Slashdot Mirror

There always exists the analog hole. I don't dispute that. But that's not the problem that DRM was designed to solve, and nor can it.

Actually, it is .

What I hear about - and only hear about because I haven't had to touch a Vista machine - is that people have their video resolution handicapped, and that the latest service pack messes up boot authorization if you have dual boot. Somebody who actually has to touch Vista could tell you much more.

I believe that it's multi-finger gestures, although I may be wrong. This video is one of MS's recent demos of Windows 7.

Maybe not exactly what people had in mind, but here's a quote from the Vista blog by Chris Flores:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/05/27/communicating-windows-7.aspx

Contrary to some speculation, Microsoft is not creating a new kernel for Windows 7. Rather, we are refining the kernel architecture and componentization model introduced in Windows Vista. While these changes will increase our engineering agility, they will not impact the user experience or reduce application or hardware compatibility. In fact, one of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will be compatible with Windows 7.

You are wrong... if that was true you'd think any built in app (all of which are signed) would be elevated automatically.

Instead signing the binary changes the prompt to say that the program is at least from a verified publisher... but still leaves it to you to decide if you want to elevate or not.

For more info on the kinds of UAC prompts that exists see: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/25/accessible-uac-prompts.aspx

Actually there's a group policy that you can set that requires the SAS before you can enter a UAC prompt to mitigate that threat. It's not on by default because even Microsoft figured it would be too annoying. See here for more details.

But for those customers who are worried about that threat, there's a mitigation that's built in.

The backup and restore privileges are disabled in a UAC token (you can verify this trivially with process explorer). Which means that you need to elevate to enable them. And once you've elevated, there's no point in asking you again, since you're already an admin.

If VMWare is hosting malware that bypasses the SAS prompt, that's out-of-scope for UAC, because you essentially have installed a hardware rootkit.

Thanks for quoting the sources of these supposed multiple refutations, pointing out specifically why any of the things I quoted are not true. Oh, I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. Of course.

No, you don't. But if you're interested in the topic you would have already read the refutations. Indeed, you even linked to one yourself.

If they have not convinced you, then there is nothing I will be able to add that will. However, they most certainly *do* refute pretty much everything of note that Gutman claimed.

Nice, that's 2 out of the 4 things I listed - so much for "none of this actually happens".

* Code present in DLLs is only taking up memory if it is executed. No DRM-encumbered media, no code execution.
* To avoid the higher hardware and driver costs involved, don't buy DRM-capable hardware.
* Your laptop battery doesn't drain any faster because if you're not playing DRM-encumbered content, none of the "checking" is happening.

In short, if you avoid DRM-encumbered media and DRM-capable hardware, then DRM will have zero impact on you. If you *do* have DRM-encumbered content, then Vista won't limit you with it any more than any other player would.

The DRM argument fails because DRM is either irrelevant (you don't have any DRM-encumbered content, or don't have capable hardware) or useful (because you do have DRM-encumbeed content and want to use it).

No DRM-encumbered media, no DRM. Your argument fails.

According to Brandon LeBlanc on the Vista Blog, "SP1 doesn't deliver any new drivers within the service pack itself." This stands true for both the 32 bit and the 64 bit versions.

For bonus amusement, look on the page for the inane threats from one "drqc terry".

You know... I have no problem with the whole blog thing, and there is a "possibility" of finding some news at some of them I suppose.. but this blog has a whopping 182 comments on the SP1 release.. of which there were the "dozen" problems.. This isn't any gage of anything.. and to top it off.. the blog is not at the link in the Slashdot submission.. it's at.... http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/default.aspx

I believe MS said they would not roll it to fully automated updates till they fixes some driver installation problem that was displayed in the RC.

They however failed to tell what drivers were affected, and how you can manually fix it. Yanking the power cord certainly is not the method MS would recommend. It htink you need the install disk and run some kind of recovery mode. (that is how it worked under XP.

The linked forum post is referring to a RC, not to the RTM.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/11/windows-vista-sp1-availability-for-technical-customers.aspx

"For broad availability, we are still planning to release in mid-March, since we want to be sure that everyone has the smoothest experience possible.". You can have it earlier if you are want to touch buttons....

windows update is only pushing

the final two of three prerequisite updates needed to install Windows Vista SP1

basically it says you still need 2 more reboots before you can have sp1 automatically.

I believe MS said they would not roll it to fully automated updates till they fixes some driver installation problem that was displayed in the RC.

They however failed to tell what drivers were affected, and how you can manually fix it. Yanking the power cord certainly is not the method MS would recommend. It htink you need the install disk and run some kind of recovery mode. (that is how it worked under XP.

The linked forum post is referring to a RC, not to the RTM.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/11/windows-vista-sp1-availability-for-technical-customers.aspx

"For broad availability, we are still planning to release in mid-March, since we want to be sure that everyone has the smoothest experience possible.". You can have it earlier if you are want to touch buttons....

windows update is only pushing

the final two of three prerequisite updates needed to install Windows Vista SP1

basically it says you still need 2 more reboots before you can have sp1 automatically.

Looks like microsoft changed their mind after all the feedback:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/11/windows-vista-sp1-availability-for-technical-customers.aspx

My only guess for this behaviour ( desrcibed here: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/11/windows-vista-sp1-availability-for-technical-customers.aspx is that they either think (or know) that most of their MSDN and Technet customers are also VLP customers. Otherwise this is a completely assinine move on microsofts part.

Anyone have bets as to how long before a significant program of widespread use is broken

Application compatibility, too, improves significantly with SP1. While this area includes consumer-oriented applications, incompatible enterprise applications were the big deployment blockers over the past year. In the past year, Microsoft and its partners have remediated over 150 enterprise application blockers: These are applications that previously prevented one or more corporations from upgrading to Vista.

Beyond that, has there been any actual basis showing that SP1 (of the testers) adds any form of significant performance enhancements?

don't shut down, just send to hibernate, not sleep, hibernate. no need to restart pc each day. hibernate gives vista a more tv like operation. also, don't cheap out on the ram... :-) Vista Hibernate /btw, sleep is good but hibernate is better for overnight.

Well, considering Vista's "Content Protection" is talked about very specifically by Microsoft itself, including Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers), it would appear that nobody including Microsoft is denying its existence in Vista, or that it goes far beyond what any previous operating system would do with regard to "Content Protection."

Here's a quote specifically from the the link above, which is provided by Microsoft itself:

"Windows Vista includes content protection infrastructure specifically designed to help ensure that protected commercial audiovisual content, such as newly released HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs, can be enjoyed on Windows Vista PCs. In many cases this content has policies associated with its use that must be enforced by playback devices. The policies associated with such content are applicable to all types of devices including Windows Vista PCs, computers running non-Windows operating systems, and standalone consumer electronics devices such as DVD players. If the policies required protections that Windows Vista couldn't support, then the content would not be able to play at all on Windows Vista PCs."

Just because you have yet to run into Vista's DRM or that you don't deal much with A/V content that would cause you to notice limitations when using Vista doesn't mean that it isn't a significant issue for many people. Oh, and if you read the questions Microsoft responded to in the Vista blog you will also notice that Microsoft does admit the DRM will increase CPU resource consumption.

Wired also has an article covering Vista's DRM that specifically addresses criticism of Vista's DRM and Microsoft's response to that criticism. And if you'd like to see what your boss is reading, Forbes also has an article on Vista DRM entitled "Why Vista's DRM Is Bad For You."

Perhaps you should do some research before you post.

There had been *no* official publicly announced release dates, until possibly this one, and even that's dubious. Internet news services desperate for scoops are not official announcements.

The issues raised are hardly evidence of the serious flaws you implied.

This is a review from PCWorld. Granted, they're not the most reliable source on earth, but hey, those where the only highlights mentioned. No performance changes? UAC annoyances under control? Improved speed on top-of-the-line hardware?

I guess will see when it's out. The official info is fuzzy, to say the least.

Depends on what you think it means.

If you opted-in for the Customer Experience Improvement Program, then it records a bunch of data about your system and how you use it and uploads it to Microsoft.

A couple of key points:
1) It's opt-in, so it's not sending data unless you said to do so.
2) It's anonymous. It does not collect any information that can be used to identify you.

http://www.microsoft.com/products/ceip/en-us/default.mspx
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx

> No one outside of the core development team at Microsoft can claim any competence on the DRM implementation

And yet, even when they reply you won't believe it. Gutmann's sensationalism makes much better headlines.

It's sad that you got modded up, but at least the moderator was smart enough to use "underrated" to prevent from being M2ed for modding up crap.

It's not like Microsoft is not releasing bug fixes until Q1 2008

RTFA. That's exactly what's happening. Straight from the article, straight from Microsoft's product manager himself:

SP1's purpose is not primarily as a feature-delivery vehicle but as a way to improve the user experience and enhance it in some areas.
 
... On the other hand, security may be a greater concern, and numerous I.T. professionals and system administrators have provided ideas for enhancing the security advances fundamental to Windows Vista. Among these was the ability to extend BitLocker encryption beyond the bootable volume to other partitions on your hard disk, as made possible by SP1.
 
:headdesk:

Yes, that's right, you'll have to wait until Q1 2008 to be able to encrypt more than one partition. Read the whitepaper they link to: it provides a nice list of the bug fixes you'll have to wait to get.

Because I can slipstream it into my original CD, and should i need to re-install, I won't have to redownload all the updates.

SP1 will change a significant number of files; customers cannot apply SP1 to offline Windows Vista images.

Slipstream. The slipstream version of Windows Vista SP1 is media that already contains the service pack, which companies can use to deploy the operating system to new computers or to upgrade existing computers. Availability will be limited. Microsoft will update Windows Vista retail media with Windows Vista SP1 slipstream media in the future. Slipstream media will also be available to Volume Licensing customers.

If I recall, some of this was discredited later.

At the moment, it's 5.9. 6.0 and up is undefined and reserved for future hardware changes. (P.S., this is the first result for the query "vista experience scale" on Google.)

The sort of geek that rounds to the nearest 0.1, and then doesn't define what is required to obtain a 6?

Check out:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pag es/458117.aspx

Yes, Microsoft only have enough benchmarks to say that something "really surpasses the 5 benchmark by quite a lot". Apparently getting a 6 would require them to define what a 6 "meant" in terms of Windows usability, and beyond 5.9 they haven't thought of anything a more powerful machine could do better.

Frankly, I find the concept that Microsoft might run out of CPU-intensive eyecandy this quick to be pretty suspect. Having used Vista, I wouldn't have though it was possible to get it to run seamlessly any time in the next 3 years!

The disk score measures disk bandwidth (in Mega Bytes per Second). The conversion to an index number is set up in a way that all modern disks will score at least 2.0.

Fact#1: No, DRM has nothing to do with file copying, that is FUD. There is a known bug about the 'estimation' process, and you can find a hotfix on the net as one of my techs just reminded me. The DRM in Vista is 'protected processes' i.e. processes that no other process can gain access to even with admin rights. This is part DRM implemntation and part security. However it does not come into play when copying files, DRMed files are internally flagged, and copy as regular files, it is when they are tried to be played on another computer does the DRM check ever happen. Also this is just WMA, WMV, and works like XP. And the playback 'protected pipelines' truly don't come into play on copy media.

Fact#2: Aero does NOT consume more battery power. Aero was a concern in Beta, and there were some bad GPU drivers 'in beta', but since the release of Vista, this is SO not the case. Go find articles where people actually test this. There are 'reasons' why Aero makes up for itself by saving performance in diferent areas. If you think about it, the composer is keeping vector and bitmap applications from having to redraw the window all the time, so this would help offset other GPU usage. Pushing Vector and Bitmap data from RAM to the screen is NOT sucking or using much 3D power, truly...

Here are the first Google links I found, go find others, I think even a few gaming mags and Toms have done reports on this as well refuting the Aero battery drain myths.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2007/05/14/aero-and-battery-life.aspx

http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/arch ives/2007/05/the_vista_aero.html

Fact #3: There is still issues with file security where the don't give the administrator of the computer access to certain directives. You have to go in and change ownership, give me a fucking break. Like I want to spend time a clients house to deal with that shit?

This is somewhat true, but this is called security. I know it is new to the Windows world and strange to everyone else because MS has not given Windows Vista users an equivalent to root account, as even as Administrator with UAC off, certain system level files have higher security. However, as you state, you can take ownership and do what you want with them. So MS actually putting 'better' security in an OS is bad how again?

Games seem to run slow on my machine, maybe I need more memeory, but I have two gigs... I get 10 frames per second less on all my games. But it could be my machine, it seems more like a driver thing though.

Actually you should check out drivers, and see if newer versions don't pull a bit more performance out of your system.

Here are a couple of tips.

ATI Cards, version 9.2 seems to be faster for lower end cards.

ATI 14xx - 29xx the newest driver is faster.

NVidia FX 5xxx series 97.19 is currently the fastest driver.

NVidida 6xxx-8xxx usually the latest or one of the latest beta drivers are the fastest. (Find new and Beta NVidia drivers on www.laptopvideo2go.com, even for desktops, as they seems to stay up on versions and also offer updated INFs for non-standard chipsets.)

The January drivers or the in box Vista drivers are truly slower than XP, this is accepted by everyone. However, the Feb-Current drivers for Vista are on par with XP for most people in terms of performance. Like I said the WDDM required ATI/NVidia to write the drivers from scratch and since then they have been fixing and profiling games for optimal performance, which they had the luxury of years of testing on XP that no longer applies for the Vista Drivers.

Our techs tend to dispell the 'games are slower' on Vista by demonstrating a DirectX game and an OpenGL game running in a Window with Aero enabled, and sho

Apparently the three guys in the photo are on Microsoft's Anti-Piracy team, and the other three photos are of art that are in the public domain. From the Vista Team Blog: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2007/06/13/the-devil-is-in-the-details.aspx

This isn't an anti-piracy measure, Microsoft is actually pretty upset about it.

That was a misinterpretation.

In these days of global warming, and all the mass hysteria about it, and companies/governments trying to reduce carbon emissions...
We have microsoft, come out with a new hugely bloated OS that will result in lots of old computers being dumped, and will consume far more electricity than previous versions. Microsoft aren't doing their bit to reduce global warming, they are making the problem much worse.

Is this not the same thing Groklaw covered quite sometime back? There are several updates in the link, including a clarification from Allchin on that 'I'd buy a Mac' quote.

Question: Will the Windows Vista content protection board robustness recommendations increase the cost of graphics cards?

Answer by MS: evades the question, but suggests the answer is no.
Answers from an ATI presentation:

"These costs are passed on to the consumer"

"This cost is passed on to all consumers"

"This cost is passed on to purchasers of multimedia PC's"

"Costs are passed on to consumers"

"Costs are passed on to consumers, especially early adopters"

I'd suggest that you watch the video. It's not the 3D graphics that he's talking about.

Also, I've had OS X on my laptop since July of 2001. Aqua was first released to the world in an OS X alpha build presented at MacWorld in January of 2000. According to the Wikipedia article (if we can trust that), work on Vista started in May of 2001. And Aero (even if not by that name) has only been in Vista since build 4074 (according to the Wikipedia article on Aero); Paul Thurrott's images of that build are dated May 5, 2004.

So, some might "remember" that even before OS X was launched for its first version, the "Vista Road Map" had been published clearly stating that Aero has always been slated as part of the operating system - but they'd be remembering wrong.

We changed dramatically the development process that was being used and we reset the Windows Vista development project in mid-2004, essentially starting over.

Okay, let's look at each of those links in turn:

1) 1digit.blogspot.com: (December 2nd) "Microsoft said today that consumer versions of its next-generation version of Windows would not hit the market until January 2007, dashing plans that it would be on PCs for sale during the 2006 end-of-year holiday season."

Actually, MS had announced the January date much earlier than that: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2006/11/08/windows-vista-releases-to-manufact uring.aspx

From that same page: "And just what is this so-called RTM? It's the major milestone where we can confidently say that Microsoft is done with Windows Vista and will be handing it off to our industry partners: PC makers, ISVs and IHVs." What does "Microsoft is done with Windows Vista" mean to you? To me, it means their part of the code is complete. If hardware manufacturers improve some drivers between now and January 30th, that's fine, great, and I'll update appropriately - but that's entirely different to the picture you paint. Of course, you appear to believe you know more about what Microsoft release than they do...

2) www.cio.com entry: Well, that's from July 11th, well before the November release, so is irrelevant: There's nothing in there which suggests the code in the November release is different to the code in the January release.

3) Washington Post: Again, nothing in there suggests to me that there's any difference between the November and January releases.

And yes, it states that hardware support and software compatibility support was a factor in the fact that Vista has released later than was originally intended. That's *not* the same as saying that there are any compatibility issues which produce a delay between the November release and the January release.

You seem to want to treat the word "delay" as if it always means "delay after shipping to businesses but before shipping to consumers" whereas in almost every case shown so far it actually means "delay between when we originally intended to release Vista and when we actually shipped it". Can you see the difference?

Microsoft changed their EULA so users can have unlimited license transfers: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2006/11/02/news-revision-to-windows-vista-ret ail-licensing-terms.aspx

Just know that while your 16 bit apps will run under Vista, but this is only true for the 32bit version of Vista, as your programs will always fail to run in the 64bit version...

Their Virtual PC home page says: "Microsoft will also offer the free download of Virtual PC 2007, with support for Windows Vista, available in 2007." Their Vista Team Blog page about Virtual PC 2007 Beta says: "For those not familiar with Virtual PC, it also works the other way around--you can run Windows XP or an earlier OS on Windows Vista. This can be helpful if you have an older application that does not work well in Windows Vista."

According to this, the startup sound can now be disabled. If you want a different startup sound, you can disable the "Windows Startup" sound, and specify a custom wav file for the "Windows Logon" event.

On older builds of Vista it was impossible to get rid of this sound, but after enough complaining they added a checkbox in the Sound control panel.

How about getting rid of the sound? What else does a startup sound inspire other than the sour feeling of having to restart the PC all the time?

On older builds of Vista it was impossible to get rid of this sound, but after enough complaining they added a checkbox in the Sound control panel. See this for more details.

Jim Allchin has clarified his comments which were mis-interpreted.

Read here

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2006/11/10/windows-vista-defense-in-depth.asp x

Jim has stated customers will need antivirus software, even with Vista.

On BetaNews, it turns out Allchin has lost some bravado and is now blogging about his new insight.

See http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2006/11/02/news-revision-to-windows-vista-ret ail-licensing-terms.aspx