Ok... but I would assume anyone purchasing such a high end workstation would also be purchasing at least 2GB of RAM as well. Seems kind of odd to spend that much money only to underpower it with 512K of RAM.
You don't need an 8800GT, it works fine with standard Intel graphics, or a $49 video card.
And you can't affor 2GB of RAM? Well, if you simply didn't have 4 Latte's this week, you'd have 2GB.
2GB of RAM costs about $20. If you're really so poor that you can't afford $20 to make your computer significantly faster, then i have to question why you are using a computer at all.
Anyway, it doesn't support mounting an ISO under any software that I tried and I'm guessing it was DRM related.
Why is it that everyone is so quick to blame DRM for everything? "My audio is choppy" It's the DRM! "My network is slow" It's the DRM! It's not possible that it's just a bug in the software, it's got to be deliberate DRM interferance.
Why don't you get another refrain?
For the record, there are serveral tools that work fine to mount ISO's in Windows 7, but there are some VFS changes that break some apps. Microsoft now includes built-in VHD mounting (the virtual disk format used in VirtualPC and VirtualServer/Hyper-V). I found it quite easy to convert images to VHD for mounting (and as a side-benefit you can even boot the computer from them using the BCD) using Winimage.
Why do I have to dick around 3 menus deep to change my wireless network?
You don't. On the right hand side of the task bar is a little network icon. You on that and there's an option to choose wireless networks. One menu, 2 clicks and you're there. Windows offers numerous ways to do the same thing, some of them are longer than others, but there is usually shortcut.
Not to mention how hard it is to get to the IP address settings
Again, right click on the icon and choose Network and sharing center, then click View Status, and properties. Pretty close to the 3 clicks it took in XP and 2000.
Most people forget about the swap and hibernate files. These take up (combined) about 3x the amount of memory you have in the computer (or VM). So if you allocate 1GB of RAM, then 3GB (or so) is swap and hibernate file. If you don't plan to use hibernate (such as using VMWare's sleep feature) then you can disable the hibernate file and save some space, but you will likely want to keep the swap file.
How does "you can play any and all DRM encoded files" work for you when the DRM may not give you permission to play the file under some circumstances (the network connection is down, the contend provider went belly up, the DRM protection is buggy,... )?
Because the alternative is not being able to play the file at all. Why can't anyone seem to understand that "some" rights are better than "no" rights?
Let's put this another way. Let's say you're stuck on an island. The only way off the island is to work on a cruise ship that docks in port every now and then. However, working ont he ship requires you give up certain freedoms because you have to work for your passage.
Now, you can choose whether to work or stay on the island. Some people might choose one or the other. The problem is that your argument is that you shouldn't allow the cruise ship to dock at all, because nobody should want to give up those freedoms, so you decide you're going to blow up the dock to prevent others from falling into this horrible trap.
Do you not see how such thinking is a fallacy? And how your attempt to encourage "freedom" is actually just forcing your own beliefs on others?
The Gutmann article, while entertaining, is not light reading because it contains incomparably more substance than all your citations combined.
How can a paper based purely on speculation and a single misunderstood document be "incomparably more substan[tial]"?
Peter Gutmann has admitted to never using Vista. Never actually testing any of his theories against the real code. Never running any empiracle tests. Never even so much as watched another person use it. Nobody has substantiated his theories. Nobody has done analysis which has confirmed his theories.
Tell me, what scientist wouldn't be laughed out of any scientific community if he wrote a paper about something that can be proven through phsyical examination, but never bothered to do so?
As for Bruce Schnier, Gutmann is a colleague of his, and he accepted his findings at face value without any further analysis. If you read the comments on the article your quote, you will see many people disagree with him for various reasons, including many people who suggest that he not blindly accept Gutmann's conclusions.
Gutmann is great at writing authoritatively, which is why so many people accept his conclusions without a shred of evidence other than the one paper he misunderstands.
Gutmann has been debunked many times. He based his entire argument off a single document, and a number of unsubstantiated blogs.
It's simply not true. End to end encryption does not do what you think it does. Whether data is encrypted on your hard disk is your choice. Nothing is encrypted in media playback unless you choose to play protected media, and if you're concerned about it, simply don't buy protected media.
As for your suspicions, they are also incorrect. SP1 has fixed the slow network copy, which was simply a result of no caching as previous versions had done, and the majority of unsupported hardware (not counting 64 bit, which required at a minimum a driver recompile which many vendors didn't bother to do with their legacy hardware) was due to changes in the driver model for security reasons.
What caused Vista's poor release was the fact that they threw away all their work in 2005 and started over, but they needed to ship a product in a specific time frame or else they would have had to rev XP to appease OEM's. In short, they rushed the second version of what eventually became Vista to market.
Don't for a second thing that media companies would not release DRM'd works without OS support. Remember the Sony rootkit? Or all the various forms of copy protection media companies have used such as non-standard disk formats?
The thing about OS supported DRM is that it provides a means for these companies to provide protected media in a way that is agnostic to those who choose not to participate in it.
Vote with your wallet. Don't buy protected media. If enough people think like you do, then the media companies will get the hint when their sales plummet.
If you don't believe me, read the oft-cited Peter Gutmann article
You mean the thoroughly debunked Peter Gutmann article. It's full of so many inaccuracies, fantasies, and wild ass guesses as to be almost complete fabrication.
Ridiculous. Apart from the antitrust issues Microsoft would surely run into, who's going to buy into such a system? And don't use the boiled frog metaphor, since there is clearly a point where these draconian measures take place. If that happens, nobody is going to buy into it.
As an example, let's look at the "Do not copy" flag in broadcast digital TV. Every time they've tried to flip that on, there's been such massive backlash that they've had to turn it back off. Bluray, for instance has similar features, but they can't turn it on or they risk alienating most of their audience (largely because very few people have completely trusted path systems, and that's not likely to change).
The fact of the matter is, DRM is the emperors new clothes. The studios like to think it provides copy protection, but it doesn't. There will always be ways around it, and I wouldn't spend more than 10 seconds worrying about it until it ever becomes a reality where it's not circumventable, in which case, merely boycott the products and vote with your wallet.
I disagree. I think rootkits are huge reason for driver signing requirement. Even stuff like Sony's rootkit wouldn't work with driver signing, cause Microsoft surely isn't going to allow SOny to do what it was doing.
Another reason is that it will likely push up the quality of drivers, because they have to be reviewed by Microsoft. Not a guarantee that drivers won't crash, but it does give the companies more incentive to release better ones.
You contradict yourself. First you say it cannot be turned off, then you say it cannot be turned off without losing premium content playback.
So yes, it can be turned off. And, if you don't like DRM, why do you care if you can't play DRM encoded media?
Or do you want to hate DRM, but still play DRM encoded media while simultaneously trying to circumvent it? If you don't like DRM, don't buy DRM encoded media. Vote with your wallet, don't hate it but buy it anyways, then complain that you can't steal it.
That's not DRM. You're confusing Trusted Computing with DRM. Though they use some similar techniques, they are intended for different purposes. DRM is intended to prevent copying of protected media, Trusted Computing is intended to protect the integrity of your computer.
Yes, you can turn off the driver signing requirement, just like you can in Vista. Not sure why it's such an issue, as i've never run into an unsighed driver that wasn't a virus.
Those are poorly implemented, and illegal copy protection means, not OS sanctioned DRM. Of course DRM *COULD* be evil, as the Sony rootkit and such proved. Microsoft's DRM is intended to be unintrusive if you aren't using the protected media.
Precisely. If you don't like DRM, then don't buy DRM encoded content. DRM doesn't apply if you're not playing DRM encoded content.
Most people persist in believing the disproven Peter Gutmann theories, mostly because they want to. The fact is, DRM simply doesn't affect anything unless DRM encoded content is playing.
If it REMOVES any control of my machine, in any way, then it is just another Vista, in my mind.
And you're just another sheep that believes what the cloud tells him. I am so sick of hearing people talk about DRM as if it's evil. Such thinking is flawed.
Here's the thing. DRM does not remove any control from you. None whatsoever. It is only a figment of your imagination. In fact, it gives you more control.
Consider this. Without DRM support, you can't play any DRM encoded files. With DRM, if you so choose, you can play any and all DRM encoded files, in addition to any and all non-DRM encoded files. This means that OS's without DRM give you LESS choice or control over any media you may purchase.
If you don't like DRM, fine, then don't buy DRM encoded media. It's your choice. Whether or not the OS supports DRM is irrelevant and doesn't take any control from you. It's entirely in your control whether or not you buy DRM encoded music or movies.
This is not a troll either, just use your brain and think about it logically and stop reacting so emotionally. And stop believing what everyone force feeds you.
There is no way to easily switch from one arbitrary window to another. First you need to hover over the application icon (or right-click it with the Dock), then click on the window within the application that you want.
Actually, the superbar (as it's called) does help wit that, to some extent. For instance, say you have two Internet Explorer windows open, and each window has 3 tabs. The taskbar will contain two icons, showing each window. However, if you hover over those two grouped icons, you see each of the tabs previewed, and you can click any of those previews and the active window, with that tab is brought to the front.
This doesn't work, in general, for MDI windows or stupid SDI interfaces like Borland's Delphi. Delphi's interface is stupid though in it's lack of navigability. Thankfully, few interfaces are that bad (though the Gimp uses that paradigm, and it's one its worst flaws IMO).
There really is a lot to like about the Superbar, if you just give it a chance. And yes, while certain behaviors are similar to OSX's Dock, it really is just combining two functions that the taskbar already did to better utilize space and provide more visual feedback.
Also, don't you think that if the analysis is that great it should be able to stand up to criticism?
On half a dozen threads I made cite proven corrections to PJ's facts and conclusions and each and every time she deleted the posts. The fact that she has never, to my ability to find, issued any kind of correction on her site should tell you something.
I think you miss his point. It doesn't matter how wonderful the legal analysis seems to be if it can't be trusted due to personal bias, which PJ has shown ample tendancy to exercise over her personal fiefdom.
His point is that PJ's behavior in censoring those she disagrees with tarnishes the good that Groklaw has done. Is that so difficult to understand?
I don't think it's supposed to shut down on battery, the problem is thta the search database will not include items you have added or changed if it were not running. Fast search is a tradeoff of resources for convenience. I agree it would be nice if Vista warned you that battery life may be reduced if search is running on a laptop on battery power.
That's an artificial limit, and doesn't change the "bitness" of the OS. It just changes the amount of memory the os is allowed to address. No current OS currently allows you to address all 64 bits of potential memory. Even Linux has a current limit of 46 bit addressing.
I'm not sure what you've read, but if you really have read those things then they're wrong. XP64 and Vista 64 are both true 64 bit OS's. It's easy to tell, because they require 64 bit drivers. IF they weren't, they would require 32 bit drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok... but I would assume anyone purchasing such a high end workstation would also be purchasing at least 2GB of RAM as well. Seems kind of odd to spend that much money only to underpower it with 512K of RAM.
Yes, it does count symlinks twice. There was a blog entry about that at microsoft.
You don't need an 8800GT, it works fine with standard Intel graphics, or a $49 video card.
And you can't affor 2GB of RAM? Well, if you simply didn't have 4 Latte's this week, you'd have 2GB.
2GB of RAM costs about $20. If you're really so poor that you can't afford $20 to make your computer significantly faster, then i have to question why you are using a computer at all.
Anyway, it doesn't support mounting an ISO under any software that I tried and I'm guessing it was DRM related.
Why is it that everyone is so quick to blame DRM for everything? "My audio is choppy" It's the DRM! "My network is slow" It's the DRM! It's not possible that it's just a bug in the software, it's got to be deliberate DRM interferance.
Why don't you get another refrain?
For the record, there are serveral tools that work fine to mount ISO's in Windows 7, but there are some VFS changes that break some apps. Microsoft now includes built-in VHD mounting (the virtual disk format used in VirtualPC and VirtualServer/Hyper-V). I found it quite easy to convert images to VHD for mounting (and as a side-benefit you can even boot the computer from them using the BCD) using Winimage.
Why do I have to dick around 3 menus deep to change my wireless network?
You don't. On the right hand side of the task bar is a little network icon. You on that and there's an option to choose wireless networks. One menu, 2 clicks and you're there. Windows offers numerous ways to do the same thing, some of them are longer than others, but there is usually shortcut.
Not to mention how hard it is to get to the IP address settings
Again, right click on the icon and choose Network and sharing center, then click View Status, and properties. Pretty close to the 3 clicks it took in XP and 2000.
Most people forget about the swap and hibernate files. These take up (combined) about 3x the amount of memory you have in the computer (or VM). So if you allocate 1GB of RAM, then 3GB (or so) is swap and hibernate file. If you don't plan to use hibernate (such as using VMWare's sleep feature) then you can disable the hibernate file and save some space, but you will likely want to keep the swap file.
How does "you can play any and all DRM encoded files" work for you when the DRM may not give you permission to play the file under some circumstances (the network connection is down, the contend provider went belly up, the DRM protection is buggy, ... )?
Because the alternative is not being able to play the file at all. Why can't anyone seem to understand that "some" rights are better than "no" rights?
Let's put this another way. Let's say you're stuck on an island. The only way off the island is to work on a cruise ship that docks in port every now and then. However, working ont he ship requires you give up certain freedoms because you have to work for your passage.
Now, you can choose whether to work or stay on the island. Some people might choose one or the other. The problem is that your argument is that you shouldn't allow the cruise ship to dock at all, because nobody should want to give up those freedoms, so you decide you're going to blow up the dock to prevent others from falling into this horrible trap.
Do you not see how such thinking is a fallacy? And how your attempt to encourage "freedom" is actually just forcing your own beliefs on others?
The Gutmann article, while entertaining, is not light reading because it contains incomparably more substance than all your citations combined.
How can a paper based purely on speculation and a single misunderstood document be "incomparably more substan[tial]"?
Peter Gutmann has admitted to never using Vista. Never actually testing any of his theories against the real code. Never running any empiracle tests. Never even so much as watched another person use it. Nobody has substantiated his theories. Nobody has done analysis which has confirmed his theories.
Tell me, what scientist wouldn't be laughed out of any scientific community if he wrote a paper about something that can be proven through phsyical examination, but never bothered to do so?
As for Bruce Schnier, Gutmann is a colleague of his, and he accepted his findings at face value without any further analysis. If you read the comments on the article your quote, you will see many people disagree with him for various reasons, including many people who suggest that he not blindly accept Gutmann's conclusions.
Gutmann is great at writing authoritatively, which is why so many people accept his conclusions without a shred of evidence other than the one paper he misunderstands.
Gutmann has been debunked many times. He based his entire argument off a single document, and a number of unsubstantiated blogs.
It's simply not true. End to end encryption does not do what you think it does. Whether data is encrypted on your hard disk is your choice. Nothing is encrypted in media playback unless you choose to play protected media, and if you're concerned about it, simply don't buy protected media.
As for your suspicions, they are also incorrect. SP1 has fixed the slow network copy, which was simply a result of no caching as previous versions had done, and the majority of unsupported hardware (not counting 64 bit, which required at a minimum a driver recompile which many vendors didn't bother to do with their legacy hardware) was due to changes in the driver model for security reasons.
What caused Vista's poor release was the fact that they threw away all their work in 2005 and started over, but they needed to ship a product in a specific time frame or else they would have had to rev XP to appease OEM's. In short, they rushed the second version of what eventually became Vista to market.
Don't for a second thing that media companies would not release DRM'd works without OS support. Remember the Sony rootkit? Or all the various forms of copy protection media companies have used such as non-standard disk formats?
The thing about OS supported DRM is that it provides a means for these companies to provide protected media in a way that is agnostic to those who choose not to participate in it.
Vote with your wallet. Don't buy protected media. If enough people think like you do, then the media companies will get the hint when their sales plummet.
If you don't believe me, read the oft-cited Peter Gutmann article
You mean the thoroughly debunked Peter Gutmann article. It's full of so many inaccuracies, fantasies, and wild ass guesses as to be almost complete fabrication.
Here's some light reading for you:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/12/31/windows_vista_drm_nonsense
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
Also, check out some of the obvious errors in Gutmann's claims.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=723
Please stop citing his paper, as it's pure speculation based on a misunderstanding of a pre-release whitepaper.
Ridiculous. Apart from the antitrust issues Microsoft would surely run into, who's going to buy into such a system? And don't use the boiled frog metaphor, since there is clearly a point where these draconian measures take place. If that happens, nobody is going to buy into it.
As an example, let's look at the "Do not copy" flag in broadcast digital TV. Every time they've tried to flip that on, there's been such massive backlash that they've had to turn it back off. Bluray, for instance has similar features, but they can't turn it on or they risk alienating most of their audience (largely because very few people have completely trusted path systems, and that's not likely to change).
The fact of the matter is, DRM is the emperors new clothes. The studios like to think it provides copy protection, but it doesn't. There will always be ways around it, and I wouldn't spend more than 10 seconds worrying about it until it ever becomes a reality where it's not circumventable, in which case, merely boycott the products and vote with your wallet.
I disagree. I think rootkits are huge reason for driver signing requirement. Even stuff like Sony's rootkit wouldn't work with driver signing, cause Microsoft surely isn't going to allow SOny to do what it was doing.
Another reason is that it will likely push up the quality of drivers, because they have to be reviewed by Microsoft. Not a guarantee that drivers won't crash, but it does give the companies more incentive to release better ones.
You contradict yourself. First you say it cannot be turned off, then you say it cannot be turned off without losing premium content playback.
So yes, it can be turned off. And, if you don't like DRM, why do you care if you can't play DRM encoded media?
Or do you want to hate DRM, but still play DRM encoded media while simultaneously trying to circumvent it? If you don't like DRM, don't buy DRM encoded media. Vote with your wallet, don't hate it but buy it anyways, then complain that you can't steal it.
That's not DRM. You're confusing Trusted Computing with DRM. Though they use some similar techniques, they are intended for different purposes. DRM is intended to prevent copying of protected media, Trusted Computing is intended to protect the integrity of your computer.
Yes, you can turn off the driver signing requirement, just like you can in Vista. Not sure why it's such an issue, as i've never run into an unsighed driver that wasn't a virus.
Those are poorly implemented, and illegal copy protection means, not OS sanctioned DRM. Of course DRM *COULD* be evil, as the Sony rootkit and such proved. Microsoft's DRM is intended to be unintrusive if you aren't using the protected media.
Precisely. If you don't like DRM, then don't buy DRM encoded content. DRM doesn't apply if you're not playing DRM encoded content.
Most people persist in believing the disproven Peter Gutmann theories, mostly because they want to. The fact is, DRM simply doesn't affect anything unless DRM encoded content is playing.
Yeah, having DRM on your system allows you to play DRM'd media, but only if the providers of that media think you paid for it.
And without DRM, you can't play it at all. Which offers more choice?
And you're trying to play it with approved software.
And without DRM, you can't play it at all. Which offers more choice?
And you don't try making a backup. And you don't have any programs installed that they don't like. And their DRM code isn't buggy.
And without DRM, you can't play it at all. Which offers more choice?
That's control, all right, but the one in control sure ain't you.
As opposed to not having DRM in which you can't control it at all.
If it REMOVES any control of my machine, in any way, then it is just another Vista, in my mind.
And you're just another sheep that believes what the cloud tells him. I am so sick of hearing people talk about DRM as if it's evil. Such thinking is flawed.
Here's the thing. DRM does not remove any control from you. None whatsoever. It is only a figment of your imagination. In fact, it gives you more control.
Consider this. Without DRM support, you can't play any DRM encoded files. With DRM, if you so choose, you can play any and all DRM encoded files, in addition to any and all non-DRM encoded files. This means that OS's without DRM give you LESS choice or control over any media you may purchase.
If you don't like DRM, fine, then don't buy DRM encoded media. It's your choice. Whether or not the OS supports DRM is irrelevant and doesn't take any control from you. It's entirely in your control whether or not you buy DRM encoded music or movies.
This is not a troll either, just use your brain and think about it logically and stop reacting so emotionally. And stop believing what everyone force feeds you.
There is no way to easily switch from one arbitrary window to another. First you need to hover over the application icon (or right-click it with the Dock), then click on the window within the application that you want.
Actually, the superbar (as it's called) does help wit that, to some extent. For instance, say you have two Internet Explorer windows open, and each window has 3 tabs. The taskbar will contain two icons, showing each window. However, if you hover over those two grouped icons, you see each of the tabs previewed, and you can click any of those previews and the active window, with that tab is brought to the front.
This doesn't work, in general, for MDI windows or stupid SDI interfaces like Borland's Delphi. Delphi's interface is stupid though in it's lack of navigability. Thankfully, few interfaces are that bad (though the Gimp uses that paradigm, and it's one its worst flaws IMO).
There really is a lot to like about the Superbar, if you just give it a chance. And yes, while certain behaviors are similar to OSX's Dock, it really is just combining two functions that the taskbar already did to better utilize space and provide more visual feedback.
Also, don't you think that if the analysis is that great it should be able to stand up to criticism?
On half a dozen threads I made cite proven corrections to PJ's facts and conclusions and each and every time she deleted the posts. The fact that she has never, to my ability to find, issued any kind of correction on her site should tell you something.
And no, she's not just that good.
I think you miss his point. It doesn't matter how wonderful the legal analysis seems to be if it can't be trusted due to personal bias, which PJ has shown ample tendancy to exercise over her personal fiefdom.
His point is that PJ's behavior in censoring those she disagrees with tarnishes the good that Groklaw has done. Is that so difficult to understand?
I don't think it's supposed to shut down on battery, the problem is thta the search database will not include items you have added or changed if it were not running. Fast search is a tradeoff of resources for convenience. I agree it would be nice if Vista warned you that battery life may be reduced if search is running on a laptop on battery power.
That's an artificial limit, and doesn't change the "bitness" of the OS. It just changes the amount of memory the os is allowed to address. No current OS currently allows you to address all 64 bits of potential memory. Even Linux has a current limit of 46 bit addressing.
I'm not sure what you've read, but if you really have read those things then they're wrong. XP64 and Vista 64 are both true 64 bit OS's. It's easy to tell, because they require 64 bit drivers. IF they weren't, they would require 32 bit drivers.