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]

This isn't a Vista only thing.

That doesn't make it right.

The one thing many of the proponents of TPM fail to consider is simple human nature. Power corrupts, etc. It's not a question of "Will people abuse this power?". They will. Period.

If the question then is "When will people abuse this power?", the answer--again if you know anything about human behaviour--is "As soon as they can.".

And the magnitude of this power is beyond what many people may estimate. Think of how tightly we as a society are bound to our computers in both business and personal life.

Always remember that humans will always revert to the path of least resistance. We like to think that people will "Do the right thing". But if this power to snoop into virtually anyone's or any company's computers exists, that power is going to sit on their shoulder like the little devil and taunt them to abuse the power. And the little angel on the other shoulder...well, I think we know who's going to win that battle.
--Jim

 

[Glenn9999]

Great post jsteph...

Let me take this technology into the realm of what the rest of the powerful software industry will think (not these little guys like me that turn out freeware occasionally) and in terms of what applies to business

They'll look at these DRM Features and say "Hey, let's do it ourselves. We can sell to our customers that by using sealed storage like the DRM-enabled media players that their data will be protected from viruses, spyware and so forth. More secure for your organization, right?"

Ultimately though that locks the customer into a single choice. This stuff knows no difference between a virus program and a beneficial program the user has to try to convert the data to a new application choice.

For example, most business will likely adopt the newest Office that will support all this technology (you know it will happen). The files will be locked up and effectively will be held hostage by Microsoft - and ultimately will cause a product lock-in (maybe they want OpenOffice?) because the company won't want to lose it's data. Remember, the trusted application for those files (Excel, Access, Word, whatever) will be Microsoft Office, not whatever other program the user might choose to access this data. It will be "pay us for the next upgrade of Office or you won't get your data back!".

And that's just the tip of the iceberg - just wait until the court systems start using these things to give court orders to Microsoft's approved parties to delete intellectual properties that might be either contested or unpopular politically (or companies to view a competing defendant's proprietary data for an IP suit).

Vista is a nasty thing, indeed - it's the first step for all of this..

 

[Glenn9999]

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.

You're lucky that I don't take things as these forums so seriously, especially since you effectively called me a liar just now in the quote.

 

[pmonett]

Sorry Steve, I did not say that 4GB was recommended, I said it was better. Tell me that I'm wrong.

As for the dream, well here there are a number of motherboards for the AM2 socket, and the maximum amount of RAM that you can put on those boards goes from 8 to 32 - forget about 4. Of course, I'm not saying that you HAVE to put in 8GB, but there are none in that selection that force you to use less

You're tired of MS-bashing ? Well I'm tired of bloatware, and having to upgrade my PC just to run the next blob coming out of Seattle, so we're even.

As for DRM, I'm sorry but I cannot accept to be treated like a criminal and put under constant scrutiny just because Microsoft has the power to do it. Someday I hope there will be a massive class action lawsuit on the grounds that the OS may be licensed, but the hardware belongs to the user and MS should beg permission to look at it instead of arrogantly assuming it has the right to do so.

But that's just my opinion, you have the right to be happy with the situation.

Pascal.


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

 

[Stevehewitt]

It would be extreamly unprofessional of me to call you a liar, and I appologise if it came across like that. (It wasn't directly aimed at you or your comments directly, rather a number of posts in this thread)

However stating "Vista has DRM" - whilst technically accurate; when you look into it it's actually a good thing for Vista to contain this as it means you can view HD-DVD. Other OS's (I'm assuming WinXP in this) won't be able too. It's the negativity that blunt statements like that send out when actually there is more too it. (E.G. AlexCuse thought his MP3's were at risk) leading to more unfounded negativity through lack of statment and clarification. The same applied with the TPM. (Where's the big brother angle come from?!)

Other statements like "Not only do you require a minimum of 2GB (4 is better)" do the same. Actually the minimum is 512 (so 1.5Gb differnce!), however (as usual with MS minimum specs) that won't actually work in the real world - it's more like 1Gb (compared to 4Gb - 3Gb difference). Again more technical inaccuracies automatically give out the negative vibe when if people were to actually do some research themselves they would find out something rather different.

"The pen is mightier than the sword" - so all I'm trying to do it make sure that what the pen writes is accurate.

Don't get me wrong, Vista has it's flaws, many of which we probably won't see for months or years to come - however it does seem like an awful lot of people will take any rumour they hear and post it to go with the flow. (Again not directed any one directly)

Cheers,






Steve.

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

 

[AlexCuse]

When are they going to start shipping PC's with Vista? I have been wanting to upgrade to a more powerful machine, but I am really really against letting anyone into my computer. I don't give a <> about being able to watch HD-DVD, I give a <> about what little amount of privacy we have left. It is bad enough that people are out there trying to hijack your computer so they can steal your money or use it to send spam, but the idea that someone could legitimately (well, legally at least) do the same thing scares the he11 out of me!

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

 

[kHz]

Vista - 50 million SLOC
Red Hat - 17 million SLOC
Solaris - 7.5 million SLOC
FreeBSD - 1.2 million SLOC

Those are figures I have seen posted. If they are reasonably accurate, then no wonder Vista will need Gigs of memory to run.

I happily run FreeBSD

 

[pmonett]

Steve, how can you possibly say that DRM is a good thing ? We didn't have DRM on DVD's, I fail to see why this is all of a sudden good for HD-DVD. There is no technical or consumer justification to DRM - it's all a label thing. DRM is NOT necessary to view HD-DVD, it's been slapped on along with it without asking us about it.

And thank you for repeatedly bashing us with official numbers, but as I've said (and you've carefully sidestepped that), MS is lousy on requirements and everyone knows it. Like many, I am not interested in MS's view on what Vista needs, I'm interested in what it actually takes to get the mammoth moving.

Finally, concerning the flaws that Vista undoubtedly has, I give it ten days before we start hearing about it.

Pascal.


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

 

[Stevehewitt]

AlexCuse
Please can you explain what you mean. From everything I have researched, there is nothing in Vista that does anything you stated. From the post earlier on I assume you are refering to TPM. TPM is a cryptography chip on a motherboard developed by a number of industry players such as MS, Intel and IBM and will ALLOW you to fully encrypt your hard disc. Previously with Windows you could only encrypt folders or files.
Some people are assuming that MS have left some secret backdoor for government agencies to gain access once they have your HD in posession. Couple of points: MS have strongly denied this, if the FBI have your HD then I doubt TPM would stop them anyway and finally TPM allows something that XP didn't have. It just means you can encrypt your HD which you couldn't before (previously you could only do files or folders.) So where's the scary big brother danger?

AlexCuse and pmonett
If you are refering to the DRM for HD-DVD's then it's not some Sony Rootkit, it's a requirement set by the Hollywood industry. The same software is pre-loaded into your HD-DVD drive already. Similar to the region settings on current DVD drives.
This isn't relevant to Vista. Yes, Vista includes it but it's a industry standard to run HD-DVD that will be included in all software that will play HD-DVD. It's not a phone home application or a key logger. It simply ensures that your monitor meets the criteria to play HD-DVD for copyright reasons. I hate DRM, and I don't want it anywhere near me or my machine - however it's hardly MS's fault for including the required software to play HD-DVD's. It's not intrusive, it's set by the industry (not MS) and it's a requirement to play HD-DVD. It won't touch your music, or normal DVD's or blue-ray. Blame Hollywood not MS.

pmonett
I'm going to diagree. You stated:

the hardware requirements for Vista are rather steep. Not only do you require a minimum of 2GB (4 is better),

This is wrong - e.g. factually incorrect. You can run Vista on the MS minimum specs' (which is 512Mb - not the 2Gb you clearly state) however in the real world the system would be too slow. I am running (and using to reply) Vista on 1Gb of RAM and it's running fine. 2Gb isn't required, MS don't say so and anyone who has used Vista RC1 or RC2 will agree. (The beta performance was awful though)

If you post incorrect information expect to get flamed.

Regarding DRM on DVD's: What do you think the regional restrictions are? DRM before the term DRM was coined. Oh, and MS didn't event that either.

Finally, to come back to you point about me sidestepping MS requirements:

however (as usual with MS minimum specs) that won't actually work in the real world...

I'm no MS evangalist, but this thread is getting pretty large, and I have yet to hear any valid reasons against Vista other than the norm. (E.G. Licence costs). Hardware is circumstancial (as I have said we don't have a problem) - some companies may have the right spec, some won't, depdends on the business.

So in this entire thread the bashsing has been on... hardware specs' which generally aren't so bad. Could have been better, but they aren't exactly high-end gaming systems. A low-end (128Mb on board) graphics card, processor that's not much older than 2-3 years and 1Gb RAM. I'd imagine that the RAM will be the biggest problem, but again the vast majority of machines will probably be on 512. So either slap another 512 in or wait until your next hardware cycle. A new Vista capable machine purchase 6 months ago isn't any more expensive than a Designed for Windows XP machine when XP was released.
In the last 1 - 2 years I wouldn't have considered purchasing a machine for WinXP without 512 RAM anyway, and the in the last 6 months to a year we have been getting 1Gb.

That is my point. The number of comments posted near the top of this thread bashing bits of Vista are generally misleading or plain wrong. Including your hardware spec, other posts on compatibility, features, cost, versions, DRM, etc.




Steve.

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

 

[Tarwn]

Steve: Since you have it at hand and I'm waiting for my official technet disc before installing, I have hard that the Security settings are a real PIA to get around when doing normal administrative tasks with the admin acount, is this true? There was some rumor that they might pull part of the new security capability before release simply because it was getting in the way so much, thoughts?

 

[Stevehewitt]

It was awful in the Beta's - really bad. Everything you did it prompted for confirmation.

MS Tweaked it a lot in RC1 and it's alright - still annoying but a lot smoother now and nowhere near as many prompts as before. You can also configure what is prompted and what requires admin rights via various GPO's in Vista too which is a nice change from the restrictions of XP. (Our mobile users will be very happy with that!)

I'm not sure, but I heard that there is a way to disable UAC completely (although I don't know how). From what I've played with it on RC2 I'm planning to keep it enabled - does make a lot of sense and it's quite similar to the security model of the *nix crowd which is a nice change of direction for MS. (To look at putting in decent security I mean, not robbing technology from elsewhere..! ;-))

Then again as an admin how much work do you actually do on the workstation? Most of my day is spent with AD and associated technology which won't be impacted. It's one of the areas I'll be throughly testing on the trial period next year.




Steve.

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

 

[Glenn9999]

when you look into it it's actually a good thing for Vista to contain this as it means you can view HD-DVD.

Actually it's not. Given my view, I'd rather not invest in anything that's DRM infested, and on top of that, the possibility is there of it turning into a BetaMax, since there's a similar standards war (HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray). I have precisely ZERO interest in HD-DVD. Besides, DRM in and of itself is nefarious and intrusive since the user can't use the content in any way that constitutes fair use. The fact that Vista is supporting it in increased measure doesn't present a benefit.

So in this entire thread the bashsing has been on... hardware specs' which generally aren't so bad. Could have been better, but they aren't exactly high-end gaming systems. A low-end (128Mb on board) graphics card, processor that's not much older than 2-3 years and 1Gb RAM

The point is you do need specs that constitute a gaming system, in fact, if you don't want it to run like molasses. As I said, I ran Vista RC2 against an Athlon XP 2000+ and 512MB and all my apps ran very poorly in Vista compared to what they do in Windows XP. Not rumor and innuendo, at all, but real experience. Like I said, based on REAL EXPERIENCE, I am going to recommend 3Ghz, 1GB memory, 256MB video, MINIMUM for running Vista. In fact, you're looking at 2GB on the memory if you want to have anything sustainable.

And no doubt, most current hardware, especially in business would be unsuitable for running Vista. My computer definitely proved insufficient, hardware spec wise, to be able to use Vista in a regular way.

 

[Glenn9999]

For interest, if anyone wants to know, the MEI numbers of the computer, I set Vista RC2 up on:

Processor: 2.9
Memory: 2.9
Graphics: 1.9
Gaming Graphics: 1.0
Hard Disk: 5.3

I don't know what numbers constitute "acceptable" in running Vista, but this computer is a very poor one for daily use of Vista.

 

[Glenn9999]

The Dell CEO is saying the same thing about memory as I am...whaddya know!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/290154_msftvista27.html

Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Vista computer operating system may need double the amount of main memory recommended by the world's biggest software maker, Dell Inc. Chief Executive Kevin Rollins said.

"I think they tell you maybe 1 gig of memory is OK," Rollins said Thursday at a speech at Shanghai's Jiaotong University, referring to Microsoft's recommendations. "No. Two gigs of memory would be great."

 

[pmonett]

Steve :

Well it seems that even Dell is supporting our figures, but let's just agree to disagree, hmm ? You keep telling people about the official numbers, we'll keep telling them what they really need.

As for DRM, yes I can blame Microsoft for including it. DRM should be a package that the user can or not install on his own, there is no technical justification for it to be hardwired into the OS. But, as you said yourself, Hollywood insisted. Well, that does not make it right in my view.

Pascal.


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

 

[Stevehewitt]

As you said Pascal, we'll have to agree to disagree.

My point has primarily been the incorrect statement of 2Gb minimum which implied it was MS's minimum spec. 2Gb isn't the minimum requirement for Vista, 512 is. 2Gb is your recommended minimum - there's a huge difference as people will percieve it in different ways.

My test box running Vista RC2 can't run the latest FPS games but it runs Vista fine on 1Gb with an old processor and graphics card. I'll be recommending 2.6Ghz processor and 1Gb RAM for our machines but I've been doing that for the last year anyway (as it's hardly cheaper to get a lower spec now-a-days). If you think that's gaming grade then I'd suggest researching the gaming market in more detail, and no gaming machine would be running a spec like that. (E.G. the primiary purpose of the machine is gaming)

BTW pmonett and glynn999 - in regards to your comments regarding Dell - you obviously you didn't read my previous posts:

You can run Vista on the MS minimum specs' (which is 512Mb) however in the real world the system would be too slow. I am running (and using to reply) Vista on 1Gb of RAM and it's running fine.

There is no need to get external sources to verify what I have already said to try and attack what I am saying, but thanks for getting a quote from Dell that backs up what I have already said. 1Gb is real word minimum recommendations (e.g. to run it reasonably smoothly) and 2Gb would be the ideal if you have a big budget. Couldn't agree more (as you can see from the above quote) - although it's not quite the same as you posted initally now was it Pascal...! ;-)

DRM is something of personal opinion, I don't like DRM in general, but I can see a benefit this particular type of DRM to be included in Vista as opposed to the DRM that you get on Apple's latest incarnations. (Again, I replied to the orignal post that mentioned DRM as initally it implied something a lot more malicious than it actually is, the only rights management Vista includes is making sure you have the right monitor for HD-DVD).

To clarify, I know there are issues with Vista. I know that the hardware requirements will put some people off and that the inclusion of any type of DRM could make people a bit edgy. My inital reasons for joining this thread was to correct the incorrect information (such as hardware requirements which have been clariffied from the inital 4Gb that was initally posted down to 1-2Gb) and to clarrify the points that were vague at best (DRM/TPM with statements mentioning big brother!).

Anyway, I hope that if people read through this entire thread (which is getting mighty long now!) they'll read everything and make up their own minds. I believe all the points that have been mentioned have been put to bed in terms of clarrification and accuracy so it will be interesting to see how Vista actually performs.

Anyone have any speculations how Vista will take off compared to XP or Win2k? Any views on the MS voucher scheme as they are so late on the delivery of Vista?

Cheers,





Steve.

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

 

[kHz]

Stevehewitt is the unofficial Microsoft spinster...err spokesman

 

[Stevehewitt]

That's right. As I do research prior to posting that correct the bias and unfounded views of others I am a PR rep for Microsoft.
Fact's are facts mate, I'm not the one making up 4Gb hardware requirements and spouting rubbish that MS and the government can access your machine remotely.

Anyone fancy an adult discussion regarding the points I mentioned at the end of my previous post?




Steve.

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

 

[jsteph]

Anyone have any speculations how Vista will take off compared to XP or Win2k?

I believe there will be much slower acceptance, due to the points discussed in this thread. As I'd mentioned in my first post here, upgrading is just a pain, and most non-techies won't do it until compelled to do so by some new app they need to use. New machine buyers may have no choice, but the huge spikes in new pc buying are largely over, I believe that the consumer pc buying patterns have stabilized to a replace-as-needed sales pattern, as opposed to the 'hey we've got to get involved in that internet thing' that we saw a few years back.

And in my second post, I'd mentioned the cost factor for the business market. We just finished a hardware upgrade a couple years back, with the first few phases being Dells with 1.2 ghz P4 and 256 meg ram. That was fine for our 800 or so 'general office' pc's. The developers and power users just recently got 3ghz P4 with 1 GB ram. Even those will be, at best, marginal for Vista. But the bulk of ours may not even boot up. And we (and I'd guess many corporate customers) simply won't rush to upgrade, and will likely stretch the use-cycle further because now the cost of the low-end 'general office' pc will be more than the cost of our 'developer/power user' pc's.
--Jim

 

[Stevehewitt]

Hmm,

It's the reverse how it should be really. I agree, I think market forces will make Vista popular on home PC's (new PC's have enought power already and it's shipped with it!) yet I actually think there's little any advantage for home users. Vista seems more of a business upgrade in terms of new features (UI excluded).

Most of the benifits from Vista that I can see will be of interest to business rather than consumers, although as you mentioned above the majority of business won't upgrade hardware. (I don't think many do anyway - just new machines every few years)

I can imagine most general office PC's from a few years back (2-3 years) will struggle with Vista, so yeah I see the block for a lot of business there.

Is there any input from a developers POV? Getting mixed messages from our web development team regarding Vista. (IIS7/.Net 3.0)

Cheers,




Steve.

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