is IT really going to be Vista? 14

[wolluf]

could vista be the proverbial straw (that breaks the camel's back)?

MS charge ridiculous prices for their operating system(s) - given their complete market dominance.

MS have developed total paranoia over piracy - how long before WGA runs into a major legal battle with another large corporation (or 2)?

Having touted below par o/s for years (windows 3, 95, 98, ME), they belatedly developed their NT flavour - and got it reasonably right with XP (all the 'security' issues are only there because they are so successful). The operating system serves most people reasonably well. So why replace it. One word - revenue.

Complications. XP comes in Home and Pro - basically so they could charge a premium for Pro. This also increases support issues. Vista is at least doubling this (same reason again - revenue). No benefit to the customer. One version is a lot easier to support - but they can't charge premium rates for it. What are the development costs to hobble the basic o/s (which is what they do). We, the customers pay for that.

What are the development costs for 'activation' (which immediately kick-started a whole new piracy operation which wasn't there previously - Newton, he say, to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) and WGA? Who pays for this - the customer of course.

I fix PCs in peoples homes. Virtually nobody is interested in the 'interface' (other than it doesn't change too much, so the little technical expertise already gained isn't lost), but look at Aero. People mainly want machines that will surf their favourite sites, send & receive email, do some word processing, let their kids run games/messenger, working at a reasonable speed.

There is no reasonable alternative (ubuntu is best linux I've tried in years, but its still not an alternative), and Vista will go on new PCs of course, so it will probably be business as usual. But having beta tested Vista for a year or so now, all I can see is it need lots more resources and gives very little extra. And has more annoying things that need turning off (another observation - people mainly are not impressed with constant 'should this be run' type questions, which Vista seems to abound in).

Sounds like a rant - oh well, its been a while!

 

[jsteph]

... OS designed to take advantage of the graphical power, processing cycles and gigabytes of RAM at my disposal...

This really means "An OS designed by mediocre programmers who fail to take the extra step to figure out a clever, efficient way to code something. An OS which hides it's poorly written, bloated code behind the mask of processing power and RAM"
--Jim

 

[Grenage]

Exactly. The 'improvements' in the OS in no way justify 1/10th of the extra power required.


Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[Glenn9999]

As of 2007 I'd rather have my OS designed to take advantage of the graphical power, processing cycles and gigabytes of RAM at my disposal than be limited by old technology. I paid for Vista today, I want it to take advantage of what is on offer today.

Translation: "I want my OS to soak up all my RAM, CPU processing cycles, and GPU processing cycles so I can see the same performance with my new computer and Windows Vista that I saw with my old computer and Windows XP.

 

[Glenn9999]

Do some research on the product you are trying so hard to slate before mouthing off incorrect information regarding product features simply because it's "cool" to bad-mouth Microsoft.

I did. In fact, I ran Vista RC2 just the same as anybody else who would have "evaluated" it. In fact, I was so disgusted by what I saw I ended my evaluation rather quickly and went back to XP. And no it's not out of "coolness to badmouth Microsoft". Just an honest assessment based on my honest observations. There's not enough significant in Vista compared to XP to warrant an upgrade and all the upgrade costs (hardware changes, OS fees (Windows license and third party licenses for things like anti-virus software and backup software - neither that you have already will work in Vista), and time investment) - in fact there's much in Vista that's a negative compared to Windows XP Service Pack 2. Increased hardware cost being one of them.

I'll admit I come from a personal user perspective (i.e. "power user" or "enthusiast" that does tech work for other persons and small businesses), but I can definitely see many problems in selling Vista.

You mean we need what kind of video card for Vista? We don't play games here, our computers should only be used for office software and database along with our own in house applications.

Well, Windows Vista requires a high-end video card like you would use for these video games.

I don't know of too many that I've ever met in business that would go along with that as a "necessary business expense". In fact, I know I would be laughed out of the room if I were to ever suggest to most business that they needed high-end video cards for their office PCs.

 

[jrbarnett]

At a basic level, an operating system is purely an enabling layer that allows the hardware of a given computer system to run applications specified by the system administrators. Over time, operating systems have gained multi tasking, networking and security facilities, to name but some of the enhancements.

As a result of this new or enhanced functionality (and complexity as a side nature), the management of the systems and applications has also got more complex but as an aside, the things that can be done by them has also increased.

I'm not sure about your organisation's practise, but when we specify computer equipment, they are set to be in line with the requirements to run the application(s) that we need them to run.
The operating system that they run is determined by the requirements of the application. Both together define the hardware requirements, and we build in extra capacity terms of disk storage, network and CPU power so its not at the base level and is likely to last 3-4 years before needing to be replaced or upgraded, assuming the application requirements don't change too much during that time.

Would Vista based desktop PC's start coming around next year within my workplace? Probably, assuming our major applications and network infrastructure services work fine with it (we don't use a Microsoft domain environment, but this makes it a lot easier to have non Microsoft desktops integrated with the management systems and central network authentication, which some people do).

When these are running smoothly, would I ask for my PC to be reinstalled with Vista? Only if there were huge benefits in it for me. A nice graphical interface just looks nice, but what's under the hood is what really matters. I manage systems that would cost my employer dearly if they went down, they are critical to its operation. We would need to be very sure that they worked with Vista desktops before widely deploying them.

I've not had a chance to look at Vista at all, so I'm quite willing to be branded a hypocrite, but I think it was Alan Solomon who said something like "Leading edge is Bleeding edge: Those out at front get cut."
This is the attitude I have to take for any system upgrades, whether client, application or server. There does come a time when upgrades become necessary because the vendors won't support the older versions, but until then I'm quite happy to sit with my XP desktop and let the other people find the bugs.

John

 

[Stevehewitt]

I think jrbarnett is completely right and agree with his comments. However Glenn9999 confirms my point of arrogance and excessive negative remarks based on lack of knowledge. "High-End Graphics Card". Don't know about you, but I can't remeber how long ago it was that I didn't have a 128Mb DX9 capable card in my machine. E.G. The standard integrated graphics cards that have been built into even the most cheapest machines for the last 2 years (at least!)

And regarding your comments on costs - the hardware we use is fine for Vista as I've looked into the hardware requirements (which you obviously haven't) and done through testing which confirms that our standard machines are fine running Vista. (Integrated graphics, 2.2Ghz P4 and 512Mb is the standard spec at the moment, although 200 machines are due for an upgrade early next year - hardly gaming spec)
As Vista is a workstation OS I don't see why backup software would be critical to you, but I'd suggest Windows Backup which is free (although a much better idea would be getting work saved onto a fileserver...!) and our AV provider gives free updates as we took out support. The same applies with the cost of Vista as we have Software Assurance.

I'm sure that I'm not the only Network Manager that has hardware management cycles in place with SA/Support on key software? For me, Vista is free (fiscally) and when I looked into the benefits such as management and deployment tools combined with the security changes I can't find any reason to hold off. Where's the reasons against it? Cost isn't an issue, neither is hardware. There's a number of great changes in this new version of Windows that will help me and my team manage our network easier and faster - which has got to be a bonus for my department and therefore adventageous to the business.

So what's the fuss about?!




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[Grenage]

The fuss is (mostly) regarding the hardware changes compared to the benefits of the new system. They could have effectively added all of the beneficial features to the XP system and it would be the same operating system, bar some fancy looks. It would also have run just as well as XP.

There was no reason to create a whole new operating system with prettier looks. At the end of the day, you're working with the programs installed on it, rarely the OS itself.

The reasons? Crap coding and turnover. They do it because they can.


Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[AlexCuse]

I switch xp back to 'Windows 98 mode' or whatever it is called. Will there be a similar option in Vista? I don't want Vista at all but I suppose eventually I will need to get it once we change over at work and I need to develop for it. It will be painful though.

Glenn9999 - can you elaborate on this:

(nevermind the security "crimps" put into Vista to satisfy the RIAA, MPAA and the like),

Alex

Professor: But what about your superintelligence?
Gunther: When I had that there was too much pressure to use it. All I want out of life is to be a monkey of moderate intelligence who wears a suit. That's why I've decided to transfer to Business School.
Professor: NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

 

[Glenn9999]

Glenn9999 - can you elaborate on this:

(nevermind the security "crimps" put into Vista to satisfy the RIAA, MPAA and the like),

Sure. A lot of it relates to things I've read about how Vista works, so I'll have to see if I can remember/find references.

Basically, as I understand it, the biggest architectural changes in Vista have to do with functions which are supposed to limit piracy (but also limit fair use) - basically as concessions to the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America.

Vista effectively introduces a number of "technologies" whose sole purpose is to prevent illegal copying (and fair use). This includes placing DRM into the operating system. As well, this involves the ability for DRM-standard players to "wall off" their processes from others in the system. It also ushers in the era of DRM protected hardware (Microsoft calls it OCPM or Output Content Protection Management), from the processor on out to DVD drives and hard drives. This is another scheme also to force hardware upgrades, since a lot of content (movies, music and the like) will be set up to not play unless it is on supported hardware. Furthermore, monitors will be set up this way as well (HDCP is your acronym you're looking for there, or PVP-OPM).

Another factor is Microsoft's related "technology" called TPM or the Trusted Platform Module. This involves encryption at the hardware level as a part of the "Bitlocker" tech. A quote from the Wiki link below seems in order here, but basically TPM allows the complete opening up of your computer to any Microsoft enlisted third-party:

Its three most controversial features are remote attestation, binding, and sealing. Remote attestation creates an unforgeable summary of the software on a computer, allowing a third party (such as a digital music store) to verify that the software has not been compromised. Sealing encrypts data in such a way that it may be decrypted only in the exact same state (that is, it may be decrypted only on the computer it was encrypted running the same software ). Binding encrypts data using the TPM Endorsement Key (a unique RSA key put in the chip during its production) or another 'trusted' key . The first feature is seen as a potential threat to privacy by many, while the second and the third are often seen as a herald to Digital Rights Management systems of unprecedented restrictiveness. Direct anonymous attestation improves privacy, but is still considered insufficient by some.


Of course, I could post links all day given what's been written about it (2,500,000 hits on "Windows Vista" "DRM", 211,000 hits on "Windows Vista" "TPM" on Google), but basically you could argue the biggest changes in Windows Vista allow spying and Big Brotherism to creep into your computing. Definitely one more reason out of many to stay away from Vista.

References:

http://digg.com/security/Windows_Vista_-_Designed_by_the_MPAA_and_the_RIAA_

http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/167101037

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25124

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=109

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoftvistas/index.php?p=43

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

 

[Glenn9999]

Grenage: In reference to your post on 26 Oct 06 11:55 - Great post! Describes the hardware problem perfectly from a end-user perspective.

 

[kHz]

...what MS have documented...

Bill has said it. So let it be true.

 

[kHz]

How many lines of code are in Windows Vista?

 

[jsteph]

Microsoft calls it OCPM or Output Content Protection Management

This sounds like the software arm of what used to be called "Palladium". This was an MS/Intel (et al) scheme in which DRM would be enforced at the hardware (processor) level. I guess it's undergone some name changes (Palladium sounds so...Orwellian), and they've tried to soften the marketing approach but it's still the same thing.

I can't remeber how long ago it was that I didn't have a 128Mb DX9 capable card

That still seems a notch or two above what I've seen in low-end machines--look at Dell, most of their low end stuff had--at lest up until very recently--64MB shared video--which is very poor performing.
--Jim

 

[Glenn9999]

This sounds like the software arm of what used to be called "Palladium". This was an MS/Intel (et al) scheme in which DRM would be enforced at the hardware (processor) level. I guess it's undergone some name changes (Palladium sounds so...Orwellian), and they've tried to soften the marketing approach but it's still the same thing.

Actually it's called Next-Generation Secure Computing Base, a component of which is TPM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base

Basically all this DRM talk is Microsoft's trip into the land of "Trusted Computing".

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

 

[AlexCuse]

Man, that is the worst! I guess I will need to get acquainted with one of the Linux OS if I want to keep my mp3 collection :-( Or just keep XP forever... I wasn't looking forward to loading each of those CD's again anyway.

A wise man once said
"The only thing normal about database guys is their tables".

 

[Glenn9999]

Man, that is the worst! I guess I will need to get acquainted with one of the Linux OS if I want to keep my mp3 collection Or just keep XP forever... I wasn't looking forward to loading each of those CD's again anyway

It's bad enough that there's a hole there that allows Microsoft's goons to look at your system at any time. Let us remember, too, that there's a Trusted Computing law before the US congress either waiting to be signed or already signed that will require the TPM/DRM to be sold in all hardware. Not to mention, I'd be wary of this if I were Microsoft's competition or someone trying to break into the software market.

And if you think it's bad enough that Microsoft's goons can get into your computer on a TPM-enabled system, just wait until the hackers figure out how to do the same. It's a security nightmare waiting to happen because the goon squad in the corporate and government worlds want to be Big Brother.

 

[Grenage]

Thank you, Glen. Usually I'm just told to sit down and shut up

Khz: I heard it rumoured that Vista has around 50 million lines of code.


Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[Stevehewitt]

Oh dear lord.

Seriously, talk about blowing things out of perspective. The DRM that's being mentioned is also being implemented in every HD DVD Drive and Telly. You want to play HD-DVD's then you need to meet the industry standard. (Invented by Hollywood etc.)
This isn't a Vista only thing. If your running a Mac or a Linspire box then same problem. This isn't realted to Vista it's a new industry standard for HD DRM and Vista has included support for it. Don't worry AlexCuse - if you read the articles rather than just the thread you'd realise it's only for HD-DVD playback that's the same across HD-DVD drives and TV's. Your MP3 collection is quite safe.

TPM - am I missing something but this is just a an encryption chip on a motherboard isn't it? A module that creates a digital certificate and a hash. This is an improvement over 2000 which could only offer EFS (BTW kids - exactly the same argument happened back then...!) Yeah, the CIA, FBI, SOCA, Interpol probably could get into your system still (although for the record MS have strongly denied this) - but they could do that prior to Vista anyway...!
What's your point?




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[pmonett]

Yes Steve, you're perfectly right, they're building DRM into everything.

And that's exactly why I won't be buying an HD DVD drive or TV set until they REMOVE THE BLOODY RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY HAVE BUILT IN.

And I'll do the same with Vista. But that is another argument entirely.

As for the basic requirements, Steve, since when has Microsoft been the best evaluator of what its OS needs as far as CPU power and RAM usage ? For every single release of Windows, MS has systematically posted minimum requirements that, if actually used, only allowed users to stare at the loading screen for the longest time.

You state that an OS is to be developed for the future and not for 3 to 5 year-old configurations, yet you dispute that it will need several gigs of RAM to function with appreciable speed. Sounds contradictory to me.
I disagree with you based not on Beta code or MS-published specs, but on my notion of what acceptable performance is. 512MB for XP is already a pain to work with, and 1GB or RAM is the absolute minimum to get anything working under DirectX without limping along like a sick snail.
I stand by my 2GB RAM estimate based on the fact that Vista will have all the additional elements that you mentioned yourself, and the fact that MS coders cannot possibly have integrated all that without more bloated overhead and resource requirements than XP has already.
And, in the future, I fully expect 4GB of RAM to be needed, given that PCs have historically always accepted more RAM and used it, and our video cards today are already gearing up to use 1GB of VRAM.
Again, you yourself said that Vista is made for the future. Tell me then, when did PC hardware reduce the amount of available RAM on the motherboard ? And when has MS reduced the amount of RAM its OS needed ?

MS-published requirements don't mean squat and you know it. Windows has always been a resource hog, and that is certainly not set to change with Vista.

Pascal.


I've got nothing to hide, and I'd very much like to keep that away from prying eyes.

 

[Stevehewitt]

Maybe MS requirements don't mean anything (actually I agree, I wouldn't buy a PC based on MS's min requirements for the reasons your state).

My point is that 2Gb isn't a requirement, and 4Gb is a dream. As I type this I am using Vista RC2 and IE7 with WMP playing in the background and Outlook 2007 also running. My machine = 1Gb Athlon 2800+ and there's no performance issues at all.

You gave the impression in an earlier post that 4Gb was recommended, which simply isn't true. 1Gb is fine and I wouldn't consider buying a new machine in the last year without 1Gb of memory anyway - not because of Vista, but because of various software and general computer requirements. It's hardly high-end specifications, and if people over the past 3 years or so have always gone with the cheapest possible machine they can get from Dell (e.g. Celeron 2Ghz, 256Mb and 64Mb Shared Video) then what do you expect!?! Look at current day standards - I wouldn't consider getting the latest Alienware ALX for my business but I wouldn't look at the very chepest model either as all applications (From Red Hat through to Doom3) are wanting more and more resources. If you purchase a PC that is already out of date when it's delivered you can hardly blame a software house 3 years on for saying that it may not run on a machine that's got the spec of a 5 year old box!

1Gb, reasonable P4 or Athlon with 128mb video isn't high spec guys - it's todays standard. MS don't think that everyone is going to go out running and purchasing Vista, however companies that do have the hardware at today's standard probably will (the benefits are superb from an enterprise point of view) in particular SA customers.

This whole thread seems to be out of context, inaccurate or misleading information against an OS that hasn't even been released.
People moaning about the cost (when it's cheaper than XP), others complaining about compatibility (when it's got the most backwards compatible features I've ever seens in a OS) and then people move on to hardware specs - which to run Vista reasonably you need 1Gb RAM, 128 in your video card and a processor that's not older than about 3 years.
The DRM post was another shot at Vista, when there is nothing wrong with it. MS have agreed to implement a function (DRM) that will allow HD-DVD's to be played - if they didn't then Hollywood wouldn't allow them to be played at all. What have MS done wrong there? TPM was another over the top mis-informed comment stating big-brother. Again incorrect, it's a Intel developed on-board chip that allow full drive encryption.

Everything in this post has been based around opinions rather than facts. From the cost (which was wrong) through to the TPM/DRM post which tries to make Vista out to be some sort of monitoring tool (which all that actually's happening is MS have agreed to HD-DVD restrictions that are already in your HD-DVD player/TV). It's the Hollywood market not Vista that enforced this.

I don't mind constructive debates regarding functionality or why certian bits are left out or where there are already issues with the OS - but making an unreleased OS out to be some sort of expensive, monitoring, resource eating, non-compatible product is both non-factual and baseless. I'm speculating that most posters haven't actually researched much into Vista (which is evident in some cases) and most are general MS haters anyway. Bias threads that are based on little factual evidence is simply anti-MS propoganda that makes something out to be a lot worse than actual is.

I'll be happy to listen to any debates or comment regarding Vista that are actually about Vista (rather than Hollywood's DRM fixation or people making up hardware specs) and features (good and bad) or the general OS.

No, I don't work for MS, I'm just sick to death of people bashing MS with little foundation other than rumours and make-believe. Leave the propoganda in the playground and let's actually have a propper discussion rather than made up information and re-writes of beta 1 reviews.

(Phew! Feel better that's off my chest! )




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson