“Leading up to next week’s public beta-test release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Release Candidate, Microsoft today has published a 17-page document outlining in fine detail exactly what difference SP1 makes to Vista. Some of the contents has been shared in bits in the past, but this is so far the most comprehensive ‘changelog’ we’ve ever seen and probably will see as the final version is not expected to differ much from the RC, with the exception of WGA modifications.”
well i must say this does indeed sounds promising. i am excited to see how this preformes in the real world after RC status.
I would much rather hear the changelog for Internet Explorer 8, than Vista SP1, it’ll affect far more people.
(p.s. OSAlert, fix your caching system, it keeps forgetting to include the reply box)
Releasing this large changelog is a good marketing technique to get people to move over to Vista, it might work although at the same time Microsoft are admitting their many failures on the release of this product.
Or maybe they are just being honest and proud of their work while admitting their failures
psh, it’s MS. SO there HAS to be an evil and malign reason behind it!!111
I love seeing improvements/changes/updates to an OS. It makes me think that the company is on top of things. Now, if only Microsoft could update their Vista (all 31 flavors) as frequently as Apple updates MacOS X (which only has/needs 1 flavor).
Why is so bad to have plenty of flavors on Vista? You can better adjust your budget, avoiding some features that you will probably not need (or considering how expensive is Ultimate, convincing yourself that you won’t need them!)
It is bad because there are no real distinguishable qualities which could not have been administered by a paid for download addon.
Suppose there is one feature you wanted/needed in Ultimate but preferred using Basic.Is it fair to ask someone to shell out all that extra cash for that one feature?
Though the product has a EULA which essentially states you are not an owner but a renter of the software I think it is still indecent to ask a customer to bend over backwards to use it as they wish since they PAID FOR IT.
Edited 2007-12-09 04:53
Suppose there is one feature you wanted/needed in Ultimate but preferred using Basic.Is it fair to ask someone to shell out all that extra cash for that one feature?
Admit it: It’s a lame point. There’s practically nothing extra in Ultimate that can’t be bought from a third party. And the best part about it is that you didn’t have to pay an artificially higher average price.
Point taken.+1.I agree with you.
You understood my point but from a different angle.What I was trying to get over that there is no real justification for all these versions when clearly you can have the web-addon model either free or paid for.
Edit:Post was not meant as a self response but to the reply of my earlier post by tomcat.
Edited 2007-12-09 12:38
Basic -> For those who buy a low end machine, and/or don’t care about the new vista features. Very cheap.
Premium -> For those that like aero and whatnot, but don’t care about things like an unfettered IIS, or integrated windows authentication.
Business -> For people who DO care about things like an unfettered IIS and integrated windows authentication, but DON’T care about things like media center.
Ultimate -> For people who want every feature possibly available. Very expensive.
That is four, not 31, and not really that difficult to understand.
I have 80 updates in my history, with four optionals not yet installed. I would say they update really frequently. And apple only has/needs 1 flavor, because they only target one type of consumer. MS targets a far broader range of consumers and platforms.
Well said!
Sorry, but you’re wrong.
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/help/c0680472-bb5f-4…
This link lists the 6 core SKUs (Windows Vista Starter,
Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, Ultimate), and there are a couple extra EU-mandated N versions, too (Windows Vista Home Basic N, Business N). On top of that, the Ultimate version is split in separate 32- and 64-bit versions.
Total: 9 versions.
So it’s hardly 31 versions, but saying there are only 4, and easy to understand at that, is deceiving as well.
Let’s throw Starter Edition to trash first.
And AFAIK, we can only get Enterprise Edition as a company.
Each version has 32- and 64-bit, and N and normal edition as well.
So if you want to choose, there are only 4 edition to choose first, and then decide if you need 32- or 64-bit. (N-edition… anyone use it?)
Because…?
Which doesn’t make it any less of a legitimate SKU.
Correct, but only Ultimate splits the two in separate disks. I was being courteous by counting just 9 versions to choose from
I can’t really agree with this simplification you’re making: remember that people (and businesses) buy systems with Vista pre-installed, so there are actual, real people facing the choice of several versions, including those you’re trying to disregard.
And, very unfortunately, deciding between 32- or 64-bit is anything but trivial. As far as application compatibility goes, WoW64 makes it quite compelling to just grab the 64-bit version, but the chance of missing some drivers is very real (for example, Vista 32 bundles drivers for 3Com 3C905 cards, but Vista 64 doesn’t! (which kind of makes Vista 64 the single PC OS that is used by more than, say, 500 people around the world, and isn’t compatible with this card)).
Talk about IT headaches. I know stories of IT crews standardising on those cards because they were so sure every OS under the sun would support it — even Mac OS X does, courtesy of Darwin… Then comes Vista 64. Yikes.
Might strike you as odd, but there are people actively trying to buy them. Google for it and in no time you’ll find message board posts of people asking where to buy those versions.
it’s severely crippled that no one should use it?
well yeah
I thought buying ultimate get both editions? (not so sure)
I mean, it’s not like we’re choosing all 31 editions directly. It’s more like filtering choices between edition targets (home basic, home premium, business, enterprise, or ultimate), between 32- or 64-bit, and between N or normal. So I think it’s much simpler than choosing directly from all 31 editions at once
It’s trivial for me! (read: campus agreement here only provides one edition: Vista Business 32-bit.
)
Well yeah, 64-bit Vista is a headache if there is at least ONE component that’s not supported – so make sure every single components are supported in vista 64 before choosing it. (or in inverse, make sure the card that’s going to be bought is supported by every OS including vista 64…) – or just use 32 to be on the safe side (not really safe either though)
now that’s NEWS to me! Thanks for informing.
Edited 2007-12-09 05:47
So let me count:
6 Base versions:
Windows Vista Starter
Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows Vista Business
Windows Vista Enterprise
Windows Vista Ultimate
+ 2 EU N versions
Windows Vista Home Basic N
Windows Vista Business N
* 2 (32-bit, 64-bit)
===================
8 * 2 = 16
That’s a total of 16 versions…not 9, or is my math wrong?
lmao, you are right
The N versions and 32/64 bit versions are a tad pedantic, but you are right that i missed starter and enterprise.
While true that it’s not 31, hyperbole is an excellent linguistic tool to use when speaking of something you consider stupid and beneath contempt.
Thanks for that URL. I also at one point thought there were only 4 versions of Vista as I really did not include 64 Bit Vs 32 Bit. Also I did not know there was a Starter! That Starter edition must be pretty bare bones!!
For sure not 31 versions though!
let’s not forget upgrade editions…
(and yes, it’s (more or less) 31 editions total)
The problem isn’t that it’s too complicated; the problem is that it is all so contrived.
MS targets a far broader range of consumers and platforms.
Mostly 32-bit platforms.
And does an ultimate edition have different vulnerabilities then let’s say a home premium?
Agreed. Microsoft has really made a mistake by trying to release multiple versions of Windows that try to target specific hardware / software needs. What they should really do (and what I’ve said for years) is release ONE core version of Windows. This would be slim and fast and optimized to the most common denominator hardware (not the highest end hardware). It would include the bare minimum components and little superfluous fluff. It would cost under $100.00 USD and a family license would be available for those with multiple computers. Yes, this is just like Apple’s license options! Consumers could then purchase separate PLUS! packs that would add additional features like visual themes (e.g., Aero), Media Center, Tablet, games, etc. Similarly, business could purchase add-on packs that add bitlocker encryption, or other business related features. Everyone is happy and nobody has overspent for features they don’t use or need. Come on Microsoft – wake up!
The only problem with that is with Microsoft’s bottom line.
Hardware suppliers are obviously pushing Microsoft ( and likely with briefcases full of cash and other incentives ) to optimize the OS for specific patented paradigms implemented in hardware to push hardware sales.
This will always occur on the bleeding edge, and Microsoft will always have to remove old baggage when the agreements with the aforementioned hardware suppliers ( and other companies, too ) finally permit it ( if MS has been smart, they have restricted duration to one single iteration of the OS, while also considering service packs as iterations ).
It is not to say that it is not technically possible to create a base OS with compatibility from Windows 1.x to current iterations, it would just be more difficult to build this proper slim base as a releasable product.
The base would require almost everything that is in the Home edition ( though MS could always strip out IE and Media Player, and all that crap, or they could make it easier on themselves and go back to the Windows 9x installer style, giving us the option to customize what gets installed ( and including ALL non-essential components, or permitting usurping said basic requirements ( which would require releasing a lot of internal APIs and permitting access to them by 3rd-parties.. this would likely be a security nightmare, so a wrapper API would probably have to be created, etc…).
The workload is just too large to justify it unless Microsoft wanted to start from scratch while only providing backwards compatibility via virtualization, and resisting any call by a third party to make a part of the system slower.
I, sadly, just don’t see Microsoft taking the initiative to do this the right way. I mean, Vista was the results of their first attempt at something akin to a global base system, but they did it backwards ( they stripped down the big versions, and forced limits into them ).
Oh well, we can dream.
–The loon
These are nice improvements. Hot patching, local and remote file copy performance improvements and a new RDP compression algorthmn for reducing bandwitdth requirements.
I wonder if it will improve performance over the CIFS/SMB protocols (Samba)?
Perhaps the new RDP compression algorthmn will fix the nasty freezing issues with rdesktop and Vista terminal servers, while also reducing bandwidth. Either that or break rdesktop and force rdesktop developers to fix the problems with Vista sessions.
Edited 2007-12-09 01:06
thank GOD! if they bring it down to a reasonable amount, i will consider un-hiding the prompts (i use tweakuac, keeps uac on, just kills the prompts on admin accounts)
UAC is not bad at all.
If you use Linux, UAC is cake.
Not that I mind typing in passwords to elevate and tweak SELinux. I’m very used to it by now.
Edited 2007-12-09 01:18
If you are constantly getting UAC prompts, one has to ask, why are you creating folders in protected locations? You have a home directory for that reason – unless it needs to be system wide for all users to access (even then you can use the public account), plonk it in your personal directory.
Its not that it happens constantly, it is that on the occasion when i have to modify a folder in a place i don’t own, i end up with 4 prompts. imho, that is three too many, and it is nice to see ms agrees.
With all they hype surrounding “wait for sp1″…I just hope MS isn’t pushing this out the door before it is ready.
Given the current performance tests of the RC, I’ll bet that’s exactly what is happening.
But that many changes we usually see with each release of Fedora, which happens approx every 6 months. That’s a testament to how well FLOSS development is doing (especially the kernel, no other kernel is developed at that pace).
So it’s good that MS is finally fixing their flagship to be what I consider a release ready OS (except that network vs MMCS problem now ONLY has a tunable workaround).
But damage is done. Many people opted to avoid Vista and adoption won’t be fast. We’ll still see XP around for a long time. Bit too late for a Blitzkrieg, MS.
You people are just looking for excuses to discredit Microsoft.
Yes, I dislike them because they are a near monopoly and they “know it” but their products aren’t so bad these days.
Not at all … Microsoft provides those in abundance, you don’t have to go looking at all.
Can I buy a version of Vista without DRM, without spyware, without deliberate embedded kill-switches, and without the Windows Update backdoor, but with good performance, interoperability with other platforms and full support for open standards?
No? I can’t buy such a version? Then what good is it to me?
Clearly I am way better off sticking to my Linux system.
What about DRM? Does it stop you from playing your pirated media files? No. Does it allow you to play files you own, but are protected? Yes.
You say it as if in Vista you could only play files that are DRM protected.
Edited 2007-12-09 08:00
That is functionality that, no doubt, the media companies would want, and just as much, no doubt, is well within the capability of a DRM system that is inextricably part of the OS.
So, you have to ask yourself … if its whole eventually intended function is just to enable you to play DRM-protected files, exactly why is this DRM stuff built in to the OS, instead of just into the media player?
In other words (my prediction of the future here) … look for this new “genuine advantage” to come to your Vista system in the future … just as soon as enough people have swallowed the present level of DRM restrictions and have managed to lock themselves in to Vista and can use no other platform.
Edited 2007-12-09 08:57
First of all, it’s built into the OS so that it doesn’t matter what front-end you use, you get an uniform experience when you play DRM protected files. This way, Windows plays all kinds of stuff, not just one player on Windows. It’s better for the platform.
Second, it would be a support nightmare to allow playback of only DRM protected files. Microsoft knows it and media companies know it – it just wouldn’t be feasible.
Third, if the audio/video frameworks in Windows would only play DRM protected files, in a few month tens of players would appear that would get around those frameworks and decode the content by themselves (just like they did on DOS for example) – without system-wide codecs, just by outputing raw sound/video to the drivers.
DRM is just something that will pass. People in media companies just don’t want to feel that they are giving away their content without any “insurance” that it won’t be copied back and forth. Of course, that they are only deluding themselves and some are realizing that (EMI) – you can already find all the content you need on the internet and the so called pirates won’t be bothered by any form of DRM. As long as it plays on a computer, they will be able to rip it and distribute it.
That doesn’t make sense. Ask the EU what they think about an OS where you HAVE to have the vendor’s media player.
It is most decidedly not better for the platform, and more importantly it is not better for you or I.
All the more reason why I don’t want it. It just degrades performance in general, and it has the potential to reduce the capability of MY hardware (not Microsoft’s hardware … my hardware). I don’t believe Microsoft should have that type of control of my computer … so I’m not going to give it to them.
So, what’s your excuse for defending Microsoft in their trying to control and limit you?
Not the aim, I would think.
How about, as a possible future tactic, corruption of the ripping of MP3 files. The ripped MP3 file would play just fine on the original machine where it was ripped, but it would sound terrible on any other device that the file was transfered to. That would preserve your rights to back up your music, but you would not be able to play your ripped music on your MP3 player … perhaps unless it was a Zune that had been “paired” with your PC. Some scheme like that.
That is a good outcome for Microsoft … it forces you to buy a Zune if you want portable music. It won’t fly in the market just yet, but one day it might …
Another possibility is to tie Vista’s DRM in with Silverlight … so that once again we would see an increase in the number of websites where you had to view the site with Vista and IE or you won’t see anything.
You can only do that type of thing if the media DRM system is embedded right into the OS. Otherwise, an alternate ripper program could be made which did not suffer from such limitations, or an alternative browser could be run to view those websites, or whatever. (We almost had that type of thing happen with the BBC and iPlayer recently).
So I ask again … if the only objective of Windows DRM is to allow playback of DRM-protected content, then why is it embedded inextricably (and in some parts of the world, illegally) as part of the OS, and not simply a function of the media player?
Still waiting for a credible answer on this …
Edited 2007-12-09 11:13
It’s nice to see that some consumers actually like DRM. Being told what you can and can’t play on your own computer, down at OS level, and liking it too. Media companies must love people like you.
Do you really think that if one day media companies and Microsoft will be able to take full control via DRM, they won’t? What do you think they’re pushing DRM for? Just as copy protection for the occasional media tracks you buy? That’s a laugh. Copy protection is a myth. The only way it can work is if everything in the computer, from hardware to OS, is under tight DRM control.
That’s why DRM is in the OS. That’s why graphics cards and LCD screens come with DRM support. To assume full control one day. Because until it doesn’t then copy protection remains a myth and can be circumvented, just like you said. Which makes is useless. It’s all or nothing for them, that’s the only way DRM will work.
In the meantime they tide you over with pretenses so you’ll keep buying into more hardware and software with DRM support to that end. “But it’s only there in case you get something that needs DRM. No problem if you don’t use it!” They must take us for complete idiots.
Personally, I have another idea for them. No DRM. I won’t buy and use products with DRM included. I refuse to accept that someone else can control what I do with stuff I bought fair and square and own. You’ll say that I’ll miss out on stuff like HD video. Fine with me. DVD was good enough for many years, it will keep being good enough. If they want my money they’ll sell me Audio CD’s and DVD’s and DRM-less online media. If they don’t I’ll find them somewhere else. There’s always be sane companies that will take the money they can get instead of pushing for impossible stuff and screwing their customers.
Hallelujah! Somebody gets it!
The critical thing is this … can I buy Vista without DRM? No? Then I won’t buy it.
The real worry I have is that there might just be enough sheeple out there who will accept Vista and DRM, and Microsoft will manage to get control of media on the Internet via DRM in the way that they obviously want to.
If that happens, then I am adversely affected by Vista’s DRM in my use of the Internet, even though I did not buy Vista myself and I do not run it.
Strangely, Microsoft is not the original culprit here. The media companies started the DRM pipe dream. But they’re a tough adversary to beat and the OS and hardware makers need to decide whether they’re with them or against them. So a lot of decisions have been taken to support it (no surprise here). Apple supports DRM in all its products, both hardware and software. Microsoft likes the idea very much and has tried to cash in on it early with closed platforms it controls completely, like the Zune (for which, incidentally, it screwed over its former allies when development and marketing was over and it was time to reap in the benefits).
Not even Linux is extempt from DRM. Linus’s naive nature has made him propose DRM support in Linux, arguing that there are potential benefits, such as security, in completely controlling a computer. Which is technically correct, but it depends very much on who’s got the control. It’s quite alright if I control my own computer. It’s alright if a company wants to control its employee’s work computers (take it or leave it). But it’s NOT alright if a random company wants to control MY computer just because they sold me a song or a movie.
I don’t argue that DRM is bad. It sure is. It’s the media industry taking a piss on consumer rights. What I’m saying is that DRM was born dead. No matter how many layers of it you include in the software and hardware it will never work. You mustn’t underestimate people’s desire to get free/cheap stuff.
I will condemn Microsoft, Apple or whoever when they will actively limit my ability to use unprotected content (and, technically, there is no way they can do that, ever).
Meanwhile it’s a financial decision, not a religious war: media companies don’t want to sell unprotected content, so for MS to make some bucks for their shareholders they have to sell DRM protected media and give people a medium for it to play in. No need for conspiracy theories.
It wouldn’t work, I’d agree, if it was just part of the media player. Even if it was an inextricable part of the OS, it wouldn’t work if people could just boot another OS as a liveCD. It only works if it is an inextricable part of the OS, and the people MUST run that OS and only that OS.
This is, I postulate, exactly what they are aiming for. There will come a day, I believe, when there suddenly appears “political” lobbyists on the scene demanding the banning of all non-DRM OSes because they can potentially be used as “circumvention devices”.
That would quite suit Microsoft now, wouldn’t it?
It is neither … it is however a grab for power & control over common people.
Are you sure? There is still no sensible answer to the fundamental question “why exactly is the DRM part of the OS”?
There is still no sensible answer to the fundamental question “why can’t I buy a Vista version without the DRM”?
Until there is a sensible answer to those questions then why can’t we ask the questions?
Who profits from a meme of “No need for conspiracy theories”?
Edited 2007-12-09 12:08
Ok, I think you are taking it a little to far. Sure, Microsoft would want that everybody runs their OS, Intel would hope that everybody would run their hardware and the media industry would like to see that every paid for their content, but you are blowing this out of proportion.
The consumers will pay less, because they don’t like what they get. Piracy will flourish even more, prices or restrictions will drop and the market will regulate itself. Actually this happens right now
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you still ignore the main points.
Why is the DRM for multimedia a part of the OS, rather than part of the media player?
Why can’t I buy a version of Vista without DRM, especially if I buy a computer that has no HDCP video path and has no HD optical drive? What exactly do I need DRM for on that computer, since it can’t play HD video anyway?
If I am in America and I buy a computer with Vista basic (because that was all that was offered to me for sale, and it is the cheapest one to just ditch without much angst), and I wipe the copy of Vista basic without ever agreeing to the EULA and I immediately install Ubuntu instead (which has no DRM), then can I be accused of violating the American DMCA by avoiding a “circumvention device” that was originally part of the machine?
I might be paranoid, but they are nevertheless all perfectly legitimate questions and no Vista cheerleaders are able to give any sensible answers to them.
Over the top? Maybe. It surely makes you wonder, does it not? It seems to me that there is a very good case for arguing that it is Vista and its DRM that is over the top.
Put it this way … if I am ever in America, and I want to run my OS of choice … then I am going to go out of my way to avoid any computer that ever had a copy of a Vista installed. I am either going to buy from System76 or ZaReason or similar vendor, or (because I am capable of so doing) I will assemble my own machine from kit parts and a blank hard disk.
Edited 2007-12-09 13:21
DRM was put into the OS because the entertainment industy said so. They said if the OS was to support HD content, then DRM would have to be enabled via the OS. Have any clue as to why you are NOT watching HD movies on your beloved Ubuntu? Please do enlighten us about your experiences when you purchased some new HD movies and went home to play them in Ubuntu?
So try and figure this one out. Windows is a consumer OS. Consumers WANT to play HD content on their computer. Consumers by the vast majority have no idea that DRM even exists. Most who really get bothered by DRM are Linux trolls like yourself. On the other hand Joe Consumer goes into Best Buy and purchases a computer and some HD movies, he expects to play them on his computer. The sensible business sense is this, Vista is not marketed as the OS that has DRM, it is the OS that can play HD content. Starting to get the picture? Or do I need to draw this out more? So when given the option to put out an OS that will anger the vast majority of consumers, or one that will please some trolls like yourself who will not even use the OS anyways, I wonder which direction they will go (Need me to f**cking spell this one out for ya Lemur2)?
If you really need it explained as to why it is in the OS and not the media player, well then I might suggest IT is just not your field. Maybe want to go try janitorial. Seriously, how much more of a f**cking troll do you need to be? Seriously, get a f**cking life.
Actually, it is … I happen to design systems of computers for a living.
If the objective is simply to allow HD video to play on a computer, then the DRM could have been made part of a media player. The media player could be a separable program, it technically doesn’t HAVE to be part of the OS just to be able to do this function or that.
Also, if there is no HD optical drive on a machine, and no HDMI output, and no HDCP-compliant monitor … then why exactly does the OS need to have any DRM component when the machine cannot play HD video anyway? This is another problem that is easily solved by simply having the media player separate from the OS and having the DRM as part of that media player, instead of embedded into the OS.
How can that be so, if the machine itself is not capable of playing HD content anyway, as is the case for most Vista machines sold right now?
You are a very confused and angry person. Calm down and think it through rationally.
guess what, connecting the output to a capture device destroys the very purpose of drm (in microsoft’s/whatever minds, of course – as they’re trying to close every possible way of piracy – or so they think).
_and_
not all HD video is protected. HD only stands for High Definition, so HD video is High Definition video, not DRM-plagued High Definition video.
Some (or most) legitimate professional HD video available are protected but that doesn’t mean all HD video are protected…
Edited 2007-12-09 15:08
HD is the carrot that’s being dangled in your face. It comes with the hidden stick of DRM. They’re an item and will not be separated. Sure, there’s HD content without DRM, like trailers and game demos. But try getting serious commercial content such as the latest movies in HD format without DRM, see how it goes.
Seriously, how much more of a f**cking troll do you need to be? Seriously, get a f**cking life.
“Resentment is like drinking poison and hoping it will kill your enemies.”
—Nelson Mandela
Is this language/behavior not trolling? Lighten up, pal.
Edited 2007-12-09 14:38
Mate, some of us don’t mind debating. Some of us can accept that we all have differences of opinion, but to come out and make blatantly false and misleading statements off the back of dubious ‘studies’ and ‘speeches’ over so-called ‘losses of freedom’ – it does actually rub some of us the wrong way.
For me, I’m against DRM, heck, I’m against the whole notion of charging NZ$2 for a subpar quality track encoded at a low bit rate simply to save the company money – I’ve said it once, and I”ll say it again, the day when I can download my albums in lossless, DRM free format with album art at a reasonable price – I would do so, until that day arrives I’ll still be visiting Borders and my local music shop.
Like I said, nothing wrong with differences but it frustrates some of us that rather than debate, these trolls come out, moderate peoples posts down to silence descent and worse still regurgitate lies – then use their ‘fan base’ to moderate down any comments which correct them.
So far I’ve wasted around 10 points bringing posts up from the depths simply because a group of twitts on this forum see themselves as the ‘sole decider’s’ of what is valuable contribution to discourse and what isn’t.
Edited 2007-12-09 20:25
The voting system is a simple tug-of-war. Whoever gets more people +2 to agree with his point wins visibility. So let’s not blame the system. Ask OSAlert to make it better if you don’t like it. Slashcode is always available. Or get rid of it altogether if it’s not fair, and let all comments compete on merit alone.
It still remains that some people argue logically, with arguments, while others resort to foul language.
What is misleading in stating that your computer today, now, may very well have DRM support in its CPU, OS, graphics card, HD disc unit, sound card and LCD, and that it can all be activated tomorrow? This is a fact. On what fact do you base your opinion that it won’t happen? On the consumer-loving history of the media companies and Microsoft? On protection by corrupt politicians that depend on these companies for funds? On ignorant consumers who, when told “we’ve just made your computer better to stop the pirates and terrorists!” will rejoyce instead of realising they’ve lost control of their own computer?
Who’s delusional here? Why is this considered a conspiracy theory instead of hard cold fact?
THe solution is quite simple; when points are taken off or put on, register the user name with it, and allow other users on the site to find out who took off the point or who added on the points. Complete disclosure of people’s action; if these people don’t make a comment, they are implicitly commenting when moderating down/up comments.
As for foul language – just ignore it. Sometimes ‘foul language’ is useful to ad emphasis.
Mate, I find it funny that those who complain about the so-called evils of DRM and ‘teh media companies’ are the ones who are least likely to actually do anything about it. I’ve seen people here piss and moan about DRM and yet quite happy to go off and purchase DRM itunes songs. I find they complain about ‘root kits’ from Sony and yet, quite happy to purchase Sony products and see Sony movies.
If you are truly outraged, then how about walking the talk – because right now it looks like blatant hypocrisy when I hear people say one thing and do the complete opposite.
When ATI refused to disclose their specifications, I refused to purchase their products, and I refused to purchase AMD products (who owned them) – I didn’t do what people did here which was scream with one side of the mouth about ATI and yet prop up the exact same company buy purchasing their processors. Want to change, boycott the WHOLE company – then you’ll have an impact.
Now you’ve lost me. How do you presume to know what I do? How do you know I don’t do exactly that: avoid DRM’ed products in all its forms?
I don’t know who is it you’re really angry at but you’re going more and more off on a tangent here.
I don’t see what disclosure of voters would achieve. Sure, it might give a user some insight, but what’s he going to do with it? Engage in petty wars, probably. Not desirable.
Let’s let it be. Sure, everyone’s been bitten by hateful down-voting. Not the end of life as we know it.
The issue is that there are those who have their comments moderated down – and their comments actually have contributed to the discourse; because it isn’t visible, the debate is poorer.
Its like parliamentary debates, imagine if the government in power doctored the tapes of debates relating to a particular piece of legislation – how is it possible to look back in retrospect to learn and understand what lead up to the legislation.
That is the problem. To simply have posts moderated out of existence, the discourse on this website is poorer, and simply ends up become a forum where all people end up singing from the same hymn sheet. It turns into a monoculture where nothing is learned and people simply sit around patting each other on the back.
Well, I don’t know much about EULAs. I think in my country they have little no relevance, legally speaking.
As for including DRM inside the OS, I’ve already stated my opinion – to give the platform as a whole and not just one player the ability to play DRM protected content … and probably to strengthen their relationship with the media companies. But, DRM will be gone in 5 to 10 years, no matter what Microsoft, RIAA or MPAA do. And not because it is bad, but because it hurts sales.
To clear the cheerleading part, I’m no Vista fan, I’ve tried it, didn’t like it, and went back to XP, but I’ll probably give it another shot after SP1 if I can be bothered to buy some more RAM.
I really don’t get it … OSes are pieces of software that help you do your job, or get something out of your computer, not cult objects. For most people Windows is the best choice of getting something out of their computer. I won’t torture myself to use something that is not suited to my needs just to make a political statement that means nothing to anyone but me.
It’s OK. You’re in the company of many other sheep. Unfortunately, someone’s gotta say something about it. You may be right about DRM being gone in 5 years, I sure hope you are. But it’s not gonna happen if everybody’s a sheep and simply eats anything put in front of it.
Isn’t it, really? Or perhaps you don’t realise just how close you already are to that situation? You are probably already running Vista, which has DRM builtin. Does your graphics card support it? Does the LCD monitor? Does the CPU? It’s very likely, if you have bought them recently. And there are lots of names that hardware manufacturers try to hide DRM under: HDMI, HDCP and so on, trying to pass it as a good thing.
If so, it’s entirely possible that the next update from Microsoft will bring you a Media Player that will only play DRM content (and only one particular kind of DRM scheme) and an OS lockout that prevents anything else from playing any other type of content.
Same goes for Apple. It’s even easier for them, because they control the entire hardware and software more tightly than Microsoft.
So DRM is already here, from a technical point of view. It’s in your computer and can be activated tomorrow. The only things preventing it are paper thin. Things like customer outrage. Delicate agreements to be worked out with media and hardware companies. But the second that Microsoft or Apple will think they can get away with it, it will happen.
If they suddenly assume control in a definitive enough manner, what will you do? Will you sue them? Throw your PC or Mac out the window? Stop using it because you can’t play movies, when you’ve got that important paper due next week? Wipe out the HDD and install Linux or XP or Windows 98? Go to online forums and whine about it? Will you really?
Hi,
So, you have to ask yourself … if its whole eventually intended function is just to enable you to play DRM-protected files, exactly why is this DRM stuff built in to the OS, instead of just into the media player?
How would a “trusted” media player know if it can trust the hardware, the OS, the video card or anything else it relies on? How could companies who provide DRM restricted media trust the “trusted” media player?
For an example, it’d be relatively easy to modify Bochs so that each frame of video is sent to a file on the host OS, and then run Windows (and your “trusted” media player) inside Bochs as the guest OS.
AFAIK DRM uses an “end to end” security chain. Everything along this chain (TPM chip, firmware, boot code, HAL/kernel code, the media player, video drivers, video cards and the monitor) need to support DRM for it to work because if any piece can’t be trusted then the entire chain can’t be trusted.
How does this stop a “whole cloth” bit-for-bit copy of a complete HD video disk from being playable?
It doesn’t stop piracy, it just mandates the OS that the average Joe is forced to use.
It is lock-in, it is not anti-piracy.
You also haven’t answered the inverse question: “If my PC lacks any piece of that trusted chain (which holds true for most PCs sold), then the machine cannot play HD video anyway, so why does my version of Vista even need DRM”?
Edited 2007-12-09 14:09
Hi,
How does this stop a “whole cloth” bit-for-bit copy of a complete HD video disk from being playable?
It doesn’t, but the bit-for-bit copy would have the same restrictions as the original copy (e.g. you probably wouldn’t be able to use the copy or the original on a different computer).
You also haven’t answered the inverse question: “If my PC lacks any piece of that trusted chain (which holds true for most PCs sold), then the machine cannot play HD video anyway, so why does my version of Vista even need DRM”?
I don’t know what Vista does in this case, but I doubt they’d have 2 different versions of everything (a “no DRM support” version and a “DRM supported” version of each HAL, kernel, driver, etc). It’d be much easier to just use the “DRM supported” version even when none of the DRM support is used.
Well, since apparently the DRM in Vista is what has caused the huge bloat in Vista (16 GB, apparently), the performance issues of Vista and the customer dissatisfaction with Vista, and since the majority of machines sold with Vista do not actually have any HD-capable hardware, wouldn’t you think that to make Vista more palatable to the market it would be in Microsoft’s own best interest to worry about having a no-DRM version of Vista first, and then also to produce a modified DRM-included version only for machines with HD-capable hardware?
Or, even better … to make a DRM-enabled Media Player (with no DRM components in the OS core) so that only people with HD hardware would have to install the DRM-enabled player?
Since Vista is strictly “DRM-included” … even for the bulk of machines that have no HD-capable hardware … one has to wonder exactly what else the DRM is for, other than simply enabling the playing of HD content.
Does this work for stand-alone HD players? I’d postulate that stand-alone HD players (with no net connection) are the vast majority of players, and hence any bit-for-bit copy would play on any of them. If that were so, pirates could sell their pirated bit-for-bit copies as “plays in dedicated player only” copies, and the whole alleged point of all that DRM in Vista is thus made moot.
There are such things as competitors. Linux is a competitor that’s getting better with time. More relevant to today is OS X, which runs on hardware that Apple has full control over. So Microsoft can’t go crazy with DRM in ways that will piss customers off.
You question why DRM is built into the OS and not the media player. I think this is a false dichotomy and represents a misunderstanding of what actually is in Vista. I’m no expert on this, since I only touch it tangentially, but there is no single DRM system embedded in the OS. There are some well-documented facilities that would allow the production of a reasonably workable DRMed media player, but it’s not like there’s a policy system in the OS that reads every file and applies DRM to it. Without tools like the ‘protected process,’ DRM software would be vulnerable to having the user snoop the plaintext data out using the debug facilities of the OS (ReadProcessVirtualMemory). Or the user could install a driver that would simply filter all the requests to the output streem and mirror them back up to a decoder that doesn’t respect the DRM policies of the media.
Anyone implementing a DRM system would need to deal with the preceding problem and many others. And on XP they did deal with it… by using hack and slash approaches. Don’t want someone to debug your process? Hook the OS, or use anti-debugging techniques (which, btw, can be defeated). Want to track which drivers are loaded? Load your own driver and scan everyone else to make sure there are no DRM enemies in kmode (of course those enemies can circumvent your driver because they’re running at the same privilege level). These sorts of behaviors from media applications become very destabilizing for a machine. This is what created the whole Sony rootkit fiasco.
As it stands, AFAIK, the OS only provides APIs that allow (signed) apps to declare themselves ‘Protected’ and to query the OS to verify the signatures and integrity of drivers in the Kernel. The hardware and the OS also provide a path for media players, if they choose to do so, to output content that is difficult to snoop. Trying to build such a path in Windows as a third-party would not work effectively and may break the system.
The main point here is that the Windows OS provides facilities to implement DRM. Windows Media Player and the Media Foundation pipeline use some of these facilities. Just like the Dial-up Networking features of Vista, Protected Processes and Media Foundation are turned off unless some application wants to use it.
You could argue about whether DRM is good to use or not, but there’s no sense in saying that Vista or a future MS OS is a “DRM OS” any more than there is sense in saying that Vista is a “Dial-up OS” or a “VPN OS.”
Great post on providing technical reasons for an OS to provide DRM support.
But what I don’t understand is why Microsoft doesn’t advertise the ability to play HD-DVDs and BR discs. Apple claims that OSX is for “fun” and Windows is for “work” (I guess games fall under “work” now?), but Windows has the ability to play commercial HD discs and OSX does not. MS should advertise the fact, and they don’t even have to mention DRM in such ads.
Edited 2007-12-09 21:39
I think it is fairly easy to understand.
In order to avoid charges of false advertising, Microsoft would probably have to mention that the ability to play HD-DVDs and BR discs is constrained to PCs with the correct hardware. This then gets too uncomfortably close for Microsoft IMO to the sticky question of why there is DRM as part of the Vista OS for PCs that do not have such hardware (which is the majority of Vista PCs), and hence cannot play such discs anyway.
It is not like you can just readily add hardware to a Vista PC without consequences, after all. You will have to get the OS re-certified after such an operation anyway.
Microsoft would probably have to mention that the ability to play HD-DVDs and BR discs is constrained to PCs with the correct hardware
They need the correct OS too! Oh god! They can’t just play HD on any old hardware and software, like a Commodore 64! What a travesty..
The problem with vista’s DRM is that it has forced 3rd party vendors to create more complicated hardware and more complex drivers that to this very hour still cause vista on my computer to hang. Sure, it’s the 3rd party driver’s fault, but it’s also microsoft’s fault for making the new driver requirements so onerous. I’d also like to note that when I disabled the DRM windows service, my computer’s functionality was reduced and it complained that my copy of windows was pirated. I don’t like it when my computer talks to me like that, especially after paying for it.
Here’s a good link for anyone that is interested:
“A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection”
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Of interest is the quote:
“Drivers must be extra-robust. [Vista’s DRM] requires additional driver development to isolate and protect sensitive code paths” — ATI.
Exactamundo.
Whose computer is it, anyway?
Do they really imagine people will put up with nonsense like that? (The worry to me is that it is beginning to seem, incredibly, that some people will. Oh dear, not good … for them or for us).
Yes, a truly amazing and credible “research” by Gutmann!
From Wikipedia:
“Gutmann admittedly doesn’t run Windows Vista and stated in his paper: “Can others confirm this? I don’t run Vista yet, but if this is true then it would seem to disconfirm Microsoft’s claims that the content protection doesn’t interfere with playback and is only active when premium content is present”. This statement has recently been removed from Gutmann’s website but an older PDF version the paper with that statement can be found here: http://max-sievers.name/vista_cost.pdf ”
A huge part of Gutmann’s work was basically a result of him googling forums for criticisms of Vista and then pasting them into his report.
If someone writes a criticism about technical aspects of Linux without ever installing and using it, I won’t even bother reading such a rant. Same for any other OS.
EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gutmann_%28computer_scientis…
Edited 2007-12-10 05:26
You’re actually citing Gutmann? The guy is a total buffoon.
Here’s an extensive 3-part article completely destroying Gutmann’s FUD piece-by-piece.
*Everything you’ve read about Vista DRM is wrong*
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299
Well since you are way better off with Linux, then I suggest maybe you could stop being such a troll and stick to your own fanboy discussions. You clearly are the biggest troll here, and I was not surprised in the least that you would rush to make a comment, negative of course. I really have to ask, does one not have a life if being so obsessed with something they do not even use?
You know I could care less about Apple, in fact I could give a rat’s @ss what Apple does. It will be a cold day in hell before I would ever purchase an Apple computer. Nothing much against the OS, but the hardware is way overpriced including features I would never use. But you see, I hardly if ever bother to comment in Apple discussions, and certainly do not troll them. In fact I have more often given praise to aspects I do like about OSX or Apple.
I also do not drive a Ford, Chevy, or Chrysler, so I certainly do not go around in life obsessing about them. I rather detest restaurants like Applebees and TGI Fridays, but I certainly do not spend my time whining about the quality of their food. Starting to get the picture? Maybe it is time to grow up and just move on with your life?
FYI, I happen to be writing this in Suse. I am not just some simple Microsoft lover, yet I do enjoy using Windows, just as I enjoy using Linux and Solaris depending upon the task at hand. You on the other hand seem to care about one thing and one thing only, and that is just flame baiting. Whine, cry, make whatever excuses you want, in the end of the day you have absolutely nothing to add to the discussion. You never had, nor probably never will. The whole point to your posts are to cause disruption. And do not say otherwise, that would just be an insult to the intelligence of anyone familiar with your posts.
C’mon guys, SP1 will be an improvement not a complete panacea (remember when before XP SP2 was released it was touted as fixing all its problems), it’s gonna be the same with Vista SP1 (and SP2, and so on, and so on).
If you believe that a service pack will fix everything then you must be pretty new to the industry. It still won’t improve the dearth of decent drivers, the insane hardware requirements (how slow does it run on that 1GB of RAM), and the excessive price gouging and unnecessarily artificial market segmentation. Hopefully it means some things will break less, and the performance won’t be so horrendous for many users.
This will help Linux, OS X and more platforms now that Vista will have UEFI built-in.
because there is nothing to be curious about. Sp1 packs together what is being released as patches over time otherwise. So if you update regularly, there is nothing to wait for, really, and of course it won’t do miracles to slam it on top of an updated system.
I love to see MS users and Linux users get into pissing contests. You guys completely lost the original thought here, and that is the Changelog released by Microsoft. I think that you both need to realize that as a human, we are all entitled to our own opinions.
“Opinions are like @ss holes. Everyone has one, and they all stink”
Reguardless of your opinions on DRM, the release of SP1 for Vista will fix alot of issues that effect “Average Joe User” AND “Occasional Vista User”. This is something that has been needed since the OS was released. I for one am looking forward to updating my Vista partition when the time is right.
-cheers
“I love to see MS users and Linux users get into pissing contests. You guys completely lost the original thought here, and that is the Changelog released by Microsoft.”
But one should note who frequently begets the pissing contests: none other than lemur2.
His entire objective is to troll MS-related topics and derail them into pissing contests, which is why I’ve taken to generally ignoring his posts. You’re right that the Vista SP1 change log, the ostensible topic of this thread, has hardly been discussed at all (maybe because there’s it doesn’t provide much fodder for bashing (there was a very weak attempt in equating a changelog with Microsoft’s “failures”)). Rather, the topic of discussion was the number of SKUs (which is a dead horse and not particularly on topic IMO, but whatever), then devolved into posts prompted by lemur2’s trolling (which occurs in nearly every Microsoft topic).
ssa2204 was harsh in his language, but what he said rings true. One almost never sees Windows users going onto Linux topics to troll the thread and trash Linux, but there exists a group of Linux users on this site (lemur2 being among the most prominent) that go into nearly every Windows or MS topic to trash the product in question and praise some alternative (normally Linux), leading to the inevitable pissing contest.
Edited 2007-12-09 19:20
Oh bullshit, its just as common. Especially on osnews.
There are idiot MS proponents just as their are idiot Linux proponents and they all want nothing more than lame flamewars to fuel their weak egos.
SP1 will not fix this: http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vist…
If you actually read the document (I did) it is amazing anyone clicks “Accept”.
Of course, if you DON’T accept the terms you cannot take back the software as NOBODY accepts returned opened software.
The difference between supporting DRM and not is watching DRM-ladden HD content and not watching it.
The only way to watch DRM HD content in Linux, such as HD-DVD and BluRay movies, is to break the DRM and rip all the contents to HDD–requiring huge amounts of disk space. I suppose at that point you could burn the DRM-stripped HD movie back to a blank HD-DVD or BluRay data discs using Nero Linux 3.
However, its likely that the data discs with movie files will only work on computers with mplayer and not the HD players connected to the HDTV.
Edited 2007-12-09 17:52
no need to rip the data to hdd, you can pipe it to mplayer with tools like this:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=126570
i would love to see all this stuff becoming a library like libdvdcss so players like mplayer, vlc, etc, can use it and users will play their DRM’ed HD-Video/Blu-ray/whatever movies “out of the box” just like they do with their normal DVD movies and libdvdcss/ffmpeg/mplayer/vlc, etc.
Edited 2007-12-09 21:02
Does that mean now that Windows Vista SP1 can be installed onto Apple machines without needing to use bootcamp?
Also:
Compatibility wise, what will that mean for those of us who don’t run Windows (or even older Windows users)? exFat sounds like a great idea, but unless there is a way to access it via old operating systems it’ll become yet another under utilised technology.
Edited 2007-12-09 19:19
PXE booting is different but I assume Vista SP1 also supports local EFI booting. Therefore, the Vista bootloader should be able to bootstrap the OS.
Reformat the flash drives as vfat or fat32 until the exFat file system is supported on other OSes. The fact it supports Windows ACLs might complicate things.
Edited 2007-12-09 19:38
If you took the time to read, this is what I am referring to:
I quoted both in my original post.
Regarding exFAT, the ACL might be an issue but IIRC ACL was never properly standardised and hence most just use the Windows behaviour for their system default.
I really enjoyed the summary the link goes to! Any links or comments to improved performance on SP1? I’ve heard mixed comments. I downloaded the two performance fixes from September, but I heard there were supposed to me more released?
Is there a way to somehow snippet out every comment that involves the word “troll”,”hate”, or “stupid”? That would be a great plugin! Sometimes I feel like the majority of comments are from trolls, then people complaining about the trolls, and now people like me complaining about having to sort through 71 comments of crap to see 5-10 good comments relating to the article.
If Vista were released with SP1 , today, would you use the product? (lol)
Remember that WinzigWeich has relabled alpha releases to x.0, beta to x.1 and Fianl Releases to x.2 !