Windows Vista "infected" with DRM intergration

[zootm]

Say what? Also this! This should probably be linked too.

I notice that, in these lists, the support for new DRM technology is pretty low down.

[shakey_snake]

ROH, honestly answer this for me:

Do you consider yourself more or less obstinate than the average human being?

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by zootm
Say what? Also this! This should probably be linked too.

I notice that, in these lists, the support for new DRM technology is pretty low down.

Nicrosoft probably wrote those lists. You said earlier that you didn't think the average user would notice anything except the graphics. I agree.

I'm failing to see anything in those lists that will give me a better computing experience than I have with XP.

That is, except for support for DRM devices. That isn't even gonna fully work, unless you have a Media Center PC.

Which is why I say what I say. There is no significant reason to upgrade current computers to Vista.... for the average person.... now...

Microsoft is counting on the fact that they can sell you something that didn't make much difference.

It's worked before.....

Microsoft is counting on selling upgrades to stay solvent in the all too long awaited Vista. Frankly, I don't see it.

Vista doesn't matter..... yawn....

[Atmo]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Nicrosoft probably wrote those lists.

I dont think so.

They recently got into hot water for offering to pay an Australin blogger to fix up some articles on Wikipedia that were genuinely incorrect. There's no way they'd add/edit articles themselves.

[skryingbreath]

Screw these "facts" you guys are talking about. (in before Stephen Colbert)

[zootm]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Vista doesn't matter..... yawn....

Similarly to how OS X/Linux don't matter, yes.

It's clear you have no real interest in operating systems, so why do you even bother coming here and whining?

[MegaRock]

I'm one of the anti-Micro$osft people but I decided to give Vista a chance. And as far as a M$ product in all honesty it's not that bad. Thus far it's been stable. There are a few neat features. Upgrade went smoothly. It's not that huge of a resource hog and I have nothing more than a standard Pentium 4 PC. There are a few features that make the system appear to be more secure than previous versions. Nothing to write home about here but it's not bad.

With that said though there isn't a thing here they couldn't have included in XP. With Vista out the countdown to killing off XP and discontinuing support begins - start your timers. Vista really is nothing more than XP with a few patches, a few things done they way they should have done with XP but didn't and minus all the features MS hyped for years and then in the end yanked because they couldn't get it done right. It's eye candy and fixes and if for the price that is what you want then spend the money but for the average computer user they have to come up with reasons to buy Vista and if they have sense that list will take some time to put together.

Most of the people who will rush out to buy it are those who positively have to have the absolute latest before anyone else (gotta stay ahead of the Smith's!!), those who develop software, programs and internet properties since they want to be ahead of the curve and people deep into the IT. The rest I don't see flooding the stores to buy this.

[mrd00d]

snakey_snake :

You always make me wonder if you are your own cousin.

ROTFLHFAO

I love this place.

[zootm]

Originally posted by MegaRock
With that said though there isn't a thing here they couldn't have included in XP.

That's not really true; the reworking of the kernel code would mean that lots of the features couldn't be implemented on XP without large, breaking changes. Most of the features that can and will work on XP are actually being offered for it, for free. SP2 added most of the architectural fixes that could be fixed without a major release, unfortunately.

OS X releases an update every year and a half or so, Windows is just less frequent. I wouldn't worry about it.

Originally posted by MegaRock
With Vista out the countdown to killing off XP and discontinuing support begins - start your timers.

We all lament the loss of Windows 95, I'm sure. It's a good thing that support for XP is ending at some point, it'll be well out-of-date by the time that support does end. Due to the lateness of Vista it's already pretty out-of-date. Each release of Ubuntu is supported for a year and a half, except one (so far) which has "long term support", lasting four and a half years. XP is going 5-6 years old; this is a huge amount of time in software terms.

Originally posted by MegaRock
Most of the people who will rush out to buy it are those who positively have to have the absolute latest before anyone else (gotta stay ahead of the Smith's!!), those who develop software, programs and internet properties since they want to be ahead of the curve and people deep into the IT. The rest I don't see flooding the stores to buy this.

I agree. But then, when have people ever really flooded to stores to buy a new OS? Part of the problem that Linux has penetrating the market is that if you buy a PC, it typically has Windows on it already, ready to go. In fact it becomes quite hard to find a machine without Windows on it.

I don't think that it's really Microsoft's plan to get people to upgrade by buying the software en masse, it'll just be there when they get their new computer (and, if you've bought a computer from a few manufacturers recently, say so recently that the computer might be capable of running Vista well, you can upgrade for free as well).

[rockouthippie]

I don't feel like looking up some of the article I read, but my understanding was that MS was really counting on business upgrades to Vista.

Current penetration shows that optimistically they might have 5% upgrades. This is not what they were looking for.

The reason?. Like Megarock said. They lost most of the promise of their new OS. It's XP+, not the grand vision of a new, more powerful operating system.

Personally, this failure probably cost me $5000, because if this were something good or revolutionary, I would be gone this morning installing it on client computers.

I give Vista a resounding BOOOO!. Too little, too late and not enough.

[zootm]

Business will upgrade, it'll just take time. My own company only upgraded to XP a couple years ago, and we do software engineering.

And Vista has now at least caught up with all reasonable competitors. There's little else it could do; OSs are converging so much now that there's extremely few differences in their capabilities.

Edit: There is no way you have a computing job, RoH. That's kinda depressing.

[xzxzzx]

RoH, what would it take to convince you that DRM is actually a relatively tiny part of the changes and features made/added to Vista?

I'm dead serious, I really want to know. Clearly you have formed an opinion on the matter, based on something (presumably), but the way you've presented it here, it's flat-out wrong.

Indeed, there's little-to-no difference in DRM in XP vs. DRM in Vista, except, basically, that XP won't play certain DRMed content at all.

So what would it take?

[zootm]

Evidently the fact that Vista does not suck his cock is annoying him. And, if I were a middle-aged intelligence-starved guy in my mid-50s, I have to say my cock would probably have been fulfilled. But considering that it was not what's march on

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by zootm
Evidently the fact that Vista does not suck his cock is annoying him. And, if I were a middle-aged intelligence-starved guy in my mid-50s, I have to say my cock would probably have been fulfilled. But considering that it was not what's march on

08:45 PM EST is what, 1:45 GMT?

Sir, would you mind blowing in this tube please?


rofls

[zootm]

Bit drunk there, yes yes! I think I started out with a decent sentiment but kinda got sidetracked halfway through!

Edit: In my defence it was my friends birthday and we got beaten at the rugby...

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
RoH, what would it take to convince you that DRM is actually a relatively tiny part of the changes and features made/added to Vista?

If you read the list, yes. In reality no. DRM is the important "upgrade" in Vista. Only very fast Windows Media Center PCs are going to benefit.

Show me where the features and changes actually affect work.

Yeah, they tried to do some stuff with memory management, they added some hacks to make 64-bit computers work better..... a little.... but not optimal.

I like $45 an hour service calls to do system upgrades. But I have to have a reason. Something has to be more productive. I don't find it.

Last week they called it XP, this week they call it Vista. I call it Windows.

[shakey_snake]

Yeah, I'm sure a completely redesigned security model isn't that biggest thing about Vista.
I'm sure any "clients" you may or may not have won't appreciate that they can't get their systems to grind to a abacus in 3 months.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Yeah, I'm sure a completely redesigned security model isn't that biggest thing about Vista.
I'm sure any "clients" you may or may not have won't appreciate that they can't get their systems to grind to a abacus in 3 months.

You can't run windows without a virus suite anyway, and Vista is no different.

Yeah, like computers are just gonna stop working

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
If you read the list, yes. In reality no. DRM is the important "upgrade" in Vista. Only very fast Windows Media Center PCs are going to benefit.

Show me where the features and changes actually affect work.

Yeah, they tried to do some stuff with memory management, they added some hacks to make 64-bit computers work better..... a little.... but not optimal.

I like $45 an hour service calls to do system upgrades. But I have to have a reason. Something has to be more productive. I don't find it.

Well, you're right in a sense.

Most of Vista takes advantage of new hardware (hard drives with flash memory, etc), or provides support for new software features (WPF, etc), or is future-proofed (IPv6) or is security-related (UAC, bitlocker, etc), or is stability-related (user-mode drivers, etc), or enterprise mangement... and really, users don't see that stuff much.

What they do see includes the new/updated applications, the new interface, the search, the excellent speech recognition, and the "previous versions" volume-shadowing based thing. And that seems as significant as any other version of Windows (other than the 3.1 to 95 switch) to me...

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
You can't run windows without a virus suite anyway, and Vista is no different.

lol!
you're kidding right?

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
lol!
you're kidding right?

I doubt it...

(incidentally: )

<-- hasn't run a virus "suite" since before XP

[Omega X]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
(other than the 3.1 to 95 switch)

That is the switch that people were expecting with Vista. That next leap forward. But what they got wasn't all that it was hyped up to be.

Instead, Vista only seems to be one step forward instead of a leap. Which is why I hear a lot of people call Vista the Windows Me version of Xp.(its not just here in this thread)

[zootm]

Omega X -
I think largely the problem stems from the fact that there's just less and less we can actually do with these systems. Vista's up to about the same level as OS X, but the two systems only have advantages over each other in certain, limited contexts. Pretty much everything else is just a matter of preference. What more can be added to desktops these days?

[shakey_snake]

WinFS.

[zootm]

Indeed, but most of the advantages to such a system are already present in systems with word-wheel-style search mechanisms, or would require a real redesign of just about everything. But that's just about all there is.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Omega X
That is the switch that people were expecting with Vista. That next leap forward. But what they got wasn't all that it was hyped up to be.

Instead, Vista only seems to be one step forward instead of a leap. Which is why I hear a lot of people call Vista the Windows Me version of Xp.(its not just here in this thread)

There is no actual next leap to be taken that's inherent to the OS, though, like there was with 3.1.

It's not like Microsoft failed to make the leap, they have to make the leap and build the platform they're going to land on, and no companies are doing that now. Microsoft has never done it, and Apple isn't doing it now with desktops either&mdash;their UI (the only real place innovation will come) teams seem to have been working on the iPhone. Microsoft did try with WinFS, but failed.

And if you expect revolutionary UI advancements out of the open-source community, you are in for a surprise.

[Omega X]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
There is no actual next leap to be taken that's inherent to the OS, though, like there was with 3.1.

It's not like Microsoft failed to make the leap, they have to make the leap and build the platform they're going to land on, and no companies are doing that now. Microsoft has never done it, and Apple isn't doing it now with desktops either&mdash;their UI (the only real place innovation will come) teams seem to have been working on the iPhone. Microsoft did try with WinFS, but failed.

And if you expect revolutionary UI advancements out of the open-source community, you are in for a surprise.

IT is the year 2007. UI advancements can come from anywhere.

As for the step Microsoft took, I didn't say that they failed to make the leap forward. I only said that they took a step forward rather than a leap. Many were expecting some new amazing advancement in the OS that made Vista a must have like the move from 3.1 to 95 or like OS9 to OSX. For a few it is Aero and DX10, but for the rest not so much.

Mind you that I know enough about Vista to come to my own conclusions on the matter. But the fact of the matter is that Microsoft will have to convince other people of what makes Vista worthy of the purchase other than what they see. And right now, they see XP with translucent windows and DRM restrictions.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Omega X
IT is the year 2007. UI advancements can come from anywhere.

Sure they could, but&mdash;they're really hard. Really hard. UIs have been worked on for many years by some very smart people. They're still pretty terrible, honestly. But it's hard to do right. Really, really hard.

UIs are ... HARD. I don't think I can make this point as strongly as it should be made, but UIs are REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to do well.

It doesn't seem like it to the layman, or even the average programmer, but it surfaces in the fact that for the vast majority of non-technical users, using devices and software makes them feel stupid&mdash;and that is mainly a failure of UI.

This doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. This is because, well, humans are pretty good learners, and can eventually get the hang of even the most terrible UI&mdash;worst of all, the programmers themselves are usually really quick at learning UIs.

Originally posted by Omega X
As for the step Microsoft took, I didn't say that they failed to make the leap forward. I only said that they took a step forward rather than a leap. Many were expecting some new amazing advancement in the OS that made Vista a must have like the move from 3.1 to 95 or like OS9 to OSX. For a few it is Aero and DX10, but for the rest not so much.

You're missing the point. There's just nowhere obvious for them to leap to. Anyone using Windows 3.1 for a few hours could see the huge flaws in it&mdash;Windows 95 fixed many of those.

A huge UI leap, a huge technological leap, including fixing technical stuff like Windows 3.1's tendency to just "die" whenever an application misbehaved. It was far harder to get Windows 95 to die. But in XP, a misbehaving application would have to try really hard to accidentally kill the rest of the OS. Vista can't improve much on this (although it did, with user mode drivers), you see?

What's so wrong with Windows XP's interface? Or OSX? Or Linux/KDE?

The answer is: Tons. But it's hard to say what would be better.

Originally posted by Omega X
and DRM restrictions.

AAAAUUUGGHHHH.

NO. THERE ARE DRM *CAPABILITIES* BUILT INTO VISTA. NOT RESTRICTIONS.

The things which Vista applies DRM protection to WILL NOT PLAY ON XP.

For fuck's sake!

(Sorry, Omega X, I'm not really flipping out at you, but this kind of blatant misinformation is annoying... the vast majority of sites on the 'net seem to be under the same incorrect idea that Vista somehow "adds" DRM onto things, when in fact it only provides DRM support.)

[mrd00d]

Many people think Vista has the ability to stop you from running hacked software. Whatever...