windows vista and which version you will get

[sonoma1993]

When Windows Vista comes out late next year, what version are you planning on getting?

 

[Matthias99]

Has MS even announced what the official versions/pricepoints will be, or given a firm release date? I know they're planning a new MCE, but that's about it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

I'm not. At least for a while.

 

[sonoma1993]

Someone awhile back posted a thread about 7 diffrent versions of Windows Vista that coming out.

 

[wexsmith]

I'll use whatever torrent completes first!

No, no...I'm just kidding. I haven't seen any "official" list, but I'll most likely use whichever version is the most media center centric. Does that make any sense? Right now I'm using MCE2005 on two of my PC's, one acting as a media center extender, more or less. If Vista allows me to really spread media through my network easily I might be interested in installing it on the rest of my computers.

 

[Doh!]

Unless I have to use Vista, I'm sticking w/ XP (x64 when the drivers mature) and several linux distros.

 

[ValuedCustomer]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I'm not. At least for a while.

Same here.. I'll satisfy my curiosity w/ freind's machines and at work but it's not gonna come near my machines till at least the first service-pack release. And even then I'll be hard pressed to make the migration simply b/c there's really not a whole lot I'm currently disatisfied w/ in regards to XP and/or 2000.

 

[Brazen]

I'll hopefully be completely switched to Linux by then. I'm just having a little trouble getting MythTV to work.

 

[doornail]

I'd pay for a no-IE, no-Outlook, no-Media Player, no-DRM, no-WPA version but I doubt they'll sell me one.

So none, really.

 

[PingSpike]

None. I've yet to see any compelling benefits to upgrading.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: doornail
I'd pay for a no-IE, no-Outlook, no-Media Player, no-DRM, no-WPA version but I doubt they'll sell me one.

So none, really.

:disgust:

Nobody forces you to use IE, Outlook, or WMP. And unless they bundle a competing browser with the OS, they pretty much *have* to include IE in any desktop OS version. Some people would probably like to not have to install Outlook Express or WMP in the first place, but this is a small minority of users. And for all you know, there will be an option to not install them.

DRM support is better than no DRM support; again, you don't have to buy/use any DRM-protected content if you don't want to. Bashing MS for supporting industry DRM standards is a pretty weak complaint.

WPA is slightly annoying... if you change your hardware or reinstall Windows once a week. It's unrealistic to expect MS to not have any sort of anti-piracy features, and just having a locally validated CD-key isn't cutting it anymore for them.

I agree that so far, it basically looks like a shinier version of WinXP. There are rumors that the new Media Center version will allow some form of CableCard support for timeshifting digital cable, but that's about the only really interesting new feature I've heard about (and it might end up being horribly crippled by DRM restrictions anyway). They're going to need to offer more than a shiny new GUI to entice most people to upgrade right away.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Whichever version I can get cheaply through my university.

 

[Canterwood]

I wont buy any version that requires activation.

Maybe I'll get a VLK version through work to play with though.

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

:disgust:

That's almost too obnoxious to respond to. Let me see:

😛ity;

Nobody forces you to use IE, Outlook, or WMP. And unless they bundle a competing browser with the OS, they pretty much *have* to include IE in any desktop OS version. Some people would probably like to not have to install Outlook Express or WMP in the first place, but this is a small minority of users. And for all you know, there will be an option to not install them.

If you think Vista wont require IE and Media Player you're fooling yourself. Microsoft is profit driven, which means you should think long and hard at why they dropped millions developing IE, Outlook, and Media Player just to hand them out for free. They fully expect to generate revenue here, either by destroying competition or leading consumers down carefully designed paths -- and where does this revenue come from?

It comes from you.

DRM support is better than no DRM support; again, you don't have to buy/use any DRM-protected content if you don't want to. Bashing MS for supporting industry DRM standards is a pretty weak complaint.

No-DRM is a million times better. Without DRM playback devices, media companies had to chose between not making a profit or giving us ... (drumroll) ... uncrippled media that we'll actually like. DRM support is anti-consumer. Consumer who defend DRM are idiots. If you think it's about piracy, you're again kidding yourself. It's the new and exciting way to shrink your purchasing options and destroy competition from secondary markets.

Ever buy a used book?

WPA is slightly annoying... if you change your hardware or reinstall Windows once a week. It's unrealistic to expect MS to not have any sort of anti-piracy features, and just having a locally validated CD-key isn't cutting it anymore for them.

Why is it unrealistic? DOS 1.0 through Windows 2000 didn't have it, and yet, Microsoft grabbed 97% of the desktop market and made billions. Windows XP has it, and yet, you can pull all the free XP you want off pirate sites. Did you buy Windows because you couldn't steal it? No, you bought it because you, like all of us customers, were happy to pay for it honestly. Again, it's all about control. Just another step on the road towards consumer lock in. Tell me, do you think WPA is the end? Or will they roll out something slightly more invaisive -- most likely tieing it into WMA for user and machine personalized DRM.

 

[Zebo]

The windows 2000 version.. seriously I see no need to upgrade to XP let alone vista..

 

[ValuedCustomer]

Originally posted by: doornail

Originally posted by: Matthias99

:disgust:

That's almost too obnoxious to respond to. Let me see:

😛ity;

Nobody forces you to use IE, Outlook, or WMP. And unless they bundle a competing browser with the OS, they pretty much *have* to include IE in any desktop OS version. Some people would probably like to not have to install Outlook Express or WMP in the first place, but this is a small minority of users. And for all you know, there will be an option to not install them.

If you think Vista wont require IE and Media Player you're fooling yourself. Microsoft is profit driven, which means you should think long and hard at why they dropped millions developing IE, Outlook, and Media Player just to hand them out for free. They fully expect to generate revenue here, either by destroying competition or leading consumers down carefully designed paths -- and where does this revenue come from?

It comes from you.

"free"? That's like saying hey buy this car for $30,000 and get FREE rearview mirrors!. - IE, OutlookExpress, WMP etc aren't "free", they're included in the price of the OS. Don't like 'em? Don't use 'em. It's a free country. (no pun intended)

and the "destroying competition or leading consumers down carefully designed paths" stuff sounds strangely like capitalism mixed w/ a healthy dose of marketing.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: doornail

Nobody forces you to use IE, Outlook, or WMP. And unless they bundle a competing browser with the OS, they pretty much *have* to include IE in any desktop OS version. Some people would probably like to not have to install Outlook Express or WMP in the first place, but this is a small minority of users. And for all you know, there will be an option to not install them.

If you think Vista wont require IE and Media Player you're fooling yourself. Microsoft is profit driven, which means you should think long and hard at why they dropped millions developing IE, Outlook, and Media Player just to hand them out for free. They fully expect to generate revenue here, either by destroying competition or leading consumers down carefully designed paths -- and where does this revenue come from?

It comes from you.

Again, I reiterate my comment that nobody is forcing you to use IE, Outlook, or WMP. They can't ship an OS with no web browser, and many people would complain if it didn't have an email client or media player bundled with it. These are value-adds for most of the users of the OS.

DRM support is better than no DRM support; again, you don't have to buy/use any DRM-protected content if you don't want to. Bashing MS for supporting industry DRM standards is a pretty weak complaint.

No-DRM is a million times better. Without DRM playback devices, media companies had to chose between not making a profit or giving us ... (drumroll) ... uncrippled media that we'll actually like. DRM support is anti-consumer. Consumer who defend DRM are idiots. If you think it's about piracy, you're again kidding yourself. It's the new and exciting way to shrink your purchasing options and destroy competition from secondary markets.

Again, I reiterate that nobody is forcing you to use or purchase DRM-protected content. Thinking that MS not supporting DRM will make it go away is, at best, misguided and unrealistic. Would I be happier of there was no DRM? Sure. But telling content providers to suck it up and deal with widespread digital piracy is not a realistic attitude.

If a particular DRM implementation is unacceptably restrictive, enough people will refuse to support it that the content providers will be forced to abandon it or change the restrictions. Especially if there is any sort of alternative available (see, for example, the DIVX movie format that came out about the same time as DVD).

Ever buy a used book?

Yes, but I also don't buy a used book, photocopy/scan every page out of it, and then resell it.

WPA is slightly annoying... if you change your hardware or reinstall Windows once a week. It's unrealistic to expect MS to not have any sort of anti-piracy features, and just having a locally validated CD-key isn't cutting it anymore for them.

Why is it unrealistic? DOS 1.0 through Windows 2000 didn't have it, and yet, Microsoft grabbed 97% of the desktop market and made billions.

I would argue that they did a lot of that *in spite of* widespread piracy of their various OSes, and largely due to anticompetitive/monopolistic business tactics once they had enough of a foothold. If they weren't making buckets of money from strongarming OEM PC makers into submission, it might have had more of an impact on them.

Windows XP has it, and yet, you can pull all the free XP you want off pirate sites.

True, but it prevents a lot of the 'casual piracy' that was quite prevalent in the Win95/98 days (such as buying one copy and installing it on multiple computers in your house). The average user is more likely to do something like that then to actively go online and look for pirated software, and product activation makes this difficult (or at least much more of a hassle).

Pirated versions of Windows also have trouble getting non-critical updates now, and I'm sure things like that will become more prevalent in future versions of the OS.

Did you buy Windows because you couldn't steal it? No, you bought it because you, like all of us customers, were happy to pay for it honestly.

If everyone was happy to pay for it honestly, there would be no software piracy, and hence no need for something like WPA.

Again, it's all about control. Just another step on the road towards consumer lock in. Tell me, do you think WPA is the end? Or will they roll out something slightly more invaisive -- most likely tieing it into WMA for user and machine personalized DRM.

Ah, yes. The 'invetiable doom' argument. Buy an OS that has online validation, next thing you know you won't be able to sneeze near your PC without Bill's approval.

I am certain they will make their systems harder to get around. If/when something like TPM is widespread, it will probably make use of that as well. If they step on people's toes too much, they'll get consumer backlash and have to reconsider.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
Whichever version I can get cheaply through my university.

:thumbsup:

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
When Windows Vista comes out late next year, what version are you planning on getting?

Why, the Ultra-Extreme Mondo-Cool XXX HyperDrive edition, of course. (*)

(*) For all I know, that really could be one of MS's new and highly-varied SKUs for the OS.


And for the MS purists, the Stick-a-fork-in-it Linux You Are All Done For Edition.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: doornail
I'd pay for a no-IE, no-Outlook, no-Media Player, no-DRM, no-WPA version but I doubt they'll sell me one.
So none, really.

:disgust:

Nobody forces you to use IE, Outlook, or WMP.

But MS still forces you to pay for them. That's the point. They aren't really "free".

DRM support is better than no DRM support; again, you don't have to buy/use any DRM-protected content if you don't want to. Bashing MS for supporting industry DRM standards is a pretty weak complaint.

Digital handcuffs pre-installed is better than having no handcuffs attached at all? Are you serious???

I agree that so far, it basically looks like a shinier version of WinXP. (...) They're going to need to offer more than a shiny new GUI to entice most people to upgrade right away.

XP being mostly just a "shinier version of W2K", etc., hence why so many people have elected to stick with W2K still.

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
If everyone was happy to pay for it honestly, there would be no software piracy, and hence no need for something like WPA.

That's where your argument completely collapses. You say we need WPA to stop piracy, but if WPA ended piracy, the evidence would have be Microsoft's quarterly earnings shooting into the stratosphere the last five years -- but they didn't. They cruised along within a few points of what analysts expected. Yet they continue to invest time and money into building the WPA validation machine. A system that doesn't make them money and alienates customers (and before you claim that it's painless check out the hundreds of threads in this very forum about people wrestling with WPA).

So why do it?

Seriously, step back and think about it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: doornail
DRM support is anti-consumer. Consumer who defend DRM are idiots. If you think it's about piracy, you're again kidding yourself. It's the new and exciting way to shrink your purchasing options and destroy competition from secondary markets.

Ever buy a used book?

This aspect of DRM really needed to be highlighted. It's about *control*, control over the user, control over the market, NOT about piracy.

Originally posted by: ValuedCustomer
and the "destroying competition or leading consumers down carefully designed paths" stuff sounds strangely like capitalism mixed w/ a healthy dose of marketing.

Actually, it sounds very much like an anti-free-market device. Capitalism is based on a supposedly healthy free market, one in which competition thrives. A DRM-driven market is not capitalism. It's a lot more similar to soviet-style communist markets, ones in which you have a "choice", but that choice is carefully controlled through various other means, and there is no true competition anymore. THAT is what the future of DRM holds for consumers. It heralds the death of the free market for content-based goods.

Originally posted by: doornail
Again, it's all about control. Just another step on the road towards consumer lock in. Tell me, do you think WPA is the end? Or will they roll out something slightly more invaisive -- most likely tieing it into WMA for user and machine personalized DRM.

It will eventually evolve into something like XBoxLive - one strike and you're banned, permanently. This will herald the death of "unlicensed/unapproved" third-party hardware and software for the platform, as it becomes a fully-closed, fully-MS-proprietary platform. (Ironic to think that people once accused the Mac platform of being non-open and "proprietary", considering what MS now has in the pipeline for the MS-PC platform.)

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: doornail
I'd pay for a no-IE, no-Outlook, no-Media Player, no-DRM, no-WPA version but I doubt they'll sell me one.
So none, really.

:disgust:

Nobody forces you to use IE, Outlook, or WMP.

But MS still forces you to pay for them. That's the point. They aren't really "free".

Once they've paid to develop them, though, it costs MS nothing to bundle them with the OS. For the VAST majority of Windows users, having an email client and media player is worth whatever the extra cost (amortized over millions of copies of the OS) is, and they cannot reasonably ship the OS without a web browser. If the OS cost $500 and included a full copy of MS Office, I would have a problem, but it doesn't.

DRM support is better than no DRM support; again, you don't have to buy/use any DRM-protected content if you don't want to. Bashing MS for supporting industry DRM standards is a pretty weak complaint.

Digital handcuffs pre-installed is better than having no handcuffs attached at all? Are you serious???

MS not supporting DRM will not make it go away. Microsoft is not the one pushing DRM, other than trying to push their own DRM solutions over other ones.

Yes, I would rather be able to choose to use DRM-protected content if I want to then to not have that choice.

I agree that so far, it basically looks like a shinier version of WinXP. (...) They're going to need to offer more than a shiny new GUI to entice most people to upgrade right away.

XP being mostly just a "shinier version of W2K", etc., hence why so many people have elected to stick with W2K still.

Precisely. Both my home systems use WinXP, but only because they were new builds done after WinXP was available. Had I built them originally with Windows 2000, there would be little reason for me to upgrade them. Unless MS has more dramatic changes and some killer features in store for Vista, many people are going to be slow to upgrade.

This aspect of DRM really needed to be highlighted. It's about *control*, control over the user, control over the market, NOT about piracy.

And why, exactly, do they want to control what you do with the content? So you don't copy/steal it, or restribute it against the content owner's wishes.

THAT is what the future of DRM holds for consumers. It heralds the death of the free market for content-based goods.

I can see I'm probably not getting anywhere on this.

It will eventually evolve into something like XBoxLive - one strike and you're banned, permanently.

Nobody accidentally installs a mod chip in their XBox...

This will herald the death of "unlicensed/unapproved" third-party hardware and software for the platform, as it becomes a fully-closed, fully-MS-proprietary platform. (Ironic to think that people once accused the Mac platform of being non-open and "proprietary", considering what MS now has in the pipeline for the MS-PC platform.)

Again, forecasting inevitable doom.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: doornail

Originally posted by: Matthias99
If everyone was happy to pay for it honestly, there would be no software piracy, and hence no need for something like WPA.

That's where your argument completely collapses. You say we need WPA to stop piracy, but if WPA ended piracy, the evidence would have be Microsoft's quarterly earnings shooting into the stratosphere the last five years -- but they didn't. They cruised along within a few points of what analysts expected. Yet they continue to invest time and money into building the WPA validation machine. A system that doesn't make them money and alienates customers

I didn't say that "WPA ended piracy" (it's certainly not tough enough to do that); I do, however, believe it probably has reduced the amount of casual copying and CD-key sharing that goes on. I don't have access to detailed enough financial information on MS and its OS division to know what effect it may have had on profitability. I do believe that if it was truly ineffective, and they had gotten a huge consumer backlash, they would not have continued the program. It should be interesting to see what they do with Vista.

(and before you claim that it's painless check out the hundreds of threads in this very forum about people wrestling with WPA).

From what I've seen, generally the people having problems are ones trying to get around it for some reason (or doing something like trying to reuse an OEM install on another system). I have yet to see a case where someone had a legit store-bought copy of WinXP and could not get it validated. Most people either have a preinstalled OEM copy of the OS and never have to deal with validation, or they install it and get it validated automatically online.

So why do it?

Seriously, step back and think about it.

Because earlier anti-piracy measures were no longer proving an effective enough deterrent, so they stepped it up a notch. Reading some sort of Orwellian conspiracy theory into this is kind of silly.

 

[ValuedCustomer]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: ValuedCustomer
and the "destroying competition or leading consumers down carefully designed paths" stuff sounds strangely like capitalism mixed w/ a healthy dose of marketing.

Actually, it sounds very much like an anti-free-market device. Capitalism is based on a supposedly healthy free market, one in which competition thrives. A DRM-driven market is not capitalism. It's a lot more similar to soviet-style communist markets, ones in which you have a "choice", but that choice is carefully controlled through various other means, and there is no true competition anymore. THAT is what the future of DRM holds for consumers. It heralds the death of the free market for content-based goods.

oh God.. I'm not sure why I even attempt sarcasm around here.. I realize we're limited by the 1's & 0's but does the term tongue-in-cheek mean anything to you??