Windows Longhorn Beta

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
WinFS was dropped from Vista, but you can download a separate beta for it that can be used on XP. It it pretty neat.

Is it a free download?

 

[Quinton McLeod]

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.

How can I be lying if I just sat there and gave you 2 (count'em) references from very creditable sources? Maybe you should click on those links.

 

[bsobel]

How can I be lying if I just sat there and gave you 2 (count'em) references from very creditable sources? Maybe you should click on those links.

Ok newbie, let's got thru your post.

You won't be able to run programs or drivers unless they are microsoft certified.

HCL testing for drivers exists today in XP, it will continue in Vista. You, as in XP, have the option to install unsigned drivers. You also, as in XP have the option to only allow signed drivers to load.

As for applications, as in XP you can control applications by hash, digital signature, path and other options.

Your comment suggests that there are new restrictions in Vista which do not exist in XP. Your comment is false.

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:

Apprently you are incapable of reading the very links you provided. You require a HDCP compliant monitor to view HDCP protected content in Vista. Your post suggests, incorrectly, that you simply can not have a Vista desktop with more than 640x480. The articles YOU linked to very clearly state this, they even say clearly that you can view current DRM protected hidef content but new HDCP conent is where the issue will be.

Here's a news flash for you. Linux and Apple have the same issue dealing with HDCP protected content. As does Windows XP. In fact, it's unlikely that XP will ever be able to view such content. This isn't an MS issue, this is an HDCP issue. MS simply won't be able to decode the content if they don't work with the HDCP standards group. Blame hollywood for this one, not MS.

So, two statements, both false. That is how you can be lying (to be fair, I didn't say YOU were lying, just that you were repeating other peoples lies).

Bill

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: daniel1113
WinFS was dropped from Vista, but you can download a separate beta for it that can be used on XP. It it pretty neat.

Is it a free download?

It was a while back for MSDN subscribers.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: bsobel

How can I be lying if I just sat there and gave you 2 (count'em) references from very creditable sources? Maybe you should click on those links.

Ok newbie, let's got thru your post.

You won't be able to run programs or drivers unless they are microsoft certified.

HCL testing for drivers exists today in XP, it will continue in Vista. You, as in XP, have the option to install unsigned drivers. You also, as in XP have the option to only allow signed drivers to load.

As for applications, as in XP you can control applications by hash, digital signature, path and other options.

Your comment suggests that there are new restrictions in Vista which do not exist in XP. Your comment is false.

You can't use Windows XP to talk about Vista. We aren't talking about XP. So, don't prove a point by comparison. Look at hard core facts!
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003806.php#003806

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:

Apprently you are incapable of reading the very links you provided. You require a HDCP compliant monitor to view HDCP protected content in Vista. Your post suggests, incorrectly, that you simply can not have a Vista desktop with more than 640x480. The articles YOU linked to very clearly state this, they even say clearly that you can view current DRM protected hidef content but new HDCP conent is where the issue will be.

Here's a news flash for you. Linux and Apple have the same issue dealing with HDCP protected content. As does Windows XP. In fact, it's unlikely that XP will ever be able to view such content. This isn't an MS issue, this is an HDCP issue. MS simply won't be able to decode the content if they don't work with the HDCP standards group. Blame hollywood for this one, not MS.

So, two statements, both false. That is how you can be lying (to be fair, I didn't say YOU were lying, just that you were repeating other peoples lies).

Bill

This is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Digitally protected media. And if you don't have an HDCP compliant monitor, you WILL see the message.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/14/the-clicker-microsofts-opm-for-the-masses/

Thank you very much and have a nice day

 

[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.

If that doesn't work, I'd be curious to hear what exactly happens.

This is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Digitally protected media. And if you don't have an HDCP compliant monitor, you WILL see the message.

So explain again how this is a reason to stay away from Vista, instead of a reason to stay away from non-HDCP-compatible monitors.

Drivers needing to be certified might be a smart move. I noticed in the SlashDot interview that kernel-level drivers will need to be certified on the 64-bit version of Vista, making it a tough row to hoe for rootkit makers (Bill, comments?). I'm not sure how you can say that programs can't run without being Microsoft-certified... got any evidence to support that? Because I'm sure the beta-testing people would've said "OMG teh noes, ______ won't run!!!" (insert name of favorite program), if that were the case

 

[Nothinman]

This is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Digitally protected media. And if you don't have an HDCP compliant monitor, you WILL see the message.

Then say what you mean. You said "If you don't, then you cannot view Vista pass 640 x 480." which means you think that you won't be able to run Vista itself at a higher resolution than 640x480 without a HDCP monitor, which is plain false. And the DRM will also be required on XP if you want to watch the protected media, if you don't have it you'll still get the low res stuff so ignoring Vista won't buy you anything.

 

[bsobel]

This is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Digitally protected media. And if you don't have an HDCP compliant monitor, you WILL see the message.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/14/the-clicker-microsofts-opm-for-the-masses/
Thank you very much and have a nice day

Once again you point out a link that shows that you are wrong in suggesting this is in any way a Vista issue.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: bsobel

This is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Digitally protected media. And if you don't have an HDCP compliant monitor, you WILL see the message.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/14/the-clicker-microsofts-opm-for-the-masses/
Thank you very much and have a nice day

Once again you point out a link that shows that you are wrong in suggesting this is in any way a Vista issue.

Proof please?

 

[spherrod]

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.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: bsobel

This is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Digitally protected media. And if you don't have an HDCP compliant monitor, you WILL see the message.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/14/the-clicker-microsofts-opm-for-the-masses/
Thank you very much and have a nice day

Once again you point out a link that shows that you are wrong in suggesting this is in any way a Vista issue.

Proof please?

From your own link:

To be fair ? it?s not just Microsoft. The next generation of digital content will, by and large, be protected to the display. Recently Toshiba released their HD-DVD specifications and have dictated HDMI/HDCP as a display requirement for playing back high-definition content. Most expect Blu-ray to have similar restrictions.

just be careful when buying a monitor these days.

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

This is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Digitally protected media. And if you don't have an HDCP compliant monitor, you WILL see the message.

Then say what you mean. You said "If you don't, then you cannot view Vista pass 640 x 480." which means you think that you won't be able to run Vista itself at a higher resolution than 640x480 without a HDCP monitor, which is plain false. And the DRM will also be required on XP if you want to watch the protected media, if you don't have it you'll still get the low res stuff so ignoring Vista won't buy you anything.

And this is one of the reasons I will NOT be upgrading to Vista when it comes out. After spending $900 on my nice new Dell 24" widescreen LCD (which is not HDCP compliant) I would be quite pissed to have my OS decide I can't watch content on it. Even people who have plunked down $2600+ for their Apple 30" Cinema display to use on their PCs are SOL. At least XP (right now) does not support hardware disabling based on HDCP.

 

[stash]

At least XP (right now) does not support hardware disabling based on HDCP.

It also doesn't support watching protected media, which Nothinman said. So what is your point, exactly?

 

[bsobel]

And this is one of the reasons I will NOT be upgrading to Vista when it comes out. After spending $900 on my nice new Dell 24" widescreen LCD (which is not HDCP compliant) I would be quite pissed to have my OS decide I can't watch content on it. Even people who have plunked down $2600+ for their Apple 30" Cinema display to use on their PCs are SOL. At least XP (right now) does not support hardware disabling based on HDCP.

More misinformation. Ryan, this is NOT a Vista issue. MS needs to provide a player to play HDCP protected media. They will not be able to do so if the display and audio paths are not secure. This isn't there decision, it's how the people that created HDCP are dictating it must work.

You can NOT play HDCP protected content on Windows 2000, Windows XP, on Linux, and currently on a MAC.

People like the tool up in the thread that started this are somehow suggesting you can do this today but won't be able to do it under Vista. The reverse is true, you can not do this today (at all) but under Vista you may be able to if you have a secure path from the media to the display (my thoughts on the HDCP group are a seperate thread, I like them as much as the RIAA) but none the less this is NOT a Vista issue.

Bill

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: bsobel

This is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Digitally protected media. And if you don't have an HDCP compliant monitor, you WILL see the message.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/14/the-clicker-microsofts-opm-for-the-masses/
Thank you very much and have a nice day

Once again you point out a link that shows that you are wrong in suggesting this is in any way a Vista issue.

Proof please?

Your inability read and reason is astounding. First, from one of the articles you posted:

"It's important to note that OCMP compliant hardware is not required to run Windows Vista. Certified hardware and drivers will be required to play protected content only. For the foreseeable future, this will encompass HD DVD, video and possibly audio. Users that do not intend to access these media types on their home PC will be unaffected by Vista's DRM features."

From arstechnica:

"Where does that leave Microsoft? It leaves Microsoft in the same place it leaves everyone else in the consumer electronics industry. The company, which as you may know includes a Media Center amongst its products, obviously wants to be able to support the playback of true HD content, and this means that they have to support HDCP (and they will, across their entire OS line). Or, let me phrase this in another, more contentious way: if you think Apple is going to turn down HDCP despite being DRM advocates themselves (Hello, FairPlay!), with the result being that it will be impossible to view new content in full HD on Apple hardware, then you're kidding yourself. DRM in this context is unacceptable, in my opinion, but the studios (so far) are entitled to license their content however they want, and anyone who wants in the game will have to follow suit. This is the equilibrium that exists in the market today, and barring legislation to the contrary, it's going to stay that way. "

and

"Apple will be on board too, possibly with the release of Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5). Tiger saw the light of day in April, and with the company intending to release Leopard around the same time as Vista, that means that we'll be seeing HDCP support on the Mac (powered by Intel!) probably around the same time as the release of Windows Vista. And until then, we'll all be scratching our heads as to how our Linux friends will solve this quandary, because HDCP has to be commercially licensed. Well, that is unless DVD Jon swoops in again, but cracking BDA's discs won't be as simple as cracking CSS."

So, how about you go google for 'hdcp linux' or 'hdcp apple' and learn a bit more before posting more misinformation?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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!

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: bsobel

This is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Digitally protected media. And if you don't have an HDCP compliant monitor, you WILL see the message.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/14/the-clicker-microsofts-opm-for-the-masses/
Thank you very much and have a nice day

Once again you point out a link that shows that you are wrong in suggesting this is in any way a Vista issue.

Proof please?

From your own link:

To be fair ? it?s not just Microsoft. The next generation of digital content will, by and large, be protected to the display. Recently Toshiba released their HD-DVD specifications and have dictated HDMI/HDCP as a display requirement for playing back high-definition content. Most expect Blu-ray to have similar restrictions.

just be careful when buying a monitor these days.

Of course it's not just Microsoft. But this doesn't suggest that Apple's OS 10 nor any Linux distributions will support DRM protection. It doesn't even hint XP. So, you cannot use this quote as a way to prove yourself right, because it doesn't even say a word of what you were just trying to prove.

 

[spyordie007]

Of course it's not just Microsoft. But this doesn't suggest that Apple's OS 10 nor any Linux distributions will support DRM protection. It doesn't even hint XP. So, you cannot use this quote as a way to prove yourself right, because it doesn't even say a word of what you were just trying to prove.

It proves that this is not a case of Microsoft using Vista to control your life with their evil DRM.

If you want to troll with useless or incorrect information go visit off topic.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: bsobel

This is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Digitally protected media. And if you don't have an HDCP compliant monitor, you WILL see the message.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/14/the-clicker-microsofts-opm-for-the-masses/
Thank you very much and have a nice day

Once again you point out a link that shows that you are wrong in suggesting this is in any way a Vista issue.

Proof please?

Your inability read and reason is astounding. First, from one of the articles you posted:

"It's important to note that OCMP compliant hardware is not required to run Windows Vista. Certified hardware and drivers will be required to play protected content only. For the foreseeable future, this will encompass HD DVD, video and possibly audio. Users that do not intend to access these media types on their home PC will be unaffected by Vista's DRM features."

From arstechnica:

"Where does that leave Microsoft? It leaves Microsoft in the same place it leaves everyone else in the consumer electronics industry. The company, which as you may know includes a Media Center amongst its products, obviously wants to be able to support the playback of true HD content, and this means that they have to support HDCP (and they will, across their entire OS line). Or, let me phrase this in another, more contentious way: if you think Apple is going to turn down HDCP despite being DRM advocates themselves (Hello, FairPlay!), with the result being that it will be impossible to view new content in full HD on Apple hardware, then you're kidding yourself. DRM in this context is unacceptable, in my opinion, but the studios (so far) are entitled to license their content however they want, and anyone who wants in the game will have to follow suit. This is the equilibrium that exists in the market today, and barring legislation to the contrary, it's going to stay that way. "

Funny as to how you missed this bit of information...

In the near future, when you try to install software to time-shift your favorite Real Audio webcast, your PC might disable all media player applications. Until you remove the software, your PC will remain crippled. Or perhaps you want to watch a downloaded movie on a wide-screen TV, but your PC might turn off its video card's analog output.

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!

and

"Apple will be on board too, possibly with the release of Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5). Tiger saw the light of day in April, and with the company intending to release Leopard around the same time as Vista, that means that we'll be seeing HDCP support on the Mac (powered by Intel!) probably around the same time as the release of Windows Vista. And until then, we'll all be scratching our heads as to how our Linux friends will solve this quandary, because HDCP has to be commercially licensed. Well, that is unless DVD Jon swoops in again, but cracking BDA's discs won't be as simple as cracking CSS."

So, how about you go google for 'hdcp linux' or 'hdcp apple' and learn a bit more before posting more misinformation?

Alright, so I retract my statement about Apple from previous posts. However,
that doesn't mean that people have to like it. You're trying to make it sound like it's not that bad. However, none of these articles state what resolution the constrictors will set the resolution for these HD movies. It could very well be below the DVD standard (which sucks!).

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Of course it's not just Microsoft. But this doesn't suggest that Apple's OS 10 nor any Linux distributions will support DRM protection. It doesn't even hint XP. So, you cannot use this quote as a way to prove yourself right, because it doesn't even say a word of what you were just trying to prove.

It proves that this is not a case of Microsoft using Vista to control your life with their evil DRM.

If you want to troll with useless or incorrect information go visit off topic.

Trolling? I'll tell you what, Mr. "I've Posted 4000+ times on this message forum and you didn't so therefore you're a troll", I never said Vista is controlling anyone's life. No one even suggested that. I'm saying to stay away from it for at least 6 months to a year. 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.

 

[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.

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.