Level of security. Ideally, we'd have FDE in hardware (using a TPM chip, perhaps) to prevent tampering of your libraries should you be out of control of the machine for some period of time. Even better is encrypting/signing the bootloader and every file along the way to the applications and data.
Wow, you mean use that new OS... What is it called again, oh ya Vista, and turn on Bitlocker. Easy enough for a home user and secure enough for the FBI and CIA.
(Oh, but wasn't TPM evil, I would even bet there are articles on SlashDot that called Vista DRM Ware because MS has TPM support, which turns out to be used for Bitlocker):)
Are you still talking about Illustrator or a different illustration program? Everything Illustrator can do will be saved in PDF format, which is Illustrators native file format after all. Using Illustrator and Indesign I never have to raterize/flatten artwork when exporting to pdf.
You are truly confused on the Adobe Illustrator file format and PDF... They are somewhat the same, but NOT...
There are MANY variations of both Postscript and PDF, and when you are dealing with more advanced forms or ones that break the standards of basic formats you have problems.
AI produces far more complex artwork than PDF or Postscript can inherently handle for 99.9% of the specifications in use.
These means YES even with Illustrator I can create artwork that ends up rasterizing, having Font issues or many other problems that can pop up when using digital PDF/Postscript printers and presses.
The Vector specifications in PDF and Postscript (even the most advanced) are limited in comparision to XPS. This is a major issue, especially for people that are looking at these two solutions side by side now. With XPS I won't have to worry my output is not preserved nor do I have to worry that it will fail to print exactly as it was produced. The same cannot be said of Adboe PDF/Postscript.
I am not saying Adobe is out of the game here, but they had better hurry to catch up to offering 'file compatible' specification support for more advanced Vector technology than they currently can with Postscript or PDF.
No shit! Outlook Express should be re-branded if not blown off the face of the earth all together. Thunderbird has won the all-in-one messaging app battle and it sure as heck gets along just fine with IE amd Opera.
I agree... Going back as far was Windows Mail in Win95, MS has made some stupid decisions. Outlook Express was an improvement and was ok for its time, but that was 8 years ago.
I can remember when I was in the Win95 beta, and I blasted the Product manager for the 'universal inbox Windows Mail', he apologized and admited they royaly feked up...
I have more money now, so I tend to stick with the real Outlook. I have moved from various mail clients over the years, but now have a bit of ease of use and confidence in Outlook. (If any team at MS does good work it is their Office team.)
I have been screwed by Eudora and many other too many times. (Besides Eudora is such a pig for the amoutn of mail I deal with. I have a 12gb personal store of messages, and get a few hundred a day of real mail with large attachements.)
I hope they have a nice animation for when the machine is infected with a virus, like clippy catching fire and then running around in circles screaming.
They do have this animation... Sadly it flips the screen, does a fade to black and provides a panic button that says, you are too stupid to be using a computer, here is the phone number to Order a Mac.:)
Just fine. To prevent flattening save as PDF 1.4, but Illustrator also flattens this just fine. btw I'm using Illustrator CS2. What problems are you getting?
I appreciate you trying to help, but I was making a point. I can raise the complexity of any drawing to the point the artwork ends up being rasterized because of PDF limitations. There are way to many examples to list them all. From node complexity to too many layers...
The odds of complex artwork making it successfully to a press/printer in native PDF/Postscript is rare in today's complex world of graphics. Graphics anymore tend to go several steps beyond simple fills and the foundations of what PDFs and Postscript were designed to do.
Another flawed thought is people run out to buy Macs because they use a form of Display PDF because publishers think you get a better round trip experience. However the OSX implementation is also very lacking in support, including simple things like round-tripping embedded founts.
All these posts and I haven't found one yet that even 'realizes' what the problem is, why it doesn't exist in Vista and why it continues to exist in IE7 for XP.
The flaw is in Outlook Express and not IE7. This is why the IE7 update made no difference and why the problem does not exist in Vista even though IE7 is is used.
Also the way they are reporting the bug is a bit off on what is happening and why it is happening.
So how come Illustrators native format is PDF, if PDF doesn't handle all the features of AI? How is it I can save a PDF with AI layers intact, if PDF doesn't handle all the features of AI? How can I save this PDF from Illustrator, open it in Acrobat, save it again and reopen it in Illustrator with all editing capabilities still intact, if PDF doesn't handle all the features of AI?
You are kidding right? Please don't make someone take the time to explain this to you...
Create a multi-point gradient fill, see how PDFs handle that...
As for the printer comment, why in hell are you even talking about Quark? I never mentioned Quark. I was talking about taking PDF output from an illustration program and sending it to a Adobe PDF/Postscript press. Do you think everything has to GO THROUGH a page layout program like Quark, and if so, how did you get your job?
I feel anyone who bought a PS2 at launch (if it lasted, that's a seperate matter) got value for money
Except they were stuck playing with a PS2. I think they got ripped off.:)
Go on do an analogy for us, on how your 1982 Honda Civic is still running fine and was the best "Money Value" of all cars ever made. Sure this may have some merit, but I enjoy my sports car and it has better "Money Value" for me.
Now considering my PS2 has been in the closet for a couple of years and all of my original XBoxes are still hooked up in one room or another, I would tend to contest the "Money Value" topic even on consoles.
do. Remember that Adobe makes money by selling the PDF generation software, not the reader, so it would be really stupid to make PDF "more" standard by retaliating their own sales, wouldn't it?
It is OBVIOUS to me that MS was trying to cut Adobe's air supply. Expect a Photoshop "killer" any time now.
Ah, but you forget that there are NUMEROUS applications and competitive applications that have PDF creation abilities that fully circumvent Adobe, even competitive products like CorelDraw.
I don't see Adobe beating down the door of these software vendors because they have Adobe PDF Export capabilities...
Double Standard cause it was MS, ya think? Especially considering I can write an application with a PDF creator for my Word processor if I want, but when MS did this Adobe wanted money from just them.
MS can get past the licensing by making the PDF Export a separate download product, so it will be available to Office 2007 users, just not in the box.
Do you see how this is a bit crazy? MS still gets to provide the feature, yet it doesn't go in every copy, which fragments the PDF being more standardized.
This hurts Adobe and the PDF presence which is where they DO make their money.
Adobe makes more money from PDF licensing for Hardware and big money in the publishing industry. (Printers, Digital Press, etc.) Go to www.epson.com and see the price difference on a model of printer that comes with or without Postscript. The Postscript version of the printer is ALWAYS more spendy, as they have to pay Adobe for the licensing of the software for the Postscript/PDF driver for that printer.
Adobe also makes good money from PDF/Postscript server and forms technology, which would have been an EVEN bigger market if everyone had the Create PDF option in their MS Office menu out of the box.
Adobe makes very little from Adobe Acrobat Creator compared to the printers, drivers, digital press, etc licensing.
The inclusion of a PDF Export/Save ability from MS Word would 'further' the PDF standard and would have helped Adobe sell the Server Software and keep their Printer and Press licensing in demand as well.
Also note the MS PDF Export feature does a damn good job not only in preserving the MS Word Documents, but it also held tight to the standards. In fact it was better at the PDF creation and holding to the standard than Adobe's own Acrobat Creator software does. So it wasn't like MS was putting out a crap Exporter or mis-using the standard.
- Sorry if I rambled a bit, sleep deprivation doesn't always make for the most articulate or typo free posts.;)
I am not sure about Vista making the MBR incompatible, I have not seen this, but it is possible. However the changes are not something that cannot be coded around if they do exist, even though it will force updates of the other bootloaders.
As for the alterior motives for the change in the bootloader, it is just this simple, it is more secure, and is also needed for some of the new technologies like bitlocker that encrypts the whole drive.
They could also have other plans, I have heard things like a Media Player boot of Vista that was very lightweight for watching movies and music, and this would use and benefit from the new bootloader in Vista if it ever sees the light of day.
However, I don't think the change was malicious to hurt other OSes or had future intent to add DRM. Just like Vista itself, there have been tons of DRM FUD and rumors of stuff it would have, yet it isn't anymore DRMed than XP or even OSX if OSX plans on supporting HD video. Vista does support things like TPM, but the only use of TPM in Vista is Bitlocker, which makes it easier for people that have TPM enabled hardware so they don't have to rely on a USB key.
I am a bit curious about the incompatibility you bring up with the bootloader, so I'm off to check some sources and see what bootloaders it does break. I would guess there are going to be some that will break if they are assuming the old boot.ini and coded only for this type of Windows bootloader.
Does XPS do all that? Does XPS do CMYK? Can XPS generate the equivalent of PDF/X-1a, an ISO standard for advertising specs required by Time Inc. and other big media sites?
Ok, by now everyone reading this has surely looked up XPS and can see that it has not only several features that PDF technology doesn't, but it leapfrogs the PDF/Postscript technology in many areas, even including not static publishing concepts that will be a part of the upcoming generation with Electronic Inks.
XPS also is going to hurt Adobe hard in the printer and publishing industry. There are already a number of consumer printers with XPS technology coming to the market and there are also many digital presses that will offer XPS instead of PDF, because it is free to do so instead of paying the Adobe tax.
So for large publishers there is already a bit of a buzz about it, as it may reduce the digital press costs without the Adobe licensing and they are also looking at some of the new features of XPS that will speed up production and produce better quality output easier. (Less need for rasterization and conversion from the original artwork, better font support, etc.)
One of the biggest problems in the digital prining industry now is making sure the content they are producing 'outputs' properly in PDF/Poscript. And this is a BIG issue.
For example I can create Brochure now in AI or CorelDraw that will output with clipping problems when it goes to PDF format because PDF just doesn't handle all the features that full scale vector/layer illustration software offers.
Now when trying to get this to a digital PDF/Postscript based press, this is a MAJOR issue, and the artwork has to be complexity reduced, have the clipping fixed, and often most of the Brochure ends up being rasterized at the press's resolution because the Vector and Font support in a PDF fails miserably.
These types of problems have been big issues in the publising/printing community for a long time, and Postscript v3/PDF was supposed to help, but instead things have often gotten worse. So why even have PDF based press when we (as publishers) end up rasterizing the entire brochure and artwork and are basically sending a PDF Bitmap to the device so it prints as designed?
Here is where XPS steps in and takes control of the ball, it has the preservation because of the extra features in the specification, so there is less fighting with fonts and less rasterization.
There is also the factor that no special software is needed, as Vista does all the XPS work inherently, which opens the door up for more flexibility in design software used as well. (Yes OSX does Postscript/PDF, and even WindowsXP does Postscript printer output, but there is a world of difference in the way Vista handles the from screen to document to output device because of the XAML and XPS technologies.)
XPS is being seen as a welcome fix to many Adobe PDF/Postscript issues in the printing industry.
To fully understand how XPS/XAML technologies work and also to see what they offer than PDF doesn't, you just need to go read the XPS specifications, also do a search on the printer and press manufacturers that are planning on XPS devices and why they see XPS has a good technology.
Here is how it works, the MS bootloader in previous versions as well as the new one in Vista work 'just fine' for other operating systems and can be used as your bootloader, but not ALWAYS.
However, for Microsoft to 'recognize' your current MBR and offer it as an option, would mean they would have to 'ensure' their bootloader technology works and supports all other OSes...
This is a big area of liability and even support that MS does not want to assume responsibility for, since unlike an Open Source project, MS could more easily be sued for trying to support all OSes in their bootloader and either mess up so that one doesn't boot properly from it or even leave out an OS and have that company sue MS for strong arm tatics, even if they just overlooked the OS to support it.
MS is the 800lb gorilla, espeically now, and they can't take risks like this, so they focus on making sure their bootloader does what it is supposed to do for their OS, and if others want to strap into, then they are free to do so at their own risk, with no legal liability of compatibility or exlusion concerns for MS.
Besides, you don't see Solaris, OSX, and most Linux and BSD distributions very good about preserving other OSes MBRs. Microsoft is NOT an exception in this regard.
MS also has been good to leave their bootloader unlocked, so that you can easily add other OSes to it if you choose to use it as your system's main bootloader. In the old pre-Intel*nix boom, it was actually a good thing that MS's NT booloader would work with other OSes, even if they didn't add them to the menu automatically. In those days there wasn't a large number of free or open source bootloaders around at the time and you had to buy bootloader software.
PDF is not truly a license free product, open yes, license free - sort of...
This is how Adobe strongarmed MS in removing it from the shipping version of Office, as Adobe was going to demand licensing fees. (However it can be distributed separately without incurring the fees.)
Adobe truly screwed themselves here, they would have been the all time standard with MS giving them full support in Office, but instead they wanted to keep MS at bay and make money off the Office name. Adobe messed up.
From my inside MS sources, the XPS was never meant to become a PDF replacement, even though it has the technology to do so, and even offers more features than the PDF specification. However the move by Adobe to try to screw with MS with the Office Plug-in and taking it even further by raising contention with the whole Vista Composer that is an XAML/XPS technology came as a complete slap to MS.
Prior to Adobe trying to squeeze MS for money and try to stop Vista because of the inherent XPS/XAML composer, MS decided they didn't have to play nice in this market, and I honestly don't blame them.
MS worked with Adobe up until just a few month ago when all of this started coming down. MS even was helping Adobe with using the Vista composer technologies for Adobe products, including their PDF reader. As in MS mind they had no intention of pushing XPS outside of the Vista world which could hurt Adobe, now however with Adobe's actions, they don't feel any obligation to stay out of Adobe's playground and can pursuing opening and dropping XPS technology to all OS platforms.
I would argue that there are many benefits of Windows2003 over Win2k that often get overlooked, or are not factored in by many techs. There are also some strong reasons that should be considered to compel businesses that can afford the upgrades to move to Windows2003. One little feature like more advances in clustering or even something as simple as shadow mirror files or even the replication features of Windows2003 R2 can save businesses money in the long run and even save data that is irreplaceable.
However, I wasn't arguing for everyone to upgrade. Unless there is a clear need for the upgrade, then I agree 100% that the cost of upgrades are not necessary, even if they are running Windows NT 3.1 or Novel 3.x. (Yes, we even have clients that use old Server software, because they can't afford it nor do they have a need to change.)
I was making a point that for a new deployment it would be stupid to choose Win2k Server or Windows2003 Server.
I see all too many times that there are techs and deployment projects that are still dropping NEW installations with Win2k, usually because the techs are only certified for Win2k or don't have enough knowledge of Windows2003. This is insane and hurts the customers, even if the techs try to justify the use of Win2k with myths about it being the same, or faster, or several other non-true cons.
If you are paying for the software anyway, why get an older version that truly isn't as secure, fast or advanced?
I use win2k servers, they do what I need and they are secure enought for this enviornment. If it serves the purpose and there is no improvement that you need badly enough to want to upgrade then why do it?
This I agree with...
My point was for people putting out money for new server installations. We run across techs all the time that STILL deploy Win2k (not saving any money over Windows2003), because they think it is a better solution. Often many of these techs are afraid of or know little about Windows2003, so they stick to what they know and try to sell the customer that it is the best solution.
You are correct there is no logical reason to force and upgrade unless there is a need for the upgrade by the customer. This is something I should have made more clear in my post.
We still have closed system clients running NT 4.0 systems because they are in a locked network environment and the customer does not need the extra features or cannot afford the upgrade costs.
However for customers or techs out there that are getting a new installation with Win2k on the Desktop or the Server, you are being conned by a bad tech or you are a bad tech conning your customers.
Actually I have a large team of engineers that professionally test and work with Servers, software and hardware in general.
Our teams can also explain advantages to various *nix server solutions from Linux and BSD to Solaris and even OSX server implementation models.
Since this was about Win2k Server specifically, we have our own hard facts and selling Win2k to your customers over Windows2003 is just plain stupid for many reasons.
I call bullshit. If I have 6 family members accessing the same computer 'at the same time' and the only limitation is an ARTIFICIAL limitation, then I need a new OS!
Do you realize Windows is not the only OS to do this, and far from it actually, so good luck out there...
the only restriction is how many copies of it and what uses they will provide support for.
Um, you were trying to prove my point right?
If you never call the vendor support, and let's be honest, most people don't, they get support from friends etc... What's the point in paying at all?
Again proving my point?
Also just an FYI, you CANNOT GET ALL THE FEATURES of the 'retail' RedHat for Free, go look at the differences that the purchased version has that will never be released for free... (In fact several Linux distributions are tacking on stuff that is just not available for free.)
And it runs at 20% slower than Windows 2003 Server, oh and has less features and capabilities as well.
Why people insist on using older OSes because they thinking they are gaining something amazes me.
Why not install CPM or Novell 2.11 as well they were 'secure' for their time?
Not to mention all the software hacks and incompatibilities and limitations, like not even being able to run the lastest RDP protocols to running something like SQL Server 2005. Why on earth would you stick or choose Win2k, if you are going to spend money on a Server OS? You would be far better off with Windows2003.
This stuff amazes me, and these are probably high paid techs steering every company down a bad path just because they think they 'know' better.
You forgot the bit about VM's. The EULA forbids the use of a second copy of the same product (under a single purchased license) running on a VM. Since MS does allow this for the higher-end licenses they probably wanted to be clear about where it was not allowed.
I do agree the non-VM part is strange, and think MS should explain this further, as I know alot of technical support companies use VM technology to host 'lower' end versions of Windows so they are testing in the same environment as the client.
I also know of several companies that have been working with Microsoft that have been using the Home Basic and other versions in VMWare and VirtualPC environments, with MS's knowledge and support. This is why this part gives me pause, becaue if it was forbidden, MS would not have been letting developers and companies run these versions in a VM environment even during the testing cycle.
I wonder if this is more about official support and MS having the ability to deny support to an individual that only runs in a VM, because MS can't control the VM hardware emulation layers.
Whatever happened to the/. I knew? Where people didn't just roll over when a big-ass company imposes artificial restrictions deliberately to software that you should be owning, rather than licensing
You mean like Red Hat does with its client and server software or VMWare does with its free and professional software versions... (Should I go on?)
This is how software companies have worked for YEARS. Are we so use to getting all our software for free and NOT supporting or giving money to companies for development?
It would be different if MS was truly 'screwing' users with the prices, but they are not. Even non-server Linux distributions sell for about the same as a Home copy of MS Windows.
Are we all so 'young' we forget about the days of Novell ruling the network server world, where you paid THOUSANDS for a file and printer Server that had limited 5 Client access? Part of the reason WindowsNT took down Novell in the early 90s was MS didn't charge an arm and a leg for the Server OS, and then nickel and dime the clients, and it was also a true application and media server, not just files and printers.
It would be awesome if companies could give away software for free and no one ever had to pay for R&D, but without R&D, products stop getting released and stop having innovation. Sure there is a cost, but MS offers a 'generic' form of Windows for users and OEMs that don't need the extra features, and even these generic versions offer more 'network connection' licenses than the $3500 copies of Novell businesses were buying in the early 90s.
If all businesses 'curtailed' to this model, then the cost for Windows Vista would be $299 dollars for an OEM or Home user, where now they can get it for under $100 for basic functionality.
If you want to run a Server, buy a server OS license, even Red Hat will sell you one for about as much as the MS WIndows 2003 Server, in fact more than what the 2003 Server Web Edition version retails for.
the first thing I did when it was done was image the hard drive to a network store. For the record, XP Home SP1 takes at least 6 reboots to patch, plus hundreds of MB of downloads, plus hours of installation time. Add in a goodly amount of applications and it's the better part of a day
1) There is NOTHING in the EULA that prevents you from doing this. Microsoft's OWN ONECARE application does this even.
2) Transferring to a device, means you can't install Vista Home on another machine, and if you do INSTALL it there, that machine becomes the LICENSED copy machine - you know how ALL OTHER SOFTWARE LICENSES WORK.) It says NOTHING about backups or Images of your system...
3) These are ONLY ridiculous if you are stupid enough to belive the FUD and not take the time to read the license yourself which says NOTHING about preventing users from doing things like this.
Ya, I read that site also, but if you lookup their reference for their claims in the actual EULA, it is NOT in the EULA.
Their main page has a lot of incorrect assumptions and mis-interpretations of the EULA, to the point that many of the laid out claims are just made up.
The ISO example is one of the more egregious.
It specifically DOES NOT SAY you cannot copy the Vista ISO for backup or to your hard drive.
What it DOES say is you can't put it on a network store (like for volume installations - and this is only for the HOME and STARTER versions that have no business being MASS installed from a network location.)
Either this Website has an axe to grind or they have no technical knowledge...
As for the other issues, there have been Network connection limitations in Windows NT since version 4.0 for the desktop version. 10 Connections, and this has not changed for the professional level version of Vista either.
The Home versions are limited to 5 'concurrent' connections. Which seems quite reasonable, because if you have a big enough family that you have 5 OTHER users in your house accessing a file or printer on your computer 'at the same time' then you probably need something other than the HOME edition.
MS even upped the Media Center Extender 'allowed' connections in Vista over XP, instead of 3 you get 5 on the first tier of Vista that has Media Center.
Why not rename your post to MS increases connection limits for MCE users?
Factually, most of the information in the article is correct, as Vista does add in new technology for driver checking (especially in x64 version for kernel model drivers).
However how this can be 'deemed' as a NEW DRM component is about as far from reality as it gets.
The ONLY way this plays a part in DRM is when 'driver' checking is required by software/hardware for HD-Content that will require it.
The MS Code does little more than to ensure the drivers are what they say they are, and on x32, just like in WindowsXP you can INSTALL ANYTHING you want, even KERNEL level drivers. There is nothing stopping the administator from doing this.
In x64, kernel mode drivers MUST be signed, and I don't think this is the right Move for MS, but it does have a legitimate basis for the level of stability they would like the x64 platform to have.
Also of note, kernel mode drivers are less common in Vista, as even the Video is now a User mode driver. Besides, if you are running the normal x32 version of Vista, it behaves NO differently than XP, although the OS does make sure any drivers YOU HAVE CHOSEN to install are the same ones in place and that no 3rd parth access by any application can touch them without specific authorization from the administrator.
This is more about MS tightening security, than having anything to do with DRM.
So this article is a freaking FUD based Weasel, why trying to add some actual 'technical' facts, they mislead the subject to add in assumption that this is a DRM component.
Slashdot Mirror
Level of security. Ideally, we'd have FDE in hardware (using a TPM chip, perhaps) to prevent tampering of your libraries should you be out of control of the machine for some period of time. Even better is encrypting/signing the bootloader and every file along the way to the applications and data.
:)
Wow, you mean use that new OS... What is it called again, oh ya Vista, and turn on Bitlocker. Easy enough for a home user and secure enough for the FBI and CIA.
(Oh, but wasn't TPM evil, I would even bet there are articles on SlashDot that called Vista DRM Ware because MS has TPM support, which turns out to be used for Bitlocker)
Are you still talking about Illustrator or a different illustration program? Everything Illustrator can do will be saved in PDF format, which is Illustrators native file format after all. Using Illustrator and Indesign I never have to raterize/flatten artwork when exporting to pdf.
You are truly confused on the Adobe Illustrator file format and PDF... They are somewhat the same, but NOT...
There are MANY variations of both Postscript and PDF, and when you are dealing with more advanced forms or ones that break the standards of basic formats you have problems.
AI produces far more complex artwork than PDF or Postscript can inherently handle for 99.9% of the specifications in use.
These means YES even with Illustrator I can create artwork that ends up rasterizing, having Font issues or many other problems that can pop up when using digital PDF/Postscript printers and presses.
The Vector specifications in PDF and Postscript (even the most advanced) are limited in comparision to XPS. This is a major issue, especially for people that are looking at these two solutions side by side now. With XPS I won't have to worry my output is not preserved nor do I have to worry that it will fail to print exactly as it was produced. The same cannot be said of Adboe PDF/Postscript.
I am not saying Adobe is out of the game here, but they had better hurry to catch up to offering 'file compatible' specification support for more advanced Vector technology than they currently can with Postscript or PDF.
No shit! Outlook Express should be re-branded if not blown off the face of the earth all together. Thunderbird has won the all-in-one messaging app battle and it sure as heck gets along just fine with IE amd Opera.
I agree... Going back as far was Windows Mail in Win95, MS has made some stupid decisions. Outlook Express was an improvement and was ok for its time, but that was 8 years ago.
I can remember when I was in the Win95 beta, and I blasted the Product manager for the 'universal inbox Windows Mail', he apologized and admited they royaly feked up...
I have more money now, so I tend to stick with the real Outlook. I have moved from various mail clients over the years, but now have a bit of ease of use and confidence in Outlook. (If any team at MS does good work it is their Office team.)
I have been screwed by Eudora and many other too many times. (Besides Eudora is such a pig for the amoutn of mail I deal with. I have a 12gb personal store of messages, and get a few hundred a day of real mail with large attachements.)
I hope they have a nice animation for when the machine is infected with a virus, like clippy catching fire and then running around in circles screaming.
:)
They do have this animation... Sadly it flips the screen, does a fade to black and provides a panic button that says, you are too stupid to be using a computer, here is the phone number to Order a Mac.
Just fine. To prevent flattening save as PDF 1.4, but Illustrator also flattens this just fine. btw I'm using Illustrator CS2. What problems are you getting?
I appreciate you trying to help, but I was making a point. I can raise the complexity of any drawing to the point the artwork ends up being rasterized because of PDF limitations. There are way to many examples to list them all. From node complexity to too many layers...
The odds of complex artwork making it successfully to a press/printer in native PDF/Postscript is rare in today's complex world of graphics. Graphics anymore tend to go several steps beyond simple fills and the foundations of what PDFs and Postscript were designed to do.
Another flawed thought is people run out to buy Macs because they use a form of Display PDF because publishers think you get a better round trip experience. However the OSX implementation is also very lacking in support, including simple things like round-tripping embedded founts.
Take Care.
All these posts and I haven't found one yet that even 'realizes' what the problem is, why it doesn't exist in Vista and why it continues to exist in IE7 for XP.
The flaw is in Outlook Express and not IE7. This is why the IE7 update made no difference and why the problem does not exist in Vista even though IE7 is is used.
Also the way they are reporting the bug is a bit off on what is happening and why it is happening.
So how come Illustrators native format is PDF, if PDF doesn't handle all the features of AI? How is it I can save a PDF with AI layers intact, if PDF doesn't handle all the features of AI? How can I save this PDF from Illustrator, open it in Acrobat, save it again and reopen it in Illustrator with all editing capabilities still intact, if PDF doesn't handle all the features of AI?
You are kidding right? Please don't make someone take the time to explain this to you...
Create a multi-point gradient fill, see how PDFs handle that...
As for the printer comment, why in hell are you even talking about Quark? I never mentioned Quark. I was talking about taking PDF output from an illustration program and sending it to a Adobe PDF/Postscript press. Do you think everything has to GO THROUGH a page layout program like Quark, and if so, how did you get your job?
I feel anyone who bought a PS2 at launch (if it lasted, that's a seperate matter) got value for money
:)
Except they were stuck playing with a PS2. I think they got ripped off.
Go on do an analogy for us, on how your 1982 Honda Civic is still running fine and was the best "Money Value" of all cars ever made. Sure this may have some merit, but I enjoy my sports car and it has better "Money Value" for me.
Now considering my PS2 has been in the closet for a couple of years and all of my original XBoxes are still hooked up in one room or another, I would tend to contest the "Money Value" topic even on consoles.
do. Remember that Adobe makes money by selling the PDF generation software, not the reader, so it would be really stupid to make PDF "more" standard by retaliating their own sales, wouldn't it?
;)
It is OBVIOUS to me that MS was trying to cut Adobe's air supply. Expect a Photoshop "killer" any time now.
Ah, but you forget that there are NUMEROUS applications and competitive applications that have PDF creation abilities that fully circumvent Adobe, even competitive products like CorelDraw.
I don't see Adobe beating down the door of these software vendors because they have Adobe PDF Export capabilities...
Double Standard cause it was MS, ya think? Especially considering I can write an application with a PDF creator for my Word processor if I want, but when MS did this Adobe wanted money from just them.
MS can get past the licensing by making the PDF Export a separate download product, so it will be available to Office 2007 users, just not in the box.
Do you see how this is a bit crazy? MS still gets to provide the feature, yet it doesn't go in every copy, which fragments the PDF being more standardized.
This hurts Adobe and the PDF presence which is where they DO make their money.
Adobe makes more money from PDF licensing for Hardware and big money in the publishing industry. (Printers, Digital Press, etc.) Go to www.epson.com and see the price difference on a model of printer that comes with or without Postscript. The Postscript version of the printer is ALWAYS more spendy, as they have to pay Adobe for the licensing of the software for the Postscript/PDF driver for that printer.
Adobe also makes good money from PDF/Postscript server and forms technology, which would have been an EVEN bigger market if everyone had the Create PDF option in their MS Office menu out of the box.
Adobe makes very little from Adobe Acrobat Creator compared to the printers, drivers, digital press, etc licensing.
The inclusion of a PDF Export/Save ability from MS Word would 'further' the PDF standard and would have helped Adobe sell the Server Software and keep their Printer and Press licensing in demand as well.
Also note the MS PDF Export feature does a damn good job not only in preserving the MS Word Documents, but it also held tight to the standards. In fact it was better at the PDF creation and holding to the standard than Adobe's own Acrobat Creator software does. So it wasn't like MS was putting out a crap Exporter or mis-using the standard.
- Sorry if I rambled a bit, sleep deprivation doesn't always make for the most articulate or typo free posts.
I am not sure about Vista making the MBR incompatible, I have not seen this, but it is possible. However the changes are not something that cannot be coded around if they do exist, even though it will force updates of the other bootloaders.
As for the alterior motives for the change in the bootloader, it is just this simple, it is more secure, and is also needed for some of the new technologies like bitlocker that encrypts the whole drive.
They could also have other plans, I have heard things like a Media Player boot of Vista that was very lightweight for watching movies and music, and this would use and benefit from the new bootloader in Vista if it ever sees the light of day.
However, I don't think the change was malicious to hurt other OSes or had future intent to add DRM. Just like Vista itself, there have been tons of DRM FUD and rumors of stuff it would have, yet it isn't anymore DRMed than XP or even OSX if OSX plans on supporting HD video. Vista does support things like TPM, but the only use of TPM in Vista is Bitlocker, which makes it easier for people that have TPM enabled hardware so they don't have to rely on a USB key.
I am a bit curious about the incompatibility you bring up with the bootloader, so I'm off to check some sources and see what bootloaders it does break. I would guess there are going to be some that will break if they are assuming the old boot.ini and coded only for this type of Windows bootloader.
Take Care.
Does XPS do all that? Does XPS do CMYK? Can XPS generate the equivalent of PDF/X-1a, an ISO standard for advertising specs required by Time Inc. and other big media sites?
Ok, by now everyone reading this has surely looked up XPS and can see that it has not only several features that PDF technology doesn't, but it leapfrogs the PDF/Postscript technology in many areas, even including not static publishing concepts that will be a part of the upcoming generation with Electronic Inks.
XPS also is going to hurt Adobe hard in the printer and publishing industry. There are already a number of consumer printers with XPS technology coming to the market and there are also many digital presses that will offer XPS instead of PDF, because it is free to do so instead of paying the Adobe tax.
So for large publishers there is already a bit of a buzz about it, as it may reduce the digital press costs without the Adobe licensing and they are also looking at some of the new features of XPS that will speed up production and produce better quality output easier. (Less need for rasterization and conversion from the original artwork, better font support, etc.)
One of the biggest problems in the digital prining industry now is making sure the content they are producing 'outputs' properly in PDF/Poscript. And this is a BIG issue.
For example I can create Brochure now in AI or CorelDraw that will output with clipping problems when it goes to PDF format because PDF just doesn't handle all the features that full scale vector/layer illustration software offers.
Now when trying to get this to a digital PDF/Postscript based press, this is a MAJOR issue, and the artwork has to be complexity reduced, have the clipping fixed, and often most of the Brochure ends up being rasterized at the press's resolution because the Vector and Font support in a PDF fails miserably.
These types of problems have been big issues in the publising/printing community for a long time, and Postscript v3/PDF was supposed to help, but instead things have often gotten worse. So why even have PDF based press when we (as publishers) end up rasterizing the entire brochure and artwork and are basically sending a PDF Bitmap to the device so it prints as designed?
Here is where XPS steps in and takes control of the ball, it has the preservation because of the extra features in the specification, so there is less fighting with fonts and less rasterization.
There is also the factor that no special software is needed, as Vista does all the XPS work inherently, which opens the door up for more flexibility in design software used as well. (Yes OSX does Postscript/PDF, and even WindowsXP does Postscript printer output, but there is a world of difference in the way Vista handles the from screen to document to output device because of the XAML and XPS technologies.)
XPS is being seen as a welcome fix to many Adobe PDF/Postscript issues in the printing industry.
To fully understand how XPS/XAML technologies work and also to see what they offer than PDF doesn't, you just need to go read the XPS specifications, also do a search on the printer and press manufacturers that are planning on XPS devices and why they see XPS has a good technology.
It isn't even laziness...
Here is how it works, the MS bootloader in previous versions as well as the new one in Vista work 'just fine' for other operating systems and can be used as your bootloader, but not ALWAYS.
However, for Microsoft to 'recognize' your current MBR and offer it as an option, would mean they would have to 'ensure' their bootloader technology works and supports all other OSes...
This is a big area of liability and even support that MS does not want to assume responsibility for, since unlike an Open Source project, MS could more easily be sued for trying to support all OSes in their bootloader and either mess up so that one doesn't boot properly from it or even leave out an OS and have that company sue MS for strong arm tatics, even if they just overlooked the OS to support it.
MS is the 800lb gorilla, espeically now, and they can't take risks like this, so they focus on making sure their bootloader does what it is supposed to do for their OS, and if others want to strap into, then they are free to do so at their own risk, with no legal liability of compatibility or exlusion concerns for MS.
Besides, you don't see Solaris, OSX, and most Linux and BSD distributions very good about preserving other OSes MBRs. Microsoft is NOT an exception in this regard.
MS also has been good to leave their bootloader unlocked, so that you can easily add other OSes to it if you choose to use it as your system's main bootloader. In the old pre-Intel*nix boom, it was actually a good thing that MS's NT booloader would work with other OSes, even if they didn't add them to the menu automatically. In those days there wasn't a large number of free or open source bootloaders around at the time and you had to buy bootloader software.
PDF is not truly a license free product, open yes, license free - sort of...
This is how Adobe strongarmed MS in removing it from the shipping version of Office, as Adobe was going to demand licensing fees. (However it can be distributed separately without incurring the fees.)
Adobe truly screwed themselves here, they would have been the all time standard with MS giving them full support in Office, but instead they wanted to keep MS at bay and make money off the Office name. Adobe messed up.
From my inside MS sources, the XPS was never meant to become a PDF replacement, even though it has the technology to do so, and even offers more features than the PDF specification. However the move by Adobe to try to screw with MS with the Office Plug-in and taking it even further by raising contention with the whole Vista Composer that is an XAML/XPS technology came as a complete slap to MS.
Prior to Adobe trying to squeeze MS for money and try to stop Vista because of the inherent XPS/XAML composer, MS decided they didn't have to play nice in this market, and I honestly don't blame them.
MS worked with Adobe up until just a few month ago when all of this started coming down. MS even was helping Adobe with using the Vista composer technologies for Adobe products, including their PDF reader. As in MS mind they had no intention of pushing XPS outside of the Vista world which could hurt Adobe, now however with Adobe's actions, they don't feel any obligation to stay out of Adobe's playground and can pursuing opening and dropping XPS technology to all OS platforms.
I would argue that there are many benefits of Windows2003 over Win2k that often get overlooked, or are not factored in by many techs. There are also some strong reasons that should be considered to compel businesses that can afford the upgrades to move to Windows2003. One little feature like more advances in clustering or even something as simple as shadow mirror files or even the replication features of Windows2003 R2 can save businesses money in the long run and even save data that is irreplaceable.
However, I wasn't arguing for everyone to upgrade. Unless there is a clear need for the upgrade, then I agree 100% that the cost of upgrades are not necessary, even if they are running Windows NT 3.1 or Novel 3.x. (Yes, we even have clients that use old Server software, because they can't afford it nor do they have a need to change.)
I was making a point that for a new deployment it would be stupid to choose Win2k Server or Windows2003 Server.
I see all too many times that there are techs and deployment projects that are still dropping NEW installations with Win2k, usually because the techs are only certified for Win2k or don't have enough knowledge of Windows2003. This is insane and hurts the customers, even if the techs try to justify the use of Win2k with myths about it being the same, or faster, or several other non-true cons.
If you are paying for the software anyway, why get an older version that truly isn't as secure, fast or advanced?
I use win2k servers, they do what I need and they are secure enought for this enviornment. If it serves the purpose and there is no improvement that you need badly enough to want to upgrade then why do it?
This I agree with...
My point was for people putting out money for new server installations. We run across techs all the time that STILL deploy Win2k (not saving any money over Windows2003), because they think it is a better solution. Often many of these techs are afraid of or know little about Windows2003, so they stick to what they know and try to sell the customer that it is the best solution.
You are correct there is no logical reason to force and upgrade unless there is a need for the upgrade by the customer. This is something I should have made more clear in my post.
We still have closed system clients running NT 4.0 systems because they are in a locked network environment and the customer does not need the extra features or cannot afford the upgrade costs.
However for customers or techs out there that are getting a new installation with Win2k on the Desktop or the Server, you are being conned by a bad tech or you are a bad tech conning your customers.
Actually I have a large team of engineers that professionally test and work with Servers, software and hardware in general.
Our teams can also explain advantages to various *nix server solutions from Linux and BSD to Solaris and even OSX server implementation models.
Since this was about Win2k Server specifically, we have our own hard facts and selling Win2k to your customers over Windows2003 is just plain stupid for many reasons.
Oh and I don't work for MS...
I call bullshit. If I have 6 family members accessing the same computer 'at the same time' and the only limitation is an ARTIFICIAL limitation, then I need a new OS!
Do you realize Windows is not the only OS to do this, and far from it actually, so good luck out there...
the only restriction is how many copies of it and what uses they will provide support for.
Um, you were trying to prove my point right?
If you never call the vendor support, and let's be honest, most people don't, they get support from friends etc... What's the point in paying at all?
Again proving my point?
Also just an FYI, you CANNOT GET ALL THE FEATURES of the 'retail' RedHat for Free, go look at the differences that the purchased version has that will never be released for free... (In fact several Linux distributions are tacking on stuff that is just not available for free.)
And it runs at 20% slower than Windows 2003 Server, oh and has less features and capabilities as well.
Why people insist on using older OSes because they thinking they are gaining something amazes me.
Why not install CPM or Novell 2.11 as well they were 'secure' for their time?
Not to mention all the software hacks and incompatibilities and limitations, like not even being able to run the lastest RDP protocols to running something like SQL Server 2005. Why on earth would you stick or choose Win2k, if you are going to spend money on a Server OS? You would be far better off with Windows2003.
This stuff amazes me, and these are probably high paid techs steering every company down a bad path just because they think they 'know' better.
You forgot the bit about VM's. The EULA forbids the use of a second copy of the same product (under a single purchased license) running on a VM. Since MS does allow this for the higher-end licenses they probably wanted to be clear about where it was not allowed.
I do agree the non-VM part is strange, and think MS should explain this further, as I know alot of technical support companies use VM technology to host 'lower' end versions of Windows so they are testing in the same environment as the client.
I also know of several companies that have been working with Microsoft that have been using the Home Basic and other versions in VMWare and VirtualPC environments, with MS's knowledge and support. This is why this part gives me pause, becaue if it was forbidden, MS would not have been letting developers and companies run these versions in a VM environment even during the testing cycle.
I wonder if this is more about official support and MS having the ability to deny support to an individual that only runs in a VM, because MS can't control the VM hardware emulation layers.
But again, who knows and does seem strange.
Whatever happened to the /. I knew? Where people didn't just roll over when a big-ass company imposes artificial restrictions deliberately to software that you should be owning, rather than licensing
You mean like Red Hat does with its client and server software or VMWare does with its free and professional software versions... (Should I go on?)
This is how software companies have worked for YEARS. Are we so use to getting all our software for free and NOT supporting or giving money to companies for development?
It would be different if MS was truly 'screwing' users with the prices, but they are not. Even non-server Linux distributions sell for about the same as a Home copy of MS Windows.
Are we all so 'young' we forget about the days of Novell ruling the network server world, where you paid THOUSANDS for a file and printer Server that had limited 5 Client access? Part of the reason WindowsNT took down Novell in the early 90s was MS didn't charge an arm and a leg for the Server OS, and then nickel and dime the clients, and it was also a true application and media server, not just files and printers.
It would be awesome if companies could give away software for free and no one ever had to pay for R&D, but without R&D, products stop getting released and stop having innovation. Sure there is a cost, but MS offers a 'generic' form of Windows for users and OEMs that don't need the extra features, and even these generic versions offer more 'network connection' licenses than the $3500 copies of Novell businesses were buying in the early 90s.
If all businesses 'curtailed' to this model, then the cost for Windows Vista would be $299 dollars for an OEM or Home user, where now they can get it for under $100 for basic functionality.
If you want to run a Server, buy a server OS license, even Red Hat will sell you one for about as much as the MS WIndows 2003 Server, in fact more than what the 2003 Server Web Edition version retails for.
the first thing I did when it was done was image the hard drive to a network store. For the record, XP Home SP1 takes at least 6 reboots to patch, plus hundreds of MB of downloads, plus hours of installation time. Add in a goodly amount of applications and it's the better part of a day
1) There is NOTHING in the EULA that prevents you from doing this. Microsoft's OWN ONECARE application does this even.
2) Transferring to a device, means you can't install Vista Home on another machine, and if you do INSTALL it there, that machine becomes the LICENSED copy machine - you know how ALL OTHER SOFTWARE LICENSES WORK.) It says NOTHING about backups or Images of your system...
3) These are ONLY ridiculous if you are stupid enough to belive the FUD and not take the time to read the license yourself which says NOTHING about preventing users from doing things like this.
Ya, I read that site also, but if you lookup their reference for their claims in the actual EULA, it is NOT in the EULA.
Their main page has a lot of incorrect assumptions and mis-interpretations of the EULA, to the point that many of the laid out claims are just made up.
The ISO example is one of the more egregious.
It specifically DOES NOT SAY you cannot copy the Vista ISO for backup or to your hard drive.
What it DOES say is you can't put it on a network store (like for volume installations - and this is only for the HOME and STARTER versions that have no business being MASS installed from a network location.)
Either this Website has an axe to grind or they have no technical knowledge...
As for the other issues, there have been Network connection limitations in Windows NT since version 4.0 for the desktop version. 10 Connections, and this has not changed for the professional level version of Vista either.
The Home versions are limited to 5 'concurrent' connections. Which seems quite reasonable, because if you have a big enough family that you have 5 OTHER users in your house accessing a file or printer on your computer 'at the same time' then you probably need something other than the HOME edition.
MS even upped the Media Center Extender 'allowed' connections in Vista over XP, instead of 3 you get 5 on the first tier of Vista that has Media Center.
Why not rename your post to MS increases connection limits for MCE users?
And the 'grasping at straws' for day goes to....
My Answer is, This is a Weasel...
Factually, most of the information in the article is correct, as Vista does add in new technology for driver checking (especially in x64 version for kernel model drivers).
However how this can be 'deemed' as a NEW DRM component is about as far from reality as it gets.
The ONLY way this plays a part in DRM is when 'driver' checking is required by software/hardware for HD-Content that will require it.
The MS Code does little more than to ensure the drivers are what they say they are, and on x32, just like in WindowsXP you can INSTALL ANYTHING you want, even KERNEL level drivers. There is nothing stopping the administator from doing this.
In x64, kernel mode drivers MUST be signed, and I don't think this is the right Move for MS, but it does have a legitimate basis for the level of stability they would like the x64 platform to have.
Also of note, kernel mode drivers are less common in Vista, as even the Video is now a User mode driver. Besides, if you are running the normal x32 version of Vista, it behaves NO differently than XP, although the OS does make sure any drivers YOU HAVE CHOSEN to install are the same ones in place and that no 3rd parth access by any application can touch them without specific authorization from the administrator.
This is more about MS tightening security, than having anything to do with DRM.
So this article is a freaking FUD based Weasel, why trying to add some actual 'technical' facts, they mislead the subject to add in assumption that this is a DRM component.
And it is not...