• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

One finger salute to Vista

Recommended Posts

markjensen    101
and linux isnt my os of choice, look at my siggy, dont call me a linux fan or lover, im not
Whew!

As a Linux user, and after reading your posts, I am quite relieved so see that. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonwolf    0

Vista-Transformation Pack is the word I was looking for when I wrote above...thanks

Get that and voila-----you got vista look alike and a strong OS.

well it sucks how else can you put it, it brings nothing new that anybody needs/wants, sure its got a new gui, u can get the same thing from windowblinds

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enh...tion-Pack.shtml

tryed it, with full wb installed it looks like vista but FAR lighter on resorces, oh yeah and none of that pesky drm crawling up ur arse!!!

dl0711, to do that i would need to be willing to live with my 3gz amd chip with 3gb ram and an x1900xtx being slow and unresponcive oh yeah and UNSTABLE, no thanks, ms should test more b4 they put an os out on the market, make sure all their ducks are in a row.

and linux isnt my os of choice, look at my siggy, dont call me a linux fan or lover, im not, but in this case they are kicking ms arse, better hardware support, less security problems, no DRM, oh yeah and you can run vector SoHo 5.1.2 on pretty much any system currently in use, my 233mmx laptop+208mb ram+4mb allied video card+5.2gb hdd are faster then a 3gz p4 with 1.5gb ram,sata2hdd,256mb x600pro video, thats INSAIN!!!!!

and i have seen alot of people in the past go back to 98 or 2k from xp, because xp is slower and in many cases far more work to deal with, xp is 2k with bloat, vista is xp with DRM and even more bloat.

run full windowblinds+that transformation kit and get vista feel without the insain cost or bloat!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PF Prophet    0
Whew!

As a Linux user, and after reading your posts, I am quite relieved so see that. :D

hehe yeah, i use linux when i need to, but i not a fan, to many diffrent distros, none 100% compatable with eachother, to much work mucking about in CLI, 2k3 just works, no fuss no muss ;)

and im copying ur "Microsoft's Reality Distortion Field: Vista performs faster than XP, yet it requires 3x the CPU frequency and 4x the RAM, per their XP and Vista published minimums." love it, gonna use it on another forums!!!!

funny stuff so true, compare xp and 2k, then compare xp and 2k3, think you will find that 2k and 2k3 are faster then xp on ANY SYSTEM(thats not HyperThreding)

vista is horrid, 700mb ram used on a clean install!!!! thats insain, at least to me:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morpheus Phreak    0
I find that hard to believe and a rather bold remark.

Why is it so hard to believe?

I never really had any major issues with the OS itself either.

Sure I had issues with some of the bundled applications and bugged those, however no core OS issues.

I would say LH/Vista was pretty rock solid core wise since the team it was first released to testers. The quality only went up from there.

Now I'm not saying it was perfect or that it was optimized or fast, but it worked.

At the end of the day that's the thing I'm the most concerned with, does it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbba    9

What a load of BS, you sure were rambling weren't you, I just love some of your quotes:

i tested vista for 2 months, diffren version, and what i found was not only unstable and sluggish performance even on good hardware but also that some of the DRM fetures would kickin and mess with my video playback and audio playback, this is with both ms and 3rd party drivers, i do blame ms for this, because they/you are the ones who put this os out
MS put the OS out but not the drivers so why blame them? Why blame MS for your install being slow and unstable, there are many people who are already running Vista just fine so maybe you need to look closer to home (like to the amatuer who installed maybe...)
the fact is that vista is bloated,slow, unreliable and full of unwanted DRM that effects everbody who uses it
No, it doesn't affect everybody who uses it. I don't have HD DVD or Blu Ray, I don't use DRM'd Windows Media, it doesn't affect me in the slightest.
i was beta testing 2k as stated above, and i had a few querks but driver support was far better under 2k then xp64 or vista, and for xp drivers
So your saying the jump to x64 and Vista was more difficult than the jump from W2K to XP, no sh*t sherlock!!! maybe that's because 2k to XP was nt5 to nt5.1 and the jump to vista/x64 is to completely different architectures. were you really expecting it to be straightforward???
after reading the EULA I really dont see how im leigaly allowed to fix computers running vista since trouble shootings not allowed
is that a fact... :rolleyes:

I also love your windows 2000 sp5 story, "it's sp4 with all the current updates..." No sorry it isn't, it's simply a rollup of updates that were released after sp4 and before sept 05 (so it doesn't include previous updates so it isn't a service pack link)

all your talk about "bugs" and "crap" opinions about software that millions of people use without a problem like IE7 and XP SP2 is just plain scary. :|

and how wise would it be for people to go with your Windows 2003 server as a desktop route? it's more expensive, you get nothing that XP didn't have and many of your apps and drivers won't work... at least with vista they'd get some features and future proofing out of it.

You talk like someone so desparate to impress with your facts but there are so many holes in your stories that it's laughable to anybody with any real knowledge. Please do us all a favour and try to stick to the facts and ease up on the attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_onion    13

lol, i find it funny that all the people that are complaining about it now, will be using it in a few years time. mabye not because they want to but because they are forced to to play the latest games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Berto    0

Been using Vista since Beta2.

Got sick of the speed lags on my system. Not in the mood to max out my ram for better OS performance (3.4 rating as is). That rating imho is good enough for day to day stuff. There is no way I'm using this in the future as I'm planning to go OS X within the year (shortly after my bonus). Xp Pro is where I finish up with Windows.

Here's me to looking forwards to Vienna and Venice, or what ever 'code name' MS is giving to the future OS they got planned.

As to the one fingered salute:

Click Here (NSFW)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joel    27
glad you can blame it on driver issue - not on the fact that once Vista is booted up it took ~380MB of RAM away from the laptop or anything else.

Vista is not XP. The task manager memory reporting is not reporting the same things on either OS, so you're complaining about Vista working properly with what you perceive is a RAM allocation to some phantom service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daniel_rh    68

Well, I'm running Vista RTM since it was released and I really love it, Is not a perfect OS but Vista is all I wanted since XP was released. Vista is now my primary OS, I deleted my XP and I don't think come back to XP again.

Waiting for Nvidia and Realtek final drivers, a cool version of MSN Messenger like the new Yahoo Messenger for Vista :shifty:

...And Office 2007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bob_c_b    13
Vista is not XP. The task manager memory reporting is not reporting the same things on either OS, so you're complaining about Vista working properly with what you perceive is a RAM allocation to some phantom service.

Thank you, it has been mentioned repeatedly but some people still don't get it, memory management is quite different in Vista and much more aggressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
Thank you, it has been mentioned repeatedly but some people still don't get it, memory management is quite different in Vista and much more aggressive.

Yeah it's designed to scale with larger memory systems. Also, the reporting mechanisms have changed to be more useful. For example, "commit charge" on XP is largely a useless number, and some people confused it with actual memory usage.

Very little memory should ever be completely "free." If it's free it's a waste. However, there's a difference between memory that's actually in-use and memory that's been committed to the disk but is being kept around for caching / pre-fetching purposes. In those cases, it costs absolutely nothing to blow away that memory and replace it with something else should the need arise, since it's already been committed to the disk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bob_c_b    13
Yeah it's designed to scale with larger memory systems. Also, the reporting mechanisms have changed to be more useful. For example, "commit charge" on XP is largely a useless number, and some people confused it with actual memory usage.

Very little memory should ever be completely "free." If it's free it's a waste. However, there's a difference between memory that's actually in-use and memory that's been committed to the disk but is being kept around for caching / pre-fetching purposes. In those cases, it costs absolutely nothing to blow away that memory and replace it with something else should the need arise, since it's already been committed to the disk.

Most of the people screaming the loudest are the least technical, or at least they over-estimate just how tecnically competent they are. This isn't much different than all the screaming that went on during XPs launch, or even 95 to 98, the sky was falling every day during those releases too. The difference was most of those people were on AOL so no one paid attention to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PF Prophet    0

yes infact there is an sp5, and it contains updates beyond what are in the rollup, the rollup is crap, ms giving 2k users the finger after PROMISING a true sp5, some detocated 2k user went and downloaded all the updates 1 at a time and then combine them with sp4 and created a TRUE sp5, sure its not made by ms, but who cares, its in use by thousands of people non of them have had any problems i have seen.

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enh...icial-SP5.shtml

http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4817.html

i cant link its forums, neowin has a fude or some crap going on with the site that they are located on, m----------------s-----------------f-------------------n

it works and the latest builds have updates thru aug 2006.

and dont ASSume im to blame, i tryed vista on 5 systems so far, its pathetic, and ms chooses to ship crappy drivers with their os....thats stupid.....and from what i have seen from ms thats not something they would do even with an RC, drivers built into windows are made to be as reliable as possable.

and many of your apps and drivers won't work
bullsh!t pure and simple, i have had 3 apps total have problems with 2003 vs xp, av's like norton and mcafee(crap), doom3(fixed by adding 2003 to the MSI file or removing the os restriction from the msi(easyy just download the updated msi or copy the files off the cd and dont use the installer)

and that ms pack of games and themes for xp(can install using the msi commandlines tho)

drivers are EXECTLY THE SAME AS XP AND 2k, there is NO DIFFRANCE PERIOD!!!!!!!

vista is set to cost 300bucks or more for decent versions, i can get 2k3 web edition licences for 280 or less, yes ligit ones, also 2003 has longer support path then xp, read the roadmap/live cycle numbers for yourself(use google if you are competent enought on the net to manage it)

you claim i dont know what im taking about, you claim it must be good because so many people use it, well FYI alot of them are total noobs who wouldnt know the diffrance if there was a slowdown compared to clean 2k or xp installs,because their xp was fully updated and full of crap when they replaced it.

oh and a little background m8, i have been using nt since befor you probbly knew what a pc was, nt3.1, 3.51(with explorer addon), nt4,nt5beta, 2kbeta, 2kpro, whistler,xp,2kpro, 2k3.

to go back ever farther, dos3, dos5, dos6, windows 3.0, windows 3.1, windows 3.11, os2, os2 warp 2.0, os2 warp 3.0, os2/warp 4, as well as mac os6/7/8/9 and amega os.

and guess what m8, for over 12 years strate i been a prof computer tech, i couldnt do that without knowing what im doing.

MS put the OS out but not the drivers so why blame them? Why blame MS for your install being slow and unstable, there are many people who are already running Vista just fine so maybe you need to look closer to home (like to the amatuer who installed maybe...)

maby because THEY DID MAKE THE DRIVERS, the drivers are acctualy listed as being authered BY MICROSOFT that come with the os, 3rd party drivers are not however and i dont blame ms for them.

and i would look in the mirror and then consider who the amatuer is,the guy whos blindily defending a bad os made not to fill the users need but to fill the media's need(riaa/mpaa) and to line ms's pockets.

had ms made the os without all the DRM crap i wouldnt be anti vista, but read ms's own articals they are linked by mr guntman in his paper, ms didnt build vista for the user, they built it to cater to riaa/mpaa types.

well injoy yourself, im sure you will just delude yourself beliving that you know more then i do and that im an "amatuer" because vista runs like crap compared to 2k-xp-2k3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhon    0

Well I did not read all the post kind of imposable now. I do not see a problem with Vista. As for Windows Server 2003 it is more sucure then XP,Linux,OSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PF Prophet    0

as to memory managment, well i think server manages memory better then workstation at least that would make sence to me what about you?

and i have set prefetch using tools in the past, it can sped some apps up but it also can slow others down.

and FYI i dont use task manager to tell me what memory use % is, i use a 3rd party app, tho in server i can see memory use

you can get the same task manager in 2k and xp with a little reg tweaking(check google for help, i use to do it because it also shows stuff that xp's task manager wont show like services and hidden apps(like some spyware and viruses)

as to the sky is falling crap, well i had 95 as soon as it hit rtm(got dirrectly from ms themselves when i got a tour of the office in the seattle area(belview) also got 98 as soon as it was RTM and ME i beta tested(it was fine till they stoped listening to feedback from the testers, then it became the nightmare it was/is)

dont ASSume you know me when you clearly got no fing clue who i am or what i know.

post-28009-1168675228.jpg

not it acctualy lists ram ammount used, free and total, also commitchange and such is listed as well.

i understand how vista is sposta work, but using 700mb ram on a fresh install is excessive, if apps where installed to use and prefetch then maby, but even then, 700mb is a lot of prefetched crap!!!!

post-28009-1168675372.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PF Prophet    0
Well I did not read all the post kind of imposable now. I do not see a problem with Vista. As for Windows Server 2003 it is more sucure then XP,Linux,OSX.

linux no, well not pre sp1 against viruses(sp1 enables firewalll by default) its not more secure, then xp, well if you slipstream xp with sp2 its about as secure but its FAR more reliable, i have yet to see a crash i didnt cause by doing something i KNEW could/probbly would cause a crash(like tweaking memory timings with systool to get my superPI times down)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Gibs    3,865
had ms made the os without all the DRM crap i wouldnt be anti vista, but read ms's own articals they are linked by mr guntman in his paper, ms didnt build vista for the user, they built it to cater to riaa/mpaa types.

What DRM crap? Its exactly the same as it is in xp. Don't listen to the bull**** that vista will reduce sound quality and all that crap. It does not. All my music is downloaded [and i dont mean from itunes or wmp...] and sounds better in vista than it does on xp

And the drivers issued by microsoft are perfectly reliable too.....

Don't double post. For all your amazing professional tech **** you haven't ever heard of an edit button have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbba    9
had ms made the os without all the DRM crap i wouldnt be anti vista

this line says it all really...

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Observer    293

I like vista, sure it no XP but when XP come out everyone was all up in arms about it, and sure its slow but hey wasnt xp when it frist come out.

but im still liking LINUX cause it's FREE and runs well. just doesnt run nall the game i have too well cant cant be half ass tryin to get them to work!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PF Prophet    0
What DRM crap? Its exactly the same as it is in xp. Don't listen to the bull**** that vista will reduce sound quality and all that crap. It does not. All my music is downloaded [and i dont mean from itunes or wmp...] and sounds better in vista than it does on xp

And the drivers issued by microsoft are perfectly reliable too.....

Don't double post. For all your amazing professional tech **** you haven't ever heard of an edit button have you?

you dont have any "preimum" content you noob!!

preimum content is SACD/ADVD/HDDVD/BLURAY or the like, content marked as "preimum" i will dbl post if i feel like it, if u dont like it dont read it.

read up on vista, its built from the core up to be as DRM as possable, it WILL block/downgrade audio and video if it thinks you dont pass the requierments to use them in full quility

not many people have HD media(audio or video) or pc parts to play them yet(tho i can play SACD and ADVD on here no problem :)

vista is ALL about the drm read ms's own documents heres a quote from guntmans artical that sumrises ms's OWN POSTED ARTICALS

Indirect Disabling of Functionality

-----------------------------------

As well as overt disabling of functionality, there's also covert disabling of

functionality. For example PC voice communications rely on automatic echo

cancellation (AEC) in order to work. AEC requires feeding back a sample of

the audio mix into the echo cancellation subsystem, but with Vista's content

protection this isn't permitted any more because this might allow access to

premium content. What is permitted is a highly-degraded form of feedback that

might possibly still sort-of be enough for some sort of minimal echo

cancellation purposes.

The requirement to disable audio and video output plays havoc with standard

system operations, because the security policy used is a so-called "system

high" policy: The overall sensitivity level is that of the most sensitive data

present in the system. So the instant any audio derived from premium content

appears on your system, signal degradation and disabling of outputs will

occur. What makes this particularly entertaining is the fact that the

downgrading/disabling is dynamic, so if the premium-content signal is

intermittent or varies (for example music that fades out), various outputs and

output quality will fade in and out, or turn on and off, in sync. Normally

this behaviour would be a trigger for reinstalling device drivers or even a

warranty return of the affected hardware, but in this case it's just a signal

that everything is functioning as intended.

Decreased Playback Quality

--------------------------

Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires that

any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality

that passes through it if premium content is present. This is done through a

"constrictor" that downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up-

scales it again back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in

quality. So if you're using an expensive new LCD display fed from a high-

quality DVI signal on your video card and there's protected content present,

the picture you're going to see will be, as the spec puts it, "slightly

fuzzy", a bit like a 10-year-old CRT monitor that you picked up for $2 at a

yard sale [Note F]. In fact the specification specifically still allows for

old VGA analog outputs, but even that's only because disallowing them would

upset too many existing owners of analog monitors. In the future even analog

VGA output will probably have to be disabled. The only thing that seems to be

explicitly allowed is the extremely low-quality TV-out, provided that

Macrovision is applied to it.

The same deliberate degrading of playback quality applies to audio, with the

audio being downgraded to sound (from the spec) "fuzzy with less detail"

[Note G].

Amusingly, the Vista content protection docs say that it'll be left to

graphics chip manufacturers to differentiate their product based on

(deliberately degraded) video quality. This seems a bit like breaking the

legs of Olympic athletes and then rating them based on how fast they can

hobble on crutches.

The Microsoft specs say that only display devices with more than 520K pixels

will have their images degraded, but conveniently omit to mention that this

resolution, roughly 800x600, covers pretty much every output device that will

ever be used with Vista. The abolute minimum requirement for Vista Basic are

listed as 800x600 resolution (and an 800MHz Pentium III CPU with 512MB of RAM,

which seems, well, "wildly optimistic" is one term that springs to mind).

However that won't get you the Vista Aero interface, which makes a move to

Vista from XP more or less pointless. The minimum requirements for running

Aero on a Vista Premium PC are "a DX9 GPU, 128 MB of VRAM, Pixel Shader 2.0,

and minimum resolution 1024x768x32", and for Aero Glass it's even higher than

that. In addition the minimum resolution supported by a standard LCD panel is

1024x768 for a 15" LCD, and to get 800x600 you'd have to go back to a 10-year-

old 14" CRT monitor or something similar. So in practice the 520K pixel

requirement means that everything will fall into the degraded-image category.

Beyond the obvious playback-quality implications of deliberately degraded

output, this measure can have serious repercussions in applications where

high-quality reproduction of content is vital. For example the field of

medical imaging either bans outright or strongly frowns on any form of lossy

compression because artefacts introduced by the compression process can cause

mis-diagnoses and in extreme cases even become life-threatening. Consider a

medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to

audio/video played back by the computer. This scenario is already very

common, the CDROM drives installed in workplace PCs inevitably spend most of

their working lives playing music or MP3 CDs to drown out workplace noise.

Now obviously CDs aren't (yet) regarded as premium content and so won't

trigger Vista's content-protection measures, that's merely an example to

illustrate how common it is for users to play back audio/video content while

working. Let's say that instead of listening to music while they work, the

user may have a humorous video that a workmate sent them, or that they grabbed

from YouTube, playing in the background that, and that unbeknownst to them

this video is protected premium content. As a result, the video image will be

subtly altered by Vista's content protection, potentially creating exactly the

life-threatening situation that the medical industry has worked so hard to

avoid. The scary thing is that there's no easy way around this - Vista will

silently modify displayed content under certain (almost impossible-to-predict

in advance) situations discernable only to Vista's built-in content-protection

subsystem [Note H][Note I].

Note F: As an example of an experience that's likely to become commonplace

once more "premium content" is rolled out, Roger Strong reports from Canada

that "I've just had my first experience with HD content being blocked. I

purchased an HP Media Center PC with a built-in HD DVD player, together with a

24" 'high definition' 1920 x 1200 HP flat panel display (HP LP2465). They

even included an HD movie, 'The Bourne Supremacy'. Sure enough, the movie

won't play because while the video card supports HDCP content protection, the

monitor doesn't. (It plays if I connect an old 14" VGA CRT using a DVI-to-VGA

connector)". "muslix64" tells a similar tale: "when I disable my HD monitor,

I can watch the movie, on my old VGA screen, but, what is the point of having

a HD monitor and not being able to watch a HD movie on it". muslix64 was so

upset at not being able to play his legitimately-purchased movies on his

legitimately-purchased monitor attached to his legitimately-purchased player

that he broke the AACS protection just to be able to see his own movies, see

Note C above.

Note G: The question of how content producers other than the major studios who

can afford expensive custom equipment are supposed to create and manipulate

high-definition content has been raised by a number of readers. For example

one contributor who works with people in the content industry comments that "I

have seen [smaller content producers]going from just recording weddings and

the like, to ones that have gone all the way to make a full featured movie.

They have gone through problems like where to edit HD material, which cameras

to use, which format, etc. Their decisions have been based on availability of

equipment to make their projects, not really costs". It has been suggested

that the large content producers are quite happy with this situation, since it

prevents any competition from more innovative, creative, and agile newcomers.

Note H: Philip Dorrell has a neat cartoon that illustrates this problem at

http://www.1729.com/blog/LookingForAWinWin.html.

Note I: An interesting potential security threat, suggested by Karl Siegemund,

occurs when Vista is being used to run a security monitoring system such as a

video surveillance system. If it's possible to convince Vista that what it's

communicating is premium content, the video (and/or audio) surveillance

content will become unavailable, since it's unlikely that a surveillance

center will be using DRM-enabled recording devices or monitors. I can just

see this as a plot element in Ocean's Fifteen or Mission Impossible Six, "It's

OK, their surveillance system is running Vista, we can shut it down with

spoofed premium content".

this has been reported by more then one sorce, read some other forums, i have seen it downgrade or refuse to play sacd's because they are "preimum content" and the soundcard/audio system used isnt approved for preimum content..

p.s. if i where the dude with the hp HD media pc i would be ****ed not only at HP but at MS for blocking me from watching the movie the computer came with!!!!!

DRM dosnt stop piracy, it dosnt even slow it down, it only hurts people who BUY CONTENT!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbba    9
you dont have any "preimum" content you noob!!

preimum content is SACD/ADVD/HDDVD/BLURAY or the like, content marked as "preimum" i will dbl post if i feel like it, if u dont like it dont read it.

read up on vista, its built from the core up to be as DRM as possable, it WILL block/downgrade audio and video if it thinks you dont pass the requierments to use them in full quility

not many people have HD media(audio or video) or pc parts to play them yet(tho i can play SACD and ADVD on here no problem :)

vista is ALL about the drm read ms's own documents heres a quote from guntmans artical that sumrises ms's OWN POSTED ARTICALS

this has been reported by more then one sorce, read some other forums, i have seen it downgrade or refuse to play sacd's because they are "preimum content" and the soundcard/audio system used isnt approved for preimum content..

p.s. if i where the dude with the hp HD media pc i would be ****ed not only at HP but at MS for blocking me from watching the movie the computer came with!!!!!

DRM dosnt stop piracy, it dosnt even slow it down, it only hurts people who BUY CONTENT!!!!

guntman's article has been slammed by many as being inaccurate and ott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
and guess what m8, for over 12 years strate i been a prof computer tech, i couldnt do that without knowing what im doing.

No offense... but I really hope you made that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
not it acctualy lists ram ammount used, free and total, also commitchange and such is listed as well.

i understand how vista is sposta work, but using 700mb ram on a fresh install is excessive, if apps where installed to use and prefetch then maby, but even then, 700mb is a lot of prefetched crap!!!!

Do you even know what commit charge is? I doubt any standard Vista install is going to use 700MB of RAM. Of course, it depends on your definition of "use" I suppose. The total working set of active processes certainly won't be that high. It will be higher than a fresh install of XP - that's a given. You'll also have more process / services running, like the sidebar, the indexer, new networking services, and probably the DWM on a modern machine. Some greater resource usage is expected anytime an OS update with tons of new features comes along.

I also don't understand what you mean by "700mb is a lot of prefetched crap" - do you have less than 700MB worth of stuff on your computer? I highly doubt you do... why wouldn't you want the most frequently used applications and libraries kept around in memory that's otherwise not being used?

read up on vista, its built from the core up to be as DRM as possable, it WILL block/downgrade audio and video if it thinks you dont pass the requierments to use them in full quility

not many people have HD media(audio or video) or pc parts to play them yet(tho i can play SACD and ADVD on here no problem :)

vista is ALL about the drm read ms's own documents heres a quote from guntmans artical that sumrises ms's OWN POSTED ARTICALS

That's a load of crap. Vista doesn't do any of those things. It provides some mechanisms for third-party software to identify protected hardware interfaces, but how that capability is used is up to application developers and content providers, not Microsoft. As far as I'm aware, no existing content on the market today should work any differently than on XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrCobra    0
You seem to have confused the analogy. Microsoft made BOTH Windows and the DOS platform on which it ran. How is that in any conceivable way different from Apple locking their OS to their hardware?

It's different because the OS and the hardware is Apple's. It's different because Microsoft artificially broke Windows running on any other DOS except their own. There were internal memos leaked and later brought into evidence of that FACT. You should read up on the legal history of Microsoft before defending them so stoutly.

It is not. There is nothing technical preventing Mac OS X from running on a Dell or Lenovo PC. However it benefits Apple to keep it that way, so they implement measures in the OS to make sure it is only running on Apple hardware. Just like very old versions of Windows apparently checked to see if they were running on MS-DOS. Nothing nefarious about that.

There was nothing preventing early versions of Windows from running on non MS-DOS systems either. You could patch the win.com file to remove that artificial limitation and it ran just fine on DR-DOS. Microsoft didn't tie Windows to its own DOS because it was the right thing to do. They tied it down to keep the dominant position of their OS. Again, you should go read up on the legal history.

If another company wanted to compete they should have built their own DOS and their own GUI for it - or approached Microsoft about a possible agreement that could be mutually beneficial. Remember, at the time this happened - Microsoft was far from a monopoly. So don't say they were "abusing monopoly powers" or whatever. It was and still is a stupid thing to whine about.

I never mentioned the word monopoly. You did. You don't have to be considered a monopoly to have monopolistic business practices. Why do you think Vista costs as much as it does? Because there is no real competition to Windows because of the draconian OEM licensing policies.

Everyone at Microsoft wants to win. Is that a bad thing? Fierce competitiveness is part of our culture, and a big reason for Microsoft's success. Again - do you think that's a bad thing? Microsoft goes to extremes to ensure that everything the company does is compliant with the law and various rulings/settlements. Does that mean we should stop trying to build new features? Does that mean we should roll over and let other companies tear us apart?

Microsoft only does anything to comply with laws and restrictions when they get busted for illicit business practices.

No, Microsoft shouldn't rest on their laurels and be "torn apart" as you put it. But it does need to start playing by the rules and quit infringing on the IP of others. Yes I'll say it, if they haven't they need to stop pirating code from other compaines. Before you go spouting off, Google is your search friend.

I don't think so. We want to win. And we want to do it by having the best quality, features, and seamless experience.

I still don't know where the "Extinguish" thing comes from - got any examples? And you're right that companies aren't supposed to "play nice" - I don't think Apple is playing nice with their ads making fun of Windows PCs. Or that they are playing nice to companies like Dell by locking their OS to their hardware - but letting you run Windows on it.

Netscape for one. Netscape ruled the browser market. Microsoft wanted it lock stock and barrel. They gave away and later tied IE to the OS to lock out Netscape. It's a proven fact. The very premise that Microsoft has been "buying" Unix licenses from SCO which is helping to fund the legal battle against IBM. Thing is, that's flipped ass backwards on MS and now SCO is going bankrupt and *nix all the more stronger for it. Another attempt to extenguish. In other cases, if they can't kill the competition they steal their code, pass it off as their own and then drag it out in court for years which effectively kills the company because it went bankrupt from the legal battles. Gary Kildall proved in 1982 that MS blatantly ripped off parts of CP/M and won the case.

Stac Electronics, the makers of Stacker are now gone because of MS. If they have no chance in hell of winning the case, they settle, buy the company and put gag orders on the settlemet agreement.

The life of IE is one such case. Spyglass licensed it's browser to MS which became IE. The terms of the license was that MS would pay Spyglass a percentage of the sales. The thing is IE was never sold but given away and cheating Spyglass out of owed money. Microsoft bought them to kill the suit. Another competitor out of business because of MS.

Be went out of business because of the strongarm tactics of the Windows licensing policies.

Microsoft's licensing to OEM's states that if Windows is on a hard disk, no other operating system may be on that hard disk. This prevents "dual boot" or selective install configurations, the only way a competing system could be commercially distributed. Several OEMs had agreed to include BeOS on their systems, but Microsoft reminded them that if they did they would lose their license to distribute Windows. Be was eventually forced to liquidate, and sold its assets to Palm, but retained the right to sue Microsoft. This is considered by many to be a very strong and clear cut case.

It's also been proven that MS, where there is heavy competition, set the prices of its products lower than the competition can afford to go to drive them from the market.

In my opinion, Anti-Trust laws exist to prevent the creation of trusts. But that's never what Microsoft was. Microsoft has always had competitors - they've just never been very good competitors.

With the exception of Office which I think is the best, I've seen, used and still own all the old software that I used over the years. I, like many others have used software that's 10 times better than the majority of the stuff MS makes or had made. There's been all kinds of "good" competitors. There's been great competitors. There's still are some but they can't survive too long in the Microsoft dominated world. Microsoft is not happy with a piece of a market, they go after that whole market and make deals to lock out others. Again, read up on the legal history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikee4fun    14
i found out why there is still bugs.

Is it me or do most of those hooters girls look butt ass ugly? :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.