Windows Vista has never exactly been a favourite subject among company IT people. Migrating from Windows XP to Windows Vista isn't exactly a worry-free process, and machines that run Windows XP comfortably may have trouble powering Windows vista. As such, adoption of Vista has been slow. Two years after Vista's release, the OS is still struggling in the enterprise sector, according to a Forrester report.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2008-08-26
Member since:2005-11-13
Member since:2005-07-06
1) You've been here less than 5 minutes and now you're doing a sermon on the mound to those who have a little more credibility than you do? have you ever thought that maybe you should listen before opening your mouth?
2) I didn't moderate your post down - but given the lack of content and substantial contribution to the discourse, I can't blame those who did moderate your post down. What have you actually contributed to the discussion besides trotting out the same dead horse to flog again.
3) The economy has not be trotting along at a comfortable pace for the last several years (contra to the Neil Cavuto and Fox delusions); the lack of movement to Windows Vista does not equate to a refuting or Windows Vista, or alternative operating systems.
Companies will move to what ever system yields them the most gains in productivity - if there are insufficient productivity gains then companies aren't going to move; it's not a shunning of something, just a realisation that at that moment in time there is insufficient improvements to warrant the investment required.
Edited 2009-02-02 23:30 UTC
Member since:
2006-02-05
Member since:
2005-07-06
And it really has little to nothing to do with Vista itself. Businesses are just hesitant to spend time and money on upgrading to a new OS when they have a mature, well tested platform that is "good enough" for what they're doing. For people with short memories, lot of shops stayed with 2000 for a good part of XP's lifecycle for exactly that reason.
Member since:
2006-02-20
I was actually surprised by Vista after all the horror stories I'd heard about the DRM and whatnot. I'll be honest, I have quite a bit materials of "questionable legality", and not once has that DRM reared it's head. Maybe because I don't use Media Center or WMP, but whatever the case, I would say if Hollywood was hoping for this to protect their IP, they're going to be disappointed.
Member since:2006-03-12
Member since:2006-02-20
Sure I'd support it, but if the hardware does become compliant, then you're probably looking at a long uphill battle of either class action lawsuits, letter writing campaigns to Congress or some such action to try and get things changed. If it happens it'll probably just be time to switch to Linux or get a Mac. Really the only thing I need Windows for is games anyway.
Member since:2005-11-16
Hi,
It seems that for DRM there's an everlasting supply of morons who aren't smart enough to do any research or form their own opinion, who just believe the crud that some other moron said.
Let me make it simple...
If your hardware and software supports DRM, and if you pay for some DRM content, then you can play the DRM content.
If your hardware or software doesn't support DRM, or if you don't pay for DRM content, then you can't play the DRM content.
DRM has nothing to do with "non-DRM" media, and if you've got a pirated copy of anything that works without DRM then DRM won't do anything.
If you switch to an OS that doesn't support DRM, then the only difference it makes is that you won't be able to play DRM content that you've paid for.
If you don't like DRM, then don't buy DRM content. If you don't like Microsoft then there's plenty of valid reasons you could use without using misinformed FUD.
-Brendan
Member since:2007-02-17
Let me make it simple...
Too simple. Let's take apart your over-simplification ...
Some DRM content. The particular type that matches your crippled hardware/software. Not all DRM content.
Think "Plays for sure" ... Suuuuuure it does.
True enough as far as it goes ... but as I said that is only a way oversimplified part of the story.
The observation that you miss is this ... every piece of equipment out there can play content that has no DRM. That is a massive market.
Only Vista machines can play content that has Vista DRM applied. That is as yet a comparatively tiny market.
As long as Vista remains poorly adopted, a content provider would be insane to offer his content only in the form which has Vista DRM applied. He can sell that only to people who are running Vista. That cuts out the vast majority of the potential market.
Right now, it is far better for a content provider to offer non-DRM content to the wider market, even in the face of piracy, rather than offer it to the very restricted market comprising only people who want to play content only on their Vista machine and nowhere else.
Hence, avoiding Vista helps to keep the Vista-DRM-enabled-equipment target audience small and unattractive to content providers, and hence impedes the onset of universal DRM.
Debatable. Very debatable. Using Vista, try to rip a track from a CD you have legally purchased to .mp3 (without any DRM) and send it to your friend who does not run Vista (say runs a Mac or Linux box). See if you can do it so that your friend can hear the result.
... and you will not expand the set of machines that are Vista-DRM-capable, and hence help to keep the market for Vista-DRM-content unattractively small.
-Brendan
Brendan, if you are going to fling accusations of "FUD" at others, make absolutely sure you have told the whole story yourself ... because otherwise you are very likely to get "MS apologist and lapdog" accusations thrown right back at you.
Edited 2009-02-03 09:25 UTC
Member since:2005-11-16
Hi,
True enough as far as it goes ... but as I said that is only a way oversimplified part of the story.
The observation that you miss is this ... every piece of equipment out there can play content that has no DRM. That is a massive market.
Only Vista machines can play content that has Vista DRM applied. That is as yet a comparatively tiny market.
As long as Vista remains poorly adopted, a content provider would be insane to offer his content only in the form which has Vista DRM applied. He can sell that only to people who are running Vista. That cuts out the vast majority of the potential market.
Right now, it is far better for a content provider to offer non-DRM content to the wider market, even in the face of piracy, rather than offer it to the very restricted market comprising only people who want to play content only on their Vista machine and nowhere else.
Hence, avoiding Vista helps to keep the Vista-DRM-enabled-equipment target audience small and unattractive to content providers, and hence impedes the onset of universal DRM. "
Um, what? If you create the content, then you can encode it with as many different types of DRM you like, and even licence different versions of it at different prices (including licencing a more expensive version without DRM, if you like). Getting rid of "Vista-DRM" just creates an opening for some other DRM. Getting rid of Microsoft entirely just creates an opening for "Linux-DRM" (note: this *already* exists) or "Apple-DRM" or "Adobe-DRM" or some other form of DRM.
Debatable. Very debatable. Using Vista, try to rip a track from a CD you have legally purchased to .mp3 (without any DRM) and send it to your friend who does not run Vista (say runs a Mac or Linux box). See if you can do it so that your friend can hear the result. "
I don't have Vista installed (and wouldn't condone asking someone to create illegal copies of legally purchased CDs either, even if it is just to find out what the problem is and if the problem has anything to do with DRM or not).
... and you will not expand the set of machines that are Vista-DRM-capable, and hence help to keep the market for Vista-DRM-content unattractively small. "
Why do you care if other people have the freedom to choose "Vista-DRM" if they want to?
Oh - and just so you know; you'll have to throw your VHS tape player away because I decided you don't deserve to be able to hire a movie the old fashioned way.
I understood that before I posted.
In general, what annoys me about "anti-DRM advocates" (DRM detractors?) is when they start telling others not to use Vista because the DRM will make their tinfoil hat go rusty, and that the aliens will be able to read their thoughts because of this (and other irrational paranoia). Of course I'm not suggesting anyone here has said anything irrational (misinformed perhaps, but not irrational) - I'm just explaining why "anti-DRM advocates" annoy me.
-Brendan
Member since:2005-06-29
Odd. I took up on your challenge, and it all worked out just fine.
I just ripped my legally purchased copy of "This Is Alphabeat" using Windows Media Player in Windows 7, copied the files to a Micro SD card, inserted the Micro SD card into my Linux (Ubuntu) machine... and what do you know? The .mp3s worked just fine.
Lemur2, your FUD goes beyond FUD. You're a liar.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2007-02-17
Read again what my original post said, where you quoted it.
Read it again.
Now point out the lie.
Firstly ... my post merely asks people to try this. I have encountered some situations/circumstances where this did not work for other people.
Now you have claimed a situation where you claim it works for you ... but unfortunately for you you could not actually do the experiment that I asked you to try. My very first step was ... and I quote ... "Using Vista".
Edited 2009-02-03 22:29 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2008-07-15
You cannot DRM an mp3, any computer-literate person should know that. MP3 is both an audio codec and its corresponding container format, neither of which support DRM protection of any kind. As soon as you put a different type of audio codec, or try to encrypt the audio inside the mp3 container, it's no longer an mp3, and nothing will play it. I don't like DRM either, but your FUD tactics don't help the situation.
Member since:2005-07-06
"You cannot DRM an mp3" , "it's no longer an mp3"
Your contradiciting yourself in the following paragraph.
MP3 can be drm'ed , that's why normal mp3 player that follow mp3 standards cannot play them once that they have been encrypted. The MP3 is still in there , it's the encryption decoder that is missing and is the problem.
That's why it's not a Microsoft MP3 problem and a DRM problem.
Denying reality seem to be your problem. FUD as no basis on reality , this case is base don reality and when the **WINDOWS** press and experts report on the problem , your the one lying and fudding ...
Member since:2006-07-04
OK. I just now used Vista to rip a track from one of my legally purchased CDs (I don't have any illegal ones) to an .mp3 (via WMP), transferred it to my Mac, and played it with no problems.
lemur, normally you're more clever with your anti-Microsoft FUD. It's not like you to issue a challenge that's so easy to perform and so easily disproves your anti-Microsoft theories.
This challenge was so weak, I have to assume that you're totally ignorant wrt Vista, DRM, and even .mp3s. Of course, being totally ignorant on a topic has never stopped you from spreading anti-Microsoft FUD before (many times supported by lots of irrelevant links that you hope nobody bothers to click). But try harder next time; this latest effort was pitiful.
Edited 2009-02-03 18:36 UTC
Member since:2007-02-17
I am going on second-hand info here ... I personally won't touch Vista with a ten foot barge pole.
My post did ask to try it ... I did not say it would or would not work ... it seems very much to depend on the source of the original content.
My second-hand information was: (1) Someone (on an online forum similar to this one) had used Vista to make a fair-use extract from a CD that they legally owned and had sent me that extract ... and I would have required to use Vista and obtain a permission certificate from a Microsoft server in order to play it, and (2) Someone has asked me why they can't use their new Vista laptop to extract tracks from CDs they legally owned in order to play these tracks on their car's .mp3 player system, when they can do exactly that same operation using the same methods on their older XP desktop system.
Obviously, from your anectdote, Vista's Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) is broken, because it doesn't seem to apply the same "end-user restricting rules" consistently all the time.
Finally ... I note you completely ignore the main objection to Vista DRM ... which is about the inherent binding of DRMed content to a particular platform (and hence software provider), that would (if allowed to become prevalent amongst media players) create a monopoly for reproduction of digital media content.
Edited 2009-02-03 22:14 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
If you don't like DRM, then don't buy DRM content. If you don't like Microsoft then there's plenty of valid reasons you could use without using misinformed FUD.
To get rid of DRM totally, you should probably not stop at not buying DRM:ed material, but instead stop buying any records at all, go to movies, or concerts arranged by companies that have DRM protected material on their product list. If people did that DRM would be dead tomorrow, and now that most record companies are moving away from DRM this is actually possible, without living in a world of silence.
However, this have very little to do with the lack of success for Vista in business, after all, how many people listen to DRM proteced material for a living.
The reason for the failure is of course that most companies allready had a well tested functioning OS already. They will upgrade when XP is no longer supported, if I remember correctly that is 2011. It is also quite likely that Microsoft will extend XP support beond that date due to customer demand. When they upgrade they will go for whatever OS Microsoft offer at that time.
Member since:2007-09-06
Which allowed Windows Media Player and all the mp3 player companies that baught into Play For Sure to keep on working perfectly after Microsoft aborted the technology infavor of a new DRM bound to the Zune? You mean like that kind of "if you baught the DRM content, you can play it anywhere" kind of fair use?
Maybe you mean the way hdmi requires DRM'd hardware to get full resolution out of your blueray and hd-dvd media where "uncertified" hardware would play that same content at full resolution if it wasn't artificially limited to lower resolutions.
I'm just trying to get a grasp of how DRM adds benefits and value to the end user.. you know.. the law abiding consumer that is supposed to be the reason the market exists in the first play.
Member since:2006-03-12
Member since:
2006-03-12
Whats left to say. I used to post more regularly. Vista is Microsoft Current OS and by every metric has been out for over 2 years. It has been defended by the faithful including Moderators here ruthlessly. Astroturfing is rife. Users have been Vilified for not having current hardware, and that depressing voice of the individual on the all over the net that posts "I use 64-bit Vista Ultimate and never had a problem" but he's the only one. Microsoft get in trouble for their Vista incapable machines. Vista is DRMed to the eyeballs.
...and Microsoft continue to rake in Billions.
The saddest think is all these companies are sticking to XP an 8 year old OS. Microsoft Fanatics are clinking to Windows 7 which I suspect will still be DRMed, has serious activation issues, is anti-capitalist, and overpriced.
Member since:2005-07-06
...and Microsoft continue to rake in Billions.
The saddest think is all these companies are sticking to XP an 8 year old OS. Microsoft Fanatics are clinking to Windows 7 which I suspect will still be DRMed, has serious activation issues, is anti-capitalist, and overpriced.
1) DRM is only an issue if you as a software developer hook your application into using these facilities - if you as a software programmer choose not to use those hooks that enable DRM then you have nothing to worry about.
From the consumer end, start demanding DRM free software - support companies who provide legitimate ways of backing up DVD movies and ripping them so one can use it on a hand held device such as an iPod. Unless you use your voice and demand a change - things will keep going on as usual.
2) Regarding activation - activation has been around prior to Microsoft Windows; anyone remember then node locking software on the old UNIX workstations? remember purchasing SUN Forté developer and having to send in a massive form for a password to unlock the software? You'd think Microsoft would have learnt something from it (namely, that node locking/activating etc is a stupid idea) - but they haven't.
3) The reason why people stick with Windows is either because they require certain pieces of software (and the alternatives are below quality they expect) or because their hardware isn't fully or properly supported. As for those who defend Windows Vista - its confusing, but there are lots of things that humans do which make little or no-sense what so ever.
Edited 2009-02-03 01:32 UTC
Member since:2005-08-09
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
They still rake in billions because pretty much every computer Dell and HP and all the other big computer companies (besides Apple obvious) ship one version of Windows (XP) or another (Vista) which is why Microsoft keeps raking in billions of dollars. Until companies start buying an OS from another company that isn't going to stop.
Note that it doesn't matter which version of Windows people buy as long as it is Windows things won't change.
The organization I work for is skipping vista. We barely support it with VPN on personally owned machines.
One of the big problems is that internal programs made for XP don't run without lots of modification on Vista. And this is an org that brown necks Microsoft. Despite that they don't feel it was worth it to "upgrade" to Vista despite being on the band wagon from the beginning and moving to XP before most orgs and companies did.
Maybe that is the reason they didn't want to move to Vista in the beginning. The pain that moving to XP caused. But even today they are not at all interested in moving to Vista. "Maybe" Windows 7. "We'll have to wait and see" is the most definitive statement that I've heard.
We have moved to Office 2007 and finally are removing Access97 off all computers.
Personally I think if we are going to spend a bunch of money to move to a different OS we should move to Linux or Mac OS X. Neither are perfect but then neither is Windows. But both of them are a lot more secure.
Soon to follow are posts about how Windows is just as secure. What I say to those people is, install all the latest patches for whichever version of Windows you use but NO anti-virus software. Also do this for Linux and Mac OS X and use all three for a month.
What, Windows won't be up for a whole month because of viruses? That's exactly my point. And yes, Linux and Mac OS X will all still be up and running.
Member since:2008-06-02
You might want to try learning what a word means before you start to use it. Here's a free hint: it's not a synonym for "fanboi" or "troll" or "anyone who isn't a rabid open source fundamentalist," as you seem to think.
It's also given you, and the rest of the mindless "anything but Microsoft" drones two years worth of stuff to whine and moan about. I'd think you'd be grateful for Vista.
Which goes to show that Linux and OS X STILL can't catch up with Windows, even with an 8 year handicap in their favour. Truly pathetic.
LOL! Freetards like you take your anti-Microsoft obsession to the point where it could be diagnosed as a psychological disorder.
Member since:2006-03-12
Putting LOL at the front of something does not make for a compelling argument.
"rabid open source fundamentalist"; "Freetards"
"anything but Microsoft";"anti-Microsoft obsession"
"Linux and OS X STILL can't catch up with Windows"
I picked out all your comments, and thats the problem. Thats why I don't really post. Their is no animated technical discussion; no license discussion; no comparison of development models; not even a discussion on price. The best you can do is try and demonise the individual.
"Linux and OS X STILL can't catch up with Windows"
Make it a mantra. It won't change the facts. OS X has been better for years. Linux needed critical applications/3D Support/Wireless and has those now, but the underlying OS is simply better in every way. Vista 2 may go some way to regress that balance, but Vista had no compelling features and several regressions. I see Smoke and Mirrors performance twinned with limiting the Damage created by Vista, and it still contains all the garbage I hate DRM + Activation + Tilt Bits + Spyware + Microsoft Crapware + Hardware Locked + IE + WMP + Antivirus + Antispyware + All the other irremovable garbage that has better alternatives elseware + Battleling 100 limitations of the OS, and I miss out on Multiple Desktops + 100's of application updating at the touch of a button and at no cost; better alternatives like Banshee and Firefox + Consistent front ends to Hardware from Scanners to Wireless Networking with so much freedom with a few clicks I can copy all my OS+Applications onto a Flash Drive.
And whats the future for Microsoft the second coming Windows 7 a new UI; the much talked about calculator; the cloud[sic] computing; performance regressions limited. With compatibility and Driver Support that having Vista out for two years has brought. Did I miss something in the hype!! Nothing compelling now by the wime the 9.04 and the 9.10 releases come around it will look even less than it is now.
Member since:2008-06-02
LOL, sounds like you got hung up in the first word of the sentence and didn't bother reading the rest of it.
"anything but Microsoft";"anti-Microsoft obsession"
"Linux and OS X STILL can't catch up with Windows"
I picked out all your comments, and thats the problem.
And I see you haven't tried to deny any of them. In fact, you've proven most of them with your response.
Glad to help.
And what have you contributed, sonny? Other than constantly raving about how "oh noes, Micros$$soft is evil!!!!!1111", that is.
You were labeling people as "astroturfers" just one post ago, and now you're trying to claim the moral high ground? That's adorable.
Make it a mantra. It won't change the facts.
Sorry, chum(p), but trying to ignore the truth won't make it go away. The proof is in the pudding - Windows is still the most popular OS in existence.
Yeah, that must be why Linux netbooks have such a high return rate.
And despite all your impotent railing against it, Windows 7 will STILL have an exponentially-larger installed based than either Linux or OS X only a few months after it's released.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2008-06-02
Member since:
2005-08-29
Member since:
2006-04-22
Anyone else find it ironic that in these threads the ones complaining about DRM and Vista are:
1.) People that are not affected by DRM, because...
2.) They are people that would not use a Microsoft OS or product in the first place
3.) Generally have no clue to what and how DRM is.
But it is the one theme certain people just love to bring up. Funny, because I really have never seen an actual Vista user complain about DRM. Now I base this upon frequent visits to several digital media and multimedia forums. Funny because does anyone want to try and make me believe for an instant should DRM be removed these same individuals would load up Vista? Windows 7?
Again, problem is not DRM in Vista, but the fact DRM exists. Just a wild thought, but does anyone even bother to ask why it is there in the first place? What caused media companies to rush to this?
First off before complaining about DRM, at least take the time to learn what it is, how it is implemented, and what exactly it does. And in the end, it is still always the media owner who makes the decision whether to put DRM in their content.
Back to the topic, I am not surprised that their is slow adoption. This has nothing to do with Vista at all. Take that out of the equation completely, or imagine if Vista was flawless. There would still be slow adoption for two reasons. First, do these companies have a need to migrate/upgrade? Second, with Windows 7 coming out just a few years after, why spend the money on 6, when 7 is so near? Personally I am not one of those who feels the need to get the latest greatest of any product. Fast production/development cycles usually do not benefit the consumer. While it may satisfy some geeks or fans of said product, that does not translate to real need.
Member since:2007-02-17
DRM is some unremoveable software on a Windows Vista machine that is put there at the behest of the media owner. You said so yourself.
The thing is ... I am the owner of the machine, and the one who paid for it, I am the one who defines what the machine should be used for, I am the one who would pay for any software it needs to achieve that, and hence I am the one who should be able to say what software I want to run on said machine.
Likewise, I am the one who would purchase any content. I should be the one who gets to say where and when I enjoy that content.
If media owners and software providers believe they have any right to use my resources (my machine) to their ends ... they have another think coming. Guess again.
I'm not putting up with shoddy, slow-as-molasses Vista on my machine because some idiot American media mogul and his equally crass software company executive crony thinks I should.
Vista is not an upgrade. Of anything.
If one is going to take the trouble to migrate, then anyone with an ounce of sanity would move as far away from the clearly-not-built-for-my-purposes Vista as they possibly could.
Edited 2009-02-03 04:05 UTC
Member since:2006-04-22
Member since:2006-11-13
Hey, you sound like me some 6 years ago. Since then I switched to Linux and have never been happier. I tried various distros, but found Ubuntu to be a good balance of what I need and install size. Linux give the user all the control - just the way I like it. Not to mention that my company's IT depart is just too happy. They never hear any issue from me - I never have viruses, my system never crashes etc...
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2007-02-17
And you have that choice. It's as simple as not running an OS that conflicts with what you want. "
Indeed, that is the ideal solution ... for me. Now.
However, in and of itself, it is insufficient. If Microsoft gets away with Windows-DRM on the majority of hardware in the future, then it is possibly that content providers will decide then to supply only Windows-DRM content.
If that happens, then I will become disenfranchised out of being able to enjoy media content where and when I want, even if I am willing to pay for it. This will happen through no fault of my own, but rather through the laziness of many others (sheeple). That is not a good potential outcome ... for anyone (other than perhaps big media).
Better for me to point out the pitfalls (for the average consumer) of DRM and lock-in right now, in the hope that the "there is no harm in Vista DRM" propagandist myth might die an immediate death right away.
Member since:2005-07-11
I'm afraid the uptake of Vista does have a little to do with Vista itself.
You mention that 7 will be out soon. I think the reason 7 will be out sooner is because of the serious flaws that Vista has. MS need to get something out there that will sell, something Vista isn't doing as well as MS would like.
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally a Mac Fanboy, but I have a lot less problem with Vista than most people, but it is "bloat" and it is horrible on "older" hardware.
I've used 7 and have to say it only proves the inadequacies of Vista. 7 is closer to where Vista should have been (but still not the promise that Longhorne was)...
Member since:
2005-08-18
I dont see how this could be surprising to anyone and it has nothing to do with Vista sucking, DRM or whatever. The reason business hasn't migrated is because they dont have to. At this point they already have a well functioning setup that they know is working. No business is going to go "Yeh, hey, lets screw up everything again for no reason at all by upgrading to Vista even though all the applications we need are running fine on XP". Upgrading in itself is not a core business for many, if any, companies.
As long as the applications they need run fine on XP they're not going to upgrade.
Member since:
2006-03-20
I don't see why Enterprises should invest in Vista. What does Vista have that XP does not, from an Enterprise viewpoint?
Upgrading thousands or millions of PCs to a newer operating system includes not only the cost of software but also the hardware (because Vista is resource-hungry) and the labor required for such a task.
In this economic crisis, it does not make sense to move to Vista.
Member since:
2006-02-15
Half of the posts so far are people complaining about DRM, how it is horrible and all that, and then later in the same post they say they are using Linux or something..so why do they complain about it in the first place?
I use XP and Linux and as such I am not having any issues DRM-wise. Of course, I don't like the idea of DRM in the least bit, like I read somewhere that unless your monitor and graphics card are both DHCP-compliant then Vista will downgrade the video quality of your BlueRay movies..It's stupid, it harms any honest consumer, and so forth.
But still, the point stays; making arrogant-sounding angry posts on an internet forum will not make the situation go away. I suggest every single one of you anti-DRM people to learn to properly argument why it is bad and to learn to explain it in easy to understand terms to non-technically inclined people. Not fling around terms such as FUD and bashing DRM without any reasonable arguments to an audience that is well aware of such things already.
Member since:
2005-08-02
At the U where I work, my division was selected shortly after Vista rolled out to test it. This is due to the fact that we have our own dedicated IT department and can give campus IT an idea of what they will face when they roll out software system wide. (For example, we were the guinea pigs for Office 2007.)
We discovered that we cannot run Vista in house because it doesn't work with several mission critical programs we use. We also discovered that the State Higher Education System cannot switch to Vista because it doesn't work with a System Wide mission critical program (a legacy program so old it dates from before the days of standard keyboard commands). (As an aside, this program is roundly hated by anybody who has to use it, but only now, because the vendor can't make it work with Vista is the vendor working on an upgrade.)
Because of those programs, we must stick with XP.
Member since:
2005-11-23
Member since:
2006-04-22
It is almost a given now that any thread involving Windows/Vista will always just devolve into some idiotic DRM related mess. Sadly a few manage to completely hijack the discussion for their own obsessions, which in turn reflects badly on this site to newcomers. I know it is hard to manage on the anonymous internet the behavior of immature people, but that doesn't mean there are not options.
Maybe the solution is that people need to subscribe to different topics in order to post, and if they chose to troll in them they should lose the right to post (though still able to read). In short, if I chose to do nothing but troll discussions regarding OSX, then I should lose the right to post in OSX threads for a period of time.
In most forums, these certain individuals would have long since been warned or banned. No reason why there should not be some rules and regulations here, quite simply the discussion threads need them.
And a side note, I am just tired of people that will never use any Windows to begin with being the ones whining about DRM, to which 99% of what they say is either outright deceit or just plain ignorance. The end result is we are unable to have a mature, intelligent discussion regarding DRM here.
And I think most of use can pretty much distinguish the difference between a troll and someone who is playing devil's advocate for the sake of a discussion.
Edited 2009-02-04 03:20 UTC
Member since:2007-02-17
Those of us who don't use Vista, and are hence blisfully untroubled directly by its anti-consumer features such as DRM, nevertheless are sometimes unavoidably confronted with the Vista DRM mess when asked questions by others, or sent files from others, who are to be counted amongst Vista's victims.
I deceive you not.
http://alfred.co.in/technology/vista-drm-problems-you-ought-to-know...
Edited 2009-02-04 03:37 UTC
Member since:2006-04-22
Those of us who don't use Vista, and are hence blisfully untroubled directly by its anti-consumer features such as DRM, nevertheless are sometimes unavoidably confronted with the Vista DRM mess when asked questions by others, or sent files from others, who are to be counted amongst Vista's victims.
I deceive you not.
http://alfred.co.in/technology/vista-drm-problems-you-ought-to-know...
Instead of writing a response I will say this; it truly is pointless as all you wish to do is disrupt these threads with your obsessive/compulsive feelings towards one specific company. Please, just go away. You have absolutely nothing to offer in these threads other than being a troll. If Linux is your life, then just go enjoy it and leave these threads alone.
Member since:2007-02-17
Ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
In other words, you have no actual response.
"Attack is the best form of defense" ... when one has no actual defense.
Member since:2006-02-20