Windows Longhorn Beta

[RegisteredJack]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Stick with Windows XP. Vista is said to incorporate DRM protection. DRM protection right along with kernel level locks on programs is bad! You won't be able to run programs or drivers unless they are microsoft certified. You will also need a new monitor to run Vista; a monitor that supports HDCP support. If you don't, then you cannot view Vista pass 640 x 480. Here's the proof:

:roll: I love when the newbies come into the thread and start repeating complete lies.

what's been your experience, bsobel?

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Vista, as I know of it right now, is the only OS that actually LOCKS applications pertaining to DRM media or any other non compliant software. It's not just disabling the image on the screen. It's locking entire programs! To top it all off, it's at kernel level!

Apple will be doing the same if they want to be able to license the protected content and if MS decides to port the software to XP it'll do the same.

People have a choice whether they want to allow such a thing on their XP or OS 10 systems. With Vista, they do not have a choice.

This is because DRM in general is so draconian that it hurts consumers more than it helps! Remember the Sony Rootkit? DRM has negative effects. It's best to wait awhile before jumping into Vista.

DRM also has positive affects, like any tools it can be used for good or evil.

Name 5 things that make DRM good.
First of all, DRM will not stop piracy. DRM protection will lock honest consumers out of their own product. It also has harmful side-effects in the near future. When the people who place protection on a certain media are all dead and that media is locked, no one will be able to reference that media.

 

[RegisteredJack]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: RegisteredJack

Originally posted by: cw42
do u mean Vista?

Yeah. sorry about that. They changed the name last year, didn't they?

They dumped Long Horn all together. Vista is a different build from the ground up. It was just too bloated and complicated.

I think it's just a naming issue... not a new build. I'm sure they reused some code there, somewhere...

 

[RegisteredJack]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: bsobel

They dumped Long Horn all together. Vista is a different build from the ground up. It was just too bloated and complicated.

What in the world gave you that impression? Longhorn was the code name (just like Whistler was the XP code name), Vista is the product name.

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/47865/47865.html

Ok i was kinda wrong. The last build of Long Horn and the rebuilt of the OS coincide with the name Vista... so i simply assumed Vista was the name of the new rebuilt.

 

[Nothinman]

People have a choice whether they want to allow such a thing on their XP or OS 10 systems. With Vista, they do not have a choice.

And if you choose not to install it you won't be able to watch the protected content either.

Name 5 things that make DRM good.
First of all, DRM will not stop piracy. DRM protection will lock honest consumers out of their own product. It also has harmful side-effects in the near future. When the people who place protection on a certain media are all dead and that media is locked, no one will be able to reference that media.

I haven't thought a lot about it since I use Linux and won't have to worry too much about the DRM implementation in Vista. But a big thing hardware DRM can do well is cryptographically secure software, with the signing being done and verified in hardware I can be 100% sure that a binary running on my system hasn't been tempered with.

 

[ryan256]

I realize this is not just an MS issue. Right now Microsoft is trying to bow to 2 masters. First is the entertainment industry who wants to stop all of us 'pirates' from stealing their content and is forcing these draconian copy protection schemes. Second is users who want to be able to exercise their rights to fair use. MS is caught in the middle and from the sounds of things are shafting the consumers to bow to content providers. How many people here are looking forward to having to spend $400 or more on a new monitor in order to view HD content?? Not me


Besides... even this scheme will not stop overseas/professional pirates. They will find a way around it.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Vista, as I know of it right now, is the only OS that actually LOCKS applications pertaining to DRM media or any other non compliant software. It's not just disabling the image on the screen. It's locking entire programs! To top it all off, it's at kernel level!

Apple will be doing the same if they want to be able to license the protected content and if MS decides to port the software to XP it'll do the same.

People have a choice whether they want to allow such a thing on their XP or OS 10 systems. With Vista, they do not have a choice.

This is because DRM in general is so draconian that it hurts consumers more than it helps! Remember the Sony Rootkit? DRM has negative effects. It's best to wait awhile before jumping into Vista.

DRM also has positive affects, like any tools it can be used for good or evil.

Name 5 things that make DRM good.
First of all, DRM will not stop piracy. DRM protection will lock honest consumers out of their own product. It also has harmful side-effects in the near future. When the people who place protection on a certain media are all dead and that media is locked, no one will be able to reference that media.

Dude, why don't you admit you don't know WTF you are talking about, STFU and stop spreading FUD.

The sony rootkit has NOTHING to do with Vista DRM. (that is so lame that you said that)
You CAN run vista without DRM hardware (I'm running it right now, retard)
Sure you have a choice with OS X and XP: Use DRM or don't get to watch anything. With Vista you don't get the choice...you DO get to watch anything.
DRM will not lock honest consumers out of their own product, it will lock DIShonest consumers out (you one of those maybe?)

Here is something GOOD about DRM:
I want to be able to watch a movie without going to the video store. I have the bandwidth and the hardware to do this today. There is no technical challenge preventing this. So why can't I? Because every pirate dick out there would gang rape the motion picture association with bootleg copies.

It's infuriating. It's the year 2006 and I can't download movies!

DRM is designed to allow such a thing. Let that sink in.

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Here is something GOOD about DRM:
I want to be able to watch a movie without going to the video store. I have the bandwidth and the hardware to do this today. There is no technical challenge preventing this. So why can't I? Because every pirate dick out there would gang rape the motion picture association with bootleg copies.

It's infuriating. It's the year 2006 and I can't download movies!

DRM is designed to allow such a thing. Let that sink in.

And what happens when you want to transfer that movie to your video iPod or PSP and watch it while you're away from home??
Sorry... this device is not allowed/supported. But for $19.99 you can download the Apple/Sony DRM version of this movie.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: ryan256
I realize this is not just an MS issue. Right now Microsoft is trying to bow to 2 masters. First is the entertainment industry who wants to stop all of us 'pirates' from stealing their content and is forcing these draconian copy protection schemes. Second is users who want to be able to exercise their rights to fair use. MS is caught in the middle and from the sounds of things are shafting the consumers to bow to content providers. How many people here are looking forward to having to spend $400 or more on a new monitor in order to view HD content?? Not me

Blame the producers. MS could simply say no we won't play, and that would simply mean that new HDCP protected content (read HD DVD's) wouldn't be playable on PC's. It's not like if MS says no Hollywood will say nevermind we don't need DRM in place, they really are the ones driving this.

Besides... even this scheme will not stop overseas/professional pirates. They will find a way around it.

Agreed. If you notice the way the system is designed, once 'broken' by rouge software it's based on a revocatoin list. If you don't give away your rouge software it will be around to strip the content after decryption (e.g. image if only a handfull of people overseas had a copy of AnyDVD and simply published the output instead of making it available to all and letting the end users to it)

Bill

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Edit: no luck. Weird. Can you run limited ie under an admin account? Yeah, yeah, I know, I should be running under a limited account.

It ought to work. You're using WinXP Pro, right? WinXP Home doesn't have the /savecred option AFAIK. Have you actually logged on at least once with your Limited account since creating it?

If so, try this: on the desktop screen, right-click and make a New > Shortcut and start by browsing to iexplore.exe, and then tack on runas /user:username_here /savecred[/b] in front of the whole path, which will be in quotes since it contains spaces. Then in the Start In: box, give it the Limited account's directory in Documents and Settings, e.g. C:\Documents and Settings\User.

Yeah I'm running XP Pro SP2.

I hadn't logged into the limited account but it seems I can't. Hangs on 'executing wlnotify.dll'. Oh well, my normal admin account did that the other day and I never did figure out what it was. I just did diagnostic mode and enabled things selectively one by one again. It never froze again. I'm not too worried about it working on my PC, but it's a suggestion nonetheless for people who can get it to work.

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Agreed. If you notice the way the system is designed, once 'broken' by rouge software it's based on a revocatoin list. If you don't give away your rouge software it will be around to strip the content after decryption (e.g. image if only a handfull of people overseas had a copy of AnyDVD and simply published the output instead of making it available to all and letting the end users to it)

Bill

Thats what I'm saying though... they will find a way to crack it and keep selling their bootleg copies. If their software happens to leak it will slow them down all of a week at most. A quick .dll or driver rewrite and they're back in business. Besides... how about simply opening the monitor and tapping into the signal going directly into the CRT tube. Is that also encrypted?? It has to go analog at some point.

 

[bsobel]

Thats what I'm saying though... they will find a way to crack it and keep selling their bootleg copies. If their software happens to leak it will slow them down all of a week at most. A quick .dll or driver rewrite and they're back in business. Besides... how about simply opening the monitor and tapping into the signal going directly into the CRT tube. Is that also encrypted?? It has to go analog at some point.

It will slow down more casual copying and it will cause the bottleneck for those producing ripoffs (harder to bittorrent a new release if it has to come from one of a few folks).

As far the when does it go to analog. There is always a way to get the analog content, but most providers are comfortable with it as its then not a perfect replication. Each next generation loses more information. Thats why copying audio tapes didn't bug them nearly as much as cd's...

 

[bsobel]

And what happens when you want to transfer that movie to your video iPod or PSP and watch it while you're away from home??
Sorry... this device is not allowed/supported. But for $19.99 you can download the Apple/Sony DRM version of this movie.

First, again this isn't a Vista issue. Second, it's our own damm fault. If we (as consumers) didn't but this crap in multiple formats and simply boycot such systems, such systems would be more accomidating. As bad as you can paint Hollywood here, we are enabling them to do this...

 

[Nothinman]

DRM will not lock honest consumers out of their own product, it will lock DIShonest consumers out (you one of those maybe?)

You can't say that for sure, there has already been instances of people ripping their CDs to encrypted WMA and not being able to play their music because they forgot to save their certificate or whatever. And as much as you can blame the user for the loss of their own data, it's still a side affect that a lot of people will complain about. And he's right in that current licensing enforcement schemes only seem to cause problems for the honest people, the other's just use a crack, keygen, etc to get around the protection and don't have anything to worry about. Hell back when I was into the 'scene' I remember laughing because the installers written by the warez release teams was always simpler and more reliable than the ones released by the actual software developers. I don't think I ever had a single problem installing some warez but when I was on our helpdesk doing legal installs for work serial numbers, serials tied to MAC addresses, on-line activation, etc were always a big PITA.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: Smilin


Dude, why don't you admit you don't know WTF you are talking about, STFU and stop spreading FUD.

The sony rootkit has NOTHING to do with Vista DRM. (that is so lame that you said that)
You CAN run vista without DRM hardware (I'm running it right now, retard)
Sure you have a choice with OS X and XP: Use DRM or don't get to watch anything. With Vista you don't get the choice...you DO get to watch anything.
DRM will not lock honest consumers out of their own product, it will lock DIShonest consumers out (you one of those maybe?)

Here is something GOOD about DRM:
I want to be able to watch a movie without going to the video store. I have the bandwidth and the hardware to do this today. There is no technical challenge preventing this. So why can't I? Because every pirate dick out there would gang rape the motion picture association with bootleg copies.

It's infuriating. It's the year 2006 and I can't download movies!

DRM is designed to allow such a thing. Let that sink in.

The SonyRootkit is DRM, buddy. The point (which you seemed to have missed) is that DRM is too draconian right now and it hurts the consumers. Sony's Rootkit is a prime example.

You are running a beta version of Vista. When the final version is released, then the DRM will be applied.

Right now, I can watch whatever I want. I don't have to worry about DRM protection. So, thank you very much, sir.

DRM WILL lock ANYBODY out. This includes the honest consumer...


You can't download movies? That's hard to believe considering that I can. That reason you made for DRM being good made no sense and made you look awfully confused. Are you even old enough to know what you're talking about?

 

[bsobel]

Right now, I can watch whatever I want. I don't have to worry about DRM protection. So, thank you very much, sir.

More lies. Look, there is no HDCP protected content out there, so of course your not worried about it.

You can't download movies? That's hard to believe considering that I can. That reason you made for DRM being good made no sense and made you look awfully confused. Are you even old enough to know what you're talking about?

Where are you downloading hidef videos from that are actually Hollywood releases. Since no studio is shipping in that format, I can't wait to here your explanation.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
The SonyRootkit is DRM, buddy. The point (which you seemed to have missed) is that DRM is too draconian right now and it hurts the consumers. Sony's Rootkit is a prime example.

Actually I let this slide earlier but I'm going to call you on it now. The SonyRootkit is not actually a rootkit from sony. The DRM they installed had a vulnerability that allowed others to install a rootkit. I didn't miss your point, it's just that you are wrong. The lack of DRM is what is hurting the HONEST consumer right now.

You are running a beta version of Vista. When the final version is released, then the DRM will be applied.

Right now, I can watch whatever I want. I don't have to worry about DRM protection. So, thank you very much, sir.

DRM WILL lock ANYBODY out. This includes the honest consumer...

Lock anybody out FROM WHAT? Oh yea, playing content that they have not paid for. Maybe you think video stores should get rid of the cash register and theft detection systems at the door and just let you view what you want without paying?

You seem to be slightly altering your argument here. You previously said, "You will also need a new monitor to run Vista; a monitor that supports HDCP support. If you don't, then you cannot view Vista pass 640 x 480" Which is a complete lie. You also said, "You won't be able to run programs or drivers unless they are microsoft certified" which is also a complete lie. You are blatantly attacking MS with a bunch of BS you've made up. You provided a couple linked articles which at best if read properly don't even support your argument and at worst quote misinformation themselves (The Inquirer as a source???) Have you even run Vista?

You can't download movies? That's hard to believe considering that I can. That reason you made for DRM being good made no sense and made you look awfully confused. Are you even old enough to know what you're talking about?

First, making some veiled insinuation that I'm young and ignorant is not only wrong but belays the weakness of your argument. Stand on your facts boy.

Second, where are you downloading your movies from? Paying for them are you? I didn't think so. YOU are the reason for DRM moron. You gripe about the hassles that may come with it when you are causing it yourself. If we could get rid of criminals like you we wouldn't need it at all. Since you won't be going away anytime soon, I welcome DRM as a means to give content producers a way to protect their very sizeable investment and allow me access to their product. It's better than the other two options: 1) Don't own it. 2) Steal it like some petty little child that wants a candy bar when mom told him no.

 

[bsobel]

Actually I let this slide earlier but I'm going to call you on it now. The SonyRootkit is not actually a rootkit from sony. The DRM they installed had a vulnerability that allowed others to install a rootkit.

Errr... Smilin, I'm afraid of all the original posters comments he was actually right on this one (well kindof). The Sony drm scheme did include a rootkit type driver to hide the fact that it was installed. The issue was other malware could take advantage of the stealthing the rootkit provided and thereby by hidden also. Sony didn't actually develop the software, the licensed it from FirstForInternet a UK firm that does DRM, image detection and other control software.

All of his other points, obviously, are false.

 

[Smilin]

They just put a driver (filter driver if I remember) in startup that was masked and also had a vulnerability. The fact that it was masked was the thing that made it sinister. Most rootkits do the same thing but this wasn't an actual rootkit for the remote control of a machine. The vulnerability in the driver allowed a kit to be installed after the fact AFAIK.

http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html



The original poster was implying that Vista and the sony rootkit are somehow related which is a complete load of crap. Sony was doing something they should not have been doing and it wouldn't matter if they were doing it for DRM or world peace. Don't drag MS into this.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: hooflung

Originally posted by: spyordie007

IE7 feels like a skinned rip of Firefox

Are you kidding? One of the best features about IE 7 under vista is protected mode (where IE runs as a low-privilaged process); this is a big step-forward in security. Firefox doesnt have anything like it.

Wow you mean people without MSDN will have to pay for a feature that should have been hotfixed? I mean if Microsoft thinks they should charge for a GUI improvement with a fixed browser I think I am going to start selling goats as midget llamas and damn what the DoJ thinks about it.

I have MSDN and I have Vista Beta. Its nothing special. I am surprised I like .NET 2.0 as much as I do and the new Visual Studio.NET and SQL Server 2003. They can and should keep Vista Pricing low because its nothing special and I would hardly call it a new version of windows. Then again I hardly call XP a new version either. Last real version of Windows imo is 2000 PRO and before that... Dos 6.0/WfWG3.11 and NT 3.1.

What are you talking about? Protected mode is a vista-only feature of IE7 (XP cant do it because it doesnt have UAP). I never said anything about MSDN.

Someone in here mentioned just running IE with a runas under a limited user account in XP (which you could do) but that's not quite the same thing.

Besides, you forget NT4!

Never said you could run ie7 in protected mode. It was in something i quoted.

And NT 4.0 was hardly a new OS. It was NT 3.51 with a gui service back and slightly better driver api.

Hardly something to write home about. In fact the biggest features sets to any MS OS to subplant its predecessor is driver support and GUI enhancements. 2000 was substantial differential from 3.51/4.0. Windows ME was nothing more than a bad attempt to copy the GUI of 2000 on the 98 engine. XP is nothing more than a rehash of 2000 with a bit better driver model that is *almost* identical and a GUI update ( which I run in Classic Mode ).

Vista is changing the driver rules again but it's just to add support for emerging consumer technologies, not read as NEW technologies, such as EFI, DFI and to solidify .NET as the glue of choice.

Personally, I don't have a problem with DRM as long as it doesn't become a police state and patriot act proof of concept. I think DRM is pointless for what it is being touted as [anti-piracy] and there is little rebuttle anyone can logically conclude any otherwise. Yes, I just dismissed the DRM advocates from this thread have a nice day and don't let the door hit you on the way out. However, I don't think DRM technology should be labeled as inherently evil since it can have its ueses.

 

[spyordie007]

I dont think there are any "DRM Advocates" here; just that some of us (like yourself) realize that there are good ways to go about using it as well as bad.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
I dont think there are any "DRM Advocates" here; just that some of us (like yourself) realize that there are good ways to go about using it as well as bad.

My statement encumbers the possibility of future DRM advocates that might chime in. And all around MS fans who will cling on to any technology they emerge to the public as a touted feature.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
The SonyRootkit is DRM, buddy. The point (which you seemed to have missed) is that DRM is too draconian right now and it hurts the consumers. Sony's Rootkit is a prime example.

Actually I let this slide earlier but I'm going to call you on it now. The SonyRootkit is not actually a rootkit from sony. The DRM they installed had a vulnerability that allowed others to install a rootkit. I didn't miss your point, it's just that you are wrong. The lack of DRM is what is hurting the HONEST consumer right now.

You are running a beta version of Vista. When the final version is released, then the DRM will be applied.

Right now, I can watch whatever I want. I don't have to worry about DRM protection. So, thank you very much, sir.

DRM WILL lock ANYBODY out. This includes the honest consumer...

Lock anybody out FROM WHAT? Oh yea, playing content that they have not paid for. Maybe you think video stores should get rid of the cash register and theft detection systems at the door and just let you view what you want without paying?

You don't appear to realize exactly what DRM protection is for, do you?
It prevents the illegal distribution of a given product by locking certain features. A nice feature would be the ability to copy media. So, what methods could a person use to prevent a person from copying their media? Use encryption? So far, it gets cracked easily by pirates. Ok, how about another method? How about kernel lock on applications that aren't certified to play the media and be compliant with a monitor that can decode certain encryption algorithms? HEY good idea! Now, everyone who wants to watch this media will need to buy the special equipment to watch it! Oh, what if they can't afford it? Hey, screw 'em. If they don't want to pay, then they won't watch.

Meanwhile, Mr or Ms Average Customer comes along and says, "Hey! Why should I buy a whole new peice of equipment that can't even compete with what I already have just to watch HD-DVDs?"

And I say unto that customer... Good question... Very good question indeed.

You seem to be slightly altering your argument here. You previously said, "You will also need a new monitor to run Vista; a monitor that supports HDCP support. If you don't, then you cannot view Vista pass 640 x 480" Which is a complete lie. You also said, "You won't be able to run programs or drivers unless they are microsoft certified" which is also a complete lie. You are blatantly attacking MS with a bunch of BS you've made up. You provided a couple linked articles which at best if read properly don't even support your argument and at worst quote misinformation themselves (The Inquirer as a source???) Have you even run Vista?

Quit being so blind and read the facts.

1) Yes, you do need a monitor that supports HDCP to view HD content.

2) You won't be able to run certain multimedia programs due to internel kernel locking mechanisms. If you can't prove me wrong, then why call it a lie.

Oh, and I gave links and you didn't. Right now, you're just babbling. And if you can't find the connection between what I'm saying and the links that I've provided, then you have a serious reading problem, my friend.

You can't download movies? That's hard to believe considering that I can. That reason you made for DRM being good made no sense and made you look awfully confused. Are you even old enough to know what you're talking about?

First, making some veiled insinuation that I'm young and ignorant is not only wrong but belays the weakness of your argument. Stand on your facts boy.

Second, where are you downloading your movies from? Paying for them are you? I didn't think so. YOU are the reason for DRM moron. You gripe about the hassles that may come with it when you are causing it yourself. If we could get rid of criminals like you we wouldn't need it at all. Since you won't be going away anytime soon, I welcome DRM as a means to give content producers a way to protect their very sizeable investment and allow me access to their product. It's better than the other two options: 1) Don't own it. 2) Steal it like some petty little child that wants a candy bar when mom told him no.

The reason for DRM? Ha! Just because I download it, doesn't make me a criminal. Besides, I haven't downloaded any movies within the last 2 years. The people who are putting the movies up for download are the criminals. Maybe you should get your facts straight.

If you must know, the invention of the DVD and CD burners called complications. If I were to take a CD and ripthe music to my iPod, would I be stealing the music? DRM protection wants to stop people like us (including you) from ripping music. There is no way for the CD to know who's ripping it. Why do you think the music companys have been trying to target iPods and their users? Well, Duh?!

People like you make me sick. You obviously only think in 2 dimensions. You need to see the wider picture. DRM won't stop piracy. You tend to think so. Well, I'll tell ya what. You go and buy a HDCP compliant monitor and watch your HD content. I'll use my ordinary LCD and watch ordinary DVDs until the standard becomes HD. Thank you very much, sir.

 

[RegisteredJack]

The poll is now a dead heat between the "Want Vista" and "Stick with XP" camps.

50-50

 

[spyordie007]

Meanwhile, Mr or Ms Average Customer comes along and says, "Hey! Why should I buy a whole new peice of equipment that can't even compete with what I already have just to watch HD-DVDs?"

Unfortunetly Mr or Ms Average Consumer will still buy the new computer (Microsoft, Apple or otherwise) that has HD-DVD/HDCP capabilities because they want the HD content (consumers rarely ever care about the technical means by which they are getting limited).

you do need a monitor that supports HDCP to view HD content.

No point arguing this, as far as I can tell everyone here agrees with this techincally correct statement.

You won't be able to run certain multimedia programs due to internel kernel locking mechanisms. If you can't prove me wrong, then why call it a lie.

Again you are correct; if you want to have access to the latest HD content you will only be watching it on a system that the content providers have given their blessing to. Once again this is not a Microsoft issue, every platform has to deal with this.

The people who are putting the movies up for download are the criminals. Maybe you should get your facts straight.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the laws are written so that both the distributor and the consumer are required to "follow the rules." Knowingly consuming illegal content is still illegal (just like knowingly buying a stolen car radio). It's not just the disributor (the one hosting it) that is liable.

People like you make me sick. You obviously only think in 2 dimensions. You need to see the wider picture. DRM won't stop piracy. You tend to think so. Well, I'll tell ya what. You go and buy a HDCP compliant monitor and watch your HD content. I'll use my ordinary LCD and watch ordinary DVDs until the standard becomes HD. Thank you very much, sir.

Again I dont think there is an argument here. Everyone here agrees that DRM will not stop piracy (and they would be pretty nieve to think otherwise).

Under Vista you will continue to be able to use your "old" content the same way you've been doing it right now. It's only when you want access to the restricted stuff that anything will be differant; and again your, my, microsoft, apple's hands are all tied so long as we want to be able to watch the HD content. If you dont like it avoid the HD content.