Ask Your Vista Questions Here.

Dim Vista
Stephen Manes 02.26.07


Windows Vista: more than five years in the making, more than 50 million lines of code. The result? A vista slightly more inspiring than the one over the town dump. The new slogan is: "The 'Wow' Starts Now," and Microsoft touts new features, many filched shamelessly from Apple's Macintosh. But as with every previous version, there's no wow here, not even in ironic quotes. Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want to rush to Redmond, Wash. and rip somebody's liver out.

Vista is a fading theme park with a few new rides, lots of patched-up old ones and bored kids in desperate need of adult supervision running things. If I can find plenty of problems in a matter of hours, why can't Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people )? Most likely answer: It did--and it doesn't care.

Example: If malware somehow gets into your machine, Windows Firewall will not stop it from making outbound Internet connections to do its evil deeds. If you turn off that firewall in favor of a better one, the Windows Firewall control panel will admonish: "Your computer is not protected; turn on Windows Firewall." But the Windows Security Center will correctly tell you that a firewall is on and that you shouldn't run two at a time. Call it convistancy.

Gaffes like this make you wonder if security really is improved as much as Microsoft claims. You'll still have to add your own antivirus software, a new Vista-ready version at that. And Vista's irritating and repeated warnings about possible security breaches don't always mean what they say and are usually irrelevant. You'll take them as seriously as the boy who cried wolf, making them useless as defensive tools.

As usual, things Microsoft was touting last time have mysteriously gone away in favor of putative new wonders. Windows XP's heralded "task-based interface" often let you perform actions by picking them from a list. Now many of those actions have disappeared--except where they haven't.

Likewise, Control Panel options have been totally rejiggered yet again for no apparent reason. You can still use the Classic panel view that's been available since time immemorial, but several items have been confusingly renamed out of sheer perversity.

The new desktop search features are a mess, thanks in part to inscrutable indexing defaults and options. A "quick search" panel at the bottom of the Start menu lets you find results whether in a file's name or its contents. But on one machine--oddly, the fastest I tested--it was far, far slower than using Start's regular search option. Though that option finds folders like Accessories, quick search doesn't always. And if you click away to do something else while you wait for answers, Vista abandons the "quick search" and makes you start over.

Windows Mail is a mild reworking of Outlook Express whose big new feature is a spam filter that in my tests flagged nonspam as spam and vice versa an unacceptable 10% of the time. The bare-bones word processor WordPad used to be able to open Microsoft Word files. No more. What possible rationale could there be for "fixing" that, except to force users to shell out for the real thing?

Potentially exciting improvements keep coming up short. The speech recognition system's clever design lets you control the computer via voice and dictate into programs like Word. It did pretty well at understanding me even when I used a less than optimal built-in microphone instead of a headset. But my enthusiasm turned to dust when the software for correcting inevitable mistakes locked up repeatedly--even when it understood what I was saying.

Many touted improvements, like the Web browser and media player, have been available for XP for months. One minor winner is Vista-only: file lists that update their contents automatically. You no longer have to hit View and Refresh to see files added since you last opened the list window. Macs, of course, have done this for years.

The new Mac-like ability to show thumbnails of documents and running programs is cute, but it doesn't always work--typical of a level of fit and finish that would be unacceptable from a cut-rate tailor. Only in Windowsland will you find howlers like a Safely Remove Hardware button for memory card readers that happen to be hardwired into your computer.

Still with us: program crashes, followed by the machine's refusal to shut down until you lean on the power button awhile. Thereafter you may be subjected to ugly white-on-black text from CHKDSK, a DOS-era program that issues baffling new reports like "44 reparse records processed."

Should you upgrade your current machine? Are you nuts? Upgrading is almost always a royal pain. Many older boxes are too wimpy for Vista, and a "Vista-ready" unit Microsoft upgraded for me could see my wireless network but not connect to it. The diagnostics helpfully reported "Wireless association failed due to an unknown reason" and suggested I consult my "network administrator"--me. Yet I've connected dozens of things to that network, including other Vista machines, a PlayStation 3 and Microsoft's own Xbox 360.

My recommendation: Don't even consider updating an old machine to Vista, period. And unless you absolutely must, don't buy a new one with Vista until the inevitable Service Pack 1 (a.k.a. Festival o' Fixes) arrives to combat horrors as yet unknown.

I suggested to one Windows product manager that if the company were truly serious about security, Vista might offer a simple way to delete files securely and eliminate all traces of identity and passwords so you could safely pass the machine on or sell it years from now. His reply: "Does any other operating system do that?" That tells you all you need to know about Microsoft. The real slogan: "No innovation here."

As Bill Gates winds down his roles at Microsoft, Windows Vista may be the chief software architect's swan song. It's a shame his legacy is something so utterly unimaginative, internally discordant and woefully out of tune.

Author's note: This is a bit of a swan song for me, too, though I hope a sweeter and more fleeting one. After holding forth on technology here since 1998, it's time for a six-month break to attend to some nontech projects. My brainy FORBES colleagues will carry the tech torch.
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0226/050.html

 

Hidden Costs of a Windows Vista Upgrade
Feb 12, 2007 - 10:32 AM - by Digital Dave
As we have been saying all along, if you want to run Vista in all its glory you have to make sure you have the hardware to run it.

If you're upgrading to Windows Vista, the first cash outlay you likely face is buying more RAM for your PC. Microsoft says that you can run Windows Vista with 512 megabytes of RAM, but don't believe it. It's simply not worth running Windows Vista on a machine with less than 1 gigabyte of RAM. In fact, you'd be a lot happier with 2GB.

How much will that much RAM cost you? Figure that you can get 1GB of RAM for as low as a little over $100, while 2GB will run you $180 and up.

[Read More]



Preston Gralla, PC World Mon Feb 12, 4:00 AM ET

The shiny, new Windows Vista beckons, and an upgrade is mighty tempting. But before you take the plunge, be aware that you may end up forking out a lot more money than just the cost of an operating system upgrade. Here are 15 reasons to upgrade and here are 6 on why you should wait on Vista.
ADVERTISEMENT

A lot more than just cash is on the line as well, because you may also spend plenty of time upgrading your hardware to make sure it's Vista-ready. Read on before you upgrade; being forewarned is being forearmed.
The High Cost of Hardware

If you're upgrading to Windows Vista, the first cash outlay you likely face is buying more RAM for your PC. Microsoft says that you can run Windows Vista with 512 megabytes of RAM, but don't believe it. It's simply not worth running Windows Vista on a machine with less than 1 gigabyte of RAM. In fact, you'd be a lot happier with 2GB.

How much will that much RAM cost you? Figure that you can get 1GB of RAM for as low as a little over $100, while 2GB will run you $180 and up.

Even if you have enough RAM, your existing graphics card may not be up to snuff, because Vista is graphics-hungry. If you want to run its Aero environment, you'll need a good graphics card.

There are two levels of Vista hardware compatibility: "Vista Capable," and "Vista Premium Ready." Forget Vista Capable; it won't run Aero, and if you can't run Aero, you shouldn't bother upgrading to Windows Vista.

So you need a graphics card that is Vista Premium Ready. To be Premium Ready, a PC needs a graphics card with support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, a minimum of 128MB of graphics memory, and what's called Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel. There's no room in this story to delve into each of these specs, but the key is the support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, and a minimum of 128MB of graphics memory. Before buying a card, check the box or the manufacturer's site, and make that it matches these specs.

How much will such a card cost? It depends on how much graphics oomph you want. You can get a graphics card that meets these specs for as low as about $60. If you want better performance, of course, you can pay more, in the $100 to $150 range. But with graphics cards, the sky is the limit, and you can spend just about as much as you want until your pocketbook screams. As a practical matter, though, only gamers need the more expensive graphics cards; you don't need them merely to run Vista.

If you don't have a DVD drive, you'll need one, because Vista installs only via DVD. These days DVD drives are cheap; you can get a reasonable one for as low as about $30 to $40.

How about your hard disk? You should have a hard drive with a least a 40GB capacity, with 15GB of free disk space. But you'll certainly want a much bigger drive than that, to leave plenty of room for files and media. So you might need to add a new hard drive. Hard drives are cheap these days; for as low as $70 or $80, you can get one with a 250GB capacity.

How much will all of this cost you? Depending on what you need to install, you can get by with as little as spending only about $60 for a new graphics card, or up to $400 or more if you need to upgrade your RAM, graphics card, and hard disk, and also have to buy a DVD drive.
What's Your Time Worth?

You'll be spending more than just money if you upgrade to Windows Vista, of course--you may spend plenty of time as well. If you need to upgrade your hardware, count in the time it takes to do the upgrade. If you only need to upgrade your RAM, and all goes well during installation, you should need to spend only about 15 minutes. On the other hand, graphics card upgrades can sometimes be tricky, as can hard disk and DVD installations. If things go badly, you can spend hours troubleshooting and listening to bad music while you're on hold on tech support lines.

Finally, consider the time you'll spend upgrading to Windows Vista itself. Microsoft has done an excellent job with the Windows Vista installation process, and it's far easier and faster than previous Windows installs. So if you're going to merely upgrade over your existing version of
Windows XP, it may take as little as 40 minutes with very little intervention on your part.

You may, though, opt instead for a clean install, which means that you'll wipe your hard disk clean, and then install Windows Vista. If you do that, you'll have to copy your data somewhere, and then after Vista installs, copy it back to your PC. And you'll also have to reinstall all your applications. This can take multiple hours if your PC has an extensive set of software.
The Bottom Line

So what's the bottom line for hidden upgrade costs? If you've got a relatively new system and opt to upgrade Vista over XP instead of doing a clean install, you may get away with not having to upgrade any hardware, or just need to add some RAM or a new graphics card. That won't put much bite on your pocketbook, and you won't lose your weekends, either.

On the other hand, if you need to do heavy-duty installation work and opt for a clean install, make sure you've got plenty of time--and cash as well.

Preston Gralla is the author of Windows Vista in a Nutshelland is a frequent contributor to PC World.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070212/tc_pcworld/128930

 

BUY VISTA AND GET IN BED WITH THE MOVIE STUDIOS AND MICROSOFT

Is Vista's DRM annoying you?
An interesting article published at Forbes shows, with some detailed references reported, how Vista's DRM features are really annoying (and completely useless) for the end-users.

What I found particularly annoying is the following comment posted by the author:

Vista continuously spends CPU time monitoring itself, trying to figure out if you're doing something that it thinks you shouldn't.

It is not surprising then that Vista requires more powerful machines to run flawlessly. And again, end-users are the only ones to be damaged by useless stuff, as stated in the article:

Unfortunately, we users are caught in the crossfire. We are not only stuck with DRM systems that interfere with our legitimate fair-use rights for the content we buy, we're stuck with DRM systems that interfere with all of our computer use--even the uses that have nothing to do with copyright.

New machines are sold in stores with Vista already installed, without any choice for the buyer. It will be really interesting if end-consumers will start to refuse to buy a machine with Vista installed, but too bad most of people are interested only in graphical aspect of an operating system and are not aware at all of what an OS actually contains...

Why Vista's DRM Is Bad For You
Bruce Schneier 02.12.07, 6:00 AM ET

Windows Vista includes an array of "features" that you don't want. These features will make your computer less reliable and less secure. They'll make your computer less stable and run slower. They will cause technical support problems. They may even require you to upgrade some of your peripheral hardware and existing software. And these features won't do anything useful. In fact, they're working against you. They're digital rights management (DRM) features built into Vista at the behest of the entertainment industry.
And you don't get to refuse them.

The details are pretty geeky, but basically Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) has reworked a lot of the core operating system to add copy protection technology for new media formats like HD-DVD and Blu-ray disks. Certain high-quality output paths--audio and video--are reserved for protected peripheral devices. Sometimes output quality is artificially degraded; sometimes output is prevented entirely. And Vista continuously spends CPU time monitoring itself, trying to figure out if you're doing something that it thinks you shouldn't. If it does, it limits functionality and in extreme cases restarts just the video subsystem. We still don't know the exact details of all this, and how far-reaching it is, but it doesn't look good.

Microsoft put all those functionality-crippling features into Vista because it wants to own the entertainment industry. This isn't how Microsoft spins it, of course. It maintains that it has no choice, that it's Hollywood that is demanding DRM in Windows in order to allow "premium content"--meaning, new movies that are still earning revenue--onto your computer. If Microsoft didn't play along, it'd be relegated to second-class status as Hollywood pulled its support for the platform.

It's all complete nonsense. Microsoft could have easily told the entertainment industry that it was not going to deliberately cripple its operating system, take it or leave it. With 95% of the operating system market, where else would Hollywood go? Sure, Big Media has been pushing DRM, but recently some--Sony (nyse: SNE - news - people ) after their 2005 debacle and now EMI Group--are having second thoughts.

What the entertainment companies are finally realizing is that DRM just annoys their customers. Like every other DRM system
ever invented, Microsoft's won't keep the professional pirates from making copies of whatever they want. The DRM security in Vista was broken the day it was released. Sure, Microsoft will patch it, but the patched system will get broken as well. It's an arms race, and the defenders can't possibly win.

I believe that Microsoft knows this and also knows that it doesn't matter. This isn't about stopping pirates and the small percentage of people who download free movies from the Internet. This isn't even about Microsoft satisfying its Hollywood customers at the expense of those of us paying for the privilege of using Vista. This is about the overwhelming majority of honest users and who owns the distribution channels to them. And while it may have started as a partnership, in the end Microsoft is going to end up locking the movie companies into selling content in its proprietary formats.

We saw this trick before; Apple (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) pulled it on the recording industry. First iTunes worked in partnership with the major record labels to distribute content, but soon Warner Music's CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. found that he wasn't able to dictate a pricing model to Steve Jobs. The same thing will happen here; after Vista is firmly entrenched in the marketplace, Sony's Howard Stringer won't be able to dictate pricing or terms to Bill Gates. This is a war for 21st-century movie distribution and, when the dust settles, Hollywood won't know what hit them.

To be fair, just last week Steve Jobs publicly came out against DRM for music. It's a reasonable business position, now that Apple controls the online music distribution market. But Jobs never mentioned movies, and he is the largest single shareholder in Disney. Talk is cheap. The real question is would he actually allow iTunes Music Store purchases to play on Microsoft or Sony players, or is this just a clever way of deflecting blame to the--already hated--music labels.

Microsoft is reaching for a much bigger prize than Apple: not just Hollywood, but also peripheral hardware vendors. Vista's DRM will require driver developers to comply with all kinds of rules and be certified; otherwise, they won't work. And Microsoft talks about expanding this to independent software vendors as well. It's another war for control of the computer market.

Unfortunately, we users are caught in the crossfire. We are not only stuck with DRM systems that interfere with our legitimate fair-use rights for the content we buy, we're stuck with DRM systems that interfere with all of our computer use--even the uses that have nothing to do with copyright.

I don't see the market righting this wrong, because Microsoft's monopoly position gives it much more power than we consumers can hope to have. It might not be as obvious as Microsoft using its operating system monopoly to kill Netscape and own the browser market, but it's really no different. Microsoft's entertainment market grab might further entrench its monopoly position, but it will cause serious damage to both the computer and entertainment industries. DRM is bad, both for consumers and for the entertainment industry: something the entertainment industry is just starting to realize, but Microsoft is still fighting. Some researchers think that this is the final straw that will drive Windows to the competition, but I think the courts are necessary.

In the meantime, the only advice I can offer you is to not upgrade to Vista. It will be hard. Microsoft's bundling deals with computer manufacturers mean that it will be increasingly hard not to get the new operating system with new computers. And Microsoft has some pretty deep pockets and can wait us all out if it wants to. Yes, some people will shift to Macintosh and some fewer number to Linux, but most of us are stuck on Windows. Still, if enough customers say no to Vista, the company might actually listen.

http://www.forbes.com/security/2007/02/10/microsoft-vista-drm-tech-security-cz_bs_0212vista.html

 

Vista as a Trojan horse

p2pnet.net news:- Just before Christmas last year, Peter Gutmann published an amazing, full-blooded Microsoft Vista critique in which he said its content protection specification, "could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history".

Now security expert Bruce Schneier blogs DRM in Vista includes "features" you don't want which will make your computer less reliable and less secure, less stable and run slower.

"They will cause technical support problems," he states."They may even require you to upgrade some of your peripheral hardware and existing software."

But, "these features won't do anything useful," Schneier declares. "In fact, they're working against you. They're digital rights management (DRM) features built into Vista at the behest of the entertainment industry.'

You don't get to refuse them, so what you do?

Don't upgrade upgrade to Vista, he states, going on, "Microsoft's bundling deals with computer manufacturers mean that it will be increasingly hard not to get the new operating system with new computers. And Microsoft has some pretty deep pockets and can wait us all out if it wants to. Yes, some people will shift to Macintosh and some fewer number to Linux, but most of us are stuck on Windows.

"Still, if enough customers say no to Vista, the company might actually listen."

Nor are customers the only victims. "This is a war for 21st-century movie distribution and, when the dust settles, Hollywood won't know what hit them," states Schneier.

Unfortunately, "we users are caught in the crossfire," he says. "We are not only stuck with DRM systems that interfere with our legitimate fair-use rights for the content we buy, we're stuck with DRM systems that interfere with all of our computer use - even the uses that have nothing to do with copyright."

Schneier says Bill and the Boyz put functionality-crippling features into Vista because they want to, "own the entertainment industry".

According to Microsoft, it has no choice: "it's Hollywood that is demanding DRM in Windows in order to allow 'premium content' - meaning, new movies that are still earning revenue - onto your computer," the blog goes on. "If Microsoft didn't play along, it'd be relegated to second-class status as Hollywood pulled its support for the platform."

But, "It's all complete nonsense." Microsoft could easily have told the entertainment industry it wasn't going to deliberately cripple its operating system - "take it or leave it".

"With 95% of the operating system market, where else would Hollywood go?" - Schneier wonders.

The entertainment companies are finally realizing, " DRM doesn't work, and just annoys their customers," he says.

"Like every other DRM system ever invented, Microsoft's won't keep the professional pirates from making copies of whatever they want. The DRM security in Vista was broken the day it was released. Sure, Microsoft will patch it, but the patched system will get broken as well. It's an arms race, and the defenders can't possibly win.

"I believe that Microsoft knows this and also knows that it doesn't matter. This isn't about stopping pirates and the small percentage of people who download free movies from the Internet. This isn't even about Microsoft satisfying its Hollywood customers at the expense of those of us paying for the privilege of using Vista. This is about the overwhelming majority of honest users and who owns the distribution channels to them. And while it may have started as a partnership, in the end Microsoft is going to end up locking the movie companies into selling content in its proprietary formats."

. Slashdot Slashdot it!

Also See:
Microsoft Vista critique - Cost analysis of Vista DRM, December 22, 2007
blogs - DRM in Windows Vista, February 12, 2007

(Wednesday 14th February 2007)
http://p2pnet.net/story/11322

 

Vista just sucks now its a resource hogging piece of you know what that needs at least 128mb graphics with pixel shader 2.0 I guess if you want vista every pc on the market of companies has just built in GPU which means you will have to paty wround 110au for a GPU extra Vista is also very glitchy and is more tight with DRM the point that Microsoft is hiding behind this is that they want to stop piracy as you have heard they are alrteday planning on windows "X" it will use an online system where all files you put are checked so "a backup can be made" yeah backup but you will also have an person staring at every move you do and stop you from using Cracks etc.
WHo knows Vista might be the last microsoft OS i use if that does happend to me thats like stalking they know every file move on your HDD you make.

 

Save the BBC from Windows DRM!
By Glyn Moody on Fri, 2007-02-16 04:50.

The BBC has a long and glorious past as a technological innovator. Throughout the history of broadcasting, it has often been the first to develop and promote new technologies. Sadly, it seems now to be teetering on the brink of making technical choices that will not only damage its own reputation as a world-class institution, but which will also have serious knock-on consequences for free software.

As the worlds of computing and media began increasingly to overlap, it was inevitable that the BBC would need to make decisions about which formats and licensing schemes it would adopt for digital versions of its content that were delivered over the Internet.

To begin with, it offered RealMedia streams for its Audio on Demand service, which meant that GNU/Linux users were on an equal footing with those running Windows. Even more promising was the BBC's participation in the Creative Archive project. This was set up in April 2005 by the BBC and several other major UK institutions to make archive video and audio material available under the Creative Archive licence, which was based on the Creative Commons licences. As well as offering liberal licensing terms, the Creative Archive also chose to release the material in a variety of formats - Quicktime, Windows Media and MPEG1 - to promote the widest possible use.

Against this background, then, the hopes were obviously high that the BBC's latest foray into Internet broadcasting, its on-demand service that would allow people to download television and radio programmes after they were broadcast, would continue this even-handed approach and support all computer platforms.

But the current recommendations contain a real shocker, a consequence of the fact that the BBC has decided to use DRM in its new iPlayer software to control how on-demand material is viewed. That's bad enough, if understandable given the hideously complicated situation concerning the rights to the material that the BBC wants to make available. But worse is how it has decided to implement this approach. As the report explains:

the files would require DRM to ensure that they were appropriately restricted in terms of time and geographic consumption. The only system that currently provides this security is Windows Media 10 and above. Further, the only comprehensively deployed operating system that currently supports Windows Media Player 10 and above is the Windows XP operating system. As a result of these DRM requirements the proposed BBC iPlayer download manager element therefore requires Windows Media Player 10 and Windows XP.

Only those running Windows XP (or Vista) and Windows Media Player 10 will be able to access the BBC's proposed on-demand service. Users of GNU/Linux (and the Apple Macintosh for that matter) are to be cast into the outer darkness. That's around 25% of the potential audience according to this BBC podcast, which contains a fascinating discussion of many of the key issues around this decision. From this it also emerges that the reason that the BBC felt obliged to take this route was because “doing something is better than doing nothing”.

But choosing Microsoft's DRM is not just a neutral “doing something”, it is doing absolutely the wrong thing – which is far worse than “doing nothing”. It would provide a huge propaganda victory for Microsoft and its DRM scheme, just at the time when even people like Steve Jobs are casting doubt on the efficacy of DRM in general. The last thing we need now is for Microsoft to be able to go around to other broadcasters and music companies and say: “See, even the famously objective BBC has chosen our DRM; this proves it's the best. Why don't you follow suit?”

Clearly, shutting out 25% of your audience sits ill with the BBC's remit of serving all of its users, and the consultation document felt obliged to address this glaring problem by imposing the following:

We propose to require the BBC Executive to adopt a platform-agnostic approach to rights management within a reasonable timeframe. The MIA [Market Impact Assessment] notes an expectation that the BBC Executive plans to develop a Real Player alternative in the near future. Our understanding is that the BBC Executive aspires to offer an alternative DRM framework, which would enable Apple and Linux users to access the service, but has yet to identify a satisfactory solution. In either case, we will expect this to have been addressed within 24 months.

But this attempt at a technological fig-leaf ignores the dynamics of the networked world. First-mover advantage means that the greater the uptake of Microsoft's DRM early on, the harder it will be to displace. Even if a “platform-agnostic” DRM is eventually developed “within a reasonable timeframe” it will be too late.

There is no denying that this is an extremely difficult area for the BBC, since it must negotiate not one but three minefields – those of technology standards, copyright and contract law. But there are still things that it could do without turning into a global advertisement for Microsoft's flawed DRM approach.

First, it could rewrite its contracts so that henceforth it does have the rights to broadcast content without DRM, at least for a limited time. As technology moves on, this is standard practice in the media world (I should know: as a journalist and writer I've frequently had contracts changed to grant publishers new rights as they become available and/or valuable). This would allow the BBC to “do something” rather than “do nothing”, but without selling its soul to Microsoft.

Secondly, it needs to become more active in fighting DRM, instead of supinely giving in to the bully-boy tactics of the commercial media companies. DRM is the antithesis of everything the BBC stands for. In the BBC's Royal Charter, the document that defines its very existence, two of its core duties are explicitly to

secure that the independence of the BBC is maintained;

ensure that the BBC observes high standards of openness and transparency.

If it adopts only a Windows-based system, the BBC becomes beholden to Microsoft, and loses any possibility of independent action in the future, as the example of Korea shows only too painfully. Similarly, DRM is anything but open and transparent. And with rumours that even the music industry is recognising how counter-productive DRM is, now is precisely the moment to fight and beat DRM, not foist it on even more people.

If the BBC persists in taking this route, Microsoft will receive an important boost after its lacklustre launch of Vista. Moreover, other broadcasters around the world, who look to the BBC for leadership, may well sign up for the same approach, establishing Windows and DRM as global de facto standards, This, in turn, would weaken and marginalise GNU/Linux.

If you are one of the BBC's fee-payers, do join the consultation process that is currently underway. And even if you are not, please consider sending a (polite) explanation of why locking the BBC into the death-embrace of Microsoft's DRM is bad for you, bad for the BBC, and bad for the world.

 

whoa. that whole blob is 2 sentences. do you expect anyone over the age of net-tard to really try to read and understand that? *shakes head*

 

I can read and understand that. But then again, I am a "net-tard".

 

Will there be any chance to run copied software on vista. my grandad just bought new pc with vista on it but it has no anti virus.everything i run is copied so am i right in thinking that they will have to purchase this. is there any way of getting round the tighter security yet.don't want to run anything on his pc that will get him into bother n have mr gates knockin on his door lol

 

You can run slysoft products on vista home pro..with out a problem=clonedvd and anydvd and alcohol 120..

System Requirements

* IBM-compatible PC with a minimum 500 MHz Pentium-class microprocessor and 64 MB RAM
* Windows 98/98SE/ME/2000/XP/XP64/VISTA/VISTA64
* 2 MB hard-disk space

link
http://www.slysoft.com/en/download.html

 

yea but can u run copied software, eg antivirus from any torrent sites

 

thats not my cup of tea,as i never tried to do that..and i will never try it..with xp-poop or vista drm me poop (movie studios approved operating system)

 

ITS STARTING JUST LIKE XP-DRM POOP..WITH THE BEST SECURE OPERATING SYSTEM CALLED VISTA-DRM-ME-POOP (MOVIE STUDIO'S APPROVED)

Microsoft releases first Vista security fix
Published 12:09:35 19.02.2007

"Patch Tuesday," when Microsoft Corp. releases repairs for problems in its software, came and went this week with six critical fixes — including the first one that touches Vista, the new operating system billed as the most secure Windows version yet. The hole registers high on the irony scale: The flaw was in a "malware protection engine" that helps several Microsoft security products — including "Windows Defender" for Vista — guard against online threats. The problem could let an outsider "take complete control" of a victim's computer, according to Microsoft's security advisory. This isn't to say that Vista had previously appeared clean. Already a few vulnerabilities have popped up — including a remarkably low-tech hack. More info can be found at :


Microsoft releases first Vista security fix

Associated Press

SEATTLE — "Patch Tuesday," when Microsoft Corp. releases repairs for problems in its software, came and went this week with six critical fixes — including the first one that touches Vista, the new operating system billed as the most secure Windows version yet.

The hole registers high on the irony scale: The flaw was in a "malware protection engine" that helps several Microsoft security products — including "Windows Defender" for Vista — guard against online threats. The problem could let an outsider "take complete control" of a victim's computer, according to Microsoft's security advisory.

This isn't to say that Vista had previously appeared clean. Already a few vulnerabilities have popped up — including a remarkably low-tech hack.

In that case, security researchers noted a problem with Vista's improved speech-recognition system, which lets people speak commands to the computer. It turns out that sounds played over the PC's speakers — on a malicious Web site configured for this very purpose, for example — can trigger Vista's speech-recognition engine and execute commands on a victim's computer.

Mark Griesi, a security manager at Microsoft, acknowledged that the company was investigating the vulnerability, but said it was unaware of any attacks that exploited it.

There are many factors reducing the likelihood of such an attack. A victim would need to have activated speech-recognition — and have the PC's microphone and speakers on. And if anything suspicious like "delete all data" were coming through, the user could just shut the sound off.

Still, some observers said Microsoft could have installed protections that would have prevented any problem. That's not what the company wants to hear as it touts — legitimately, in the eyes of many analysts — "fundamental architectural changes" in the name of computer security.

Joanna Rutkowska, a security researcher for COSEINC, a Singapore-based tech-services company, initially had high praise for Vista. But she said subsequent exploration revealed troubling weaknesses — even in features that are supposed to enhance Vista's security.

After Rutkowska pointed out such issues, a Microsoft security manager wrote on his blog that Vista had intentionally made accommodations for user convenience and making sure applications worked properly — and that those decisions did not amount to "security bugs."

Rutkowska replied that she now wondered whether Vista's security model was "a big joke." In an e-mail interview Wednesday, she wrote that she still believed Vista could successfully raise the security bar, "but only if Microsoft changes its attitude."

"Even though there are some flaws in it currently ... they could be fixed over time, if Microsoft put enough effort in doing this," she wrote. Otherwise, "in a couple of months the security of Vista (from the typical malware's point of view) will be equal to the security of current XP systems."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070214.gtfix0214/BNStory/Technology/home

 

Ummm.....unless Vista has some sort of all-seeing-all-powerful-obliterate-anything-that-doesn't-look-legit software coded into it I don't see why you could not.

Just run free antivirus such as AVG, its not the best but its free and for the majority of people it catches what it needs to. As long as your grandma isn't into using LimeWire she will be just fine with AVG Free Edition.

 

If xp sp3 comes out before vista sp1 then i'll stick with windows xp for awhile. but if vista sp1 comes out first i'll upgrade and everyone should do the same.

 

i do not agree,i have a free copy of vista because of being a beta tester..i feel its going to be another solfware just like windows me...junk!

i pulled the vista drm (movie studios approved) hard drive and using windows 2000 and xp-poop.no activations needed to be able to use.

note:i can get into the admin account,can ye in vista?with out problems like below!!!!

Vista security overhaul questioned
User Account Control: insecure by design?
By John Leyden �¨ More by this author
Published Monday 19th February 2007 12:40 GMT

Security researchers have taken issue with Microsoft's implementation of a security feature in Vista that is designed to stop users from routinely running systems in admin mode.

Users of Windows XP and older Microsoft operating systems habitually ran PCs in admin mode, which gives unrestricted access to the system. As a result, malware attacks carried the ability to take over compromised systems which wouldn't normally be possible if a machine was running in user mode.

The User Account Control (UAC) security functionality of Windows Vista is designed to address this problem by obliging users to run their Vista PCs via a normal user account by default. Users are asked to switch modes and enter login credentials when they request a task requiring admin credentials.

White hat hacker Joanna Rutkowska discovered that users attempting to run an installation file need to do so in admin mode. That means users are confronted with the all-or-nothing choice of granting an installed program complete system privileges or abandoning an installation altogether.

"That means that if you downloaded some freeware Tetris game, you will have to run its installer as administrator, giving it not only full access to all your file system and registry," Rutkowska writes, adding that Win XP gave her the ability to add permissions to her normal (restricted) user account that isn't possible with Vista.

Mark Russinovich, a technical fellow at Microsoft, argues in a detailed response that the design of Vista's User Account Control balances security and usability.

Rutkowska acknowledges that Microsoft has improved the security of its operating system with Vista but warns that the security shortcomings of UAC can not be so easily dismissed. "UAC is not perfect [but that] doesn't diminish the fact that it's a step in the right direction, implementing a least-privilege policy in Windows OS," she writes.

Rutkowska takes issue with Microsoft's contention that flaws in UAC controls don't in themselves create security bugs. She points, by way of example, to a security bug she has discovered which allows a low integrity level process to send WM_KEYDOWN messages to a command prompt window running at high integrity level as among the types of problems she is seeking to highlight.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/19/vista_uac/

 

You mean to say that the people who paid for their copy of Vista aren't beta testers!! LOL

I thought that was how Microsoft did beta testing. You know get people to pay for the privilege.

M

 

from what I have seen of vister only premium is the non ME like version of it.

 

Pre-Installed Linux Tops Dell Customer Requests
Posted by kdawson on Monday February 19, @06:11PM
from the please-sir-may-I-have-a-penguin dept.
Linux Business Businesses
dhart writes "Within only a few days of Dell opening a new customer feedback website, they discovered that the feature most requested (by an almost 2-to-1 margin!) is an option on all new Dell PCs: pre-installed Linux. (And the number 3 request is pre-installed Open Office.) I believe they'll have a harder time now with the tired old mantra 'There's no customer demand for vista...'"

http://www.dellideastorm.com/