it when another application allocates memory. What's so hard to understand about that? The OS doesn't just suck it all up and leave every other application with the last 100MB to share, it eats away at the cache as necessary (same way .Net garbage collection works) and only eats up what gets deallocated. Not swapping out other stuff at will. While the caching might not always hit the right files, it'll speed up some things and not affect others, since it only happens when I/O queues are empty. Additionally, it can be disabled. You and Sirber just sound petulant.
It's not cache... its bloatware...
Have you tried Vista RC1 with "only" 1gig of RAM?
It's like running XP with 128 megs...
However my post was in response of Eretria-chan.

Eretria-chan

14th October 2006, 15:09

Shinigami-Sama

14th October 2006, 23:12

Who are you to judge what the OS does with the resouces? Maybe it would like to be fancy so users have fun using their computer and maybe it uses the resources to be productive and more stable.
Computer makers have been putting too little RAM in all machines nowadays and that is hardly Microsoft's fault.
as a student working my way to an MSCE in Win Server 2003, I say I have a pretty good idea of what an OS is supposed to; I also plan on getting my MCSA in XP and my Solaris certs within two years.

though, I do agree with you on the manufacture's putting to little RAM in machines; even if they put cheap PC2700 in them insted of PC3200 and give atleast 2GB I'd agree with you your points.

Sharktooth

15th October 2006, 03:49

No, some of it is cache... Windows automatically releases reserved memory when memory usage increases.
Oh and I have run Vista (it was and is RC1) on a machine with only one gigabyte of RAM and it worked fine. The bottleneck was the HD, which when I switch out, gave a nice speed boost and Vista worked fine.
This was also on a Laptop, if it means anything.
i know that some is cache... only when you have enough system RAM.
1GB is not enough for Vista, and games are the proof. For example you will need 2GB to run Battlefield 2 decently on Vista when it runs flawlessly with 1GB on XP.

Eretria-chan

15th October 2006, 12:42

It may just be a game flaw. It was designed for XP, not Vista. Vista runs fine on 1 GB.
Anyway, it seems Microsoft is giving sway over the PatchGuard issue (http://www.winbeta.org/comments.php?id=5076&catid=1), mostly due to EU.
It's funny. When companies can't convince Microsoft, they go to EU. And when it's EU, Microsoft listens. They don't want to get in fight with them.
From a programmer's standpoint, it seems much better to allow limited access to the kernel via APIs than unrestricted access via unsupported Kernel Patching.

Sharktooth

15th October 2006, 14:28

M$ was scared by all the critiques from major supporting companies like Symantec and McAfee.
As i said in another thread M$ is more concerned about companies requests than users requests.
However almost all games on Vista run better with 2GB while they were performing perfectly with 1GB on XP.
It's all a matter of ram used (not by cache) at startup. The visual interface itself is a hogger...

Shinigami-Sama

15th October 2006, 19:33

Sirber

15th October 2006, 20:22

My next "PC" might be a mac mini. RealAnime 6 will work on it by the time I get one :)

dragongodz

16th October 2006, 13:35

i will just give my quick thoughts on bells and whistles. hmm so how many people sit there watching how pretty windows looks ? how many people go "ahhhh" every time they drag a window and its opaque(for example) ?
nobody i know thats for sure. the OS is the backbone and should be smooth and responsive for the real things you will be running and not some pretty display you are expected to go gaga over.
just my 2 cents worth. :)

now on to something i found funny about vistas EULA.
http://www.theinq.com/default.aspx?article=35108
i am sure all the review sites will love that little restriction. yes, ok its probably cack handed phrasing as suggested but still damn funny.

Sharktooth

16th October 2006, 14:23

LOL another invalid limitation in the illegal (at least in italy and some other EU countries) EULA...
LOL... that's fun and scary at the same time... M$ is publicly going against users...

Eretria-chan

16th October 2006, 17:50

maybe its because the games require a certain ammount of ram?
and seeing as how vista like to suck up ram like something I wont metion here, and it leaves little to nothing on a system with 1GB ram thats the problem?

OS should be lightweight and responsive; not flashy resource swindling pigs. Why do you think all the mega compaies like Visa use unix(Solaris) insted of windows?
more security, smaller footprint, more responsive, higher scablity
sunOS5.10 only requires 256MB ram for the X86 version, 512 for PXE booting

and theres no way in hell, that adding more code can make something more reliable and stable; the more you add the more points of failure are introduced.

Something doesn't really tell me they use it over Windows because Windows uses a little more RAM...
And you are like hardcore users who care nothing that things look good. Actually, things should look a little pretty (which is something that microsoft is good at) and be easy to use (microsoft gains a half point here; sometimes their products are too easy to use and hence loses functionality), and of course, bug free (microsoft loses here big time).

There are a lot of things that an OS can do with RAM but you just want all of that to yourself... some might not. The OS is the backbone and should provide a rich user interface (so you won't scare away users) and rich experience and functionality. Yes, that means even sacrificing some RAM.

My bottom line is, Vista's requirements are not unrealistic. Although, the EULA, the DRM, and all that is not very nice.

Sharktooth

16th October 2006, 18:09

*nix + xgl and compiz can do the same with much less wasted RAM (linux has cache also).
So, my point of view is Vista is a bloated pile of crap.
It's a behemoth that eats resources and CPU cycles for some "not so good" eye-candy (OSX looks better to me) and to enforce user restrictions (DRM, WGA, etc...).

Sharktooth

16th October 2006, 18:15

Windows Vista's Enthusiastic Licensing Restrictions: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing_reply.asp

Eretria-chan

16th October 2006, 18:56

Sirber

16th October 2006, 19:37

Microsoft is and always were a bastard. That license is absolutely ridiculous, but still...
I would prefer a stable, pretty and a OS with actually GUI, instead of command lines, which uses up a little more resources than a dull, hard-to-use dull OS like Linux.
But that is up to each one.It's hard to generalize 45000 linux distributions with the words "hard-to-use dull".
Seems to me that you have no clue on what you are talking about.

Sharktooth

16th October 2006, 19:44

@eretria-chan: Ah yeah... better shooting my balls than move my ass... that's it?

Eretria-chan

16th October 2006, 20:09

It's hard to generalize 45000 linux distributions with the words "hard-to-use dull".
Seems to me that you have no clue on what you are talking about.

I forgot to add IMO (or maybe it's really hard for the casual user, who use computers mostly without knowing anything about the OS and who LOVES GUIs and feel confused about CLI apps?).
@Sharktooth: I won't comment on that, since we seem to have extremely different views on what an OS should do.

Sharktooth

16th October 2006, 20:10

OS should run programs. It is thought and made for that (yes it's a bit restrictive but that's the original purpouse).
Maybe you should read a bit about OSes on some books...

Eretria-chan

16th October 2006, 20:25

An OS should manage the computer and the hardware and create a interface so that the users can use their computer.
Okay, calling Linux hard was a bit harsh since I've never used it. Maybe a better word would be ufamiliar, since I wouldn't know where everything I needed would be.

Also a definition can vary and there is no harm in expanding the definition of something as long as it brings something good, hm?

Sharktooth

16th October 2006, 20:35

i cant see "eye-candy" in that definition... and neither "memory hogging"...

As defined on wikipedia:
An operating system (OS) is a software program that manages the hardware and software resources of a computer. At the foundation of all system software, the OS performs basic tasks such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing system requests, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking, and managing files. It also may provide a graphical user interface for higher level functions.
That implies the graphical user interface is "optional"... however a desktop OS without it would be a bit hard to use... but still, "eye-candy" is not necessary... expecially when it comes at the cost of performance and memory usage.

Eretria-chan

16th October 2006, 20:39

No, granted that's a negative, but other things such as APIs. Are they documented in the definition?
I can't say Vista will be a big hit - there aren't much of improvements.
Some will like the eye candy and some will like the "cache" and other "things" that results in "memory hogging," some won't. And we aren't forced to use Vista anyway.

We all make a choice in what OS we use and memory is still cheap and eye candy can be turned off.
But I think that actually wraps up everything for this case.

Sharktooth

16th October 2006, 20:50

the memory hogging is not cache... it's just tons of processes and the graphical interface that eat a lot of RAM!
However i highly doubt we have choice...
Most PCs and Notebooks (expecially the branded ones) come with a MS OS preinstalled (OEM)... so, a new PC user will be almost forced to get Vista along with all its limitations, DRM, WGA, user restrictions, etc...

Eretria-chan

16th October 2006, 20:57

Format the HD and install XP. Won't that work? And new computers will probably have more RAM to countereffect the "memory hogging."
Or just pirate the damned thing like lots of people are going to.

Sirber

16th October 2006, 21:27

What's bad is in your laptop is you have to buy M$ OS. I can't find any with no OS.

foxyshadis

16th October 2006, 22:47

http://www.sagernotebook.com/index.html
And there are other companies that will do it.Just not big name brands.

And the old fashioned way: build your own with a barebones.
http://www.directron.com/nbbarebone.html

Shinigami-Sama

17th October 2006, 00:37

reepa

17th October 2006, 01:02

The OS is the backbone and should provide a rich user interface (so you won't scare away users) and rich experience and functionality.

GUIs like WinXP's default teletubby scare me away :/

foxyshadis

17th October 2006, 08:26

Eretria-chan, I have to agree with shark; go buy a book on OSes, I have taken 6 already. I have used Linux(red hat, Gentoo), MS, w95, 98 2000, XP, 2003server, 2000server and Sun Solaris 10. What you seems to think an OS should do is what a seperate program should do; not something that is a rushed POS attempt of a graphical shell. I bet with another 6 months of work into the shell they could drop the memory requirements down to 600MB at the very least, probly down to 300, which is a bit more acceptable.
Apparently you've never used NT 3.1 though. At the time, it was the godawful slowest memory hog operating system ever released, full of useless junk and chrome like you wouldn't believe. People hated it because its hardware requirements were just too far ahead of the curve, but 3.5 and moore's law brought them down quite a bit; I expect the same thing will happen within the year in Vista's case.

Back in those days, all that an OS was supposed to do was read and write your files, abstract your memory, and give you some basic UI widgets to play with. If it was unix, it should have text-only UI and very basic security subsystems. But NT added to windows all this memory management junk, SMP, driver abstraction, process separation, threading and pre-emptive multitasking, POSIX, file security, stability, things that no one in their right mind is ever going to use and took up all the memory and then some. Obviously, an OS should read and write my files and leave the heavy lifting to all the applications that I choose to install, right?

God, I am sick of the pontificating in here about "an OS should do this and not this, and I should know because I'm so much more experienced than you and have an MCSE, now run along little kid". The scope of operating systems has expanded steadily over the years, deal with it or go back to an Apple II.

Eretria-chan

17th October 2006, 14:19

Eretria-chan, I have to agree with shark; go buy a book on OSes, I have taken 6 already. I have used Linux(red hat, Gentoo), MS, w95, 98 2000, XP, 2003server, 2000server and Sun Solaris 10. What you seems to think an OS should do is what a seperate program should do; not something that is a rushed POS attempt of a graphical shell.

Something has to make life easy for us and like it nor some people LIKE pretty GUI, although you may not like it because you seem to be dedicated to Linux which has mostly not pretty GUI and "a lot of junk." But I find what Windows brings a good lot of things because it has made life easier. Otherwise, we could just have lived with DOS, no? I mean, hey, it's a perfect OS because pretty much all it does is allow you to run programs with no GUI at all and no junk!

I bet with another 6 months of work into the shell they could drop the memory requirements down to 600MB at the very least, probly down to 300, which is a bit more acceptable.
I would hardly call Vista's requirements unreasonable. They are NOTHING compared to our current specs. If your specs to not condone, go use pre-XP or whatever.
I agree that it is a good thing to bring down things as much as possible, and I'm sure Microsoft could do that, if they had enough time but they probably won't because that's Microsoft for you. Heck, they could probably bring down the requirements for PS 2.0 to PS 1.4 or something, but maybe they want to indulge themselves a little.
Hardly anyone has a non-PS 2.0 card nowadays and I think it may be a little luxury they can use. With it, they can add some more feature maybe that makes life easier for us or make better and richer experience.

GUIs like WinXP's default teletubby scare me away :/
Noone forces you to use it. Go back to DOS. I find XP's interface quite pleasant than the dull pre-XP interface.

Sharktooth

17th October 2006, 14:49

Go back to what? M$ dropped ALL support for OSes older than XP SP2.
That means, no updates, no compatible softwares (from MS, and slowly from other companies), no security fixes etc...
It's a matter of time, Windows XP will be phased out and users would have only three choices: Vista (with all the restrictions), Mac (with few less restrictions) or *nix (with virtually no restrictions).
The consequencies of this forced choice could be a differentiation betweeen the "rich" user that have enough money to accept all the BS from M$ and Apple and the "not-so-rich" user that doesnt want to or cant spend a $hitload of $$$ just for the Vista and future M$ and Apple OSes restrictions so it chooses FREEDOM (GNU/Linux).
The linux adoption is rising... there will be more "competent" ppl (linux requires to have some competence to correctly use it) and more attempt to hack and crack those services based on ridiculous restrictions M$, Apple and other dumbasses decided to apply to make more money... and so on...

Eretria-chan

17th October 2006, 15:10

Some people just don't have that competence. An OS should be easy to use. And I am hardly a fan of Linux "business model." To me, Linux looks like DOS with more compatibility.
Piracy will likely increase. If Linux would be more easier to use, and actually provide a little more "bells and whistles" maybe Microsoft would get a competitor, although small to emerge in due time and maybe then Microsoft would start fixing their OS in the right way.

Besides... even if older OSes have no support, you do have Linux, right? And I can't say I've ever contacted Microsoft support.

Sharktooth

17th October 2006, 15:20

Linux provides ALL YOU NEED thru repositories. It's enough easy to use since the "competence" doesnt require university studies...
The "competence" is: know what an OS is and the ability to find informations on manuals and on the web.
M$ objective was reached some years ago: make the users DUMB and LAZY so they dont read the manuals, do not look for info on the web and do not know what an OS is...
You dont drive your car without a driving licence... dont use any unknown device without reading the manual... dont install a car stereo without checking the documentation...
So why the heck you should use a so compilcated piece of software without getting informed on how to use it? Coz M$ "teached" you it's useless, so they can drive (restrict) your actions to what they want you to do (make them happy and full of $$$).
Im sorry, but it's time ppl start to use their brain...

Eretria-chan

17th October 2006, 15:42

M$ objective was reached some years ago: make the users DUMB and LAZY so they dont read the manuals, do not look for info on the web and do not know what an OS is...
Well, no, I don't think Microsoft did that. Believe it or not - idiots are born every day and some do not even know how to turn on a computer. Now THAT is something. Go figure.

You dont drive your car without a driving licence... dont use any unknown device without reading the manual... dont install a car stereo without checking the documentation...
Funny. I've been arguing the same thing, as well. Don't know how to use a computer? Then don't use it.

So why the heck you should use a so compilcated piece of software without getting informed on how to use it? Coz M$ "teached" you it's useless, so they can drive (restrict) your actions to what they want you to do (make them happy and full of $$$).
I can't agree on that. Some things are complicated, even for those who are "smart" as you and I. I may have trouble finding some things and believe it nor, it is actually NICE to have a GOOD interface that lessens the learning curve or the need to find information. In some cases, like MeGUI, I have like NO idea how to use it. None whatsoever and I don't WANT to read a 10-page long manual to know how to use it. Leave that software to the experts. I'm sure they'll love it since it's so advanced.
I'm sorry but that's the way it is. Some people want to get on with what they're doing without reading manuals for each and every little thing. Besides, I think it is proven that it is much simpler to learn if a program instructs you when you use it rather than reading a manual (look at games, for example).

Im sorry, but it's time ppl start to use their brain...

I agree on that too.

Sharktooth

17th October 2006, 15:52

LOL... you make me laugh... you're the tipical MS indoctrinated victim.
You wont drive coz you're to lazy... you would call a technician to swap a lightbulb... you wont try different ways coz you're view is so restricted you can see only one way...
Even games have manuals... but applications are not made for entertainment... they're a bit more complex than games made for 6 years old kids... you HAVE TO RTFM! and use your brain.
Dont think all the world is lazy and there will always be someone that does things for you... welcome to the real world where you have to move your ass.

JohnnyMalaria

17th October 2006, 15:54

Linux provides ALL YOU NEED thru repositories.

No it doesn't. It doesn't supply what I need.

It's enough easy to use since the "competence" doesnt require university studies...
The "competence" is: know what an OS is and the ability to find informations on manuals and on the web.

Are you serious? That's the way it *used* to be and was why personal computers were *not* in the mainstream. It is *because* Microsoft "dumbed it down" (along with Apple) to make it easier to learn that PCs are so prevalent. If you have ever worked in a multi-national corporation you will know exactly why it is so important.

M$ objective was reached some years ago: make the users DUMB and LAZY so they dont read the manuals, do not look for info on the web and do not know what an OS is...

And rightly so. The OS (along with the rest of the computer) is just a tool. It's operation should be *intuitive" so that you can put it to use without having to go through a painful learning curve.

You dont drive your car without a driving licence... dont use any unknown device without reading the manual... dont install a car stereo without checking the documentation...
So why the heck you should use a so compilcated piece of software without getting informed on how to use it? Coz M$ "teached" you it's useless, so they can drive (restrict) your actions to what they want you to do (make them happy and full of $$$).
Im sorry, but it's time ppl start to use their brain...

Let's extend your argument. Do you read the operating manual for every car you drive? Or do you make assumptions about the operation? Think about how much of a modern car arose from the "make it DUMB and LAZY" concept. Let's go back to hand-cranking the engine, manual chokes, double-declutching. And get rid of all the stupid people in the world who don't have the mental capacity to drive such a vehicle.

Or...let's take all the DUMB and LAZY features out of TVs. Here's a screwdriver, there's the capacitor - go tune it to the station you need. And there are the gain pots for the red, green and blue guns. Tweak those to get the picture right. If you get stuck, fire up your Linux box to go to the web to find out what to do. Oh - you are still building your Linux box and thought you'd take a break and watch TV....Well, try to remember that all that nice hardware you have bought wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for the millions of Microsoft based PCs out there. The hardware manufacturers wouldn't have bothered OR, if they had, you would be paying probably 10 to 100 times more for it. And paying for stuff is what really irks most Linux proponents. Otherwise you'd be singing the praises of Unix.

JohnnyMalaria

17th October 2006, 16:08

Go back to what? M$ dropped ALL support for OSes older than XP SP2.
That means, no updates, no compatible softwares (from MS, and slowly from other companies), no security fixes etc...

That's incorrect.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/?sort=PN&alpha=windows&x=13&y=9

Extended support for Windows 2000 will be available until July 2010 - this includes security updates.

Plus, "dropping support" doesn't mean that all the existing updates aren't available. They are. It means that new fixes etc won't be implemented.

Eretria-chan

17th October 2006, 16:10

LOL... you make me laugh... you're the tipical MS indoctrinated victim.
No, you can't see through the clouds.
I don't like Microsoft. I use Windows? Yes. Why? Because Linux is not up-to-date with a typical user such as I might want.
I learn much of programs without the need of a manual.

You wont drive coz you're to lazy... you would call a technician to swap a lightbulb... you wont try different ways coz you're view is so restricted you can see only one way...
You are quite wrong. I tend to try a lot of things and I try to save MONEY as well, by trying to do things myself.
I don't drive because of the learning curve to get a license. And cards pollute the environment anyway.

Even games have manuals... but applications are not made for entertainment... they're a bit more complex than games made for 6 years old kids... you HAVE TO RTFM! and use your brain.
You just don't get it. It DOES NOT MATTER if it's for entertainment or not. This is about getting to KNOW the application you use. Yes, games are applications too. To play the game, you need to know how to do it. To use an application, you need to know how to use it.
Heck, even if you go to a education, when you later get a job, you're still a rookie, no? You first start to get the REAL knowledge when you get experience and when maybe someone there TEACHES you what is good and what is not.
The same goes for application. Help the user by making it easy to use the application.
JohnnyMalaria brings up VERY good points. As I see it, opening up the TV and manually tuning it to display what you want is exactly like using MeGUI. You really need to READ a manual first. And even so, it still might not be easy!
...But hey, if you could do it on the TV and it guided you through it... wouldn't that be easier?

Dont think all the world is lazy and there will always be someone that does things for you... welcome to the real world where you have to move your ass.

Welcome to the real world yourself - everyone does not have the knowledge to learn EVERYTHING. The basic of applications--and other stuff, be it computers, hardware or tools--is to hide the "hard" part for the users and make it easy to use. To simplify our lives. Why does there exist a lot of people who helps us with things? Why are there guides? I could just go to the internet and find that information myself. Yeah! But then again, that would take time which I might just want to spend elsewhere... hmmm... and it might not be as easy.

You just don't get that people don't find it fun to go info hunting or reading thick manuals. If you can EASE some of this burden, then GO FOR IT.

Ever liked reading an EULA? No, I don't like it either... I would prefer to not to, if I could. Same thing goes for people having to gather info or read a thick manual before doing anything. It's just not fun...
Plus some people, like handicapped people, cannot do this! They are handicapped! Some are born with defects. Are you simply willing to throw them away because of your way of doing things?

Shinigami-Sama

17th October 2006, 16:59

Well I see this is talking to wall now, I'm done. We're off topic anyways

Sirber

17th October 2006, 17:12

I tend to try a lot of things and I try to save MONEY as well, by trying to do things myself.Saving money AND buying windows / office are kinda opposite.

Eretria-chan

17th October 2006, 17:37

Saving money AND buying windows / office are kinda opposite.

I bought neither. Sure, Windows comes with any new PC purchase - I'll have to live with that - but other than that...

Sirber

17th October 2006, 17:42

I bought neither.Warez doesn't mean the softwares are free ;)

Eretria-chan

17th October 2006, 17:51

Didn't buy doesn't mean Warez either.
Vista RC1 is free (it's still Beta). You'll find Office in most schools / offices.
And Office 2007 Beta 2 WAS free (can still be aquired for a small download fee) and Office Technical Beta 2 is free.
And warez means the software is aquired (often free). It doesn't mean the software IS free, but that it was AQUIRED in an illegal way, often free.

Sirber

17th October 2006, 18:09

What will you do when Vista and Office 2007 comes out of beta, and the betas timeouts (timebombs (C) Microsoft)?

Eretria-chan

17th October 2006, 18:51

I'll go back to XP OR pirate the damned thing. And probably pirate office. Yup, the sad truth. Microsoft IS overpricing their programs and using monopoly. We're doomed.

Sharktooth

17th October 2006, 20:22

Talking to a wall... im off as well.

Sirber

17th October 2006, 21:17

Talking to a wall... im off as well.Same here, useless conversation while it stays OT.

Sharktooth

17th October 2006, 21:50

New article about Vista licenses on ExtremeTech: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2030005,00.asp

Sirber

17th October 2006, 21:59

From past experience with Windows XP, a motherboard swap triggers a re-activation. I've successfully reactivated the same copy of Windows XP a number of times after a motherboard swap with no problem. But the above terms seem to indicate that the third activation will fail, meaning you, dear reader, get to feed the Microsoft machine more money.Maybe Vista will be more secure for the machine, but will the user feel more secure too? "Please motherboard don't break!"

Sharktooth

18th October 2006, 14:01

Oh well... i doubt it will be more secure for the machine too...
It's always M$...

Inventive Software

18th October 2006, 14:35

Doesn't that make Linux and ReactOS more attractive then, in the wake of Vista?

Sirber

18th October 2006, 16:49

ReactOS is by far from usable...

Sharktooth

18th October 2006, 19:03

Doesn't that make Linux and ReactOS more attractive then, in the wake of Vista?
ReactOS is still too "alpha"... but linux...

Eretria-chan

19th October 2006, 10:46

"We'll just take all savvy information about your computer, including its contents prior to activating. Furthermore, this information is ours and we will do with it what we will and you have no say over it. If we want, we can sell this information, including personal information, as we sit fit, to whoever we see fit. Thank you for your cooperation."
Privacy? What privacy? Microsoft likes to "respect our privacy," but I don't see a privacy here. OK, so it doesn't spell out like this, but I'll be damned if this is not what Microsoft will do.

Sirber

19th October 2006, 12:05

@Eretria-chan

It's fun to see you bash Microsoft on every aspect, but you are the first to use it's products saying there are no alternative.

Eretria-chan

19th October 2006, 12:10

I believe Microsoft is going the right away with user interface and experience, but it's using monopoly to conquer and enforce its cruel laws upon us.
Microsoft Windows is the only OS that I believe has the potential to be an OS.

Sirber

19th October 2006, 12:52

Microsoft Windows is the only OS that I believe has the potential to be an OS.It's also the only OS you tryed.

foxyshadis

19th October 2006, 20:37

Office 2007 looks like the future of office software - better contextual workflow, better separation between common and rarely used functionality. Vista doesn't bring that kind of dire UI upgrade to the table, at best it makes a few things easier & simpler, and a lot of things shinier. I like it the same way I liked XP - cool, but offered nothing over 2k until applications started coming out supporting xp-only features or things it does much better. (Like widespread wifi, hardware, and new game performance.)

2003 was an exception for me because it cleaned up network administration UI hugely compared to 2000 (which was itself hugely better than NT's), and those are things I use all the time. I don't see differences anywhere near that in vista server.

Sharktooth

21st October 2006, 03:46

Uhm... is this the direction M$ is going?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/technology/19soft.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

And voila, M$ and security: http://www.tcmagazine.info/comments.php?shownews=12599&catid=2
Oops...

dragongodz

21st October 2006, 07:55

at best it makes a few things easier & simpler, and a lot of things shinier.
hmm didnt i read somewhere that vista required a directx 9 video card or directx 10 for full effects like aero ? now tell me again how putting a heap of special fx all over the desktop and to any and all simple functions makes it really simpler. its pure bloat and is just to impress people who, for whatever reason, sit there watching their desktops rather than running other software(whether games or utilities) or doing anything productive.

this looks rather nasty aswell
http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/10/19/forbidding_vistas_windows_licensing_disserves_the_user.html
especially 4, 5 and 6.

foxyshadis

21st October 2006, 19:42

I didn't mean Aero makes anything simpler, that's where the shinier comment came from. I mean vista's interface simplifies certain (local and network) administrative tasks, most notably running as non-admin.

dragongodz

22nd October 2006, 03:37

that's where the shinier comment came from
yes and that shinier is what i said was pure bloat. MS should concentrate on functionality rather than trying to wow people by how pretty the can make their desktop fx.

vista is a good example MS has lost the plot with that. i would say they have lost the plot with a lot of things ,considering that last link i posted though.

Shinigami-Sama

22nd October 2006, 03:46

Atleast MS is still making good hardware(mice/keyboards, !xbox) maybe I can get them to work under solaris I wonder...

anyways. I still dont understand how they can put those things in their EULA; some of them appear to violate many of my consumer rights. Yet the second I make a move agaisn't their profit margins I get painted as a man with a parite and an eyepatch?
I feel they're pirating my rights away >:R

I find more and more the only reason I'm even using windows anymore is lack of time to migrate; and solaris class is changing that. I even have a solaris workstation I get access to; so maybe switching over isn't going to be all the bad eh?

dragongodz

22nd October 2006, 04:01

yes number 5 is especially nasty IMHO. so if i decide to do major upgrades(motherboard + cpu + hard drives etc, effectivly making a new system) or to buy a pre-built new system more than once in vistas lifespan then i would be expected to buy vista again ? sorry but that is a plain rippoff and blatant money grubbing.
what next, making the OS limited to the exact first hardware its installed to so any changes at all mean paying again, thus ensuring more future income for MS ? that certainly seems the route MS is trying to take with such "agreements".

Henrikx

22nd October 2006, 11:20

what next, making the OS limited to the exact first hardware....

But greed is a bottomless pit
And our freedom's a joke, we're just taking a piss
And the whole world must watch the sad comic display
If you're still free, start running away

Artist :Bright Eyes :
Song :Landlocked Blues

Eretria-chan

22nd October 2006, 18:08

yes and that shinier is what i said was pure bloat. MS should concentrate on functionality rather than trying to wow people by how pretty the can make their desktop fx.

vista is a good example MS has lost the plot with that. i would say they have lost the plot with a lot of things ,considering that last link i posted though.

Shinier is not always everything it can do. Many applications try to do nice interfaces, too, you know, and shiny graphics help them. Besides, with the help of Aero, Flip 3D was possible, which is actually better than the normal Alt + tab. I'm sure that if Microsoft have time, they could find more useful functions with Aero to help.

With putting some requirements, Microsoft can make Aero future-proof for Vista. They can utilize those requirements to integrate other things that might sometimes help.
Hey, just as an example, I don't know if it might be useful, but think if you could put a comment on the backside of a window? It would be cool, though I'm not sure it would help very much. Nevertheless, t'would be possible with Aero, now that the entire desktop is rendered instead of drawn.

Concerning the whole OS issue... Windows is the only software that enables and focuses on the functionality that I wish for. I've seen Linux twice, though never really used it. But the main reason is a) little support for the needed applications and b) many application installs are not just click and install and c) Linux just isn't aimed at the mainstream or "the clueless ones." ...Or is it?
And after hearing that the Kernel changes so much and all the different versions of Vista, it'd be a nightmare to code anything for it that relies on its APIs.

Shinigami-Sama

22nd October 2006, 20:41

if its the only OS that has what you need but you've only seen another OS twice, then you can't really say that. Linux has come a long way since I last used it a year and half ago in terms of ease of use; this is just based on me playing with a buddies kunbutu machine. And installers have guides that are very easy to follow - most of the time I see its just
'emerge [path to installer]'

I havn't seen 'flip 3d' yet, but for alt-tabing I just use MS's powertools version of it

Sirber

22nd October 2006, 21:22

emerge is for gentoo, not ubuntu ;)

foxyshadis

22nd October 2006, 21:57

Shinier is not always everything it can do. Many applications try to do nice interfaces, too, you know, and shiny graphics help them. Besides, with the help of Aero, Flip 3D was possible, which is actually better than the normal Alt + tab. I'm sure that if Microsoft have time, they could find more useful functions with Aero to help.
Five years of development isn't enough time to come up with compelling applications beyond ripping off silly demos Sun was showing off at trade shows over a decade ago? Man, with another five years they might have even come up with spatial projection as a means of locating apps when switching. Hey, another Sun demo!

Concerning the whole OS issue... Windows is the only software that enables and focuses on the functionality that I wish for. I've seen Linux twice, though never really used it. But the main reason is a) little support for the needed applications and b) many application installs are not just click and install and c) Linux just isn't aimed at the mainstream or "the clueless ones."

Wine works with over 90% of my applications these days. It's not quite as stable as XP, but it's better than 98. It even has rudimentary support for DirectDraw and Direct3d, so apps that accellerate their UI aren't left in the dust. Windows installers usually work, too. (Viruses usually don't, fortunately.)

Shinigami-Sama

22nd October 2006, 22:39

emerge is for gentoo, not ubuntu ;)

debian is the one I was playing with - didn't install anything so I assumed they were the same. Other buddies use gentoo so thats where I got the emerge from.

and if I really wanted a nice shiny desktop I'd use the JDE that Sun Solaris has; I like the streamline of CDE better though

Eretria-chan

23rd October 2006, 00:52

Five years of development isn't enough time to come up with compelling applications beyond ripping off silly demos Sun was showing off at trade shows over a decade ago? Man, with another five years they might have even come up with spatial projection as a means of locating apps when switching. Hey, another Sun demo!
That's Microsoft for you ;) They'e the leaders in OS and face pretty much no competition. They don't NEED to do anything, right?

Wine works with over 90% of my applications these days. It's not quite as stable as XP, but it's better than 98. It even has rudimentary support for DirectDraw and Direct3d, so apps that accellerate their UI aren't left in the dust. Windows installers usually work, too. (Viruses usually don't, fortunately.)

I know about Wine, but I still don't want to emulate all apps / games.

Further speaking of the Linux subject: I know I haven't tested it, and I don't plan to because a) compability (Wine doesn't count for me... I just don't want to emulate all software and hope they all work. And I don't want to get Linux-dedicated Firewall or other security, if needed) and b) with the talk of the ever changing core and APIs, it seems like a nightmare to develop for and c) I'm not FAMILIAR with it!!! and d) I like pretty interfaces.

Concerning Flip 3D, it basically shows all your windows in a list in 3D and you can flip through them like Alt + tab. This way, you can see their contents.

Shinigami-Sama

23rd October 2006, 00:55

I can do something similar with the powertoys alt+tab; someone at MSDN or technet made it. So I fail to see the point.
but your opion is your opinion

foxyshadis

23rd October 2006, 01:50

I know about Wine, but I still don't want to emulate all apps / games.

You run on x86 right? I mean, you'd have to, if you're running XP/Vista now. Wine isn't emulation, anymore than Citrix emulates GDI, unlike VMWare, VirtualPC, and Xen. Wine runs all program code directly, and only system calls (eg, open/save boxes, file read/write, networking, crypto, etc) are run by Wine, nearly as fast as Windows. It's an implementation of the Win32 API, not an emulation environment.

Now Wine on a Sparc or Power, not going to happen without an underlying ISA emulation layer.

dragongodz

23rd October 2006, 02:31

Many applications try to do nice interfaces, too, you know, and shiny graphics help them.
of course. however there is "nice interface" and "bloated pointless fx which actually add nothing". vista is definatly looking like the second to me.

as for needing aero or directx 10 to be able to add certain functions, sorry but that just sound like MS is being super lazy to me. look at some of the bigger games over the last couple of years. they didnt need directx 10 and they are as impressive as hell. now a desktop needs directx 9 minimum and directx 10 to be fully functional ? sorry but that is plain ridiculous.

Linux just isn't aimed at the mainstream or "the clueless ones." ...Or is it?
there have been distros aimed at newbs for sure. just try out a recent live cd/dvd of something like knoppix(just an example) and you will see its not that hard to use. yes you may have to do some things a little different but it certainly isnt some black magic. ;)

b) many application installs are not just click and install
depends. for example some distros are setup to open installers the moment you click on a relevant file.then you just click the install button like always.

b) with the talk of the ever changing core and APIs, it seems like a nightmare to develop for
sorry but thats not really true. you do not have to keep upgrading the core etc. no matter if there has been patches/updates to it.

c) I'm not FAMILIAR with it!!!
and until you are you shouldnt just right it off as being unusable or for elites only or ugly or whatever. with vista we already have a version to try(yes i looked at the RC on a freinds pc for about 3 hours) and while it looks pretty its not actually that much more usable than xp already is. :)

Eretria-chan

23rd October 2006, 08:19

of course. however there is "nice interface" and "bloated pointless fx which actually add nothing". vista is definatly looking like the second to me.
Well, you're right... although Microsoft had to cut out 70% of Vista's code, though...

as for needing aero or directx 10 to be able to add certain functions, sorry but that just sound like MS is being super lazy to me. look at some of the bigger games over the last couple of years. they didnt need directx 10 and they are as impressive as hell. now a desktop needs directx 9 minimum and directx 10 to be fully functional ? sorry but that is plain ridiculous.
I bet you need a rendered desktop for those functions, but not DX9/10, I agree... but still... if you have a computer fast enough to run Vista, isn't the chances that you've got a PS2.0+ card? I fail to see the fuss about putting a little demand on the minimum cards, because those should be fairly common by now and aren't exactly expensive either. Requiring PS3.0 or 4.0 is another matter.

there have been distros aimed at newbs for sure. just try out a recent live cd/dvd of something like knoppix(just an example) and you will see its not that hard to use. yes you may have to do some things a little different but it certainly isnt some black magic. ;)
Fair enough...

depends. for example some distros are setup to open installers the moment you click on a relevant file.then you just click the install button like always.
I suppose. But there are some pain in the ass software out there that is not click and install, and they are mostly (yes, MOSTLY for Linux; not to say they do not exist on Windows either), and that's just plain annoying.

sorry but thats not really true. you do not have to keep upgrading the core etc. no matter if there has been patches/updates to it.
I'm more thinking of others out there, you know? ;) Should I put minimum req of Linux v 10.5.6?

and until you are you shouldnt just right it off as being unusable or for elites only or ugly or whatever. with vista we already have a version to try(yes i looked at the RC on a freinds pc for about 3 hours) and while it looks pretty its not actually that much more usable than xp already is. :)
I'm not dissing it... it's just that at this point in time, I have no interest in testing it. The software teams who make Linux goals are different from that of Microsoft or my opinion.
No DRM to be sure, but I don't think pretty interfaces will make their way into Linux THAT easily...
And pretty much the only thing that holds me back to x86 is that the 64-bit software OS are incompatible with things, that stupid "signing driver" plicy and just plainly lack drivers. Otherwise I'd be on XP x64 by now, or Vista x64.

dragongodz

23rd October 2006, 11:21

But there are some pain in the ass software out there that is not click and install, and they are mostly (yes, MOSTLY for Linux; not to say they do not exist on Windows either), and that's just plain annoying.
generally because they of course do not need to be installed. look at QuEnc, HC, Vobblanker, PgcEdit etc. none of them need to be installed on windows. does that make them a pain in the rear or do you just extract and use ?

Should I put minimum req of Linux v 10.5.6?
the Linux core doesnt go up that fast. 2.4 was used for many, many years. now 2.6 is becoming the norm and i am sure that will stay the same for a long time aswell. there is no real need to panic over it. it is not the same thing as going from windows 98 to windows xp for example.

it's just that at this point in time, I have no interest in testing it.
and thats fair enough. however you should have some understanding of how it is now before dismissing it or what it looks like or can do etc.

but I don't think pretty interfaces will make their way into Linux THAT easily
have a look at kde, which is probably the most used linux desktop.
http://www.kde.org/screenshots/
look a bit windows like ?
you can even modify it with addons and themes etc
http://www.kde-look.org/
i am sure this one will have a familiar sort of look to you. :)
http://www.kde-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=46864&file1=46864-1.jpg&file2=&file3=&name=Vista+Glow

now does it not look just as "pretty" as what you are probably using right now ?

Sharktooth

23rd October 2006, 14:10

also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xgl
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz

Eretria-chan

25th October 2006, 09:13

Sirber

25th October 2006, 12:10

OK, so you got me on most of the points aside from compability. Though I am also not liking the idea of downloading a lot of extra for crispy UI and thus demanding that others download it to use a software, especially if it's like Microsoft's .NET and it's like 20 mb+.

http://www.sabayonlinux.org/

Sharktooth

25th October 2006, 13:42

dragongodz

25th October 2006, 14:50

the second 2 links (kde-look) are really just for things like themes and widgets to customise your desktop more, just like you can use themes etc with windows. just look at the first link to see what kde normally looks like and you will see it is windows-like already.

as i also said a lot of distros use kde and some you can select between something like kde and gnome at runtime. so its not like it would be something extra for anyone using those many distros to have to download.

also you have to remember if there is ever any requirements to download or upgrade something its free(excluding if you go for 1 of the commercial distros). compare that to how much its going to cost going to vista. :)

hmm so how did a thread about vistas security and license issues turn in to a discussion about linux again ? :D

Sharktooth

25th October 2006, 16:37

Since Linux is the only viable alternative to "Win Vista (in)security and ubelievable license restrictions".
The last part of discussion was about the OSes interfaces and it came up Linux has better interfaces (both visuals and functionalities) than Vista and with lower HW requirements.
However users are still scared by Linux (or *nix in general) coz that's still something they dont know.
Once you get used to it, it's not so scary at all... and yuo can feel the "power" of what your PC can really do.

Sirber

25th October 2006, 16:39

Once you get used to it, it's not so scary... at all.Unless you have an high end ATI card and you want TV-out ;)

Sharktooth

25th October 2006, 16:40

Unless you have an high end ATI card and you want TV-out ;)
Well, it seems an ATi Driver issue. Try using the latest beta drivers.
However dont forget AMD is a linux supporter... and since they bought ATI, things should get better.

dragongodz

27th October 2006, 14:26

Since Linux is the only viable alternative
to be fair there is MacOS aswell. no i didnt say i thought it was great. i didnt say i thought it was the best things since sliced bread. i simply state it is another alternative. though really discussion about that could probably be a whole different thread. :)

Well, it seems an ATi Driver issue. Try using the latest beta drivers.
yes, basically ATI have ignored linux users for over a year. they seem to have finally woken up and started working on updating their driver over the last few months.

back to Vista and its lovely fx like flip3d. ;)

i hope Eretria-chan you are prepared to pay for the premier version of Vista. its planned the "starter" and "home basic" versions will not have full aero.

"home basic" will have will not have a lot of the extra fx like glass , flip3d etc.
"starter" will has even less and will be closer to what XP is.

for more information read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

Sharktooth

28th October 2006, 03:17

to be fair there is MacOS aswell. no i didnt say i thought it was great. i didnt say i thought it was the best things since sliced bread. i simply state it is another alternative. though really discussion about that could probably be a whole different thread. :)
Well, the problem is MacOS wont install on non-Mac PCs... so it's not a viable alternative until you have a Mac.

foxyshadis

28th October 2006, 05:36

OS X was hacked to run on PCs a long time ago. Although I'd wait a couple months for leopard (which is rumored to be out-of-the-box pc compatible) if you ever go that route, you basically get something very similar to vista premium for about half the price. (Depending on your persuasion, supporting Jobs may be no more palatable than Gates, since they're both the same sort of monopolist.)

The only reason I'm not a big fan of Apple is that they still seem to deny the existence of the right mouse button, to say nothing of the five others I have, making context menus more painful than they need to be. 3rd party apps rarely have this problem, and it seems to have improved in the last few years.

Shinigami-Sama

28th October 2006, 07:10

my buddy booted OSX onto a Dell entryserver in my windows lab off a usb-powered mini-drive
no hacks required
it was the first version of that new intel mac bit

but you could go for sun solaris and have pretty much all that anyways as well, just less people deving for it

Sharktooth

30th October 2006, 21:45

Sirber

30th October 2006, 22:19

dragongodz

30th October 2006, 22:57

Dell and Samsung: M$ told you BS. Get 2GB to run Vista
that is not an accurate statement. they do NOT say you NEED 2gb to run vista but they reccomend it. to quote
Kevin Rollins, CEO of Dell, has recommended that users upgrade to 2GB.
which would then prompt system memory upgrades in order to successfully get the most from Vista.
so yes atleast 2gb to run vista smoothly is what they reccomend. however the MS figures are MINIMUM requirements so is not the same thing.

from the previous link i gave
According to Microsoft, computers which can run Windows Vista are classified as Vista Capable and Vista Premium Ready. A Vista Capable or equivalent PC needs to have at least 800 MHz processor, 512 MB RAM and a DirectX 9 class graphics card, and will not be capable of supporting the high end Vista graphics, including the Aero user interface. A Vista Premium Ready PC will take advantage of Vista's "high-end" features but will need at least a 1.0 GHz processor, 1 GB main memory, and an Aero-compatible graphics card with at least 128 MB graphics memory and supporting the new Windows Display Driver Model.
so if people are buying the the home basic version or starter versions of vista it will not eat as much memory as the premium version aswell.

from 80MBs (winxp)
according to that site xp uses 128mb "out of the box" at startup, not 80mb. though it can be trimmed down to 75mb by disabling things, such as not needed services. still quite a huge difference to what vista(i assume they mean premium) uses. :)

JohnnyMalaria

30th October 2006, 23:02

Dell and Samsung: M$ told you BS. Get 2GB to run Vista
http://www.tcmagazine.info/comments.php?shownews=12694&catid=2

pfff... from 80MBs (winxp) to 800MBs (vista) of system ram eaten at startup (10x !!!) just to get a fancy UI.
IMHO a bit too much...

There's additional BS here - and that's from you.

My system has 1GB and runs Vista Ultimate (with Aero etc) just fine. On start up, about 420MB are committed.

On the same hardware, an XP Pro installation is using 145MB. So your 10x isn't even 3x.

In addition, I have noticed that some applications run *better* under Vista than XP. Our own Enosoft DV Processor makes heavy use of DirectShow, DirectDraw, Firewire transfer etc and is also very multithreaded. I can achieve more realtime processing under Vista than XP. Also, Vista is able to maintain full frame rate video playback in multiple windows when, under the same circumstances, XP cannot. This is due, in large part, to the integration of the Vista desktop with the Direct3D pipeline. There is less need for graphical elements (bitmaps, for example) to be transferred backwards and forwards between system and graphics memory. Applications that use DirectDraw benefit automatically without any need to reprogram.

kumi

30th October 2006, 23:46

Applications that use DirectDraw benefit automatically without any need to reprogram.
Is this also the case when Aero is disabled?

JohnnyMalaria

31st October 2006, 00:16

Is this also the case when Aero is disabled?

I believe so.

The whole display architecture for Vista has been completely overhauled compared to XP and earlier versions of Windows.

Aero is possible because of the changes to the programming model.

There is a fairly detailed Technical Article at http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480220.aspx

One excerpt from that article:

Video Improvements

One of the goals of Windows Vista is to match the quality of video playback that people expect from mainstream consumer-electronics devices. Since video playback is dependent on the driver architecture, Windows Vista, with its upgraded driver model, is able to provide a number of video playback improvements.

Easy TV-out support

Today, connecting a PC to a TV is difficult for the average consumer. Unlike a consumer electronics device, simply plugging in a TV does not work without extensive configuration. The setup can often require an additional monitor and third-party products. WDDM eliminates connectivity issues between a TV or monitor and the PC, giving users plug and play simplicity.

Improved video playback quality

Video playback on current operating systems suffers from quality issues like excessive video glitching and poor color fidelity when compared to consumer electronic devices. WDDM provides a number of facilities to mitigate these problems.

First, WDDM enables Windows Vista and running applications to queue frames to be presented on the GPU. Second, working closely with the queuing feature is a feedback mechanism that determines when frames are presented. Together, these two features can immensely improve the quality of video playback by constantly maintaining the synchronicity between audio and video presentations, thus improving video playback and reducing video glitching substantially.

Finally, WDDM drivers also provide support for better color (gamma) correction via the Direct3D9x and Direct3D10 APIs, which in turn requires the GPU to support these APIs.

HD video playback

As mentioned above in the security section, WDDM provides support for secure playback of HD video content, a requirement of many content providers.

prOnorama

31st October 2006, 00:37

However users are still scared by Linux (or *nix in general) coz that's still something they dont know.
Once you get used to it, it's not so scary at all... and yuo can feel the "power" of what your PC can really do.

I'm mainly scared of command lines. I just don't like them.

I guess I'm not the only one. Maybe it's just very hard to design a 100% GUI based (meaning the user can do everything from a GUI) for Linux yet. Like an out of the box distro even my mom can use.

As long as there is no (Linux based) OS which can be installed and used easily by the vast majority of users I'm afraid MS will continue to hold a monopoly. It's like a car, I just need to know how to drive it, not what's under the hood.

If an userbase of a OS grows it will be more lucrative for software developers to design software for it.

Having said this all, my next PC might have Linux as OS, what I read about Vista up until now hasn't been very good to put it mildly.

kumi

31st October 2006, 05:56

First, WDDM enables Windows Vista and running applications to queue frames to be presented on the GPU. Second, working closely with the queuing feature is a feedback mechanism that determines when frames are presented. Together, these two features can immensely improve the quality of video playback by constantly maintaining the synchronicity between audio and video presentations, thus improving video playback and reducing video glitching substantially.That is the single best news I've heard about Vista so far. Truly SMOOTH video playback on XP has never been possible for me. Hopefully Vista will make software like ReClock a thing of the past...

dragongodz

31st October 2006, 06:19

My system has 1GB and runs Vista Ultimate (with Aero etc) just fine.
didnt i already say vista would run with 1gb but the others were reccomending 2gb to get the most out of vista premium ? i could, and did, run xp with 256mb when i first installed it. however start using anything that wants or needs a good amount of memory and watch that virtual memory start being used, and watch the whole thing slow down and become anything but fine. the same will happen with vista.
also it is possible that once you add a directx 10 card and those aero fx are really kicked in to gear memory usage could increase. thats something that will have to wait until dx10 cards are out and tested etc.

Is this also the case when Aero is disabled?
hmm i have to wonder how many people are actually going to buy premium and not "home basic" or "starter" versions anyway ? because unless they do buy premium all this fawning over aero is rather pointless anyway since they wont have it. :)
also the "starter" version will use the "windows vista basic" display mode with does not require WDDM, so i have to wonder if the quoted video improvements will still hold true for this version. according to that link its WDDM that brings the improvements ... so without it ????
note "starter" version is for markets such as India, China, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Thailand, and Indonesia of course and wont be available in the U.S. or Europe.

I'm mainly scared of command lines. I just don't like them.
I guess I'm not the only one. Maybe it's just very hard to design a 100% GUI based (meaning the user can do everything from a GUI) for Linux yet.
geez did you even look at the kde links i already posted ? thats commandline and not gui is it ?

Like an out of the box distro even my mom can use.

there are such distros. you just need to make the effort to research what one you want. you can even try things like live cd/dvd's first, meaning no installation.
have a look at things like mandrive one 2007 (kde version) or suse 10(though it is a bit funny with some sis ide drivers for me) or many others.
yes to get the most out of them means you have to learn more but the same can be said of windows really. ye a lot of people may leave xp as-is but those wanting the most learn to edit settings etc including even things like the registry.

foxyshadis

31st October 2006, 08:34

also it is possible that once you add a directx 10 card and those aero fx are really kicked in to gear memory usage could increase. thats something that will have to wait until dx10 cards are out and tested etc.
DX10 cards are probably going to largely come with 512megs and a few even 1 gig onboard, for the primary purpose of doing just what you mention, handling the huge graphical overhead. Better to hand that entirely off to the gpu and take it off the main system's hands. Once that happens, you may see the wddm/aero premium become much smaller.

Sharktooth

31st October 2006, 14:50

There's additional BS here - and that's from you.

My system has 1GB and runs Vista Ultimate (with Aero etc) just fine. On start up, about 420MB are committed.

On the same hardware, an XP Pro installation is using 145MB. So your 10x isn't even 3x.

In addition, I have noticed that some applications run *better* under Vista than XP. Our own Enosoft DV Processor makes heavy use of DirectShow, DirectDraw, Firewire transfer etc and is also very multithreaded. I can achieve more realtime processing under Vista than XP. Also, Vista is able to maintain full frame rate video playback in multiple windows when, under the same circumstances, XP cannot. This is due, in large part, to the integration of the Vista desktop with the Direct3D pipeline. There is less need for graphical elements (bitmaps, for example) to be transferred backwards and forwards between system and graphics memory. Applications that use DirectDraw benefit automatically without any need to reprogram.
Well, i dont know how you install your winxp... mine, after installed, uses 84MB of ram. Also, i installed Vista Ultimate (64bit) on the other PC and it HOGGED almost 800MBs...
So, obviously you didnt install the 64bit version.
Also every DX (and D3D) accelerated stuff is 10-15% slower than on XP due to the video driver software that runs in user mode...

JohnnyMalaria

31st October 2006, 14:58

Also every DX (and D3D) accelerated stuff is 10-15% slower than on XP due to the video driver software that runs in user mode...

What???

I think you need to explain this statement. Sounds like you have a problem with your system. A reference to the "user mode" claim would be interesting. Are you comparing 64-bit Vista again?

JohnnyMalaria

31st October 2006, 15:05

Well, i dont know how you install your winxp... mine, after installed, uses 84MB of ram. Also, i installed Vista Ultimate (64bit) on the other PC and it HOGGED almost 800MBs

So you are comparing XP installed on one system (32-bit or 64-bit???) against 64-bit Vista installed on a DIFFERENT system.

What graphics card/chipset does the Vista system have? Does it use shared memory? Which version of Vista? What performance rating do you get for the system overall and for the graphics alone?

Your claims are suspect since you are not comparing like with like.

Sharktooth

31st October 2006, 15:09

WTF? it's "just installed"! no drivers, no softwares etc, and the task manager doesnt report the "videocard shared memory usage" (if you have 2gigz and 256MBs of shared memory, the task manager will report a total of about 1.75gigz of ram)... and however it's not my case.

JohnnyMalaria

31st October 2006, 15:16

What graphics card does the PC have that you put Vista on?

Sharktooth

31st October 2006, 15:17

IT DOESNT MATTER. The videocard doesnt eat system memory! And as i said even videocards with shared memory wont show as USED MEMORY. The shared memory will be subtracted from the TOTAL MEMORY.
Also Vista 32bit is useless coz you cant watch HD-DVDs or BR high definition movies on it.

JohnnyMalaria

31st October 2006, 15:19

IT DOESNT MATTER. The videocard doesnt eat system memory!

Why won't you state which graphics hardware you have?

Some *do* eat system memory, especially those integrated with the motherboard.

Sharktooth

31st October 2006, 15:23

are you idiot or what? ill repeat again: THE SHARED MEMORY DOES NOT SHOW IN THE TASK MANAGER AS USED MEMORY. IT GETS SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL MEMORY.
Example: a system with 2gigz of ram with a shared memory integrated video card set to use 256MB of ram will have a total usable system ram of 1.75GB.
The Task Manager will report 1.75GB and windows will still use its own amount of memory.
Now... the card is a GeFoRCE 7600GS with 256MBs so it's not the case!

JohnnyMalaria

31st October 2006, 15:32

are you idiot or what?

No - for some reason you didn't answer the question I originally asked.

Now... the card is a GeFoRCE 7600GS with 256MBs so it's not the case!

Thank you - now why couldn't you offer that information in the first place?

I have the very same card.

I have the nVidia drivers for Vista RC1 (32-bit).

That card *rocks* on Vista Build 5600 (32-bit).

Sounds to me like you haven't installed nVidia's correct drivers.

What performance rating does Vista give you for your graphics system?

Which build of Vista are you refering to?

Sharktooth

31st October 2006, 15:43

No - for some reason you didn't answer the question I originally asked.
For some reasons already explained multiple times it didnt matter.
Thank you - now why couldn't you offer that information in the first place?

I have the very same card.

I have the nVidia drivers for Vista RC1 (32-bit).

That card *rocks* on Vista Build 5600 (32-bit).

Sounds to me like you haven't installed nVidia's correct drivers.

What performance rating does Vista give you for your graphics system?

Which build of Vista are you refering to?
Coz it didnt matter as well as the performance rating... since i have full aero.
I have your same build (RC1 5600).
However, mine is not the first report of Vista 64 memory usage... i heard of a lot of ppl with the same problem.

JohnnyMalaria

31st October 2006, 15:55

However, mine is not the first report of Vista 64 memory usage... i heard of a lot of ppl with the same problem.

OK. But make you should it clear you are talking about 64-bit Vista, not 32-bit (which is what most people will assume).

BTW - Happy 30th Birthday for yesterday...

Sharktooth

31st October 2006, 16:02

OK. But make you should it clear you are talking about 64-bit Vista, not 32-bit (which is what most people will assume).
i assume most ppl want the 64bit version or they will have crippled HD playback capabilities (thanks again to M$...).
BTW - Happy 30th Birthday for yesterday...
tnx.

JohnnyMalaria

31st October 2006, 16:07

i assume most ppl want the 64bit version or they will have crippled HD playback capabilities (thanks again to M$...)

I don't think the demand for HD playback is that high. There are still a lot of people using SD equipment.

(Personally, I have no desire for HD anything!)

Sharktooth

31st October 2006, 16:12

Well, once you watch stuff in HD you dont want to go back...

Shinigami-Sama

31st October 2006, 17:44

OK. But make you should it clear you are talking about 64-bit Vista, not 32-bit (which is what most people will assume).

BTW - Happy 30th Birthday for yesterday...

eh?

@ Old Today, 05:50
Well, i dont know how you install your winxp... mine, after installed, uses 84MB of ram. Also, i installed Vista Ultimate (64bit) on the other PC and it HOGGED almost 800MBs...

I say slowdown and double check

that said
who would bother with 32-bit vista?
it's worth less that the disks its pressed on imo
at the risk of sounding like a krp....
64-bit is the future man, we've had the hardware for years now, but now we have the software to make use of it so why not use it?

Sirber

31st October 2006, 18:37

64-bit is the future man, we've had the hardware for years now, but now we have the software to make use of it so why not use it?I'd use 64bit (XP-64) if only HP could release drivers for USB Printer 1012... :devil:
everything else works.

Shinigami-Sama

31st October 2006, 21:44

I'd use 64bit (XP-64) if only HP could release drivers for USB Printer 1012... :devil:
everything else works.

I'd also be using 64bit
but I've not time to track down drivers for everything I need quite yet
terminal server might be a nice option for that though...:rolleyes:

anahita

1st November 2006, 06:34

Thanks

Blue_MiSfit

1st November 2006, 09:25

at the risk of sounding like a krp....

I love how we have an acronym for a troll :)

Shinigami-Sama

1st November 2006, 10:09

I love how we all know :)

squid_80

1st November 2006, 13:11

I'd use 64bit (XP-64) if only HP could release drivers for USB Printer 1012... :devil:
everything else works.
Have you tried the drivers on the x64 cd for the hp lj 1100?

Ironically I'm still stuck in 32-bit land myself, DVICO said they would have 64-bit drivers for the DVB-Lite by Q1 2006, yet I'm still waiting.

As far as XP vs vista goes, personally I don't see a reason to upgrade at the moment. XP is actually a pretty respectable OS IMHO.

int10h

1st November 2006, 21:39

Strangely enough, GNU/Linux has support for 64b for quite a time... Oh, wait, I forgot GNU/Linux was prehistoric OS (supports 64b, auto install/upgrade on some distros, no need for DXnn, DRM, anti-virus, has a much larger developing community than windows, the last version runs on 20 years old hardware : you don't need to buy anything...).

Once again, it's all about who Microsoft is eager to please : you or RIAA/MPAA/*AA. Recent history makes me believe Microsoft OS will become less and less user-friendly (and more overpriced).

Sirber

1st November 2006, 21:45

@squid_80

I'll try next time I format. thanks!

4Dude

2nd November 2006, 11:38

Vista is POC from the start.They are trying to force ppl to use thier set to tools is what it is...

M$ has gotton to be very underhanded and untrustworthy IMO over the last 5 years....

Sharktooth

2nd November 2006, 15:16

Another Vista absurd license restriction: BENCHMARKS!!!
Read the article: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/10/31/HNvistalimitsbenchmarking_1.html

int10h

2nd November 2006, 17:04

IMO, the interdiction to install Vista on a virtual machine (except for Ultimate) is more of a concern. Benchmarking restrictions are probably illegal in countries where consumer information is a right.

JohnnyMalaria

2nd November 2006, 17:17

Another Vista absurd license restriction: BENCHMARKS!!!
Read the article: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/10/31/HNvistalimitsbenchmarking_1.html

You're more than four years behind the times....

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-89077959.html

Not only that. Read http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973265.aspx

It doesn't forbid benchmarking. It doesn't forbid providing the results to a third-party. You can certainly run benchmarking for your own use. It strikes me that Microsoft want to ensure that any benchmarking results are reported accurately.

It's only related to .NET Framework. It doesn't have anything to do with benchmarking the performance of the computer in the way that most people would do (RAM speed, CPU speed etc etc).

Sharktooth

2nd November 2006, 17:23

There's a difference though, there were almost no .NET based OS componetns in previous versions... while Vista sports some stuff made in .NET...

JohnnyMalaria

2nd November 2006, 17:34

True.

But look at this: http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/

I think Microsoft are concerned about how benchmarking of .NET by competitors (e.g., Sun Microsystems) may distort the accuracy of the information. Most of this seems to be focussed on the web services area.

foxyshadis

2nd November 2006, 19:07

Of course they're concerned, they do the same thing when they compare to linux. Everyone in the industry with a stake in the results distorts them to best highlight their product, and everyone knows it, that's how the marketing engine works. But microsoft has already weilded the license against university researchers and security researchers attempting to comment upon SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio 2005, which are both heavily based on .net, to simply supress uncomplimentary results, rather than simply "ensure fairness".

JohnnyMalaria

2nd November 2006, 21:54

Looks like the boys in Redmond listened....

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+backtracks+on+Vista+transfer+limits/2100-1016_3-6131900.html

Sharktooth

3rd November 2006, 03:10

Well, it's not the transfer limit removal that will make me buy Vista...
They'll have to listen some more...

Shinigami-Sama

3rd November 2006, 03:21

its better than nothing though
I think I'll probly just end up getting one of those Sun Terminal Servers and getting a single copy to do any work that may require Vista
but thats about it
not interested in gaming anymore, its all the same BS now

lets see more admintools and I'll start thinking about it

dragongodz

4th November 2006, 04:32

They'll have to listen some more...
agree. changing just 1 of the many silly things doesnt make it suddenly alright.

frodeste

7th November 2006, 13:25

Does vista uses still 800MB if you don,t use areo?

My laptop has 2 gb ram installed and 0 free. Not running areo. HOWEVER, I have tons of applications running perfectly, and Vista has allocated 1 gb to cache.

The windows manager uses 5,3 mb of ram with 11,3 mb peak. The notion that the windows manager is a memory hog is wrong.

Vista does use a lot of ram, but it does so smarter then XP. By using the ram I have available as cache, disk access is less frequent and I get more out of a battery charge.

edit: Typo

Sharktooth

7th November 2006, 15:00

It is obviously the 32bit version...

frodeste

7th November 2006, 20:42

It is obviously the 32bit version...
Yes my laptop runs the 32 bit version.
My stationary runs 64 bit WITH areo, and the windowmanager consumes 19 mb ram. Not bad I think.

My nr. 1 memory hog is MeGUI and x264, both consume about 300 mb ram when encoding on 64 bit os.

Sirber

7th November 2006, 20:47

My nr. 1 memory hog is MeGUI and x264, both consume about 300 mb ram when encoding on 64 bit os.Must be avisynth. x264 with no filtering uses about 120MB RAM.

Sharktooth

7th November 2006, 20:48

It's the .NET framework...

BigDid

7th November 2006, 22:45

...The only reason I'm not a big fan of Apple is that they still seem to deny the existence of the right mouse button, to say nothing of the five others I have, making context menus more painful than they need to be. ...
Hi,

Got previous page and this post so even if it is late for an answer I would like to point out that there is a shareware called USB Overdrive that can solve your problem see: http://www.usboverdrive.com/USBOverdrive/News.html

I use it since 2003 on OS9 and 2004 on OSX with a Logitech USB mouse and I have access to the contextual menu with a right click and can emulate the key enter with middle-click (haven't seen that possibility on Windows).

If it was your only objection, welcome to OSX ;)

Did

Sharktooth

8th November 2006, 03:57

MS drivers for mices can remap any keyboard keys and other functions to any mouse buttons.
However i have problems mapping some of my intellimouse explorer 4.0 functions (tilt wheel) to something usefull on Xorg.
I guess it will be hard to do it even on OSX...

zambelli

12th November 2006, 07:47

As you all may know, Microsoft wrapped up Vista this week. It's ready to be released to manufacturing, there will be absolutely no more delays. Consumer release date is set for January 30, 2007. Corporate users will see it as early as November 30th.

i assume most ppl want the 64bit version or they will have crippled HD playback capabilities (thanks again to M$...).
What are you talking about? 32-bit and 64-bit Vista will have exactly the same playback capabilities.

CruNcher

12th November 2006, 11:22

@zambelli
i think he means the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray Players, because of the circumvention potential of AACS when Player are running in 32-bit and not in the Secure 64 bit Kernel Mode of Vista, last info floating arround was that only Players are Certified for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray playback that are running in 64 bit, so in the end you need 64 Bit Vista. But as we all know 64 Bit Vista isn't Secure anyways :P

dragongodz

12th November 2006, 12:12

last info floating arround was that only Players are Certified for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray playback that are running in 64 bit, so in the end you need 64 Bit Vista
hmm well it appears not.
http://www.intervideo.com/WinDVD/
The Latest in High-Definition Video:
H.264, VC-1, HDV, MPEG 2 HD (1080i & 720p), WMV-HD
HD DVD and Blu-ray Playback Support
Can be purchased separately

so you can playback HD files fine but if you want to play actual HD-DVD or Blu-ray (as in retail) then you need to buy the upgrade pack. of course you would then need a gfx card with HDMI to output full resolution for them aswell. :)

oh and incase you didnt guess, windvd 8 is 32bit. ;)

zambelli

12th November 2006, 14:08

Sharktooth

12th November 2006, 16:33

Good to know. Thanks for the link.

CruNcher

17th November 2006, 02:06

yep exactly that good to know hehe btw first screenshots of HD-DVD content appeared on the net , but only in ICT resolution @ the moment :P
i remember you DVD cracking started with Screenshots ;)

so you can playback HD files fine but if you want to play actual HD-DVD or Blu-ray (as in retail) then you need to buy the upgrade pack. of course you would then need a gfx card with HDMI to output full resolution for them aswell.

oh and incase you didnt guess, windvd 8 is 32bit.

hehe yeah sorry i was still in belive they would try to go the uber secure way (even if in reallity it isn't that more secure) seems someone realized it would make no difference if 64 bit or 32 bit for secureing their Media path :P.
Btw WinDVD is piece of crap software hard to understand that they use ActiveX for the Player and it's so restricted playback wise lame product if you ask me.
PowerDVD looks like masterly coded in that regards (better performance and better media playback support) even if it's also (not really working correctly especialy with their own H.264 decoder and DXVA lol) since the dawn of time seems both of these companies like to push as many data as possible in the RAM (mega buffering) and Playback from their with really high CPU usage, my god that is so lame and unefficient :D
But no wonder who really can code these days anymore with .Net and Co efficiently and Vista sets the trend lets get more unefficient blast ram like hell and don't think about coding .Net does everything for you it's a shame, and only to sell more RAM and stuff so everyone has something from a new Generation OS, just look @ Windows Fundemental Legacy how nice that is sleak, performant, fast and user friendly and now compare with Vista jeez, i don't say everything in Vista is bad especialy not the new Kernel i like the improvements their no more hardware that interupts the running system @ failures anymore is a big big plus but that could also have been ported over to XP i think :(

Sharktooth

17th November 2006, 04:52

An interesting article on Vista and DRM: http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9005047&intsrc=hm_ts_head

Please read before getting Vista...
Just a side note: Zune is NOT actually compatible with Vista too...

Shinigami-Sama

17th November 2006, 05:15

makes me sick
I thought TMP died
now they're making it harder to recover disks when they fail with it?
-.-;

foxyshadis

17th November 2006, 14:20

Shinigami, you've never heard of hard drive and file encryption before? It's only been around since, oh, 1995 or so. It's been part of Windows since 2000, and it's in XP also (called EFS). BitLocker is full disk, but the effect is the same, you can't access EFS from another system either (unless key escrow is enabled and you're on the same domain). The TPM chip just takes the place of the custom chip built into laptops for doing drive encryption (in fact, some laptops have been using the TPM chip already).

It's something businesses need, and even private individuals could use, because of the major security implications of lost or stolen data, and it's entirely optional. You don't have to enable BitLocker. At least complain about something worth complaining about.

Sharktooth

17th November 2006, 15:01

The TPM chip is also used for "other" purpouses: limiting the user rights thru "certified" software and hardware.
For example encrypting data to make it "securely" travel from and end to another, let's say from the HD-DVD to the HDMI enabled LCD monitor, RESTRICTING YOUR RIGHT TO BACKUP YOUR LEGALLY OBTAINED MOVIE.

foxyshadis

17th November 2006, 15:14

Yes, but the recovery of encrypted data has nothing to do with that, and TPM's been hashed out more than enough over the years. Since before XP's launch, I believe.

People have found ways of getting around or emulating Apple's version of TPM, and they're much stricter than Intel. I'm sure hardware and software bypasses will show up eventually.

Sharktooth

17th November 2006, 15:41

Bypasses means cracking a protection and that's illegal.
Laws are contraddictory but IMHO such TPM chips and any way to protect digital contents without the user approvance should be illegal.

Shinigami-Sama

18th November 2006, 03:21

Sharktooth

1st December 2006, 02:59

McAfee has been highly critical of changes in the operating system that it says will make Vista less secure than previous versions of Windows. Symantec said it has discovered vulnerabilities in Vista's networking software which makes it less stable than Windows XP.

Go Microsoft, go!

Sirber

1st December 2006, 03:01

I think their best release is XP Fundamentals for Legacy PC.
Comes bulk free! NO IE! NO OUTLOOK! NO MSN!

wow!

Shinigami-Sama

1st December 2006, 07:00

Sharktooth

2nd December 2006, 04:47

well, also ad-aware gets positive results on a clean install of XP...

Shinigami-Sama

2nd December 2006, 09:52

well, also ad-aware gets positive results on a clean install of XP...

also why I dont use ad-aware...

Sharktooth

2nd December 2006, 12:56

No, the fact is WinXP is not "clean" by default:p
A virus report is highly unlikely though...

dragongodz

18th December 2006, 13:45

FSF lay in to Vista

http://badvista.org/

Sirber

18th December 2006, 13:52

pretty slow website...

dragongodz

18th December 2006, 14:03

this will give you an idea what the sites going to be about, its rather bare at the moment.

http://www.fsf.org/news/badvista-launch

Sharktooth

18th December 2006, 16:15

The slowness could be M$ hammering...:devil:

zambelli

19th December 2006, 02:45

...it is an attempt to turn computers from machines controlled by their user into machines that monitor their user and refuse to operate in ways that manufacturers don't authorize"
I love sweeping statements like this. As if somebody in MS sent out a memo to all product groups saying "Please make sure every Vista feature you develop restricts the users and puts the control into Big Brother's hands." Riiiiight. Somebody is seriously giving Microsoft's internal communications and cohesiveness more credit than it deserves. ;)

zambelli

19th December 2006, 02:51

The slowness could be M$ hammering...:devil:
That's what we do during lunch breaks at Microsoft: issue DOS attacks on websites Bill doesn't like. It's in everyone's daily schedule, right between "10:00 Spy on users homes" and "12:00 Pour sugar into a Linux user's gas tank". Our productivity has never been better. ;)

Sirber

19th December 2006, 03:06

Is it you too, commanded by Bill, that comited bad code in x264 so VC-1 would be better in the next comparion? HA! :devil:

Sharktooth

19th December 2006, 03:21

LOL mine was sarcasm... :p

sillKotscha

19th December 2006, 03:33

his was cynicism... :)

dragongodz

19th December 2006, 05:08

I love sweeping statements like this.
hmm you also seem to love giving a partial, misleading, quote.
so the full quote
Among other harms, BadVista.org will focus on the danger posed by Treacherous Computing in Vista. Commonly called Trusted Computing in the industry, it is an attempt to turn computers from machines controlled by their user into machines that monitor their user and refuse to operate in ways that manufacturers don't authorize.
so infact it is the "Trusted Computing" element in Vista that that statement is about. not so sweeping as you made out.

here is a nice long read that includes the possible positives of security, which MS IS promoting by saying Vista will be the most secure OS, and also the possible abuses TC could bring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing

Sirber

19th December 2006, 18:09

Can I forcefully remove TPM chip from my HW?

Sharktooth

19th December 2006, 19:00

Can I forcefully remove TPM chip from my HW?
with the necessary skills in soldering and electronic engineering... and hacking...
yes:D

zambelli

19th December 2006, 22:08

with the necessary skills in soldering and electronic engineering... and hacking...
yes:D
Isn't it disableable in the BIOS by design? I have a feeling a lot of TPM features will end up like the Pentium III serial number feature - unused.

Sharktooth

19th December 2006, 22:21

Uhm... tell me how to disable the TPM chip on the videocard then...

Inventive Software

20th December 2006, 11:18

What TPM chip? What video card? :D

Sirber

20th December 2006, 13:48

http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Trusted+platform+module

use search. use your brain. don't let M$ think for you! ;)

Sharktooth

20th December 2006, 23:30

What TPM chip? What video card? :D
All videocards with HDMI output...

zambelli

21st December 2006, 02:12

http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Trusted+platform+module

use search. use your brain. don't let M$ think for you! ;)
The Wikipedia article on Trusted Computing says:
Since 2004, most major manufacturers have shipped systems (usually laptops) that have included Trusted Platform Modules, with associated BIOS support.[8] In accordance with the TCG specifications, the user must enable the Trusted Platform Module before it can be used.

Sharktooth

21st December 2006, 03:04

what will happen when the TCG specs will change and the enable/disable TPM option will no longer exist?
However any link to the TCG specs?

dragongodz

21st December 2006, 03:38

The Wikipedia article on Trusted Computing says:
nice to know you did read my post with that link.

However any link to the TCG specs?
i assume these
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/specs/

dragongodz

26th December 2006, 05:58

i found an interesting little read

A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt

Sharktooth

3rd January 2007, 01:56

Very nice read :)

foxyshadis

3rd January 2007, 11:07

Too bad the conclusion is so flawed. The entire PC/entertainment industry sees this as a feeding trough, since everyone's going to buy new hardware to get the most out of the new OS. If unoptimized bloat and eye candy that traded off performance for packing new features in could kill a system, Windows 95 would have been a total flop. Instead it was the best thing to happen to hardware vendors in years - same deal with XP, same with Vista.

People will put up with 5fps less and an hour of struggle to hook their system up in a way that makes all the content protection happy, if it means their windows dance and jiggle and their 1080p works. Especially technical geeks, even if they complain bitterly.

Sirber

3rd January 2007, 14:10

very good reading.

I own my CPU cycles, not the industry :devil:

dragongodz

3rd January 2007, 14:33

Too bad the conclusion is so flawed.
could you please expand on what exactly you think is flawed ?

The entire PC/entertainment industry sees this as a feeding trough, since everyone's going to buy new hardware to get the most out of the new OS.
that is acknowledged however it also talks about the fact that hardware manufacturers dont have an opt-out option with Vista. to assume all are happy about having to jump through hoops and change how they make things is not totally true. of course there will be those that are happy to push sales with this though.

If unoptimized bloat and eye candy that traded off performance for packing new features in could kill a system, Windows 95 would have been a total flop
if you are refering to the line
The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history [Note A].
then you really need to read Note A. it was not a real statement of what the author thought would happen. that is it doesnt say Windows will die because of Vista. more like Vsitas uptake will be slow and unwanted by many.

if it means their windows dance and jiggle and their 1080p works. Especially technical geeks, even if they complain bitterly.
hmm i am not so sure about that. many may have already spent quite a lot on hardware and to be told they have to spend even more to gain really nothing extra(for them that is). more uptake will come from the dumb user who buys with Windows pre-installed and gets Vista not knowing any other option IMHO.

Sharktooth

6th January 2007, 04:47

Microsoft Claims Vista's Aero Interface Doesn't Slow PCs

http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800080

bwhaahahahaah... the funniest thing i've heard in 2007 :D
come on... all 3rd party tests show the contrary...

KoD

6th January 2007, 14:45

Does anyone really believe Vista is not going to become "the" OS this and the following years ? Come on...

Henrikx

6th January 2007, 19:19

@KoD
Probably yes!
The question for every: Vista, on my computer?
My answer: No.
Apple is for me also no alternative.
Therefore Linux is is the alternative for me in the future.
What the other make is me crap equal...
I have a standpoint and I must represent that before me self...

Gerard V

6th January 2007, 21:50

@KoD

Your's is the ultimate question. I think, like others, that Vista will by default, remain the most widely installed OS. I had originally typed "most popular" but that implies that people are choosing freely, which they are not. The problem is that most people take what they are given when it comes to PC OS. However Microsoft's drive to make the PC what they want it to be, rather than providing tools to make the PC what the user wants, runs counter to the very purpose of having a PC as I see it. So like others, I will not go to Vista. In my case, I'll almost certainly go to Mac + OS/X and Linux for my desktop, and retain XP in a virtual environment until I replace my legacy software. Once avisynth is stable on Linux and OS/X, and I recently tested running MS Office and Photoshop on Linux with success (crossover office), then my next upgrade will take my PC from the Wintel world to the Mac world, and the reason is only to avoid the Vista upgrade path which will be forced on me in 5 years or so.

I hope enough other people opt off the Vista bandwagon to give alterantive OSes a commercial boost.

JMTCW.

simonhowson

7th January 2007, 03:08

I thought Windows XP was a bit of a joke, it was essentially just Windows 2000 with a Fisher Price user interface.

Surely Vista offers some real improvements for media users, such the completely re-written audio system, and the re-written task scheduler designed to make better use of dual core CPUs.

My question is, will apps like DVDShrink and DVDDecrypter still work properly? Or is that what the new DRM system is designed to stop?

Blue_MiSfit

7th January 2007, 09:24

Those apps work fine. The DRM system in question applies to protected content paths for high definition video. Read the whole thread and you will get it :)

And yes - although Windows XP didn't add too many features over Windows 2000, it nevertheless was important because it ended the reign of DOS based OSes in the personal computer. Sure, geeks and professionals had been using NT for years, but XP made it the standard. That's a big deal IMO.

There are also some nice improvements for general use in XP that I really enjoy - like the picture viewer, which is much better than having to launch a web browser to view images. And there's always the quickformat option during setup! That was a big improvement ;)! I also appreciate the wireless network interface that SP2 introduced. All in all not that many differences, but enough for me to justify switching over almost immediately!

I think I'll stick with XP for awhile though. I don't feel much need for Vista. I tried some of the betas, and wasn't very impressed. Yeah the new GUI candy is pretty, but I really took issue with some of the organizational changes, to say nothing of the draconian restrictions. I'm sure I will switch over eventually, especially if DX10 never comes to XP, since games will surely start using it eventually.

It cracks me up to listen to guys who refuse to give up Windows 98 and their "golden age" machines (as I refer to the Pentium 2 era), with voodoo 2 graphics and Aureal sound :D. I actually dealt with one the other day and was trying to tell him 'dude, you should REALLY try Windows 2000. Seriously. It's a big step up', but he wouldn't stop complaining about the lack of direct hardware access....

~MiSfit

Sharktooth

8th January 2007, 15:03

sillKotscha

8th January 2007, 15:42

However i wish to remember VLC is already able to do that (and from years) with ANY videos on ANY Windows versions...

but you need to install vlc for it as it is not part of your os - however, I wouldn't care about it anyway... ;)

more extras...

http://windowsultimate.com/Blogs/Extras/Default.aspx

Sharktooth

8th January 2007, 15:43

Even Extras are just... Extras... and they need to be installed ;)

mod

8th January 2007, 16:11

Find the funny words..
This Ultimate Extra includes two tools that make it easier to use some of the security features that come with Windows Vista Ultimate: The Windows BitLocker™ Drive Preparation Tool, which configures your hard drive so that you can use the BitLocker Drive Encryption feature of Windows Vista, and Secure Online Key Backup, a utility that stores a backup copy of your BitLocker recovery password and Encrypting File System (EFS) recovery certificates in your digital locker, a secure Microsoft website.
The best "feature" of Vista is that also non-native english speakers can pronounce its name correctly.

foxyshadis

8th January 2007, 21:26

That's actually a pretty good key-escrow solution, since lots more people will just lose/forget their keys than will have their drives stolen, the downside being that all you need to do is guess someone's site password to get access to their drive (but then, all you need is their drive password otherwise...).

And since MS runs a lot of their servers on BSD, they really are secure. ;) (As of a year or two ago, anyway.)

Also lol @ animated backgrounds. Since you can use a web page as the background, that means you can use a flash (minimize to desktop for a quick sudoku fix!) or anything else embeddable ever since 1998. Laaaaaaaaaaame.

Inventive Software

8th January 2007, 23:39

And here's another piece of junk from M$ ... http://windowsultimate.com/blogs/extras/archive/2007/01/07/windows-dreamscene.aspx
Windows DreamScene for Vista Ultimate "ONLY" (as if ultimate is the only ever OS able to do that). A technology to add animate backgrounds to Vista Ultimate... it even requires Aero.
They also do not mention the CPU cycles and RAM that go wasted just to play a video on the desktop background.
However i wish to remember VLC is already able to do that (and from years) with ANY videos on ANY 32 and 64bits Windows versions...

Hmm, Sharktooth. Unless I miss the point completely, that (extra CPU cycles and RAM) may be necessary because the desktop interface don't use GDI anymore, therefore it's gotta find another path.

What I don't understand, is the following mentality and why Microsoft don't abide by it more often:

If it ain't broke, don't even think about "fixing" it (fixing implies maybe sorting the bugs, but adding a ton of new "features" that aren't the reason for the update).

Sharktooth

9th January 2007, 14:43

well, yes you missed the point.
i meant Vista is already memory and CPU hungry... and MS thought "why dont we add videos on the background so we can cripple the OS performance a bit more?" ... and here comes the new piece of junk...

Henrikx

9th January 2007, 23:03

Translated with google (German-English)
Report: NSA helped Microsoft during the Vista development
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2F83436&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/83436

Sharktooth

10th January 2007, 17:34

Some years ago when ppl talked about the Big Brother i always told them "that's BS"...
But NOW, i should admit the Big Brother is really watching us...

zambelli

11th January 2007, 04:49

Some years ago when ppl talked about the Big Brother i always told them "that's BS"...
But NOW, i should admit the Big Brother is really watching us...
Oh come on, that article is pure speculation! It's literally "Microsoft sought advice from NSA", so the conclusion is that it must've been something evil. :) It's like saying "Bill Gates and the Pope met at a conference today. Could a possible merger between Microsoft and the Catholic Church be in the works?" :D

Shinigami-Sama

11th January 2007, 05:08

Oh come on, that article is pure speculation! It's literally "Microsoft sought advice from NSA", so the conclusion is that it must've been something evil. :) It's like saying "Bill Gates and the Pope met at a conference today. Could a possible merger between Microsoft and the Catholic Church be in the works?" :D

I wouln't put it past either of them:rolleyes:

Sharktooth

11th January 2007, 17:33

zambelli

11th January 2007, 23:44

Yeah, as if M$ is a user friendly company and will tell ppl what they really do...
You make it sound like MS is exploiting child labor in Malaysia or something. This is software development we're talking about. Engineers and managers make good design decisions and not-so-good design decisions. But one thing that doesn't happen at Microsoft is people designing software with the sole purpose of disadvantaging the user. Nobody ever shows up to a meeting and says "Here's my plan for how to screw over our customers." It just doesn't happen that way. I'm sure that there are Microsoft products and features that probably make you question that idea because they have put you, the user, at some form of disadvantage - but the thing to keep in mind is that there always two sides of a medal. Software design is collaborative effort. There's usually a very good reason for way something is designed the way it is, even if it was not the best reason. Picking the right design is not a simple matter of choosing between good and evil, but a very fine art of prioritizing customer needs. My point is - software at Microsoft is not designed out of malice. At worst, you can accuse the company of incompetence - but not malice.

So when I read about Microsoft collaborating with NSA, I'm sorry that I don't immediately think the meeting was about MS and NSA sharing tips on spying on people or designing backdoors to all Vista computers.

foxyshadis

11th January 2007, 23:52

Yeah, as if M$ is a user friendly company and will tell ppl what they really do...
guess who "helped" M$ to make this: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=A3D1BBED-7F35-4E72-BFB5-B84A526C1565&displaylang=en

Microsoft security specialists and contributions from some outside security specialists, I'd guess...? I'm missing your point here.

And it seems like a good security guide, similar to the ones they and many others have produced over the years for NT, 2000, XP, 2003, etc. It isn't as comprehensive as the MCSE books, but it's a lot more thorough than the dinky checklists you usually get. It's designed much better too - for every recommendation, it breaks down what it does, when you should use it, what changes it'll involve, how to implement it, and often other ways you can mitigate the problem without implementing it. As far as I can tell it's an excellent security guide, better than the similar ones for 2000.

If the NSA did have input, I don't see what's wrong with that. Unless you feel that they can spy on everyone who reads it. :rolleyes:

emmel

12th January 2007, 00:30

If the NSA did have input, I don't see what's wrong with that.

I guess there are lots of "non-national" customers that do not find these news not good at all.

Gerard V

12th January 2007, 03:19

Zambelli

You are right to sometimes feel that the “anti-MS” crowd seems to suggest the MS actively works against customers, but they (we) know that is not really the case. Instead, what we know is that like all publicly listed companies they work for the benefit of their shareholders. They provide service and products to their customers in order to make money, and to produce returns to their shareholders.

The “problem” many people have with MS is that owing to their size, they have indulged in (and gotten away with) practises and customer affecting decisions that have continued their effective monopoly and have reduced the choice for the rest of the world.

It would also be fair to say that MS is keen to maintain a favourable regulatory environment (for themselves) by doing enough to meet the vested interests of other influential parties (such as the “beneficiaries” of DRM etc.) so that they do not lose their effective monopoly.

That is understandable too. But in all this, the customer is not first, or second in the ranking except in abstract terms.

The earlier comment that MS as a US company is serving US (shareholder) interests ahead of those that might benefit other companies is also a valid fear of those of us who live outside the US. And be assured that many outside the US have no difficulty believing that the US government in some form may influence companies like MS to act in ways that it sees as in its “national interest” as distinct from the interests of MS customers outside of the US (or possibly inside it).

foxyshadis

12th January 2007, 03:59

I guess there are lots of "non-national" customers that do not find these news not good at all.

It's a document! It's plainly readable by anyone!

I wasn't talking about the OS itself.

Sharktooth

14th January 2007, 04:10

It's always the same old story... if industry doesnt trust users why users should trust industry?
The industry wants to earn money faster with the minimum effort and ensure they can control what the user do in any possible way (DRM and other BS) with their producs telling us DRM is a feature and an advantage for the users - and that is A LIE - coz they assume every user is a pirate.
That said im entitled to assume they're a bunch liars and a$$holes trying to stole our (users) rights and money.
So looking at the NSA participation in M$ softwares security i dont and wont believe any single word from M$ or other big companies/corporations representatives coz i assume they're liars and telling us lies to make us believe what they want, to make more money and control the users thru "obscure technologies".
Then i use my head and draw my own conclusions. Those may be right or wrong but still i wont believe any single word from those ppl.

Doom9

14th January 2007, 14:08

So when I read about Microsoft collaborating with NSA, I'm sorry that I don't immediately think the meeting was about MS and NSA sharing tips on spying on people or designing backdoors to all Vista computers.well, the NSA's main job is spying on others.. which goes hand in hand with protecting the information obtained. It it not unreasonable to presume that they have an interest in making sure they're the only ones to have unbreakable security.

And if you ever have a good reason for the protected video and audio path in Vista I'm all ears. I don't see it benefiting either your private customers nor your corporate customers. I'm sure there are a lot of features that either benefit one or both of those groups, but I wasn't aware RIAA and MPAA had major stakes in Microsoft. And the mere thought that you can revoke parts of a legitimate system awakens dark memories from the DIVX age. Where's the due process in that?

Sharktooth

17th January 2007, 15:02

Well, there isnt. As there isnt an official M$ answer to that question. Im afraid but i cant just "believe" (yep im not religious as well) without evidence, but we all kown M$ wont release the windows sources (and maybe the NSA participation in development is one of the reasons... no one can know without sources)

zambelli

17th January 2007, 23:19

M$ wont release the windows sources (and maybe the NSA participation in development is one of the reasons... no one can know without sources)
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Licensing/default.mspx
Who knows, maybe the source is more available than you think?

Inventive Software

18th January 2007, 01:37

Shinigami-Sama

18th January 2007, 03:00

and maybe if you didn't have to sign away your testicles to view it may help, though I'm surprised they weren't charging an ungodly amount to view the source on the one I was looking at this afternoon

zambelli

18th January 2007, 04:00

@zambelli: How's that helpful to the average end-user who just wants a peek at how it works, and maybe patching the holes in it? The only use I can see is for hardware developers so that decent dedicated device drivers (lotsa D's there, coincidence :D) can be written.
I didn't say it was easy for the end-user. I was merely countering Sharktooth's implication that MS won't release Windows source code - at all. There's a huge difference between "won't release" and "won't release to ME".

Inventive Software

18th January 2007, 12:22

Gotcha. You're quite pedantic about that, and I can see that's necessary. ;)

However, what's MS's policy on ReactOS then? :rolleyes:

zambelli

19th January 2007, 04:08

However, what's MS's policy on ReactOS then? :rolleyes:
Sorry, but I've no idea. I'm just a video enthusiast who happens to work for Microsoft (for the codec team, aptly) - so I'm afraid my insider knowledge doesn't reach that far. :)

Sharktooth

19th January 2007, 22:26

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Licensing/default.mspx
Who knows, maybe the source is more available than you think?

uhm... The source code does not include any third-party code that Microsoft does not have the rights to distribute
so... anyways "third party" source code wont be released anyway (not only to me but ANYONE outside M$)...
oh, NSA is a "third party"... and i guess M$ has no rights to release that code (assuming it exists, obviously)... :p

zambelli

20th January 2007, 03:12

oh, NSA is a "third party"... and i guess M$ has no rights to release that code (assuming it exists, obviously)... :p
3rd party code is code licensed from an external company. That article doesn't say that NSA provided code any to Microsoft, but only implies that NSA assisted in reviewing functions.
Sounds like you're trying overly hard to prove something that simply isn't there.

Sharktooth

21st January 2007, 14:43

no one can know except some microsoft ppl... and maybe some other extrnal ppl.
however now that sharing (not selling) copyrighted files over p2p networks (or any other way) is legal in italy (it was decided by the Corte di Cassazione - a sort of Supreme Court in US), what M$ will do to "legalize" all the DRM $hit in Vista and WMP11 here in italy?
At least i can borrow a copy of Vista Ultimate from a friend of mine and install it... and i can claim (even in court) Microsoft is blocking my legally obtained software...

zambelli

21st January 2007, 23:47

however now that sharing (not selling) copyrighted files over p2p networks (or any other way) is legal in italy (it was decided by the Corte di Cassazione - a sort of Supreme Court in US), what M$ will do to "legalize" all the DRM $hit in Vista and WMP11 here in italy?
How are the two related? What has Vista or WMP11 have to do with you sharing copyrighted files online?

Inventive Software

22nd January 2007, 01:51

Restrictions on DRM content perhaps....

zambelli

22nd January 2007, 02:14

Restrictions on DRM content perhaps....
Microsoft doesn't set DRM restrictions - the content providers do. We've been over this before.

Shinigami-Sama

22nd January 2007, 02:19

Microsoft doesn't set DRM restrictions - the content providers do. We've been over this before.

and microsoft creates the framework for much of it

I guess thats the only connection?

Sharktooth

22nd January 2007, 02:53

Shinigami-Sama

22nd January 2007, 02:57

Sharktooth

22nd January 2007, 03:39

Oh, well... i dont care but a lot of ppl do ;)

zambelli

22nd January 2007, 09:29

I meant, now that all the security/restrictions (regardless if they have been coded or just tested by NSA or others) have been implemented in vista and the bundled products (like wmp 11) what will MS do with the italian Vista version?
Once again, what does the Italian court ruling have to do with Vista or WMP11? Does WMP ordinarily prevent you from sharing clear (non-DRMed) copyrighted files? No, of course not, that responsibility lies with the end user - there's no way to enforce it digitally. Do Vista or WMP11 prevent you from sharing DRMed media that you purchased from an online store? No, you can certainly copy the files to whomever you want. Will they play on another person's computer? Not unless they have a license. And who issues the license? Oh, right, the online store. So again: what does the Italian court ruling have to do with Vista and WMP11 and why do you feel Microsoft would need to react?

Inventive Software

22nd January 2007, 13:25

If I may clear something up zambelli: basically, the DRM we're over-infested with isn't anything to do with Microsoft, but is the content providers being over-zealous over their intellectual property. The fact MS provided the means to enable those content providers to restrict the media so, has nothing to do with Microsoft?

dragongodz

22nd January 2007, 14:42

The fact MS provided the means to enable those content providers to restrict the media so, has nothing to do with Microsoft?
that would be the old "we just sold him the gun. we didnt tell him to shoot anyone." defence. ;)

JohnnyMalaria

22nd January 2007, 15:37

The fact MS provided the means to enable those content providers to restrict the media so, has nothing to do with Microsoft?

Of course not. If Microsoft didn't incorporate the DRM into the OS, the content providers would sue Microsoft to ensure that Microsoft do not provide any components with the OS to permit playback.

It would fall upon third-party tools to circumvent the DRM.

With Microsoft's components playing the DRM game, it will fall upon third-party tools to circumvent the DRM.

So, it makes no difference whether Microsoft implement DRM-compliant components or not.

Anyone who wants to pirate someone else's intellectual property will find a way...

And why is it any different for Microsoft compared to hardware manufacturers? Why aren't you up in arms about DRM control in dedicated electronics?

The vast majority of PC users couldn't care less about DRM.

dragongodz

22nd January 2007, 16:59

If Microsoft didn't incorporate the DRM into the OS, the content providers would sue Microsoft to ensure that Microsoft do not provide any components with the OS to permit playback.
thats pure rubbish. you can not sue someone before they do something. so MS would have to incorparate playing of protected contect without the restriction before anyone could even think of trying to sue them. so why shouldnt MS enable playback of unprotected content and just no playback of protected content ? they sure could not be sued or threatened for that.

It would fall upon third-party tools to circumvent the DRM.
and why shouldnt they ? let be clear. its the third-party companies peddling their protected content that are going to be raking in the dollars so let them worry about making their content playable.

it makes no difference whether Microsoft implement DRM-compliant components or not.
actually it could. imagine if people had to not only download the content they buy but special software from each vendor to play it. imagine they may have to regularly update these software. imagine how sick of it possibly quite a lot of average joes would get. hmm lets see that DRM content sales drop as people get sick of jumping through hoops to play something they paid money for.

And why is it any different for Microsoft compared to hardware manufacturers? Why aren't you up in arms about DRM control in dedicated electronics?
if you bothered to read that was very briefly touched on aswell, not heavily since this thread is about vista and all the restrictions etc related to it.
let me add though that you can not simply download a piece of hardware to bolt on to your other components. for example how exactly would you upgrade your gfx card to play protected content without buying one thats made that way ?

JohnnyMalaria

22nd January 2007, 17:34

thats pure rubbish. you can not sue someone before they do something.

Sure you can.

You file suit (i.e., a complaint) against an entity to prevent it from doing something. An injunction.

Sue != Money.

zambelli

22nd January 2007, 18:08

that would be the old "we just sold him the gun. we didnt tell him to shoot anyone." defence. ;)
Only you would think to compare rights management with murder. :confused:

I can't possibly debate this with people who think DRM is inherently evil as a concept. Like I've said many times: rights management is no more evil than PGP or file permissions. It's a tool - an API - just like any other. Microsoft does not dictate how it should be used. I know it's easy to get upset about Microsoft for the fact that Napster tells you what you can and can't do with music you've legally purchased from their store, but shouldn't you be taking that up with Napster then? If I lock myself out of my apartment, I don't go around accusing the locksmith of civil rights infringement.

Anyway, I think I've said all that I can say on this subject - over and over again. This could've been a thread with an intelligent discussion about Vista and DRM, but instead it turned into another "Microsoft = evil" rant by some individuals, with leaps of logic such as "MS consulted the NSA, therefore something evil happened" and "Italian court ruled filesharing copyrighted music is OK, therefore MS should remove DRM (or something)". If that's the kind of "discussion" you want, go ahead, but I'll be staying out of it because it's utterly ridiculous and hardly worth anybody's time, let alone mine.

Inventive Software

22nd January 2007, 19:19

Speaking of Vista's DRM, Microsoft today defended it quite vigorously...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6286245.stm

Microsoft said only the quality of "premium content" would be lowered, and only if requested by copyright holders.

The measures are in place, says the firm, to protect content such as high definition movies from being copied.
The copyright holders of content on HD-DVD and Blu-ray discs, for example, can insist that the video be played back in high definition only if it is output via a connection that supports the HDCP protection system on a PC and a TV or monitor.

That could prove a problem for many PC users whose graphics cards have a DVI or component video connection which do not support HDCP.

Microsoft said that if picture quality was degraded it would still be better than current DVD quality.

Just a small sample there. ;)

Henrikx

22nd January 2007, 19:40

Why do many people trust no longer Microsoft?
Experience, or?
Around DRM systems, an intensive discussion between advocates and opponents rules. Supporters are to be found most extensive in the area of the media-producing firms while a large part of the critics consists of consumer protection groups and data protector. DRM is the greed of the industry to more and more profit!
The cows shall be long milked before they are slaughtered.
We are the cows!

NSA and Microsoft.
Under the government G.W.Bush - Very realistic.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/5377/vista16cd.jpg

dragongodz

23rd January 2007, 04:06

Only you would think to compare rights management with murder.
riiiight. try taking it in context and its the excuse you used that i parodied. obviously the smilie at the end means nothing to you.

I can't possibly debate this with people who think DRM is inherently evil as a concept.
ahhh so you can only debate with those that first agree with your viewpoint that DRM in itself is ok ? sorry but thats a weak excuse aswell.

nstead it turned into another "Microsoft = evil" rant by some individuals
i certainly hope you do not include me in that group. not once have i said MS is evil. just because a person does not like whats been done with a new version of something doesnt suddenly make them a hater or a ranter.

vista could have been a good release but with all the restrictions, bloated eye-candy instead of real extra functionality(what happened to winfs again?) and support for DRM it looks a lot less attractive to some of us.

vista is heavily biased towards pleasing business and not the end user. to get shirty that some people dont like that approach is an over-reaction.

finally
If I lock myself out of my apartment, I don't go around accusing the locksmith of civil rights infringement.
and you dared to criticise my analogy ?
try this instead.
how about if the building manager gave access to your apartment to reposses your fully paid for furniture without any written approval from you ? now would you be saying it was ok for him to grant that access or would you be saying it was between you and the company you bought the furniture from and the building manager should have kept out of it unless given a legal document first(analogy being user installs extra software to use DRM material would be agreeing to the general limitations of said software and its functions) ?

Sharktooth

23rd January 2007, 04:47

Well, DRM is evil for users... restrictions are always evil, coz restricting the rights = limiting freedom.
So any company embracing DRM would be evil as well (for the end users).
With "evil" i mean not user friendly. MS pleased the media and f**ked the users and it was able to do that (and survive) just coz 90% of the home/office computers run Windows.
This is also called "dictating the rules" or "monopoly power"...
The correct way to implement DRM is to NOT give all that power to the media firms. A fair compromise would have been accepted but the actual DRM implementation just gives too much control to the media firms...
An example: you can buy a Zune coz of its widely advertized wireless feature for sharing songs (the 3 days/3 plays thing), but you cant actually do that coz of DRM restrictions on more than 50% of available songs on the Zune music store... (source: http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/19/universal-and-sony-prohibit-zune-sharing-for-certain-artists/)
If i would have bought a Zune i would sue Microsoft for misleading advertisements, etc...

Shinigami-Sama

23rd January 2007, 05:21

Henrikx

23rd January 2007, 11:19

Facts
Yes to Vista = You say Yes to DRM,TCP,Protected Video Path and so further
You are for that and therewith agreed!
Your purchase decision helps to further market power!
Everyone is for that partly responsible!
No standard, no market power without buyer!

The same applies to bought DRM Songs.
You say yes to the technology!

And therefore you are partly responsible for the manure!

Sharktooth

23rd January 2007, 15:00

Even record labels are "meditating" on the usefulness of DRM... http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/21/yourmoney/music.php
That makes me think the next major Windows version will be advertized as DRM-Free as if DRM was something that spontaneously generated itself while they (the programmers) were coding and they had to fight like heroes to remove it...

JohnnyMalaria

23rd January 2007, 16:27

I also remember reading how they would include something along the lines of an improving indexing service, something that would later tie in with winfs
I think I missed that when I was poking around my business edition
so I think I'd rather see the FS improved upon(lord knows its crap) than see all these protected media hookups and anti-virtualization restrictions,

If Vista did include WinFS, then you'd be crying foul that they deliberately created a new file system to force people to upgrade.

What exactly is wrong - sorry - "crap" - with NTFS, by the way? What is your prefered FS?

Shinigami-Sama

23rd January 2007, 17:39

If Vista did include WinFS, then you'd be crying foul that they deliberately created a new file system to force people to upgrade.

What exactly is wrong - sorry - "crap" - with NTFS, by the way? What is your prefered FS?

you wouldn't be forced to use winfs anyways, for one AD probly would throw a fit about a differant OS

for ntfs, I really watch my fragmention levels, usual twice a day, and I have yet to keep my boot partition acceptable levels, even with daily defragmentations
its just crap for that I find

Sirber

23rd January 2007, 19:10

@Shinigami-Sama

Get Diskeeper. Auto deframents if needed and way better than XP at it :)

Shinigami-Sama

23rd January 2007, 20:40

@Shinigami-Sama

Get Diskeeper. Auto deframents if needed and way better than XP at it :)

perfect disk 8, I didnt like diskkeeper

Sharktooth

23rd January 2007, 22:43

my preferred FS is ReiserFS... ;)

Inventive Software

23rd January 2007, 23:42

Linux geek! ;)

NTFS isn't bad, I'm just after something that'll handle (almost) unlimited file sizes and store them properly without wasting disk space on clusters!

Shinigami-Sama

24th January 2007, 01:04

Linux geek! ;)

NTFS isn't bad, I'm just after something that'll handle (almost) unlimited file sizes and store them properly without wasting disk space on clusters!

UFS?
can handle multi-terabyte files with only 1% overhead on average ;)

JohnnyMalaria

24th January 2007, 01:36

UFS?
can handle multi-terabyte files with only 1% overhead on average ;)

Is that only 1% overhead for multi-terabyte files? Or multi-terabyte files and, separately, 1% overhead on average?

In theory, NTFS supports 16EB files (less 1KB). Currently implementations support 16TB (less 64KB).

Re overhead: On my laptop, my Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003 installation consists of 17,431 files in 2,932 folders. Total size = 893,519,303 bytes
Total size on disk = 897,751,040 bytes

Therefore, overhead = 0.47%

Shinigami-Sama

24th January 2007, 02:15

Is that only 1% overhead for multi-terabyte files? Or multi-terabyte files and, separately, 1% overhead on average?

In theory, NTFS supports 16EB files (less 1KB). Currently implementations support 16TB (less 64KB).

Re overhead: On my laptop, my Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003 installation consists of 17,431 files in 2,932 folders. Total size = 893,519,303 bytes
Total size on disk = 897,751,040 bytes

Therefore, overhead = 0.47%

in theory FAT32 supports multi-terabyte files as well

and I can't remember how they worked out the overhead in UFS
but UFS also doesn't have file fragmentation as NTFS knows it, no broken sectors

Inventive Software

24th January 2007, 02:47

But UFS isn't fully compatible with XP and Vista... right?

EDIT: Dumbass question... I did a little research. UFS = Unix File System! :D

Shinigami-Sama

24th January 2007, 02:55

But UFS isn't fully compatible with XP and Vista... right?

EDIT: Dumbass question... I did a little research. UFS = Unix File System! :D

Solaris 10 Defaults yes
:)

Sharktooth

24th January 2007, 03:58

ReiserFS and Reiser4 are very efficient in "not wasting" disk space. However, WinXP supports only FAT16/32 and NTFS (all versions) only. So unless Microsoft adds new filesystems there is no other choice.
I hope WinFS will be up to the hype...

kumi

24th January 2007, 06:05

Judging from past behavior, Microsoft will probably keep the details of WinFS closely guarded, thereby torpedoing any possibility of interoperability with other OSs. I'm not sure I'd want to swallow that bitter pill.

Henrikx

24th January 2007, 11:53

Gabe Newell (Founder of Valve)
(Interview over XBOX360)
Newell: Microsoft has so many problems with Vista; I wish they were focusing more on the thing that runs on hundreds of millions of PCs rather than six million proprietary clients. Vista really shows a lack of focus on making a better consumer platform. I came out of the Windows group, and right now, I’d go with a Macintosh as being a better solution for most consumers than a Vista-based PC. It’s shocking to me. If you’re an XP user, you’re going to be more comfortable upgrading to an Apple than Vista.

http://www.hlportal.de/?site=news&do=shownews&news_id=4935

JohnnyMalaria

24th January 2007, 15:25

However, WinXP supports only FAT16/32 and NTFS (all versions) only.

And FAT12 and UDF and CDFS.

If I get, say, Red Hat Linux, what file systems does it support out-of-the-box?

Also, Microsoft provides the Installable File System development kit.

Example of IFSs: http://www.fs-driver.org/ (freeware native Ext2 read/write support for Windows)

Sharktooth

24th January 2007, 16:17

ah yeah, and try formatting an hard drive with FAT12, UDF and CDFS if you can... also try installing windows on a non FAT/NTFS... oh, wait... it's impossible... :p
Also IFS is very limited...

JohnnyMalaria

24th January 2007, 16:47

Also IFS is very limited...

So Ext2 must be very limited then....

Anyway, you didn't answer my question - If I get, say, Red Hat Linux, what file systems does it support out-of-the-box?

dragongodz

24th January 2007, 17:23

If Vista did include WinFS, then you'd be crying foul that they deliberately created a new file system to force people to upgrade.
now thats a weak reply. its plain argumentative and insulting. so people would have complained about an improved FS which MS was pushing as being a great thing until they pulled it ? riiight.

Therefore, overhead = 0.47%
MS SDK
size = 625mb
size on disk = 657mb
overhead = over 4%
note: just for comparison, not that its relevant. :)

note i didnt say ntfs was bad in any way either. simply that MS pushed winfs as being an improved FS. a real functional addition(i dont mean just less wasted space but better indexing and other data related functioning). it was pulled after years of work because its still not finished. as i said, maybe if they had focused on things like that we could have had things like winfs out of the box. THEN there would have been something for people to see vista as having possible benefits to upgrade to. instead they produced eye-candy ,supporting DRM(which could have been left to the third parties peddling it) and even more limitations yet we are expected to see this as some great advance.

Eretria-chan

24th January 2007, 17:39

Platform SDK:

Size: 874 MB (917 241 884 byte)
Size on disk: 881 MB (923 992 064 byte)
Overhead: ~1%.

I guess it all depends on cluster size & size of the files... the sdk lies in a drive with 4K cluster size... otherwise I tend to use 512 bytes, which is what I love about NTFS - so little overhead compared to FAT32!

dragongodz

24th January 2007, 17:48

I guess it all depends on
exactly. to use any 1 set of figures to say thats what it always is is wrong. besides as i already said winfs was meant to bring a range of advantages so focusing on this 1 thing is rather missing the point.

JohnnyMalaria

24th January 2007, 17:50

MS SDK
size = 625mb
size on disk = 657mb
overhead = over 4%
note: just for comparison, not that its relevant. :)

Hmmm.

MS Platform SDK
size = 1,403,535,097 bytes
size on disk = 1,407,003,136 bytes
overhead = 0.25%

(Cluster size is 512 bytes.)

foxyshadis

24th January 2007, 18:58

No more posts about filesystem overheads, please, unless you want to start a new informative thread. It's not remotely related to a Vista topic.

Inventive Software

24th January 2007, 19:26

Eretria-chan

24th January 2007, 19:32

To my knowledge, it WAS planned for Vista but was scarpped due to lack of time and so far as I know, it's planned for Vista 2.0, a the next version of Windows. What the name was, I don't remember...

Sirber

24th January 2007, 20:05

Vista 2.0? LOL!!!
We are not even sure Vista 1 will hold :)

Eretria-chan

24th January 2007, 20:10

Vista 2.0? LOL!!!
We are not even sure Vista 1 will hold :)

But we know that won't stop Microsoft from developing the next Windows, no? :rolleyes:
Besides... it has to be Vista 2.0! It would have all the features that Vista originally should have, only they were removed to the Vista "bloat" ;)

Sirber

24th January 2007, 20:14

Are you telling me they can make a new version of windows more bloated than Vista is? :eek:

Eretria-chan

24th January 2007, 20:28

Sure they can :)
If we take XP -> Vista as an example, who can tell what the next version will be? ;)

Dr.Khron

25th January 2007, 01:36

LOL, Bloat.... at least with XP, they felt required to fit it on to ONE CD.

Now that they are using DVDs for distribution, all bets are off.

Shinigami-Sama

25th January 2007, 01:43

LOL, Bloat.... at least with XP, they felt required to fit it on to ONE CD.

Now that they are using DVDs for distribution, all bets are off.

2.2GB ISO
and 5 CDs, the last one being a 20MG ISO
:\

just to compare, Solaris is a 3GB DVD ISO I believe, it's been a while since I spooled one

dragongodz

25th January 2007, 01:47

Can anybody confirm if WinFS is/was developed as an integral part of Vista
if you go waaaaaay back it was 1 of the touted pillars of the then called longhorn. it was being pushed as one of the big things to come.
then in late 2004(from memory) MS announced longhorn was not going to be ready for when they had originally planned so things were being pulled for a new release date in 2006.

whether it's possible to be included as an additional download in, say, a Service Pack
they could really since they did actually release a beta1 of it. however they dont seem to want to. instead winfs tech is being ripped apart and used in other products.
http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?editorialsid=7568
the original blog that refers to(read some of the comments that follow aswell)
http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2006/06/23/644706.aspx
and the response where Quentin Clark says winfs will not be release as a separate component amonst other things.
http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2006/06/26/648075.aspx

Sharktooth

25th January 2007, 04:28

So Ext2 must be very limited then....

Anyway, you didn't answer my question - If I get, say, Red Hat Linux, what file systems does it support out-of-the-box?
No, ext2 is not very limited. IFS just doesnt support all the ext2 features (such as permissions, etc)...
About red hat (or any linux distribution) it depends on the kernel version included in the distro.

However lets get back on topic. winfs was initally scheduled to be included in Vista but it seems they felt DRM and other $**t had a higher priority than an efficient filesystem (yes, i hate running defrag every month coz of continous perfomance degradation).
what comes to my mind is, why they did that? they re-routed "resources" (as zambelli loves to call them) to other useless techs such as user rights restrictions on digital content that got cracked in few weeks, anti-piracy schemes that got cracked even before the OS gone retail, bloatware that hogs the CPU and RAM, etc...
from a business perspective, if Microsoft was not in a predominant position, Vista would have been a complete failure: absurd system requirements (even if MS says minimum requirements are pretty low, you need very expensive hardware to gtet the most from Vista), excessive user rights restrictions with strong DRM and other user-pissing stuff, poor performance in graphics applications and games, huge memory hogging, bloated interface (which is different between Vista versions) with a lot of fancy (and useless) stuff and poor usability, etc...
Obviously there is also some good stuff, but it cant compensate all the bad things...
Well, the answer to my own question is: Microsoft doesnt give a f**k about it. They have a huge user base and have a predominant position in the market, so they can "force the rules" for their own interests. That's it.

2.2GB ISO
and 5 CDs, the last one being a 20MG ISO
:\

just to compare, Solaris is a 3GB DVD ISO I believe, it's been a while since I spooled one
But solaris (and every linux distro on DVD) comes with a LOT of apps...

foxyshadis

25th January 2007, 04:50

Can anybody confirm if WinFS is/was developed as an integral part of Vista, and whether it's possible to be included as an additional download in, say, a Service Pack (like they did with WGA for XP SP2, still ain't forgiven them for that!) or a slipstreamable update?

WinFS (originally named Object File Store) was to be an integral part of Cairo (NT 3). Then NT 4. By 2000's release it had disappeared into obscurity, and most were skeptical even when it was re-announced that it would ever see the light of day. I suppose some of the work will be put in Windows Desktop Search instead, because the fast searchability was the most interesting feature of the whole mess.

BeOS is the only system that has anything remotely comparable. On the other hand, most the other features of Vista have been part of Apple and Sun demos since the mid-90's, even if the hardware wasn't always quite there yet. Except maybe for the multibillion dollar attempt to secure every possible path for protected video.

Shinigami-Sama

25th January 2007, 04:58

as for solaris and apps
most of it the gnome, and JDE components, those take up about 400MB I noticed from watching jumpstarts, and many common apps like top aren't in solaris 10 by default, but many highly useful ones like dig are included

and I'm wondering if theres any benchmarks on aero Vs comix+xgl
I seen some demos of xgl and I have to say it looks much more slick than aero

and also, Sun is finaly starting to get back into it, they've shown a profit for the first time in years, I wonder how that'll affect any future release

and other than AD I've really yet to see anything Vista can do than Solaris can't
even AD can be emulated with the use of LDAP and/or NIS+

Eretria-chan

25th January 2007, 12:17

what comes to my mind is, why they did that? they re-routed "resources" (as zambelli loves to call them) to other useless techs such as user rights restrictions on digital content that got cracked in few weeks, anti-piracy schemes that got cracked even before the OS gone retail, bloatware that hogs the CPU and RAM, etc...
Maybe they were working on it at the same time... only the DRM was more important, and due to lack of time, they had to drop WinFS... ^^"

absurd system requirements (even if MS says minimum requirements are pretty low, you need very expensive hardware to gtet the most from Vista)
Ummm... a decent cheap processor and a decent cheap graphics card? How is that expensive hardware, really?

poor performance in graphics applications and games
That's not something I've witnessed... To me, Vista was equally fast to XP.

huge memory hogging
But isn't memory cheap!? ^_^

bloated interface (which is different between Vista versions) with a lot of fancy (and useless) stuff and poor usability, etc...
...Which some people like and which can be disabled if you don't want it (which is a good thing, yes?).

Obviously there is also some good stuff, but it cant compensate all the bad things...
Well, the answer to my own question is: Microsoft doesnt give a f**k about it. They have a huge user base and have a predominant position in the market, so they can "force the rules" for their own interests. That's it.
I think Microsoft are under pressure themselves. They had two choices: add DRM and have the ability to play HD-DVD/Blu-ray and HD material or play neither of it. If Microsoft did they later, who would get blamed when end users couldn't play their favourite movies on their PCs? That would be Microsoft, since it's their product and most people are unaware of the real culprits.

I think Microsoft had no choice... a tough spot to be in.

Sharktooth

25th January 2007, 14:51

First of all a cheap videocard has no HDMI connector... that's required for HD-DVDs and BD and a cheap processor will get hogged by the multitude of useless stuff that runs on startup (at least on Ultimate). Also, decent DDR-2 memory is not so cheap...
Also it was microsoft to decide all the bull$hit on the protected path and the MS DRM is completely different from HD-DVD and BD DRM, so the 2 things are not related.
Protected Path, Certified drivers, software revokation, etc.. are all Microsoft decisions...

@Shinigami-Sama: try Sabayon linux (http://www.sabayonlinux.org/) it comes with AXGL and Beryl window manager... it looks very cool (screenshots: http://shots.linuxquestions.org/?linux_distribution=SabayonLinux%203.25), it's not memory hogging, it's fast and works even on PS1.1 cards (GeForce 3 included).

Eretria-chan

25th January 2007, 14:58

First of all a cheap videocard has no HDMI connector... that's required for HD-DVDs and BD...
...But it's not required to run Vista. That's part of the crap DRM that we hate - and THAT is wrong.

...and a cheap processor will get hogged by the multitude of useless stuff that runs on startup (at least on Ultimate).
How do you figure that? Any processor today should be able to handle it. I don't see anything eating up a lot CPU power anyway... just memory. And you can always disable them! Good with choices!

Also, decent DDR-2 memory is not so cheap...
Hmm, I digress, but I would think there are cheap memory. Shrug anyway.

Also it was microsoft to decide all the bull$hit on the protected path and the MS DRM is completely different from HD-DVD and BD DRM, so the 2 things are not related.
Yes, not everything has to do with that, but some of it is! :p

Protected Path, Certified drivers, software revokation, etc.. are all Microsoft decisions...
I think they'd say "Certified drivers" are for our own good, but I don't know about that... I never said Microsoft wasn't evil :D

Sharktooth

25th January 2007, 15:02

have you ever seen how many processes are running at Vista (ultimate) startup?

Eretria-chan

25th January 2007, 15:07

Yup, about as many processes that runs in my background on XP now. There is a lot of them, but to my knowledge, CPU power was not eaten up as much, and memory usage wasn't too bad either.

Sharktooth

25th January 2007, 15:16

ok, my experience was a bit different...

dragongodz

25th January 2007, 15:34

ability to play HD-DVD/Blu-ray and HD material or play neither of it.
just to be clear about this, you need third party software to play hd-dvd and blu-ray. since you have install third party software if you want that option for them why couldnt MS have done the exact same with any other drm content. that is drm content sellers provide all needed software to enable secure playback so MS could work on other things a lot of users would rather have seen ?

I think Microsoft had no choice... a tough spot to be in.
of course they had a choice. do you really think protected content peddlers could have really done anything if MS told them they had to provide all needed software/services for playback themselves ?
hmm does xp play dvd out of the box or do you need to buy software for that ? hmm did the studios and distributors do anything to MS because people couldnt ?

And you can always disable them!
hmmm does that remove them from your hard drive aswell or are all these unwanted and uneeded "extras" wasting space ?
before someone tries the "large hard drives are cheap anyway" defence, B.S. to that. i dont care how cheap per meg a hd is, why the hell would i want a heap of stuff taking up room which could be used for something i would actually find useful ?

Inventive Software

25th January 2007, 18:45

a cheap videocard has no HDMI connector... that's required for HD-DVDs and BD
No it isn't. HDCP's the compulsary part, and something that's often overlooked on budget cards. DVI I believe can handle HDCP. HDMI's just convenient for people.

Shinigami-Sama

25th January 2007, 19:07

HDCP over DVI isn't supported for protecte content last I checked

and no you can't disable many of the memory hogs, my class mate is uninstalling vista this weekend because of it being a total flop on its face. he's disabled many of the services and UI pretties and takes forever to boot and load into a usable state
an thank Shark

zambelli

25th January 2007, 19:15

Inventive Software

25th January 2007, 19:26

HDCP over DVI isn't supported for protecte content last I checked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP

HDCP's main target is to prevent transmission of non-encrypted high definition content. Three systems were developed to achieve that goal:

2. Encryption of the actual data sent over DVI or HDMI interface prevents eavesdropping of information. It also prevents "man in the middle" attacks.

Shinigami-Sama

25th January 2007, 21:19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP

I ment in the HD-DVD blu-ray specs
and I know hdcp over dvi is a standard, one that doesn't have royalies paid to intel for

JohnnyMalaria

25th January 2007, 21:46

you need very expensive hardware to gtet the most from Vista)

Nonsense. It depends on what you mean by "gtet the most" [sic].

I "get the most" from my off-the-shelf Gateway something-or-other $500 PC. Aero is fully supported. It's fast. The video performance is better than XP on the same hardware. (32-bit vs. 32-bit). 32-bit Vista's video performance (i.e., playing videos in windows etc) is similar to 64-bit XP on the same hardware (in my experience).

I have absolutely no need for HD-DVD, high def component video etc etc, so all these DRM arguments are completely moot. Not everyone buys PCs for watching DVDs - or, dare I say, pirating them. Yes, some people "only" make back-up copies. But, let's be realistic, most people rip DVDs etc to make copies of someone else's legit version.

JohnnyMalaria

25th January 2007, 21:58

No, ext2 is not very limited. IFS just doesnt support all the ext2 features (such as permissions, etc)...
About red hat (or any linux distribution) it depends on the kernel version included in the distro.

However lets get back on topic.

What - after conveniently fudging the issue (again)?

You are (deliberately?) confusing IFS (a means to create custom file systems) with a particular file system developed with it. i.e., it's the ext2 implementation that's limited.

As per http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms791051.aspx :

File systems that support Windows security are responsible for storing and retrieving security descriptors. In addition, file systems are responsible for handing several other special security considerations that fall outside the normal scope of standard kernel-mode drivers.

This section discusses key features that may be added to a file system to support Windows security. None of these are mandatory and file systems can be constructed without using any of these interfaces. Further, it is possible to implement some security features while ignoring others—this is specific to the implementation of the file system.

taz291819

25th January 2007, 23:15

I ment in the HD-DVD blu-ray specs
and I know hdcp over dvi is a standard, one that doesn't have royalies paid to intel for

HDCP over DVI is supported in both HD-DVD and BD specs.

The only difference between DVI w/HDCP and HDMI (besides the physical connectors), is that HDMI can carry protected audio also.

So, if you use DVI w/HDCP and SPDIF, you'll get one of three audio streams:

1. DD-Core from DD+ (standard Dolby Digital)
2. DTS-Core from DTS-HD (standard DTS)
3. 2-channel uncompressed (PCM)

Or, you can use DVI w/HDPC and analog out, and the DD+, DTS-HD will be decoded in software. Or use multichannel PCM.

dragongodz

26th January 2007, 01:54

So no, don't worry, no features in Vista suffered because somebody deemed "DRM more important than x" halfway through the project. Things just don't work that way. If a particular team is understaffed, they can't just steal people from other teams deemed less worthy.
actually i never said that even though you only quote me.

the reason features like winfs was pulled was because it wasnt going to be ready and infact the vista release date was already pushed back.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1647310,00.asp
Microsoft officials earlier this month announced the company is cutting some key features, such as the WinFS file system, from Longhorn, the next major version of Windows, to meet its late-2006 deadline.

however it does raise the question that if a particular team is falling behind with an element then why can they not be given more resources to catch up ? especially when an element was originally touted as being something important and a major reason an upgrade would be an advantage.

JohnnyMalaria

26th January 2007, 02:59

Sharktooth

26th January 2007, 03:24

What - after conveniently fudging the issue (again)?

You are (deliberately?) confusing IFS (a means to create custom file systems) with a particular file system developed with it. i.e., it's the ext2 implementation that's limited.

As per http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms791051.aspx :
Yes, sorry, i meant the current implementation. WinXP, Vista or any other windows versions do not support other (even more efficient and free) filesystems by default. You have to add them "manually" and obviously you cant install the OS on those filesystems.
Have you ever had the pleasure (or otherwise) of working in a company with more than 100,000 employees?

There is so much politics when you get to upper management. Projects can live or die on a whim - common sense (and return on investment) goes out the window.

Every divisional head/VP/whatever wants to play in his or her own sandbox. Budgets rule. Sacrifice your own local success for the greater good of the company - very rare.
that's also called "poor organization and management"...

JohnnyMalaria

26th January 2007, 03:38

that's also called "poor organization and management"...

Indeed. And it is rampant in behemoths like Microsoft....

Sharktooth

26th January 2007, 03:56

Speaking of graphical interfaces...
look at this ;) http://www.mandriva.com/en/projects/metisse/
if you want to try it, it's free and included in mandriva 2007 metisse distro...

dragongodz

26th January 2007, 04:43

Have you ever had the pleasure (or otherwise) of working in a company with more than 100,000 employees?
100,000 no. however hundreds yes. and in those cases head managment got regular reports on the status of sections and made changes as needed to keep all things running smoothly for every section.

Every divisional head/VP/whatever wants to play in his or her own sandbox.
hmm isnt that why there is a CEO ? shouldnt someone like Steve Ballmer be actually organising that all sections be producing and if not then changing things ? or has the CEO job now just become giving interviews expounding how great things to come will be ,as he seems wont to do ?

zambelli

26th January 2007, 10:22

however it does raise the question that if a particular team is falling behind with an element then why can they not be given more resources to catch up ? especially when an element was originally touted as being something important and a major reason an upgrade would be an advantage.
Because most divisions and groups at Microsoft function as fairly autonomous units. Each group has its HR count, budget, etc. It's a blessing and a curse, depending on how you look at it.

hmm isnt that why there is a CEO ? shouldnt someone like Steve Ballmer be actually organising that all sections be producing and if not then changing things ? or has the CEO job now just become giving interviews expounding how great things to come will be ,as he seems wont to do ?
It's no secret that Vista's delays and shortcomings caused quite of bit of "house cleaning" for that exact reason.

As an insider, I'm more aware of the company's organizational shortcomings - and so I know just how difficult it is to get anything done on a group level, let alone corporate level. :) I suppose that's why I always find Microsoft conspiracy theories so laughable - I frankly don't think we have the organizational agility to pull off something like that. :) Microsoft is a huge company and as such runs into problems typically associated with huge companies: a growing bureacracy, deepening middle management and ever lengthening reaction times to market challenges. These have been discussed both internally and externally (http://minimsft.blogspot.com), so if you think DRM and protected video paths are the company's biggest problems, don't worry, we've got bigger ones. :o

Anyway, that's a little off-topic...

Henrikx

26th January 2007, 15:27

January 26, 2007
ECIS Media Release: With Vista Microsoft continues its illegal practices
http://www.e-c-i-s.org/news/2007_jan26.htm

JohnnyMalaria

26th January 2007, 15:43

January 26, 2007
ECIS Media Release: With Vista Microsoft continues its illegal practices
http://www.e-c-i-s.org/news/2007_jan26.htm

Hardly an impartial source:

ECIS‘ members include large and smaller information and communications technology hardware and software providers Adobe, Corel, IBM, Linspire, Nokia, Opera, Oracle, RealNetworks, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems.

And quite fantastic claims such as:

Microsoft's "XAML" markup language, positioned to replace HTML

JohnnyMalaria

26th January 2007, 15:46

100,000 no. however hundreds yes. and in those cases head managment got regular reports on the status of sections and made changes as needed to keep all things running smoothly for every section.

hmm isnt that why there is a CEO ? shouldnt someone like Steve Ballmer be actually organising that all sections be producing and if not then changing things ? or has the CEO job now just become giving interviews expounding how great things to come will be ,as he seems wont to do ?

100 vs 100,000 - a world of difference.

Most CEOs in enormous companies are far too detached from the reality of what goes on.

Henrikx

26th January 2007, 16:04

The answer on all questions. .... :p
Ideal Windows Vista PC revealed
http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=37216

Sirber

26th January 2007, 16:59

Performance!

http://techgage.com/article/windows_vista_system_performance_reports

evilclive

26th January 2007, 23:25

Ummm... a decent cheap processor and a decent cheap graphics card? How is that expensive hardware, really?

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#hardware

JohnnyMalaria

26th January 2007, 23:57

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#hardware

I'd place more value on that article if the author had a disclaimer identifying who pays for his "research". To me, that information is notable in its absence.

The author discredits academia by "publishing" a very biased and subjective article. If he valued his academic position, he'd simply point out the implications of using the Vista platform for viewing premium content. Instead, he tries to be witty and clever by plagarising others' humorous offerings.

Clearly just a sad geek who can't survive in the real, non-academic world.

Sharktooth

27th January 2007, 15:42

Read the footnotes...

Inventive Software

27th January 2007, 16:11

On a side-note, AACS has been cracked in early drive implementations: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6301301.stm

Slashdot says a little more: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/2057233&from=rss

Sirber

27th January 2007, 17:09

"The attacks on the new format echo the early days of illegal trafficking in music files, AACS spokesman Michael Ayers said."

file size vs net speed has praticaly the same ratio then the old DVD days, same for blank media prices...

Inventive Software

27th January 2007, 17:28

Also note the hacker's argument that because he didn't have the right monitor, he couldn't play the content as it was intended. I'm all for AVCHD to come through the masses and steal the limelight if it means the public get HD content and not the restrictions we see with BluRay and HD-DVD.

Eretria-chan

27th January 2007, 19:14

just to be clear about this, you need third party software to play hd-dvd and blu-ray. since you have install third party software if you want that option for them why couldnt MS have done the exact same with any other drm content. that is drm content sellers provide all needed software to enable secure playback so MS could work on other things a lot of users would rather have seen ?
Considering the whole "protected paths," I doubt software makers could do that. And the OS needs to support it as well, no? If Protected Paths aren't in effect, data from HD movies could easily be stolen. But you can't do that on a stand-alone player. That's my bet on the whole - protect the HD movies!

of course they had a choice. do you really think protected content peddlers could have really done anything if MS told them they had to provide all needed software/services for playback themselves ?
Yes, they could revoke the license and make the movies un-playable on PCs. Aren't there already some discs like that?
And besides... what if consumers found out they can't play their shiny new movies on their PCs with Vista? What would happen? I think that many people would be upset and, in turn, it would hurt sales. Aside from that, Microsoft could have gone two ways... no such service or such a service with some restrictions. The obvious way, I think, for Microsoft was the later.

hmm does xp play dvd out of the box or do you need to buy software for that ? hmm did the studios and distributors do anything to MS because people couldnt ?
I think it's clear the the further we go into the future, the more important DRM becomes, so I think Microsoft seemed compelled to add it... so far as I know, the DRM didn't exist in earlier versions of Vista than RTM. So it's quite recent, I think.

hmmm does that remove them from your hard drive aswell or are all these unwanted and uneeded "extras" wasting space ?
before someone tries the "large hard drives are cheap anyway" defence, B.S. to that. i dont care how cheap per meg a hd is, why the hell would i want a heap of stuff taking up room which could be used for something i would actually find useful ?
OK so it's not nice to lose 1 GB to things you don't want, but in the end, what is 1 GB when you have 500 GB? Plus, with applications such as TweakVI, you can strip those features you don't want from the installation DVD so they're not installed when installing Vista. Choices are good :)

Performance!

http://techgage.com/article/windows_vista_system_performance_reports
My laptop didn't run sluggish with only 1 GB of ram on Vista. It was mostly held back by the Hard Drive... and when I upgraded it, I saw no sluggishness in Vista at all from what I can remember. Vista isn't that much slower - not from my experience anyway, but it isn't really worth upgrading to Vista yet. It has some nice improvements and additions, but it doesn't justify the price.

foxyshadis

27th January 2007, 23:33

Yes, they could revoke the license and make the movies un-playable on PCs. Aren't there already some discs like that?
And besides... what if consumers found out they can't play their shiny new movies on their PCs with Vista? What would happen? I think that many people would be upset and, in turn, it would hurt sales. Aside from that, Microsoft could have gone two ways... no such service or such a service with some restrictions. The obvious way, I think, for Microsoft was the later.
Who would it hurt sales for? The content industry, not Microsoft. (Unless the idea of Vista-exclusive titles was supposed to drive sales of the OS.) Unless they simply gave Microsoft an ultimatum telling them that PC playback would be entirely disabled in the event of a crack without Vista protection.

I guess it comes down to whether they believed limiting playback to set-top players would be more economical than accepting a little piracy for an increased market (and given that their attitude for years has been "any piracy is too much" I can figure where they came down on that). And yet, after all that effort Microsoft might find itself locked out of HD playback as soon as Vista 64 hacks are demonstrated, anyway.

I think it's clear the the further we go into the future, the more important DRM becomes, so I think Microsoft seemed compelled to add it... so far as I know, the DRM didn't exist in earlier versions of Vista than RTM. So it's quite recent, I think.
No, it has been a general part of Vista's design since its inception, and a firm part since at least the great reset. Not everything was finished and turned on in the Betas/RCs, certainly, but it was all there.

Eretria-chan

27th January 2007, 23:42

Who would it hurt sales for? The content industry, not Microsoft. (Unless the idea of Vista-exclusive titles was supposed to drive sales of the OS.) Unless they simply gave Microsoft an ultimatum telling them that PC playback would be entirely disabled in the event of a crack without Vista protection.
I guess it comes down to whether they believed limiting playback to set-top players would be more economical than accepting a little piracy for an increased market (and given that their attitude for years has been "any piracy is too much" I can figure where they came down on that). And yet, after all that effort Microsoft might find itself locked out of HD playback as soon as Vista 64 hacks are demonstrated, anyway.

It seems quite clear to me that the content industry loathes the PC and they'd do anything to keep their titles from being played on them. After all, with all the DRM, they can practically force you to pay every time you play a movie.
Besides, if your PC won't play the movies, won't the customers eventually get the stand-alone players? They would have to and the industry still gets their money while (maybe) hurting Microsoft's sales on Windows, or at least bringing down a lot of discomfort from consumers. And as we know, Vista is important to Microsoft.

No, it has been a general part of Vista's design since its inception, and a firm part since at least the great reset. Not everything was finished and turned on in the Betas/RCs, certainly, but it was all there.

The great reset wasn't so long ago, was it? I still believe that the industry was breathing down their necks and trying to force Microsoft to add all that DRM. As we all know, Microsoft's biggest income comes from their OS(-es). If they were to sell less, they would be harmed. That's why Vista is so important to Microsoft.

dragongodz

28th January 2007, 03:30

zambelli - thank you for being so candid about how top heavy MS is etc. :)

100 vs 100,000 - a world of difference.

Most CEOs in enormous companies are far too detached from the reality of what goes on.
that may be true but that does not mean it has to be. it seems you are suggesting any shortcoming in a product should be simply shrugged off as ok or be accepted because of the size of the company. sorry but that is also a weak arguement. a product stands or falls on its own merits regardless of the company size. i have seen plenty of crap products from small companies aswell and treat them the exact same way.

anyway zambelli is right, this is getting a bit off topic.

And the OS needs to support it as well, no? If Protected Paths aren't in effect, data from HD movies could easily be stolen.
no. look at xp for an easy example. dvds and itunes etc protection are already supported by third party software. there is no reason the OS had to support it aswell.
as for HD content, if you mean hd-dvd and blu-ray, let me point you to the decryption area of this forum. ;)
yes hd content is already supported by third party software and its thats softwares shortcoming thats been breached. i have no doubts people could find a way to do a similar thing on vista.

they could revoke the license and make the movies un-playable on PCs. Aren't there already some discs like that?
can you point me to evidence of such discs as i have not seen anyay(not that i have been looking but i would have thought it would have been making the news rounds) ?

what if consumers found out they can't play their shiny new movies on their PCs with Vista? What would happen?
the exact same thing that happens now with dvds and itunes etc. its not stepping in to the unknown here.

but in the end, what is 1 GB when you have 500 GB?
hmm i dont have 500gb but even if i did i already said how i do not buy that argument at all. what is that 1gb ? mine to fill with whatever i want and not be wasted with things i dont.

Sharktooth

28th January 2007, 04:08

hunders of thousands of users have been accused (by WGA) to be pirates while they had a valid windows license...
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/94981/94981.html

Eretria-chan

28th January 2007, 13:19

no. look at xp for an easy example. dvds and itunes etc protection are already supported by third party software. there is no reason the OS had to support it aswell.
It makes perfect sense! The OS is the building block for the applications, and therefore, it was and is easy to decrypt something. But if the OS has enforced protection as well, then it would be another matter...

as for HD content, if you mean hd-dvd and blu-ray, let me point you to the decryption area of this forum. ;)
It's already been cracked, I know ;) But it was on XP, no? And only using the keys?

yes hd content is already supported by third party software and its thats softwares shortcoming thats been breached. i have no doubts people could find a way to do a similar thing on vista.
There is only so much a software can do without hacking the OS itself (rootkits?), and I don't think that is such a good idea.
Of course people will crack it - it is only a matter of time, but does the content industry seem to care? No, they want more and more copyright protection or DRM :)

can you point me to evidence of such discs as i have not seen anyay(not that i have been looking but i would have thought it would have been making the news rounds) ?
I think I've heard of some such titles, but I don't really know if they do exist ^^" Maybe some digging on google might pop up some results on this one...

hmm i dont have 500gb but even if i did i already said how i do not buy that argument at all. what is that 1gb ? mine to fill with whatever i want and not be wasted with things i dont.
I think you need to lighten up :)
We lost a lot of things all the time, so what is a small patch of space? But as I also wrote, you can strip some things of Windows using 3rd-party solutions.

zambelli

28th January 2007, 21:46

I think it's clear the the further we go into the future, the more important DRM becomes, so I think Microsoft seemed compelled to add it... so far as I know, the DRM didn't exist in earlier versions of Vista than RTM. So it's quite recent, I think.
The short answer is no, but more importantly: what DRM are you referring to? I see a lot of statements here that go along the lines of "DRM was included in Vista", but those don't really mean anything unless you specify what DRM implementation you're talking about. Windows Media DRM? Protected Video Path? Protected Audio Path?

Be specific because DRM is a very vague term, not at all exclusive to Microsoft.

On a separate note... Wikipedia has an extensive writeup on the new features of Vista: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista. It appears to be balanced and objective.

Eretria-chan

28th January 2007, 23:07

The short answer is no, but more importantly: what DRM are you referring to? I see a lot of statements here that go along the lines of "DRM was included in Vista", but those don't really mean anything unless you specify what DRM implementation you're talking about. Windows Media DRM? Protected Video Path? Protected Audio Path?

I believe the answer would be yes...
DRM - Digital Restrictions Mangement - to be able to restrict what we can do unless they approve it first.

dragongodz

29th January 2007, 00:22

There is only so much a software can do without hacking the OS itself (rootkits?), and I don't think that is such a good idea.
ahhh so you would rather see the whole OS become one big rootkit. :eek: :D :D :D

I think I've heard of some such titles, but I don't really know if they do exist
if you can not show me even the slightest evidence and infact add an "i really dont know" then it sounds a lot like FUD to me.

I think you need to lighten up
excuse me ???? so i say i disagree and spell out why and dont accept arguements such as HDs are cheap anyway or its only a small amount and you tell me to lighten up ?
seems you need to lighten up and stop thinking your view is the only one.

Eretria-chan

29th January 2007, 00:27

if you can not show me even the slightest evidence and infact add an "i really dont know" then it sounds a lot like FUD to me.
Note that I wasn't sure... ^^"

excuse me ???? so i say i disagree and spell out why and dont accept arguements such as HDs are cheap anyway or its only a small amount and you tell me to lighten up ?
seems you need to lighten up and stop thinking your view is the only one.

Ah, forget I mentioned anything... :( I take it back!

Inventive Software

29th January 2007, 00:28

Slightly old news, but Vista's delay has hit Microsoft's enormous profits in the second financial quarter: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6300675.stm

zambelli

29th January 2007, 03:50

I believe the answer would be yes...
The "no" was to him saying that DRM did not exist prior to RTM versions of Vista.
DRM - Digital Restrictions Mangement - to be able to restrict what we can do unless they approve it first.
You do realize how generic that is, right? Think about it. Digital rights management = Managing of usage rights in a digital system. DRM has actually existed in one form or another long before Microsoft ever introduced WM DRM to WMP7. NTFS file permissions could be considered DRM. If I'm an admin on your network and I restrict your file permissions to "read only", aren't I managing your digital rights? If I send you an email with the "do not forward" option enabled, aren't I managing your digital rights? The concept extends far beyond just media files.

Anyway, my point is merely this: DRM is a very broad term so people need to be very specific to which form of DRM they're referring to if they're going to discuss it in any meaningful way. "There is DRM in Vista" is about as meaningful as "There are files on my hard drive" in a discussion. :)

Sirber

29th January 2007, 04:11

If I send you an email with the "do not forward" option enabled, aren't I managing your digital rights?Never heard of that...

Sharktooth

29th January 2007, 04:21

An admin on a network doesnt sell content to the users...
DRM is term that's strictly bound to something (media or software) that's commercially licensed to a user to LIMIT or RESTRICT its usage or, to use better words, ENFORCE the licensing terms.
That said, different countries have different legislations (including different copyright laws) and MOST of the common licensing terms used by most of the software houses are ILLEGAL outside the U.S. So microsoft and many other companies trying to enforce licensing terms are VIOLATING the local laws with a ILLEGAL PRACTICE (DRM and other stuff).
For example the "you cant distribute this software...blah blah blah" term is not valid in Italy (and enforcing it is against the laws) coz here you can do it even if it's copyrighted. however the laws will punish the ppl that gets that software from you (if they get caught) but you cant be accused to be violating any law.
Also dont forget there isnt any "intellectual property" in EU countries (maybe except UK) even if "some big corporations" tried to "buy" the votes to make that happen in EU... :p
So, take your hands off my rights and keep those sionistic practices in your house!

Eretria-chan

29th January 2007, 09:37

The "no" was to him saying that DRM did not exist prior to RTM versions of Vista.
Oh. Right.

You do realize how generic that is, right? Think about it. Digital rights management = Managing of usage rights in a digital system. DRM has actually existed in one form or another long before Microsoft ever introduced WM DRM to WMP7. NTFS file permissions could be considered DRM. If I'm an admin on your network and I restrict your file permissions to "read only", aren't I managing your digital rights? If I send you an email with the "do not forward" option enabled, aren't I managing your digital rights? The concept extends far beyond just media files.
DRM as in, you can't copy this music file and play it on any other player than out iPod! You must have HDCP on your monitor & video card to play HD-DVD/Blu-ray. Backing up those discs is illegal and against out rules. Etc, etc.
Pretty much things that takes restricts what you can do. Of course it's a generic term and all is not bad, but there is a point where we draw the line.

Now, I think I'll just watch this thread for a while...

smok3

29th January 2007, 10:27

as a video pro my point would be: there are less and less dedicated (hardware wise) machines for variety of video/audio jobs, the time when you have to ask yourself: "is this possible to do with software only machine?" is practically over, the new question is simply: "what do i need to use to get this done quick enough?", i cant see any linux in this context, maybe mac, but ill have to stick with xp for now.

JohnnyMalaria

29th January 2007, 12:51

Also dont forget there isnt any "intellectual property" in EU countries (maybe except UK)

Oh, boy. You need to explain that one.

I guess those European patents that I am an inventor on don't exist....

I suggest you read this: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/index_en.htm

Won't Italy have to adopt the EU measures? (They'd better do, otherwise a lot of people in other EU countries that have had to adopt EU measures will be peessed off. "Sorry, love, can't sell you a pound of spuds, 'ow about 2.2 kilos?")

Enforcement

The Directive on the enforcement of intellectual and industrial property rights such as copyright and related rights, trademarks, designs or patents was adopted in April 2004. The Directive would require all Member States to apply effective, dissuasive and proportionate remedies and penalties against those engaged in counterfeiting and piracy and so create a level playing field for right holders in the EU. It means that in about two years' time, once the deadline for implementation has been reached, all Member States will have a similar set of measures, procedures and remedies available for rightholders to defend their intellectual property rights (be they copyright or related rights, trademarks, patents, designs, etc) if they are infringed. The Commission proposed the Directive on 30 January 2003 and it was approved by the European Parliament in March 2004.

I doubt, therefore, that companies such as Microsoft, Apple etc are worried about Italy's existing laws. All they'd have to do is appeal to the EU Supreme Court and, given the EU directive, would probably win.

Henrikx

29th January 2007, 13:21

Software of patents are in discussion, there gives however no legally uniform regulation!
Very different opinions of some European states.
The lobbyism continues to increase.
Some states did not agree the European condition,therefore the question,what is Europe for the moment?

Sharktooth

29th January 2007, 15:55

Oh, boy. You need to explain that one.

I guess those European patents that I am an inventor on don't exist....

I suggest you read this: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/index_en.htm

Won't Italy have to adopt the EU measures? (They'd better do, otherwise a lot of people in other EU countries that have had to adopt EU measures will be peessed off. "Sorry, love, can't sell you a pound of spuds, 'ow about 2.2 kilos?")

I doubt, therefore, that companies such as Microsoft, Apple etc are worried about Italy's existing laws. All they'd have to do is appeal to the EU Supreme Court and, given the EU directive, would probably win.
lol... there are NO SOFTWARE PATENTS in EU... so i suggest you to read twice before speaking ;)

JohnnyMalaria

29th January 2007, 16:07

lol... there are NO SOFTWARE PATENTS in EU... so i suggest you to read twice before speaking ;)

No. *You* need to read your own replies before posting them!

You said: Also dont forget there isnt any "intellectual property" in EU countries.

You said nothing about "SOFTWARE PATENTS"!

Clarity should not be a rarity!

Also, software can be intellectual property and not be patented. Patents are just one means of securing a claim to intellectual property. Others exist.

Sharktooth

29th January 2007, 16:57

true, all those invented and fishy terms that confuse ppl did their job... they confused me too.
so yes, i meant software patents.

however there is a law in italy that says all terms of a contract must be clearly understandable and in ITALIAN (to avoid possible translation errors and confusion). any english (or other language) written EULA is not valid... so i can buy an english version of vista and COMPLETELY IGNORE the EULA (since the italian version wont be available the same day as the english version).
But i can eventually ignore the italian written EULA too, coz a valid contract require to be signed from both parties (a digital signature is ok too) but clicking a "I accept" button means nothing and wont be legally accepted in place of the signatures in any italian court...
Also most of the EULA terms, as i said, are not "legal" outside US...
So wake up and dont let M$ or other companies steal your rights!

JohnnyMalaria

29th January 2007, 18:14

But i can eventually ignore the italian written EULA too, coz a valid contract require to be signed from both parties

On the other hand....

Contract law (if similar worldwide) also states that if a contract is found to be invalid then all parties to the contract should be able to revert to the state they were in prior to entering the contract.

i.e., you'd have to give up your copy of the software etc. You can't say "Nah-nah, the contract isn't valid, I'm keeping the software".

Sharktooth

29th January 2007, 18:22

Uhm we have a sort of "illegal terms" get ignored rule. If a contract contains illegal terms those can be ignored. Only the legal terms are valid and if all terms are illegal then the product comes with no contract (no restrictions except those dictated by the laws) but the court can even decide to make the company retire all the sold products of that kind (with a refund for the users) and formulate a new contract before they can sell that product or good again...

zambelli

29th January 2007, 18:35

But i can eventually ignore the italian written EULA too, coz a valid contract require to be signed from both parties (a digital signature is ok too) but clicking a "I accept" button means nothing and wont be legally accepted in place of the signatures in any italian court...
Also most of the EULA terms, as i said, are not "legal" outside US...
You can't just go around interpreting the law as "I can do whatever I want because I never signed a contract". That's the digital equivalent of looting. :rolleyes: If the law was really written to be interpreted that way, I guarantee you that every software firm in Europe would pack up and close their business tomorrow. Why even bother selling software if apparently the user can do whatever they please "because they never signed a contract"?

You're going on very unsteady ground by interpreting the law as you see fit. There's a huge difference between "I think the law should work this way because I read something on the Internet" and "I've taken the bar exam in Italy and I have 10 years of experience in European business law" and I suspect you can't claim the latter.

So wake up and dont let M$ or other companies steal your rights!
But according to your interpretation somebody could just as easily claim that you have no rights because nobody ever signed a contract with you to give you those rights in the first place. ;)

JohnnyMalaria

29th January 2007, 21:46

so i can buy an english version of vista and COMPLETELY IGNORE the EULA (since the italian version wont be available the same day as the english version).

Presumably, the English version that you will claim a legal right to keep has to have been sold within Italy?

Otherwise, you could go to an overseas web site to buy software and be free to do whatever you wish?

I find that to be very fanciful.

Remember, the laws of the EU trump those of its member states....

To me, you appear to be a bigger infringer of others' rights than they of yours.

In sooth, you doth protest too much...:p

Sharktooth

29th January 2007, 22:19

Yes it should be bought in italy.

@zambelli: i dont think you got the point. in certain conditions (without having a profit) i can share (assuming i bought it) the Vista ISO without infringing any law. Only the downloader would be guilty of violating the copyright law. Microsoft could claim whatever they want, im not in US and US is not the center of the universe... Obviously i can share the serial number too... but it would get blacklisted in a small period of time ;)
If the DVD was copy protected i would be also entitled to get a FREE new copy of the DVD for personal use from MS coz i cant circumvent protection mechanisms (by law) but i have the right to have at least one copy (on DVDs, Multiple CDs, floppies, hard disks, whatever...) for personal use.
About the EU legislation, the EU parlament just makes dispositions... countries make the "implementations" (to use a developer term) in the shape of country laws (to adopt those dispositions).
FYI the current italian copyright law was even accepted by the EU parlament so there is no danger it will be in contrast with EU legislation...

zambelli

30th January 2007, 00:59

I just found out that a rebuttal to that Auckland paper has been posted by Dave Marsh of Microsoft:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx

dragongodz

30th January 2007, 04:19

rebuttal to that Auckland paper has been posted by Dave Marsh of Microsoft
people should also read all the comments after it aswell where the rebuutal is taken apart and spells where so much of it is inaccurate and spin.

zambelli

30th January 2007, 04:58

people should also read all the comments after it aswell where the rebuutal is taken apart and spells where so much of it is inaccurate and spin.
Both parts of the blog are good reads. The major issue with both sides is that a lot of the uncertainty boils down to "what if" scenarios which could be debated endlessly but will probably not be settled until the first time they actually occur.

Henrikx

30th January 2007, 11:45

Customer: I installed at home Vista on my PC .
Salesman: Yes, and ?
Customer: Now I have a problem.
Salesman:You already said this .

:)

Sirber

30th January 2007, 13:56

Driver signing bypassed :)

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=121505

Sharktooth

30th January 2007, 14:58

foxyshadis

30th January 2007, 15:06

The article does mention that there are well-documented methods of bypassing it already, so all that gives you is silent, seamless bypass. (The others are all require changing flags and rebooting, which isn't all that different from installing a number of drivers in 2K and XP.) But it's still worth pointing out that it's impossible to give users any ultimate control and still maintain integrity, the best that can be done is to inconvenience them.

Personally I'm more worried about the fact that ActiveX in IE still exists than any of the numerous theoretical possible attack vectors (like unsigned drivers as malware - remember, you can only install drivers of any kind as root, and if a virus is executing as root, you're owned whether it's by driver or by registry or by system file modification). After all, ActiveX has been the basic root of at least half the IE hacks in the last 3 years, and it will take a lot of time for IE7 to prove that it has made great security leaps. Plus the plugins are often shoddy, full of the most basic buffer overflows, without the built-in robustness that .net and javascript give you.

Sirber

30th January 2007, 15:18

without the built-in robustness that .net and javascript give you.You surely mean java, not javascript :)

Sharktooth

30th January 2007, 17:15

As if the current Vista limitations were not enough, "users who purchase Upgrade versions of Windows Vista will not be able to perform clean installs of the operating system".
Luckily a user found a workaround: http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/95011/95011.html?Ad=1

JohnnyMalaria

30th January 2007, 17:16

another Vista (supposed to be) security measure bypassed... so it will simply become another useless restriction for the end user...
virus and malwares (and cerainly rootkits) will exploit it as well...

May be, just may be, Microsoft has realized that it is impossible to create a fool-proof <whatever restriction> and that Microsoft has implemented just enough to make the content providers feel their content is protected.

A short while ago, there was nothing but protest about Microsoft's DRM implementations. Now, they seem vulnerable and circumventable. Surely, to the original protesters, that's good, isn't it? So why continue the criticism of Microsoft?

(That's a rhetorical question - the answer is quite obvious.)

Sharktooth

30th January 2007, 17:22

The criticism is obvious when a company with "monopoly power" tries to piss the users as much as it can.
MS should take a decision. They have 2 choices, be "user friendly" or be "content providers" friendly... there is no way to accomodate both coz one faction (the content providers) is extremey hostile vs the other...
and since money comes from the masses they better be "user friendly"...

zambelli

30th January 2007, 20:38

The criticism is obvious when a company with "monopoly power" tries to piss the users as much as it can.
Nobody is trying to piss off anybody. How many users to this date have had their driver revoked for no reason?
MS should take a decision. They have 2 choices, be "user friendly" or be "content providers" friendly... there is no way to accomodate both coz one faction (the content providers) is extremey hostile vs the other...
and since money comes from the masses they better be "user friendly"...
Content providers are users too. Why do you always assume all users are 17-year old gamers named Bob? A small business is a user. A small studio is a user. Microsoft's own employees are users. Anybody who installs Windows for whatever purpose is a user. And yes, even "content providers" extends far beyond Sony-size companies. Even I could be a content provider if I decided to distribute content.

You make it sound like such a black & white "us and them" case, when clearly it's not, and it's even less clear who "us" is.

Sirber

30th January 2007, 21:50

13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligiblefor the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement takes the place of the agreement for the software you upgraded from. After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.

http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Home%20Premium_English_d16c019b-fa71-4fc9-a51d-a0621bddb153.pdf

foxyshadis

30th January 2007, 23:57

That's the exact same clause as in the XP EULA, and a simpler but essentially identical version of what was in the 2000, 98, 95, NT 4, etc eulas. That's nothing new.

Inventive Software

31st January 2007, 02:04

People flagging it up with Vista though may mean it gets more scrutiny than it ever did with XP, 2000, 98 et al. Lord knows Vista's DRM happier than XP or 2000 or 98 were at launch, though that's cause it wasn't around in the good ol' days. Ah, reminiscing.... :D

Bill Gates had this to say to the BBC about Vista:
Windows Vista is "dramatically more secure than any other operating system released", Microsoft founder Bill Gates has told BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6313981.stm

Shinigami-Sama

31st January 2007, 04:42

I would certainly hope he mean any microsoft OS
I've yet to hear about exploits for {insert generic Unix like environment here}, and I don't mean vanilla linux

though I'm reading more and more about how many potential hacks there are. Though we've yet to see any major ones yet

Henrikx

31st January 2007, 11:46

Apple, take a chance
On the Mohney Time to license the OS
http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=37271

Microsoft will change Vista to meet EU requirements
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/01/30/HNeuvistachanges_1.html

ECIS Media Release: With Vista Microsoft continues its illegal practices
http://www.ecis.eu/news/2007_jan26.html

Inventive Software

31st January 2007, 14:18

As quick as Bill Gates claimed Vista was the most secure OS they've released, security experts have refuted that most dubious of claims. :D http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6316253.stm

Gerard V

31st January 2007, 19:27

On the topic of Sirber's post showing that the upgrade license (XP to Vista) invalidates your XP License. It makes sense for this to be the case, since otherwise you would have two licensed OSes after an upgrade. If you need two licenses you would buy a full version. The hidden impact I expect is that with the XP authentication process, Microsoft may prevent you authorising your old version of XP if, having "upgraded" (?!?) to Vista you chose to revert to XP. If they refuse you authentication then you're stuck with Vista.

On a slightly unrelated matter, it has always bugged me that upgrade versions require you to have the prior version installed and do not allow a clean install. Like many on this forum, I find Windows becomes slow and unstable after a few months and a number of installations and uninstallations, and do a clean rebuild about twice per year. To do so I'd have to install XP first and then install the Vista upgrade - which is rather messy.

zambelli

1st February 2007, 00:57

On a slightly unrelated matter, it has always bugged me that upgrade versions require you to have the prior version installed and do not allow a clean install. Like many on this forum, I find Windows becomes slow and unstable after a few months and a number of installations and uninstallations, and do a clean rebuild about twice per year. To do so I'd have to install XP first and then install the Vista upgrade - which is rather messy.
I think the idea behind upgrade versions is similar to one of "trading in" your car when you buy a new one. You essentially get a cheaper price on the new version because you gave up your old version before its "time was up".

From a business perspective, I can see how it makes a lot of sense because you end up retaining customers in exchange for a small discount. From a customer perspective, having the full version always made more sense to me in the long run, even if it is more expensive up front.

BTW, do you really do a clean install twice a year? You must really install a lot of applications on your OS! :) With both 2000 and XP I've gone for years without re-installing the system at no loss in performance, but I am rather picky about stuff that I install on my home systems.

dragongodz

1st February 2007, 03:02

some things to consider about the whole wanting to fresh install with an upgrade version.

consider that yes MS could have made a system where you fresh install xp and enter 2 serials to be validated. first your old OS serial and then your new vista serial.

also of course MS do not want to be seen as bad/mean/whatever and make people buy full versions every single new release. so they offer an upgrade version.

now consider though that MS not only want completely new users to buy the full install version but of course would like atleast some upgraders to do so aswell. for more revenue of course.

now if you could fresh install from an upgrade why would anyone even consider buying the full install version ? so how does MS encourage or make it more appealing to spend that bit more and buy the full install version to upgraders ?
simple, make the upgrade version not be fresh installable.

if you look at it from a purely business rational it makes sense. make the more expensive product more attractive. so really this shouldnt be seen as anything surprising.

really there are many more concerns with other areas of vista, as noted in this very thread, to be overly upset about this.

Inventive Software

1st February 2007, 03:56

I'd consider buying the full version if it wasn't so damn inflated over the upgrade price. £99 for an upgrade is already steep IMO, I paid £65 ish for my OEM copy of XP, and that's served me well, but Vista I won't pay for till either XP or Vista comes to £80 or below. I'm fed up of England getting ripped off just cause we're England. The yanks have $99 upgrades FFS, that's like £1 = $1, and the trend continues all the way through to Vista Ultimate, where $249 = £249 (Upgrade). Except, that's not the exchange rate at the moment, that's more like £1 = $2. Great for buying stuff cheap in America, but means we get ripped off more in the UK. :(

shakey

1st February 2007, 04:21

Apparently you can do a clean install with a vista upgrade dvd:
Instructions (http://www.dailytech.com/Workaround+Discovered+For+Clean+Install+With+Vista+Upgrade+DVDs/article5932.htm)

Ok, so you basically have to install Vista twice, but it's a lot "cleaner" than installing xp then vista.

Shinigami-Sama

1st February 2007, 04:45

I think the idea behind upgrade versions is similar to one of "trading in" your car when you buy a new one. You essentially get a cheaper price on the new version because you gave up your old version before its "time was up".

From a business perspective, I can see how it makes a lot of sense because you end up retaining customers in exchange for a small discount. From a customer perspective, having the full version always made more sense to me in the long run, even if it is more expensive up front.

BTW, do you really do a clean install twice a year? You must really install a lot of applications on your OS! :) With both 2000 and XP I've gone for years without re-installing the system at no loss in performance, but I am rather picky about stuff that I install on my home systems.

I agree it does make more business sense, but most of the lay users think something alone these lines: Z0mFG! haxx y shld i p@y 4 ... ... ...

I think they could've made the upgrade a bit more descriptive of what it does and why

as for reformating, I try to do it every 3 months, and it takes about 5 hours total turnover from getting the drivers, updating(SP1->SP2) and reinstalling my apps, most of which don't need to use the registry so its all good
unless I make the mistake of installing viso again
:rolleyes:

Gerard V

1st February 2007, 19:54

@Zambelli
Yes, I really do a complete rebuild about twice per year, and not usually out of choice. It is partly the "fault" of this forum, since I keep finding new things to try and experiment with, and being unashamedly geeky, video is not the only area I mess with.

Unlike Linux, Windows does not allow one to be 100% certain that a software item has been cleanly installed and/or uninstalled, and "issues" gradually build up.

Gerard V

1st February 2007, 19:59

I have followed this thread with interest from the beginning, and have read the linked threads both exposing the issues (supposedly) and the supposed rebuttal from Microsoft.

This post attempts to summarise the discussion (in non inflammatory terms) and then to raise what appear to be the genuine issues that do not seem to this reader to have been addressed.

Impact of DRM etc within MS Vista
What is known
• There is no doubt that Vista goes to great lengths to protect certain types of media when the “producer of the media” requests that.
• This protection is implemented by way of software controls within Vista, rules imposed on developers of drivers, and hardware restrictions imposed on the developers of third party cards such as graphics cards.
• All parties agree that these changes come with some overhead in terms of processor utilisation.
• All parties agree that there will, at least initially, be greater complexity in the software and hardware design.
Impacts Not Proven
• No-one has established whether or not the CPU overhead is in any real sense onerous. It may or may not be negligible, and no-one has proven the case either way yet.
• Some people argue that the greater complexity in hardware and software design comes without an impact in cost or greater risk of unintended consequences. That seems unlikely (a world first), but no-one has established yet that the greater cost or unreliability of these new complex designs is at all significant.
• Much is made of the potential for the protection scheme to inadvertently prevent legitimate uses, but the extent to which this will actually happen is undetermined. It will require more time to pass for the real impact to be assessed. Until then, the fears may be genuine but overstated.

Basic Rights
There is much debate about the underlying philosophy. Is it acceptable based on the rights of people to use what they own, for Microsoft to “impose” these or any restrictions. As is inevitably the case when the competing “rights” of individuals, companies and media owners come into conflict – any three people will give you four different opinions.

In the past – the restrictions were imposed at the time the item, say a video” was purchased and one could purchase or not knowing those restrictions. In this case, the restrictions are imposed ahead of any purchase. For those who will not ever purchase or use restricted items, the impositions of restrictions ahead of time “just in case” feels off. Its like being fined for speeding before you ever drive a car, just in case.

This area does deserve further discussion in the geopolitical context. MS is a US company, and totally dominant in the desktop OS space. With the near monopoly in mind, the argument that “if you don’t like it you can buy elsewhere” is somewhat unfair. It could be argued too that characteristically of the US in the world today, MS can be accused of acting as if what is good for it is good for the world. In doing so it could be accused of running roughshod over the sovereignty of other nations and their copyright laws.

Arguments that MS was somehow compelled to implement this current form of DRM don’t seem to stand up when governments and even the EU has struggled to get MS to do anything that MS did not want to do – what power was influencing MS to implement DRM? And how could that power act on MS without attracting more headlines and court action than it has? Why has MS not been to court (as it characteristically has in the past) to protect its right to do as it sees fit? The evidence suggests that MS has been at least a willing participant in the implementation.

Most importantly though, and this is new ground, this is the first time that a company has imposed and could retain on such a grand scale the ability to disable a legitimately purchased third party asset (computer or part of) to protect its own commercial interests. Until now that was a territory available only to governments and courts. Its a little like a fuel company reserving the rights to disable your car under certain circumstances. They didn’t sell you the car and have never owned it – so how did they come to be in control of it?

It could be said that one could purchase a computer and use some other OS. However MS is using its dominant position to prevent the manufacturers of hardware devices fully disclosing their functioning to other OS developers or to hobbyists. This again is new territory since until now, at least in theory, I had the right to completely “discover” my PC and write my own software for it including the OS. But owing to these recent changes that may no longer be the case. Using the car analogy – MS has required that the bonnet of my car must be welded shut so that I cannot tinker with it myself.

The loss of sovereignty over an asset I will have to pay for should not go unexamined, and this is especially worthy of consideration by those of us who live in one of the 99.5% of countries that are not the USA, and where the rights abrogated to itself by MS are not available to any other person or corporation, only to the government and the courts.

Sharktooth

1st February 2007, 20:10

emerge --unmerge libdrm x11-drm
problem solved... ;)
and if you want a cool UI look at THIS (http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/axgl_desk.png)... it's all free.

Eretria-chan

1st February 2007, 21:24

Arguments that MS was somehow compelled to implement this current form of DRM don’t seem to stand up when governments and even the EU has struggled to get MS to do anything that MS did not want to do – what power was influencing MS to implement DRM? And how could that power act on MS without attracting more headlines and court action than it has? Why has MS not been to court (as it characteristically has in the past) to protect its right to do as it sees fit? The evidence suggests that MS has been at least a willing participant in the implementation.

Another thing struck my mind... Maybe the companies somehow pay Microsoft in one way or another to do so? I know Microsoft loves to provide tools for other companies to utilize. This "DRM" could be seen as such a tool.

Inventive Software

1st February 2007, 21:33

To throw another spanner in the works, it's emerged that Vista has a "speech recognition flaw"! :D:D:D Now that I find hard to believe, but if you read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6320865.stm, you'll understand how f***in' stupid you gotta be to have it delete your files! :D

Oh, and Sharktooth: that's one sweet lookin desktop you got. ;)

zambelli

2nd February 2007, 00:51

and if you want a cool UI look at THIS... it's all free.
I think you have a full PM inbox. :D

To throw another spanner in the works, it's emerged that Vista has a "speech recognition flaw"! :D:D:D Now that I find hard to believe, but if you read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6320865.stm, you'll understand how f***in' stupid you gotta be to have it delete your files! :D
Gotta love that one! In order for the exploit to work, you only need to have a microphone, speakers turned on loud, speech recognition enabled - and you need to go to a website with a recorded message - in the same language as your OS. Anything else? Can I just email somebody my admin password? :sly:

Eretria-chan

2nd February 2007, 00:54

Umm, isn't the voice recognition tuned to your voice?
It also depends on the quality of the microphone I think, as the lower quality, the harder it gets for Vista to understand you...

Inventive Software

2nd February 2007, 01:43

But still, how f***ing stupid would people be to have it do this? Lord knows you don't have voice commands to delete files and suchlike. That just asks for misinterpretation, and / or misuse.

The world waits for the collapse of Wall Street! :D

JohnnyMalaria

2nd February 2007, 16:17

emerge --unmerge libdrm x11-drm
problem solved... ;)
and if you want a cool UI look at THIS (http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/axgl_desk.png)... it's all free.

Very pretty.

But some of the graphic elements appear to be directly copied from Vista. So, free? Yes. Legit? Hmmm.

A bit like the Vista Transformation Pack - a blatant stealing of another entity's intellectual property....an infringement of their rights, methinks!

Inventive Software

2nd February 2007, 16:23

I don't see Microsoft complaining yet, do you Johnny? They didn't when people mocked up XP to look like Vista betas or RCs.

Sharktooth

2nd February 2007, 18:18

I think you have a full PM inbox. :D

Gotta love that one! In order for the exploit to work, you only need to have a microphone, speakers turned on loud, speech recognition enabled - and you need to go to a website with a recorded message - in the same language as your OS. Anything else? Can I just email somebody my admin password? :sly:
yeah, my inbox as more messages than it can contain;)
you can always contact me thru MSN.

Sharktooth

2nd February 2007, 18:21

Very pretty.

But some of the graphic elements appear to be directly copied from Vista. So, free? Yes. Legit? Hmmm.

A bit like the Vista Transformation Pack - a blatant stealing of another entity's intellectual property....an infringement of their rights, methinks!
yep, the theme is NOT free. i just installed it to grab a screenshot to demonstrate beryl and axgl can even look like vista... however there are a lot of free even cooler themes.

dragongodz

3rd February 2007, 04:51

i think a little humour needs to be interjected about now. ok its also about the strange vista release plan so should be relatively on-topic.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/02/02

Sharktooth

3rd February 2007, 04:58

lol the Italiano version is the best :D

HyperHacker

3rd February 2007, 07:23

I LOLed at "to get all the features you'll need Emerald and Ruby". :-p

Probably the part I hate most about Vista is the encryption of data going even between CPU and GPU and other such places. Partially because this uses a lot of my CPU power (or would if I used Vista) to work against me, but mainly because how will open-source software interface with this locked-down classified encryption-enabled hardware?

jeffy

3rd February 2007, 23:21

http://msmvps.com/blogs/chrisl/archive/2007/01/25/519180.aspx

zambelli

4th February 2007, 03:37

http://msmvps.com/blogs/chrisl/archive/2007/01/25/519180.aspx
Thank god for common sense. That's probably the best overview of Vista's playback functionality (and occasional restrictions) that I've seen to date. :goodpost:

Inventive Software

4th February 2007, 03:57

Almost nothing's restricted for general backup and viewing use, save for HD-DVD and BluRay playback. :goodpost:

Sharktooth

4th February 2007, 15:29

yeah but dont forget MS has the ability to revoke softwares (another Vista questionable restriction)...
so if they get under pressure by content providers, forget to use ripping progs in Vista...

foxyshadis

4th February 2007, 16:31

Ever since automatic updates appeared, they've had the ability to revoke software at will, for those who update, but so far it's only been used on anything that affects Microsoft DRM, and never directly. You could say fairuseforwm was 'revoked' by the DRM update (and various viruses), but other than that, I can't think of anything. Worry more about broken patches than revoked software.

Sharktooth

5th February 2007, 15:08

software revokation and software updates are 2 different things.
software revokation could be easily done with the "Malicious software removal tool" and it can be included in other softwares too in the installation phase...
so lets say the vista SP1, Office updates etc...

Eretria-chan

5th February 2007, 19:30

yeah but dont forget MS has the ability to revoke softwares (another Vista questionable restriction)...
so if they get under pressure by content providers, forget to use ripping progs in Vista...

Don't download updates :sly: All they do is cause trouble!

Sirber

5th February 2007, 19:50

Don't download updates :sly: All they do is cause trouble!Also disable the firewall and plug your modem directly on your PC. Port forward is for wussies. ;)

Eretria-chan

5th February 2007, 21:33

No, that's bad. Firewall & no updates. Always worked for me.

Sharktooth

5th February 2007, 22:21

blah... get x264 rev1 and stick with it then:p
updates are bug-fixes and additional functionalities...

Eretria-chan

5th February 2007, 22:49

Oh really? Is WGA a bugfix? Is IE7 a bugfix? And is it really worth all these bug fixes that don't work with each other, making your Windows installation corrupt?
No thanks, I'll stay away from Microsoft Updates.

Shinigami-Sama

5th February 2007, 22:54

I've only had that problem once
viso update didn't play well with my FTP client...
have fun fending off blaster, eh?

Eretria-chan

5th February 2007, 23:00

But yes, every time I've used Windows Updates, I've been backstabbed in some way. Not to mention all that crap Microsoft is feeding through Automatic Updates like WGA and IE7 (who wants that anyway?). Not to mention that the updates CAN conflict with each other - or other products or updates installed.

JohnnyMalaria

6th February 2007, 21:26

all that crap Microsoft is feeding through Automatic Updates like WGA and IE7 (who wants that anyway?).

None of my XP boxes have had IE7 dumped on them. All my updates are automatic. I only have IE7 on one - Vista - 'coz that's what it comes with.

Sharktooth

6th February 2007, 21:34

IE7 comes with Automatic updates as a critical fix (assuming you have them enabled).

Sharktooth

7th February 2007, 04:37

Even Steve Jobs (i call him "stone head" coz of his inamovable decisions...) understood DRM is useless and doesnt work: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4445

Audionut

7th February 2007, 06:43

Christ M$ got slammed for including IE with windows. I see some over in the UK are now carrying on about some other crap.

When the Polly's in the USA are in bed with the MPAA it only makes sense that M$ would include DRM in case they (MPAA and the senate) decide to slam M$ for promoting movie piracy.

It's all a load of BS.

As for automatic updates. Tell windows to only notify you of updates. Then you can decide what to download and install.

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/6838/updatesyq5.png

zambelli

7th February 2007, 11:11

As for automatic updates. Tell windows to only notify you of updates. Then you can decide what to download and install.

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/6838/updatesyq5.png
Also, you can tell Windows Update not to show you certain updates. So if you don't want IE7 to ever be downloaded through WU, just add it to the hidden updates and WU won't bug you about it anymore.

Henrikx

7th February 2007, 13:00

Microsoft lists Vista high points :confused:
http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=37394

Dr.Khron

7th February 2007, 13:13

Not to mention all that crap Microsoft is feeding through Automatic Updates like WGA and IE7 (who wants that anyway?).

Um, I do?
I use explorer for 80% of my browsing, and its one of the few MS products that I really like. IE7 is a nice improvement, even though I hate that they put the menu bar BELOW the URL bar (anyone figure how to change that? I can't).
Don't be an IE hater just because we like open-source around these here parts.

As for Jobs, clearly he is seeing the writing on the wall...

However, for him to grab the mantle of anti-DRM and run with it is the height of hypocrisy. Apple has made a TON of money buy locking out all competition with their "fair-play" DRM. Basically, if Apple can't use DRM, no one can use DRM; he'll just take his ball and go home.

Sharktooth

7th February 2007, 13:44

Microsoft lists Vista high points :confused:
http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=37394
LOL. That's very funny and so true :D

Sirber

7th February 2007, 14:48

LOL. That's very funny and so true :D
indeed. Makes me want to go with a mac mini :) (since bencos can work on it!)

Eretria-chan

7th February 2007, 20:46

Um, I do?
Well, I don't, and I certainly wouldn't like it being forced down my throat if Automatic Updates were enabled. Not to mention IE7 doesn't WORK for a lot of people.
Good thing Automatic Updates are disabled and that I never download any update. No WGA. No IE7. I'm safe.

Sirber

7th February 2007, 21:12

No WGA. No IE7. I'm safe.
No security update, you use IE6, your PC will turn in spam zombie soon :D

Eretria-chan

7th February 2007, 22:00

Then how come all my XP installations are alive yet not spam infested then? No virus. No spyware. No hostile take overs...

jeffy

8th February 2007, 00:54

Have you ever seen this?
http://www.castlecops.com/postx168034-0-0.html

Did anyone of you get these errors? Thanks for the opinions.

Eretria-chan

8th February 2007, 01:04

And those problems makes me wonder if it's such a good idea to push IE7 as a critical update. Is it really a critical update? It's more like a software update.

JohnnyMalaria

8th February 2007, 01:42

Have you ever seen this?
http://www.castlecops.com/postx168034-0-0.html

Did anyone of you get these errors? Thanks for the opinions.

Here's some potentially useful info:

http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2007/01/19/504394.aspx

Plus:

http://www.techspot.com/vb/all/windows/t-24422-CMft-is-corrupt-in-XP-Home.html

with some very sage advice - backup!

jeffy

8th February 2007, 06:14

Here's some potentially useful info:

http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2007/01/19/504394.aspx

Plus:

http://www.techspot.com/vb/all/windows/t-24422-CMft-is-corrupt-in-XP-Home.html

with some very sage advice - backup!

Thanks for advice :-)
But... I don't actually believe that so many people have their drives failing, one quote:
"I am seeing the same problem. My system has been running perfectly (Precision 350, P4, 2.4Ghz, 1.5Gig RAM, XP Pro SP2). I've been putting off allowing IE7 to be installed until today. Now this evening I'm getting "$Mft is corrupt and unreadable".

Quite a coincidence between installing IE7 and upon the next reboot seeing this, isn't it?"
(http://www.castlecops.com/postx168034-0-60.html)

Gerard V

8th February 2007, 10:15

You might find this interesting to contemplate. Although the issue in the link

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3955212a11.html

is not directly related to DRM, the position taken by MS, essentially that as a US company it is only subject to the laws of the US and not those of the country in which it is trading, raises some interesting points when it comes to Vista and DRM licenses and international transactions.

Remember when reading the link that media in NZ and the players ARE region coded (don't know specifically for the Xbox 360), but to MS the device sold and stolen in NZ was still subject to US law and not NZ law.

To make up an example, it would be quite mind wrenching to figure out what that means in the DRM space for media purchased in NZ and played on an NZ purchased, taiwan made PC running MS software purchased in NZ from an Australian supplier of US (MS) products?!??!? (Which happens every day) Until today I thought NZ law (only) applied, and that I was not subject to US law as an NZ citizen. Maybe not if I buy MS products.

Sharktooth

8th February 2007, 14:35

I cant think a better word than "abuse"...

big_green_jelly_bean

9th February 2007, 06:07

I am also sadden greatly by microsofts moves to protect digital content. It is not the job of a OS to limit access to the file system, or any files. The job of a OS is to provide access to the basic functions of the computer.

The price is crazy, and the DRM protection scares me. I have been a huge fan of Windows OS, and would love the new features of Vista, yet the DRM and the built in protections is a complete killer for me. Even if I had the money, I wouldnt buy Vista, and I dont recommend anyone too.

Eventually the company must concede that it is the content providers responsibility and not the OS to provide protection for their material. I understand Microsofts move too a OS that will favor the big media companies, yet I will not accept the option as valid.

Microsoft, open up the OS or face the pressure.

Mike

zambelli

9th February 2007, 07:58

I am also sadden greatly by microsofts moves to protect digital content. It is not the job of a OS to limit access to the file system, or any files.
:eek:
Wow. That pretty much contradicts the design of every single UNIX and Windows NT derived OS in the last 20 years. Or did you think "chmod 644" was not a form of file access control?

The job of a OS is to provide access to the basic functions of the computer.
Perhaps if you're living in 1982. Why not just use DOS? It lets you do anything you want to the computer. It's perfect. You can even throw in a little assembly and do "mov ax, 061h" yourself.

emmel

9th February 2007, 22:26

Or did you think "chmod 644" was not a form of file access control?

Right... but not actually the same. With Vista "chmod 644 " would be translated as "chmod 5.5 3.5 3.5" meaning you may have an conditional access today, who knows, maybe, depens, call home and ask mom, che sara', sara'... and so on.

Implementing drm encourages the providers to behave accordingly. IMHO drm should be implemented by third parties.

zambelli

10th February 2007, 00:17

Implementing drm encourages the providers to behave accordingly. IMHO drm should be implemented by third parties.
To play the devil's advocate: I can see that easily going in the direction where every online music store requires you to install their own version of player, format runtime, DRM runtime, etc. There'd be no chance of synergy. I'm not saying it's perfect now - but I do believe DRM implementations would be even less consistent if every music store did their own.

emmel

10th February 2007, 00:38

In fact. At least that would leave the client the freedom to choose from.

Now, I feel like MS is assuming the role of a "referee" between the players. I want an "advocate" as an OS, not a referee.

Doom9

10th February 2007, 13:12

but I do believe DRM implementations would be even less consistent if every music store did their own.Up until the point where the customer says: I'm sick and tired of this, I'll only buy if there's no DRM. Annoying DRM is the best forum.. the more restrictive, annoying and time consuming it gets, the better the chances that Joe Average wakes up and demands changes.

Access control on non MS operating systems has been privilege based though.. root can do whatever he wants and assign any rights.. there's no way for a third party to interfere - that's the big difference towards an MS OS. Remote lockdown, driver invalidation, activation - those are concepts Microsoft introduced into the OS world.
Why should any third party be allowed to tell you how to use your machine, in good and in bad ways? Cars don't automatically brake if you try to drive off a cliff, either.
Protected paths and memory locations are especially worrysome.. sure you'll come up with all kinds of arguments why it prevents malware, but that's the user's task. If you only work as root and install everything without a second's hesitation, you are bound to fall on your nose. But mechanisms that clamp down on your access to the machine not only protect your machine from yourself, they also protect software and content from their legitimate owners and it's not like you, the root, has any means of deciding just how protected your system ought to be.

Eretria-chan

10th February 2007, 13:26

Well, it does look like some are waking up to DRM. Maybe in the future, there will be no DRM? Who can say, but nevertheless, it's getting more criticized as time passes, as outlined here: http://www.winbeta.org/comments.php?id=6129&catid=1

Sharktooth

10th February 2007, 15:12

Vista is the "incarnation" of the Windows OS build around DRM.
DRM is not very "popular"... and Vista is doomed to fail (or at least being hacked/cracked/pirated to hell...)

JohnnyMalaria

10th February 2007, 20:16

Vista is the "incarnation" of the Windows OS build around DRM.
DRM is not very "popular"... and Vista is doomed to fail (or at least being hacked/cracked/pirated to hell...)

But that assumes that the majority of Windows users give a frig about DRM. There's more to using a PC than watching/pirating videos....

Sirber

10th February 2007, 20:16

Every PC now sells with Vista on...

Eretria-chan

10th February 2007, 20:22

Actually, DRM infested or not, it mainly only affects HD-DVD and Blu-ray playback, which not many play on their computer, so.... Strip away the activation and Vista is fully functionable. Although, of course, that doesn't include the "bloat" that many tend to complain about.

Nematocyst

10th February 2007, 21:19

Although, of course, that doesn't include the "bloat" that many tend to complain about.

Bloat in some areas, incomplete in others... I've now looked twice at the new OS and I just can't figure out what's so great about it. I hate the new interface, I hate the sidebar, and I hate that just trying to do routine things is so totally different. And Aero... Good grief. If I want to see what's underneath a window, I _focus_ it. Duh.

But anyway, the last straw for me was when I was unable to adjust file associations as well as in previous versions. The "File Types" tab in "Folder Options" is gone, so now the only way you can associate in vista seems to be an app with an extension only... all advanced functionality there is gone. Well, not gone-- I suspect that if the registry is set up correctly, then associations work as before, but there's no way to edit them in an advanced way anymore. From the searching I did, your only recourse is a 3rd party tool. Whatever the reason, sloppiness from the rewrite, laziness, or some absurd notion that it represents a security breach, it was enough for me to realize how totally worthless the OS is. Really, there is nothing. NOTHING I want to run that I can't do just as well with windows 2000 which is what I intend to continue using. The EULA is almost tolerable, there's no WPA, and the DRM is comparatively minimal. Eat me, MS.

Sharktooth

11th February 2007, 03:58

Well, there are also software revokation and countless limitations in the EULA, etc...
The only things worth updating to vista are DX10 (that could be inplemented in XP as well) and a better users management (that can be done in XP as well...).

evilclive

11th February 2007, 12:00

But that assumes that the majority of Windows users give a frig about DRM. There's more to using a PC than watching/pirating videos....

Yes, there's also neophilia. Which intersects closely with bragging rights.

Inventive Software

11th February 2007, 14:43

The only things worth updating to vista are DX10 (that could be inplemented in XP as well)
Wrong, wrong, so so wrong Sharktooth! :D DX10 can't be implemented in XP cause it's dependant on Vista's new display driver model (WDDM).

Sharktooth

11th February 2007, 15:12

ah yeah sure... that is what microsoft want you to swallow...

Eretria-chan

11th February 2007, 15:17

That's what any company would do.
Ripping up the foundation for graphics and redoing it.... not an easy task and there's no way to gaurantee it works with how XP is designed either...
And it's the perfect reason to migrate to Vista.

Sharktooth

11th February 2007, 15:29

Not at all. 3D acceleration does NOT depend on Vista driver model!
The XP driver model already had support for it.
The new driver model was made to "secure" the communications to some devices, make drivers running in user mode and to make the users think the DX10 features require Vista...

dragongodz

11th February 2007, 15:53

Eretria-chan - Sharktooth is right and it is you that is "Wrong, wrong, so so wrong". yes directx 10 was written to use the new driver model(wddm) which supposedly was redone to improve efficiency etc etc etc. to say that directx 10 could not have been done for xp aswell though is rubbish. directx is, in VERY basic terms, just a bunch of APIs for programs to communicate to the gfx card through the gfx cards drivers. that is - program -> directx API -> gfx card drivers -> gfx card.
MS did change how communications to the drivers is done thus requiring wddm drivers true but thats a limitation MS made themselves which they did not really need to do. and people dare to have a go at nvidia because MS made things more complicated ?

will it be done for XP ? of course not. it has nothing to do with xp's capabilities but marketing. that is MS of course want vista to have new exclusive things to attract people to buy it. want proof MS needs something high profile they can sell as a reason to buy vista ? just go to the link in this post and see how "great" some of these new things are
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=950454#post950454

DRM infested or not, it mainly only affects HD-DVD and Blu-ray playback
for now but just remember that vista has only just been officially released. this opens up the potential for abuse by providers of other protected content just aswell. it would be nice to think there will not be any in the future but lets all live in the real world shall we ? ;)

Eretria-chan

11th February 2007, 16:11

Eretria-chan - Sharktooth is right and it is you that is "Wrong, wrong, so so wrong". yes directx 10 was written to use the new driver model(wddm) which supposedly was redone to improve efficiency etc etc etc. to say that directx 10 could not have been done for xp aswell though is rubbish. directx is, in VERY basic terms, just a bunch of APIs for programs to communicate to the gfx card through the gfx cards drivers. that is - program -> directx API -> gfx card drivers -> gfx card.
MS did change how communications to the drivers is done thus requiring wddm drivers true but thats a limitation MS made themselves which they did not really need to do. and people dare to have a go at nvidia because MS made things more complicated ?

will it be done for XP ? of course not. it has nothing to do with xp's capabilities but marketing. that is MS of course want vista to have new exclusive things to attract people to buy it
I'm just stating what I think anyway... so since I can't look into code or full details of the new wddm, I can't say for sure, so I'll just leave it at that...
But I do agree it was a marketing strategy and also from a programmer's perspective something you would want to do - to refine something to be better and to discard old compability.

for now but just remember that vista has only just been officially released. this opens up the potential for abuse by providers of other protected content just aswell. it would be nice to think there will not be any in the future but lets all live in the real world shall we ? ;)

As long as I stay away from Updates & hopefully Service Packs I should be safe... for a while at least, I think...
But I'm betting there will be people who cracks that DRM and allows us to live w/o DRM (again, as long as we don't use Automatic Updates)... it's just a matter of time, I believe...

zambelli

11th February 2007, 22:55

will it be done for XP ? of course not. it has nothing to do with xp's capabilities but marketing.
Ummm... How about the time and money required to put a whole team of people on a new release? Or did you forget to consider the part of the equation which is "work" - the actual porting of DX10 to XP?

that is MS of course want vista to have new exclusive things to attract people to buy it. want proof MS needs something high profile they can sell as a reason to buy vista ?
If that were entirely true, there'd be no IE7, no WMP11 and no .NET 3.0 for XP. The latter is particularly contradictory to your theory since, like DX, it's just another "set of APIs". Perhaps architectural changes do matter more than you care to admit? It's not all about marketing. Marketing doesn't even enter the picture until way late in the game. Supporting multiple OS platforms is a PITA when you've got large-scale API projects such as DX10 on your hands, particularly ones with dependencies on new driver models. Don't underestimate the amount of actual real work behind it.

dragongodz

12th February 2007, 01:04

How about the time and money required to put a whole team of people on a new release? Or did you forget to consider the part of the equation which is "work" - the actual porting of DX10 to XP?
as i said, that has nothing to do with XPs capabilities. the assertion was it couldnt be done in XP at all. the fact is it could.
of course that would have meant it would have required spending money on people writing it, i didnt say it wouldnt.

there'd be no IE7, no WMP11 and no .NET 3.0 for XP. The latter is particularly contradictory to your theory since, like DX, it's just another "set of APIs".
well the first 2 have nothing to tie them to so are completely different. .NET 3.0 could have been done vista only but lets also consider that .NET also ties in to another group of MS products, its programming tools(visual studio et-all). since MS wants these to sell, of course, it may not have been a good move to tie it to just vista and cut out all those customers who are going to buy one of the visual programming packages.
in comparison what do MS sell that ties with directx 10 ? vista and thats really it. its other companies that will be releasing software(ie. games, yes MS do a few but really barely a drop in comparison to total releases) and these will even run on XP(using directx 9) aswell as vista, atleast until vista gets a big enough commercial footing for it to be financially viable for them to do vista only releases.

Perhaps architectural changes do matter more than you care to admit? It's not all about marketing.
of course architectural changes matter. however lets not confuse limitations caused by these with limitations that are not real beyond the unwillingness to spend money on support for the last generation OS when wanting to sell the latest. so yes you could argue theres more to it than marketing, but you have to admit marketing is a rather large part of whats behind not adding something to the older OS just because it would have cost a bit more to do so when you are trying to sell a new OS release.

Supporting multiple OS platforms is a PITA when you've got large-scale API projects such as DX10 on your hands, particularly ones with dependencies on new driver models.
of course. however it can be done. the argument you seem to be throwing at it is that it would have cost time and money so is understandable. yes its understandable it would have cost to support both old and new driver models, but when you look at the size of MS and its earnings i am afraid you are unlikely to get much sympathy for that argument. especially when people take time to consider that really vista is not the great leap forward from xp people may have expected and MS have hyped it as(the WOW starts when ? ;) ).

Sirber

12th February 2007, 13:44

there'd be no IE7, no WMP11 and no .NET 3.0 for XP
All 3 on windows update.

R3Z

13th February 2007, 10:40

Really not getting the hate for vista, you guys couldnt have been able to test it properly in a production environment to make a valid conclusion yet, the drivers are still so immature (hey nvidia, get cracking).

The standard DRM argument i am not sure of yet. I think companies have a right to protect their business - not sure what works best yet.

Eretria-chan

13th February 2007, 14:03

The standard DRM argument i am not sure of yet. I think companies have a right to protect their business - not sure what works best yet.

But the question is, do they have a right to do so when it impairs our free rights? And let's face it, the DRM is not there to protect the media - it's to limit what we do.

But I also take a stand on Vista like this. It's not the end of the world.

R3Z

13th February 2007, 14:15

But the question is, do they have a right to do so when it impairs our free rights? And let's face it, the DRM is not there to protect the media - it's to limit what we do.

But I also take a stand on Vista like this. It's not the end of the world.

That is the key mate :) Many people think that just because they purchase a dvd or cd that they own that particular peice of media and can use it how they see fit. I think their property needs to be protected, but i just dont know what would work best. Great help i am :(

Eretria-chan

13th February 2007, 14:19

That is the key mate :) Many people think that just because they purchase a dvd or cd that they own that particular peice of media and can use it how they see fit. I think their property needs to be protected, but i just dont know what would work best. Great help i am :(

But some country's laws say that we have the right to make backups for personal use, you know? With DRM (or what the companies want), basically we can't... hence impairing our free rights.

Sharktooth

13th February 2007, 14:35

... hence it's illegal ... expecially in most of the EU countries (including and expecially in Italy - where i live) ...

R3Z

13th February 2007, 15:10

But some country's laws say that we have the right to make backups for personal use, you know? With DRM (or what the companies want), basically we can't... hence impairing our free rights.

:sly: Some countries also dont follow copyright or patents. Its a big grey area as far as i am concerned.

People have got to start reading the fine print before they complain (not saying this about you btw) about not being able to backup, decrypt, convert other peoples intellectual property.

The problem is that as soon as we have the ability to proliferate media, we will. If people would just do the right thing then none of this shit would happen. Thats why i dont feel sorry for people who complain about DRM so much, i dont see what else you should be doing with a movie other than watching it?

Just a pasing comment, as bad as people think DRM is - why not fight with the same vigor against pirates ? How can we have fair use if we are the same scumbags that go and torrent other peoples property on the web, or give our family or friends a dvd (like anyones going to admit to it right :))

Eretria-chan

13th February 2007, 15:23

:sly: Some countries also dont follow copyright or patents. Its a big grey area as far as i am concerned.

People have got to start reading the fine print before they complain (not saying this about you btw) about not being able to backup, decrypt, convert other peoples intellectual property.
Then I must ask: do the companies have the right to restrict the freedom that we have according to law?
Can they forbid us to copy or make backups of our movies when the law says we can?
Which one comes first - the EULA or the law? I would only think that the law comes first. But so again, when using a software, you agree to the EULA, which is supposed to be a contract, yes? So what do we follow - the contract, or the law?

The problem is that as soon as we have the ability to proliferate media, we will. If people would just do the right thing then none of this shit would happen. Thats why i dont feel sorry for people who complain about DRM so much, i dont see what else you should be doing with a movie other than watching it?
What about you download the movie on your PC and you want to watch it on your DVD player on your TV set, or put it on your iPod or portable DVD movie player so you can watch it on the move? Are we not allowed such a thing?

Just a pasing comment, as bad as people think DRM is - why not fight with the same vigor against pirates ? How can we have fair use if we are the same scumbags that go and torrent other peoples property on the web, or give our family or friends a dvd (like anyones going to admit to it right :))

Just a thought here, but if we can't have our rights if we buy it, then we buy it at all? Why not go to some torrent site and get the material, even though free, without those restrictions?
As we have seen from online music services, they are very popular. CD sales are the same now as they were when online music stores did not exist, and what do we see now? We see an increase in sales because many people prefer to get it online. Only, before, they had to pirate it because there was no online music store.
The same can be applied to DRM. If we can't get our media DRM-free, we'll pirate it instead, simply because we won't have to submit to their outrageous EULAs.

big_green_jelly_bean

13th February 2007, 17:46

... hence it's illegal ... expecially in most of the EU countries (including and expecially in Italy - where i live) ...

In the US, it is legal to make backup copies for personal use only. However with the DMCA it is illegal to bypass any system of encoding that is meant to protect copyright content, with the exception of "Fair Use".

Good luck figuring out what "Fair Use" is.... I think bypassing security for personal backups is more then fair,

Mike

big_green_jelly_bean

13th February 2007, 17:53

DRM protection in Vista will be cracked or dropped by Microsoft. The protection itself limits legitimate applications that have very little to do with media or any form of content. The companies that make legitimate software who are now restricted as a result of Vista, will sue Microsoft and will win.

Virus Scanners, Firewalls, Alcohol, etc,,,

Eretria-chan

13th February 2007, 18:01

DRM protection in Vista will be cracked...
Probably.

...or dropped by Microsoft.
Very likely not. A very bold statement, that.

The protection itself limits legitimate applications that have very little to do with media or any form of content.
Just for curiousness, but how?

The companies that make legitimate software who are now restricted as a result of Vista, will sue Microsoft and will win.

Virus Scanners, Firewalls, Alcohol, etc,,,

Probably not. Don't underestimate Microsoft. They will have to abide by Microsoft's rules or go away. The only way they could hope to win is probably by going through EU, who seem to like hitting Microsoft on their fingers.

Shinigami-Sama

13th February 2007, 19:35

if a contract is made contradictory to the law the law wins, you can't just sign a contract to kill X 3rd party and as long as the 3rd party sings you're scott free; doesn't work like that

And if the SW Venderors dont like Vista they might just keep making things for XP - or better yet linux

zambelli

14th February 2007, 08:09

But some country's laws say that we have the right to make backups for personal use, you know? With DRM (or what the companies want), basically we can't... hence impairing our free rights.
I'm no lawyer (attach the usual disclaimer there), but the fair use clause of the copyright law doesn't grant you rights - it merely says that certain practices are not to be considered copyright infringement. Here's the "fair use" clause of the U.S. copyright law, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
It might seem like a minor distinction, but hey, that's what interpreting law often boils down to - nitpicking at semantics. :)

I believe this is similar to the argument often made for how shouting "Fire!" falsely in a crowded theater is not protected by the freedom of speech. The U.S. constitution's 1st amendement says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The 1st amendement is often cited as "granting freedom of speech", yet anyone who reads it carefully will see that it doesn't grant anything - it merely stops the Congress from restricting the freedom of speech. So it does not in fact give you the right to yell "Fire!" as you please. :)

My point: people are often too quick to claim "rights" they do not in fact have. Everyone should take the time to read up on copyright laws that apply to their country and state instead of just relying on hearsay and second hand information. The law is not a binary system, so you can't always assume that "NOT 0" equals "1".

All 3 on windows update.
Right, that's what I said. They're all available for Windows XP even though they were developed for Vista first, but in all those cases the XP ports ("downlevel", as it's known at MS) were planned and budgeted way ahead of time.

As we have seen from online music services, they are very popular. CD sales are the same now as they were when online music stores did not exist, and what do we see now? We see an increase in sales because many people prefer to get it online. Only, before, they had to pirate it because there was no online music store.
Umm, why would they have had to pirate it? Couldn't they have bought the CD and ripped it to their computer? And isn't that still a perfectly legit option?

The same can be applied to DRM. If we can't get our media DRM-free, we'll pirate it instead, simply because we won't have to submit to their outrageous EULAs.
The argument is flawed because the online stores whose popularity you highlight are the very same stores that sell DRM'ed media - so the conclusion is that people don't mind the DRM enough to stop buying.

I absolutely agree that anybody who disagrees with the policies of an online media store should not purchase anything from them. However, this line of reasoning that pirating and DRM-circumvention is OK because you allegedly have no better option - is absolute rubbish and I don't think it serves the anti-DRM movement any good.

The protection itself limits legitimate applications that have very little to do with media or any form of content. The companies that make legitimate software who are now restricted as a result of Vista, will sue Microsoft and will win.
That's a big statement. Care to back it up with facts?

big_green_jelly_bean

14th February 2007, 08:55

Allot, I mean ALLOT of people are having problems with Vista

The largest reasons people are complaining are

A) DRM
B) Unsupported Software
C) Cost
D) Small Benift
E) Reduced Performance

The issue I have is that FROM WHAT I HEARD SO FAR, that if I want to build a ISO based drive emulator, it seems to me that I am prohibited from doing so in Vista.

If I want to build a Virus Scanner or Spy ware scanner, I cant get access to the top system account.

If this is the case then what Microsoft has done is close the otherwise PC world to applications it says are valid. This would be illegal, and would/should lead to civil suits.

I don't buy limited DRM media because it is software and hardware specific. Now if the companies can produce a wide range of products and a standard support that is widely adapted, then I am more then happy to use their standards.

Mike

PS, When I can back up my DVD's and CD's using Vista, then I will buy it. (Vobblanker, DVD Rebuilder, CCE, MenuShrink, AnyDVD, DVD Shrink, DVD Decryptor)

zambelli

14th February 2007, 09:31

The issue I have is that FROM WHAT I HEARD SO FAR, that if I want to build a ISO based drive emulator, it seems to me that I am prohibited from doing so in Vista.
Deamon Tools and CloneDrive are reported (http://weblogs.asp.net/mlafleur/archive/2006/11/21/mounting-iso-images-with-vista.aspx)to work with Vista, so it doesn't sound like those claims are valid.

If I want to build a Virus Scanner or Spy ware scanner, I cant get access to the top system account.
That seems like a security restriction, not a DRM restriction.

If this is the case then what Microsoft has done is close the otherwise PC world to applications it says are valid. This would be illegal, and would/should lead to civil suits.
"If this is the case" sounds awfully a lot like you claimed something is true without actually checking whether it's true.

I don't buy limited DRM media because it is software and hardware specific. Now if the companies can produce a wide range of products and a standard support that is widely adapted, then I am more then happy to use their standards.
Totally agree with you there. I feel the same way.

PS, When I can back up my DVD's and CD's using Vista, then I will buy it. (Vobblanker, DVD Rebuilder, CCE, MenuShrink, AnyDVD, DVD Shrink, DVD Decryptor)
What exactly makes you think these apps don't work on Vista?

dragongodz

14th February 2007, 13:21

now this is a rather disturbing idea.

http://www.tomcoyote.org/tech/vista-upgrade-invalidates-your-xp-key/74/

If you choose to purchase an upgrade version of Windows Vista to upgrade XP, you will no longer be able to use that version of XP. Either on another system, or as a dual-boot option. The key will be invalidated, preventing activation.

so in other words say i buy and install over my xp the upgrade version of vista, then decide a few weeks later i would rather go back to using xp until i either have a need for vista or drivers for some of my hardware are released etc etc etc i cant ? i would have to try to find someone still selling xp and re-buy it again ?

WTF ????

ok reading the posts there it shows a bit of confusion. found this
This is for UPGRADE only!

Your Windows XP key will still work however it is ONLY to be used to install XP then upgrade to Vista.

Microsoft has confirmed that the key is not invalidated to activate and certify that copy of XPis legit in order to reinstall Vista. This means legally you are now required to use Vista(upgrade xp to Vista) and that licence to USE XP is now revoqued. If you wish to use XP you would need to purchase a new licence (Therefore recovering the cost difference of the full vs upgrade ed.)

ok so i could reinstall xp but only legally for the purpose of upgrading to vista ?

Sharktooth

14th February 2007, 15:55

@zambelli: the italian copyraight law says exactly that the user HAS the RIGHT to make backup copies for personal use.
So the point is Vista is illegal in italy and some other EU countries with similar laws.
M$ still want to "export" the US way of doing things in the World.
I already said it, US and M$ are not in the center of the universe...

Sharktooth

14th February 2007, 16:57

Eretria-chan

14th February 2007, 20:45

I'm no lawyer (attach the usual disclaimer there), but the fair use clause of the copyright law doesn't grant you rights - it merely says that certain practices are not to be considered copyright infringement. Here's the "fair use" clause of the U.S. copyright law, courtesy of Wikipedia:

It might seem like a minor distinction, but hey, that's what interpreting law often boils down to - nitpicking at semantics. :)

I believe this is similar to the argument often made for how shouting "Fire!" falsely in a crowded theater is not protected by the freedom of speech. The U.S. constitution's 1st amendement says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The 1st amendement is often cited as "granting freedom of speech", yet anyone who reads it carefully will see that it doesn't grant anything - it merely stops the Congress from restricting the freedom of speech. So it does not in fact give you the right to yell "Fire!" as you please. :)

My point: people are often too quick to claim "rights" they do not in fact have. Everyone should take the time to read up on copyright laws that apply to their country and state instead of just relying on hearsay and second hand information. The law is not a binary system, so you can't always assume that "NOT 0" equals "1".
Whether or not such a law exists, there are often suggestions or other type of such things that state we SHOULD have the right to do so, if no law. But companies pound down such suggestions, or incomplete laws, and yet no one seems to care?

Umm, why would they have had to pirate it? Couldn't they have bought the CD and ripped it to their computer? And isn't that still a perfectly legit option?

The argument is flawed because the online stores whose popularity you highlight are the very same stores that sell DRM'ed media - so the conclusion is that people don't mind the DRM enough to stop buying.
The point being, a lot of pirates pirate things because they disagree with DRM. I just made a reference, though maybe it was a bad conparison... But if DRM were to go away, more people would purchase online music/movies simply because they won't be stuck with the DRM if they buy (which they won't be stuck with if pirated).

I absolutely agree that anybody who disagrees with the policies of an online media store should not purchase anything from them. However, this line of reasoning that pirating and DRM-circumvention is OK because you allegedly have no better option - is absolute rubbish and I don't think it serves the anti-DRM movement any good.
I agree - piracy does not help anti-DRM, but so again, buying DRM will help it.

M$ did it again (by design!): another UAC security hole: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=29

So, yes... Vista security is a big joke (http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2007/02/vista-security-model-big-joke.html)
That's so typical Microsoft. They have to make things easy and have a nice user interface, even if it means sacrificing functionality. It's good that they make it easy, but let's be blunt here: don't ignore issues and let users choose as well.

JohnnyMalaria

14th February 2007, 22:48

M$ did it again (by design!): another UAC security hole: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=29

So, yes... Vista security is a big joke (http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2007/02/vista-security-model-big-joke.html)

When you started this thread, you were bitching about the restrictions - now you're bitching that they aren't as restrictive as original expected.

BTW - in the linked blog, it doesn't say whether the hacker expert was logged in as an admin or not. i.e., the "issues" raised - are they relevant to a standard user.

JohnnyMalaria

14th February 2007, 22:52

But anyway, the last straw for me was when I was unable to adjust file associations as well as in previous versions. The "File Types" tab in "Folder Options" is gone, so now the only way you can associate in vista seems to be an app with an extension only... all advanced functionality there is gone.

RTFM - or rather, RTF-Start Menu.

You're only 3 mouse clicks away from being able to set associations - it's easier than XP.

Click 1: Start Menu
Click 2: Default Programs <---- big clue
Click 3: Associate a file type or protocol with a program

JohnnyMalaria

14th February 2007, 22:59

@zambelli: the italian copyraight law says exactly that the user HAS the RIGHT to make backup copies for personal use.

"Hey, I bought this toaster and it won't let me back up my DVDs! That's illegal."

Microsoft isn't stopping you from exercising your alleged Italian rights. There are other tools that will let you do it. You need to choose the right tool for the job. Clearly, for you, Vista will never satisfy you in any regard.

Did you know most DV camcorders have DRM? If you have video source that is tagged with CGMS-A, the camcorder will refuse to record. So are those camcorders illegal in Italy?

Nematocyst

15th February 2007, 03:24

RTFM - or rather, RTF-Start Menu.

You're only 3 mouse clicks away from being able to set associations - it's easier than XP.

Click 1: Start Menu
Click 2: Default Programs <---- big clue
Click 3: Associate a file type or protocol with a program

I think you need to reread, or at the very least, understand my complaint. My problem isn't an inability to find the associations tool. It's that the tool is vastly reduced in functionality.

Say you want to associate *.foo with "bar.exe -k" This is easily accomplished in all versions of windows since '95. Vista gives you only the ability to associate *.foo with "bar.exe" And note, this is just one contrived advanced example. There are lots more advanced features of associations that are inaccessible w/out a 3rd party tool or hand modifying the registry.

Sharktooth

15th February 2007, 04:40

When you started this thread, you were bitching about the restrictions - now you're bitching that they aren't as restrictive as original expected.

BTW - in the linked blog, it doesn't say whether the hacker expert was logged in as an admin or not. i.e., the "issues" raised - are they relevant to a standard user.
It seems you just did a quick read. Re-read the article and the blog again.
M$ advertised UAC as one of the major security measures in Vista while a M$ employee said it is not at all (as it was proved...). Also the "hacker" was alread able in the past to break the Vista security in different ways...
So Vista security model is just a joke (or better, big marketing words only...)

"Hey, I bought this toaster and it won't let me back up my DVDs! That's illegal."

Microsoft isn't stopping you from exercising your alleged Italian rights. There are other tools that will let you do it. You need to choose the right tool for the job. Clearly, for you, Vista will never satisfy you in any regard.

Did you know most DV camcorders have DRM? If you have video source that is tagged with CGMS-A, the camcorder will refuse to record. So are those camcorders illegal in Italy?
We're talking about Windows and not toasters or camcoders.
DRM is illegal whereever it is applied coz it's in contraddiction with many country laws. It's just a mere attempt to circumvent the fair use rights restricting the limits of what users can and cant do.
Guns are not made to shoot at certain persons only... cars are not made to go on certain roads only... it's not up to the gun or car maker to decide how we should use them... it's the LAW that permits (and limit) us to use those things the right way.
The software makers/content providers/media publishers have NO RIGHTS to replace the country laws with absurd EULAs or RESTRICTIONS that are contraddicting the country laws. They havent that power and they will never have it. NEVER.

foxyshadis

15th February 2007, 09:41

zambelli

15th February 2007, 09:41

M$ advertised UAC as one of the major security measures in Vista while a M$ employee said it is not at all (as it was proved...). Also the "hacker" was alread able in the past to break the Vista security in different ways...
I'd take an engineer's word over a marketing person's word any day of the week. :)

UAC is a security measure no more than putting the sharp knives on a higher shelf out of reach of young children is a security measure. On one hand, a smart kid can still grab a chair and climb to the higher shelf, but on the other hand the risk will indeed go down overall. I personally never thought of UAC as anything more than a big "BE AWARE OF WHAT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN!" warning sign. Highly annoying for power users, too. I disabled it on every Vista install I ever did. :) Anyway, I get both sides of the argument - the engineering and the marketing view of the feature - and I do think the whole thing is being blown way out of proportion. Sounds like a lot of people are nitpicking at Vista's security guards. Like that accessibility hack... "If you turn on your mic and enable voice recognition, you can delete files..." Ooooh. Fancy. That's not a hack, that's a chore. :)

We're talking about Windows and not toasters or camcoders.
DRM is illegal whereever it is applied coz it's in contraddiction with many country laws. It's just a mere attempt to circumvent the fair use rights restricting the limits of what users can and cant do.
Just out of curiosity - can you point me to this article of the Italian law? I'm really curious about a law that explicitly states "nobody can restrict you from making copies of media".

Sharktooth

15th February 2007, 14:21

It's already linked somewhere on this forum or maybe in "general".
However: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197006220

dragongodz

15th February 2007, 14:23

come on guys, lets not turn this in to another big debate on fair use etc. its been done many times already. lets just stick to vista security, license restrictions etc etc etc.

for instance nobody has bothered to comment on the last post i did about what happens with your xp license when you buy the upgrade version of vista. funny, i would have thought that would have been of atleast some interest. :)

heres another thing i find interesting about vista. it appears its going to have a life span of a bit over 2 years. if this article is correct of course.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9010982&source=NLT_MSFT&nlid=74

With Vista just out the door, Microsoft Corp. is now drawing up plans to deliver its follow-up client operating system by the end of 2009, according to the executive in charge of building the product's core components.

That would be a much faster turnaround than Vista, which shipped more than five years after Windows XP, but Vista was exceptional, said Ben Fathi, corporate vice president of development in Microsoft's Windows core operating system division, who spoke this week at the RSA Conference 2007 in San Francisco.

so we would then be expected to shell out again of course. hmm considering i took my time before migrating to xp(didnt until i felt i needed to so i could use some programs that became xp only) and considering i plan to do the same with vista, not migrate to it until i have a real reason to, it makes me wonder if i even will before the next OS is due. anyone else see this as killing some of the incentive to migrate to vista if they plan to do so later rather than now ?

Sharktooth

15th February 2007, 14:28

M$ OSses were always delayed... so if now they say 2 years, it will be at least 3...

dragongodz

15th February 2007, 14:35

so if now they say 2 years, it will be at least 3
maybe. it still, to me, has the effect of making vista even less meaningful as a possible future upgrade option.

if anything i am expecting that with such an estimated update schedule vienna is more likely to be what vista was originally hyped as being. that is vienna will contain some of the things that were dropped from vista to get it out the door plus bug fixes, updates etc.

Eretria-chan

15th February 2007, 14:57

UAC is a security measure no more than putting the sharp knives on a higher shelf out of reach of young children is a security measure. On one hand, a smart kid can still grab a chair and climb to the higher shelf, but on the other hand the risk will indeed go down overall. I personally never thought of UAC as anything more than a big "BE AWARE OF WHAT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN!" warning sign. Highly annoying for power users, too. I disabled it on every Vista install I ever did. :) Anyway, I get both sides of the argument - the engineering and the marketing view of the feature - and I do think the whole thing is being blown way out of proportion. Sounds like a lot of people are nitpicking at Vista's security guards. Like that accessibility hack... "If you turn on your mic and enable voice recognition, you can delete files..." Ooooh. Fancy. That's not a hack, that's a chore. :)

I'd say Microsoft still needs to fix some things that are serious bugs. But Microsoft seems to ingore them just saying "that's how it's designed." Oh yeah? But weren't the damn thing supposed to protect us? What is hackers start taking advatange of this? Are we screwed then?
And then there is the whole thing when Microsoft REMOVES features because they may be too complicated for the normal users...
And just for reference, I disable UAC only because it doesn't play well with applications.

JohnnyMalaria

15th February 2007, 16:48

for instance nobody has bothered to comment on the last post i did about what happens with your xp license when you buy the upgrade version of vista. funny, i would have thought that would have been of atleast some interest. :)

Well, if you buy an upgrade, you shouldn't be licensed for both. You'd need to pay for the full licence. If you decide to downgrade, just call MS. I did that years ago when I upgraded 3.11 to 95. It didn't support my hardware and software (hmmm....) - they gave me my money back.

heres another thing i find interesting about vista. it appears its going to have a life span of less than 2 years. if this article is correct of course.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9010982&source=NLT_MSFT&nlid=74

November 2006 (Vista RTM released) to "end of 2009" is more like 3 years, not 2. 3 years is quite standard. 95 to 98; 98 to ME; 2K to XP....

The time between XP and Vista is the atypical one.

JohnnyMalaria

15th February 2007, 16:59

I think you need to reread, or at the very least, understand my complaint. My problem isn't an inability to find the associations tool. It's that the tool is vastly reduced in functionality.

Say you want to associate *.foo with "bar.exe -k" This is easily accomplished in all versions of windows since '95. Vista gives you only the ability to associate *.foo with "bar.exe" And note, this is just one contrived advanced example. There are lots more advanced features of associations that are inaccessible w/out a 3rd party tool or hand modifying the registry.

Thanks for explaining.

You're absolutely right and it doesn't make sense. (Though I have never needed the advanced functionality). It can be added to the list of other things that have disappeared:

No more camcorder folder in Explorer when you connect a camcorder (this is also missing in XP Pro x64) - WHY???

No DirectSound (it's emulated) - and with that, goes the WDM audio driver model. Unless vendors write new drivers, your legacy audio hardware won't work (ASIO and other protocols excepted).

No IEEE-1394 IP networking. This one stumps me. According to MS, it's because no-one every used it. Well, I started using it about 9 months ago when I started putting FireWire on all my systems. On a wireless network, it provided a quick and reliable means of doing very fast file transfers between physically close PCs - just hook up their FireWire ports. Much better than going via the wireless net. Oh well....

dragongodz

15th February 2007, 23:04

November 2006 (Vista RTM released)
and it hit the shelf for average consumer buying when again ?

really thats just trying to fudge my point. that is if a person going to leave migrating to vista for over a year or more, when a person would hope some bugs in both vista and drivers etc have been fixed, then it becomes a much less attractive option knowing another version will be coming that soon.
especially when you consider vienna looks like its going to be just an update and refresh of vista.

improvements that we wanted to make in Vista that we couldn't deliver in one release."
"You can think roughly two, two and a half years is a reasonable time frame that our partners can depend on and can work with," he said. "That's a good time frame for refresh."

hence my comment that vienna sound more like what vista was originally hyped as being and more likely holding off for unless someone has a real need for vista before then.

communist

15th February 2007, 23:54

No IEEE-1394 IP networking. This one stumps me. According to MS, it's because no-one every used it. Well, I started using it about 9 months ago when I started putting FireWire on all my systems. On a wireless network, it provided a quick and reliable means of doing very fast file transfers between physically close PCs - just hook up their FireWire ports. Much better than going via the wireless net. Oh well....
Let me stress it again reliable. It never failed on me. Just F5 and bang I could browse shares.
On a recent 'project' I used it very much.. so features are dropped 'because' noone uses them. Maybe someone ought to make them more visible like providing a "in your face"-IE style icon on the desktop.

Sharktooth

27th February 2007, 17:42

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=221
and also Windows Genuine Advantage is an anti-piracy tool loathed by many, tolerated by some, and even appreciated by others. How you feel about it may depend in part on whether or not you've been caught in its snares: the "authentic software" validation tool is known to have falsely identified thousands of "pirated" Vista installs.

As Microsoft steps up its war against piracy, the company has decided to slightly nuance Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA). Rather than identify users as either in the clear or not, the company has added a third classification for users who set off some, but not all of WGA's undisclosed piracy-detection functionality. Users will now find that Windows XP installs are labeled as genuine, non-genuine or "not sure." While Microsoft has not responded to requests for comment, it's quite obvious what is going on here: Microsoft has added "not sure" as a way of cutting down on the number of false positives associated with WGA. As many as one in five PCs were failing WGA checks, but this new setting should both reduce this and give Microsoft the chance to investigate further the kinds of things that are landing folks in the "not sure" category.http://www.winbeta.org/

Henrikx

6th March 2007, 15:55

Microsoft Hit By U.S. DOT Ban On Windows Vista, Explorer 7, and Office 2007
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197700789

dragongodz

20th May 2007, 06:06

burfadel

20th May 2007, 10:58

heres something new i just read for those buying prebuilt systems and thinking they can simply replace the motherbaord with a different model, such as if the first MB has something wrong with it or that model doesnt work as expected etc.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/05/motherboard_rep.html

MB upgrade = a new computer = paying for a new copy of vista. :eek:

That is and has always been the same with XP! Its not quite as simple as what it suggests. You are allowed to change over a defective motherboard with the same type, you are just not allowed to purposefully change from a Socket 754 Athlon 3200 to a Socket 754 Intel Qx6700 etc because that is essentially a new computer. If you had to replace the Socket 754 motherboard with the same model, you can do so no problem. If that model isn't available anymore, you can put in a different motherboard same socket (as long as you're using the same parts) and ring up Microsoft through the manual activation method. Like its always been with XP! After you replace the motherboard you can change the graphics card etc, as you are not upgrading the computer per se, only a component thereof.

dragongodz

20th May 2007, 13:32

If that model isn't available anymore, you can put in a different motherboard same socket (as long as you're using the same parts) and ring up Microsoft through the manual activation method. Like its always been with XP!

please actually read the article. it is NOT the same as XP where you could just renew your activation. instead you are expected to buy a new license.

from the article -

Comments that he had seen in system builder discussion groups seemed to indicate that if the end user wants to upgrade the motherboard - a common enough desire these days given what a memory pig Vista's turned out to be - the system builder must make the customer pay for another Vista license. The reader contacted Microsoft's partner group and was told that, yes indeed, a new motherboard requires a new license.

Fortunately, I was able to find a Microsoft official who was gracious enough to look into the reader's questions for me. "The rule is in place to protect the OEM, or in this specific case the System Builder, so that as computers are upgraded, the System Builder is not obligated (per the EULA) to support a version of Windows that may be on what is essentially a new PC," wrote Tom Moran, director of customer and partner experience for Microsoft Operations. "Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on your customer's computer and the end user may maintain the license for the original Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an upgrade or replacement of the motherboard. Upgrading the motherboard essentially results in a new computer, to which the original operating system software cannot be transferred. This is not the case if the motherboard is replaced (same make/model) due to a defect."

so as i said
MB upgrade = a new computer = paying for a new copy of vista.

Dr.Khron

20th May 2007, 16:55

brucevangeorge

21st May 2007, 00:43

Brutal policy, man.

Licensing restrictions that are THAT onerous is just begging for people to steal their software.

Not that I condone that, I believe that everybody should buy a legit copy... but if you can't upgrade your PC, its a massive blow to the tinkering types like ourselves.

That's okay. I condone it. But only if its under unreasonable and fascist terms like most monopolies try to impose. Otherwise, but the damn software.

Not Vista though. Hack away gentlemen!

zambelli

21st May 2007, 10:29

Coincidentally, I was just reading a post on an internal MS mailing list the other day where somebody asked about replacing the motherboard on Vista... and people replied saying they had done it without having to do a reinstall or have a new license issued.

Perhaps the policy isn't as draconian on the end-user as it may seem for that article.

burfadel

21st May 2007, 17:56

The motherboard can be replaced definately with the same model. Apparently there is a point system? where the system can only be allowed to have a certain number of points (scale system that is) before the license expires... and its tied heavily to the network controller. Therefore if you change from one nvidia based motherboard to another thats using the nvidia network controller etc (and the same graphics card etc etc) you are fine, but if you change to even a more similar model that uses a marvel or something network controller then you're license becomes invalid?... Just read that somewhere ages ago, as the licence system was changed at some stage.

There is a full licence-ish method supposedly incorporated on purpose by Microsoft, as it becomes attractive to computer enthusiasts who won't fork out large sums of money but at the same time would be ok with paying the small sum for the upgrade copy. This method supposedly entices those that would otherwise use a cracked copy as they have done so with XP to use a fully legitimate copy at a reduced price. I can't explain it any more than that, except that the upgrade disk can be used as a full copy (look it up). Thats what I'll be doing as the extra process does not bother me.

Coincidentally, I was just reading a post on an internal MS mailing list the other day where somebody asked about replacing the motherboard on Vista... and people replied saying they had done it without having to do a reinstall or have a new license issued.

Perhaps the policy isn't as draconian on the end-user as it may seem for that article.

zambelli

21st May 2007, 23:56

The motherboard can be replaced definately with the same model. Apparently there is a point system? where the system can only be allowed to have a certain number of points (scale system that is) before the license expires... and its tied heavily to the network controller. Therefore if you change from one nvidia based motherboard to another thats using the nvidia network controller etc (and the same graphics card etc etc) you are fine, but if you change to even a more similar model that uses a marvel or something network controller then you're license becomes invalid?... Just read that somewhere ages ago, as the licence system was changed at some stage.
The article is really talking about OEM versions only. OEM software is generally tied to the computer it is sold on - and in Vista's case it's the motherboard that was chosen as the main component to identify the computer. It makes sense if you think about it from a design/implementation perspective.

Retail Vista users aren't likely to be affected by those restrictions at all.

This post confirms that the retail user experience is unaffected:
http://help.wugnet.com/vista/vista-installed-change-mother-board-ftopict50403.html

This Arstechnica article sums it up well too:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070130-8730.html

dragongodz

22nd May 2007, 05:17

The motherboard can be replaced definately with the same model.
YES WE KNOW. sorry but you have said that twice and nobody said otherwise. infact it also specifically states that in the article. so PLEASE do NOT say it again.

and people replied saying they had done it without having to do a reinstall or have a new license issued.

Perhaps the policy isn't as draconian on the end-user as it may seem for that article.
and when looking for more information i found there was "ways" around it aswell. however the average mum or dad is hardly going to know that. besides it specifically talks about MS saying the system builder must make the buyer buy again. being able to "get around" the policy does not change what the policy is.

The article is really talking about OEM versions only.OEM software is generally tied to the computer it is sold on
and i said in the very first post about this it was for pre-built systems since most system builders do include an OEM version of windows to keep it cheap. so the average joe who goes and buys a brand new system rather than buying all the parts and putting it together himself is what i am talking about. again that should have been pretty clear for anyone actually reading the article and what i said.

Sharktooth

31st May 2007, 18:33

uhm... a bit off topic but it may be interesting: http://www.longhorn-reloaded.org/

Sirber

31st May 2007, 19:22

the site doesn't say much... Isn't longhorn pre-vista?

big_green_jelly_bean

31st May 2007, 20:39

Actually it wasn't clear.

zambelli

1st June 2007, 11:19

uhm... a bit off topic but it may be interesting: http://www.longhorn-reloaded.org/
Wow. Some people seriously have too much time on their hands. Longhorn M1 was awful.

big_green_jelly_bean

2nd June 2007, 21:02

I was thinking the same thing. Why do these people try and fix a product that is copyrighted.

On their forums, they claim this is Abandon Ware, and thus isnt Warez. This is incorrect, and any valid release of this software will draw the attention of microsoft and the hordes of lawyers out from their rotting nests.

Anyways, AnyDVD works with Vista, and I hear reports of people using VOBBlanker, DVD Shrink and DVD Decryptor on this product. Simply put, the Content Management Copyright protection is not effecting my ability to back up DVD's.

Inventive Software

3rd June 2007, 00:14

But what about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray? ;)

zambelli

3rd June 2007, 00:16

Anyways, AnyDVD works with Vista, and I hear reports of people using VOBBlanker, DVD Shrink and DVD Decryptor on this product. Simply put, the Content Management Copyright protection is not effecting my ability to back up DVD's.
I've been saying that from day 1. The entire Protected Media Path API exists only to provide additional copyright protection to applications that choose to use it. None of it has anything to do with playback of unprotected formats, DVD playback or DVD ripping.

big_green_jelly_bean

11th June 2007, 15:25

But what about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray? ;)

Funny you should ask. I just bought a XBox HD-DVD, plugged it into my machine (it automatically downloaded the drivers, no reset needed), upgraded my version of anydvd, and was playing my free HD-DVD without a HDCP compatible video card, or any other additional hardware.

Only complaint... Windows Vista does not contain the codex's needed to play HD or Blue Ray Disks. Though Vista has finally included native DVD playback. Thus your stuck with PowerDVD or one of the other players. This will make HD-DVD playback interesting in media center, though Windows Vista Media Center will detect PowerDVD on your machine, and will associate the disks with it. Include MyMovies (which only supports vista 32 for now), and you get playback of ripped HD-DVD's from any local and/or networked hard drives.

I was very upset about what I was hearing from forums like this about Windows Vista. 99% of what I thought turned out to be wrong.

I am VERY happy with Vista. It does everything amazingly well. My only complaints are.

A) Cost (dont buy the upgrade or the OEM unless you understand the license agreement)
B) No native HD/BR DVD support
C) Home Edition Premium only comes with a 32-bit copy. You must order a "free" copy of the 64-bit disk from Microsoft for a $10 shipping fee.
D) Home Edition Premium does NOT support remote desktop.
E) A few games are not compatible or hard to get to work with my Ultimate 64 bit edition. BF2142 plays, but disconnects from games either from Punk buster issues or "incompatible mod" messages. These issues can be fixed though I haven't had time to hammer out the available solutions posted on the web.

With a simply change in the registry you may even get windows vista media center to play DVD's stored on a hard drive (without any add-ons).

You can even put any video file as your desktop wallpaper. haven't tried it with a large MPEG yet:)

I was very skeptical about Windows Vista, but I had to buy a copy so that I could be ready when I needed to develop an application for it. Now I use it as my primary OS, and love it (I even run the x64 bit version). There is so much more I could say...

No I don't work for or even like Microsoft as a company. But this product is simply the BEST OS I have ever used.

Jelly

Sharktooth

27th September 2007, 15:46

big_green_jelly_bean

27th September 2007, 19:09

was looking for this thread to link it to another post and spotted this last reply.
ok, let's start...
you can play ripped HD-DVDs but not BlueRay coz AACS is mandatory.
also, Vista has the (in)famous "software revoking" facility and M$ can decide what software can run and what not simply by deciding it when they wake up in the morning.
You can play DVDs with free softwares (MPC, Mplayer) and they're more functional and faster then WMP/WMC.
Video files on desktop? have look at VLC... still free.
simply put, that "product" (Vista) is unsafe, slow, buggy, memory hungry, incompatible and pricey.

BlueRay disks do play ripped, I record my DVD's to a large 5tb server and play them back on my Windows Vista Media Center. I use Slysofts AnyDVD!

Microsoft has no decision on what software I run on my PC. Any such move on Microsoft would lead to a lawsuit. Even if this is speculation, I have multiple machines, and have never had this "(in)famous" situation occur. I can just imagine what would happen if Microsoft Decided to uninstall software from my machine. Even if they did, the software companies I use would quickly work around the issue.

There are allot of products out to show movies on. Media Center is integrated with my Home Theater PC, which then opens PowerDVD when I play a HD/Blue Ray DVD from my hard drive. The importance of this is that Media Center is smart enough to go into screen saver mode when it is paused or in a menu. For a Plasma TV this is important. Second Media Center is compatible with the Microsoft Remote, which makes programming my Logitech 880 easy. I do own a IMon, which I could use to make VLC or Classic Media Player work with. You can use a plug in to play recorded movies from the hard drive (or Network) or you can use the basic Windows Vista Media Center with a small Registry edit. The only problem with the Registry Edit is that Windows Media Center will not recognize the HD-DVD and Blue Ray movie formats when it scans and rescans the Hard Drives. This leads you to the better solution which is to use the plug in (which is a great add on since it includes tons of information like that found on IMDB). Again Im talking about Media Center and NOT Media Player. I need to, and do, run my computer with Just Remote. I do not use my Blue Tooth keyboard or the Imon Remote much.

Windows Vista being unsafe? Have you heard stories of it blowing up and killing people, because now I'm afraid...

Ohhh maybe you mean its security... Well unfortunately the number one security threat to any computer system is not the computer system itself but the stupid nut running the computer. I have a firewall/router to protect my network, and I run FireFox. I have no issues:) I know about security, I have a honey pot running and a few other intrusion detection practices on my network. Nothing has gotten through my router. As always I recommend FireFox because of its minor statistical usage over Windows IE (making it less of a target). Plus I like the interface better! I hear people claiming XP is unsafe too. I have seen many reports that Linux is cracked more then Windows, and if you used Linux you could probably figure out why. As far as Windows XP and Windows Vista security wise? Windows Vista WILL be, if its not already, more secure. This is due to the fact that in Windows Vista you log into as a "Admin" but you need to give it permission to run programs that change the features of the OS and its programs. Many people may shut this off because of its annoyance, however once everything you run is installed, you wont be bothered much by this feature.

Windows Vista slow? Hmmm... Dont notice much difference on my X6800 or 6400 duel core chips with 2 Gigs. It does take more resources, and you DEFINITELY do NOT want to run Windows Media Player. It loads this DMA application that sucks resources like no tomorrow.

I do agree that it is Buggy, though not horrible... It crashes once every few days, and I it is getting better. It is also incompatible with SOME software. Thats unfortunate, though luckily all of the applications I use work flawless (except older games). Then again I run the 32 bit version, and I HIGHLY recommend that you wait awhile until the 64 bit version is better. The 64 bit version is a nightmare. I also notice that Vista is HORRIBLE on 1 gig of Ram or less. On 2 Gigs, I do NOT notice any differences, though I see reports of Adobe Photoshop loading a fraction of a second faster on XP. As far as using the heavy MPEG encoding utilities? No difference.

Remember I am playing with fast over clocked water cooled machines with "allot" of memory. The poor performance numbers do not make a noticeable difference to me.

I run a majority of MPEG video editing software located on this site and have had 0 problems with any of it.

I recommend people stay with XP, because it is such a great product, at a better price, and is rock solid. Vista is amazing in its fine tuned user interface. With that said, the features of Vista are awesome, but its only the little things that make it so much better then XP. Also a majority of the issues with Vista have been driver related, and are fixed with newer drivers.

I personally Duel Boot. Windows XP and Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit. I find myself using Ultimate exclusively. I feel bad for my XP installation, maybe I should load it up and give it some loving. I hate the fact that Microsoft charges so much for Vista, that it crashes, and that I have problems playing some of my games. I do like the fact that all new games support vista, so soon the games I currently care about will be left on the curb.

smok3

27th September 2007, 19:22

because it is such a great product
only good thing i heard about vista so far is that the command line version of defrag.exe is having this new great switch -a which will defrag all the drives, unlike on xp where you have to define a new line for every drive. :devil:

big_green_jelly_bean

27th September 2007, 21:29

Every OS that Microsoft Releases gets this same treatment. I heard this with XP, 2000, NT, ME, 98, 95... Hell I know people who still run ME and that state its more secure then XP.

What about the ability to control sound levels based on application rather then the input output system in XP

What about the ability to see the windows when you high light over the start menu.

What about a help system that actually helps. Almost always pointing you to the document you want.

What about Direct X10

What about the fact that it was designed for new processors, multi-cores, and 3D video processors?

What about UAC (which many people hate cause they have to push "Accept") sure its a press of a button once in awhile, but guess what, it actually prevents programs from modifying system files without the user permission. This has been one of the major claims Linux users have had that their system was more secure the XP.

Parental Controls

User Account Creation based on Profiles that are easy to use?

Automatic Performance Calibration for games

Recording of System Error Messages, and the instant retrieval of information on how to fix those error messages (no more searching for the right tech net article)

Advanced Performance Monitoring, Recording, and Debugging?

Advanced Error Event Logs?

Inclusion of Media Center on all versions except professional? This is nice if you want a central location and access for Recorded TV, Music, Movies, Video's, etc. Then add the ability to access that from a console like the XBox 360 that will drop in price, and you can quickly have on demand video, music, etc from any room in the house.

How about being able to better control file explorer? View Images with-in Explorer with features that will grow images or shrink images within these windows.

What about system messages that make simple clear information, rather then error codes, and or vague descriptions.

What about bit locker?

------------------------------------

There is no doubt this OS has problems... but to say that NOTHING is good about it is a blanket statement that proves ignorance rather then intelligence. There are allot of problems with the OS. Some are rather serious issues

The problems faced by Creative to incorporate EAX directly into the OS.

The problem ATI is having with their All In Wonder cards.

The huge number of games that are having problems

The fact that Microsoft said their OS could run on really old/poor quality machines, even though this will lead to a horrible performance situation. Vista was built for the newest computers, not the old ones.

The fact that it crashes once every few days.

big_green_jelly_bean

27th September 2007, 21:38

You know what I love most about vista?

I don't need a Floppy Drive to install it.

Schrade

27th September 2007, 21:42

What about the ability to control sound levels based on application rather then the input output system in XP

I posted a link to a program that does that already in this thread.

What about the ability to see the windows when you high light over the start menu.
There's several third party FREE apps that do this already I believe.

User Account Creation based on Profiles that are easy to use?
Er? Was there some difficulty with Windows XP user accounts?

Automatic Performance Calibration for games
And an automatic slowness penalty added due to bloat, RAM being eaten up by the OS, too many things running by default, etc.

Inclusion of Media Center on all versions except professional? This is nice if you want a central location and access for Recorded TV, Music, Movies, Video's, etc. Then add the ability to access that from a console like the XBox 360 that will drop in price, and you can quickly have on demand video, music, etc from any room in the house.
If I'm not mistaken, many freeware apps do this already. One good one is MediaPortal: http://www.team-mediaportal.com/ and work is being done on porting the Xbox Media Center to Windows/Linux as well.

How about being able to better control file explorer? View Images with-in Explorer with features that will grow images or shrink images within these windows.
Fluff. Better to replace Explorer with Directory Opus which is far more powerful.

Schrade

27th September 2007, 21:43

You know what I love most about vista?

I don't need a Floppy Drive to install it.
You don't need a floppy drive to install Windows XP either. What a strange comment!

big_green_jelly_bean

27th September 2007, 21:55

Who wants a Floppy in there machine? I don't have a floppy installed in any of my machines. Yet install any modern motherboard (with SATA for example) in XP and you will need a floppy. In fact XP will not install or recognize large hard drives unless you have the XP service pack 2 disk. In vista you can put any drivers required on vertually any device (CD, or Flash).

Also dont forget the HUGE improvement in Text->Speech and Accessibility options for the Disabled.

Good 3rd party applications are not only hard to find, but can also have their own incompatibility issues.

I love hearing from people who bitch about Vista even though they never used it...

Windows Vista maybe "fluffy" but thats what makes it good... its not bloat ware, and it provides better access to thoose that might not have the technical understanding that many of us had.

Setting up profiles that limited access in XP was a difficult process compared to Vista.

I love XP, but I find myself constantly loading Vista, not XP.

Hey, you can even put video files as your desktop wallpaper:)

My biggest fear of Vista was its DRM. However after using it, I found these fears to be unjustified. I do believe however that its limited access to certain layers of the operating system have prevented access from certain drivers that would normally provide additional benefits. I mentioned these above.

JohnnyMalaria

27th September 2007, 22:15

JohnnyMalaria

27th September 2007, 22:21

Who wants a Floppy in there machine? I don't have a floppy installed in any of my machines. Yet install any modern motherboard (with SATA for example) in XP and you will need a floppy. In fact XP will not install or recognize large hard drives unless you have the XP service pack 2 disk. In vista you can put any drivers required on vertually any device (CD, or Flash).

I agree you need to use a floppy to install non-generic mass storage devices with XP and that can be a royal PITA. BUT, in most cases, XP installs happily without needing additional drivers. I've only run into this problem once - and I have installed XP many, many times on different machines. And in the particular case it wouldn't have helped because the drivers for the hard drive aren't available unless you get the PC vendor's original installation CD. (A modern and crappy Dell laptop preloaded with Vista that must have XP on it, BTW).

Avoiding the need for a floppy is hardly worth paying for the upgrade to Vista. You might as well just buy a USB floppy if that's the issue.

Eretria-chan

27th September 2007, 22:32

Vista provides only a few improvements over XP...
The biggest being a good installer (no need to sit at your computer while installing since the installer will abort mid-way and ask questions) and of course, no need for floppies.
Nice interface.

Bad things include:
Of course, it's very buggy.
It's also plagued by poor drivers causing lots of BSODs, but that's hardly Microsoft's fault.
Seems prematurely released (no boot screen, no hibernation screen, etc)...

It's also terribly overpriced. It's not worth the money it's priced at.

big_green_jelly_bean

28th September 2007, 01:07

@Schrade - most of your arguments stem around freeware alternatives. If you have Vista, you don't need them so there is no additional cost. But, certainly, if you have XP, then those features in Vista are enough to justify changing.

@big_green_jelly_bean - I generally agree with most points. One point that I have a problem with is the multicore comment. It's not directed at you, though. This "Vista = Multicore" is just marketing bullshit mainly from Intel. They make out multicore programming is a completely new thing in the last couple of years. IT ISN'T.

Windows has supported multiple processors since at least Windows NT 3.51. For the last decade, most Windows applications have been multithreaded by default and, therefore, support multiple processors.

My own experience with Vista is that it is extremely stable - I have (ab)used since Nov 2006 and have not had one BSOD. Applications crash but that's not Vista's fault. That's crappy programming.

My biggest gripe about Vista is there is a new "never less than five clicks away" mentality. e.g., if I'm having problems getting a network connection and want to check the IP address then with XP it's simple: right-click the tray icon, choose Status, choose Support. It's that simple. I get to see the IP address and so can determine what's up. Takes about five seconds. On Vista, it is buried so deep that it takes much longer and is much more stressful. And there are many other examples of that.

I develop software on Vista to ensure it works on Vista but I prefer to use XP for my day-to-day stuff.

I have to agree with everything you said. I am not supporting Vista, just disagree with its uselessness/complete garbage argument.

As far as the 5 clicks away, I have to agree with you on that one, unless however you use the help system. Then it becomes about 1 click. The help system is awesome. Having problems with network, type in Internet Connection, and it will bring you to a file that tells you how to use the tool, and where it is at. They must have used their Microsoft Search Engine Technology that is based on artificial intelligence to accomplish such a feat. A search based on alphabetical order or a system like googles where the amount of references to a document equals high priority fails in these situations.

I use the help system allot, because Microsoft moved these advanced settings away from the common user and into area's that are for the more advanced user. Microsoft spent allot of time building a OS for everyday turn me on and I want it to work user rather then the power users you find on forums like this.

The text to speech is amazing. Its the best Ive heard, and is really like a womans voice. It even does names very well, which is no small task since there is such a wide range of rules we follow when we pronounce things.

I think the system performance issue has been in large part a driver issue. If you look at the progression of the ATI drivers, every 15 days they have been releasing new drivers. Drivers that even fix problems with other applications. I have been having problems with PowerDVD, and the latest ATI drivers say they fix that. They are also saying they have been getting a large increase in speed (30%) on many games, and thats been just in the last version. As it should be known, the Windows system uses the processing power of the video card. So the video card drivers could be one portion of the issue with windows.

I have gotten the BSOD a few times. Almost always with games built for vista, or with aggressive over clocking. I have gotten a few BSOD that have occurred when streaming HD or DVD content to my HTPC. those problems seem to have not reappeared in some time. Whats nice is the new event viewer. It shows you the data Microsoft has collected about the issue, and if their is a fix points you into the direction to fix it. They also acknowledge if this is a known issue that hasn't been resolved. That in itself is a Miracle.

Software developers have to start righting code for the 64bit versions of windows. 3 gigs is simply not enough ram for the future.

BTW, there is a hibernation load up screen, and a boot screen. And the Boot up seems to be faster then the XP, though the load after login seems to be a tad slower. You can of course change the boot screen from the black to anything you want, but that may increase load time.

Eretria-chan

28th September 2007, 01:19

BTW, there is a hibernation load up screen, and a boot screen. And the Boot up seems to be faster then the XP, though the load after login seems to be a tad slower. You can of course change the boot screen from the black to anything you want, but that may increase load time.

Yes, there's a hibernation load up screen... But no, there's no boot screen. Just a green progress bar. There's also a hidden boot screen, which just shows how incomplete Vista seems.
All Windows boot as slow as always, in my experience. Hibernation is fast, but buggy drivers keeps interfering with hibernation.

JohnnyMalaria

28th September 2007, 01:36

As far as the 5 clicks away, I have to agree with you on that one, unless however you use the help system. Then it becomes about 1 click.

I can't agree. By time you have opened Help, typed in a phrase, looked down the list of options, clicked one, read the info, clicked again, clicked a few more times, I could have done the 5 clicks many times over. e.g., get current IP address (recall in XP it's at most 3 clicks away):

Non-Help way in Vista:

Right-click tray icon (I can't just double-click it as in XP)
Choose 'Network and Sharing Center'
Choose 'Manage network connections'
Right-click the connection
Choose 'Status'
Choose 'Details'

That's 3 extra steps over XP.

Help way in Vista:

Open Help and Support
Type "check ip address"
Look down list
Choose "Find your computer's IP address"
Click the link to 'Network and Sharing Center'
Right-click the connect
Choose 'Status'
Choose 'Details'

That's two more steps and you have to wait for Help and Support to open and type a phrase and wait for the results.

In XP I always use the tray icon method.

In Vista, I resort to ipconfig from the cmd prompt.

You are right that the help system is much better and for many things it does really help. But there are too many things that take too many steps.

Whats nice is the new event viewer. It shows you the data Microsoft has collected about the issue, and if their is a fix points you into the direction to fix it. They also acknowledge if this is a known issue that hasn't been resolved. That in itself is a Miracle.

I was curious about this so I had a look. I couldn't find anything beyond the information that has always been in the event log. The display is different and, in some ways, not as good. e.g., viewing an event in the main window doesn't show the actual information - just the raw data. You have to open the event to see it formatted properly. That's an extra step over previous versions. I couldn't find any extra info about pointers to fix the problem or the info gathered and sent to Microsoft. Are these just for BSODs? I'm very interested to see an example.

Software developers have to start righting code for the 64bit versions of windows. 3 gigs is simply not enough ram for the future.

True for games and intensive graphics programs, video and audio. But it's a chicken-and-egg thing. There isn't the demand from enough end users for 64-bit and porting legacy 32-bit applications isn't trivial if they were not written with 64-bit in mind. Future applications can easily be written for both without additional effort (at least with Visual Studio, I don't know about other development suites).

change the boot screen from the black to anything you want, but that may increase load time.

You can even disable the boot GUI as one of the system settings.

big_green_jelly_bean

28th September 2007, 02:37

The only way I know to see the event log like I pointed out is when the computer encounters an error that it recognizes... and even then its not reliable at popping up. There is a way to get to it, but like you have noticed, Vista is definitely different then XP, and has allot more to it. I haven't found out how to directly access this service.

try the command lines... they are hard to learn, because they are not referenced as much, but they can do everything you want... in a very quick manor. The tools they provide are just that... tools... They have been working hard at developing programs that are accessible by every other application... the benefit to this is what you see when you program php (on linux) and use system applications to perform common tasks fast.

In your case what you want is a

ipconfig /all
and probably
ipconfig /renew

JohnnyMalaria

28th September 2007, 02:47

Yes, I use ipconfig (I mentioned it before but it is easy to miss).

The event viewer I'm refering to must be different. I think you are refering to the Windows Error Reporting which does have a lot of detail and you can see what info will be sent to Microsoft.

If you are interested in the event viewer, just use one of Vista's very useful features - enter 'event viewer' in the Start Menu search text box. It will take you straight there.

Sharktooth

28th September 2007, 03:32

@big_green_jelly_bean: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#revocation

Schrade

28th September 2007, 03:57

Who wants a Floppy in there machine? I don't have a floppy installed in any of my machines. Yet install any modern motherboard (with SATA for example) in XP and you will need a floppy. In fact XP will not install or recognize large hard drives unless you have the XP service pack 2 disk.

That's all BS. If you're the type who is building a system and installing their own OS and need drivers for RAID and whatnot, you'll be smart enough to use nLite to slipstream Service Pack 2 and any necessary drivers into a complete boot/install Windows XP disc so you don't need to use a floppy drive to install those drivers.

@Schrade - most of your arguments stem around freeware alternatives. If you have Vista, you don't need them so there is no additional cost. But, certainly, if you have XP, then those features in Vista are enough to justify changing.
Sorry, but Vista is quite a large additional cost on its own. Both in cost of money and in cost of hardware resources and RAM.

Those features in Vista do not justify changing at all because they are very minor. I only mentioned solutions to them for XP because a lot of people want to switch to Vista for all the little gadgets like that. I'm just pointing out that many of those features are available in Windows XP too. It's more important to me to have a stable system that is fast and stable with as small of a footprint as possible. Vista can't offer that.

big_green_jelly_bean

28th September 2007, 05:39

As has been slowly coming to light (in this post) is the bigger MS goal of the OS market place. Vista fits into that Scheme better then anyone with a few hours of experiance can possibly understand.

You talk about additional cost of a system as if the deep level system users like myself are the main consumer of computers. The fact is, that we are a sub portion of the population. What is the cost to train someone to use Vista? What is the cost associated with clicking through applications on the start menu tring to find what you need? What is the cost of the average user seeing "Network Configuration" and then clicking on it, to see a bunch of information that confuses them and eventually leads them to complete frustration?

Too much information too quickly leads the user to this frustration. Simple unwillingness to learn about these tools is not important because the consumer is the target audience. They dont want to know how and why it works, they just want it to work. The truth is that Windows XP confuses people. MAC OS X is an excellent example of a OS that succeeded in meeting this goal XP failed at and as such quickly grew in market dominance. Its simple yet powerful user interface made many people feel comfortable. They were not bombarded by technical information but real non-technical and actionable information.

The main population need computers to work as appliances. The problem faced is that a computers only purpose is to provide information and interaction to that information. Microsoft and the OS market has been progressing towards consumption and access of this information. To do so you need to create an environment that seems "Fluffy". The average user wants a pokeman that they can tickle and not a computerized cyborg set to 20 thousand activities all needing a separate command line, button, menu or action bar.

To meet these goals you must accomplish some seemingly simple tasks, that when looked deeper into are quite more complex.

First you need to provide as much information as possible to the user with out exceeding the users capabilities of using this information. Utilities like Areo Glass, the Side Bar, the Snap Shot window size of the windows when highlight over the task bar all are obvious examples of this.

Next you need to present a consistent environment. This consistency was good in XP, it is Amazing in Vista. You see this in the wording of windows, the usage of text box's, menus, pop-ups, wording, etc. In addition M$ went through the entire OS and Reviewed and if needed Changed the text to meet this consistency. Everything from error messages to the Help system must be consistent and extremely well written, or it will lead to confusion.

Next you have to deal with bloat ware issues. Let me give you an example, MS Office 2000.

The Biggest complaint of users who used office back then was that writing simple documents was too cumbersome in Office due to the amount of functionality and features provided. To solve this issue, Microsoft went out and got some prominent people in the society including some psychologists and other individuals specialized in advanced concepts of user interface. They came up with some basic ideas that were incorporated into the next version of Office. Later, the project grew, and more user friendly features started to creep its way into later versions of Office. Now the complaint of Office being too cumbersome has all but vanished, and people have come to respect it as one of the premiere document applications. This took time, tweaking, and allot of work.

The result in the OS Market place has been to put the simple tools up front, and the more advanced tools deeper within. Thus the 5 click complaint:(

I keep mentioning the help interface, and as pointed out the simple search tool because the advanced features of Vista are now more robust then ever, while also being less accessible to the average user. Why? Because the Event Log, System Statistics, Network Settings, IP Address, IPv6, and all of the advanced functionality that makes Windows Users confused and frustrated. Remember, Pokeman not human eating robot.

The undertaking is huge. The number of Help documents, error messages, and every peace of the OS communication to the user has to coincide with each other, making a completely consistent environment.

The second issue faced with Windows comes at the hands of development. These advanced features have to be available to provide better capabilities for IT staff and Information Systems/Application developers. Advanced Error Reporting, Advanced Application Usage Statistics and Recording, Advanced Power Consumption control, advanced user policy programming, all provide the power for these individuals to make their job easier.

One of the advantages of Linux has been its accessibility from one application to another. As a PHP programmer, I can access a huge library of system level applications which are accessible via simple command lines, and output text/data based files. I can then use these pre-existing separate programs within my Web Applications without much difficulty. Thus the need in Windows to provide advanced functionality accessible not only to the end user, but also to the developer is needed to compete and grow.

All of this makes for a GIANT task when faced with a product like Windows Vista. You got to understand that Windows XP had 32 MILLION lines of code in it on its release date.

Don't be fooled, Microsoft isn't doing this to Windows Only. Microsoft Visual Studio and dotNet has been undertaking this same goal of consistency. In fact consistency is not only needed throughout the wizards, forms, and applications, but the underlining Windows API structure as well. Without consistent library and class structure, as computer code grows, it becomes a jumbled pile of... Eventually leading to hacks and ultimately spaghetti code.

Even Microsoft Keyboards have been changing to do away with Function Keys, and replacing them with more meaning full "Help" type keys.

Microsoft also has added consistency to the Joystick, and within games. They based this off the XBox joystick but never limited developers to create UI products that will fit different market place needs. The point was to better define how joysticks should be developed. My joystick has button 0 on the top left of the controller, while other companies put button 1 on the first top left button of the actual pad. This meant that I had to go into every game and customize the controls.

What if I wanted to use a mouse and keyboard over a joystick, or more likely the other way around. Console gamers are discouraged by PC Games Keyboard and Mouse, while computer gamers cant handle a control pad. Were all different and we all need different Mice, Keyboards, Joysticks, even Trackballs (god help the Trackball users)

The complexity of the computer common practices and procedures and where quality application development is going is a staggering undertaking. For example (and these are simple things) it is not an acceptable practice to use a "click here" in a website for a hyper link location. Its also important to have Save as Ctrl-S. Paste should be Shift Insert or Ctrl V. Even File, Edit, View and then at the end of the menu "help" has all been established in standard locations. Try writing an application with Help First and File last... and see what happens. Add a button to an application that says "ON". When you click it, the text changes to "Off". Is the button On when it Says "ON" or is it off and I have to click it to say "ON".

But don't take my word on it. Read up on User Interface design. While your at it learn about the proper way to write OOP based code, and project planning. Start with the teachings of Dr Deming, then move on to Q3, ISO, or other standard setting methodology. From there you can get into proper database design, or proper website application development.

Yes the OS is Expensive. For me, the knowledge of learning the OS was worth the cost. On my HTPC, the advanced features of the Media Center were another place cost was less then value. For a majority of users, as this system progresses and stabilizes, Windows Vista's simple UI will make people happy, and will lead to less issues. In the business a better user interface means less help desk calls, which means savings.

foxyshadis

28th September 2007, 15:07

That's all BS. If you're the type who is building a system and installing their own OS and need drivers for RAID and whatnot, you'll be smart enough to use nLite to slipstream Service Pack 2 and any necessary drivers into a complete boot/install Windows XP disc so you don't need to use a floppy drive to install those drivers.

As someone who's thrice been in a situation at an office where I had an XP/2003 CD, a driver floppy, and no way to run a system restore or directory services restore without spending at least a solid hour on ripping, researching, integrating, and burning, I can understand why admins (not home users) demanded this.

Not to mention some people get very antsy when they see the cheap burned copy instead of the holographic seal, even if they mean exactly the same without the license.

Personally, I agree with the extra clicks to get anything done sentiment - it's all there, and some stuff is even newly exposed, it's just more of a pain. Too bad there aren't quick commandline shortcuts to things like a network connection detail page. (Still no gui access to lusrmgr or real usernames, though.)

JohnnyMalaria

28th September 2007, 16:03

Sorry, but Vista is quite a large additional cost on its own. Both in cost of money and in cost of hardware resources and RAM.

Sorry, there was a typo in what I stated. It should have said:

"@Schrade - most of your arguments stem around freeware alternatives. If you have Vista, you don't need them so there is no additional cost. But, certainly, if you have XP, then those features in Vista are NOT enough to justify changing."

JohnnyMalaria

28th September 2007, 16:30

You talk about additional cost of a system as if the deep level system users like myself are the main consumer of computers. The fact is, that we are a sub portion of the population. What is the cost to train someone to use Vista? What is the cost associated with clicking through applications on the start menu tring to find what you need? What is the cost of the average user seeing "Network Configuration" and then clicking on it, to see a bunch of information that confuses them and eventually leads them to complete frustration?

Good point.

The average user wants a pokeman that they can tickle and not a computerized cyborg set to 20 thousand activities all needing a separate command line, button, menu or action bar.

Good point, again.

Next you need to present a consistent environment. This consistency was good in XP, it is Amazing in Vista. You see this in the wording of windows, the usage of text box's, menus, pop-ups, wording, etc. In addition M$ went through the entire OS and Reviewed and if needed Changed the text to meet this consistency. Everything from error messages to the Help system must be consistent and extremely well written, or it will lead to confusion.

Exactly. MS have gone to great lengths to encourage developers to use a consistent approach to a graphical interface. That's where Windows Forms as part of .NET become very valuable. MS have changed their tune, though. The recommendations for non-confusing interface elements have changed and that shows they recognize when things aren't as good as they originally suggest. I do have a beef or two with some of the changes to the 'rules' with Vista, though.

Now the complaint of Office being too cumbersome has all but vanished, and people have come to respect it as one of the premiere document applications. This took time, tweaking, and allot of work.

The result in the OS Market place has been to put the simple tools up front, and the more advanced tools deeper within. Thus the 5 click complaint:(

Yup. They have tweaked Office too much and the 2007 incarnation is horrible to use if you have been using the previous versions for more than 10 years. I *hate* the new menu functionality. Finding things in Excel that took two clicks are now many clicks away (just like in Vista!)

Because the Event Log, System Statistics, Network Settings, IP Address, IPv6, and all of the advanced functionality that makes Windows Users confused and frustrated. Remember, Pokeman not human eating robot.

True in part. But that's no reason to make the advanced features more tedious to get to. e.g., the network icon could still have a Status selection on it - even if you have to select a "I'm an advanced user, gimme the stuff I need at my fingertips" option.

Don't be fooled, Microsoft isn't doing this to Windows Only. Microsoft Visual Studio and dotNet has been undertaking this same goal of consistency.

I started with Visual C++ 1.5 nearly 15 years ago. I now use either Visual Studio .NET 2003 or .NET 2005. I love using VS .NET 2005 and, when I have to use VS .NET 2003, it feels incomplete. A complete install of Visual Studio with the Windows SDK will gobble up more than 2GB but there is a very large amount of very extensive and detailed documentation. The IDE is powerful. It has a few foibles and occasional issues but not enough to stop me using it. I'd certainly never use a simple text editor. My workflow is efficient and I find the IDE intuitive.

While your at it learn about the proper way to write OOP based code, and project planning

My first exposure to OOP was in 1990 with Borland's Turbo Pascal With Objects 6.0 Pro - for writing DOS programs!

:goodpost:

big_green_jelly_bean

28th September 2007, 21:06

The problem with easy accessible advanced features is a double edged sword. Sure it makes our lives a bit difficult on the few times a week or month that we use these features, but at the same time it makes 99% of society less likely to turn of DHCP.

This thus saves you the aggravation of having to goto their machine and figuring out what is wrong! So whats worse? 10 help center/support requests a day, or the occasional weekly PITA 5 clicks to functionality.

In the end, us geeks will learn the command line statements to solve these issues. Command Line controls are faster then any GUI solution when configuring and maintaining a machine. Windows makes things easier, but keyboard to mouse movements take allot more time on these tasks then a pure command line solution. I can remember the frustration I first experienced when moving from DOS to windows 95, and the fact that it was frustrating to constantly navigate through wizards and windows to get things done. It is clear that Linux admin's use the command line even when presented with a GUI solution.

I cant find the features I use to use without the help feature. Thats unfortunate but as someone who started to program at age 7, and has been working with computers my entire life, I have come to accept and acknowledge that using computers requires constant learning and adaptation.

I haven't used the new office, so I cant comment on it. I do use Styles which many users don't know about and thus are wasting allot of time. This is a situation where Office Training has to be apart of employee integration into a company environment. Simply put, Office is for dummies, but dummies can not use the tool to its full functionality, thus they ultimately are less efficient.

Windows Vista also presents that wonderfully search dialog to find the applications you need. The learning curve me and you are experiencing is that we don't know what the new applications are called yet I think when we gain this knowledge we will find that our efficiency with Vista when using its GUI is better then that of previous versions of windows.

I have no doubt that regular users of Vista will find this tool to increase their efficiency.

Visual Studio is an amazing product. I worked with dotNet 1.1 and found its ADO.NET to be extremely powerful yet a bit overwhelming. In fact dotNet has a large learning curve do to its extreme OOP library. It is an amazing product, and is a model for what OOP libraries should look like when using proper oop methodology.

There is a difference from programming in OOP and having a firm grasp of its Methodology. OOP programming is an art form. You can either over due the Object library with too many layers, or you can go to the other extreme and pass into the too many properties and attributes category. Finding the middle ground is the art, and the challenge of this type of development.

Everyone knows OOP (well almost), many don't use it because of its initial expense in framework development. Many who use OOP do so in improper ways. Still, bad OOP programming is much better then no OOP.

The conclusion is that their are no perfect solutions. We as computer guys want easy access to advanced features, and we want easy access to OS level applications within out code. The overall objective of most users is to turn it on, click internet explorer, word, or a game, and have it run without hitch or problem.

Take computer games, and the Vista Model. First DirectX10 simplifies development of computer games by creating a VERY strict development guide line that the video card manufacturers must follow. Thus they no longer have to program for both ATI and NVidia, and also test it on all of their video cards. Its what windows 3.0 did for the printer industry. NExt they included a performance monitor that will help developers select the proper settings for their video games. Lets face facts, most people on this planet have no idea, and don't want to know, what anti-aliasing is. The computer game industry has thus been dwindling down to a market of a few games a month, with the Exception of the daily release of a new MMORPG:) I hope with all my heart that the ease and cost reduction of developing video games for the computer increases releases of more games and encourages market share to grow.

Overall I cant disagree with any intelligible analysis made about Windows Vista. The main complaints I hear and greatly disagree with are the blanket statements like "Vista sucks", and/or the complaints people make who haven't used Vista for an extended period of time.

Lets face facts guys... Vista isnt going away... It will become faster, more reliable and contain more features. It will become more backword compatible, and Vista 64 will grow into a viable product.

It maybe more expensive, but if you wish to be in this industry, you have no choice but to accept it, and get into it as fast as you can. You will miss the boat if you wait until it becomes a strong product as XP. Right now the OS is extremely stable, fast (if your not running a 5 year old computer), and is going to become an extremely viable alternative to XP.

I must bitch about its cost. Microsoft might box themselves out of the market place because people happy with XP, will prefer XP and will also save money on new machines that have XP on it. Microsoft must reduce the cost of the OS, and I expect them too. It will come down to the fact that Microsoft can sell 10 copies at $60, or 2 copies at $130.

I also have to Bitch about EA games. WTF are you doing stupid asshats. Their BF serries is one of the most successful franchises in the market, yet they fail to release patches that will fix the issues with Vista. EA will dirty their name and the consumers of the BF franchise who have been burnt by their lack of support will no longer trust the brand.

big_green_jelly_bean

28th September 2007, 21:10

Sorry, there was a typo in what I stated. It should have said:

"@Schrade - most of your arguments stem around freeware alternatives. If you have Vista, you don't need them so there is no additional cost. But, certainly, if you have XP, then those features in Vista are NOT enough to justify changing."

Schrade complains about the speed of Vista, and yet adds all these applications to his XP. I assure you, those applications will slow your machine down allot more then Vista.

Schrade

28th September 2007, 21:54

Schrade complains about the speed of Vista, and yet adds all these applications to his XP. I assure you, those applications will slow your machine down allot more then Vista.
Again, you're putting words that I did not say into it.

I do NOT add all those applications. I have no use for them. I was just pointing out they were there and available for those who want that crap.

Eretria-chan

28th September 2007, 22:26

In the end, us geeks will learn the command line statements to solve these issues. Command Line controls are faster then any GUI solution when configuring and maintaining a machine. Windows makes things easier, but keyboard to mouse movements take allot more time on these tasks then a pure command line solution. I can remember the frustration I first experienced when moving from DOS to windows 95, and the fact that it was frustrating to constantly navigate through wizards and windows to get things done. It is clear that Linux admin's use the command line even when presented with a GUI solution.

I cannot agree with that.
GUI is more intuitive, more user friendly and just plain good-looking! Why do we use a GUI in the first place? Using commands lines is wrong! That's what we did in the DOS-period, simply because computers weren't that advanced yet.
This is a statement that I believe in: "Every program or component that can be configured should expose a GUI." No exceptions!
CLI is not good for anything if you ask me, is so old style, and is just plain wrong. For applications using other applications, we should use API. It's easier to use, more powerful, more flexible.
Making a GUI simple to use is very important. But at the same time, you mustn't hide or make advanced settings unattainable (which Microsoft seems to do a good job at). Like with the menus in Vista, make these settings hidden by default, and enable settings for showing these by default.

Am I the only one who thinks this way?

Shinigami-Sama

28th September 2007, 22:39

you must not do a lot of administration eretria

I believe all programs should have both api and cli

I agree for word processing word/OOo are great
but for checking logs tail -f /path | grep keyword is much better imo, its all about balance

JohnnyMalaria

29th September 2007, 00:51

Using commands lines is wrong! That's what we did in the DOS-period, simply because computers weren't that advanced yet.
This is a statement that I believe in: "Every program or component that can be configured should expose a GUI." No exceptions!

Not at all! Configuring via a command line lets batch files run complex admin processes without user interaction. The program is called by the batch file with arguments to control it. Enforcing a strictly GUI-only requirement would require someone to manually perform everything.

CLI is not good for anything if you ask me, is so old style, and is just plain wrong.

Again, not at all!

Let's say you have a media player that plays MPEG2 file but only recognizes .m2v extentions and all yours are .mpg and they are stored in many folders on multiple hard drives. So, you need to rename them. In the GUI world (Explorer) you have to do one at a time. In the CLI world you can automate the whole thing in about three lines using old style 'DOS'.

Or what if you need a list of all your .m2v files on your computer so you can email the list to someone. How would you do that? Via CLI, it is trivial.

For applications using other applications, we should use API. It's easier to use, more powerful, more flexible.

Absolutely not. Using an API requires defining it, providing explicit information on how to use it - e.g., which entry point in a DLL to use. It is fundamentally tied to the binary structure of the program(s). Instead you should use the interoperability features for which Microsoft have been a major pioneer. Clients of a given program don't need to know anything about the inner workings of the program. The program can be modified to add new features, fix bugs etc without ever requiring client programs to be rewritten. Such programs can be used by many other languages including scripting languages (VBScript, JavaScript) - these don't even require compiling. And scripting languages provide the powerful ability to control a program from a purely text-based domain - no GUI required.

Am I the only one who thinks this way?

I don't know :)

Eretria-chan

29th September 2007, 01:18

Not at all! Configuring via a command line lets batch files run complex admin processes without user interaction. The program is called by the batch file with arguments to control it. Enforcing a strictly GUI-only requirement would require someone to manually perform everything.

Again, not at all!

Let's say you have a media player that plays MPEG2 file but only recognizes .m2v extentions and all yours are .mpg and they are stored in many folders on multiple hard drives. So, you need to rename them. In the GUI world (Explorer) you have to do one at a time. In the CLI world you can automate the whole thing in about three lines using old style 'DOS'.

Or what if you need a list of all your .m2v files on your computer so you can email the list to someone. How would you do that? Via CLI, it is trivial.
What you say is true because there is no program or GUI to perform such tasks... yet. Or we simply do not know/have them. It would be an easy task for a GUI and much easier and faster to use rather than typing through a command prompt.

Absolutely not. Using an API requires defining it, providing explicit information on how to use it - e.g., which entry point in a DLL to use.
True enough, but CLI also requires documentation on what commands lines to use and does what, etc. Same thing if you ask me.

It is fundamentally tied to the binary structure of the program(s). Instead you should use the interoperability features for which Microsoft have been a major pioneer. Clients of a given program don't need to know anything about the inner workings of the program. The program can be modified to add new features, fix bugs etc without ever requiring client programs to be rewritten. Such programs can be used by many other languages including scripting languages (VBScript, JavaScript) - these don't even require compiling. And scripting languages provide the powerful ability to control a program from a purely text-based domain - no GUI required.
Backwards compability is something that we use too. It does not require the client to be recompiled if the structure, the API or command lines do not change.

foxyshadis

29th September 2007, 02:44

What you say is true because there is no program or GUI to perform such tasks... yet. Or we simply do not know/have them. It would be an easy task for a GUI and much easier and faster to use rather than typing through a command prompt.

Certainly, all we need is a GUI that exposes everything a command-line process could ever do....

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8559/oagmachineeq7.th.gif (http://img254.imageshack.us/my.php?image=oagmachineeq7.gif)
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/6295/ofilematrixjt4.th.png (http://img212.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ofilematrixjt4.png)
etc.

The best GUIs make common tasks effortless, and uncommon tasks simpler. Mediocre GUIs just let you be lazy without any real effort savings, which isn't always a bad thing. Command lines pick up the slack for rare and one-off tasks. (If a rare task, like mass renaming, becomes common, there are certainly GUIs available for that.) By relying on GUIs for everything, you'll always be downloading little one-off things that clutter up your start menu.

Like me, haha.

kumi

29th September 2007, 06:37

One of the most useful additions I ever made to my Windows XP workstation was the installation of GnuWin32, a collection of CLI tools.

Sometimes you need the flexibility that only CLI can provide.

Sharktooth

29th September 2007, 14:21

CLI tools are the best thing you can ask, coz you can use them as they are or build a GUI for the easier tasks. GUIs cant expose all the functionalities of a complex CLI tool and only the ultimate n00b would use GUIs for everything...

Tack

29th September 2007, 14:47

I can't conceive of a GUI that allows for full automation of complex and arbitrary tasks. Such a GUI would at least be as complicated as the CLI itself, or may involve an embedded scripting language, at which point you might as well use the CLI.

Anyone who says "CLI is not good for anything" needs to stay far away from my servers. :)

Eretria-chan

29th September 2007, 15:17

GUI CAN expose every functionality of ANY complex tool - unless you rather want to prove otherwise.
There is simply nothing that a CLI tool can do that a GUI cannot. The only thing I can think of is that often there are simply no GUI for some tasks, and for that there exists CLI tools to do the job for you.
CLI apps are a pain to use in GUIs because they were not designed for it. That's what APIs is for. Or maybe Windows/Linux should provide CLI tools for EVERY little thing in the OS? To create a window, maybe we should call a little CLI app called CreateWindow.exe?

I can't conceive of a GUI that allows for full automation of complex and arbitrary tasks. Such a GUI would at least be as complicated as the CLI itself, or may involve an embedded scripting language, at which point you might as well use the CLI.

Anyone who says "CLI is not good for anything" needs to stay far away from my servers. :)
Btw, I (mostly) find that untrue. A lot of GUIs can be confusing and hard to use when they expose lots of functionality, but the point is, it's all in HOW you make your GUI. It can be complex AND easy to use. A programmer just needs to thoroughly plan the GUI well. It isn't always an easy task, but it can be done.

Tack

29th September 2007, 15:39

I wasn't talking about some specific tool, complex or otherwise. I'm talking about arbitrary non-trivial tasks. A tool implies it performs some specific task, and of course even the most complex aspects of such a task could be exposed in a well-constructed GUI because those aspects are predefined.

My argument is that when you are talking about system automation, a GUI just won't cut it. You need a CLI or scripting language of some sort. GUIs might assist in creation of such automation, but unless there is a CLI underneath that is fully accessible by the user, such a GUI is worthless. (Here I am thinking of configuration management tools such as BladeLogic and Opsware.)

Sharktooth

29th September 2007, 15:42

Bah... that's BS. prove it. GUIs cant simply expose all options of a complex CLI tool. PERIOD. The same thing applies to APIs. GUIs are not enough good... There are qualified ppl telling you that's it... Also automating CLI stuff with a GUI is not always possible while you can easily do it with a batch file.
The GUI approach is a thing for noobs, to make some tasks easier for the not aknowledged ppl...
Obviously in the era of graphics and fancy stuff, the visual interface is all... and functionalities get crippled...

Eretria-chan

29th September 2007, 15:43

Even though I don't fully understand what it is you need, it is still prettier to "program" such tasks in a pretty GUI, no? Even if you need to type and like, program, a GUI can still assist finding spelling errors, syntax errors, etc.
Even in this sense, I find GUI to be better than CLI.

Bah... that's BS. prove it. GUIs cant simply expose all options of a complex CLI tool. PERIOD.
I have seen no evidence pointing to this. WHY is this?
It sounds to me like we should be back in the DOS era and write command lines for everything.

The same thing applies to APIs.
APIs are 100x more powerful, flexible and useful than CLI. I don't know why you think so. Should we use CLI tools instead of APIs?

GUIs are not enough good... There are qualified ppl telling you that's it...
And I don't see why there can't be a GUI that does a task of a CLI task just as well. You just need to PROGRAM it right. But again, I can't see your reasoning.

Also automating CLI stuff with a GUI is not always possible while you can easily do it with a batch file.
And that's the fault with CLI apps - they're so darn hard to manage. With APIs, it would be a breeze.
Tsch, and batch files are a thing of the past. It still wonders me why there aren't any good GUIs that executes tasks one-by-one instead of relying on batch files.

The GUI approach is a thing for noobs, to make some tasks easier for the not aknowledged ppl...
So you say Windows is a joke then? That there should not be a GUI? That everywhere we go, there should be a keyboard and we type in commands?

I may not be a sys admin, but if/when I become one, I'll think of your CLI arguments. But as for now, I just can't seem to find why CLI is so good.
Anyway, I rest my case for now.

Sharktooth

29th September 2007, 16:18

Even though I don't fully understand what it is you need, it is still prettier to "program" such tasks in a pretty GUI, no? Even if you need to type and like, program, a GUI can still assist finding spelling errors, syntax errors, etc.
Even in this sense, I find GUI to be better than CLI.
GUIs are useful for simple tasks only. when complexity comes into play then GUIs suddenly become useless...

I have seen no evidence pointing to this. WHY is this?
It sounds to me like we should be back in the DOS era and write command lines for everything.
not for everything, but yes, CLI is more useful than anything when it comes to serializing jobs, administrating stuff, etc...

APIs are 100x more powerful, flexible and useful than CLI.
I never said the contrary, maybe i wasnt clear...

And I don't see why there can't be a GUI that does a task of a CLI task just as well. You just need to PROGRAM it right. But again, I can't see your reasoning.
Try making a gui for a CLI tool that has, let's say, 1500 options... just making a GUI for mencoder or ffmpeg is a pain in the a$$ and still you miss functionalities even in the most complex GUIs...

And that's the fault with CLI apps - they're so darn hard to manage. With APIs, it would be a breeze.
Tsch, and batch files are a thing of the past. It still wonders me why there aren't any good GUIs that executes tasks one-by-one instead of relying on batch files.
BS. APIs are programming interfaces, CLIs and GUIs are user interfaces... apples and oranges.
batch files are more powerfull than GUIs...

So you say Windows is a joke then? That there should not be a GUI? That everywhere we go, there should be a keyboard and we type in commands?
GUIs need to be there for simple tasks. CLIs for everithing else.

I may not be a sys admin, but if/when I become one, I'll think of your CLI arguments. But as for now, I just can't seem to find why CLI is so good.
Anyway, I rest my case for now.
some GUIs support scripting... guess why? answer: GUIs are limited. so here we go, batch files....