Slashdot Mirror
Is Vista a Trap?
logube writes "BBC has up an article about the trap of installing Vista in your existing desktop. Written by Tim Weber, a self-confessed 'sucker for technology,' this article is a good introduction to the pain and extra money required to get going with the newest version of Windows. See how you can spend an extra 130 british pounds, and still have no working webcam! Says Weber, 'It took me one day to get online. The detail is tedious and highly technical: reinstalling drivers and router firmware didn't work, but after many trial and error tweaks to Vista's TCP/IP settings, I had internet access. Once online, Creative's website told me that my sound card was a write-off. No Vista support would be forthcoming.'"
as this happened with xp-64, didn't it?
also, by that logic, linux is a trap
So how is installing Linux any harder?
Money is the root of all evil?
Microsoft isn't completely blameless here. If Microsoft had adopted the same strategy for drivers as the OpenBSD project has (accepting either fully open drivers or no drivers), then somebody (even Microsoft) could make the drivers work on Vista.
This is yet another why open drivers built from publicly-available hardware documentation are better than binary-blob drivers.
http://outcampaign.org/
Linux as a whole might take some blame if an older version worked with the hardware (say in kernel 2.4) , but a newer version (say kernel 2.6) didn't. This does happen on occasion, but it is generally fixed-up by either an OSS developer that wants to use the hardware, or the vendor (such as the Nvidia binaries).
Remember, Vista is purported to be somewhat of an upgrade/improvement over XP. That means that people expect it to do what XP does, and more. It's still MS windows, just a newer, shinier, bulkier ones.
So if your winmodem worked in 2.4.x and not in 2.6.x, you might have a legitimate gripe at linux. Generally such things come out in the next-version bugfixes, but issues do happen where a particular newer version does not like certain hardware, or the source-code for modules doesn't compile and no newer-version source is available. If there never was support for your winmodem in the first place (note, WINmodem is a good giveway that it's not non-windows friendly), then the blame rests somewhat on the manufacturer for not providing a driver, or at least specs for such. In the case of winmodems, the software pretty much is most of the product, so the manufacturers guard it fairly closely.
And people survived trench warfare but that is no reason to throw a mustard gas party.
The simple truth is that right now most people will get zero benefit from Vista. And for some people they will actually loose functionality that they currently have.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Yes.
Except, certain things in Vista still work better than under (say) Ubuntu, or a lot of other Linux distributions.
Like, say, 802.11 configuration.
Or perhaps, volume controls. I've given up on getting a proper working fucking volume control on my SB Live-equipped Ubuntu desktop machine.
Or Bluetooth. Such pain and trauma to configure a Bluetooth mouse with Linux, but it was straight-forward with Vista.
Or video drivers. Neither Vista nor XP has ever trashed my video drivers with an automatic update. Meanwhile, every time Ubuntu switches to a new nvidia-legacy driver, my desktop machine needs to be tickled again before X will work. (I know - I should just stick with the free nv driver, since there's no fucking games for Linux to make 3D worth caring about, anyway. But I like xscreensaver's GL hacks.)
Vista's not perfect, though. It killed support for DirectSound3D and EAX, making games less enjoyable to play (for me, anyway). However, EAX never worked at all in Linux, so I guess I don't feel "trapped" anymore than I do with Linux.
Kid-proof tablet..
Yeah seriously. I don't think the people that would buy Vista for DX10 are going to sit around for 5 years while Wine works on DX10. Wine is great and all, but that's really just not going to cut it. Like it or not, you are going to need Vista for DirectX10...there's no doubt about that.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Yes unfortunately I tend to forget how different /. is when it comes to vague posts or ranting.
I have used Vista, I do not like it, it's intrusive and annoying to me (yes I do want to run that exe), I personally don't care about eye candy, I am into performance which vista does not have unless you are running a state of the art proc, 4 gig's of RAM and a high end graphics card (which none have decent drivers as of yet)
I'm not going to get into the DRM portion of Vista.
You're a sucker to buy it and a fool to run it.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I've been running Vista at work for a few months now, since Beta 2, doing compatibility testing. I have thus far not managed to run in to its DRM. This is because I don't have any DRM'd media. It turns out there are not evil DRM gremlins hiding on my system, trying to steal my media. All the video I shoot and edit works fine, my OGG/FLAC collection works fine, etc. Yes, if I were to get an HD-DVD or Blu-ray drive and try to play movies I'm sure I'd have to contend with the DRM. Well, I'm not so there's not really a concern there.
Basically to me Vista's DRM doesn't add any value, but it doesn't interfere with my work in any way. Thus I really just don't care. I don't see any way it it hurts my fair use. Please remember that the HD formats are encrypted anyhow, it's not like Vista does anything with that, and the decryption tools that have been released run fine on Vista. Maybe I'll encounter a problem with it at some point (that's why I'm testing it, to see what the problems with supporting it will be) but not yet.
It seems to me that "DRM" has become a poorly defined scare word for many people. They throw it around without knowing what it really means, just that it is bad and that you should hate it. I agree that DRM is not a useful technology, but let's be straight about when it does and doesn't matter. Vista does not have DRM gremlins that try to eat your media. Your unDRM'd media does not stop working, the tools for creating it do not stop working. No, video output is not degraded, I get full resolution in everything I do (since all the media isn't DRM'd) despite lacking an HDCP monitor and video card.
If it doesn't affect you, not likely to make it in to a "thing that didn't work for me" article, is it?
I'm not sure what lies you've been reading about UAC, but it conditions users to always say "Yes" to security prompts. This is a very terrible idea and in this situation the criticism is well deserved.
"You are about to open the Control Panel -- allow or deny?"
"You are about to open the Program Files folder -- allow or deny?"
"You are about to modify user preferences -- allow or deny?
"You are about to open attachment pzxyTrojan.exe -- allow or deny?"
Allow.. allow.. allow.. allow.. allow..
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
How would they enforce it? If a company just puts out a binary driver, what's to stop the user from installing it? Can YOU think of a way?
Sorry, but there is just NO way Microsoft could ever enforce that policy. Stop blaming Microsoft for corporations wanting to keep their drivers secret so that their competitors don't use them to improve their OWN drivers.
My sig can beat up your sig.
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Microsoft isn't going to force vendors to open source their drivers when they so closely guard their own code. What's good for the gander is good for the goose and all that.
You're point is well taken however. I don't see why hardware vendors don't release their source code. They can patent the hardware if it truly contains innovations and with software patents they could patent all or part of the driver if it's anything special and release the code under whatever license they deem appropriate.
If I was evaluating two pieces of expensive hardware that performed equally well I'd take the piece with open source drivers over the piece that didn't have open source drivers even if it cost more just for insurance on the investment. You'd think that having open source drivers would be a point that high end hardware manufacturers, especially new ones, could compete on.
Not supporting DX9 makes no business sense. DX10-only games will be games by Microsoft, or games for which Microsoft paid the developer their expected DX9 profits to be DX10-only.
I was reading an article recently where people were looking for ways to explain what the problems are with digital rights management technology to non technically minded people.
Examples given tended to be along the lines of "I can't watch foreign released films, they were never released locally so I have no legal option, and I need this for my book report." and "You shouldn't have to pay for that song again, you already paid for it."
These are, quite frankly, not the most pressing examples I could think of.
Here's some examples you can show your mom and dad:
1) Broadcast news will be all be digitally signed by the big media companies.
The same technology used to cause your saved version of American Idol to self-destruct can be used after the fact to erase news right off your home electronics. It will also prevent it from being transferred to unprotected permanent media, or played back from any backup.
2) Medical software and data will all be digitally signed by the rights owners.
The same technology used to stop software piracy could be used after the fact to switch off hospitals and clinics that don't pay their bills. There is massive financial incentive to design this to happen automatically. Anyone who doubts the realism of this scenario need only look as far as the behavior of the existing drug companies.
3) Company files will all be digitally signed.
If you are being screwed over by your employer or any company you have business dealings with, they will be able to ensure that you don't make anyone else aware of it.
Anyone who thinks this technology is about protecting Britney Spears from Bluebeard the Pirate is missing the point. This is about totalitarianism.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
It's about time to give up on PC gaming, especially with the beauty, convenience and comfort of today's powerful consoles (both of them). Nothing compares to 5.1 Dolby TrueHD sound blasting from a nice surround system while you're seated on a comfortable couch in front of your high-def TV of choice. You get your shooters, online games, web surfing, etc.
With Vista, MS gives us another reason to turn towards consoles as a smarter choice. It's currently an unnecessary upgrade that wraps your media in shackles with DRM and pesters you every 5 minutes to second guess whatever you want to do with it. Oh and it's expensive and won't look pretty unless you spend some $$$ on your computer.
The days of Wintendo are numbered and I think Vista is a good reason to bring the curtain down.
"...but its nice to know my account has user level priveledges[sic] instead of admin..."
Awesome, welcome to 1975! You must be a really proud owner of a modern, prior art ripping operating system.
Remember, Microsoft said exactly the same thing about XP and 2000 that they do about Vista, and that they have about every single version of Windows except pehaps 1.0: "Faster, more secure, more personalized, better than ever before!"
And we say exactly the same thing we've always said: "Bloated, incompatible, too invasive, look at that WGA!" XP has the same privacy issues, 2000 had worse (if possible) compatibility issues.
But around SP1 or SP2, XP became livable, arguably better than 2000. And probably around SP1, 2000 became stable enough, and was obviously a HUGE upgrade compared to 98 -- so huge that if they hadn't done it when they did, Linux probably would've taken over.
So, we're going to have the same thing happen here. I predict that in roughly 2 years, around SP1 or SP2, Vista will actually be better than XP. But it isn't yet -- too much stuff isn't compatible, and the "beta" was a laugh; if you buy it now, you are their gamma testers.
Smart people stick with XP, and let the rest of the world test and debug Vista for us.
Me? I'll keep dual-booting XP and Linux (Ubuntu here, Gentoo at home).
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Fuck that! Why would I want to replace my nice, general-purpose, hackable PC with DRM-infested proprietary crap?
(Note: I'm not going to be playing games on Vista, either.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
By the way I am suffering day-to-day on a debian box in my office only because I don't have enough privileges to upgrade the kernel... I can feel your pain Vista users.
Or even ditching DX completely and using OpenGL.
Game companies arent stupid. They know people are trying other OS's.
Google, id software, Epic and others have moved accordingly.
I'm betting that other companies are considering it.
So, it sounds like when they are done reimplementing UNIX, they might just have a fine operating system.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein