Slashdot Mirror
Vista Makes CNET UK's List of "Worst Consumer Tech"
Several anonymous readers pointed us at CNET UK's Crave blog for a list of what is or was, in their opinion, the worst consumer tech in history. Vista comes in at number 10, in company with Apple's puck mouse (number 6) and Sony's CD rootkit (number 9). According to Crave: "[Vista's] incompatibility with hardware, its obsessive requirement of human interaction to clear security dialogue box warnings and its abusive use of hated DRM, not to mention its general pointlessness as an upgrade, are just some examples of why this expensive operating system earns the final place in our terrible tech list." That's gotta hurt a little, coinciding as it does with Apple's Don't Give Up On Vista attack ad.
Apple's puck mouse was #6. Vista was #10 and Sony's rootkit was #9. I admit that the mouse was more form than function. But it didn't really cause harm unlike like Sony's rootkit and isn't the fiasco that is Vista. So why is it higher? Also if users didn't like the mouse, they could replace it with a $20 model from a store. Many people I know don't use the mouse that came with the computer. You can't easily replace Vista or get rid of the rootkit.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
and its onerous security notifications, adherence to DRM and general pointlessness, I don't think that "incompatibility with hardware" is really a valid statement. It runs on modern hardware from a wide variety of vendors. If you want to see an operating system with stringent hardware requirements, you need look no further than OSX. At least I can show people how to run the OS on my own hardware without the software's manufacturer coming after me and threatening legal action if I don't stop.
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
The abundance of "lists as articles" makes me want to vomit, but this one takes the cake. They just randomly put down ten tech mistakes in an ad-baiting format (click here to see the next on the list - we won't tell you what it is, but if you click here, we'll get more ad revenue!). What's the time period? What are the criteria for selection?
The writers just pulled nonsense out of their asses, and somehow that passes as valuable information. In this so-called Information Age, one would think better writing would rise to the top. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case. We get crap, but at least we get it instantly!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I spend much of my time using Windows (2K pro, 2003, XP, and Vista) and OS X , and a little on Linux. I consider myself experienced with both OS X and Windows. I much prefer OS X but I can say there is also some things I like about Vista. I have not had any speed issues and only a few software compatibility issues. I appreciate the structural improvements made in such areas as the management console, event logger, command line utilities, and kernel structures. Vista isn't the upgrade it should have been but it is not horrible. Microsoft is on the right track with UAC, and with some fine tuning it will be worth the trouble. The display subsystem is moving in the same direction that NeXT aka OS X took 15 or so years ago (think display post script in NeXT, now display PDF in OS X). It's taken Microsoft far too long to catch up but I do think they are on the right track. Remember the resistance XP met with when it first arrived. Now it's well received. I think Vista will eventually achieve this status a few years down the road.
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
As someone who Beta tested the OS and who has it on 3 work machines and a couple of home machines (except for one box that dual boots Ubuntu and XP) I can almost agree with you. However, if you try to capture audio as it is playing you will find it has more DRM than XP. Using freeware like Audigy on XP you could (depending on your sound card) capture what was being played. Some cards called it "what u hear" others "wave out mix" - but generally you could grab it.
With Vista, you can no longer do that. It does stop me from ripping that 2 second sound byte from DVD that I sometimes want for my own use. In fact, that's the only reason the XP box still exists; it would be just Ubuntu if not for that one thing. So, to be fair - there is more DRM in Vista than in WinXP. It hasn't hurt much yet for me - but it has been a small pain. I think what we need hear is more honest talk from folks who have tried it and seen what sucks and what doesn't and a little less vitriol from some folks anyway who haven't even tried it.
> 4. The point with Vista is not whether it ACTUALLY prevents you from watching DVD's. The point is that it can in the future, and that you won't be able to do ANYTHING about it. Vista is taking all the decisions for you, and where you'd like to be asked "Cancel, or Allow?" regarding updates-from and reports-to Microsoft, you won't be. If Redmond decides to install a rootkit on your vista, you won't even notice!
No offence, but this exact same statement (well, statements) can be made about Apple as well. What's preventing them from injecting new DRM into OS X in a future update? Because Jobs wears turtlenecks? The only operating system I trust in that respect is Linux and its variants so I guess I'm agreeing with you in that respect. I'll tell you what -- and I am a man of my word and owner of Gutsy Gibbon on DVD -- if Vista ever screws with me when it comes to backing up or playing my digital media, I join the FOSS army faster than you can say Monkey Boy.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
What codecs do you use on each machine? An AVI is just a container and I somehow think you didn't rip into a Windows Media codec, hence the WMP version is (almost) irrelevant.
Vista's DRM problems are no "Myth" at all.
Maybe some overblown exaggeration made by some blogger and the Zdnet blog you're citing is specifically attempting to debunk them.
That doesn't prevent Vista's DRM to suck anyway.
- About the HDCP/DRM
Needing a whole DRM stack just to connect your screen is what I find the most abusive.
It's MY display that I BOUGHT legally with MY OWN MONEY.
It's MY graphic card that I BOUGHT legally with MY OWN MONEY.
I have complete legal ownership of both these items.
THEN WHY THE HELL MUST THERE BE A DRM STACK that has to decide what goes on my screen and what doesn't ?
Why is it putting arbitrary restriction on what I can do with something I own legally ?
All this stupidity only because the **AA are afraid that someone *might* attempt to pirate digital content at no loss using the digital transmission.
(As if all this has prevented Muslix64 and Co to design a method to decode HDDVD & BD using keys dumped from software).
The some idiotic design is replicated on other channels, including the audio path. And give the ability to the audio player to refuse to play if it considers the driver stack insecure.
- About the drivers for Vista 64.
Sorry, but Windows Vista 64 driver models seriously challenge free drivers (like kxProjet alternative drivers) and completely prevent open source driver project ( like 3DFX Voodoo 3/4/5 - which are compatible with 64bit system : XP 64).
The former, as a free/beer project may not have the budget to buy signing keys.
The later, as a free/speech project need to grant its user the ability to do whatever they want with the code. Should a newer patch be available for either Mesa or Glide, I should be able to recompile mine and load them (the recent patches to enable Quake4 on MesaFX comes to mind as an exemple). Without a signing key, it's something impossible to do. This both contradict the fundamental liberties that organisation like FSF are fighting for, and also violates GPLv3 (don't know if currently there are GPLv3 drivers being developed).
Yes, one could find signing key from other CA. But that cost money that some project don't have, or would require every single end user to have access to the key in order to keep the basic software freedoms.
And the ActiveX fiasco (and the various CA-signed malware that has appeared in the past) has already shown that merely signing code won't actually guarantee it's quality.
So these two are clearly both useless (video content got copied anyway, signing has never kept out malware) and arbitrarily restrict users freedom (I should decide what goes on my hardware, without needing to pay additional fee just to use something I've already paid for).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Again, I am not saying this is fair. I'm saying, blame the MPAA or the govt. for not stepping in to rectify this bullshit situation, instead of yelling bloody murder at MS when they have no choice in the matter. They have a choice. You know, Microsoft could grow some balls and not just not support it. Then inform users the reason they can't play a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is because the MPAA wants to screw over their customers. Redesigning your OS just to make the MPAA customer screwing easier isn't a good decision. Microsoft controls 90%+ of the desktop market, they could force the MPAA into some sort of compromise if they had the sack to.