Why I can play Halflife 2 and get an excellent framrate at 1920x1200 with all image qualites maxxed out, and all sorts of traditionally GPU-intensive fire/smoke/reflections moving around on the screen, yet just running the Vista desktop and dragging a window or two around is like walking through mud...
I mean, by Australian standards a "social drinker" is probably an alcoholic in America and a teetotaller in Ireland;).
On a more serious note, it's not hard to see why there would be a correleation between socialising and improved job performance. Even ignoring the obvious schmoozing and brown-nosing possibilities, if you socialise more with people from work, you're far more likely to know more about how the business works, its current problems (and successes) and modify your work habits appropriately to address the problems and/or act on the strengths, thus making you a greater asset to the business and more likely to be prompted/paid more.
With that said, any attempts to attach a causative relationship between drinking and income is working on *very* shaky ground IMHO.
There is a large difference between the counterexamples provided and the one I gave. Neither counterexample is due to an intentionally designed point of failure, which is essentially a vendor-controlled kill switch which the owner has no control over.
The example of kernel upgrades breaking third-party kernel modules most certainly *is* an "intentionally designed point of failure".
My main point was to illustrate that an "average 3-4 minute" call to MS might in some circumstances be a very big deal, contrary to the OPs suggestion, and in my haste I didn't present the optimum example.
And your "point" is stupid, because the example you gave is completely unrealistic in supporting it (or, more accurately, if that scenario were to occur, it wouldn't be Microsoft's fault by any reasonable - ie: legal - standard).
In general, the MS track record on false positives with their activation, while probably much exaggerated here on/., certainly has been high enough to be concerned that one's server could be wrongly shut down. Is the admin who oversees the mission critical server that has these failures incompetent?
If the admin overseeing mission critical servers is performing major hardware upgrades on them and then walking away without testing service availability, then he is *unquestionably* incompetent. Similarly, having such a mission critical machine *not* using an in-house licensing server, or allowing it even indirect (ie: proxied) internet access, would also be incompetent.
Since you seem to categorize allowing any predictable failure as incompetence, [...]
No, I categorise incompetence as incompetence. Your example was one of incompetence. Indeed, your example would probably qualify for criminal negligence.
That said, I predict Microsoft will back off this on the server for exactly that reason.
Casual piracy of server-oriented software is much less of a problem. Therefore, one would expect the steps taken to combat it would be much less dramatic.
vista is dramatically different. just like how XP was dramatically different. and the retraining costs and time lost is identical upgrading windows as it would be switching to a new platform. linux or mac.
While Vista is certainly somewhat different to XP, this assertion is ridiculous. It's nowhere *near* as different as going from Windows -> Mac.
Why hasn't Microsoft noticed that this product key was sold and never accessed their site, they know who bought the license they should just cut us a check.
For the same reason that if anyone buys any product from some company, but never uses it, that company won't track them down and give them a refund.
You have just been rushed to the hospital from a rare medical condition you suffer from. The hospital, not knowing your condition, needs access to your medical records which are stored on a Linux Server. Ooops, someone upgraded the kernel on the server but forgot to rebuild the third-party kernel modules necessary to interact with the nearline storage vault, so your records cannot be retrieved.
Examples of gross incompetence to manufacture unlikely failure modes, do not make compelling arguments.
On the other hand, I'm VERY certain it's illegal to remotely break something and then demand money to fix it, which is exactly what Microsoft will be able to do with Vista, all because nobody's been able to put an end to software licensing abuses.
Fortunately, however, since it *is* illegal, if they actually do it they'll get class-actioned into oblivion. Something I'm sure they're acutely aware of.
Believe it or not, Apple still conforms to the ancient practice of trusting your customer not to take his one copy and install it on 20 machines.
Apple don't trust you. They just know if you're running OS X, you've already paid them for both a) hardware and b) some version of MacOS. Compared to that, any profits lost on pirated upgrades to OS X are insignificant.
This "license server" is going to basically crush Vista sales in the enterprise sector.
Why ? It's not like the same requirements (and functionality) have "crushed" Windows Terminal Server rollouts in the enterprise server, nor "crushed" sales for various other enterprise products that use similar in-house "license servers".
2003 server will sell even less with this. I don't know about most admins, but I can bet they don't like the fact that Microsoft can basically flip a switch and BAM, all your mission critical servers are useless.
Fortunately paranoid admins are usually overruled on issues like this by people with a better grasp of running a business.
It would only make sense that they force user security down our throats at the time of installation. I don't agree with this or condone it, of course. It is also quite naïve of them to think that they can win the cat n' mouse game of license control with the hackers.
They're not trying to beat the hackers, they're trying to beat institutionalised and casual piracy.
Hmm, here's a question for any Mac users here. Does OS X include any product activation/WGA type "features"?
Yes. It's called a Macintosh. If you haven't bought one, you can't run OS X [0].
This is why Apple doesn't have to use activation/registration like "features" - their OS requires a hardware dongle to run. Similarly, this is why you don't see "upgrade pricing" and "full version pricing" for OS X - every retail version, by definition, is an "upgrade version".
[0] Yes, I know about hacks to run OS X/Intel on non-Apple hardware. No, they're not relevant to this point.
I was pointing out that it was ambiguous and should perhaps have been composed more carefully, in the interests of clarifying debate, albeit a slightly fatuous thing to point out.
I call bullshit. Nobody wants to drag the US/west down to third world levels.
There is a vast gulf of prosperous, comfortable living between the third world and the grotesque over-consumption of certain first-world countries, particularly the USA.
NT is a real OS. It's just saddled with a bunch of buggy insecure CRAP in userland, including userland that gets too friendly with parts that should be privileged (I'm looking at you IE) [...]
How does IE "get too friendly with parts that should be privileged" ?
Too bad it doesn't tell you it's going to need a reboot before you install it.
AFAIK, all patches presented through both Automatic Updates (assuming you don't have it set to "Download and Install", in which case you haven't a leg to stand on) and Windows Update, indicate in their short description whether or not a reboot will be required.
It's tough to tell with Microsoft's patches since they rarely give more information beyond: "This update will patch a security vulnerability"
No, it's not tough at all. It does, however, require a little more effort than just repeating "Microsoft sucks" over and over again while you stab at the mouse button.
But that doesn't change the fact that they do their notifications in a way that can cause unintended consequences. There are many ways to avoid that, but they don't care enough to bother doing things properly.
"You need to restart now" warnings raise to the front because they're *important*. They really do mean "you need to reboot _now_", not "one of these days, if you've got the time, we humbly suggest you reboot at your convenience".
Every Little Helps" is Tesco's slogan, repeated in every advert. It refers to stuff like 5p off this and double clubcard points on that, and people at the counter packing your bags for you (never mind that they probably use too many bags and end up crushing your tomatoes anyway), and a smile and "thank you", and all those lovely things.
This is unusual !?
Guess we must be spoilt rotten here in Australia.:)
The issue is that if $SOME_PROGRAM can disable those sorts of messages at will, as you want it to, then there's nothing stopping $SOME_OTHER_PROGRAM from doing it maliciously, *without* your explicit consent. The OS does not - and can not - know whether or not an arbitrary third-party program is acting with or without your consent and/or direction.
Now, if you want to be able to disable these messages from some other, OS-provided interactive control panel that cannot be modified programmatically, that's another thing altogether from a security perspective. But I'm pretty sure you can do that *now*, using the "Security Centre".
Who writes it is irrelevant. If one program can do it, any program can do it.
Don't you think it should be relatively easy to program in a flag from Powerpoint to the OS?
Sure, it'd be trivial.
The issue is not that it is hard, the issue is that allowing arbitrary software to programmatically suppress important informational and status messages (like, say, "update your virus definitions" or "unexpected Registry modifications") is a blatantly stupid thing to do.
Hell, I'd even be happy if they kept it undocumented just as long as Powerpoint on Windows did not alert in the middle of a presentation.
I do find it ironic someone criticising Microsoft is suggesting they should have some undocumented OS API that only another Microsoft product knows about to implement functionality they want, however.
Slashdot Mirror
He probably isn't.
Note that he's talking about "just running the Vista desktop and dragging a window or two around", not playing games.
Any PC that can play HL2 well at a huge resolution like 1920x1200, laughs at the minimum requirements to get decent performance out of Vista and Aero.
So, he's lying about the performance of either HL2 or Vista.
Because you're lying.
No actually their primary revenue stream would change overnight.
That's one way of looking at it.
And considering Bill Gates was or is the richest man in the world I'd say selling the OS might be a nice primary revenue stream.
Maybe if it were 1982 again.
I mean, by Australian standards a "social drinker" is probably an alcoholic in America and a teetotaller in Ireland ;).
On a more serious note, it's not hard to see why there would be a correleation between socialising and improved job performance. Even ignoring the obvious schmoozing and brown-nosing possibilities, if you socialise more with people from work, you're far more likely to know more about how the business works, its current problems (and successes) and modify your work habits appropriately to address the problems and/or act on the strengths, thus making you a greater asset to the business and more likely to be prompted/paid more.
With that said, any attempts to attach a causative relationship between drinking and income is working on *very* shaky ground IMHO.
There is a large difference between the counterexamples provided and the one I gave. Neither counterexample is due to an intentionally designed point of failure, which is essentially a vendor-controlled kill switch which the owner has no control over.
The example of kernel upgrades breaking third-party kernel modules most certainly *is* an "intentionally designed point of failure".
My main point was to illustrate that an "average 3-4 minute" call to MS might in some circumstances be a very big deal, contrary to the OPs suggestion, and in my haste I didn't present the optimum example.
And your "point" is stupid, because the example you gave is completely unrealistic in supporting it (or, more accurately, if that scenario were to occur, it wouldn't be Microsoft's fault by any reasonable - ie: legal - standard).
In general, the MS track record on false positives with their activation, while probably much exaggerated here on /., certainly has been high enough to be concerned that one's server could be wrongly shut down. Is the admin who oversees the mission critical server that has these failures incompetent?
If the admin overseeing mission critical servers is performing major hardware upgrades on them and then walking away without testing service availability, then he is *unquestionably* incompetent. Similarly, having such a mission critical machine *not* using an in-house licensing server, or allowing it even indirect (ie: proxied) internet access, would also be incompetent.
Since you seem to categorize allowing any predictable failure as incompetence, [...]
No, I categorise incompetence as incompetence. Your example was one of incompetence. Indeed, your example would probably qualify for criminal negligence.
That said, I predict Microsoft will back off this on the server for exactly that reason.
Casual piracy of server-oriented software is much less of a problem. Therefore, one would expect the steps taken to combat it would be much less dramatic.
Contemporary motherboard-embedded and standalone $30 video cards are not in any way "high end".
While Vista is certainly somewhat different to XP, this assertion is ridiculous. It's nowhere *near* as different as going from Windows -> Mac.
Why hasn't Microsoft noticed that this product key was sold and never accessed their site, they know who bought the license they should just cut us a check.
For the same reason that if anyone buys any product from some company, but never uses it, that company won't track them down and give them a refund.
I wonder how they are going to curtail that, seeing as how IE is so tightly integrated with the rest of the OS?
IE is no more "tightly integrated" into Windows than KHTML is into a Linux distro running KDE, or WebCore/WebKit is into OS X.
Consider a future scenario:
Or consider another scenario:
You have just been rushed to the hospital from a rare medical condition you suffer from. The hospital, not knowing your condition, needs access to your medical records which are stored on a Linux Server. Ooops, someone upgraded the kernel on the server but forgot to rebuild the third-party kernel modules necessary to interact with the nearline storage vault, so your records cannot be retrieved.
Examples of gross incompetence to manufacture unlikely failure modes, do not make compelling arguments.
On the other hand, I'm VERY certain it's illegal to remotely break something and then demand money to fix it, which is exactly what Microsoft will be able to do with Vista, all because nobody's been able to put an end to software licensing abuses.
Fortunately, however, since it *is* illegal, if they actually do it they'll get class-actioned into oblivion. Something I'm sure they're acutely aware of.
true, but MAC as a far better reputation the MS.
Maybe if you're an Apple zealot...
Apple are just as nasty as Microsoft.
Apple don't trust you. They just know if you're running OS X, you've already paid them for both a) hardware and b) some version of MacOS. Compared to that, any profits lost on pirated upgrades to OS X are insignificant.
Microsoft do not have that luxury.
This "license server" is going to basically crush Vista sales in the enterprise sector.
Why ? It's not like the same requirements (and functionality) have "crushed" Windows Terminal Server rollouts in the enterprise server, nor "crushed" sales for various other enterprise products that use similar in-house "license servers".
2003 server will sell even less with this. I don't know about most admins, but I can bet they don't like the fact that Microsoft can basically flip a switch and BAM, all your mission critical servers are useless.
Fortunately paranoid admins are usually overruled on issues like this by people with a better grasp of running a business.
Um hasn't MS always tried to secure their products upon install?
Well, not "always", but it's certainly been commonplace for long enough (10+ years) that having it in Vista shouldn't surprise anyone.
They're not trying to beat the hackers, they're trying to beat institutionalised and casual piracy.
I love the mac. I love OSX. I can't see why apple doesn't release OSX for all PC hardware.
Because their primary revenue stream would disappear overnight.
Hmm, here's a question for any Mac users here. Does OS X include any product activation/WGA type "features"?
Yes. It's called a Macintosh. If you haven't bought one, you can't run OS X [0].
This is why Apple doesn't have to use activation/registration like "features" - their OS requires a hardware dongle to run. Similarly, this is why you don't see "upgrade pricing" and "full version pricing" for OS X - every retail version, by definition, is an "upgrade version".
[0] Yes, I know about hacks to run OS X/Intel on non-Apple hardware. No, they're not relevant to this point.
It's not an ambiguous reference in context.
There is a vast gulf of prosperous, comfortable living between the third world and the grotesque over-consumption of certain first-world countries, particularly the USA.
How does IE "get too friendly with parts that should be privileged" ?
Too bad it doesn't tell you it's going to need a reboot before you install it.
AFAIK, all patches presented through both Automatic Updates (assuming you don't have it set to "Download and Install", in which case you haven't a leg to stand on) and Windows Update, indicate in their short description whether or not a reboot will be required.
It's tough to tell with Microsoft's patches since they rarely give more information beyond: "This update will patch a security vulnerability"
No, it's not tough at all. It does, however, require a little more effort than just repeating "Microsoft sucks" over and over again while you stab at the mouse button.
But that doesn't change the fact that they do their notifications in a way that can cause unintended consequences. There are many ways to avoid that, but they don't care enough to bother doing things properly.
"You need to restart now" warnings raise to the front because they're *important*. They really do mean "you need to reboot _now_", not "one of these days, if you've got the time, we humbly suggest you reboot at your convenience".
Every Little Helps" is Tesco's slogan, repeated in every advert. It refers to stuff like 5p off this and double clubcard points on that, and people at the counter packing your bags for you (never mind that they probably use too many bags and end up crushing your tomatoes anyway), and a smile and "thank you", and all those lovely things.
This is unusual !?
Guess we must be spoilt rotten here in Australia. :)
Not if permissions is at issue.
Permissions are not the issue.
The issue is that if $SOME_PROGRAM can disable those sorts of messages at will, as you want it to, then there's nothing stopping $SOME_OTHER_PROGRAM from doing it maliciously, *without* your explicit consent. The OS does not - and can not - know whether or not an arbitrary third-party program is acting with or without your consent and/or direction.
Now, if you want to be able to disable these messages from some other, OS-provided interactive control panel that cannot be modified programmatically, that's another thing altogether from a security perspective. But I'm pretty sure you can do that *now*, using the "Security Centre".
Powerpoint *is* a Microsoft product, right?
Who writes it is irrelevant. If one program can do it, any program can do it.
Don't you think it should be relatively easy to program in a flag from Powerpoint to the OS?
Sure, it'd be trivial.
The issue is not that it is hard, the issue is that allowing arbitrary software to programmatically suppress important informational and status messages (like, say, "update your virus definitions" or "unexpected Registry modifications") is a blatantly stupid thing to do.
Hell, I'd even be happy if they kept it undocumented just as long as Powerpoint on Windows did not alert in the middle of a presentation.
I do find it ironic someone criticising Microsoft is suggesting they should have some undocumented OS API that only another Microsoft product knows about to implement functionality they want, however.