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]

I find your lack of argumentation to be tiresome. Brushing away other people's arguments is all you have done in this thread. You challenge everything anyone says against DRM, but you provide nothing of substance in return.

You want facts ? I found the link from tfj13 quite informative, but apparently if it's not from MS it's not good enough for you.

Deforming people's arguments is another of your tricks. Did I say Vista was FULL of DRM ? No, I said it was there and had the potential to wreak havoc beyond it's intended reach.

I'm tired of seeing you avoid everyone else's arguments. You systematically displace the debate to a position where you think you hold the truth.

Well you're welcome to it.

Pascal.


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

 

[Stevehewitt]

Of course if it's not from MS it isn't good enough - where on Earth do you think people get software documentation from?

As a closed source product I must wonder why you think that non-MS documentation will be more accurate than the documentation from the software developer.

My comments are in referral to this sort of post:

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.

Now I happily admit that this can seem the case - but before I start spouting that sort of unfounded rumour around the internet I personally would check it out. Is there any offical source on what you said? No. Is there a reference to anything even remotely similar to that on the Microsoft Website? Can I find something along those lines on my Vista test box? No.
That quote is exactly how rumour start - and I am simply atempting to question the validity of it. Once again - it cannot be backed up by anything from the developers.

Pretty much every point mentioned in this thread that was negative about Vista has been disproved or adjusted to show the facts more clearly. (With the DRM and 'Big Brother' actual transpires to be nothing more than ensureing that you cannot syphon HD content that should go to your monitor to another device - an industry standard.)

We'll have to agree to disagree, however I make up judgements based on facts from the developers (regardless if it's MS or Apple) - a document on a IT news website that's over a year old just doesn't cut it for me compared to the 45 page MS document that clearly states what the output DRM included with Vista does.

When I make a judgement I base it on offical facts rather than other peoples assumptions.

Anyone who has read through this thread (which is a hell of a job looking at the size of it!) - I encourge you to make up your own mind and view the facts from the people that are actually developing this application in question - which currently isn't even released yet.




Steve.

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

 

[kHz]

make up your own mind

Microsoft develops bloated software and as a company would have been sued for suspect business practices (oh wait, they have been - and lost) and would have been forced to pull their product from the market if they were selling automobiles (think hackers and holes in Windows and compare against Ford Pinto's engulfed in flames) and not software.

 

[Glenn9999]

Stevehewitt:

1) I don't deform your nick on here when I type, so please don't deform mine. If you are indeed a professional, I would hope you act like one. I haven't come into this thread calling you Steve-O or SteveDumwitt or anything of that nature, so I would hope you would be both professional and adult.

2) If someone is going to do or is doing something nefarious, do you really think they're going to shout it to the rooftops? not only no, but absolutely positively guaranteed no! If the full extent of those interlinking technologies to provide their Big Brotherism control, as was mentioned, "from disk to display" is content-protected, is realized, it can mean much more than just the RIAA and MPAA's will to impose things upon people. The APIs are going to be there that does all this stuff. I even gave an example in the post of 27 Oct 06 10:06 of how this could come to fruition. This isn't about just HD-DVD, it's about the freedom to use the entire computer without spying, and without your data being held hostage.

What makes you think that given the power of Big Brotherism that other powerful entities aren't going to use these APIs (no doubt unpublished except at a hefty fee paid to Microsoft upon signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement) for things other than HD-DVD?

3) I posted a series of links to describe the kinds of things that have been linked from Vista and noted you could google it and read for three eternities. As was said, anything that's not from Microsoft (aka objective) is not good for you. All I can do is just come back in and state the obvious.

Pmonett gets a star because he nails exactly what's going on here.

 

[Glenn9999]

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.

How about anything deemed a "security risk" by Microsoft? Of course, this could mean anything under the sun. And I could add to this list just about any open source product. What if that disrupting software happens to be a certain competing open-source office productivity package? And given the secure storage aspect of things (data can be tied to a specific app - aka DRM content only playable on the copyright holder's preference of player), what if someone using a certain Microsoft office productivity package wants to switch to said competing open-source product?

This stuff is just too appealing to not be restricted to just digital audio and video (and even that restriction is not acceptable). And you know people will buy into this idea of secured storage in the vein of "protecting their valuable personal and corporate data from virii, spyware, and malware". Unfortunately it will lock them into something that's anything but secure.

 

[Glenn9999]

And to give an example of what most of us here are doing, all we're doing is taking the "technologies" Microsoft is providing and taking them out to their logical extremes. It's a known fact that with human nature that people will do that with anything that is offered them.

A good example from Microsoft's history:

Lookie here! We created this nice new technology called Active Scripting. You can use this language we did called VB Script to create all kinds of active content on our Office Package. You can even send this stuff on Outlook to all the people in your organization. We'll even put it into our Outlook Express package that's bundled into Windows so you can be reasonably assured that anyone on your mailer lists can get your absolutely neato active content!

Oh wait, you can write viruses with that?!? We didn't see that one coming!

A good illustration of a reason to not trust Microsoft on this.

 

[kHz]

And the banality of this topic drones on!

 

[pmonett]

Getting back to the original subject, apparently Forrester is saying that consumers don't rush to a new platform unless the old one breaks, the price is right, or "when a lifestyle event triggers the purchase".

Looks like we'll all get to Vista, but we might not all be in a rush to do it.

Pascal.


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

 

[Stevehewitt]

I'll choose to ignore those points as I (along with others) no longer wish to continue this debate as it's really going nowhere. I fail to realise how a scripting lanuage can compare with content protection technology, and unsuprisingly I disagree but as I said - i'll leave it there.

However, I appoligise to glenn9999 if I caused offense - I can't find the post you are refering too, but I assure you I wouldn't stoop to such a low level in a professional forum. Again, my appolgies.


pmonett

I think it's a very interesting point. MS are harping on about how they think it will take off really quickly, but as you mentioned a number of analysts think otherwise.

The distribtion model for Vista is very different from previous MS Windows releases. The voucher scheme, business customers get it 2 months before retail, the big build up as it's been in the pipeline for such a long time etc.

I for one will be very interested in how it takes off. I wonder if MS will be kicking off a marketing campaign for Vista to encourage the consumer market? My personal belief is that businesses will take Vista a lot quicker than the consumer market due to the benefits that it presents to businesses rather than consumers.






Steve.

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

 

[Tarwn]

My only comment to add to the mix is in response to this:

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.

Personally, I think this would be exceptionally easy to implement, all it would take would be some sort of application signing implemented almost exactly the way that they implemented DLL signing. Note, I'm anot commenting on whether I believe they are doing this or not, just that it would be as difficult to do and would not be out of character given past behavior. However, one thing to keep in mind, this would be a major step up from signed DLL's, as they would then be blatantly wandering back into the arena that first got them slapped with an Anti-trust suit, unfair competitive practices.

 

[Glenn9999]

Note, I'm anot commenting on whether I believe they are doing this or not, just that it would be as difficult to do and would not be out of character given past behavior.

And not out of character for what the RIAA and MPAA want. No doubt, on this list of bad applications, things that enable their stuff to be copied/pirated is going to get listed, like CD and DVD rippers that produce a "unprotected" format, like regular MP3 and DivX, or things that enable audio or video to get captured in-line with the hardware.

Technically, setting up and maintaining an applications blacklist is child's play.

 

[Stevehewitt]

Fair enough, I was just thinking more along the lines of keeping the list updated and accurate. It's hard enough for users to update the AV let alone dial-up users trying to use Windows Update!



Steve.

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

 

[Ed2020]

.

Please do not feed the trolls.....

 

[Stevehewitt]

As in keeping a blacklist updated would probably be the hard part! ;-)



Steve.

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

 

[BIS]

Hallo All,

I have been following this post for a while, and thought I would quickly post this link:

http://computerworld.com/action/art...icleBasic&articleId=9005047&intsrc=hm_ts_head

 

[jsteph]

for example, if the hard drive is removed and placed in a different machine -- TPM detects the tampering and prevents the drive from being unencrypted

If Vista does indeed support this particular TPM gem, then that's a huge problem. Below is a true story:

I have a collection of family photos, including all my digital pics from the last 5 years, and all scanned-in photos dating back to my childhood. It's about 140 Gigabytes. My brother, who figures in many of these photos, wanted a copy. I unplugged the 200 gig drive, brought it to his house, and dumped it onto a drive he purchased for that very purpose.

The question is: Is Microsoft now saying with Vista, if I *own* a hard drive, which contains data that *I own*, that *they* say I can't transfer *my* data to another computer?
--Jim

 

[BIS]

I am not sure - but I would imagine that the decision to encrypt the data, or not, would be your own. Only once the data has been encrypted, you apparently can't move it.

 

[Sympology]

Think people need to read up a little more.
Very quick google:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/library/c61f2a12-8ae6-4957-b031-97b4d762cf31.mspx

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[Stevehewitt]

Couple of good articles there.

DRM one is interesting, as it backs up everything that MS state on the website. (That I can find anyway) Pretty much the only new stuff is the PVP mechanism that prevents people from hijacking streams leaving the graphics card.

In terms of BitLocker - it's only on Enterprise and Ultimate editons of Vista and is optional. (And only optional if you have a TPM module)

Is Microsoft now saying with Vista, if I *own* a hard drive, which contains data that *I own*, that *they* say I can't transfer *my* data to another computer?

No, Microsoft is saying that if you want to fully encrypt your hard drive so that it can only be read by your machine then you can do it. It's your choice, as long as you meet the critera and know how to set it up.

Just to confirm - BitLocker is an optional feature on a single retail version of Vista that allows the end user to encrypt a hard drive so it can only be read using the keys contained in the TPM.

Thanks,






Steve.

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

 

[jsteph]

It's your choice,...

Steve,
Thanks, that is refreshing to know.

I would also assume that this 'armored tunnel' (my term for the PVP from cradle to grave) would also exclude personal content. The article from Computerworld referenced by BIS was vague on that point--it seemed to only refer to "High Definition" content which would be unviewable or viewable only at low-definition, when I think the clearer term would be "Protected Content".
--Jim