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!

 

[pmonett]

As far as activation and license is concerned, Microsoft has just publicly backed down from its stance of invalidating the license if there is a hardware change.

A welcome attitude to be sure, although I wonder why they had to discover that "the enthusiast market" would be "cheesed off" by the move. It's not like said market wasn't already up in arms against XP Activation, right ?

As for DRM, I'm sorry to insist Steve, but I cannot find any good excuse for it no more than I can accept to be handcuffed and escorted as soon as I leave my house - even if it's for my own security. HD-DVD is nothing but DVD with more pixels. Apart from saying DRM is not bad, you haven't even begun to demonstrate how it's supposed to be good. Would you care to explain what technical reason there is to support DRM ? Apart from the fact that it's already there, of course.

Pascal.


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

 

[Stevehewitt]

I sort of agree in a way. DRM is a funny thing, as it means different things to different people. It was mentioned in this forum in a way that comes across as Vista will send the contents of your HD to MS and the government with the new DRM implementation. (This is how I read it however I understand it's down to individual interpretation).

DRM isn't a bad thing in its nature. It's literally managing the content authors/owners rights in the licence through digital technology. It's the restrictive and potentially privacy issues that go with it that make people scared.

The DRM implementation in Vista isn't a MS thing - it's a industry thing. To watch HD content from offical HD-DVD's / BlueRay you must have a HDCP compliant output device, otherwise your HD content will only play in non-HD quality. Doesn't seem very intrusive to me, and whilst I disagree with the prices some content costs, it's only fair that the industry protects it's content.

What is wrong is when the protection mechanism is overly intrusive and/or invades our privacy. I don't agree with piracy - simply from a moral point of view. It's theft, and it's irrelevant if it's theft from a multi-national or some basic $10 32-bit app someone knocked up in their bedroom. If DRM and activation helps prevent piracy then I'm all for it; but only if it doesn't impact on the paying customer's rights.

Prevent piracy is a good thing, invasion of privacy isn't. DRM is a step in the right direction against piracy; and in this particular case doesn't invade my privacy.

As HD content isn't even truly avaliable yet, and it's generally watchable with non-HDCP compliant monitor (but at normal HD quality) then it's not even going to be more expensive. Most mid-market and up HD TV's already support it and by the time HD content is avaliable for the masses then HDCP compliant HD monitors (cheap and expensive) will be the norm.

DRM isn't evil, just how it's implemented can be.

Cheers,




Steve.

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

 

[tfg13]

It's getting to the point that this thread has become so convaluted with "opinions" that is getting pretty hard to read.

1. DRM has not been limited to Microsoft products. Think your iPod (Apple product) is safe?
a. Considering the way things are going, HIPAA, GLB, and Sarbanes-Oxley are starting to implement DRM "features". Would having a DRM capable enterprise system hurt?
b. Big brother is watching. If big brother (I am one) wanted to know what you are doing, we could simply watch the network sitting outside your house (no warrant required).
c. Have a valid complaint about DRM:

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/101206-vistas-drm-features-could-bedevil.html

2. As far as TPM, because Microsoft includes this functionality and control, all of a sudden it's bad, because you can encrypt your entire hard drive. What's the problem with that?

If you are that freaked out about DRM/TPM now, shouldn't you be more concerned with what you have already done, and not with what an OS is doing to help move technology along?

3. Hardware. This is a constant "complaint" about Microsoft, and how bloated it is. Yet, 90% of the PC's in peoples homes use them. I'm not going to say anything about businesses, because most businesses are a mixture, and couldn't really find anything stating what the mix is. Does Microsoft really need all the features they include? Truthfully, yes. Ever seen a SU (stupid user) try to do something from the command line on any system? Microsoft has made it pretty. Same can be said for any Linux system that uses a GUI. Take a bench test of using Linux with all the trimmings (Microsoft includes most of these by default), in the CLI, and the GUI, tell me which one uses more resources.....
a. Hardware is constantly evolving. By the time Vista is released, how outdated do you think a system bought today would be? If a business is buying low-end systems, are they really planning for the future?
b. Just did a look at Dell. Of the 6 systems for "small businesses" with a price ranging from $499-$764, 3 were below the 1 GB mark (add the additional RAM at around $55, and you have all 3 up to 1GB). Let's not talk about larger businesses that have a corporate account, and discounts.

4. I am not a Microsoft junkie, or any other operating system junkie. I think there are benefits to all OS's and drawbacks for each. If you don't like Vista, don't buy it. Learn the free OS's, and quit whining about an operating system that hasn't even hit the final release yet. Play with a beta release of a Linux OS sometime, and you'll see that there are issues that need to be corrected before that is released as well.

 

[jsteph]

Think your iPod (Apple product) is safe?

My iPod doesn't contain my personal banking information.

Big brother is watching. If big brother (I am one) wanted to know what you are doing, we could simply watch the network sitting outside your house (no warrant required).

If I wanted to, I could break into a neighbor's house fairly easily and steal the contents. But it'd be easier if they left the door open.

As far as TPM, because Microsoft includes this functionality and control, all of a sudden it's bad, because you can encrypt your entire hard drive. What's the problem with that?

If that were all, there may be nothing wrong with that.

...quit whining...

I don't see the 'con' arguments here so much as "whining", as I see it as excercising a democratic right to free speech and the right to expose what many see as subversive tactics.

In many cases, we don't have as much a choice in OS as we'd like. The reasons for us not having as much a choice is a thread in itself, but it's not like with cars where we can choose a Honda instead of a Toyota or Ford, etc, and all the roads we use daily will accept all cars equally.

Going to Linux, for example, would be like buying that Honda instead of the Toyota, but now all the streets and roads you used to take to work are now totally off limits to you--and in many cases an alternative street may not even exist. I know there are all kinds of counter-arguments to that, but as I said, that discussion is well beyond the scope of this thread.
--Jim

 

[tfg13]

My iPod doesn't contain my personal banking information.

If you think that having your personal banking information on your PC is safe now, I have some ocean front property in Arizona that I'd like to sell you.

If I wanted to, I could break into a neighbor's house fairly easily and steal the contents. But it'd be easier if they left the door open.

You basically agree with my statement. Do you believe that you have a totally secure PC now? It doesn't matter what OS you are running. If someone wants the information bad enough, they will figure a way of getting it. Doesn't matter if the door is locked or not.

If that were all, there may be nothing wrong with that.

Simple Google search on TPM confirms this. It is a hardware function that Microsoft has included functionality into the OS.

Utilizing an anolgy with cars is really pushing the edge. I do agree that Linux is lacking in the total functionality that Microsoft offers, and this has to do with how young it is, the difficulty of getting more developers (considering the open source (no money) development) to concentrate on a particular objective (software development), the growth of the Linux movement (how many different versions are out now?), and the usual "would rather spend time bashing other OS's, in particular Microsoft"/hacking/cracking.

I am not one to discourage free speech. I spent 10 years defending that right, and by no means am trying to tell people to no voice an opinion, just please make it an educated opinion.

 

[jsteph]

Doesn't matter if the door is locked or not.

Yes it does. My point is that sure, there's danger everywhere but we do our best to reduce the risk. Locking my door does not prevent burglary, but it certainly reduces the risk.

Same with my PC. I know it's not going to be entirely immune to hackers--those who really want to get in can get in--but why make it easier?
--Jim

 

[tfg13]

How does DRM which is functionally there for HD-DVD make hacking into your computer easier?

 

[Glenn9999]

How does DRM which is functionally there for HD-DVD make hacking into your computer easier?

The DRM functionality is not just for the HD-DVD part but is pervasive throughout the entire OS for every function. That's part of the fuss over Vista - a super-majority of the new features are DRM-related (aka features that make it harder to copy, play, and other wise make fair use of digital media - audio, video, and yes that extends to all your data).

DRM/Vista leaves the security door wide open to anyone who has the keys. That's like walking up to complete and total strangers and handing them copies of your house and car keys. Would you seriously consider doing that? I'd wager not. Well basically that's what you do with your data if you run Vista.

 

[pmonett]

Well Steve, we can at least agree that artists do have a right to be compensated for their work.

I see now where the confusion lies. I am commenting on what DRM is now, and you are considering what it should be. Obviously we cannot have the same opinion.

Pascal.


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

 

[Stevehewitt]

OK, lets put this to bed.

Will someone (ideally jsteph, glynn9999 or pmonett) please point to an offical reference as to what DRM is included in Vista.

I have spent more hours than I care to remember trying out certian features on the new OS. I have a Vista box at work next to me for testing and if someone can provide me with actual information concerning DRM other than HD-DVD/Blue-Ray restrictions I'll be happy to listen to the critism's of it.

I have asked for this in previous posts and as of yet nobody has provide any reference, quote or resource pointing to this scary dangerous DRM that I, as an offical MS Partner and Beta Tester have not been told about.
(Bear in mind that Vista uses WMP11, the same as I am using now to listen to my music)

Note: This is new DRM that is not in previous versions of Windows and is not HDCP.

Thanks,



Steve.

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

 

[tfg13]

Thought this entire article was interesting. Kind of dispells some of the rumors set forth on this thread:

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1871

 

[pmonett]

From the article :

Microsoft's OCPM suite, part of the new operating system, comprises several video and audio encrypting functions with the stated aim of allowing content providers to trust the PC as a medium for playing their products without fears of illegal copying.

Nothing unusual here, I'm just being that my computer is not mine anymore.

Protecting copyrighted 'premium content' will be accomplished both by confirming an 'approved state' for each computer, free of potentially piracy-enabling software and hardware, and by encrypting certain types of media as they make their way through the computer.

The above and the following go together :

The PE is built on certified hardware using certified drivers, and can be invalidated by the presence of 'un-trusted' software, drivers or hardware. What constitutes unsafe software will likely be decided by Microsoft and concerned interests like the RIAA and movie industries.

Reread that second quote. It simply means that any piece of software I install can be on the black list, thereby having the potential of disrupting the Protected Environment and thus destroying my ability to use my PC in the way I see fit.

Knowing Microsoft, that disrupting piece of software could be, say, a third-party anti-virus ? Or firewall ? Or another media player ? How about a codec ? I'm not reassured here. Rather, I'm sure of one thing : something will screw up my PE and I'll be up the creek without a paddle.

The consequence of non-compliance is clearly outlined here :

The introduction of invalid software, hardware or drivers will either be blocked by the PE or, more likely, cause the PE to be removed. This will disable or reduce the quality of protected media playback, but will have no other effect on the computer's operations.

Allow me to doubt the "no other effect" part.

Then we have the Protected User-Mode Audio, which protects anything but me :

PUMA will combine the interface disabling and quality reduction abilities of PVP-OPM with a 'no-fly' list of restricted software

Once again, my computer is no longer mine since there is a black-list of applications made up by somebody else.

This is a very interesting article indeed, and to me it states quite clearly that there are draconian measures in place to make sure that whatever I do in video or audio, it will be in a controlled environment that I do not have the keys for.

Unfortunately, hackers will get the keys, and tomorrows virii and other malware will possibly make mayhem of this, for example inserting MS Office applications in the list of "no-fly" applications.

I am being restrained in my freedom, that much no one can deny. If you accept that, it's your business, but don't tell me it's a good thing.

Pascal.


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

 

[jsteph]

Three years ago, Microsoft helped spawn a 'trustworthy computing' initiative called Palladium...

I don't mean to sound conspiratorial, but right off the bat, the conspicuous use the term 'trustworthy' reduces the credibility that article and it's authors.

The actual term was 'trusted', and one of the first asides taken in most of the articles I read was to point out that 'trusted' does NOT in any way, shape or form, mean 'trustworthy'. This was not a minor point.

The fact that this article uses the word 'trustworthy' is highly suspect--andgiven that that very word itself was so controversial it's doubtful that this was accidental.
--Jim

 

[Stevehewitt]

jsteph

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/default.mspx

Found this and 3,720 other results on Google by using this string: "trustworthy computing" site:microsoft.com

Using "Trusted Computing" only brings back 400 results.


pmonett

I refer you to the link I put in an earlier post.
Vista includes the same DRM as the next version of MacOS X.

In addition, whilst I thank tjf13 for the URL, I was looking forward to one of the three posters I mentioned earlier to provide a URL to an offical source on the DRM included.

I have heard nothing about some software list of good and bad applications, and to be honest I personally think this is nonsense, as it's nearly technically impossible to implement.
What I have heard from the MS website, TechNet and my MS account manager / partner helpline is that is you do not have HDCP compliant hardware then you will only be able to run it in standard def.

It took me all of 2 minutes to locate this:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/D/6/5D6EAF2B-7DDF-476B-93DC-7CF0072878E6/output_protect.doc

It states in full detail the DRM in Vista, and as I suspected it clariffies that the DRM aspects mentioned in the PCStats website is out of context. In actual fact PVP-OVM simply blocks a particular driver from working if the algorithms detect that it's fradulant and is being used to decieve the protections.

There is no black-list of applications, no good software bad software.

Once again people are jumping to assumptions when a simple search query will provide the facts.

If anyone else has fears about Vista phoning home or creating blacklists of applications etc, I strongly advise reading the documentation from the developers first before making judgements and assumptions.

Thanks,





Steve.

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

 

[jsteph]

Steve,
Very interesting that Microsoft still tries to steer the term to 'trustworthy'.

A raw google search returns 3.9 Mil results for 'trusted computing', but only 1.3 Mil for 'trustworthy computing'.

I don't even like the word 'trusted', becuase many people still assume that means 'trustworthy'. I understand the concept of the term 'trusted' with regard to authentication, but I'm wary of the fact that the marketing arm of this whole cosortium tries so hard to mislead.

Back to my original thoughts--it's human nature leading people on a massive power grab. One can argue till the cows come home one way or another on this issue. But the phrase "Follow the money" is the one true thing that never fails us. This thing is not about 'protecting us' or 'making the computing experience better' or any such fluff. Nobody works that hard to 'help us' or 'enhance our experience' or some other 'free lunch' sort of thing.
It's about money, power, and control.
--Jim

 

[Glenn9999]

The main point of this "trusted computing" or "trustworthy computing": Trusted computing is not for YOU, the user. It's for THEM. They don't trust you at all to use your computer the way You see fit. They want to tell you what you can run and can't run, and they want to have free access to all your data.

Vista comes with Big Brother right inside the box. Don't need him, don't want him.

 

[AlexCuse]

Vista was deemed ready to release for manufacturing today.

May as well start getting ready for it now (or getting ready to switch to Linux). As my core expertise (if you want to call it that) is in MS products, I don't really have much choice. All I can do is hope that the DRM components are in fact trustworthy. I probably will continue running xp at home as long as possible, for what it's worth.

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

 

[Stevehewitt]

glynn9999

As I have asked before in multiple posts - please can you post some references to backup your statements regarding Vista having big brother inside the box.

I have seen nothing in this thread that leads me to believe Vista contains anything other than restrictions on HD content if your monitor is not HDCP compliant. Activation is on XP and Office.

Please backup your statements with facts and ideally an offical URL.




Steve.

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

 

[pmonett]

Steve:

The MS article you link to is nothing but PR drivel and has no technical data whatsoever. How is that supposed to be useful is beyond my imagination. The ArsTechnica link I have read, and all that says is what I already know : HD-DVD is content protected from the disk to the display.

I have heard nothing about some software list of good and bad applications

Well now you have, since it is in the article that tfj13 linked to. Or are you simply discounting anything that defies your notion of what DRM is ?

It's easy to disregard third-party publications and diminish their value, but you are seriously undermining your own credibility when all you have to offer is PR junk and repeated requests for people to "get the facts".

Show us some facts, Steve, since you seem to have superior knowledge on the question. Tell us extacly what DRM is in Vista, and why it is a good thing.

Pascal.


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

 

[Stevehewitt]

pmonett - some people in this thread, including you are stating that Vista is full of DRM that invades your privacy. I don't need to prove otherwise as all I have to go against is at best a myth. You show us some proof of DRM changes in Vista compared to XP then maybe I'll take the comments more seroiusly - but spouting off statements with no merit and a clear lack of evidence does not mean that offical beta testers need to constantly come back with the offical documentation on it contesting it.

A rumour takes a few minutes to create, however to discredit the rumour takes a lot longer. As I don't have enough time at the moment to constantly correct the bogus and blatantly wrong statements made in this thread I also don't have the time to keep on finding documentation at the level you want.

Why don't you prove to us that there is something that we need to challange other than a myth?

And whilst you can try and discredit the MS document on what they say they have included in their software (even though can't show me anything to the contary), the point of me providing the link to the URL is to disprove your earlier statements about blacklisted software. This document states quite clearly what PVP-OVM is and mentions none of your myths.

Give me something more concrete that people's personal opinions or 3 year old beta 1 testing reviews then, or ideally something from the development company themselves.

Steve.

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