Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Feb 2009 23:28 UTC
Editorial Does Windows 7 contain more DRM than Windows Vista? Does Windows 7 limit you from running cracked applications, and will it open the firewall specifically for applications that want to check if they're cracked or not? Does it limit the audio recording capabilities? According to a skimp and badly written post on Slashdot, it does. The Slashdot crowd tore the front page item apart - and rightfully so.
Order by: Score:
hmmm
by poundsmack on Wed 18th Feb 2009 23:44 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

how do i word this without admiting to piracy (hypathetically of course)....as someone with the latest (was there a recompile this week?) beta, and someone who is stress testing the hell out of it, I would have (only in theory of course) tested many many pirated apps as i couldnt possibly aford Maya, 3D studio max, autocad, lightwave, photoshop, dream weaver, _________(insert large expiensive piece of software here), and I have yet to see (that is if I did that, which I don't) a single nag or, "OMG pirate! report to Microsoft?" warning pop up.

But I can't be certain of course as I didn't do any of those things (shifty eyes)...

Edited 2009-02-18 23:51 UTC

Reply Score: 11

v RE: hmmm
by rockwell on Thu 19th Feb 2009 16:37 UTC in reply to "hmmm"
RE[2]: hmmm
by poundsmack on Thu 19th Feb 2009 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE: hmmm"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

"Wow, you must be quite the technical wizard, do be able to *need* all those apps that you didn't illegally obtain."

I do a lot of stuff (none of which involve my first post about not pirating all those apps;) ).

Example: I am working on a website called The Social Fish Tank ( www.SocialFishTank.com )that is a chat room client but in a 3d fish tank environment like those great 3d fish tank screen savers. The technology is based on the Unity 3D engine 2.5 ( www.unity3d.com )and each user can create custom "tanks" (chat room environments created as fish tanks that they can populate with items you would see in fish tanks and corel and all sorts of stuff), and invite their friends who create their fish avatar (or go with the default generated at random) and they swim around as you talk. you can also control the fish in it's environment and have it interact with things and the other fish. each "tank" is prive and has it's own link, the option to make it publicly avalible is also there.

I haven't posted the site as I am not anywhere near done (and funding for the project got lost in this troubled economy) but eventualy thats what will be there. To save time I am contimplating creating it as a front end to www.tinychat.com but i like to create my own things.

Reply Score: 3

RE: hmmm
by zombie process on Thu 19th Feb 2009 20:13 UTC in reply to "hmmm"
zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

Typically "I have a friend who..." is useful in these cases.

Reply Score: 2

Firewalls work both ways!
by PlunderBunny on Thu 19th Feb 2009 00:32 UTC
PlunderBunny
Member since:
2009-02-19

The statement by the slashdot user (reproduced in the article) that a firewall only protects you from outside threats is nonsense - it assumes that a firewall cannot protect against an installed application because the application can simply make an exception for itself in the firewall settings. This is not true - on most operating systems, an admin or super-user password is required to allow this, and even when the user is logged in as a administrator (and you wouldn't do that for your day-to-day work, would you?) a prompt would still be displayed by any modern OS.
An application whose installer requires you to give your admin password can, of course, make a hole in the firewall for itself, but it is very different from a covert malicious application.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Firewalls work both ways!
by PlatformAgnostic on Thu 19th Feb 2009 09:33 UTC in reply to "Firewalls work both ways!"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

To run the Photoshop Installer you have to pass through a UAC prompt, giving the program a full admin token.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Firewalls work both ways!
by UglyKidBill on Thu 19th Feb 2009 11:28 UTC in reply to "Firewalls work both ways!"
UglyKidBill Member since:
2005-07-27

Wait... you mean the OS is designed to allow an external application -alledgedly launched by an admin- to tinker with the firewall settings without giving explicit notice that such thing is happening??

I am not being sarcastic, I am truly shocked by the logic behind that! o_O

I hope at least third party firewalls won´t be as fragile as that :S

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Firewalls work both ways!
by dagw on Thu 19th Feb 2009 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Firewalls work both ways!"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

you mean the OS is designed to allow an external application -alledgedly launched by an admin- to tinker with the firewall settings without giving explicit notice that such thing is happening??

If I write an app that changes the firewall settings in Linux or BSD and you run that app with root privileges, then your firewall settings will be changed without you getting any explicit warning from your firewall software (assuming you don't have SELinux or something similar installed). This is no different.

Reply Score: 4

UglyKidBill Member since:
2005-07-27

hmm.. yes, and no...
IMO, given the variety of combinations on thoses OSes, writing and app to change the firewall setting would end up being more problematic than helpful, unless it is malware or some very specific application.

Also, that is a kind of attitude (on the apps/devs, not yours) that *nix people find regrettable, so doing it would work pretty much against the developer´s interest. Especially if we are talking about the installer of a non-network related application such as photoshop.

The fact that we are talking about the firewall built into the OS and which many (most?) of the users will rely upon having this feature surprises me when microsoft is making efforts to change people´s perception about security.

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

it isn't problematic, linux has netfilter/iptables built in, anyone (or anything) with root can change it.

As was previously mentioned, the only way to stop that from happening is to use more finely grained security. Security is already too complex to start going down that path for windows, at least for the home consumer versions.

Edited 2009-02-19 13:33 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Firewalls work both ways!
by l3v1 on Thu 19th Feb 2009 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Firewalls work both ways!"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

This is no different.


It is when you don't know about the changes that will occur.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Firewalls work both ways!
by grat on Thu 19th Feb 2009 12:50 UTC in reply to "Firewalls work both ways!"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

By default, Windows Vista/2008/7 auto-detect application installers, and attempt to elevate to Administrator level.

So it's fairly common for an app installer to run with high enough privileges to do whatever it wants.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Firewalls work both ways!
by UglyKidBill on Thu 19th Feb 2009 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Firewalls work both ways!"
UglyKidBill Member since:
2005-07-27

For me that is all the more reason to have the firewall double-checking with the admin before allowing changes to the firewall.

If that kind of thing is happening in *nixes too I think it´s also a bad choice, not right in windows.

Two wrongs don´t make a right I think.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Firewalls work both ways!
by MadRat on Fri 20th Feb 2009 03:31 UTC in reply to "Firewalls work both ways!"
MadRat Member since:
2006-02-17

That is of course if the program is using an api to do it, but if its available in the registry it can drop in a new setting in the local user registry and viola!

Reply Score: 1

v Window 7 is irrelevant
by sofakingcool on Thu 19th Feb 2009 00:46 UTC
RE: Window 7 is irrelevant
by flanque on Thu 19th Feb 2009 01:39 UTC in reply to "Window 7 is irrelevant"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

So is your comment.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Window 7 is irrelevant
by benjaminperdomo on Thu 19th Feb 2009 01:55 UTC in reply to "Window 7 is irrelevant"
benjaminperdomo Member since:
2005-07-12

Searching in google they list about 81,800,000 results for "Windows 7".
I guess some people care.

Reply Score: 0

Boohoo
by shiny on Thu 19th Feb 2009 00:59 UTC
shiny
Member since:
2005-08-09

OK, so it turned out the article was a complete and utter bull$hit. Nothing new, people were bashing MS from the day one, we've all seen tons of posts like that.
And it's not like there haven't been any official FUD coming from the other side either: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10145332-16.html?part=rss

Edited 2009-02-19 01:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Also noted in the Ars article
by lemur2 on Thu 19th Feb 2009 01:10 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Also noted in the Ars article:

"In particular, this means disabling high-resolution unencrypted outputs lest they be used to dump the decrypted, decoded video.

Particular complaints have been made about the polling that this requires; digital outputs must be checked every 30ms and analog ones every 150ms to ensure that no prohibited devices are attached. Although the system demands from this polling are negligible, it has nonetheless been blamed for Vista's relatively high system requirements."


My only comment here is that the OS is using the end-user's CPU resources to check if it needs to degrade the end-user's machine's capabilities. How is this in the best interests of the end user? This is a particularly interesting question for end users whose machines do not contain a HD-capable optical drive, and whose monitors are not HD monitors. How does this function serve them?

The other thing to note is that the intervals noted, 30ms and 150ms, are probably constant. On a high-performance machine, the CPU time taken out by the polling is quite small compared with the interval time of 30ms, and so the DRM polling does not tax the machine intolerably. Even so, I have heard that Vista machines when idle typically consume some 15% more CPU time than do the identical specification machines running other OSes.

But that is for a high-end machine. As one goes down the performance scale, the CPU time taken up by each poll would become longer, in proportion to the reduction in CPU grunt, but the inetrval between such polls would of course be kept the same. This means that Vista's DRM would consume even more of a percentage of the CPU's performance as the CPU performance gets less. A sort of a double-whammy effect.

This is, IMO, a significant source of the popular reports of dreadful performance of Vista. On high end machines DRM isn't a burden, but as one considers lower and lower specification machines (which after all are the type of machines that many individual consumers would buy) the double-whammy of the DRM taking up more performance, and the machines available performance being less to begin with, starts to take a very noticeable toll.

And to what end? What does an end user, and owner of a lower-end machine (but still running Vista), gain when he or she gives up this performance in order to run Vista? From the end user's perspective ... very little at all. This is especially so if they don't happen to own any HD-capable hardware ... maybe it takes the polling routine the longest time if there isn't any actual hardware there in the first place ... becuase there would be a need to check if the user hadn't installed any ...

So, in conclusion, I call "bunkum". IMO, the end users do indeed notice Vista's DRM ... they just complain about it in terms of "Vista is dog slow on my machine" rather than calling it as being due to the DRM.

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, in conclusion, I call "bunkum". IMO, the end users do indeed notice Vista's DRM ... they just complain about it in terms of "Vista is dog slow on my machine" rather than calling it as being due to the DRM.


Except... This polling only happens when the paths are in use... And that requires that the media use it... Which they don't.

So, besides the fact that the effect of the polling itself is negligible, it doesn't even happen in the first place.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Also noted in the Ars article
by WorknMan on Thu 19th Feb 2009 01:20 UTC in reply to "Also noted in the Ars article"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

This means that Vista's DRM would consume even more of a percentage of the CPU's performance as the CPU performance gets less. A sort of a double-whammy effect.

This is, IMO, a significant source of the popular reports of dreadful performance of Vista.


There is a small hole in your logic though. The article states (and I think it is safe to assume) that Windows 7 contains the same amount of DRM than Vista does... maybe even more? If that is indeed the case, and the source of Vista's sluggishness is the DRM, then how does Windows 7 manage to be so much faster than Vista, when 7 has the same amount of DRM as Vista? Perhaps maybe they removed some of the DRM in 7? ;) Highly doubtful.

In regard to the anti-Windows camp, I remember there were some discussions on this very site before Vista was released that indicated you would no longer be able to rip audio CDs in Vista with ANY program without DRM being attached. That's ok though, because when claims like that are made, we can see right through them.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I remember there were some discussions on this very site before Vista was released that indicated you would no longer be able to rip audio CDs in Vista with ANY program without DRM being attached


Oh, some people here even made those claims as recent as a few weeks ago, despite being decidedly debunked.

That's FUD for you. Goes both ways, obviously, though. There are people on all sides of the fence that resort to FUD, sadly.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" I remember there were some discussions on this very site before Vista was released that indicated you would no longer be able to rip audio CDs in Vista with ANY program without DRM being attached
Oh, some people here even made those claims as recent as a few weeks ago, despite being decidedly debunked. That's FUD for you. Goes both ways, obviously, though. There are people on all sides of the fence that resort to FUD, sadly. "

I don't recall that at all ...

There was only a claim made on this site a few weeks ago in which some end user was said to have asked "why can't I make .mp3 files on my Vista laptop that I can play in my car".

That is a trillion miles away from "you would no longer be able to rip audio CDs in Vista with ANY program without DRM being attached".

Please at least try Thom to strive for some editorial accuarcy ... it severly strains your credibility when you make false accusations after all ... which funnily enough is the very thing your whole article seems to be about in the first place.

Edited 2009-02-19 01:40 UTC

Reply Score: 8

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Here's one:

http://www.osnews.com/thread?346846

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.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Here's one: http://www.osnews.com/thread?346846 "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.
"

What is wrong with that?

I don't use Vista, and that was an operation that someone had asked me about. That person had claimed they couldn't make a .mp3 file using Vista on their laptop that would play in their car, yet they were able to do that using XP.

Also, someone else had sent me a file that they had ripped using Vista that did have DRM on it (but that one was WMA). As I don't use Vista ... I couldn't verify how these users had managed to use it to rip something and end up with unplayable files (of which DRM was the cause at least once) ... hence the need to get people to try it for themselves.

... as it turns out, there is a dialog box that you have to uncheck an option if you don't want DRM on your WMA files after you rip them.

Edited 2009-02-19 05:17 UTC

Reply Score: 6

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

... as it turns out, there is a dialog box that you have to uncheck an option if you don't want DRM on your WMA files after you rip them.


In this case, you are speaking about a specific application, Windows Media Player.

There are dozens of different apps out there (yes, even free ones) that allow you to rip DRM-less audio files, in pretty much whatever format you choose. There's nothing inherent in Vista that prevents you from doing this.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"... as it turns out, there is a dialog box that you have to uncheck an option if you don't want DRM on your WMA files after you rip them.


In this case, you are speaking about a specific application, Windows Media Player.

There are dozens of different apps out there (yes, even free ones) that allow you to rip DRM-less audio files, in pretty much whatever format you choose. There's nothing inherent in Vista that prevents you from doing this.
"

This is essentially true ... except for the fact that Media Player is a part of the Windows OS. It is, as far as many people are concerned, THE way that one plays and rips media files on Windows.

However, I posted the text was quoted in this thread in response to an earlier post in the earlier thread where someone had asked "how does Vista DRM affect end users"?

Even though I don't use Vista, I knew through indirect experience of two occasions where end users had been frustrated by Vista handling off media files, and that at least one of those was directly due to the DRM. The fact that there are many ways that knowledgeable end users can get around the DRM in these cases does not in any way invalidate the point that it had frustrated those users ...

I would also bring up the point ... why on earth would an end user ever WANT to apply DRM to a media file they had ripped?

Reply Score: 4

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"This means that Vista's DRM would consume even more of a percentage of the CPU's performance as the CPU performance gets less. A sort of a double-whammy effect. This is, IMO, a significant source of the popular reports of dreadful performance of Vista.
There is a small hole in your logic though. The article states (and I think it is safe to assume) that Windows 7 contains the same amount of DRM than Vista does... maybe even more? If that is indeed the case, and the source of Vista's sluggishness is the DRM, then how does Windows 7 manage to be so much faster than Vista, when 7 has the same amount of DRM as Vista? Perhaps maybe they removed some of the DRM in 7? ;) Highly doubtful. In regard to the anti-Windows camp, I remember there were some discussions on this very site before Vista was released that indicated you would no longer be able to rip audio CDs in Vista with ANY program without DRM being attached. That's ok though, because when claims like that are made, we can see right through them. "

A minor tweak in the polling routine might have a very significant impact. For example, if the polling routine first up checked if there was ANY HD-capable drvier installed, and exited straight away if not, rather than checking for the physical presence of any of many possible types of HD-capable hardware ... perhaps in the case of low-end machines such a change might hav had a significant impact?

I don't know ... I'm just speculating. The point is though that I can see a possibility that such an optimisation, or some close equivalent, might have indeed been possible. One can't after all put HD video through the machine if one hasn't installed any HD-capable drivers.

Furthermore, it wasn't until after Vista came out, and netbooks became popular, that there was any incentive to try to make Vista work on lower-spec devices. The big-corporation idea for some while up to the release of Vista, after all, seemed to be to persue an endless upgrade cycle ... consuming ever more CPU, RAM, disk and Watts of power on every spiral.

Edited 2009-02-19 01:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Even so, I have heard that Vista machines when idle typically consume some 15% more CPU time than do the identical specification machines running other OSes."

Sounds like you've never used it. Mine sits about 1% when idle, except when the indexer is running. Then it may go as high as 15%. Then it settles back down when the indexer stops, which is when it is not idle.

Reply Score: 3

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Funny how 99.8% of the comments about how much of a "resource hog" Vista is, and how "dog slow" Vista is, and how "DRM-happy" Vista is ... come from pinheads who've either never used it, used it only for a brief time pre-SP1, or are too lazy and anti-MS to tweak it.

But don't dare try the same tactic with Linux on the desktop. It's flawless. Really.

Reply Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Part of the problem is that I can check to see exactly what linux does. I can communicate with others who can confirm my findings. We can argue about the impact of varius coding techniques ( like the scheduler debate a while back).

This is of course impossible with Windows or any other closed source OS. So basically we know that there is some DRM in Windows, we can only do some external tests to see what it does and rely on the companies good word. So yes, there are more false rumors about windows, but that's because there is less information possible about what it does.

Reply Score: 3

thecwin Member since:
2006-01-04

How about this then:

I'm a developer and I work on Vista Business SP1 with all the latest patches, on fairly high end hardware for 9hrs a day (I geenerally work through lunch).

Me, and *all* the other developers I work with, agree that Vista is a dog slow resource hog.. DRM doesn't really come into our job much though. We all run either XP, Linux or OS X primarily at home, and some of them got rid of Vista at work and installed XP instead.

I have Vista Ultimate SP1 on a high end game capable computer (C2Q 2.83GHz, 8GB DDR3 RAM, 2GB Radeon 4870x2), along with XP and Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha, and it feels slower than my OS X laptop (C1D 2.16GHz 1GB) for general productivity.

Of course you might choose to believe I'm lying, but there's no convincing some. ;)

Reply Score: 3

Not necessarily FOSS Advocates
by Kokopelli on Thu 19th Feb 2009 01:11 UTC
Kokopelli
Member since:
2005-07-06

While there are plenty of Open Source Advocates who will criticize Windows (rightly and wrongly) at the drop of the hat, they are not alone. It is very fashionable among the technology literate to hate Microsoft, including Microsoft only users. A devout Windows user (and hater) who was less knowledgeable than he believed couild have written this just as easily as a advocate with an ax to grind.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not necessarily FOSS Advocates
by lemur2 on Thu 19th Feb 2009 01:20 UTC in reply to "Not necessarily FOSS Advocates"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

While there are plenty of Open Source Advocates who will criticize Windows (rightly and wrongly) at the drop of the hat, they are not alone. It is very fashionable among the technology literate to hate Microsoft, including Microsoft only users. A devout Windows user (and hater) who was less knowledgeable than he believed couild have written this just as easily as a advocate with an ax to grind.


Don't know if that is a reason to put a feeble article up on Slashdot, however. I'd agree with the contention that it is very important for FOSS to stick strictly with what actually happens, and what the actual story is, rather than making up wild accusations when criticising Windows ... even though Windows advocates do not feel in any way so constrained when having a go at FOSS.

Edited 2009-02-19 01:20 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Who cares? It's only Slashdot
by Michael on Thu 19th Feb 2009 01:36 UTC
Michael
Member since:
2005-07-01

It's not like real people are going to read this. OK, so there are some people on /. who aren't Linux devotees. Still, I think it's better to air this dirty laundry among the Open Source community to show people why random MS bashing does more harm than good. Anyone who spells Microsoft with a dollar sign is an idiot and needs to be re-educated. It does no good to keep quiet about it.

Reply Score: 7

Microsoft bashing as an olympic sport
by kaiwai on Thu 19th Feb 2009 01:44 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I truly am amazed when I see the lengths some people will goto to justify their hatred of a given organisation - as if Microsoft were worse than some North Korean police state.

Vista had poor performance because there were alot of changes and insufficient time to optimise these changes; they aren't going to optimise it in the service packs because of the risk associated with breaking things not only in Windows but also out in the 'real world'.

Windows 7 has been optimised and improved, and amazing, the so-called 'performance sucking' DRM still lives and Windows 7 still out performs Windows Vista. If there were some truth in the 'performance sucking' of DRM then the performance different should be negiable.

I've got my Acer Aspire One (they ran out of eee pc 901's when I went down to pick one up) and am looking forward to seeing Windows 7 being released. If it means that one can run the latest version of Windows in a constrained environment, I can't work out what the complaints are about.

Then again, I guess its 'cool' to hate Microsoft.

Reply Score: 4

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Vista had poor performance because there were alot of changes and insufficient time to optimise these changes; they aren't going to optimise it in the service packs because of the risk associated with breaking things not only in Windows but also out in the 'real world'.


Ran out of time? How long exactly was it between the release of XP and the release of Vista?

Windows 7 has been optimised and improved,


Well, yes, that is the claim, and there is no reason to suspect why it wouldn't be so. In fact, given Vista's poor performance, it is hard to see how Windows 7 could fail to be a significant improvement.


and amazing, the so-called 'performance sucking' DRM still lives and Windows 7 still out performs Windows Vista.


Yes. This is in fact what "optimization" is all about.

If there were some truth in the 'performance sucking' of DRM then the performance different should be negiable.


Doesn't follow. Obviously you are not wholly familiar with optimistaion. A fair approach is to ignore almost everything else and concentrate very hard on the "inner loop", the most-often repeated pieces of code. DRM polling is a fair candidate ...

I've got my Acer Aspire One (they ran out of eee pc 901's when I went down to pick one up) and am looking forward to seeing Windows 7 being released. If it means that one can run the latest version of Windows in a constrained environment, I can't work out what the complaints are about. Then again, I guess its 'cool' to hate Microsoft.


Criticising Vista's poor performance is relevant to this rant ... how exactly?

Reply Score: 7

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Ran out of time? How long exactly was it between the release of XP and the release of Vista?


Abusing me by way of message achieves what?

Windows Vista was restarted and based on Windows 2003 SP1 rather than Windows XP. There was a penalty that was paid because of it, but management at that time believed the penalty was worth it.

Considering that when the change was made - Netbooks and other resource constrained devices weren't on the radar, they were making decisions based on what one could reasonably expect in the future based on present conditions.

Well, yes, that is the claim, and there is no reason to suspect why it wouldn't be so. In fact, given Vista's poor performance, it is hard to see how Windows 7 could fail to be a significant improvement.


If it were DRM as the primary cause of performance issues, and given that the DRM has been retained, then going by the detractors logic, there should have been no significant improvement.

Criticising Vista's poor performance is relevant to this rant ... how exactly?


Thank you for ignoring the kernel of this post; it was a counter to DRM phobia and the black helicopter nonsense regarding it and the apparent 'performance sucking' of DRM by virtue of it just existing in Windows.

The two are interlinked, but hey, you chose to ignore it in favour of attacking me personally.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Ran out of time? How long exactly was it between the release of XP and the release of Vista?
Abusing me by way of message achieves what? Windows Vista was restarted and based on Windows 2003 SP1 rather than Windows XP. There was a penalty that was paid because of it, but management at that time believed the penalty was worth it. Considering that when the change was made - Netbooks and other resource constrained devices weren't on the radar, they were making decisions based on what one could reasonably expect in the future based on present conditions.
Well, yes, that is the claim, and there is no reason to suspect why it wouldn't be so. In fact, given Vista's poor performance, it is hard to see how Windows 7 could fail to be a significant improvement.
If it were DRM as the primary cause of performance issues, and given that the DRM has been retained, then going by the detractors logic, there should have been no significant improvement.
Criticising Vista's poor performance is relevant to this rant ... how exactly?
Thank you for ignoring the kernel of this post; it was a counter to DRM phobia and the black helicopter nonsense regarding it and the apparent 'performance sucking' of DRM by virtue of it just existing in Windows. The two are interlinked, but hey, you chose to ignore it in favour of attacking me personally.
"

How precious can you get?

Where did I attack you? I simply point out that Microsoft took a great amount of time following the release of XP to try to come up with a new product. The fact that Microsoft squandered it is hardly compensation for those people now suffering the poor performance of Vista.

DRM itself is "black helicopter". No-one is allowed to know how it works. There is something in Vista that sucks performance, and DRM polling is an excellent candidate, given that it is invoked at 30ms intervals.

Being a good candidate for what caused the "performance sucking" in Vista also makes it an excellent candidate for optimisation in Windows 7. With skill and a bit of thought it might even be possible to "pull back" all of the sucked performance ... yet still have the DRM.

Agreed that up until the advent netbooks there was no real incentive to heavily optimise Vista (that is just one of the problems of having a company in a monopoly position). In fact I noted that myself in an earlier post, when I talked about the "performance spiral". This rather supports the idea that Vista is performance sucked, rather than detract from it.

Edited 2009-02-19 02:24 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

DRM itself is "black helicopter". No-one is allowed to know who it works. There is something in Vista that sucks performance, and DRM is an excellent candidate, given that it is invoked at 30ms intervals.


Stop lying, lemur2. As I've already pointed out to you in a comment you so skillfully ignored: the protected paths (the DRM) and thus the polling are only invoked WHEN YOU USE DRM'd CONTENT. Since practically no media make use of the protected paths, THERE IS NO POLLING.

Got it?

Edited 2009-02-19 02:26 UTC

Reply Score: 0

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"DRM itself is "black helicopter". No-one is allowed to know who it works. There is something in Vista that sucks performance, and DRM is an excellent candidate, given that it is invoked at 30ms intervals.
Stop lying, lemur2. As I've already pointed out to you in a comment you so skillfully ignored: the protected paths (the DRM) and thus the polling are only invoked WHEN YOU USE DRM'd CONTENT. Since practically no media make use of the protected paths, THERE IS NO POLLING. Got it? "

If there is to be polling of "protected paths" when there is DRM'd content present, then there must at least be polling "if there is DRM'd content present" that occurs every 30ms in order to switch it on. No?

Why would I be lying? I have already said that no-one knows how DRM works. I have already said that this is speculation. What we do know is that Vista has lethargic performance on high-end hardware that gets considerably worse for lower-end hardware. I have speculated that the DRM polling is a good candidate for what has caused this lethargy. So far, no one has been able to say that it isn't, despite the desperate attempts to do so.

The question that I always get back to is this ... why can't I get a version of Vista without the DRM? If my machine cannot play HD video content anyway, why do I need to have DRM embedded in my OS? Of what possible use is it in such a machine?

If I want to run Windows then perhaps (more speculation here) I must have DRM because Microsoft doesn't want it to be possible for anyone to benchmark a Vista machine without DRM against a Vista machine with DRM? Just sayin ...

Edited 2009-02-19 02:55 UTC

Reply Score: 9

wanderingk88 Member since:
2008-06-26

The question that I always get back to is this ... why can't I get a version of Vista without the DRM? If my machine cannot play HD video content anyway, why do I need to have DRM embedded in my OS? Of what possible use is it in such a machine?


If my machine cannot make use of the bazillion drivers in the generic Linux kernel that comes with Ubuntu, why do I need to have them embedded? Of what possible use are them in such a machine?

See how stupid that question sounds?

Either way, I'm far from being a Microsoft advocate (extremely far, seeing how I run Linux in every machine I own), but the problem with DRM embedded in Vista HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PERFORMANCE. AT ALL.

The problem with DRM in Vista has to do with giving Hollywood's the unethical claims for intellectual property a free pass. The problem is that whenever a customer buys Vista, he or she is accepting Hollywood's terms without even knowing it. That's the REAL problem.

The rest is just bullshit. Pure and simple.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" The question that I always get back to is this ... why can't I get a version of Vista without the DRM? If my machine cannot play HD video content anyway, why do I need to have DRM embedded in my OS? Of what possible use is it in such a machine?
If my machine cannot make use of the bazillion drivers in the generic Linux kernel that comes with Ubuntu, why do I need to have them embedded? Of what possible use are them in such a machine? See how stupid that question sounds? "

Oh come on ... get real. Linux uses loadable modules ... if you don't have the hardware they don't get loaded, they stay on the hard disk. One can SEE the source code to verify that this is so. One can even remove the hardware interroagtion on boot if one wants to (because one has no intention of ever changing hardware, and therefore doesn't require plug-n-play) and one can blacklist whatever drivers one pleases ... and again one can see the code that does all this and can verify that it does what it is supposed to do.

Finally, I can just delete any driver I don't like.

Vista DRM OTOH ... try removing it or disabling it (even if your machine does not have a HD optical drive you can't do it).

Either way, I'm far from being a Microsoft advocate (extremely far, seeing how I run Linux in every machine I own), but the problem with DRM embedded in Vista HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PERFORMANCE. AT ALL.


How do you know? Have you seen the code? What does Vista actually DO with all the CPU time it uses, if not DRM polling?

And I repeat for the slow of uptake ... why can't I have a version of Vista without it, if my system can't process HD content anyway?

The problem with DRM in Vista has to do with giving Hollywood's the unethical claims for intellectual property a free pass. The problem is that whenever a customer buys Vista, he or she is accepting Hollywood's terms without even knowing it. That's the REAL problem.


Well, that is unarguable. This is a problem too. Agreed.

The rest is just bullshit. Pure and simple.


Unsupported assertion. Your statements are as much speculation as mine, despite your apparent vehemence.

Edited 2009-02-19 05:22 UTC

Reply Score: 9

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The question that I always get back to is this ... why can't I get a version of Vista without the DRM? If my machine cannot play HD video content anyway, why do I need to have DRM embedded in my OS? Of what possible use is it in such a machine?


Well, look at it this way... whatever performance issues that Vista has, Windows 7 (with the same level or DRM) doesn't have the same issues. So either they found a way to properly optimize the DRM, or else the performance issues in Vista aren't related to DRM.

Either way, just wait for Windows 7 to come out, which isn't slow like Vista is, so you won't have a reason to bitch about it anymore.

Reply Score: 0

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The question that I always get back to is this ... why can't I get a version of Vista without the DRM? If my machine cannot play HD video content anyway, why do I need to have DRM embedded in my OS? Of what possible use is it in such a machine?


Well, look at it this way... whatever performance issues that Vista has, Windows 7 (with the same level or DRM) doesn't have the same issues. So either they found a way to properly optimize the DRM, or else the performance issues in Vista aren't related to DRM.

Either way, just wait for Windows 7 to come out, which isn't slow like Vista is, so you won't have a reason to bitch about it anymore.
"

The performance issues with Vista will still remain (in Vista) even after Windows 7 is released.

Waiting for the arrival of Windows 7 is no solution for many of the people who have been unfortunate enough to have been sold a Vista machine.

As far as my waiting for Windows 7 goes ... I have been clued in enough to have avoided Vista so far ... why would I possibly have any interest at all in letting someone try to sucker me into using Windows 7?

Reply Score: 3

OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

Why would I be lying? I have already said that no-one knows how DRM works. I have already said that this is speculation. What we do know is that Vista has lethargic performance on high-end hardware that gets considerably worse for lower-end hardware. I have speculated that the DRM polling is a good candidate for what has caused this lethargy. So far, no one has been able to say that it isn't, despite the desperate attempts to do so.

This right here says it all. You are arguing out of ignorance and acting like nobody at all knows how the DRM subsystem works. If you don't understand the intelligent way to implement such a system then don't talk about it like it's a given everyone else is as clueless as yourself. There is no system-wide poll every X amount of minutes or seconds to see if DRM content is playing. The only time the system checks for DRM capability and then enables the protected path is WHEN YOU LOAD MULTIMEDIA THAT DEMANDS IT, DRM-ED MEDIA.

It makes absolutely no sense to constantly check to see if anything has asked to enable the protected media path. This would be like Valve Anti-Cheat or PunkBuster or Warden running full system assessments every X amount of minutes/seconds in order to make sure you aren't cheating in any of the games that utilize them. It's freakin' stupid because you aren't always going to be utilizing them, they are only brought into the mix when you play a game that uses them. Does the protected media path have the potential to cause slowdown? I guess we might find out when any media producers begin to use it in the years to come. For now, nobody's making use of it and it's pretty much just sitting there unused until Hollywood decides they want to start shipping Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs that will only play on a protected system.

Reply Score: 1

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

What's wrong with North Korea?
Everyone is subject to propaganda, be it from Microsoft, from the government or from FOSS.
If I ask most of the people in the west what they think about North Korea, they will spit many senseless words and yet they don't know the first thing about North Korea. The same goes for Microsoft. If you are on the other side of the propaganda, you don't have to know Microsoft to hate it.

Reply Score: 0

vitae Member since:
2006-02-20



Then again, I guess its 'cool' to hate Microsoft.



Interesting how often comments like this come up, and yet no one likes to discuss the reasons people do hate Microsoft. On the other hand, we've just had an article on how Windows 7 beta testers are unhappy with Microsoft. Let's be perfectly honest here. There's lots of reasons to not be happy with Microsoft. Some of it's not their fault, but on the other hand they have generated a lot of ill will by their own actions.

And when it comes to FUD, Microsoft salesmen telling potential customers that open source is less secure because it's open source is also FUD, only we call it salesmanship.

Reply Score: 2

BN
by 3rdalbum on Thu 19th Feb 2009 02:28 UTC
3rdalbum
Member since:
2008-05-26

I can't believe there was an article on anti-Microsoft FUD, where nobody mentioned BoycottNovell.com!

Reply Score: 0

I missed something ...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 19th Feb 2009 03:15 UTC
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Irak as WMD ..."
"Resorting to FUD Hurts the Alternatives to Microsoft ..."

IN both cases I missed the real proof , Microsoft expert are saying Microsoft is fudding , the court agree , yet you claim Alternatives are doing it and even more then Microsoft. I fail to see the proof of that here.

I read the content offered and could not find the relation to alternative or Alternative advocate discussing windows 7 and any of the FUD.

Please , be so gracious to point out the names of people and groups I missed or pages of in the actual content with them on it ...

Windows 7 is still a yougn beta ( if Microsoft past release history is any indication ) , so anyone jumping to conclusion now or saying anything about it are just gonna be talking about the beta copy they got , witch the actual number in this case is missing from the explanation , not the actual finished product. Pretty pointless. Beside most people wait for service pack 1 with Microsoft product , to really see how they trully perform.

I am gonna agree with Thom premise that making FUD about other serve no purpose and is hurting the one making it and his credibility.

I am gonna disagree with Thom personnal opinion added in , that offer no real connection or any valid proof bewteen alternative and this comment.

DRM are presnt in all Windows product , you don't like it don't use Microsoft product. You want to dicsuss it , say what you need to say once , don't argue it needlesly with people who disagree.

If history is any indicator , Microsoft problem and discussing them will be at first called as lie and fud and proven true over time , same cycle for every Microsoft releases.

The real alternative problem is not FUD , Microsoft problem are not any alternative gains , Microsoft still as the majority of major brand OEM shipping it's OS as first default even if it's full of bug in the final. That's not the majority of computer , but it's still a visible chunk we need to get on first.

If your a community leader just tell your people that Fudding Microsoft serve no purpose , if they ask you who's done it , say Microsoft claim some alternative did , so your just checking it's none of your people.

Edited 2009-02-19 03:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

not all fud
by TechGeek on Thu 19th Feb 2009 06:13 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

I dont know anything about the photoshop problems but I do see two valid points raised in the slashdot article. First, software can over ride the admin for firewall rules. The problem here is that the user was probably running as admin since that is the default, meaning that all software running has admin privileges. Adobe software can be notoriously a pain when it comes to license schemes. So I can certainly see this happening.

As for the sound card, Vista runs all sound card functions as software. It will not allow hardware to be directly accessed. I have sound cards that have optical ports that work flawlessly in Linux, but have NEVER worked in Windows. Some recording functions are disabled in Vista, particularly recording output sound. This was a problem for many people who used their sound card to do VOIP. The limitation stopped the app from being able to block the feedback from the speakers going into the mic.(this is why you dont hear an echo when talking to someone).

But the posters above have the right idea. If you dont like the DRM, STOP USING WINDOWS!

Reply Score: 4

RE: not all fud
by wanderingk88 on Thu 19th Feb 2009 11:47 UTC in reply to "not all fud"
wanderingk88 Member since:
2008-06-26

First, software can over ride the admin for firewall rules.


# ./override_firewall_rules.sh

Reply Score: 2

sirhomer
Member since:
2007-01-03

I don't disagree with the contention that Slashdot piece was FUD, but I disagree with the contention that anti-Microsoft FUD "Hurts the Alternatives to Microsoft". Your title seemed quite interesting to me, but the content of your article didn't really match the topic. Your last sentence is a thesis sentence, and you don't go into any detail.

But I disagree with your contention anyway. FUD is an extremely effective weapon against the target of the FUD. That's why it's used by many organizations.

Maybe you want to play "fair" (whatever that means) but I think FUD is an extremely powerful PR tool. In fact, simply with FUD and FUD alone, I believe Windows 7 reputation can be ruined before it's even out the door. That is what happen to some extent with Windows Vista.

But in the end of the day, FUD is just a weapon. Like any weapon, it can be used for good or bad. So don't really concentrate on the weapon itself. That is not important. Concentrate on what the weapon's being used for, and who is using it. That's ultimately what matters.

Edited 2009-02-19 07:34 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Ah yes, the goal justify the means. Good thing that has never gone horribly wrong.

Reply Score: 2

sirhomer Member since:
2007-01-03

"The ends justify the means" only makes sense if the means has to be justified. FUD is a weapon against the mind. It's used in business, it's used in your personal life. Even the US Military uses something that resembles FUD against its enemies. Is FUD justifiable on it's own? Well that's just a subjective question.

But I think this kind of FUD is effective, that's my contention. Windows 7 FUD will by and large hurt the reputation of Windows 7. This article claims something different but fails to go into any detail on it.

Edited 2009-02-19 20:50 UTC

Reply Score: 1

can someone do me a favour ?
by raver31 on Thu 19th Feb 2009 08:09 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

A little background here...

I am a Microsoft shareholder, I have been one since 1992.

I have this laptop with Ubuntu 8.04 on it.
I have one desktop dual booting XP and Ubuntu 8.10 (sucky OS)

I have another laptop with Vista, well, I gave it to the daughter.

My other machines have these OS's installed:

1 Mac OSX
1 Solaris
1 Opensuse
1 Mandriva Laptop

I can understand the reasons for FUD being put out by Microsoft/Apple or even Sun. I cannot understand why someone who uses free software would put out FUD.

Why does someone who clearly is happy with their choice decide for themselves that MY decision is incorrect and I should be forced to see the errors of my ways ?

I have been using computers since 1981 when I got my first one and Acorn Atom.
I was of course nagged by ZX81 users who said their system was better... even though it clearly wasnt, it just had more users.

I moved onto a ZXSpectrum, and was nagged by c64 users, they said their system was better, it was for some things, others it wasn't.

After this I got a Plus4, inherently way better than a c64, but once again I was nagged by c64 users as there system was better as it had more users, clearly the c64 was nowhere near as good as the Plus4.

Next, I bought an AtariST.... bitter war here with Amiga users, this one is still raging on. I admit Amiga always had the edge.

Once everyone decided to settle on PC's it still was not simple.

DRDOS v MSDOS
GEM v Desqview
Win3 v Win95
Win95 v WinNT
Win2000 v WinXP
WinXP v WinVista

Win v Linux
Linux v BSD
BSD v Solaris
PC v Mac

The list goes on and on and on, so much so, that I got bored and fell asleep.

When I awoke, I had qwe,asd,zxc imprinted on the side of my face that hit the keyboard.

If anyone who uses Slackware decides that Opensuse is evil, then do me a favour and keep your opinion to yourself, you are happy with your choices, leave me to be happy or suffer with mine, thank you.

Reply Score: 5

v RE: can someone do me a favour ?
by rockwell on Thu 19th Feb 2009 17:22 UTC in reply to "can someone do me a favour ?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh ... and yet you took the time to reply to this thread ... so ...



and your point is ?

Reply Score: 2

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

///your point is?///

... apparently over your head. Your post indicated a "live and let live" philosophy, yet this site thrives on bashing others for the choice of their OS.

You must be new here.

Reply Score: 1

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

///your point is?///

... apparently over your head. Your post indicated a "live and let live" philosophy, yet this site thrives on bashing others for the choice of their OS.

You must be new here.



Nah, only the retards seem to do that....

Reply Score: 2

vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

It was a nice try, Raver, but having been coming to this site long before I got this login, this place does thrive on flame wars, though I've noticed it's not as bad as it used to be. Actually it used to get really ugly in here at times.

Reply Score: 2

v Same old, same old, same old story
by ssa2204 on Thu 19th Feb 2009 09:31 UTC
The big deal is...
by h3rman on Thu 19th Feb 2009 09:48 UTC
h3rman
Member since:
2006-08-09

I kind of wonder what the problem is.
Microsoft Windows operating systems are built up from (to most people) closed-source, proprietary code which most mortal won't be able to inspect.
Although I guess the NSA can, a.o.

As such, you can't be sure of anything that's going on in the system anyway. Then what's the big deal with the DRM stuff? It's not as if there are no alternatives.

I don't think if you choose to run Windows you have any right to complain. Well the right's there, but it's meaningless anyhow. There's only one way to complain in a capitalist society: Don't Buy It. (or stop complaining)

Reply Score: 4

RE: The big deal is...
by dagw on Thu 19th Feb 2009 11:48 UTC in reply to "The big deal is..."
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft Windows operating systems are built up from (to most people) closed-source, proprietary code which most mortal won't be able to inspect.
Although I guess the NSA can, a.o.

Actually getting hold of the Windows source code isn't too hard if you're a University or other similar institute. I know at least one professor at my old university had access to the code, and that wasn't even a US university. No need to be the NSA.

Reply Score: 4

Junction vs Symlink
by memson on Thu 19th Feb 2009 12:30 UTC
memson
Member since:
2006-01-01

I think the word junction and symlink is being applied incorrectly. NTFS junctions have been around for years, I've used them successfully in explorer and they work just fine. The only oddity is that deleting a junction will delete the underlying directory as well. I use them whenever I'm doing a web based development project - use a junction to create a local directory that also points to a IIS directory on my local dev machine (yes you can use virtual directories, but that can be more of a pain that using a junction in the first place.) That way you can zip up one root directory for fast backups, have a more sensible tree for version control and also run the noddy built VS.NET in webserver if you want to. Also does not require assumptions to be made about relative paths when linking projects in to a single solution.

On the other hand, symlinks were added to NTFS in Vista. They are NOT the same thing, just similar. I've never used them - but I believe they work on a file level... a Junction can only be used to link to a directory or mount point.

Reply Score: 2