Slashdot Mirror
Professor Michael Geist on Vista's Fine Print
Russell McOrmond writes "With Microsoft's Vista set to hit stores tomorrow, Michael Geist's weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) looks at the legal and technical fine print behind the operating system upgrade. The article notes that in the name of shielding consumers from computer viruses and protecting copyright owners from potential infringement, Vista seemingly wrestles control of the "user experience" from the user. If you are a Canadian and think that the owner of computers should be in control of what they own, rather than some third party (whether virus authors or the manufacturer/maker), then please sign our Petition to protect Information Technology property rights."
.... are former Windows users running to the Apple Store to buy a Mac.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Isn't the most effective way to "protest" it just not buy, to explain to your friends and workplaces why they shouldn't buy it, and most particularly, to aggressively pursue a refund for any bundled versions that you're forced to buy with hardware?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
There is still a lot of debate on whether EULA's and click through agreements are completely binding. I won't get into all of the arguments on both sides, but I believe that companies are afraid to really go after anyone for breaking the asnine portions of these agreements because a court might rule that these documents are not binding contracts. They are handy for threatening people in certain situations, with cease and desist letters, and for making corporate users wary about potential law suits, thus restricting their usage and options. Of course, a court could hold that they are completely binding, and then the software companies would be free to attack an breach. So each side seems to be in an uneasy truce.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
I wonder if they included the blue-screen-of-death feature that I've enjoyed for such a long time.
Am I the only one who is getting tired of reading all kinds of "Microsoft DRM is evil!" posts, and then seeing a post the very next day talking about how awesome Apple is? One company is buckling to industry pressure and including DRM, the other has a fricking Trusted Platform Module in every new computer it makes. The double standard is infuriating.
TPM modules aren't inherently bad. It's how they are used that makes the difference. If the owner of the computer is in charge of the module, they are a powerful tool. If someone else is, then it's a problem.
Is it just me, or is there a complete lack of any kind of buzz around Vista?
A search on Google News (UK) brings up loads of articles with negative titles "Buying Vista? Get a guarantee", "Windows Vista: Where Is The Wow?", "Windows Vista: the best reason to buy a Mac?", "Windows Vista disappoints, so get a Mac". And that's just in the first half of the results.
It really is quite amazing for a product that Microsoft has spend billions and many years to develop.
Of course the sad thing is that, because of its strangle hold on the market, it will still make billions and will be able to declare the launch a success.
And here I thought that Vista would be a technical security risk. Heh, little did I know that MS would do something idiotic like this to go with the lot. I'd be strongly dissuading ANYONE who was my client to go do this "upgrade" because of this alone (never mind the potential and REAL security risks that the OS seems to have...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"you may not work around any technical limitations in the software."
That's absolutely stunning. I wonder exactly how broadly that could be interpreted?
If I buy any kind of third-party utility... antivirus software, backup software, a defragmenter... isn't that "working around" technical limiations in the software Microsoft provides? Isn't Firefox arguable a "workaround" for technical limitations in Internet Explorer?
It's about time to stop calling it a "personal computer" and start calling it a "Microsoft corporate computer."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Am I the only one who is getting tired of reading all kinds of "Microsoft DRM is evil!" posts, and then seeing a post the very next day talking about how awesome Apple is? One company is buckling to industry pressure and including DRM, the other has a fricking Trusted Platform Module in every new computer it makes. The double standard is infuriating.
So if I buy a mac, how does the DRM affect me? Do I have to worry about my computer becoming unusable if I change hardware? Do I have to worry about re-registering? Do I have to worry about registering in the first place? The answers are, of course, no, no, and no. So is there a chance Apple will delete software off of my computer without my permission as MS's built in security will? No. So what, exactly, is the issue? There is a chip with an encryption key on it in the box? Okay, so why should I care? I'm a pragmatist. If my files were being DRM'd so I could not move to something else or if Apple was restricting me in any way, maybe I'd care. Apple does put DRM on their music files, they sell, but I generally don't buy from them. I did buy a few songs once that I could not find elsewhere, but I legally stripped the DRM off with a freeware program and backed them up as a regular audio CD with no DRM. What's the problem?
I use Windows and OS X and Linux on the desktop. Currently I favor OS X because it gives me the best feature set for general tasks. If Apple starts implementing DRM in such a way as to inconvenience me, I'll migrate to something else. I'm not going to do so, however, unless the DRM does inconvenience me. I'm not being shortsighted either. Any use that prevents me from being able to move platforms would probably tip the balance away from Apple, as I value portability.
The only real restriction I've seen Apple implement with encryption is locking their software to their hardware (any Apple hardware not a specific machine). Since Apple only licenses their software to run on their platform the only people this inconveniences are people who plan to use the software but break the license, and that doesn't leave a lot of room for complaint. Would I prefer it if OS X would run on any hardware? Sure, it would be a great feature. The problem is Apple's main product would directly compete with an abusive monopoly, and that means it would die and we would not get to use it anymore. The traditional strategy for dealing with such a monopoly is to build a separate vertical chain of supply, which Apple has done. Breaking that chain before MS is stopped from their criminal monopoly abuse is not a real option for Apple, so I don't blame them at all for only licensing their OS for their hardware.
The petition is to the Canadian parliament, and is on behalf of all owners of Information Technology -- not just those who choose any specific brand of hardware or software.
Our existing petitions have already had an important effect, letting politicians know that there are more constituencies in this issue than the incumbent industry associations. Our new petition tries to move away from the myths that DRM is about "content control" when in fact it is about "hardware control". This "hardware control" impacts your usage of hardware you own, regardless of whether you are using "premium content" or not.
This is also not a Microsoft and/or Apple issue, as these bad laws impact all users of technology whether or not they are ever a customer of Microsoft or Apple.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/
"THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to prohibit the application of a technical protection measure to a device without the informed consent of the owner of the device, and to prohibit the conditioning of the supply of content to the purchase or use of a device which has a technical measure applied to it. We further call upon Parliament to recognise the right of citizens to personally control their own communication devices, and to choose software based on their own personal criteria."
Digital Copyright Canada forum
If you are curious what I would say, just ask.
Speaking to a group of copyright holders about this issue, Stewart Baker, Department of Homeland Security's assistant secretary for policy, said, "It's very important to remember that it's your intellectual property -- it's not your computer. And in the pursuit of protection of intellectual property, it's important not to defeat or undermine the security measures that people need to adopt in these days."
Nothing in this petition diminishes the legitimate rights of copyright holders. What it does is recognize the age-old saying, which is "Your right to swing your cane ends at my nose". IE: A copyright holders right to protect their copyright ends at my property rights.
Digital Copyright Canada forum
Toms Hardware http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista / just published extensive Vista Enterprise benchmarks, comparing them to XP Pro.
The result:
At best, the computer won't run any slower.
At worst, it will run software abysmally slow or not at all. OpenGL support seems nonexistant, judging from the horrendous drop in performance in UT2004 (>30% drop) and the rendering of 3D/CAD/CAE software unusable (80-90% drops in performance).
This is idiotic on Microsoft's part. Now businesses will be even more opposed to upgrading to Vista, since either they're going to have to stop using their engineering/graphics software (at least until vendors work on their Vista support) or they're going to have to split their computer infrastructure and support both XP and Vista, while seeing, at beast, negligible gains under Vista.
Businesses are not going to be sold on the promise of Aero glass, especially not when Vista's recommended system requirements are so high, relative to those for XP (I have a P2 450 with 384MB of RAM running XP Home passably, it certainly won't be able to run Vista).
Those are the options. And they all suck.
This is an opportunity for somebody. Probably somebody in China.
I loaded it on a twin dual core with 4 gig of ram.
It booted slower than 2k pro
It would not allow me to install sybase (vista said it was a virus)
I could not run Office 2000 on it. I would just crash if it opened at all
I was unable to load my custom written backup software, it did not have a valid certificate
( i wrote the software )
I unloaded vista and put 2k back on it
-- I am the NRA, enough said...