WINDOWS VISTA

[doornail]

Originally posted by: Seeruk
Really some people do talk complete and utter sh*t.

Do you enjoy appearing utterly clueless? It's the only reason I can think someone would post such tripe

Seriously some zealouts (of whatever OS but particularly *nix) are like the iraqi information minister.

"There are absolutely no infedels in our city" < US Tanks roll past in the background>

Classic Seeruk in Redmond defense panic. I must have over-taxed your knowledge of Vista.

Since you were too busy crapping in each and every Linux thread to learn about Vista and it's HDCP DRM system, I took the liberty of including some URL's for you. I suppose in your world anyone who writes something critical of Microsoft is an INSANE CRAZY ZEALOT though. Man, that must be really handy. Instead of introspection, you can just label anyone who doesn't agree with you as insane with ... some kind of ... techno religion?

Well, anyways enjoy the links, hope you learn something, and let us know if you need help with any of the big words.


Ha ha ha, Iraqi Information Minister jokes! That NEVER gets old. Oh my side!!


http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/hdcp-vista.ars
http://www.pcstats.com/artvnl.cfm?articleID=1871
http://www.redtram.com/go/36306257/
http://crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=167101066
http://www.developerpipeline.com/170100318
http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=167101058
http://www.ntcompatible.com/Windows_Vis..._Digital_Rights_Management_s57774.html
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/167101037
http://www.digitalconnectmag.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=167600081
http://www.digitalhomemag.com/news/defa...id=2&articleid=36995&subsectionid=1308
http://www.byopvr.com/displayarticle451.html
http://www.microsofttoday.com/news/167101058
http://www.hardwarezone.com/news/view.php?id=2975&cid=11
http://www.thetechlounge.com/news.php?id=7833
http://www.hi-techreviews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5306
http://www.techbuilder.org/news/showArt...icleId=167600100&printableArticle=true
http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/entertainment/vista-drm-sounds-skanky-116086.php
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/Editor...es/archive/c0511/27c11/27c11.asp&guid=
http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/1603
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050803/151221_F.shtml
http://www.techweb.com/blog/wolfe/archives/2005/09/microsoft_buffe.html
http://www.apcstart.com/teched/pivot/entry.php?id=6
http://www.frostytech.com/permalink.cfm?NewsID=45979

 

[Seeruk]

Nice long list of links but a completely wasted effort unfortunately for you. I am totally aware of HDCP, etc but to describe DVD quality (which is what is a constricted video would be) as 'crippled' is yet another example of typical zealot propaganda.

You muppet, next time you try to condescend make sure you haven't got your knickers in a twist first..... looks awfully embarrasing

You seem to have a beef with me for 'crapping' on linux threads... seriously if you see balancing 'Why is Linux so uber' threads with debate on the points we are supposed to accept as gospel because they come through your anti-establishment, tin-foil hat, linus-tinted spectacles as 'crapping,' then that is your problem. You seem to forget I use *nux, Windows, Solaris in almost equal amounts all day every day at work. I advocate various *nix systems to clients, I don't claim to be a shell-scripter or anything, but I know what its good at and what it isnt!
Most people enjoy reasoned discussion and debate whereas some little no-lives seem to take it as a personal insult.

Good day to you sir!

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: Seeruk
Nice long list of links but a completely wasted effort unfortunately for you.

Because you're protected against ... learning?

I am totally aware of HDCP, etc but to describe DVD quality (which is what is a constricted video would be) as 'crippled' is yet another example of typical zealot propaganda.

Are you seriously suggesting that going from 1080p to 480i isn't a reduction in quality? Lopping off more than HALF the visual image isn't crippled in any way? You make me giggle.

You muppet, next time you try to condescend make sure you haven't got your knickers in a twist first..... looks awfully embarrasing

My favorite muppet was Ralph the dog.

You seem to forget I use *nux, Windows, Solaris in almost equal amounts all day every day at work. I advocate various *nix systems to clients, I don't claim to be a shell-scripter or anything, but I know what its good at and what it isnt!

I'm a shell scripter. I suspect you're really a cable humper and not an admin.

Most people enjoy reasoned discussion and debate whereas some little no-lives seem to take it as a personal insult.

Ummmm yeah. Maybe you need to re-read your first reply to me.

Good day to you sir!

And to you, Young Master Seeruk!

 

[Seeruk]

There is really no inkling of interest in a childish argument with you. But I have to laugh at you somehow acting superior as a 'shell scripter' over a 'cable humper' Just goes to show what an arrogant little tool you are

But 'reduction of quality' and 'crippling' are two very different terms and you know it!

Seeing as how most new HD TV's already have the functionality, and monitors certainly will by the time of Vista's release then it will be very quickly an ubiquitous technology which is designed only to stop piracy. As someone with a clear piracy conscience... I have no worries why do you?

Noone forces you to buy a colour TV, but I wouldnt go bitching to the BBC about my black and white output of a what is a colour film!

 

[spyordie007]

Doornail chill out he is right.

Don't forget the crippled video unless you buy a DRM-certified monitor.

The articles you posted simply reinforce that this is not a Vista issue. This is a media content issue and doesnt really have anything to do with the OS imposing DRM upon you. On the contrary it's the content is limited if you dont have hardware that supports it; this will be an issue on any OS (yes including Linux, where it's possible that we wont get HD quality at all). This is even a problem on a lot of existing TVs!...

As I said before claiming that this is a Vista issue is nothing more than FUD.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: STaSh

Vista is basically to windows what kernel 2.6 kernel was to the previous 2.4 linux system. Its user interface is a proprietary gui built off of c, c++ and .net that incorporates ideas already found in GNU modifications for the X windows system and tools pioneered by apple for OS X.

Do you have anything else to contribute to this forum? This is the third or fourth time I've seen you post this FUD.

I am a member of channel 9, look me up sometime, but don't try to say that vista isn't a variation of the NT kernel. Don't try to make microsofts development any different than any other operating system development. Don't try to say that a lot of the features in this OS haven't been done in other Operating systems. If you knew anything about linux you would realize I was giving Vista a compliment saying it was to the current windows as the linux kernel 2.6 was to the 2.4 system. There were fundamental changes. Just don't think that they are far derivatives. Vista gets things right in areas. I also think Vista blatently copies other systems in others. Not that this industry is clean on either side of the fields of play. Windows is just behind in the times. It has been since Windows 98 and 2000.

Instead of just trying to discredit me with fluffy statements of 'FUD' why don't you try and discredit me by walking me through the steps on how it ISN'T similar to the changes 2.6 made to linux over 2.4. Why don't you tell me WHERE Microsoft HAS'T borrowed, stole, or liscenced ideas from OTHER GUIs. Why don't you tell me WHERE the User Interface isn't built off C, C++ and .NET. Please let me know or sit down and shut up.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: hooflung
Instead of just trying to discredit me with fluffy statements of 'FUD' why don't you try and discredit me by walking me through the steps on how it ISN'T similar to the changes 2.6 made to linux over 2.4. Why don't you tell me WHERE Microsoft HAS'T borrowed, stole, or liscenced ideas from OTHER GUIs. Why don't you tell me WHERE the User Interface isn't built off C, C++ and .NET. Please let me know or sit down and shut up.

How about you be more specific as to what ideas and changes you are referring to?

 

[doornail]

The original poster asked what's new about Vista. One of the new "features" of Vista is Digital Rights Management (DRM) built right into the OS. Previously, it was only snuck quietly into MS Media Player.

You want to say "no no, it's not Microsoft's fault at all. Look at the pretty pony" and I say bullshit. Windows based DRM in Windows IS Microsoft's fault. They are under no obligation to include it just as Windows 2000 was under no obligation to ship with a DVD player. DRM has nothing to do with piracy other than riding into town on all the stupid hyperbole surrounding it. It's about control and lock in.

They say locks keep honest people -- and DRM keeps paying customers paying.

In 1996, Circuit City tried a DRM cripple movie format and it bombed because the market didn't want it. They couldn't sell enough players to keep alive. If no one buys DRM crippled HD players, that too will crash and burn. But this time, we get to thank MS for shoving the normal market aside and slapping crippled HD players into every new PC. They get to have media that's going to be illegal on Linux and Hollywood gets an army of target players.

I hope your piracy clear minds don't mind losing the ability to borrow, loan, transfer, or re-sell media. They are killing with technology the few consumer rights that Congress forgot to sell them. The lawmakers didn't give them a broadcast flag (yet) but Microsoft did.

 

[MrChad]

It's the studios that are pushing HDCP, not Microsoft. No, they aren't under any obligation to bundle it in their OS, but then they can't license support for new HD-DVD content.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/hdcp-vista.ars

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.

 

[doornail]

And why do they need to license support at all? They sell operating systems. Before, when you wanted to play DVD's you bought PowerDVD software.

When you try to forcibly transform open, ubiquitous devices into something restricted and crappy you end up with disasters like the Sony Rootkit fiasco. Sony wants the CD market without offering the CD product.

Computers are open, ubiquitous devices designed to flip bits. Trying to forcibly transform them into restricted, crappy devices that may or may not flip your bits is taking away value. Don't be surprised if customers notice.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: doornail
And why do they need to license support at all? The sell operating systems. Before, when you wanted to play DVD's you bought PowerDVD software.

When you try to forcibly transform open, ubiquitous devices into something restricted and crappy you end up with disasters like the Sony Rootkit fiasco. Sony wants the CD market without offering the CD product.

Computers are open, ubiquitous devices designed to flip bits. Trying to forcibly transform them into restricted, crappy devices that may or may not flip your bits is taking away value. Don't be surprised if customers notice.

Your analogy to the Sony DRM software is flawed. HDCP is not going to restrict any other use of your computer other than your ability to watch HD content from HDCP-aware formats. Both the movie industry and Microsoft are open about what it is and how it works.

Sony's DRM, on the other hand, installs itself without the user's knowledge and leaves the user's computer open to viruses and malware by making kernel level changes to the operating system.

I would argue that products such as Sony's DRM rootkit are MORE likely to appear if Microsoft DOESN'T bundle their own HDCP implementation with Vista. Rather than have third-parties try and implement HDCP implementations, which at best will be buggy and at worst create massive vulnerabilities like Sony's DRM, you have a single implementation from Microsoft that will have better support and be less buggy in the long run.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: hooflung
Instead of just trying to discredit me with fluffy statements of 'FUD' why don't you try and discredit me by walking me through the steps on how it ISN'T similar to the changes 2.6 made to linux over 2.4. Why don't you tell me WHERE Microsoft HAS'T borrowed, stole, or liscenced ideas from OTHER GUIs. Why don't you tell me WHERE the User Interface isn't built off C, C++ and .NET. Please let me know or sit down and shut up.

How about you be more specific as to what ideas and changes you are referring to?

1) Threads and thread priority. Linux 2.6 introduced NTPL to all users. Vista implents Scheduled File I/O which can be bound to thread priority. 2.4 had a backport but NTPL is part of the official kernel from the 2.5 dev and forward.

2) x86/x64 standardized platform. 2.4 only had unsupported x64 releases. 2.6 had a parallel development tree that included support for 64bit. Windows XP 64 is about as unsupported as you can get for an operating system with a short life. 64bit support is standard in Vista according to their development roadmap.

3) Target platforms. 2.4 kernel wasn't good for embedded systems as features were an afterthought. 2.6 kernel is quite at home in embedded bios etc. Vista brings PC/AT BIOS AND EFI ( which happens to fully support embedded systems) support.

4) Memory Management! Windows VISTA brings support from the an enhanced memory features that were also huge features for the 2.6 kernel. NUMA is the BIGGEST parrallel that is bloddy obvious.

5) Filesystem changes! Linux 2.6 offered Windows' Logical Disk Manager as a feature. Vista brings something new to the NTFS system with its SQL based WINFS feature ( that is if it ever makes it into the operating system. )

6) While we can bicker about Vista this and Linux that... they are just operating systems that require and have similar development models. Eventually, 2.4 kernel has backborts from 2.6. Microsoft in similar fashion, are backporting features into Windows XP Service Pack 2 AND Server 2003.

Do I need to go on? Have I been blinded and falsified any information. Is this FUD. Is this enough? Please let me know.

 

[hooflung]

If you want to see some similarities of Vista's GUI and GNU GUI work... then head over to http://www.kde-look.org and browse around. Also head over to www.apple.com and browse the OS X section.

 

[stash]

They are under no obligation to include it just as Windows 2000 was under no obligation to ship with a DVD player. DRM has nothing to do with piracy other than riding into town on all the stupid hyperbole surrounding it. It's about control and lock in.

They have an obligation to share holders. Fact is, DRM is being foisted upon the masses by content providers and there is little software companies can do about it. So if Microsoft left HDCP DRM out of Vista, their customers would be left without a means of playing this protected content on their computers. But oh look, here's a Mac that can! Hmmm.

Maybe it will be hacked, who knows. But even if it is, the number of people who have the time, knowledge and inclination to do so will still be in the minority. So the rest will still be looking for an OS that can natively play this content.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: STaSh

They are under no obligation to include it just as Windows 2000 was under no obligation to ship with a DVD player. DRM has nothing to do with piracy other than riding into town on all the stupid hyperbole surrounding it. It's about control and lock in.

They have an obligation to share holders. Fact is, DRM is being foisted upon the masses by content providers and there is little software companies can do about it. So if Microsoft left HDCP DRM out of Vista, their customers would be left without a means of playing this protected content on their computers. But oh look, here's a Mac that can! Hmmm.

Maybe it will be hacked, who knows. But even if it is, the number of people who have the time, knowledge and inclination to do so will still be in the minority. So the rest will still be looking for an OS that can natively play this content.

Not only do I detest DRM but I detest attempts to circumvent it as well. Just because I use an alt.os doesn't mean yI am out to steal from 'the man.'

In fact I would buy Vista if it hadn't sunk even deaper into the DRM and Authentication that XP brought out.

Example. My computers are increasingly turning into nothing more than coding and testing beds ( I have about 5 computers ), Folding@Home clients, and casual City of Villians playing. I just installed XP Home on my new X2 3800+ because I thought I would do more gaming than I am actually able to do. I feal like installing gentoo on that system now and putting XP Home back on the HTPC which has my old a64 754. This will be the third switch in hardware that this XP Home will recieve. You talk about FUD so much... where it's not warranted I might add... but the true FUD is that :

1) I am 'FEARFUL' that I will be percieved as a thief by MS because it is going on a different system within days of its activation on another.
2) I am Uncertain that I will be able to activate my copy of windows xp home service pack 2 online.
3) I am doubtful that they will give me a backup activation code because of number 1.

That is true FUD. Microsoft made FUD. I feel like a thief already and I payed for every copy of XP in my house. I have legit liscences for 2000 PRO, SERVER, AS for development. I have legit copies of 3.1, 3.11, WfWG 3.11, 95, 98 and 98SE that I either bought or got with purchased PCs over the years. But I "feel" like a thief no less and I "fear" they will think I am since everyone is out to "steal" their software because it's so "sought" after.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: hooflung

Originally posted by: STaSh

They are under no obligation to include it just as Windows 2000 was under no obligation to ship with a DVD player. DRM has nothing to do with piracy other than riding into town on all the stupid hyperbole surrounding it. It's about control and lock in.

They have an obligation to share holders. Fact is, DRM is being foisted upon the masses by content providers and there is little software companies can do about it. So if Microsoft left HDCP DRM out of Vista, their customers would be left without a means of playing this protected content on their computers. But oh look, here's a Mac that can! Hmmm.

Maybe it will be hacked, who knows. But even if it is, the number of people who have the time, knowledge and inclination to do so will still be in the minority. So the rest will still be looking for an OS that can natively play this content.

Not only do I detest DRM but I detest attempts to circumvent it as well. Just because I use an alt.os doesn't mean yI am out to steal from 'the man.'

In fact I would buy Vista if it hadn't sunk even deaper into the DRM and Authentication that XP brought out.

Example. My computers are increasingly turning into nothing more than coding and testing beds ( I have about 5 computers ), Folding@Home clients, and casual City of Villians playing. I just installed XP Home on my new X2 3800+ because I thought I would do more gaming than I am actually able to do. I feal like installing gentoo on that system now and putting XP Home back on the HTPC which has my old a64 754. This will be the third switch in hardware that this XP Home will recieve. You talk about FUD so much... where it's not warranted I might add... but the true FUD is that :

1) I am 'FEARFUL' that I will be percieved as a thief by MS because it is going on a different system within days of its activation on another.
2) I am Uncertain that I will be able to activate my copy of windows xp home service pack 2 online.
3) I am doubtful that they will give me a backup activation code because of number 1.

That is true FUD. Microsoft made FUD. I feel like a thief already and I payed for every copy of XP in my house. I have legit liscences for 2000 PRO, SERVER, AS for development. I have legit copies of 3.1, 3.11, WfWG 3.11, 95, 98 and 98SE that I either bought or got with purchased PCs over the years. But I "feel" like a thief no less and I "fear" they will think I am since everyone is out to "steal" their software because it's so "sought" after.

Aye, I've been a Microsoft supporter for years, a PAYING supporter. However, I will admit, I've installed XP Corp where I have licenses for XP Home, but because the FUD is too much if you ask me. I actually use an features in Pro/Corp that are not in Home, I just mess with my computers a lot and like to try things that usually end up hosing the system to the point it's quicker and easier to reinstall than repair.

Anyway, I have moral feelings against this, but Windows is just getting to much FUD. As such I plan to be converted to Linux before Vista is released. As I'm delving deeper and deeper into the OSS community I'm amazed at how capable it is. OSS still tends to be more complicated to configure than proprietary software, but installation is usually easier (yum install or apt-get install) and it is usually MUCH more powerfull and you don't run into the brick walls with licensing restrictions (ie wanting you to pay more to "unlock" the really useful feature you expected to be getting).

 

[spyordie007]

Just a couple of minor corrections/comments:

Windows XP 64 is about as unsupported as you can get for an operating system with a short life.

XP 64 is fully supported by Microsoft. The lack of support comes from 3rd party software and drivers.

Vista brings something new to the NTFS system with its SQL based WINFS feature ( that is if it ever makes it into the operating system. )

NTFS is still NTFS, all the files can be accessed natively through the NTFS streams (otherwise it would break a lot of apps). They've already stated that WinFS will not ship with Vista, it's something that will ship afterwards as an add-on.

And some general responses to features in Vista:

Why don't you tell me WHERE Microsoft HAS'T borrowed, stole, or liscenced ideas from OTHER GUIs.

There are a lot of areas where Microsoft is not the leader in their OS and there are plenty of examples of this; for example the hardware accelerated GUI and IE. On the other hand there are areas where they have always been the leader such as enterprise manageability or .net.

Right now there are a lot of people who are focusing on the GUI because that is all that they can "see" (yes even those who can beta test it). As it goes into general deployment a lot of the other "more productive" features will begin to get leveraged.

XP vs. 2K was the same way in a lot of regards. When XP was beta, released and even a lot today (4 years later) people have spent a lot of effort focusing on the GUI's appearance (just think how many times you've heard XP just referred as a new theme for 2k). In reality XP brought a lot to the Windows platform, XP is by far a better OS than 2k because it?s better for all the reasons you cant ?see?; I don?t know about you but one of the first things I usually do under XP is to put a lot of the GUI back in ?classic? mode because I care more about those features than I do the GUI. People put a lot of emphasis on things that they can see with their eyes in front of them and than forget about all the technologies behind it, hey it?s kind of like buying a car! But I digress....

Not only do I detest DRM but I detest attempts to circumvent it as well.

Than avoid the content, if there isn?t demand for the protected content than Microsoft/Apple/etc. wouldn?t be strong-armed into supporting them. Arguing with those on the forum here is preaching to the choir

I am 'FEARFUL' that I will be percieved as a thief by MS because it is going on a different system within days of its activation on another.

Don?t be; you're a paying customer looking to make use of a product. Nothing you've done is outside of the EULA (so long as it's not still on the old machine). They WILL allow you to activate it on the new machine, it may require calling them because of the short interval on completely different hardware however if you explain it to them they will allow it.

-Erik

 

[hooflung]

XP 64 is fully supported by Microsoft. The lack of support comes from 3rd party software and drivers.

The fact that Microsoft DROVE the market to XP without choice, dictating that you would HAVE to develop drivers or jump ship, pushed 3rd party support. Microsoft has NOT done this with XP 64 and the fact that Media Edition doesn't support 64bit has squandered reasons to port the most important drivers, such as television tuners, to 64bit. When you lead the market you are in a position, self made I might add, to bring in support. Linux doesn't have such market position and must beg, provoke curiosity in developers, or reverse engineer drivers for the Linux Kernel in many cases.

NTFS is still NTFS, all the files can be accessed natively through the NTFS streams (otherwise it would break a lot of apps). They've already stated that WinFS will not ship with Vista, it's something that will ship afterwards as an add-on.

This might be true, but it is a real world feature that will bring Vista new filesystem options. NTFS in 2000 is NTFS in 2000 and XP. NTFS in XP is NTFS in XP/2003/Vista. NTFS in Vista is NTFS in Vista ( with possible backportage if Microsoft is feeling charitable )

And some general responses to features in Vista:

There are a lot of areas where Microsoft is not the leader in their OS and there are plenty of examples of this; for example the hardware accelerated GUI and IE. On the other hand there are areas where they have always been the leader such as enterprise manageability or .net.

They have never been the leader in enterprise manageability. A few panels in Enterprise Edition doesn't garner you leadership. It gets you credebility as a competitor. On the enterprise level Windows 2k3 EE is far from market share leader among the large enterprises. Solaris ONE still leads over microsoft in what their tools can do. Not to mention the 3rd party tools for Windows are anemic at best for the enterprise and usually homegrown or highly proprietary. 3rd party enterprise tools for Open Source Systems are ... well... open and they are ... well.. free.

Right now there are a lot of people who are focusing on the GUI because that is all that they can "see" (yes even those who can beta test it). As it goes into general deployment a lot of the other "more productive" features will begin to get leveraged.

XP vs. 2K was the same way in a lot of regards. When XP was beta, released and even a lot today (4 years later) people have spent a lot of effort focusing on the GUI's appearance (just think how many times you've heard XP just referred as a new theme for 2k). In reality XP brought a lot to the Windows platform, XP is by far a better OS than 2k because it?s better for all the reasons you cant ?see?; I don?t know about you but one of the first things I usually do under XP is to put a lot of the GUI back in ?classic? mode because I care more about those features than I do the GUI. People put a lot of emphasis on things that they can see with their eyes in front of them and than forget about all the technologies behind it, hey it?s kind of like buying a car! But I digress....

You are stating the tone that I had hoped to convey in my posts. The development cycles of Windows are not far removed from that of other systems. Windows 2000 to XP is similar to 2.4 to backported 2.6 tools to 2.4. Windows XP to 2003 also similar to Fedora Core to RHES 3.0. Windows XP to Vista is similar to 2.4 kernel to 2.6 kernel. Windows is nothing more than a OS distro with a proprietary kernel, HAL, and userspace. Linux is nothing more than a kernel that is included in OS distros that have an open kernel and userspace. Some things remain set in stone for Windows, such as the registry system. While others change. Nothing is new under the sun, no no not SUN lol, and I think windows and linux advocates alike have added uneccessary mystique around these products. This, like you have said, leads people to argue the superficial things such as GUI being the major improvements to the products.

Than avoid the content, if there isn?t demand for the protected content than Microsoft/Apple/etc. wouldn?t be strong-armed into supporting them. Arguing with those on the forum here is preaching to the choir

I don't. I won't and I tell people to avoid xbox 360 and the ps3 at all costs. Not to mention I don't listen to any music I don't buy or hear through radio. I quit Star Wars Galaxies after they destroyed any faith they still had in the userbase on whole.

Don?t be; you're a paying customer looking to make use of a product. Nothing you've done is outside of the EULA (so long as it's not still on the old machine). They WILL allow you to activate it on the new machine, it may require calling them because of the short interval on completely different hardware however if you explain it to them they will allow it.

I have called MS so many times on my old XP Pro system, before the disc turned to garbage and they wouldn't replace it, that it makes me sick. I've heard of horror stories with microsoft denying you a activation key because of them looking into your activation history and making a judgement call. That is enough to start the FUD cycle. I don't mind work aroungs, such as the update system not working, if you don't authenticate... but activation is, as time has proven since 2001, rediculous.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Brazen
Aye, I've been a Microsoft supporter for years, a PAYING supporter. However, I will admit, I've installed XP Corp where I have licenses for XP Home, but because the FUD is too much if you ask me. I actually use an features in Pro/Corp that are not in Home, I just mess with my computers a lot and like to try things that usually end up hosing the system to the point it's quicker and easier to reinstall than repair.

Anyway, I have moral feelings against this, but Windows is just getting to much FUD. As such I plan to be converted to Linux before Vista is released. As I'm delving deeper and deeper into the OSS community I'm amazed at how capable it is. OSS still tends to be more complicated to configure than proprietary software, but installation is usually easier (yum install or apt-get install) and it is usually MUCH more powerfull and you don't run into the brick walls with licensing restrictions (ie wanting you to pay more to "unlock" the really useful feature you expected to be getting).

Do you even know what FUD means?

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: hooflung

XP 64 is fully supported by Microsoft. The lack of support comes from 3rd party software and drivers.

The fact that Microsoft DROVE the market to XP without choice, dictating that you would HAVE to develop drivers or jump ship, pushed 3rd party support. Microsoft has NOT done this with XP 64 and the fact that Media Edition doesn't support 64bit has squandered reasons to port the most important drivers, such as television tuners, to 64bit. When you lead the market you are in a position, self made I might add, to bring in support. Linux doesn't have such market position and must beg, provoke curiosity in developers, or reverse engineer drivers for the Linux Kernel in many cases.

How do you expect Microsoft to drive a market that consists mostly of 32-bit processors to a 64-bit operating system?

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: hooflung

XP 64 is fully supported by Microsoft. The lack of support comes from 3rd party software and drivers.

The fact that Microsoft DROVE the market to XP without choice, dictating that you would HAVE to develop drivers or jump ship, pushed 3rd party support. Microsoft has NOT done this with XP 64 and the fact that Media Edition doesn't support 64bit has squandered reasons to port the most important drivers, such as television tuners, to 64bit. When you lead the market you are in a position, self made I might add, to bring in support. Linux doesn't have such market position and must beg, provoke curiosity in developers, or reverse engineer drivers for the Linux Kernel in many cases.

How do you expect Microsoft to drive a market that consists mostly of 32-bit processors to a 64-bit operating system?

I guess with with a consistant perspective on THEIR commitment to the platform? Not just out a novelty product to cash in on opportunity and then on the other hand promise another product to fill in the wants? Since Vista and XP 64 are derived from the same core, 2003 server, maybe to get a head jump on driver development? Maybe the billions of dollars they have made off of windows? I don't know... maybe because it's their assumed leadership might justify them ushering in vendors with marketing ploys that seem to work on the sheep that keep purchasing, supporting, and migrating to worthless upgrade locking? Oh... I don't know... pick one.

 

[spyordie007]

They have never been the leader in enterprise manageability. A few panels in Enterprise Edition doesn't garner you leadership. It gets you credebility as a competitor. On the enterprise level Windows 2k3 EE is far from market share leader among the large enterprises. Solaris ONE still leads over microsoft in what their tools can do.

This doesn?t really have anything to do with the server "enterprise edition" versions; I'm referring to machine (client and server) manageability, things like deployment, group policy, etc. There are others out there that have good products (like Sun and Novel) but this is yet another thing that the major competitors for the client market don?t have to the extent of Windows (Apple and Linux). I'm not saying you can?t manage those clients; just that this is something Microsoft has done a good job on in the enterprise environment.

You are stating the tone that I had hoped to convey in my posts. The development cycles of Windows are not far removed from that of other systems. Windows 2000 to XP is similar to 2.4 to backported 2.6 tools to 2.4. Windows XP to 2003 also similar to Fedora Core to RHES 3.0. Windows XP to Vista is similar to 2.4 kernel to 2.6 kernel. Windows is nothing more than a OS distro with a proprietary kernel, HAL, and userspace. Linux is nothing more than a kernel that is included in OS distros that have an open kernel and userspace. Some things remain set in stone for Windows, such as the registry system. While others change. Nothing is new under the sun, no no not SUN lol, and I think windows and linux advocates alike have added uneccessary mystique around these products. This, like you have said, leads people to argue the superficial things such as GUI being the major improvements to the products.

Yes, this sounds reasonable. Vista is the next version of an existing product and is built upon that existing framework; some features get added/changed and some components get rebuilt but a lot of it has to stay the same (otherwise there would be no legacy support). I actually wish they would make the OS do more to enforce doing things "the right way"; one of the biggest problems I have for Windows is that there are a lot of sh!tty applications out there that runs on it; I almost wish they would do an Apple and make the old stuff run in some sort of emulator and free them to make bigger advances moving forward.

The fact that Microsoft DROVE the market to XP without choice, dictating that you would HAVE to develop drivers or jump ship, pushed 3rd party support. Microsoft has NOT done this with XP 64 and the fact that Media Edition doesn't support 64bit has squandered reasons to port the most important drivers, such as television tuners, to 64bit. When you lead the market you are in a position, self made I might add, to bring in support. Linux doesn't have such market position and must beg, provoke curiosity in developers, or reverse engineer drivers for the Linux Kernel in many cases.

Microsoft didn?t ?drive the market to XP without a choice?. They still support 2000 (even though it's 6 years old) and there are a lot of customers that are running it.

As I've said numerous times before it's not the OS that should be driving hardware forward it's applications. As applications emerge for the desktop that can take advantage of 64bits the OS and market will follow. Microsoft shouldn?t be pushing everyone to x64, for the vast majority of people out there x64 offers zero advantage over x86 (yes there are some advantages such as hardware DEP and architecture improvements that they can get away with changing, but I'm speaking for the majority here). XP MCE is a good example of this, the current MCE products aren?t geared in a way that x64 would bring advantages to the platform.

Of course in Vista this will start to change; MCE is getting built into more of the products that are geared toward desktopland (i.e. the ?ultimate? edition). Better x64 driver and software support will surly follow as Microsoft makes the push to Vista.

I imagine that part of the reason Microsoft hasn?t been pushing much to Windows XP 64 is because their efforts and attention has been on doing this with Vista; but now I?m speculating.

 

[spyordie007]

Since Vista and XP 64 are derived from the same core, 2003 server, maybe to get a head jump on driver development?

It's a bit of a misnomer to say Vista and XP 64 are "based on 2003 server"

There is the Windows Core and all Windows products are "based on the Windows core"; XP 64 is a version of Windows compiled for the x64 platform based on the most recent branch of the Windows 5.1 core. Vista is versions of Windows compiled for multiple platforms based on the most recent (and in the process of heavy development) branch of the Windows 6 core.

Microsoft is pushing both driver and software development for Vista (x86 and x64) very heavily now. Why do you think they've made so much information available about it for so long now and make (almost) monthly builds of it available?

 

[stash]

It's a bit of a misnomer to say Vista and XP 64 are "based on 2003 server"

No he's right. XP 64 and Vista are both built on the 2003 SP1 codebase.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Brazen
Aye, I've been a Microsoft supporter for years, a PAYING supporter. However, I will admit, I've installed XP Corp where I have licenses for XP Home, but because the FUD is too much if you ask me. I actually use an features in Pro/Corp that are not in Home, I just mess with my computers a lot and like to try things that usually end up hosing the system to the point it's quicker and easier to reinstall than repair.

Anyway, I have moral feelings against this, but Windows is just getting to much FUD. As such I plan to be converted to Linux before Vista is released. As I'm delving deeper and deeper into the OSS community I'm amazed at how capable it is. OSS still tends to be more complicated to configure than proprietary software, but installation is usually easier (yum install or apt-get install) and it is usually MUCH more powerfull and you don't run into the brick walls with licensing restrictions (ie wanting you to pay more to "unlock" the really useful feature you expected to be getting).

Do you know what FUD means?

It's scottish for vag? why?