# Vista: Get it now or wait?



## Agamon (Jan 27, 2007)

Windows Vista releases out on Tuesday, and I'm wondering if it's worth picking up now or waiting for potential problems to be sorted out.  

How'd the beta go?  Is everything stable?  How are the drivers?  I have a Creative sound card, and Creative is horrible with updating their drivers.  I'm kinda looking forward to messing around with the new OS on my relatively new PC, so what's the verdict?


----------



## doktorziplok (Jan 28, 2007)

wait, vista (at least this time around) will be an albatross. complaints of aero glass giving users motion sickness, constant "click me" security warnings, etc. is your pc even up for anything higher than vista home? there is a difference  between "vista ready," "vista capable," and "designed for vista." are you prepared for microsoft to make you pay more  for pretty graphics?


why wait for microsoft to catch up? have you hugged a penguin lately?


----------



## babomb (Jan 28, 2007)

Unless you have any particular need of its new features, I'd wait until XP is no longer supported by Microsoft Update, you buy a new computer, or you want some software that won't run on XP. The only new features I think are worth bothering about (for a typical home user) are the added security and the sidebar, the latter of which you can get as freeware (also here). The security is great, but if you've already got a firewall, a virus scanner, and adaware and you take a certain amount of care, it's not vital by any means. The new network stack is also nice, but I wouldn't buy a new OS for it. And yes, it looks a bit nicer, but so what?

However, if you really want it, and you don't plan on buying a computer that comes with it in the near future, there's not a whole lot of reason to wait. If they don't have a driver for your particular sound card yet, a generic one should work well enough, and the system is reasonably stable.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 28, 2007)

I think I'm gonna wait a while longer and get a Vista-installed PC (preferably Vista Home Premium).


----------



## IronWolf (Jan 28, 2007)

I would avoid Vista if at all possible.  Even above the observations posted here already - the DRM aspect is just plain evil.  Anyone considering Vista should take the time to read A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection.  Look for alternatives (they are getting better and better all the time - many without the restrictions being imposed on you by Vista) or stick with XP.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 28, 2007)

That Sidebar thing is fugly, does Vista really have that?  My desktop looks like a Mac thanks to Widgets and ObjectDock, so I'm not concerned with beauty.

That DRM thing is concerning.  But I'm not interested in Blu-Ray or HD drives in my PC, and couldn't care less how well my PC acts as a media center (probably a good reason to stay away, in itself).

My PC was new in latter half of last year, and can more than easily handle it, but looks like I can do without.  I was considering waiting to get a new PC until Vista came out, looks like I chose better not to.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 28, 2007)

I'm already running Vista, but I've got an MSDN subscription (and so have a legal copy), and my laptop is only a few months old. No complaints, but I haven't done anything that I needed Vista for yet, either.

I'd say unless you've got very new hardware, wait until you buy/build your next system to switch operating systems; it's a lot of hassle otherwise.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 28, 2007)

I'd avoid it.  But then again I've jumped off the Microsoft train to DRM and Treacherous Computing Platforms.  

In any event if you are not needing it for any specific purpose why not wait and let them sort the bugs out a bit more?  Jumping in with a new Microsoft OS right away has always been painful IME, best to give it some time.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 28, 2007)

I've also got an MSDN subscription and have been running Vista on my two-year-old tablet since Thanksgiving.

Overall, I like it.  Some of the changes to Windows Explorer/My Computer actually are easier to use (at least for me).  The handwriting recognition does seem a bit improved, too.  Really, most of the little things add up to a pretty nice whole.

The Sidebar, which I thought I was going to hate, has actually had some uses -- mainly in checking weather, but there are some other toys.  It comes turned off, by default, too.  There is definitely no gun to the head.

The permissions nanny is nowhere near as annoying as I thought it was going to be.  In fact, I barely notice it even though I do programming, which is one of the touchier things.  Something to keep in mind, though, is that new directories are set to "read only" for everyone, by default.  I had to change the directory settings for PCGen to get it to work.  But, that was a pretty quick, minor change.

The down sides, so far:

Drivers -- Yup, some of them are tough to get.  My special tablet PC buttons (like the one to quickly rotate the screen) don't work.  I should check for an update now that the public release is upon us, though.  Otherwise, my drivers have all worked fine, except....

Pocket PC -- The old ActiveSync software isn't compatible.  Vista won't even let you install it.  There is a new tool that I absolutely cannot get to work right, though.  Technically, it's still in Beta, so I'm not that concerned by a glitch.  Still, having that sort of product in Beta at this point seems like pretty poor planning on the part of MS.

Power consumption.  My battery life is a bit shorter (maybe 15-20% less) under Vista.  But, I also have it set to max performance.  Speaking of which, my mid-aged, low-horsepower, computer is moving at a fine speed with Vista.

I've been looking at desktops lately.  I've actually been holding off until Vista is available, though.  Since my kids will be making quite a bit of use of the new machine, I definitely want the extra security on their accounts.

Oh, and I've been using Office 2007, too.  Very nice.  There are a few tweaks to existing tools (color picker, autoformatting) that are really nice.  The new ribbon control took some getting used to, but I think I actually prefer it, now.  At the very least, I find myself wishing for a couple of the improvements at work (where we run 2003) quite often.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 28, 2007)

I will get Vista when there is a game out there only on Vista that I have to have...maybe.

Until then, I consider this a Windows release without any compelling reason to "upgrade" - and a _lot_ of reasons not to.

The DRM stuff in Vista is reason enough not to get it, imo, until there is some very compelling reason to do so.

I honestly believe that Microsoft has made an error with this OS. It remains to be seen if they will recover from it - but the last time I was this unexcited about Windows - it was Windows 2.0


----------



## was (Jan 28, 2007)

I'd wait at least a few months.  There's sure to be quite a few bugs they still have to work out.


----------



## jujutsunerd (Jan 28, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> Windows Vista releases out on Tuesday, and I'm wondering if it's worth picking up now or waiting for potential problems to be sorted out.




<generic_software_buying_advice>
Never buy the .0 release.
</generic_software_buying_advice>


----------



## Agamon (Jan 28, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I honestly believe that Microsoft has made an error with this OS. It remains to be seen if they will recover from it - but the last time I was thin unexcited about Windows - it was Windows 2.0




I was never so much excited as, "Thank God, something to replace this brutal OS (whether it was 95, 98, or ME).  XP isn't all that bad, in comparison.  DX10 looks like it'll make some nice games, but it'll be some time before that tech becomes reality.


----------



## Andur (Jan 29, 2007)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> I would avoid Vista if at all possible.  Even above the observations posted here already - the DRM aspect is just plain evil.  Anyone considering Vista should take the time to read A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection.  Look for alternatives (they are getting better and better all the time - many without the restrictions being imposed on you by Vista) or stick with XP.




Interesting, I haven't come up against a single one of the issues raised in that article.  Voice works great on Vent, TS, and my VOIP corporate provider.  I don't have any "stolen" music on my PC and have had no trouble playing it over headphones or speakers, and in fact I can now play it on wireless speakers which I couldn't do before.

For those interested in games, well come 4Q 2008 there will be few new games coming out that are not DX10, so you have time, but not much.  I still prefer a 'nux system, but not enough software folks agree with me, they rather program for the 5 ton giant and emulating isn't always an option...

Wait til this summer would be my suggestion, with MS' record SP0.5 will be hitting around then...


----------



## Michael Morris (Jan 29, 2007)

I played with Vista for about 2 months. It offers no compelling reason to upgrade from XP, and quite a few DRM related reasons NOT to upgrade.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 29, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> ...and quite a few DRM related reasons NOT to upgrade.



Would you kindly elaborate on the DRM issues?


----------



## Michael Morris (Jan 29, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Would you kindly elaborate on the DRM issues?



 IronWolf already linked them.  Suffice to say I don't want 75% of my processor power protecting $ony et al's profits.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 29, 2007)

Yup.  Preach it brother.

Whoever dreamed this up in Redmond is a nutbar. This won't sell in the consumer market. Pure and simple. Nay - I'll go further - I wouldn't even PIRATE Vista or install a legitimate free copy.

I'm not a Microsoft basher. I think they make great products. But this isn't one of them and they have seriously miscalculated the consumer.  This is not going to be readily purchased by the those consumers who have a choice.

For those stuck with pre-installed OS - this is not going to go over well when the tech savvy buzz is overwhelmingly negative (and it will be).  When that negative buzz gets loud, watch for Dell to sometime in the next year make a move and choose not to pre-bundle it.

The back-pedaling in Redmond will start _real fast_ at that point and the DRM downgraded signals will come to an end. 

Games aside, the principle rational choice other than XP (which is a decent OS) would seem to be Ubuntu (and I am not a fan of Linux at all.)

Ubuntu is free and it installs relatively painlessly for the broad mass of users.  For linux, it's as noob friendly as it gets and it looks pretty enough.


----------



## ssampier (Jan 29, 2007)

If the DRM is bad as they make it out to be, maybe it'll be like Sony backpedaling after the root kit scandal.

That aside, it's never a good idea to upgrade to a brand-new Windows. Let _other_ people be the beta testers. Upgrade in the corporate time-frame of six to eight months (or not).


----------



## Michael Morris (Jan 29, 2007)

Nah, not Linux.  OS X Leopard. From what I've heard it will be released for all Intel Processor PC's, not just Apple's own.  If that is indeed the case I expect some SERIOUS pain for M$ as Apple is about 2 generations ahead of Windows Vista and 5 ahead of Linux.


----------



## Michael Morris (Jan 29, 2007)

Why?  Most corps haven't stopped using Windows 2000 yet!!

Vista's biggest competitor is XP - hands down.  The hardware market is stagnated - Vista's beefy requirements on computers is a calculated move to force upgrades, not unlike Windows 95.  But unlike Win 95, Vista does NOT offer any real compelling reasons to upgrade, and several reasons not to.  For starters, Bill lifted Apple's interface.  Arguements as to whether it is better aside, users don't like to relearn things and under Vista you have to relearn a lot ESPECIALLY if you don't use Apple computers. This isn't good - hell Gnome Linux is easier to shift to from Windows XP than Vista is.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 29, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Nah, not Linux.  OS X Leopard. From what I've heard it will be released for all Intel Processor PC's, not just Apple's own.  If that is indeed the case I expect some SERIOUS pain for M$ as Apple is about 2 generations ahead of Windows Vista and 5 ahead of Linux.




Maybe.  Apple isn't exactly a non-DRM company. iTunes is all about DRM.

Mind you, you don't see an iPod refusing to play an mp3 or downgrading its quality.

So yeah - I'll admit Apple might be able to do it. I'm with ya. 

I do not think that Microsoft will let this happen though. They are counting on inertia, Monopoly, games and pre-installation of the Vista OS to carry the day.

The problem is.... I think Microsoft has made a fundamental error. They have maintained a near Monopoly in the OS business for one simple reason: the vast majority of people see the competition as an overall inferior good.  They will pirate MS products as opposed to something else if price is a factor, such that in the end (when price is eliminated from the decision tree) - it's all about desirability of features and compatibility - not price.

This simple law of rational economic choice in a market when piracy is a very significant element in the market means monopolies are inevitable.

Operating systems and application software favors monopolies because of piracy.  When you cannot complete with price, you can only compete with features. And that really has not been possible to do against  Microsoft over the long haul.

Corel found that out with Wordperfect. You can give it away with motherboards for free. People are still going to perceive it as an inferior good and not install it.

But all of this DRM stuff changes that perception in a flash, and that's why it is a mistake. It will make Vista appear to be the inferior good among a large number of consumers.  And should that happen, the rational economic choices that have made Bill Gates the richest man in the world will threaten to bite MS on the ass.  It will breathe life into something that has not existed for MS in 15 years:_ real competition that people are prepared to pay for._

Microsoft will blink before they let that happen; I have little doubt that for now - they think it probably won't happen.

I think they are wrong. When Ars Technica refers to Vista as an "upgrade" in derisive quotation marks = you know all you need to know about how this is going to shake down amongst tech savvy users over the nest year. 

If the Linux advocates are against you - it is irrelevant. If the broad stream of tech geeks are against you - it will be another matter entirely.


----------



## Xyanthon (Jan 29, 2007)

I'm definitely going to wait until XP is not supported anymore.  I am a Linux/Unix guy anyway so I'm only keeping Windows around because I can and some things are only supported under it.  However, for my home computing, it looks like I'll start plowing ahead again in the Linux direction (I'll admit that I've been lazy in that arena lately).  I'm a Sys Admin and we are pretty much all MS based at work and I'm sure we'll stick with XP until we absolutely have to migrate to Vista.


----------



## Michael Morris (Jan 29, 2007)

Interesting site here

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/en/node


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 29, 2007)

The biggest thing going for Vista is DirectX 10.  Microsoft will leverage that to sell Vista to home users by publishing PC versions of  formerly exclusive Xbox/Xbox 360 games.  Halo 2 (and eventually 3, probably 3-4 years after the 360 release), Gears of War, Mass Effect.  Even though those games can be done (and in fact were done) using DX9 technology.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 29, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I've also got an MSDN subscription and have been running Vista on my two-year-old tablet since Thanksgiving.




Me too.

I've decided to downgrade back to XP though, as the level of irritants about Vista has just grown too great.

#1 Can't use juniper for secure terminal services into work. This might not mean anything to you, but for me it is enormous!

#2 Can't reliably connect to my wireless network after waking up from hibernation. It seems that if you hibernate, then unhibernate away from your wireless network that isn't broadcasting its ssid, then hibernate and unhibernate in your own wireless network again it can't find the network unless you either (a) tell the wireless router to start broadcasting its SSID(!) or restart vista.

#3 I miss the filmstrip view of my pictures

#4 The picture import facility doesn't play so nicely now

#5 I can't get a decent explorer/treeview of my files (it always maintains a few 'favourites' listed at the top)

#6 I can't run visual studio 2005 properly on it

#7 With just a web browser and a couple of apps open it is already consuming 1.2Gb of memory (!)

Now I quite like the sidebar, I do like the search built in to the start button a lot... but I'm getting a whole lot more annoyances and most of the new apps in it are pretty 'meh' IMO.

So I'd advise you to wait until either

a) you get a new PC that comes with it pre-installed
or
b) there is a completely compelling app or game that only runs on vista

Cheers


----------



## borc killer (Jan 29, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> Windows Vista releases out on Tuesday, and I'm wondering if it's worth picking up now or waiting for potential problems to be sorted out.




I have been running at work and home for months now and I love it... but I would not buy a retail version.   I will be able to get a cheaper education version of Ultimate.  And you can buy a hard drive from Newegg.com and get a version bundled with it for less than retail as well.  That is how I would get it if was you.



			
				Agamon said:
			
		

> How'd the beta go?




Great for me.  I had almost 0 interruptions in work or gaming.




			
				Agamon said:
			
		

> Is everything stable?




Everything I use.



			
				Agamon said:
			
		

> How are the drivers?




Has all mine.  I would check your video card to make sure it is supported.  I have no issues with my Creative sound card.



			
				Agamon said:
			
		

> I'm kinda looking forward to messing around with the new OS on my relatively new PC, so what's the verdict?




Good solid OS that is pretty and usable at both home and office.


----------



## borc killer (Jan 29, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I've decided to downgrade back to XP though, as the level of irritants about Vista has just grown too great.




Were you using the RTM?  I have none of the issues you have with that version.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jan 29, 2007)

Like others, I've been running an MSDN copy for a while.  I'm going to have to support it, so I figured I'd bite the bullet and live with it.  I wouldn't recommend anyone else do so unless they have no choice.

1.  Hibernation is borked badly for a lot of people (and it's actually worse than it was in beta).  Since this was supposed to be one area of great improvement over XP, I'm a little surprised.

2.  Application compatibility is hit or miss.  Some things work great, others not at all.  I suspect most stuff that is recent enough will get patches/workarounds, but for older software you may be SOL.   This is a pain for me because I have a couple really old apps that are either long discontinued, or the recent versions suck sufficiently that I don't want to upgrade.

3.  The User Access Control is good in theory, but it's implementation was ill-considered.  The end result will be a minimal increase in computer security for well-implemented business PCs, and probably worse for end-users.

4.  Performance on modern hardware actually isn't that bad.  I run it on the same PC as XP and the only real difference I notice is a lot of disk-thrashing at odd times and I'm not sure why.  Even games are only slightly slower, and I attribute a lot of that to the fact that the drivers for the video board are leaked beta drivers.  (For reference, the specs are C2D 6600, 2GB RAM, WD Raptor drives, and GeForce 8800GTS.)

5.  Some of the UI enhancements are nice, and I suspect that once I live with it more I'll come to break the XP/2000 mindsent and appreciate it more (although since I still deal with XP on my work laptop and Xp/2000/2003 on all my clients' machines, it will be a long time before I leave that behind).  

6.  DirectX 10 will probably be the killer app for me, but it will be several months before the first DX10 games hit, and likley a couple years before DX10-only games.

7.  The DRM stuff doesn't really bug me since I'm not using the computer as a home theatre PC.  And since the driver for the DRM is the content providers, it really doesn't matter whether or not MS wanted to implement it or not.  If you want to watch HD/BluRay, you either invest in a console, a stand-alone player, or a HT PC.  In any situation, DRM is going to come into play.  Vista is no more intrusive than XP for the existing stuff I want to do.

There isn't a compelling reason for any but a small % of people to upgrade.  Unlike Win98/ME to XP, there aren't any major technical differences that benefit the home user, and even fewer for the business crowd.

I can live with it as is on my home PC, but I'm nowhere near willing to roll it out in a corporate environment.


----------



## IronWolf (Jan 29, 2007)

Vista's Fine Print Raises Red Flags


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 29, 2007)

*In three years...I will upgrade. Not now.*


----------



## doktorziplok (Jan 29, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Nah, not Linux.  OS X Leopard. From what I've heard it will be released for all Intel Processor PC's, not just Apple's own.




doubtful, and by doubtful i mean "it won't happen." apple is a hardware company, the software is just an "extra." 



			
				Michael Morris said:
			
		

> ...Apple is about 2 generations ahead of Windows Vista and 5 ahead of Linux.




please elaborate, especially about being so far ahead of linux.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 29, 2007)

Wow.  Informative, folks, thanks.  I am, at this very moment, setting up my PC to dual-boot Ubuntu with XP.  I'm really happy that my new PC isn't Vista and I have a few years to decide what to do when I get a new one.


----------



## borc killer (Jan 29, 2007)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> Vista's Fine Print Raises Red Flags




I personally find most of the concerns that these people blog about laughable.

I have no problem with Microsoft making sure I have a legitimate copy of Windows.  I know they have big big issues with piracy and short of coming to everyone’s door this is the only way to make sure it is legitimate… unless you have a more elegant solution?  If you do I am sure they would love to buy it from you… and, no linux does not count… at least not yet… not till it passes the ‘mom’ test.

Also I don’t plan on using my PC to play HD movies.  I think I will use my nice HD tv for that when and if I decide to buy a player (which would not be for years).  Who the hell is going to buy the $1000 player for that anyway?  LOL

Compatibility issues?  Sure!  Check to make sure every piece of hardware you depend on has drivers for it before you buy it and read up to see if your software will work.  Welcome to getting a new OS, same thing happens every time Apple releases a new OS or a new distribution of linux comes out.  *shrug*  

Game issues?  Sure! Check to make sure your games will work.

Buy it right away?  If you have money to burn… sure!  But dual boot it till you know everything you depend on works.  As I said before I have had no issues with any software or hardware I have both at work and home but you might have crap loads.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 29, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> #5 I can't get a decent explorer/treeview of my files (it always maintains a few 'favourites' listed at the top)




Get Total Commander. 



> Now I quite like the sidebar, I do like the search built in to the start button a lot... but I'm getting a whole lot more annoyances and most of the new apps in it are pretty 'meh' IMO.




Many of the features are available for XP as well, AFAIK.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 29, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> 4.  Performance on modern hardware actually isn't that bad.  I run it on the same PC as XP and the only real difference I notice is a lot of disk-thrashing at odd times and I'm not sure why.  Even games are only slightly slower, and I attribute a lot of that to the fact that the drivers for the video board are leaked beta drivers.  (For reference, the specs are C2D 6600, 2GB RAM, WD Raptor drives, and GeForce 8800GTS.)




_Modern_? I think your rig is pretty much top of the line for modern PCs (well, your ram isn't super high, but the rest...). If Vista is noticeably slower on it (even if only slightly), that doesn't seem like a good thing.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 29, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> #2 Can't reliably connect to my wireless network after waking up from hibernation. It seems that if you hibernate, then unhibernate away from your wireless network that isn't broadcasting its ssid, then hibernate and unhibernate in your own wireless network again it can't find the network unless you either (a) tell the wireless router to start broadcasting its SSID(!) or restart vista.




Interesting.  This is one of the most noticeable improvements I see in Vista over XP.  XP was slower than poop to reconnect, but Vista is pretty much instantly reconnected and quite reliable.



> #5 I can't get a decent explorer/treeview of my files (it always maintains a few 'favourites' listed at the top)




This is one of the bits I like, especially the new downloads folder.  It's probably a matter of how you function, though.



> #6 I can't run visual studio 2005 properly on it




No problems, yet, but I haven't done as much home dev lately, either.

It's probably worth noting that, when Win 95 came out, I was a bit of an early adopter, too.  I used a two-year-old Gateway (pretty much the same boat I'm in now) and had no problems -- ever -- with Win 95.  Meanwhile, the high-end Dell I had at work that was supposedly built with 95 in mind spent more time crashing than working.  I don't know what that means, but I don't seem to have the same issues with MS OSes that others do, at least for personal use.


----------



## gleicher27 (Jan 29, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I've also got an MSDN subscription and have been running Vista on my two-year-old tablet since Thanksgiving.
> 
> Overall, I like it.  Some of the changes to Windows Explorer/My Computer actually are easier to use (at least for me).  The handwriting recognition does seem a bit improved, too.  Really, most of the little things add up to a pretty nice whole.
> 
> ...




I thought about upgrading my PC with it, but not my tablet. What kind of tablet do you have ?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 29, 2007)

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070128-8717.html

a link to the new idea that you cannot do a clean install with a "upgrade" copy of Vista, you must have the old OS on the same disk.  That kind of blows since upgrading over an old OS install is a recipe for problems IME.  Anyone run a Vista upgrade yet?

And I too would enjoy hearing how OSX, a Unix variant, is 5 generations ahead of a current Linux distro, another Unix variant.  You an even run Beryl and get all your eye candy on Linux too.


----------



## Michael Morris (Jan 29, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070128-8717.html
> 
> a link to the new idea that you cannot do a clean install with a "upgrade" copy of Vista, you must have the old OS on the same disk.  That kind of blows since upgrading over an old OS install is a recipe for problems IME.  Anyone run a Vista upgrade yet?
> 
> And I too would enjoy hearing how OSX, a Unix variant, is 5 generations ahead of a current Linux distro, another Unix variant.  You an even run Beryl and get all your eye candy on Linux too.



 All my install experiences with Linux have been nightmarish, to put it mildly.  In OS X you install a piece of software by dragging it into the applications folder, and that's it. In Linux you have to compile it, decipher cryptic warnings about dependency files, find the dependency files, try to compile them, find THEIR dependencies, install the thing, find out something else is broken.

There's a reason ENWorld's server runs MySQL 4.0 instead of 5.1 -- installing ANYTHING on Linux is outside the base package is a pain in the neck even for an experienced computer user.  It's worse that getting something to work on Windows 3.1.  It took me some 6 hours to update Apache on the box and it's not an experience I'm keen on going through on my home computer.

Yum has alleviated this somewhat - but it's still a headache compared to Windows or Apple. Linux is great for servers - but I've yet to see a good, friendly and easy to use desktop solution.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 29, 2007)

How about Knoppix? 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## doktorziplok (Jan 29, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> All my install experiences with Linux have been nightmarish, to put it mildly.  In OS X you install a piece of software by dragging it into the applications folder, and that's it. In Linux you have to compile it, decipher cryptic warnings about dependency files, find the dependency files, try to compile them, find THEIR dependencies, install the thing, find out something else is broken.
> 
> There's a reason ENWorld's server runs MySQL 4.0 instead of 5.1 -- installing ANYTHING on Linux is outside the base package is a pain in the neck even for an experienced computer user.  It's worse that getting something to work on Windows 3.1.  It took me some 6 hours to update Apache on the box and it's not an experience I'm keen on going through on my home computer.
> 
> Yum has alleviated this somewhat - but it's still a headache compared to Windows or Apple. Linux is great for servers - but I've yet to see a good, friendly and easy to use desktop solution.




you might try ubuntu 6.06 (dapper drake). i've installed it on multiple machines with no issues. sure it lacks drag-n-drop installation, but it does have a software installer where you merely check a box and click "install."

the actual process of installing ubuntu is one of the most hassle free computing activities i've ever done. i think there are like 6 steps, mostly entering your user info (username/passwork/time zone). on a newer machine you can have it installed and updated in about an hour or so.

i personally like using the command line, but i can appreciate why someone wouldn't want to. i mean after 10 years of the "c:\" architecture, it can be a little unsettling to see something different.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jan 29, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> _Modern_? I think your rig is pretty much top of the line for modern PCs (well, your ram isn't super high, but the rest...). If Vista is noticeably slower on it (even if only slightly), that doesn't seem like a good thing.




The only real difference is some very slight drop in framerate in games, and like I said, its a brand new video board architecture and beta drivers.  Give it a month and we'll see if they eliminate the difference. 

Other than that, no noticeable performance difference.  I think I'm noticing the drive chitter more since I finally broke down and got rid of the case I'd been using for 10 years.  (Poor old Steely -- that thing woulda stopped a bullet, but it just wasn't up to snuff when it came to good airflow anymore).  The new one is whisper quiet.


----------



## Mycanid (Jan 29, 2007)

Yes ... I am the admin of the small business here, and we are quite happy with Win XP Pro. I really do not see a reason to upgrade to Vista at this point.

I like to wait at least a-year-and-change for a bunch of the bugs to be ironed out before even beginning to _consider_ something like an OS upgrade.

We didn't move from Win2k to WinXP until they came out with SP1.

We didn't move from Win98se to Win2k until they came out with SP2.

I have also had poor experiences with linux distributions on pcs similar to what Morris has said. But I should also say that I have been more and more impressed with Mac OS X over the years. I have been especially interested when they moved to the Intel hardware platform (the possibility of dual boot being the main factor).

For us (a small publishing house) if we were forced to change OS for some reason I would be much more inclined at this point to go with Mac....


----------



## drothgery (Jan 30, 2007)

Mycanid said:
			
		

> Yes ... I am the admin of the small business here, and we are quite happy with Win XP Pro. I really do not see a reason to upgrade to Vista at this point.




Now, as a web developer who primarily works in ASP.NET, I'd prefer to be working in Vista now, and especially after the server counterpart comes out, mostly because both Vista and Longhorn Server have IIS 7, instead of the situation I've got now with IIS 5.1 and XP Pro on my desktop, and IIS 6/Win2K3 on our servers -- which means there are some things I can do on the servers that I can't do on my desktop, and so sometimes complicates testing and deployment.


----------



## Mycanid (Jan 30, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Now, as a web developer who primarily works in ASP.NET, I'd prefer to be working in Vista now, and especially after the server counterpart comes out, mostly because both Vista and Longhorn Server have IIS 7, instead of the situation I've got now with IIS 5.1 and XP Pro on my desktop, and IIS 6/Win2K3 on our servers -- which means there are some things I can do on the servers that I can't do on my desktop, and so sometimes complicates testing and deployment.




That seems a worthwhile reason for your looking into upgrading!   

But we do no such development here. Mostly page layout, photoshop work, a little video editing and "daily computing tasks".


----------



## Michael Morris (Jan 30, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Now, as a web developer who primarily works in ASP.NET, I'd prefer to be working in Vista now, and especially after the server counterpart comes out, mostly because both Vista and Longhorn Server have IIS 7, instead of the situation I've got now with IIS 5.1 and XP Pro on my desktop, and IIS 6/Win2K3 on our servers -- which means there are some things I can do on the servers that I can't do on my desktop, and so sometimes complicates testing and deployment.



 Not to sound mean, but if you use IIS you deserve what you get. Apache is *so* superior to IIS it isn't funny.  Yeah, IIS has asp, but compared to PHP it's no contest (Yes, I'm aware PHP can be compiled to run under IIS)


----------



## kirinke (Jan 30, 2007)

As with anything from Microsoft, consumer beware. Never, ever buy the first version of it. It always has bugs. While I'm no computer guru, I've found this to be very true.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 30, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> All my install experiences with Linux have been nightmarish, to put it mildly.  In OS X you install a piece of software by dragging it into the applications folder, and that's it. In Linux you have to compile it, decipher cryptic warnings about dependency files, find the dependency files, try to compile them, find THEIR dependencies, install the thing, find out something else is broken.
> 
> There's a reason ENWorld's server runs MySQL 4.0 instead of 5.1 -- installing ANYTHING on Linux is outside the base package is a pain in the neck even for an experienced computer user.  It's worse that getting something to work on Windows 3.1.  It took me some 6 hours to update Apache on the box and it's not an experience I'm keen on going through on my home computer.
> 
> Yum has alleviated this somewhat - but it's still a headache compared to Windows or Apple. Linux is great for servers - but I've yet to see a good, friendly and easy to use desktop solution.




That is night and day different than my experiences with a debian based distro, such as Ubuntu.  For example, I type in _apt-get install firefox_ and it pulls the package from the repository, and installs it plus all its dependencies.  _apt-get/aptitude_ deals with all dependencies when installing packages, or you can use the synaptic package manager and do it in the GUI, though I prefer to work from the command line.  Even downloaded debian packages that aren't in the repositories are quite easy to install without using the command line.  I've never used Yum, but I don't like .rpm based distros based on bad experiences with Red Hat years back.  Where I work we are moving all the machines to Linux, desktops and servers, with anything that won't run in Linux being run in VM's under Linux. 

Anyway, Ubuntu is a very easy to install and use Desktop distro.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 30, 2007)

kirinke said:
			
		

> As with anything from Microsoft, consumer beware. Never, ever buy the first version of it. It always has bugs. While I'm no computer guru, I've found this to be very true.



The same rule applies to _D&D._ Never buy the First Printing.


----------



## kirinke (Jan 30, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> The same rule applies to _D&D._ Never buy the First Printing.




Shhhh..... Diaglo might hear you.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 30, 2007)

gleicher27 said:
			
		

> I thought about upgrading my PC with it, but not my tablet. What kind of tablet do you have ?




Gateway M270.

Oh, and I did get my iPaq to work.  The problem was actually user error.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 30, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> All my install experiences with Linux have been nightmarish, to put it mildly.  In OS X you install a piece of software by dragging it into the applications folder, and that's it. In Linux you have to compile it, decipher cryptic warnings about dependency files, find the dependency files, try to compile them, find THEIR dependencies, install the thing, find out something else is broken.
> 
> There's a reason ENWorld's server runs MySQL 4.0 instead of 5.1 -- installing ANYTHING on Linux is outside the base package is a pain in the neck even for an experienced computer user.  It's worse that getting something to work on Windows 3.1.  It took me some 6 hours to update Apache on the box and it's not an experience I'm keen on going through on my home computer.
> 
> Yum has alleviated this somewhat - but it's still a headache compared to Windows or Apple. Linux is great for servers - but I've yet to see a good, friendly and easy to use desktop solution.




I won't argue that installing linux for most people is a total pita.

But Ubuntu is different. Ubuntu is linux for people who don't LIKE linux. It's the linux community's attempt to make a slick Windows like 
 OS for people who really don't like mucking about with stuff and who have not seen a command line in a loooooooong time (if ever).

It is as easy to install as Win XP. Really, it was. The experience is essentially identical to Windows XP - except that at the end of the installation process, Ubuntu has also installed OpenOffice and some other common internet based stuff that is actually pretty impressive and very convenient. And of course, Ubunto was not bugging me for install codes and bugging me to register  this that and everything else on first boot.

OpenOffice for 95% of users is every bit as friendly, intuitive and easy to use as MS Word and its compatible with MSWord. Not a small point at all. It looks and acts the same as MS Word for the most part. I got to admit, I was rather impressed with this. 

The only knock on Ubuntu is the inability to run DirectX games. Given that games are what I do - that's not a small point  for me. In fact, it was a deal breaker. 

Games aside though, you can put in an Ubuntu disc and "it just works". Interface is every bit as intuitive and for the most part identical to Windows in all the major respects that matter.

The free disc package thing even ships with an extra Ubuntu run time version of Ubuntu linux.  Put it into your CD tray - let it boot and it will do a temp install just to memory to let you try it out without _actually_ installing it on to your hard drive.

For this reason, it's now my rescue disc of choice for Win XP. If something goes horribly wrong, Ubuntu is my version of a Norton life preserver. It is utterly reliable when all else fails.

And Ubuntu is free,  as in FREE<beer>. Log on here:

https://shipit.ubuntu.com/

Just fill out the box and ask them to send you a disc - and damn it -  they do.  No spam. No nagging. Just "Send me a disc please" 1-2 weeks, the discs arrives in the mail in this slick little cardbord dual CD folder.  And they don't ask you to pay a single cent for it. No S&H charges, Nothing. Nada. zip. 

SW: "I want a disc please. Come to think of it - make it four."
Ubuntu: "Here you go."

It's worthwhile just to have one as a rescue disc for XP, even if you don't plan to install it.

I'm not a great fan of linux and the linux advocates tend to drive me nuts, they really do. But for all that, this Ubuntu stuff really is pretty damned impressive.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 30, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Not to sound mean, but if you use IIS you deserve what you get. Apache is *so* superior to IIS it isn't funny.  Yeah, IIS has asp, but compared to PHP it's no contest (Yes, I'm aware PHP can be compiled to run under IIS)




Not to sound mean, but you sound like someone whose last context with the Windows web developer world was in about 1997. ASP.NET is not ASP (and quite frankly, classic ASP vs. PHP seems to me to be mainly a decision on whether you prefer quasi-Perl syntax or quasi-VB syntax; it's hard to see how one or the other _could_ be far superior; ASP.NET is another animal entirely). IIS6 is not IIS4. Win2K3 is not NT4.


----------



## ssampier (Jan 30, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Why?  Most corps haven't stopped using Windows 2000 yet!!




On the _desktop_? Wow, some corps need to re-evaluate their desktop rotation.

As for servers, yeah, we have plenty of W2k Servers (many were replaced with Linux, of course, most were web servers).



			
				Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Vista's biggest competitor is XP - hands down.  The hardware market is stagnated - Vista's beefy requirements on computers is a calculated move to force upgrades, not unlike Windows 95.  But unlike Win 95, Vista does NOT offer any real compelling reasons to upgrade, and several reasons not to.  For starters, Bill lifted Apple's interface.  Arguements as to whether it is better aside, users don't like to relearn things and under Vista you have to relearn a lot ESPECIALLY if you don't use Apple computers. This isn't good - hell Gnome Linux is easier to shift to from Windows XP than Vista is.




I agree. 

Gnome Linux isn't that difficult to use (terminal could cause some people to break out in hives). I haven't used Vista so I can't say if it's easier, though. What i seen seemed more like XP SP3.5 (with DRM*).

*might as well rename Windows Vista to DRM 2007.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 30, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Not to sound mean, but if you use IIS you deserve what you get. Apache is *so* superior to IIS it isn't funny.  Yeah, IIS has asp, but compared to PHP it's no contest (Yes, I'm aware PHP can be compiled to run under IIS)




You don't know as much about computers as you think you do.  The only thing PHP has going for it is ubiquity.  It's still a generation behind where IIS/.NET is today.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 30, 2007)

kirinke said:
			
		

> Shhhh..... Diaglo might hear you.



I said first *printing,* not first *edition.*

IIRC, TSR never bothered to correct the first edition in later printings.

[I know *diaglo* believes his "sacred" copy is perfectly error-free. For him, Gygax can do no wrong.]  

I'll wait until later this year.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 30, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> IronWolf already linked them.  Suffice to say I don't want 75% of my processor power protecting $ony et al's profits.



I went to the page via *IronWolf's* link, read a few line, and fell asleep.

Anybody have a Cliff's Note version?


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 30, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I went to the page via *IronWolf's* link, read a few line, and fell asleep.
> 
> Anybody have a Cliff's Note version?




Vista will automatically DEGRADE the visual quality of controlled content that it is used to display and deliberately degrades the signal to make it kinda fuzzy.  Same thing with music.  And Vista will spend a fair number of your dual core CPU cycles making sure that what you just bought won't play properly.

It will show a HD-DVD or HDTV program - it just will not do it properly.

Ever. It's called protected media path (PMP).

This happens even if the system detects that your copy is 100% legitimate. This is an inherent "feature" of Vista. It downsamples and reupsamples the signal being displayed, so that it is lossy and imperfect when displayed or played.

The highest level pf plaback quality supported is about 520k pixels per frame (roughly 960x540). That is as good as it gets with Vista.

720p, btw, is 1280x720. Vista will simply not play that resolution. My monitor runs at 1680x1050 (21" widescreen) Vista is designed to make sure I can't actually make proper use it for HD-DVD movie playback 

The DRM inside Vista is intended to protect audio and video so that the quality of the HDTV or movie displayed through Vista is ALWAYS sub-optimal. To get optimal playback, you must buy a dedicated player  instead of a computer. 

The DRM in use is called "defective by design". The OS has been deliberately crippled so that it does not work with multimedia as it should and otherwise could.

How BAD it is crippled ranges between (real f'ugly - Std TV res) and (crappy but not too crappy, 960x540).  This is all part of their PMP "initiative". 

The amount of how bad it is is controlled by the chip in your video card.  You can't get the better lossy upsample code if your equipment could then be used to copy or circumvent the protected content. 

Please observe that none of this technology is necessary in the least.  These chips are not decoders like in the old DVD decoder cards in ages past. They will try and pass it off like that but that is NOT what they are. No no no. That ain't it *at all*.  This is artificial DRM.

All of which is designed to prevent people from using their gear to play and copy movies the way they were meant to be seen.

Yes. Pick up that jaw. I'm completely serious.

Vista DRM was created to protect HD DVD and Blu-ray discs. In a nutshell, this is about protecting Sony's interests - not yours. That's the "feature" you get when you "upgrade" to Vista.

"Upgrade" away my friend.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 30, 2007)

borc killer said:
			
		

> Were you using the RTM?  I have none of the issues you have with that version.




Yep, the RTM version. I'd used the various beta and CTP versions on a different PC, and the RTM is a step up from each of those, but just annoys me in the ways I mentioned above. Some of them may be hardware specific glitches (the wireless reconnection thing), and I know there is a patch for visual studio, but a number are design decisions that irritate me.

I've got another one

# IP over firewire removed. Why?!? When I got my shiny new PC last November (XP installed), a simple firewire cable connection to my old PC and I got 400Mbps data transmission of my key stuff over in a snap - much easier than trying to configure ethernet through my router for some reason. Can't do it to get my data back off before I revert to XP though, because IP over firewire has been removed!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 30, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Many of the features are available for XP as well, AFAIK.




Indeed, the fact that asp.net 3.0 (aka winfx) is available for XP means that I can do interesting programming on and for XP, and has informed my decision to revert to XP.

The instant search and the virtual folders... well, there are applications that do those kind of things, and I've tried and ditched almost all of them I could find. I've only seen it work well in the OS (here, and 8 years ago on BeOS).

Cheers


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 30, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Vista DRM was created to protect HD DVD and Blu-ray discs. In a nutshell, this is about protecting Sony's interests - not yours. That's the "feature" you get when you "upgrade" to Vista.
> 
> "Upgrade" away my friend.



Sony? What does the HD-DVD format have to do with Sony, the proponent and developer of Blu-Ray?

I can understand the visual degradation part. If I can't watch a commercially published hi-def DVD or video on my PC and monitor/HDTV in its intended original high quality, then I agree, that's not good, especially if you're providing an OS platform to replace the Media Center OS. I can understand copying said video -- which is something I cannot understand why a copy of an original must be deliberately degraded -- but not when viewing.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 30, 2007)

Wow, I *was* pumped for Vista, as I loves me some new technology.  Wasn't planning on upgrading right away but I was planning on getting a new rig sometime later this year.  This is a bummer.

Not a huge deal for me as I have a PS3 and a Xbox360 to watch movies/TV on at HD quality but still a bummer.  As long as it doesn't fark with PC videogames, I'm ok with it until MS comes to their senses and fixes this.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 30, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Wow, I *was* pumped for Vista, as I loves me some new technology.  Wasn't planning on upgrading right away but I was planning on getting a new rig sometime later this year.  This is a bummer.
> 
> Not a huge deal for me as I have a PS3 and a Xbox360 to watch movies/TV on at HD quality but still a bummer.  As long as it doesn't fark with PC videogames, I'm ok with it until MS comes to their senses and fixes this.



Unless someone is working on developing high-definition PC games.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 30, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Sony? What does the HD-DVD format have to do with Sony, the proponent and developer of Blu-Ray?



I'm assuming he meant Sony as in "Sony and all companies like them who have a big stake in the HD game."


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 30, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Unless someone is working on developing high-definition PC games.



 That actually doesn't make too much sense.  PC games can already run in what is considered HD resolutions.


----------



## death tribble (Jan 30, 2007)

As someone who works in IT, I would say wait.

Wait until they start ironing the bugs out that they don't even know exist yet. Then get it.

New PC ? Yeah for that. Currently ? No.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 30, 2007)

Add me to the list of people that would recommend not upgrading.  I admittedly use XP Pro, and refuse to use the "Home" versions of Windows in any form, but XP Pro works fine.



			
				ssampier said:
			
		

> On the desktop? Wow, some corps need to re-evaluate their desktop rotation.
> 
> As for servers, yeah, we have plenty of W2k Servers (many were replaced with Linux, of course, most were web servers).




I went in to interview for a temp job doing clerical work, and every training program they had was in Win2k, and Office 2000.  When I commented on this, they told me that there was a significant percentage of companies that haven't upgraded.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 30, 2007)

death tribble said:
			
		

> As someone who works in IT, I would say wait.
> 
> Wait until they start ironing the bugs out that they don't even know exist yet. Then get it.
> 
> New PC ? Yeah for that. Currently ? No.




That would probably be my actual recommendation, too.  I'm a bleeding-edger, so I don't mind betas and first release software.  Part of my enthusiasm comes from that.

I think Vista is a good platform (except for the DRM), but it isn't exactly compelling enough to drop $300 on it, right now.  If you get a new computer, I wouldn't shy away from Vista, but there isn't any reason for most people to run headlong into it, either.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 30, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I think Vista is a good platform (except for the DRM), but it isn't exactly compelling enough to drop $300 on it, right now.  If you get a new computer, I wouldn't shy away from Vista, but there isn't any reason for most people to run headlong into it, either.




Yeah. That was pretty much the same deal as XP vs. Win2K (though not 9x/ME -- anyone running 9x who could upgrade to XP should have done it). Except the bugaboo was activation for XP instead of DRM in Vista.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jan 30, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Add me to the list of people that would recommend not upgrading.  I admittedly use XP Pro, and refuse to use the "Home" versions of Windows in any form, but XP Pro works fine.
> 
> 
> 
> I went in to interview for a temp job doing clerical work, and every training program they had was in Win2k, and Office 2000.  When I commented on this, they told me that there was a significant percentage of companies that haven't upgraded.




One of my bigger clients is still 90%+ Win2k workstation and Office 2002, and most of the servers as still W2k.  Aside from a couple developers and artists, there's no reason to upgrade.  The first real issue just came up (DST changes) and I've already got a fix in place for that.

They're scheduled to upgrade the PCs at the end of the year, at which point we'll use one of the Vista business variants.

I see a lot of places with really foolish upgrade policies who then wonder why their IT budgets are so high yet they never have the money to do anything right.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 30, 2007)

I work at Yale and we are still mostly in the 2000 environment.  Our newest computers are now coming with XP on them.  I started there in 2001 and it took at least 2.5-3 years until I saw a single workstation with XP on it.  I don't work in the IT department, but I work closely with them.

Sounds like Vista won't be must have at all for regular business work.  At least not anytime soon.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 30, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Sounds like Vista won't be must have at all for regular business work.  At least not anytime soon.




... but it will still get rolled out a lot more quickly than the naysayers seem to think, largely because there hasn't been a new desktop Windows since 2001 (you can argue that XP SP2 was effectively a point release of Windows, but it was never marketed as such). A lot of businesses were slow on moving to XP because they were already in the middle of moving to Win2K (or had already moved), and it was at best a marginal upgrade. But you really don't want to be working on an unsupported OS in a corporate environment, which dictates moving away for Win2K ASAP, and away from XP in a rather short timeframe.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 31, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Sony? What does the HD-DVD format have to do with Sony, the proponent and developer of Blu-Ray?
> 
> I can understand the visual degradation part. If I can't watch a commercially published hi-def DVD or video on my PC and monitor/HDTV in its intended original high quality, then I agree, that's not good, especially if you're providing an OS platform to replace the Media Center OS. I can understand copying said video -- which is something I cannot understand why a copy of an original must be deliberately degraded -- but not when viewing.





To be clear, if you do a search about BluRay or HDDVD, these DRM things are a part of the movie industries paranoia. TV sets without a certain setup will also play a downgraded signal, unless something has changed since the last bit I saw some time ago.

The DRM in Vista is not something Windows dreamed up, but something that the two companies require for Microsoft to be able to access their content. Some feel that MS should have been able to force the two formats to be more open, but they didn't, so now it's MS's fault that the formats are hindered with crippling DRM.


----------



## IronWolf (Jan 31, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> ... but it will still get rolled out a lot more quickly than the naysayers seem to think, largely because there hasn't been a new desktop Windows since 2001 (you can argue that XP SP2 was effectively a point release of Windows, but it was never marketed as such). A lot of businesses were slow on moving to XP because they were already in the middle of moving to Win2K (or had already moved), and it was at best a marginal upgrade. But you really don't want to be working on an unsupported OS in a corporate environment, which dictates moving away for Win2K ASAP, and away from XP in a rather short timeframe.




I agree that a company doesn't want an unsupported OS, but when the OS coming down the pike has stiffer system recomendations than the majority of apps a business runs (save for the engineering and graphics departments) - there is a problem.

As for a rush to move away.  XP Pro is supposed to supported through mainstream channels for 2 years from the release of Vista.  Plenty of time to plan that conversion to Linux!  ::joking::


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 31, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Sony? What does the HD-DVD format have to do with Sony, the proponent and developer of Blu-Ray?




Beacause Sony bashing is the in thing these days.  Everything is Sony's fault...  

(Seriously, Sony's not even entirely in charge of Blu Ray, it's a bunch of companies. But it's always "Sony this", "Sony that")


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 31, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> To be clear, if you do a search about BluRay or HDDVD, these DRM things are a part of the movie industries paranoia. TV sets without a certain setup will also play a downgraded signal, unless something has changed since the last bit I saw some time ago.
> 
> The DRM in Vista is not something Windows dreamed up, but something that the two companies require for Microsoft to be able to access their content. Some feel that MS should have been able to force the two formats to be more open, but they didn't, so now it's MS's fault that the formats are hindered with crippling DRM.




While it's true that the companies wanted that, I also don't think MS had any qualms about it -   look at their Zune - it's got DRM all over it, even to the point of adding to files that doesn't have it (if you want to share them)


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 31, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> (Seriously, Sony's not even entirely in charge of Blu Ray, it's a bunch of companies. But it's always "Sony this", "Sony that")




Except that Sony was the one that spear-headed the Blu-Ray format.  Being the leader means you tend to take criticism as well as praise, warranted or not.


----------



## IronWolf (Jan 31, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Beacause Sony bashing is the in thing these days.  Everything is Sony's fault...




Install one little rootkit and suddenly you're the left holding the bag for all things evil in the industry...


----------



## Agamon (Jan 31, 2007)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> Install one little rootkit and suddenly you're the left holding the bag for all things evil in the industry...




I´ve been a Sony hater since the beginning of EQ.  That rootkit thing just seemed par for the course to me.


----------



## ssampier (Jan 31, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> ...
> I went in to interview for a temp job doing clerical work, and every training program they had was in Win2k, and Office 2000.  When I commented on this, they told me that there was a significant percentage of companies that haven't upgraded.




Were these older machines or newer machines installed with W2k? The latter I can imagine is due to ease of desktop standardization.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 31, 2007)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> I agree that a company doesn't want an unsupported OS, but when the OS coming down the pike has stiffer system recomendations than the majority of apps a business runs (save for the engineering and graphics departments) - there is a problem.




When said stiffer requirements are easily met by $500 Best Buy specials, not really big issue; Vista will be rolled out with new PCs as part of regular hardware upgrade cycles.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 31, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> While it's true that the companies wanted that, I also don't think MS had any qualms about it -   look at their Zune - it's got DRM all over it, even to the point of adding to files that doesn't have it (if you want to share them)





I can't say that Zune fought over DRM. I'd assume that offering the music for sale, MS had DRM included as a part of the process of bargaining.

Either way, MS didn't dream up the DRM, and while I understand that folks hate the notion of DRM, I don't automatically blame MS for not somehow beating the companies into no DRM.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 31, 2007)

ssampier said:
			
		

> Were these older machines or newer machines installed with W2k? The latter I can imagine is due to ease of desktop standardization.




That I can't speak to... I only asked about software.  I'm not sure they would have had that information anyway.

I've found (and maybe this sounds dumb because everyone knew it all around) that between people who know (what I would consider) a lot about computers, and people who know very little about computers, there's a very large third group who know about computers, but don't really care about them.  They tend to treat them as appliances... they understand the concept that newer is better, but they wouldn't understand why.  As long is it gets the job done, who cares if it's seven years old or seven months?  It's like a washer and dryer, or a microwave, or a stove in that way.

I say this because I have the feeling had I asked that question, they wouldn't have really understood.  As long as they worked, who cares why?


----------



## IronWolf (Jan 31, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> When said stiffer requirements are easily met by $500 Best Buy specials, not really big issue; Vista will be rolled out with new PCs as part of regular hardware upgrade cycles.




We don't generally rush out to Best Buy for our corporate PCs.  In addition, my point was - I have PCs that are still in their hardware lifecycle and meet our current application needs with no issues.  Yet, many of them still don't hit the recommended requirements of the OS!  There is something wrong when the OS is outpacing all of my business application requirements (again save for an engineering department and graphics department).  The OS is a tool to provide a platform to run business applications on.

And if I were to buy a new set of PCs today, I still couldn't order Vista on them.  I have already received product alerts from some of our main business apps that they are not yet supported on Vista.  Just as I need my OS's to be under support, I also need my business applications to be under support from their various vendors.


----------



## IronWolf (Jan 31, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Either way, MS didn't dream up the DRM, and while I understand that folks hate the notion of DRM, I don't automatically blame MS for not somehow beating the companies into no DRM.




You are correct.  But if consumers do not like DRM then they can vote with their dollars.  We don't have to act like lemmings and follow the world over the cliff.  People against DRM are entirely within reason to voice their dislike of DRM.

As for blaming MS, they have embraced DRM in their OS (to the point of requiring hardware companies to "certify" their drivers - i.e. provide a means of enforcing DRM) and in their music player.  Sure Apple has DRM in their iPod, but normal MP3 files you copy to the device are not "infected".  So MS is deserving of the ire - as are several other companies.


----------



## Michael Morris (Jan 31, 2007)

A revision of copyright and trademark law is long overdue.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 31, 2007)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> As for a rush to move away.  XP Pro is supposed to supported through mainstream channels for 2 years from the release of Vista.  Plenty of time to plan that conversion to Linux!  ::joking::




Why joke? Go for it! Penguin Power baby!


----------



## babomb (Jan 31, 2007)

ssampier said:
			
		

> On the _desktop_? Wow, some corps need to re-evaluate their desktop rotation.




I think that's an overstatement. Windows 2000 is (IMO) the best OS Microsoft's ever made. For the majority of businesses, there was never a compelling reason to switch to XP. Lack of support is probably the ONLY reason to upgrade for many companies. I expect that most such companies are currently at least in the process of replacing it with XP, but there's not a HUGE hurry.

In Microsoft's defense, it IS undesirable to support 3 versions of Windows at the same time. Nevertheless, forcing upgrades no doubt plays a big part in the decision to stop support.



			
				Michael Morris said:
			
		

> A revision of copyright and trademark law is long overdue.



QFT.


----------



## borc killer (Jan 31, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The DRM in Vista is not something Windows dreamed up, but something that the two companies require for Microsoft to be able to access their content. Some feel that MS should have been able to force the two formats to be more open, but they didn't, so now it's MS's fault that the formats are hindered with crippling DRM.





Your forget!  It is ALWAYS M$'s fault.  hehe


----------



## Pyrex (Jan 31, 2007)

kirinke said:
			
		

> As with anything from Microsoft, consumer beware. Never, ever buy the first version of it. It always has bugs. While I'm no computer guru, I've found this to be very true.




_Every_ piece of software _always_ has bugs.

Not just v1, not just Microsoft, all of them.


----------



## Pyrex (Jan 31, 2007)

ssampier said:
			
		

> On the _desktop_? Wow, some corps need to re-evaluate their desktop rotation.
> 
> As for servers, yeah, we have plenty of W2k Servers (many were replaced with Linux, of course, most were web servers).




Deploying new OS's can be hugely expensive for large companies.  Not only do you have the cost of purchasing potentially hundreds of thousands of licenses, but many companies are still running critical line-of-business apps that are incompatible with newer OS's; so all of _those_ solutions also need to be replaced.  Not to mention the cost of retraining your workforce, creating and enforcing deployment & security policies...


----------



## Steel_Wind (Feb 1, 2007)

There is a significant distinction between DRM and Defective By Design.

One is Digital Rights Management; the other is crippled software than can NEVER be made to work correctly.  I am not a MS basher and I think they make great products.

Vista is not one of those great products.

They could have chosen to leave the media portion of the code entirely out and left it to be filled by third parties. We know what this would have meant. It would have meant that the DRM code behind HD DVD's and Blue-Ray would have been cracked and distributed in the same manner as that behind DVD's was cracked. 

The result wold be that would would not have crippled software. Instead, because they wanted to market a "Vista entertainment hub" (a joke) they are passing off a defective design as a "feature".

Sorry, No freebies and papal dispensation here. I know crap when I see it - and that's crap.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 1, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> There is a significant distinction between DRM and Defective By Design.
> 
> One is Digital Rights Management; the other is crippled software than can NEVER be made to work correctly.  I am not a MS basher and I think they make great products.



Wouldn't it work correctly with properly certified software/hardware that was allowed under the HDDVD/BluRay terms?



> The result wold be that would would not have crippled software. Instead, because they wanted to market a "Vista entertainment hub" (a joke) they are passing off a defective design as a "feature".



They could not leave out "multimedia features" in this day & age IMO. But either way I think the problem would not be as simple. I imagine that for the foreseeable future, DRM will accompany Blu-Ray & HD-DVD drives that want to obtain the licenses to make the stuff.

Something like this;
http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/dvdburners/0,239029405,240091720,00.htm

I don't think the HDCP is MS's fault, and can't fault them for putting it in Vista, it's common sense to me that they want multimedia and that they didn't didn't fight Sony over it.



> Sorry, No freebies and papal dispensation here. I know crap when I see it - and that's crap.



To be clear, don't buy Vista if you want to use HD DVD's without the (probably unavailable) certified content viewer stuffage. Outside of this HD content problem, the DRM in question doesn't matter.


Basically you need a HDCP output (just like hooking a TV to the BluRay drive, or PS3 I guess) and also need the BluRay drive and such anyway. If you're looking for something to run BluRay's on your PC (at least commercial movies), you'll need to build to it more specifically than otherwise. It's irritating, but I stil fail to see how it hinders the Vista operating system.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Feb 1, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it work correctly with properly certified software/hardware that was allowed under the HDDVD/BluRay terms?




No. That's the point. With 100% fully certified legal software and hardware, the maximum resolution that Vista will play is 520k pixels per frame (roughly 960x540). It will not go higher. It is defective by design. That's the point. It's not DRM.

720p, btw, is 1280x720. Vista will simply not play that resolution, let alone 1080p. It will stop SP/Dif SRS output too.

The entire point of HDTV, HDDVD and Blue-Ray 1080p is high resolution and 7.1 SRS.  The hardware I own supports it. Vista ensures  it will not work for the purpose intended. 



> I don't think the HDCP is MS's fault, and can't fault them for putting it in Vista, it's common sense to me that they want multimedia and that they didn't didn't fight Sony over it.
> 
> 
> It's irritating, but I still fail to see how it hinders the Vista operating system.




See above.

I gather you do not use your computer monitors for watching movies and HDTV?

I, otoh, do. I spent significant money on large flat panel widescreen monitors for the very purpose.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 1, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> No. That's the point. With 100% fully certified legal software and hardware, the maximum resolution that Vista will play is 520k pixels per frame (roughly 960x540). It will not go higher. It is defective by design. That's the point. It's not DRM.
> 
> 720p, btw, is 1280x720. Vista will simply not play that resolution, let alone 1080p. It will stop SP/Dif SRS output too.
> 
> The entire point of HDTV, HDDVD and Blue-Ray 1080p is high resolution and 7.1 SRS.  The hardware I own supports it. Vista ensures  it will not work for the purpose intended.



I tried to reread the "what it costs" New Zealand article but it's not loading right now. I don't remember it from there, so maybe I missed it. Everything else I've read on the subject specificies that it's a limit imposed because of the certification process and is dependant on the items in use, not some artificial limitation that is a maximum.

I'll check it again later.





> I gather you do not use your computer monitors for watching movies and HDTV?



I use my laptop as a portable DVD player during trips, but otherwise don't usually, no. I do recognize that people do of course.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Feb 2, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I tried to reread the "what it costs" New Zealand article but it's not loading right now. I don't remember it from there, so maybe I missed it. Everything else I've read on the subject specificies that it's a limit imposed because of the certification process and is dependant on the items in use, not some artificial limitation that is a maximum.
> 
> I'll check it again later.




From the Vista engineers FAQ on DRM, located here on Microsoft's site:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx


*Will the playback quality be reduced on some video output types?*

I_mage quality constraints are only active when required by the policy associated with the content being played, and then only apply to that specific content -- not to any other content on the user's desktop.  As a practical matter, image constraint will typically result in content being played at no worse than standard definition television resolution.  In the case of HD optical media formats such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the constraint requirement is 520K pixels per frame (i.e., roughly 960x540), which is still higher than the native resolution of content distributed in the DVD-Video format.  We feel that this is still yields a great user experience, even when using a high definition screen._

There you have it: *960x540* is the top end resolution for Vista protected content. Beyond that - it is constrained (artificially capped) It will not show 720p (HD-DVD and HDTV@ 1280x720) in the resolution intended. As for Blue-Ray and 1080p - not even remotely close.

_Defective by design._


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 2, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> From the Vista engineers FAQ on DRM, located here on Microsoft's site:
> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
> 
> 
> ...



_


This is the part really. "As required" does not mean "always".





			and then only apply to that specific content -- not to any other content on the user's desktop.  As a practical matter, image constraint will typically result in content being played at no worse than standard definition television resolution.  In the case of HD optical media formats such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the constraint requirement is 520K pixels per frame (i.e., roughly 960x540), which is still higher than the native resolution of content distributed in the DVD-Video format.  We feel that this is still yields a great user experience, even when using a high definition screen.
		
Click to expand...


_


> There you have it: *960x540* is the top end resolution for Vista protected content. Beyond that - it is constrained (artificially capped) It will not show 720p (HD-DVD and HDTV@ 1280x720) in the resolution intended. As for Blue-Ray and 1080p - not even remotely close.
> 
> _Defective by design._




The limitation is when the constraints are used. The constraints are used according to the HDCP setup.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 2, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> No. That's the point. With 100% fully certified legal software and hardware, the maximum resolution that Vista will play is 520k pixels per frame (roughly 960x540). It will not go higher. It is defective by design. That's the point. It's not DRM.
> 
> 720p, btw, is 1280x720. Vista will simply not play that resolution, let alone 1080p. It will stop SP/Dif SRS output too.
> 
> The entire point of HDTV, HDDVD and Blue-Ray 1080p is high resolution and 7.1 SRS.  The hardware I own supports it. Vista ensures  it will not work for the purpose intended.




Okay, the other link finally loaded. In it, the constrained media is all in relation to HDCP (or similar). He mentions right at the start about a problem with graphics cards not being available being the problem.

So, to sum up, as I said and all these places support:
Windows Vista will support Hi-Def feedback in any resolution, if the system is built to comply with the requirements of the content provider, i.e. HDCP. Components will need to be certified, probably graphics cards, HDDVD/BluRay Drive, monitor and any programs used.

Microsoft's only part in this, is complying with the requirements for using these formats, as instituted by the companies involved. Whenever you buy a HiDef format, you support these companies DRM schemes.


----------



## greymist (Feb 3, 2007)

I expect that I will never buy Vista or any future version of Windows. At home I have Win2000 on my ancient desktop, WinXP Pro on my wife's newer but not overly powerful desktop and Win XP Home on my two laptops. I plan on converting all to XP Pro over time, and then stay put. I believe MS has confirmed that they will support XP for another 8 years, which is long enough for me. After that, I will hopefully be able to find a version of Linux that works well enough to become my new OS of choice. 

And there is a good chance that any new computers I buy will be Macs. I bought an iMac last year, and it is an absolute joy to work with. Plugged in the power cable, turned it on, and I was connected to my neighbour's unprotected wireless network almost immediately! They just work. 

It makes no sense to buy Vista right now, as SP1 is already being planned for later this year, that would be the earliest that I would even consider buying it. Also, if you get Vista installed on a new PC, the EULA does not allow you to install that copy of the OS on a new machine even if you scrap the old one, apparently OEM licenses are tied to the machine not the person. 

And I think it was mentioned previously, you have to have WinXP installed on the computer if you are installing the Vista upgrade, you can't simply put in your XP CD for verification. This is a major inconvenience. If you have a hard disk crash you are going to have to install two OS's in order to get your computer running again! 

Also, the cost of Vista is ridiculous. You pretty well have to buy the top end Ultimate edition to get all of the networking and media features, which Best Buy Canada has listed for $299 for the upgrade, compare that to $149 for OSX Tiger, or $249 for the FAmily Pack of Tiger (5 licences). Not to mention the hardware requirements are pretty high end. MS recommends 1 GB of RAM, but most reviews I have read say that 2 GB is the bottom end. That is a LOT of memory just to run your OS, IMO. 

I wonder if Vista will actually push a critical mass of people to Linux or perhaps Macs? 

Finally a comment about business. I work for one of the largest Federal government departments in Canada, around 40,000 employees, and we will be migrating from Win2000 to XP in the next two or three months. Our servers were converted from NT4 to Server2003 last year, and we are moving from Office 2000 to Office 2003. I expect there are a lot of large businesses that are like us, and will not be shovelling out the cash for Vista for many years!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 3, 2007)

greymist said:
			
		

> I expect that I will never buy Vista or any future version of Windows. At home I have Win2000 on my ancient desktop, WinXP Pro on my wife's newer but not overly powerful desktop and Win XP Home on my two laptops. I plan on converting all to XP Pro over time, and then stay put. I believe MS has confirmed that they will support XP for another 8 years, which is long enough for me.



I've got 2 desktops and a laptop, all with XP, so it's not worth the trouble for me to upgrade.



> Also, if you get Vista installed on a new PC, the EULA does not allow you to install that copy of the OS on a new machine even if you scrap the old one, apparently OEM licenses are tied to the machine not the person.



It's probably like XP, where you have to call and verify stuff in order to switch to a new machine, PITA really and one more irritation to put up with.

It's the probably I have with most of this DRM stuff. They use piracy as one of the reasons for higher prices, but force all these anti-piracy things on us without lowering prices. We pay more for more inconvenience.



> Also, the cost of Vista is ridiculous. You pretty well have to buy the top end Ultimate edition to get all of the networking and media features, which Best Buy Canada has listed for $299 for the upgrade, compare that to $149 for OSX Tiger, or $249 for the FAmily Pack of Tiger (5 licences).



Last I looked, prices were comparable for Vista vs XP editions. My main issue with all the high prices is the cost of extra licenses. When I was building the new PC, I looked into just purchasing a license, and it cost the same as the retail version of XP (IIRC). I got an OEM version for a lot cheaper, so buying just a license is pointless. (I think the OEM versions are also cheaper than upgrade versions, so I wouldn't bother buying the upgrade.)


> I wonder if Vista will actually push a critical mass of people to Linux or perhaps Macs?



Linux will always be marginal, the barrier of entry to even KNOW what Linux IS, let alone use it, is too high for normal folks.
I don't think Vista is any different from the previous Windows releases really. I remember having to get a new HD when 98 came out. 
Every reason Apple hasn't "won" in the previous years is still in force now. I can't see Dell, Gateway, HP or any of the others making iMacs or switching to Linux, so I think it's a moot issue.

Sure there's folks that build their own, but they're not a huge impact. It's even possible that folks build computers for friends & family. The Customer Support required usually makes that not worthwhile though. (I installed an aunt's printer 4 years ago, why must I still supply tech-support! How did she get my cell #!)


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 4, 2007)

I'm not a hardcore programmer, so maybe I'm missing something....but why is it in Microsoft's interest (or any of ours) to have Vista automatically degrade the picture quality of HD content we're trying to play on a computer?  It seems to me if you had purchased an HD DVD player, and rented an HD DVD from Blockbuster, you're entitled to the full quality for which you're paying.  What right do they have to determine whether or not we can see it?  Is it because they're afraid of HD DVD security protection being bypassed by people copying the movies off disks onto their hard drives, and then trading them with others?

Seems like you're still throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  The "honest" users are being penalized in order to protect against pirates..

Banshee


----------



## ssampier (Feb 4, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Deploying new OS's can be hugely expensive for large companies.  Not only do you have the cost of purchasing potentially hundreds of thousands of licenses, but many companies are still running critical line-of-business apps that are incompatible with newer OS's; so all of _those_ solutions also need to be replaced.  Not to mention the cost of retraining your workforce, creating and enforcing deployment & security policies...




I understand. That's why I was asking they were new(er) machines with Win2k or old machines with Win2k preinstalled.

I know that a computer does not magically fall apart after 3-4 years, but eventually they are beyond their usefulness; the point whether your competition can do the job more efficiently than you do.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 4, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'm not a hardcore programmer, so maybe I'm missing something....but why is it in Microsoft's interest (or any of ours) to have Vista automatically degrade the picture quality of HD content we're trying to play on a computer?




The way HDCP works, is that every component of the system has to recognize the DRM. They're afraid that pirates could send the signal to an unprotected system and do something or... something.

So, if you buy a BluRay player, your TV, your audio system, your <whatever else> all has to have the HDCP setup.


If you buy Windows Vista, a BluRay drive and go to play stuff, your video card, your monitor, your speakers, whatever. All of it has to have the same DRM setup.

It was a big issue because not all HDTV's have the setup required for the DRM.




> It seems to me if you had purchased an HD DVD player, and rented an HD DVD from Blockbuster, you're entitled to the full quality for which you're paying.  What right do they have to determine whether or not we can see it?  Is it because they're afraid of HD DVD security protection being bypassed by people copying the movies off disks onto their hard drives, and then trading them with others?
> 
> Seems like you're still throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  The "honest" users are being penalized in order to protect against pirates..
> 
> Banshee




Not sure if you're familiar with the DRM thing from back when PDF books were popular. It's a similar situation. You have Format guys (BluRay, HDDVD) and Content Guys (Movie studios, etc) who have come up with a scheme that makes them feel super special. The consumer's desires don't matter, because I'm sure they figure we're all retarded and will buy regardless.

How this affects Vista, is that in order for MS to use these formats, they have to use the DRM that goes with it. (I believe the DRM is also hard-coded into the actual Drives also).


----------



## babomb (Feb 5, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'm not a hardcore programmer, so maybe I'm missing something....but why is it in Microsoft's interest (or any of ours) to have Vista automatically degrade the picture quality of HD content we're trying to play on a computer? ...Is it because they're afraid of HD DVD security protection being bypassed by people copying the movies off disks onto their hard drives, and then trading them with others?




Well, not doing so would have forced a showdown with the content publishers. Imagine having a computer with windows, and wanting to play your HDDVD on it, but not being allowed because Microsoft decided to make a stand on DRM (and thus having the drive disable output because it detects the OS as unsecure). The result for many consumers might be anger at Microsoft (and probably not at the MPAA), because Joe Blow doesn't are about DRM, he just wants the movie to play. The threat of Microsoft holding out might have sufficient gravity that those on the other side would grant some concessions, but I doubt they'd drop DRM entirely. Would the pressure cause MS or MPAA to cave first? It's difficult to say. So it was politically easier and safer for MS to work with the DRM instead of against it.



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Seems like you're still throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  The "honest" users are being penalized in order to protect against pirates.




Yes they are, and the pirates will crack the DRM and continue with their piracy, inconvenienced at most, while legitimate consumers face the consequences. The problem is that only a relatively small number of people know anything about DRM, a smaller number realize how it hurts them, and an even smaller number feel strongly about it. That means the RIAA and MPAA can get away with a lot.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 5, 2007)

You also have to remember Blue-Ray AND HDDVD, unlike dvd, are not standardized formats.   As a result, if Vista were to play them at 100% quality Microsoft would become a competitor of Sony (Blue-Ray) and Philips, Toshiba, etc (HD-DVD).  Which is not good for dvd player producing companies considering that a growing number of people are using computers or on computer-based technology (ie ipod) to play videos instead of dvd-players.   As a result, I woudn't be surprised if the "nice" folks at Sony, Toshiba, et al sent a memo to Microsoft mentioning that they would not create Blue-Ray/HDDVD roms (for pcs) if Vista were to play at 100% quality.  

Wait and see how OS Ten (or what ever its called) plays HD-DvD and Blue-Ray.  If it plays at a lesser quality like Vista then I know I'm right...  If it plays at 100% quality then Microsoft's new CEO is a spine-less coward (unlike Bill Gates who probably would have allowed it).


 If that were to happen, I bet you those companies would refuse to produce Blue-Ray/HD-DVD-roms since it would mean that less and less people would be purchasing their dvd-players.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 5, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> As a result, I woudn't be surprised if the "nice" folks at Sony, Toshiba, et al sent a memo to Microsoft mentioning that they would not create Blue-Ray/HDDVD roms (for pcs) if Vista were to play at 100% quality.



HD content DOES play at 100% quality when the DRM enabled components are used. Same as with players and HDTV's.

This is what Steel_Wind and I were debating. The quality reduction is only for unprotected sources. Sony gets money from the BluRay discs, the license fees, the blue-laser diodes, and 80billion other things, but the content producers (one of which IS Sony...) wanted teh DRM before they would provide the movies and such.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 6, 2007)

How long before I'm watching HD DVD flicks on my linux box without all the brand spanking new video and display hardware that you need with Vista?  

Sucks if you dropped a few grand on a huge Apple or Dell 30" display only to find it isn't HD compatable, or bought a video card recently that cost 200+ and doesn't have full compliance with the DRM specs.  Love that Windows!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 6, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> How long before I'm watching HD DVD flicks on my linux box without all the brand spanking new video and display hardware that you need with Vista?




I'm sure they'll try to tie the drivers for the drives to DRM in some way.

There was a bunch of articles when it first came up because a lot of HDTV's that were made before they came up with the DRM scheme, don't have the HDCP capability. Imagine buying an HD-DVD or PS3, hooking it up to your HDTV, and getting regular video.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 6, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I'm sure they'll try to tie the drivers for the drives to DRM in some way.




I'm betting within a year or so of mass adoption you will find sites that will have playback keys and hacked drivers to run these movies without the DRM.  The industry can try, but there are minds just as sharp working against them at every turn. 



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> There was a bunch of articles when it first came up because a lot of HDTV's that were made before they came up with the DRM scheme, don't have the HDCP capability. Imagine buying an HD-DVD or PS3, hooking it up to your HDTV, and getting regular video.




Yep, it's not going to be pretty.  People are going to be pissed when a TV that cost 5 grand a couple years ago doesn't play HD video from their playback devices.  People are going to blame Microsoft, wrongly I suppose, when Vista doesn't play their HD-DVD at 1080p on their 30" cinema display.  A lot of early adopters are going to be screwed big time by this I think.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 6, 2007)

greymist said:
			
		

> I wonder if Vista will actually push a critical mass of people to Linux or perhaps Macs?




http://images.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple-getamac-security_480x376.mov


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 6, 2007)

Last weekend I fdisk'd vista and reinstalled winXP and apps. goodness me, how my PC flies now! I really like to see it idling at 'only' 235Mb of memory in use rather than the 980Mb that vista was using! I like the old explorer much better too.

My personal feeling is that the XP ui is better thought out than the Vista UI - which is strange considering the effort put into vista (but then again, maybe not - this blog from the designer of the vista shutdown button is illuminating http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html)

Cheers


----------



## Psionicist (Feb 6, 2007)

Reading this thread makes me happy.  People are informed about the drawbacks! 

Windows Vista is a paradigm shift that's for sure. Not using Vista is the statement you want to be in charge of your own computer and not hand over control to an unknown entity.

I have this small conspiracy theory Windows Vista is not really the product Microsoft is selling. Douglas Adams once said few businesses know their market, or at least hide it. Epson is not in the market of selling inkjet printers. Epson is in the market of selling ink cartridages. [Your TV network of choice] is not in the market of selling TV channel-access to customers. They are in the market of selling viewers to advertisors.

I think Vista is the platform from which Microsoft will base all their future incomes, and they might as well give it away for free just to get the restriction techniques installed on as many computers as possible. Once Microsoft has the userbase and the locked down/"protected" distribution channel, they can sell the real products. Probably subscription services (so for example you pay to use Office or whatnot for a month a time and then the subscription expires you can't edit yoiur document or something) as well as music and movies. And license fees to other companies.

Not long ago Hollywood admitted up front the restriction techniques (copy protection etc) were not about piracy but control. Related: About half a year ago I read on Ars Technica Warner Bros want to be able to charge customers for fast-forwarding or skipping the ads/trailers in the beginning of DVD:s. Vista can make this happen. 

The disturbing thing is Microsoft knows very well (in fact they are responsible) "the masses" has never been in control of their computers, so in a few years when they are using their Vista box and they get a popup stating they are doing something forbidden, they won't be able to tell this is an artificial limitation. 

This is not what technology is about.


----------



## borc killer (Feb 6, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Last weekend I fdisk'd vista and reinstalled winXP and apps. goodness me, how my PC flies now! I really like to see it idling at 'only' 235Mb of memory in use rather than the 980Mb that vista was using!




Just so you know that is not how much memory Vista took up running on your system.  That was an app called SuperFetch and it is actually one of the best features in Vista.  Vista automatically loads programs you use often into the available system memory so when you access them it does not need to access the hard drive.  This is the opposite of how XP works it is basically a more advanced version of how OSX handles system memory.  That is not to say that Vista does not take up more system recourses… but not as much as people lead you to believe.

If you actually care to read about it AnandTech has a good article: http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=1


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Feb 6, 2007)

Good lord, this place is starting to sound like /.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 6, 2007)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Windows Vista is a paradigm shift that's for sure. Not using Vista is the statement you want to be in charge of your own computer and not hand over control to an unknown entity.




Not using Vista is a statement that you use a Mac, don't plan on buying a new PC anytime soon, or spend too much time reading paranoid conspiracy theories on Slashdot.


----------



## borc killer (Feb 6, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> http://images.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple-getamac-security_480x376.mov




I am sorry but do people see the irony in those spots?  That security feature was stolen from Mac… and has been implemented just as well, if not better in some places (and worse in others).  I am forever entering user account information on Macs to do even the slightest things… maybe you people just don’t use Macs in a limited user environment.  And as someone that has to use both systems every day and support users using all three: Vista is darn nice.

Just to give you an idea, my group has a little over 450 systems we take care of.  Roughly 350 of them are PCs running XPsp2, 50 with Vista Enterprise, 20 various distributions of Linux and the rest OS10.4 (broken between G4s and G5s with a few ibooks).  My group spends 25-40% of our time each month supporting the Mac users and hardware and about the same on linux.  It is absolutely ridiculous that those people require so much more hand holding.  Hell most of our new Vista users have request almost 0 support once all there software was patched up to the latest versions.

Macs are great.  Great toasters.  You plug it in and hit the power button and it does what the toaster manufacture told you do with it.  And if that is all you need then you will be the happiest person around.  But don’t try to toast bagels in it.  And that is not meant as a slam just harsh reality.  If you are going to change what OS you are going to use go Linux.  At least with that you are allowed to do whatever you want.  Just will take you 10 days to figure out how to hit ‘toast’


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 6, 2007)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Reading this thread makes me happy.  People are informed about the drawbacks!
> 
> Windows Vista is a paradigm shift that's for sure. Not using Vista is the statement you want to be in charge of your own computer and not hand over control to an unknown entity.
> 
> ...




I agree with a lot of this.  Especially the stuff on Hollywood, read the views of network people on DVR and how customers are cheating them by FF through commercials.  That's going to change, watch or pay will be the end format.  I don't know if Vista will be able to play into that though, with a DVD you can add to the cable bill for use of that functionality.  I guess if you had to have a Vista subscription that tracked your usage i could work, but that would probably be a little much. 

But your point is true for me.  I use Linux because I don't want Microsoft or Apple telling me how to use my computer.  That is the point of their trusted computing platform, so the software makers know they can trust your computer to do what they want it to do.

I mean DRM isn't there to empower you, it's there to restrict how you can use something.  How is that a good thing?


----------



## TwistedBishop (Feb 6, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> But your point is true for me.  I use Linux because I don't want Microsoft or Apple telling me how to use my computer.  That is the point of their trusted computing platform, so the software makers know they can trust your computer to do what they want it to do.





This issue really seems to have split from "Microsoft is crippling BluRay/HD-DVD" (not true) to general Microsoft bashing.  Does the internet really need more threads like that?

As to the original question, I can tell you that I'm personally sticking with XP, even when I'm about to build a new computer.  I don't see any true advantage from switching to Vista at this time.  Let them release whatever service packs they will, let applications catch up, let DX10 start to phase out DX9, let 2GB of ram become the minimum in PCs, then maybe in a couple years it will make sense.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 6, 2007)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> This issue really seems to have split from "Microsoft is crippling BluRay/HD-DVD" (not true) to general Microsoft bashing.  Does the internet really need more threads like that?




I thought we were discussing Vista and core technologies built into it?  And how is presenting a negative opinion on how a company designs a product that will have a mega impact on the industry "bashing"?  

Your post is pretty much correct though in terms of needing to get Vista now.  What is the benefit of it now?  None that I can see. 






P.S. And the internet needs more threads on it so hopefully enough people would say "we aren't going to buy products with these limitations" and force the industry to change in order to gain their financial support. A pipe dream I know....


----------



## TwistedBishop (Feb 6, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I thought we were discussing Vista and core technologies built into it?  And how is presenting a negative opinion on how a company designs a product that will have a mega impact on the industry "bashing"?





Microsoft and Vista didn't invent or mandate HDCP.  They don't even have a vested interest in seeing it succeed or fail.  This is entirely an issue with the movie studios and BluRay/HD-DVD.  

It's bashing because people keep ignoring that fact, since it would get in the way of slinging mud at everyone's favorite target.  Those who have a problem with HDCP need to take it up with the ones actually using it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 6, 2007)

My company (or at least my department) is currently developing new software to run under Windows Vista (though we remain compatibility to XP, as long as it has .NET 3.0 installed). 
My company notebook uses Vista, and it works fine.
I have had no crashes on my system (which is somewhat noteworthy because you never know what happens if you make a grave error in your code - though as C# is a managed language, there aren't that many risks). My system is a bit slow from time to time, but that might be because I run Visual Studio 2005 (sometimes with two instances) and a debug version of our new software. 

The main issue - if there is any - is that the new User Account Control  often shows warning messages and demands me to confirm a specific action. 
But this is in a big part due to the fact that older software doesn't use the recommended interfaces or guidelines for Vista (or XP, but XP didn't care about it). Once software developers get accustomed to this, they will put out software that will provoke less messages.

The DRM question is nothing that concerned me much, and it doesn't have anything to do with Vista itself, but with the demands for using the new video formats.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 6, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> http://images.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple-getamac-security_480x376.mov




That commertial rocks!   Apple just sold me on vista lol..    Course, in my version of that tv spot that creepy NSA guy would have kicked Mac's Ascii or sold all of PC's secrets to the gestapo (because we all know why the NSA was involved with Vista's security).


What would have made a better commertial would have been if PC came out dressed like MAC and ended up doing a poor imitation of Mac.

The funny thing about that commertial is that it saids "Vista is so secure that its annoying" and it might also be saying that "Mac doesn't need its security features (turned on)".


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 6, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I'm betting within a year or so of mass adoption you will find sites that will have playback keys and hacked drivers to run these movies without the DRM.  The industry can try, but there are minds just as sharp working against them at every turn.




Thus the futility of the DRM stuff, certainly. But, since I don't expect MS to ignore HD content, and I don't expect MS to open themselves to a lawsuit by using a format that is <Copyright/registered, whatever>, the only solution was for MS to implement HDCP, just as HDTV producers have, and video card makers will.

I don't think it'll be as easy, given the HD drives will be HDCP'd, so you'll have to fake that too, but I dunno, not my job.


Anyway, the solution is, if you plan on using Vista PC for HD video playing, you'll have to buy the drive, plus look at other components that are also HDCP regulated.

For the vast majority of PC users, they will never know, or care, about HDCP.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 7, 2007)

borc killer said:
			
		

> Just so you know that is not how much memory Vista took up running on your system.  That was an app called SuperFetch and it is actually one of the best features in Vista.  Vista automatically loads programs you use often into the available system memory so when you access them it does not need to access the hard drive.  This is the opposite of how XP works it is basically a more advanced version of how OSX handles system memory.  That is not to say that Vista does not take up more system recourses… but not as much as people lead you to believe.




Thanks for the link, I'll read that later.

I've heard about superfetch, and it may well be an app which is preloading stuff into memory - but the fact is that a component of vista was taking up my memory without me asking it (and not providing any visible benefit - everything is that bit more speedy now I'm back in XP land anyway).

Cheers


----------



## Lilith (Feb 8, 2007)

Wait for it. Not really enough going for it to recommend an upgrade, though if your new system came with, that would be fine.


----------



## ssampier (Feb 12, 2007)

borc killer said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> ...If you are going to change what OS you are going to use go Linux.  At least with that you are allowed to do whatever you want.  Just will take you 10 days to figure out how to hit ‘toast’




I use RedHat Enterprise at work and Linux is great at making toast, as long you figure out how to install the jet engine to toast your bread.


----------



## themind (Feb 12, 2007)

I would like to ask for someone's opinion on this situation.  I am getting ready to buy a new computer from Alienware, and it has the default OS as Vista.  It also has the option to "downgrade" to XP for $50 (with the ability to get a free upgrade to Vista).  Now I normally was just going to go without Vista for awhile, but I don't know if I should spend the extra $50 bucks to get XP or just get Vista and then install XP after I get it.

Another thing that struck me as odd is that it says Vista doesn't support Nvidia SLI functionality, but the only Motherboard option is a Nvidia SLI.  Does that mean it won't function properly from the get go?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 13, 2007)

themind said:
			
		

> I would like to ask for someone's opinion on this situation.  I am getting ready to buy a new computer from Alienware, and it has the default OS as Vista.  It also has the option to "downgrade" to XP for $50 (with the ability to get a free upgrade to Vista).  Now I normally was just going to go without Vista for awhile, but I don't know if I should spend the extra $50 bucks to get XP or just get Vista and then install XP after I get it.
> 
> Another thing that struck me as odd is that it says Vista doesn't support Nvidia SLI functionality, but the only Motherboard option is a Nvidia SLI.  Does that mean it won't function properly from the get go?




The video driver situation on Vista is shaky for now, but it should only get better in the coming months.  XP performance is better now, but the future should shift the other way.


----------



## Simplicity (Feb 13, 2007)

Yeah, that ad should have had a pickpocket in the background deciding to skip the PC/Secret Service guys and move on to the Mac guy.  But whatever.

The security scheme was hardly stolen from Macs.  Using reduced user priviledges is an old OS concept.  Unix has it.  This is essentially just a sudo that is confirmed by keyword only rather than a password.

Psionicist, you're right on the money as to what Microsoft is doing.  They're looking to expand their "platform" and become a media company.  MS has been dying to get into people's living rooms for a very long time.  The XBOX360 is helping them to do that now finally.  With that nice little box sitting under a TV, they'll now expand into IPTV which puts them in direct competition with cable companies.  Quite frankly, Microsoft will win that fight because the cable companies are making the exact same mistake IBM made a long time ago.
Cable companies will keep trying to improve their hardware.  But Microsoft knows that people want to buy software, not hardware.  And media.  Lots and lots of media.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 17, 2007)

I plan to stick with XP Pro for the unforseeable future. I just got finished upgrading the comp and it runs XP just fine. I don't have time to get around bugs and other crap.


----------



## Mycanid (Feb 26, 2007)

Here is an article posted bringing up some of the problems a user came across with windows vista that might be worth reading.

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3529

He goes so far to say that Vista is Windows ME part 2!


----------

