Linked by Adam S on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 14:50 UTC
Windows According to Microsoft beat writer Mary Jo Foley, word is that "Windows 7's mail, photo-management and movie-maker subsystems applets are all being replaced by optionally installable Windows Live equivalents." To many, replacing subsystems with services is a good thing. But what will the self-professed geeks think? Cnet seems to think that "Windows 7 must appeal to geeks--or else!"
Thread beginning with comment 331156
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by BrendaEM
by BrendaEM on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 16:21 UTC
BrendaEM
Member since:
2005-11-23

If the form of the bloat really as important as the volume of it? If MS keeps on their trend the average use will need a super computer to check their mail.

The only compelling reasons to move from XP up MS's tech-tree are Directx for games, and the artificial restrictions they put on BluRay's DRM.

I seriously doubt that MS is capable of making a good product, at this point.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by BrendaEM
by BluenoseJake on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 16:32 in reply to "Comment by BrendaEM"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"The only compelling reasons to move from XP up MS's tech-tree are Directx for games, and the artificial restrictions they put on BluRay's DRM."

MS didn't put the restrictions there because they wanted too, they put them there because if you want to support BlueRay, and not get slapped with a huge DMCA lawsuit, the only way is to play ball.

Do you really think MS wanted to take the time to put all that crap in there when they had more important stuff to do (like WinFS)? I don't think so.

Edited 2008-09-23 16:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by BrendaEM
by lemur2 on Wed 24th Sep 2008 02:42 in reply to "RE: Comment by BrendaEM"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The only compelling reasons to move from XP up MS's tech-tree are Directx for games, and the artificial restrictions they put on BluRay's DRM." MS didn't put the restrictions there because they wanted too, they put them there because if you want to support BlueRay, and not get slapped with a huge DMCA lawsuit, the only way is to play ball. Do you really think MS wanted to take the time to put all that crap in there when they had more important stuff to do (like WinFS)? I don't think so.


If you are to claim that DRM is only in Vista in order to support playing BluRay movies, please note that there are at least six versions of Vista, some of which claim to be targetted for business use.

Most business-use PCs will not be used for playing BluRay movies.

So where, pray tell, is the business-use version of Vista that I can buy which does not have the DRM for BluRay movies embedded?

Where is the version of Vista which does not have the DRM for BluRay movies embedded that I can buy for my PC which does not have a BluRay drive?

If there is no such version, then your DRM argument simply doesn't wash.

Edited 2008-09-24 02:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2