# Windows 7: Even more reasons to love it...



## Shino (Mar 20, 2009)

Ok, maybe I'm just showing off my Microsoft fanboy obsession, but I've been using Windows 7 beta for a few months now, and haven't had a single complaint yet, a first for a MS OS.

Anywho, I just found a rather intresting article of 50 semi-hidden features in 7. There's a lot of really awesome features that I didn't know about (and I'm one of those that usually knows all the tricks) and one in particular that Microsoft deserves a big hug for: Problem Steps Recorder.

It's a technician's best friend: the user can run the program and it will record all of the users steps and the feedback they get, and zip it up into a IE-playable annotated slideshow that they can e-mail to you. Finally, no more house calls!
Also, they expanded BitLocker and added BitLocker To Go for you flash drives, and it works with XP & Vista!! Great for all of us paranoid freaks.

Anywho, read through the article. If you have 7, try some of them out. Then post back here and tell us your favorite!

Now if they could just price 7 right... *goes off and calls Steve Ballmer*


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 20, 2009)

Love... it?  Windows?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  What drugs are you on, and where can I get some _that_ powerful?


----------



## SirrocoTheServal (Mar 20, 2009)

I don't know how you can love Windows. I'm sure Windows 7 is a decent update to Vista and even XP but i seriously doubt it can be better then OSX. Now i've never tried it yet so I'm making assumptions its still alot like Vista, but maybe I'll get a beta and put it on VMware and test it out.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 20, 2009)

SirrocoTheServal said:


> maybe I'll get a beta and put it on VMware and test it out.


That's hardly a fair comparison.


----------



## TheDumbening (Mar 20, 2009)

I'm using Ubuntu, so I'm sticking with that for now.


----------



## ArielMT (Mar 20, 2009)

Shino said:


> It's a technician's best friend: the user can run the program and it will record all of the users steps and the feedback they get, and zip it up into a *IE-playable* annotated slideshow that they can e-mail to you. Finally, no more house calls!



It is *not* a technician's friend by any stretch of the imagination, if the *technician* has to use any version of Internet Explorer in order to help a user.


----------



## Kesteh (Mar 20, 2009)

Granted there will be an FF-friendly addon that will allow you to use it.
Don't see the complaint there.

That or Chrome. Google sappin all ideas before they are even thought of. OSH--


----------



## Eevee (Mar 20, 2009)

Kesteh said:


> Granted there will be an FF-friendly addon that will allow you to use it.


just like there's a Firefox extension to make Windows Update work


----------



## Runefox (Mar 20, 2009)

Eevee said:


> just like there's a Firefox extension to make Windows Update work


Ah, Windiz Update. I miss you.

That said, I'm sure at least an application will be released to view these files; If not, using IE for that specific purpose won't be so bad - At least it's already there, and you're not browsing with it.

I'm quite excited about finally being able to create and mount virtual images. AppLocker seems like an EXCELLENT tool for setting up a computer for a first-time user, allowing only those applications that are specifically specified to run. I welcome the embracing of more command line utilities such as tzutil so that network scripts and other goodies are more easily created and more powerful in general. I do like the new keyboard shortcuts, too. Enhanced Robocopy sounds like sex. I'm not impressed by much else here; Especially the "parallel" defrag bit. The defragmentation utility in Vista/Win7, I thought, was extremely poor to begin with. I immediately replaced it with Auslogics Disk Defrag and later Diskeeper, which supports parallel defragmentation and much more.

Windows 7 will be good. Perhaps not what Microsoft needs right now - It's what they needed when they released Vista. Still, it will be a great move from Vista to Win7.


----------



## Zaiden (Mar 20, 2009)

I hope they don't charge a buttload for Windows 7...


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Mar 20, 2009)

Actually, I'm looking to downgrade to XP soon enough, let alone upgrade to Windows 7.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 20, 2009)

Adelio Altomar said:


> Actually, I'm looking to downgrade to XP soon enough, let alone upgrade to Windows 7.



XP downgrades are pretty common, especially for slower/older PC's. Honestly, though, with a decently powerful machine, the performance difference between the two is negligible, and in some cases, Vista provides an edge, such as with its prefetch engine and Aero, if your graphics card is good and you've got RAM to spare. My machine is running rather happily with Vista (x64); Fewer problems than with XP (32-bit), actually. Though I think for the hell of it, I should pop XP back on this thing in dual-boot. Since I use Grub as my boot loader anyway, it's trivial to make it all work afterward.

I should say though, that most of the pre-release benchmarks put Windows 7 way ahead of Vista in terms of performance, reaching and in some cases exceeding Windows XP levels.


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Mar 21, 2009)

Runefox said:


> XP downgrades are pretty common, especially for slower/older PC's. Honestly, though, with a decently powerful machine, the performance difference between the two is negligible, and in some cases, Vista provides an edge, such as with its prefetch engine and Aero, if your graphics card is good and you've got RAM to spare. My machine is running rather happily with Vista (x64); Fewer problems than with XP (32-bit), actually. Though I think for the hell of it, I should pop XP back on this thing in dual-boot. Since I use Grub as my boot loader anyway, it's trivial to make it all work afterward.
> 
> I should say though, that most of the pre-release benchmarks put Windows 7 way ahead of Vista in terms of performance, reaching and in some cases exceeding Windows XP levels.



Wait. 

You can _dual-boot_ Vista and XP? I think I tried that with a recovery disk and the screen wouldn't show right!

And so what about using Grub? (I'm still so green in this.)

And agreed. Aero's probably the best thing about Vista. It makes switching around very easy for me.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 21, 2009)

Zaiden said:


> I hope they don't charge a buttload for Windows 7...


Microsoft has been tight lipped about pricing. But I suspect it'll be the same as it was for XP and Vista.

~$300 for "Pro," ~$200 for "Home," -~$100 for the upgrade versions.



Adelio Altomar said:


> You can _dual-boot_ Vista and XP?


Easily.



Adelio Altomar said:


> I think I tried that with a recovery disk and the screen wouldn't show right!


Therein lies your problem. You'll need a real Vista disk.



Adelio Altomar said:


> And so what about using Grub? (I'm still so green in this.)


Also Possible.

The easiest way to do this is reinstall everything. Set up your partitions, then install your versions of Windows in order of age.

If you want to dual boot XP and Vista, install XP then Vista.
If you want to triple boot XP, Vista and 7, install XP, then Vista, then 7.
If you want to run Linux, install it after you've installed all the Windows versions you want.

If you don't do it in that order, it's possible to do, but a lot more of a pain in the ass.


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Mar 21, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Therein lies your problem. You'll need a real *XP disk.*



Fix'd.

I think I have a real Vista disk. It's the XP that's the recovery (that my brother-in-law found in the parking lot on time).


----------



## Runefox (Mar 21, 2009)

If you've got a legit copy of Windows XP, you should download a CD from a source like Bittorrent or similar. Since you live in Canada, you legitimately are entitled to a backup copy of your original media (as in, your install disc, which is identical to any install disc you can download online), though good luck getting Microsoft or any other American company to acknowledge that. Either way, though, it's the serial keys, not the discs, that Windows is based upon; Every disc (other than differing service packs or versions) is identical.


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Mar 21, 2009)

Runefox said:


> If you've got a legit copy of Windows XP, you should download a CD from a source like Bittorrent or similar.* Since you live in Canada, *you legitimately are entitled to a backup copy of your original media (as in, your install disc, which is identical to any install disc you can download online), though good luck getting Microsoft or any other American company to acknowledge that. Either way, though, it's the serial keys, not the discs, that Windows is based upon; Every disc (other than differing service packs or versions) is identical.



Oh, haha! Maybe I should take down that flag now and 'go back' to Texas. 
I was doing as part of the joke that everyone else was copying everyone else. Sorry.

So can I still get that backup of that media living in America? (Stupid question but still doesn't hurt to ask.) 

And I'm aware of the product keys unlocking the various versions. Every copy of Vista has all of the features that one can get, it just the product key is needed to unlock those features.

And you mean I could just BitTorrent the ISO then?


----------



## Runefox (Mar 21, 2009)

Well, nobody would really be stopping you, but in America, that would be breaking the law, technically. You're supposed to purchase replacement media from Microsoft (I think it's about $10?). I did assume that you were Canadian not because of the flag, but actually because your location is "Victoria", which I interpreted as "Victoria, BC".  Either way, though, perhaps you have a friend with a legitimate (... Or non) CD? Not that Microsoft really does anything about it, you wouldn't want to get in trouble with your ISP, nor would you want to get in trouble for talking about warez on the boards.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 21, 2009)

Wrong. It's not against the law. You're allowed to make personal backups as long as you don't have to break any copy protection. (And Windows discs don't have copy protection.)

It _is_ against the EULA in most cases. But there is a reason Microsoft has worked very hard to keep their EULA from ever going before a judge.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 21, 2009)

I stand corrected, then; Not being a resident of the United States, my information is always second-hand. Then again, most companies out there would have you think that copying anything is The Wrong.


----------



## Tonk09 (Mar 24, 2009)

I have been loving the win7 beta. I use it as my main OS now and dual boot with XP. I have been using it since the beta leaked and it has been working flawlessly(except for the bug in the now wmp that eats 3 seconds off mp3s before that was patched) Other than that one problem it has been working much better than vista for me, which is allot of credit to give a beta.

I also installed it on an old dell with a P3-600mhz cpu and 256mb of ram and it was usable. I found that damn amazing.

btw i heard from someone that MS will be giving discounts to vista owners. IDK if this is true though.


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 24, 2009)

Supposedly M$ will be offering the upgrade to Windows 7 for free for Vista owners.  I don't know if that's all Vista owners (given the many flavours) or if there are limitations.  Not that I much care - they could offer me $500 to use it and I'd still refuse.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 24, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Supposedly M$ will be offering the upgrade to Windows 7 for free for Vista owners.  I don't know if that's all Vista owners (given the many flavours) or if there are limitations.


I suspect it's their usual method of marketing as new releases of Windows come up. If you buy a computer within a couple months of release of the new OS, they'll offer you a free upgrade. (The did a similar thing with XP right before Vista came out.) This is to prevent people from saying "Well I'm going to wait for the new version of Windows before I buy a computer."

As for the "discounts for Vista users," yeah. Upgrade license. They've been doing it since Windows 95.


----------



## Immelmann (Mar 24, 2009)

I <3 Windows 7. I've got the Beta on my old laptop, and I love the thing. I can't wait for the real release.

And thanks for the link, seems useful.


----------



## Marticus (Mar 26, 2009)

Yay, We have quicklaunch on the taskbar once again!


----------



## Runefox (Mar 26, 2009)

Marticus said:


> Yay, We have quicklaunch on the taskbar once again!



Well, technically, the new Superbar or whatever they're calling it is also a quicklaunch, but honestly, I'd prefer the distinction between running and non, thanks. Though without the Superbar, you can't get that nifty display of all the running windows, AFAICT.


----------



## Marticus (Mar 27, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Well, technically, the new Superbar or whatever they're calling it is also a quicklaunch, but honestly, I'd prefer the distinction between running and non, thanks. Though without the Superbar, you can't get that nifty display of all the running windows, AFAICT.



I hate what it does to Messenger, its like theres always that window down there. [To fix that you just run messenger in Vista compatibility mode.]


----------



## Aurali (Mar 27, 2009)

LOL we all ignored that mac guy starting wars.

only annoying thing I've found about win seven is the media player and that it maximizes windows that get too close to the top of the screen. but it's faster than vista, and looks a hell of a lot better.. When I find a free legal version, I'll switch.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 31, 2009)

I'll stick with my Illegal copy of Win XP, cant even upgrade my comp these days right now anyway


----------



## Aurali (Mar 31, 2009)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> Illegal



Being a pirate does not make you auto-cool. 

No one cares.


----------



## Toaster (Mar 31, 2009)

Eli said:


> Being a pirate does not make you auto-cool.
> 
> No one cares.



.This.

And before any one can say "Ya it makes you a blackhat lulz!" I'm going to have to say no it makes you a retard who can't pay for their software :/


----------



## Runefox (Mar 31, 2009)

Pfft. Pirating Windows XP is the single most-done bit of piracy in the history of computing. Try pirating Ubuntu Linux. Now there's something I'd pay to see!

Unless you're the one cracking the protection, you're not doing anything in particular except depriving Microsoft or (insert company name here) of their meat and potatoes. Which isn't really cool. Even if Microsoft is a software giant and morally reprehensible in most possible ways, the people who work for it are not.

But anyway, yeah, I'll be getting an OEM copy when Win7 is released. If they're still around, I might be able to just pick up a COA of Home Premium from my old job on the cheap. It's sounding good to me so far, and if it's Vista Lite (or "Vista Done Right"), then I'll be glad to have it, since I'm not having any trouble with Vista as it is.


----------



## Aurali (Mar 31, 2009)

Runefox said:


> and if it's Vista Lite (or "Vista Done Right"), then I'll be glad to have it, since I'm not having any trouble with Vista as it is.



dude.. it's win XP done right >.> I can't wait for it to be finalized.


----------



## Tyc_00n (Mar 31, 2009)

Hmm....

It seems interesting that you "geeks" (I'm assuming since we are on the geek section) are talking about/ debating Windows 7.   Really, I don't expect anyone who calls himself a geek to not know that any Windows OS is going to be really bad unless from some miracle or Steve Jobs coming to Microsoft (which would be a miracle IMO).  Considering 7 is more of a performance hog than Vista is, that should turn you off, if not simply because it's Windows.  I could say more, but I'd rather not, considering I could write pages of things wrong with 7.     -sigh-


----------



## Runefox (Mar 31, 2009)

Tyc_00n said:


> Hmm....
> 
> It seems interesting that you "geeks" (I'm assuming since we are on the geek section) are talking about/ debating Windows 7.   Really, I don't expect anyone who calls himself a geek to not know that any Windows OS is going to be really bad unless from some miracle or Steve Jobs coming to Microsoft (which would be a miracle IMO).  Considering 7 is more of a performance hog than Vista is, that should turn you off, if not simply because it's Windows.  I could say more, but I'd rather not, considering I could write pages of things wrong with 7.     -sigh-



Aww, are you hungwy, widdle twoll?


----------



## Shokuji (Mar 31, 2009)

Quit giving mac people a bad name, Ty.

W7 will go great with my i7 and 6GB ram ^_^


----------



## Aurali (Mar 31, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Aww, are you hungwy, widdle twoll?



I smell someone who bought a Mac cause it was shiny.


----------



## Eleziek (Apr 1, 2009)

I've been rather accustomed to using Windows Blue (research it) for a while now, but I think once 7 rolls around I may indeed upgrade... 

After playing around with it I really do enjoy all of the features it offers, and how it isn't as much of a system hog as Vista... I understand people praaaise Macs and Linux, but for some of us it's not about hating those OS's and the like, it's about being able to do as much as we're able to do with Windows.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Apr 1, 2009)

lol, looks like a Macwhore tried to talk something he or she doesn't know about!


----------



## Runefox (Apr 1, 2009)

> I've been rather accustomed to using Windows Blue (research it)


No hits for Windows Blue. Did you mean Windows Azure, the cloud computing service that will purportedly someday be every Windows PC's "operating system" with a monthly service fee?  I suppose it's not much different from the used-to-be-bi-yearly upgrade tax.


----------



## Carenath (Apr 1, 2009)

Runefox said:


> No hits for Windows Blue. Did you mean Windows Azure, the cloud computing service that will purportedly someday be every Windows PC's "operating system" with a monthly service fee?  I suppose it's not much different from the used-to-be-bi-yearly upgrade tax.


Meh.. if that happens I'll stick with Linux.. Im not paying a subscription to use my own damn computer >.-.>


----------



## Aurali (Apr 1, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Meh.. if that happens I'll stick with Linux.. Im not paying a subscription to use my own damn computer >.-.>



You and a bunch of other people.. the gaming community will def be going elsewhere.

And (affordable) Apples can't run games well yet.


----------



## Carenath (Apr 1, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Love... it?  Windows?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Seconded. *still finds your username and avatar interesting*


----------



## Eleziek (Apr 1, 2009)

Runefox said:


> No hits for Windows Blue. Did you mean Windows Azure, the cloud computing service that will purportedly someday be every Windows PC's "operating system" with a monthly service fee?  I suppose it's not much different from the used-to-be-bi-yearly upgrade tax.



Ah, really? May not be researchable xD It's a '3rd party' version of windows, pretty much all hacked up and modified... Works insanely well, is fast, and sleek!


----------



## Shokuji (Apr 2, 2009)

Eleziek said:


> Ah, really? May not be researchable xD It's a '3rd party' version of windows, pretty much all hacked up and modified... Works insanely well, is fast, and sleek!



And supports basically nothing? ^_^;


----------



## Eevee (Apr 2, 2009)

Shokuji said:


> W7 will go great with my i7 and 6GB ram ^_^


does this mean to imply that Windows 7 does _not_ go so great with "only" 4GB of RAM


----------



## Runefox (Apr 2, 2009)

Eevee said:


> does this mean to imply that Windows 7 does _not_ go so great with "only" 4GB of RAM



Yeah, it has a routine that detects when you don't have a predetermined amount of RAM and then goes ahead and disables the extra cores and throttles the CPU to 233MHz/66MHz FSB. It also places your video card in framebuffer-only mode.


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 2, 2009)

Oi... the thread is _still_ going.   Okay, let's sum up the facts on Windows 7:


*Better than Vista?* Yes
* Better than XP?* Not a fair comparison given XP's senior citizen status
* Good for Games?* Yes
* Good EULA*? No (downright vile, but then, it is Microsoft so should it really surprise anyone?)
* Price?* Expensive (but again, normal for Microsoft software)
*Interface?* Good (improved and less annoying than Vista, but not as simple as Win2K)
*Performance on older hardware (32 bit version):* Good (much, much better than Vista, but not as good as alternate OS's)
*Support and updates?* Once a month, same as current offerings
*Pro-DRM?* Yes
*Open Source?* Hahahahaha... no
 
Further to that...

*Reasons to get it: *


You love PC gaming and want to run the latest games
You enjoy specific software not available to other operating systems and/or that don't run under emulators
You actually like Windows
You're not overly concerned about security
"It came with my new system" (IE, the Microsoft Tax)

*Reasons to avoid it: *


You don't care about PC games or specific programs as much
It costs money
It's the least secure of the major OS's.  
Though smaller than Vista, it's still bloated in size
You hate Microsoft
You have ethical issues with DRM and corporations controlling too much in the OS
You want an OS that is extremely functional and versatile
You enjoy tinkering with the OS at an advanced level 
All in all, the beta looks to be a vastly needed improvement on Vista.  Windows 7 is basically Vista Second Edition, but they didn't call it that since no one would then buy it.  It's faster, less annoying, more compact and just a flat out better OS than it's predicessor.  I have big time ethical issues with it, but that's just me.  It's worth upgrading to if you fall more into the pro list above, otherwise, skip it and change to another OS.  

:mrgreen:


----------



## Aurali (Apr 2, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> You want an OS that is extremely functional and versatile
> You enjoy tinkering with the OS at an advanced level
> \



these two bug me a bit.. 

Windows can be even more functional than the other big OSes. but at the same time it can be less. Depending on your needs. (Unless you go 64 bit.. I can't find anymore annoying thing as running a game that won't install because the installer is still 16 bit)

The second one also depends on what "advanced" level is.. but at the same time, it is not really available to be tinkered with inside a code system, you can still do a LOT of modding to Windows; especially if you turn off it's fail-safes.  (something I wished my Kubuntu box had more of )


----------



## Carenath (Apr 2, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Oi... the thread is _still_ going.   Okay, let's sum up the facts on Windows 7:
> 
> 
> * Good EULA*? No (downright vile, but then, it is Microsoft so should it really surprise anyone?)
> ...


All in all plenty of reasons for me to avoid it... Windows Server 2003 makes a better desktop OS than both XP and Vista, asside from a few annoyances, like Eset refusing to install on a 'server' OS unless I shell out for the Business Edition of the software *rolls eyes*. And yes, college students can get WS 2003 legally for free through DreamSpark.

Once I unlazy myself, setup my FTP server, and image my XP install, I'll switch back to WS2003 on my desktop, only reason I switched was to rule out the OS for what ended up being a hardware fault.


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 2, 2009)

Eli said:


> these two bug me a bit..
> 
> Windows can be even more functional than the other big OSes. but at the same time it can be less. Depending on your needs. (Unless you go 64 bit.. I can't find anymore annoying thing as running a game that won't install because the installer is still 16 bit)



I guess it depends on the definition and depth of complexity.  Windows is designed primarily as a desktop OS, and primarily for the average-Joe user.  As such, there are features it lacks and some aspects of its design that are weak, but only in contrast to the user's needs.  You can do a lot of more interesting technical things out of the box with just about any Linux or Unix distribution than you can do with Windows, but whether it matters or not is ultimately up to what the user perceives as an important need or not.



Eli said:


> The second one also depends on what "advanced" level is.. but at the same time, it is not really available to be tinkered with inside a code system, you can still do a LOT of modding to Windows; especially if you turn off it's fail-safes.  (something I wished my Kubuntu box had more of )



Yes, Windows can be modified quite a bit - I certainly do it to my own copies of Windows and always have (I love stripping them down to absolute bare-bones minimums for efficiency, for example).  The difference comes down to the level to which you can do these modifications.  With Windows, you can only do so much before you're going to have to hack it or concede defeat.  With most of the Linux and Unix OS's, you can change anything (even code your own additions or fixes if you really know what you're doing) so long as you have the patience and the desire to learn how.  Doing so in a non-Windows OS though isn't always as simple and can be more tedious.  Again - comes down to what the user is comfortable with.


----------



## Shokuji (Apr 2, 2009)

Eevee said:


> does this mean to imply that Windows 7 does _not_ go so great with "only" 4GB of RAM


No, in fact 3GB is probably just fine, actually.
But I didn't buy 3 or 4, I bought 6.
..Why are people going out of their way to start conflicts?


----------



## Shokuji (Apr 2, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> *Better than Vista?* Yes
> * Good for Games?* Yes
> *Interface?* Good (improved and less annoying than Vista, but not as simple as Win2K)
> You love PC gaming and want to run the latest games
> ...


Sounds like me. I'll throw $200 at it, should be a decent upgrade.



> *Pro-DRM?* Yes
> *Open Source?* Hahahahaha... no
> It's the least secure of the major OS's.
> Though smaller than Vista, it's still bloated in size


I am fairly anti-drm, but I just don't buy content that is DRM protected (when possible). I don't really care about open source. If someone is going to hack my computer, they're going to do it regardless of what OS I'm running. Western Digital just put out a 2TB drive.. why can't programs expand with the extra space? If speed isn't effected, then most people won't care so much.



> You have ethical issues with DRM and corporations controlling too much in the OS


 What parts of Windows 7 do corporations control? o.o I don't follow this sort of thing too closely.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 2, 2009)

I'd like to point out that "DRM" exists in Windows XP and Vista, too, being shipped with SecuROM. It's possible to rip it out, but I'm not sure what effect this would have. Still, I'm a little uncertain as to what sort of extra draconian DRM we're looking at for Windows 7, here.


----------



## WarMocK (Apr 2, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I'd like to point out that "DRM" exists in Windows XP and Vista, too, being shipped with SecuROM. It's possible to rip it out, but I'm not sure what effect this would have. Still, I'm a little uncertain as to what sort of extra draconian DRM we're looking at for Windows 7, here.


Well, Win 7 blocks 3rd-party video codecs for WMP and WMC (though other players are supposed to work with them). This might be just in the RC, but it's strange nevertheless. :-|


----------



## Runefox (Apr 2, 2009)

Could be that it doesn't use DirectShow the way it used to. I know for a fact that in some cases, especially with 64-bit Windows (Vista or XP), codecs for DirectShow/WMP sometimes will not work properly due to differences in the DShow model. It takes either 64-bit-specific DirectShow codecs/ACM's, or a workaround (forcefully registering the DLL's) in order for it to work.

And for reference, Windows Media Player/Windows Media Center use DirectShow codecs, which are installed system-wide.


----------



## Shokuji (Apr 2, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I'm a little uncertain as to what sort of extra draconian DRM we're looking at for Windows 7, here.


 I've never heard that word used before Spore. There are other words out there that can be used. Besides, Spore wasn't draconian considering it asked for only 2 things: 1) CD in tray 2) Log-in.

But that's a debate for another thread.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 2, 2009)

Shokuji said:


> I've never heard that word used before Spore. There are other words out there that can be used. Besides, Spore wasn't draconian considering it asked for only 2 things: 1) CD in tray 2) Log-in.
> 
> But that's a debate for another thread.



Yeah, while it required only those things, it was also rather sensitive to hardware changes, software changes, sneezing, and installed its own drivers so that it could monitor said changes. And the whole "so many reinstalls and you're out" bit got people jumping.


----------



## WarMocK (Apr 2, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Yeah, while it required only those things, it was also rather sensitive to hardware changes, software changes, sneezing, and installed its own drivers so that it could monitor said changes. And the whole "so many reinstalls and you're out" bit got people jumping.


Not to mention that it didn't like things like daemon tools (which is installed on all my XP systems. I see no reason for carrying the DVDs with me that I recorded from TV if I can use their ISOs instead 8)).


----------



## Runefox (Apr 2, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> Not to mention that it didn't like things like daemon tools (which is installed on all my XP systems. I see no reason for carrying the DVDs with me that I recorded from TV if I can use their ISOs instead 8)).



Yeah, I've had several instances where even things like Alcohol 120%, which is _burning software_ was unacceptable and caused games to fail to run. Not Spore specifically; I was never really interested in it to begin with. I can't recall exactly what, now; It WAS, however, an EA game. I think it was C&C Generals.


----------



## thunderfox5 (Apr 2, 2009)

I like to see people whining and complaining about Windows, and how OSX is so much better. But usually, when a windows computer fucks up, it's actually the users' own fault.

And there's no real advantage or disadvantage to running either of the OSes. OSX is much heavier than windows, but only runs very certified software on certified machines. Windows is heavy, but works everywhere as long as one can take care of his computer, and Linux is free and light, but it takes actual knowledge to use it.

Me, being a user of all three systems, I like to see people throw the most badly informed comments about each.

I'll let out a simple story for you Mac users: Imagine how it would be to use a Windows PC (which is very basic) when you've never used anything but a mac? It would be disastrous. When I got my first mac, I didn't know how to use it. So I did what I knew. I knew linux, so I made a lot of use (and abuse) of the system terminal. I ended up with all my permissions screwed, and formatted the mac twice the week I got it.

So you see. It's not about what OS is best... It's really a matter of how much the user is allowed to screw it up.


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 2, 2009)

Shokuji said:


> Sounds like me. I'll throw $200 at it, should be a decent upgrade.



What I don't understand about Microsoft is why they don't make it $20, or even make the desktop machine versions free.  They don't make their bread and butter off of the sales of Windows, and it would help to convert a lot more people.



Shokuji said:


> I am fairly anti-drm, but I just don't buy content that is DRM protected (when possible). I don't really care about open source. If someone is going to hack my computer, they're going to do it regardless of what OS I'm running. Western Digital just put out a 2TB drive.. why can't programs expand with the extra space? If speed isn't effected, then most people won't care so much.



First off, on the DRM issue - it's not so much that Windows 7 has DRM enabled stuff that bugs me, it's that Microsoft, as a huge, rich and powerful company so quickly accepted adding it instead of telling the various media industries to go suck eggs.  What would the media companies do if Microsoft said "ha... no, sorry - we're not adding that"?  Nothing - they wouldn't have been able to do a thing to force Microsoft's hand.  Instead, Microsoft agreed, and that only encourages the development of godawful technology like DRM.  

As for your efficiency statement - that's a TERRIBLE mindset.  I first learned coding on Commodores and IBM XT's.  They were weak, pathetic systems and you had to really REALLY make sure your code was as efficient and tweaked as possible to get the performance you wanted out of it.  That mentality seems to be all but abandoned because everyone today just figures you can throw more/bigger hardware at the problem.  Sure, you can, and it'll work, but it's so damn wasteful.  I hate that such a greedy, gluttonous mentality is driving the industry.  It would be nice to see efficiency make a return, and have hardware's useful life extended dramatically so that more people the world over in more income brackets could all enjoy what computers have to offer. 

Interesting sidenote there - for a while Microsoft actually planned to make a version of Windows XP that was basically XP-lite, designed to be installed on old Penitum type machines still in use all over the world.  I thought it was great idea, and surprising to see them catering to older gear, but they abandoned the project in favour of going back to the model of trying to force people to upgrade.



Shokuji said:


> What parts of Windows 7 do corporations control? o.o I don't follow this sort of thing too closely.



This goes back to the DRM thing.  The decision to add it to the OS means the OS no longer lets you, the user, decide what to do with your PC.  Instead, it will tell you that you cannot play a file, or install a certain piece of hardware.  That's allowing a corporation to dictate what you do with files and hardware that *yours*.  Again, it's not so much a Windows 7 thing as it is a Microsoft thing (and in some cases an Apple thing).  For one reason or another, these corporations thought it wise to introduce controls in the OS that really aren't any of their business.  If you don't have a problem with it, then there's no worries.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 2, 2009)

Well, the way I look at it is, for the most part, Windows is fine. If you've got a router between you and the internet and don't trust anything that's "bundled", such as Internet Explorer, then you'll probably do well. An antivirus product will help you catch those things that slip through your fingers. Combine that with common sense and a little experience and you can keep it running indefinitely.

Mac OS X... Well, I have my own thoughts about that, but the point is, to many, the interface is user-friendly (not to me, though). It combines the stability of UNIX-based systems with the familiarity of a tightly-integrated, managed environment. Power users can make use of Terminal.app if need be, but for most people who _don't_ need to perform advanced tasks or modify their operating system beyond the wallpaper, it's perfect, and in many respects, idiot-proof.

Linux/BSD/etc are excellent for servers, since they can be made very lightweight, and are generally quite securable. They can be run without GUI's, which ensures that more CPU cycles get put toward what is really important. As far as the desktop goes, however, while the interface can be just as friendly as the other operating systems out there, the sheer amount of alternative ways of doing things makes for a decidedly _un-unified_ experience that leaves novices guessing about the choices they're forced to make. Of course, there are plenty of attempts to create integrated Linux desktops, with varying degrees of success, but nothing has really managed to penetrate very far into the market. Even Ubuntu isn't quite there.

Of course, the major problem with any non-Windows machine is software compatibility, since its market share on the desktop is nigh-monopolistic. That means that while Mac users might get thrown a bone once in a while, they'll be missing out on most major software releases, and Linux users typically have to rely on open-source projects to make up for the hole in software support. While not terrible, these often aren't very far along. Notable examples are Blender and OpenOffice.org.

EDIT: I'd also love to know what DRM is being included in Windows 7 that hasn't been included in Windows XP and Vista? DRM is typically provided on the software or file format level, not the OS level. XP/Vista come with SecuROM bundled in; What does Win7 come with? For every time that this has been brought up, the only thing that's ever been said about it is that it has "DRM", and of course, DRM is evil. But in what way does it have DRM?


----------



## Shokuji (Apr 2, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Yeah, while it required only those things, it was also rather sensitive to hardware changes, software changes, sneezing, and installed its own drivers so that it could monitor said changes. And the whole "so many reinstalls and you're out" bit got people jumping.



But that's not how it was. If I recall correctly, on the box it did say that some drm software would be installed. And I believe it has a 'revoke' feature that gave installs back. And even if you did hit the limit all that was needed was a phone call. And as long as the user isn't abusing their game and sharing it out to people, then it probably would have been a non-issue for most. And it was nice to be able to re-sell your games if you wanted to (can't do that in Steam).



ToeClaws said:


> They don't make their bread and butter off of the sales of Windows


 What do they make their money from? o.o;



> Microsoft, as a huge, rich and powerful company so quickly accepted adding it instead of telling the various media industries to go suck eggs.


 It could have been a legal issue. Just look at how many anti-trust this or that there is going around. I bet the industry would have gone after windows for 'enabling' people to pirate stuff or whatever. 



> It would be nice to see efficiency make a return


 But does more data always mean less efficient? What if it's just more complex or sophisticated? Again, if they can keep the speed up I don't think most will care about giving up a few more GB for Windows.



> That's allowing a corporation to dictate what you do with files and hardware that *yours*.


 I've not seen any DRM for hardware yet, but this is why I don't (or try not to) support DRM content. If I don't use it, it won't effect me. And lately there's been lots of DRM badmouthing in the industry. I'd not be surprised if in some way it was at least reformed or even destroyed.  On that note, what do you think of Steam?


----------



## Runefox (Apr 2, 2009)

Shokuji said:


> And it was nice to be able to re-sell your games if you wanted to



. . .


----------



## Shokuji (Apr 2, 2009)

Runefox said:


> . . .



What am I supposed to take away from that?


----------



## thunderfox5 (Apr 2, 2009)

So, now we are complaining against windows having anti-piracy features, and that makes it a bad OS?

Seriously. Ever considered buying original stuff, like, legally?


----------



## Runefox (Apr 2, 2009)

Shokuji said:


> What am I supposed to take away from that?



Most likely that I'm shocked that the ability to sell a game is considered a function of this DRM. It's true that Steam games can't be sold, but... The ability to sell a hard-copy should be inherent with any software. The fact that this ability needs pointing out nowadays leaves me stupefied.

EDIT:



> Seriously. Ever considered buying original stuff, like, legally?



Well, it's not that which concerns me, honestly. Anti-piracy is fine. However, DRM often fails in legitimate cases - Take Windows Genuine Advantage, for example. It couldn't reliably tell between a legitimate copy of Windows and a pirated copy, and so when false-positives began to roll in, Microsoft actually took the step of adding a "maybe" option to its scanning/reporting process. There are also many cases where Spore's DRM failed on legitimate users, as well as in other cases. In my case, my version of Command & Conquer Generals back in the day used to fail due to a program that I had been using at the time which changed my Windows installation ID or something like that. Of course, that's an external factor, but there are other cases where things like AnyDVD, Daemon Tools, and Alcohol 120% cause certain software to refuse to run. DRM failure simply by virtue of having a certain type of software installed is almost as bad as random DRM failure.


----------



## Carenath (Apr 2, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> First off, on the DRM issue - it's not so much that Windows 7 has DRM enabled stuff that bugs me, it's that Microsoft, as a huge, rich and powerful company so quickly accepted adding it instead of telling the various media industries to go suck eggs.  What would the media companies do if Microsoft said "ha... no, sorry - we're not adding that"?  Nothing - they wouldn't have been able to do a thing to force Microsoft's hand.  Instead, Microsoft agreed, and that only encourages the development of godawful technology like DRM.


And Microsoft is only too happy to push its own DRM technologies while its at it too >.=.>



> As for your efficiency statement - that's a TERRIBLE mindset.  I first learned coding on Commodores and IBM XT's.  They were weak, pathetic systems and you had to really REALLY make sure your code was as efficient and tweaked as possible to get the performance you wanted out of it.  That mentality seems to be all but abandoned because everyone today just figures you can throw more/bigger hardware at the problem.  Sure, you can, and it'll work, but it's so damn wasteful.  I hate that such a greedy, gluttonous mentality is driving the industry.  It would be nice to see efficiency make a return, and have hardware's useful life extended dramatically so that more people the world over in more income brackets could all enjoy what computers have to offer.


Agreed



Runefox said:


> Mac OS X... Well, I have my own thoughts about that, but the point is, to many, the interface is user-friendly (not to me, though). It combines the stability of UNIX-based systems with the familiarity of a tightly-integrated, managed environment. Power users can make use of Terminal.app if need be, but for most people who _don't_ need to perform advanced tasks or modify their operating system beyond the wallpaper, it's perfect, and in many respects, idiot-proof.


I actually made extensive use of the Terminal for things like: SSH, Telnet, Ping, Traceroute, Dig, Whois, Host, LFT and NMap
When I started using a windows laptop again (upgrading to a Wintel was cheaper than upgrading the macbook), I missed the commandline that was a part of my mac system.. I miss those tools and utilities that I found so useful.



> EDIT: I'd also love to know what DRM is being included in Windows 7 that hasn't been included in Windows XP and Vista? DRM is typically provided on the software or file format level, not the OS level. XP/Vista come with SecuROM bundled in; What does Win7 come with? For every time that this has been brought up, the only thing that's ever been said about it is that it has "DRM", and of course, DRM is evil. But in what way does it have DRM?


Lookup Protected Path, its a DRM technology that Microsoft added into Vista and Windows 7.. it purposly degrades the audio and video output of 'protected content' when the audio and video are transmitted over older unsecured connections, which basically means non-HDMI connections, since only HDMI supports HDCP to my knowledge. VGA is an exception to this. The DRM code itself also contains mechanisms to prevent apparent tampering... tilt-bits that will reset the video subsystem if it detects an attempt to bypass the protection... the tilt-bits however can be triggered by something as simple as a programme glitch..
The main issue with this, asside from the obvious, is the needless increase in cost for hardware which has to be purchased, since older hardware wont support it, and the cost of supporting it inflate the price of newer hardware, or something to that effect:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html



Shokuji said:


> But does more data always mean less efficient? What if it's just more complex or sophisticated? Again, if they can keep the speed up I don't think most will care about giving up a few more GB for Windows.


It is more of a case, that the increased size of the programme means an increased amount of RAM and processor resources required to run the programme, which means the programme is less efficient on resources as a programme that was better written. The general argument is that using 'lazy' programming languages like Microsofts .NET produces a more verbose programme when a more succint programme can do the same job more efficiently.


----------



## thunderfox5 (Apr 2, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Well, it's not that which concerns me, honestly. Anti-piracy is fine. However, DRM often fails in legitimate cases - Take Windows Genuine Advantage, for example. It couldn't reliably tell between a legitimate copy of Windows and a pirated copy, and so when false-positives began to roll in, Microsoft actually took the step of adding a "maybe" option to its scanning/reporting process. There are also many cases where Spore's DRM failed on legitimate users, as well as in other cases. In my case, my version of Command & Conquer Generals back in the day used to fail due to a program that I had been using at the time which changed my Windows installation ID or something like that. Of course, that's an external factor, but there are other cases where things like AnyDVD, Daemon Tools, and Alcohol 120% cause certain software to refuse to run. DRM failure simply by virtue of having a certain type of software installed is almost as bad as random DRM failure.



Windows Genuine Advantage has been known to never fail. The false positives happened when people exchanged their motherboards and windows wouldn't activate, which could be made in windows XP and solved through a quick phone call to the activation center. On windows vista, the ability to change your motherboard and keep your license was revoked, because the new license stated clearly: A computer is uniquely identified by it's core components.

As for the Spore activation and your C&C activation, it's pretty obvious that if a program changed your windows ID number, you either used a program with features that go against the Windows EULA, or you were using a pirated copy of Windows. Bottomline is: You "disobeyed" the rules.

Programs such as DAEMON Tools and Alcohol are also not endorsed by Microsoft, as they install third party unsigned drivers to your system to make the drive emulation. Such cases are also declined all responsibility by Microsoft on the EULA. Again, user's fault for abusing the product!

One of the first rules of computer engineering I studied on my course, regarding user freedom and control, was that a program has THREE kinds of limitations: Those imposed by hardware, those imposed by software, and those imposed by the programmers. The program licenses and documentations are rules, and people often disregard them. Yes, I'm not saying that I respect all of them myself, but it's not exactly right to put the blame on someone for the user's mistakes.


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 2, 2009)

Whew, too many things to quote, heh.  Okay - DRM thing needs more clarification here.

DRM has been around a while.  Microsoft first introduced it with Media Player 10, and fully integrated it into Media Player 11, so yes - as Runefox pointed out, it's been around since before Vista.  With Vista and soon with Windows 7, it was integrated more so, and they added the capability to have hardware DRM.  That means if you install a piece of hardware that does not meet certain criteria, that Windows could refuse to use it.

Now... DRM itself is not evil - in fact, there are some cases where one can see a lot of advantages from it in terms of security and ownership rights.  The problem is that DRM has the capability of being turned against the user by forcing the user to buy only certain hardware, or perhaps even certain record labels.  Because the OS decides on what it will or will not do based on the DRM signature it sees (or doesn't see), there's a whole world of possibilities.  

If I buy hardware for a PC, I just want it work.  I don't want the OS being the thing to make any further decisions on whether it's the _right_ choice in hardware or not anymore than I want the OS trying to make sure I own the music I'm playing, or the DVD that I bought is 100% legit and so on - that is none of the OS's business.

Just for the record, my music and movies and hardware are all totally legit, so it's not like I'm worried that it will get in my way because I know I won't.  What bothers me is that it's _capable_ of doing it.  It's that potential that bothers me.



Shokuji said:


> On that note, what do you think of Steam?



Heh, oh boy - my mate's heard rants on that one.  I both love and hate the idea of it.  In some ways, it's awesome because it's what the PC gaming world has desparately needed for a long time - a standard to unite games and control piracy, and that's good.  I hate it though because it's a bit too picky.  Once I activate a game, I shouldn't have to ever log on to Steam again.  Now, one can argue that I can put it into "off-line" mode, but to do that, you have to go on-line.  The Internet should NOT be a requirement to play something I own.  I also dislike that for many Steam games, even in off-line mode, you have to launch Steam to play the game.  Why?  That just chews up resources.  (But then I get whiney if a single extra meg of RAM is being consumed).

In the community aspect, I dislike it's lack of privacy.  You can't screen your on-line presence enough, and it's disturbing that it lets other people see what you're doing and how much you've played something - that's no one's business but mine.  Now you can just not make an account, but then you can't play with friends.  But psh... I'm just old and bitter, so I tend to have grumpy viewpoints.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 2, 2009)

Carenath said:


> <snip>



We get it, you are anti-Microsoft. 
Now can we get back on topic of how Windows 7 Pwns Vista in every way shape and form?

I am pro-drm. only cause i like doing stuff with legal copies of other stuff >.>

and as a game developer. I want my money.


----------



## thunderfox5 (Apr 2, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> If I buy hardware for a PC, I just want it work.  I don't want the OS being the thing to make any further decisions on whether it's the _right_ choice in hardware or not anymore than I want the OS trying to make sure I own the music I'm playing, or the DVD that I bought is 100% legit and so on - that is none of the OS's business.



By the description, it looks like a Mac 

In all my seriousness, I think this would be a great deal of technology! Well, it's not like it doesn't exist right now, because if you own a 64 bit windows vista version, it only lets you install certified hardware. But further extending this concept will make computers a lot more reliable! Imagine only running Microsoft approved hardware! It's a dream come true for computer manufacturers!

We see harmony and perfection on the verge of happening here 
And I only see one kind of people who could complain here: The illegal windows users.

Ultimately, DRM is a win-win situation for everyone. PCs get reliability, macs and UNIX systems get a bigger share of market, and as consequence, intercompatibility is pushed one step ahead!


----------



## Carenath (Apr 2, 2009)

Eli said:


> We get it, you are anti-Microsoft.
> Now can we get back on topic of how Windows 7 Pwns Vista in every way shape and form?
> 
> I am pro-drm. only cause i like doing stuff with legal copies of other stuff >.>
> ...


Im anti-DRM, not anti-Microsoft. I dont want my computer's OS dictating what I can and cannot do with my own own computer. I dont want my computer's OS telling me what I can and cannot play regarding media files, an what I can and cannot use regarding hardware.

I dont see the big deal with people pirating Windows... Adobe or any other over-priced computer application, it just doesnt bother me.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 2, 2009)

> I actually made extensive use of the Terminal for things like: SSH, Telnet, Ping, Traceroute, Dig, Whois, Host, LFT and NMap
> When I started using a windows laptop again (upgrading to a Wintel was cheaper than upgrading the macbook), I missed the commandline that was a part of my mac system.. I miss those tools and utilities that I found so useful.


You should download a copy of Cygwin, then, and do a full install. It'll give you Bash and all those tools you've come to know and love. I've got it replacing my command prompt full-time. You can even compile apps from source using its tools, just like in *NIX/Mac OS.



> Lookup Protected Path, its a DRM technology that Microsoft added into Vista and Windows 7.. it purposly degrades the audio and video output of 'protected content' when the audio and video are transmitted over older unsecured connections, which basically means non-HDMI connections, since only HDMI supports HDCP to my knowledge. VGA is an exception to this. The DRM code itself also contains mechanisms to prevent apparent tampering... tilt-bits that will reset the video subsystem if it detects an attempt to bypass the protection... the tilt-bits however can be triggered by something as simple as a programme glitch..


See, this is actually more part of the HDCP protocol (which also supports DVI, which is directly compatible with HDMI so long as the signal is digital) than anything. As I understand it, this is all part and parcel of the HDCP spec, which will normally outright break a non-HDCP high definition video and degrade high definition audio. Given this, it seems more like Microsoft's implementation here actually provides extra support and a work-around for those devices that don't have HDCP.



> Windows Genuine Advantage has been known to never fail


I stopped reading that paragraph here. There is so much evidence to the contrary that you're just not even funny. I'm not gonna touch this one any further. Perhaps you were thinking WPA?



> As for the Spore activation and your C&C activation, it's pretty obvious that if a program changed your windows ID number, you either used a program with features that go against the Windows EULA, or you were using a pirated copy of Windows. Bottomline is: You "disobeyed" the rules.


Not against any EULA, really, though it _was_ "disobeying" the rules. Normally that value would never be touched, though it's globally-identifiable since it never changes. That's why the copy-protection thought it was a good place to look to be sure that the computer it's running on is the same as it was the last time it was launched.



> Programs such as DAEMON Tools and Alcohol are also not endorsed by Microsoft, as they install third party unsigned drivers to your system to make the drive emulation. Such cases are also declined all responsibility by Microsoft on the EULA. Again, user's fault for abusing the product!


Uh. What? _Endorsed by Microsoft_? Hell, Mozilla Firefox isn't endorsed by Microsoft, either. Microsoft isn't exactly in charge of what gets installed on their operating system. In addition, the drivers installed by Alcohol 120% (for its iSCSI CD/DVD-ROM emulation) are indeed signed drivers, and AnyDVD, to my knowledge, doesn't install any drivers. I can't speak for Daemon Tools, however, since I haven't used that in ages. No, the DRM failed because it specifically sought out these programs and failed if they were present on the system, not because they caused an incompatibility. It was a known "issue", and touted as an anti-piracy measure.



> Yes, I'm not saying that I respect all of them myself, but it's not exactly right to put the blame on someone for the user's mistakes.


The point is, the EULA has no legal binding, and is also not an instruction manual. The presence of certain software on a PC has nothing to do with any EULA; It's the stupid design of DRM products of the day that caused these issues.



> Heh, oh boy - my mate's heard rants on that one. I both love and hate the idea of it. In some ways, it's awesome because it's what the PC gaming world has desparately needed for a long time - a standard to unite games and control piracy, and that's good. I hate it though because it's a bit too picky. Once I activate a game, I shouldn't have to ever log on to Steam again. Now, one can argue that I can put it into "off-line" mode, but to do that, you have to go on-line. The Internet should NOT be a requirement to play something I own. I also dislike that for many Steam games, even in off-line mode, you have to launch Steam to play the game. Why? That just chews up resources. (But then I get whiney if a single extra meg of RAM is being consumed).



Buh? "Off-line" mode? Never heard of it. When my net connection dies, Steam just launches my Steam-bought games like normal.

Anyway, on a completely DRM-related note, as a Canadian, I've become rather used to and fond of the right to make and maintain personal backups of the media I purchase. DRM circumvents that right. In addition, issues with compatibility (if I remember correctly, I believe Casino Royale, in particular, when released, had issues with several players (amusingly enough, Sony players, too)) and reliability come into play, as well. It costs R&D money, costs money to implement, is completely ineffective (DRM-protected media is broken rather quickly), and basically passes the net result of piracy on to the consumer in the form of major inconvenience. There is no need for DRM, until it works properly and reliably, and the sooner people realize it, the better. EA, to their credit, has begun to have a minor epiphany over that.

EDIT:



> By the description, it looks like a Mac


Not really. Such an OS would be really any current or previous OS.



> In all my seriousness, I think this would be a great deal of technology! Well, it's not like it doesn't exist right now, because if you own a 64 bit windows vista version, it only lets you install certified hardware.


Not true. This can be disabled, and thankfully so. It does introduce a measure of reliability, insofar as reliability equals bribery to Microsoft, such as is the case with the Intel GMA 950 integrated graphics chips.



> But further extending this concept will make computers a lot more reliable! Imagine only running Microsoft approved hardware! It's a dream come true for computer manufacturers!


I... I seriously hope this is sarcasm.



> We see harmony and perfection on the verge of happening here


Nnnnnot... Really...



> And I only see one kind of people who could complain here: The illegal windows users


Again, not really. Small hardware vendors will have a hard time paying for Microsoft WHQL'd drivers, and will delay hardware releases significantly as those drivers are queued up in the labs. Implementing DRM at the hardware level costs an exorbitant amount of money (hi, TPM chip!) and for very little purpose.

The chance for false-positives and general failures also means that this isn't really going to be as good as you might think. Imagine for a moment that every car had a sensor that detected when it was stolen - Don't ask how, that's a trade secret. So, when it detects this, the car fails to start, and the locks/ignition self-destruct, requiring you to get new ones installed.

Also, that gives Microsoft monopolistic powers far greater than even what it has today.



> Ultimately, DRM is a win-win situation for everyone. PCs get reliability, macs and UNIX systems get a bigger share of market, and as consequence, intercompatibility is pushed one step ahead!



Um. There is no way DRM favours *NIX systems at all, much less "everyone", and surely not providing anything close to reliability, especially since DRM is software that, by design, is meant to *break*.


----------



## thunderfox5 (Apr 2, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Uh. What? _Endorsed by Microsoft_? Hell, Mozilla Firefox isn't endorsed by Microsoft, either. Microsoft isn't exactly in charge of what gets installed on their operating system. In addition, the drivers installed by Alcohol 120% (for its iSCSI CD/DVD-ROM emulation) are indeed signed drivers, and AnyDVD, to my knowledge, doesn't install any drivers. I can't speak for Daemon Tools, however, since I haven't used that in ages. No, the DRM failed because it specifically sought out these programs and failed if they were present on the system, not because they caused an incompatibility. It was a known "issue", and touted as an anti-piracy measure.
> 
> 
> The point is, the EULA has no legal binding, and is also not an instruction manual. The presence of certain software on a PC has nothing to do with any EULA; It's the stupid design of DRM products of the day that caused these issues.



Actually, the EULA has legal binding, and it the basis on which a company responsible for releasing and selling software will defend themselves, as user agreement is mandatory. You aren't committing a crime exactly, by violating a license terms, but you are acting at your own risk from that point on.

As far as endorsement goes, we're talking about drivers, not just a simple browser. The drivers run in kernel mode, and are pretty much the only piece of software that is allowed to directly talk to the hardware. All drivers should be thorougly tested and checked, and only then signed. Just like it happens on the macs, mostly. Unfortunately, the "driver signing" is avaliable for everyone for a "small" fee, and Microsoft doesn't test everything on the drivers, they just check them for vulnerabilities. Some drivers are tested and signed, like the Alcohol 120% drivers, but since they run partly in user-mode, it's only natural for things to fail. This doesn't apply to Spore or C&C protections only. It applies to anything that may need to test the hardware, and finds odd answers there. Such as the well known (and badly implemented) Starforce protection.

Never forget: Everything might seem to work well, but if you're not respecting the program's license and documentation, you're on your own! It's just like driving a car, you're on a straight road, there's nothing preventing you to turn to either side, but if you do, it's not the car's fault if you crash!


----------



## WarMocK (Apr 3, 2009)

Thank God the EULA ain't worth the paper it is written on here in Germany (a TOS that isn't accessible before purchasing a product and/or has too many restrictions is declared illegal here). Same applies for most european states btw.


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 3, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> Thank God the EULA ain't worth the paper it is written on here in Germany (a TOS that isn't accessible before purchasing a product and/or has too many restrictions is declared illegal here). Same applies for most european states btw.



Nice!  That's an great way of doing it.


----------



## Revy (Apr 3, 2009)

I feel that Windows 7 is not needed yet, sure its better then vista I suppose, but I'm still gonna use vista with my current computer till 7 is avaliable on most brands. I'm not in that much of a hurry to waste money on a brand new OS when I'm perfectly comfortable with my currert one.


----------



## net-cat (Apr 3, 2009)

Revy said:


> I feel that Windows 7 is not needed yet, sure its better then vista I suppose, but I'm still gonna use vista with my current computer till 7 is avaliable on most brands. I'm not in that much of a hurry to waste money on a brand new OS when I'm perfectly comfortable with my currert one.


Heh. That's interesting. It was one of the reasons Vista failed so hard. It didn't really offer any notable advantages over XP. (That is, in the "XP is relatively stable and does what I need it to do" category. Nobody except people who would post in a forum about actually cares about technical superiority.)


----------



## Aurali (Apr 3, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Buh? "Off-line" mode? Never heard of it. When my net connection dies, Steam just launches my Steam-bought games like normal.
> 
> Anyway, on a completely DRM-related note, as a Canadian, I've become rather used to and fond of the right to make and maintain personal backups of the media I purchase. DRM circumvents that right. In addition, issues with compatibility (if I remember correctly, I believe Casino Royale, in particular, when released, had issues with several players (amusingly enough, Sony players, too)) and reliability come into play, as well. It costs R&D money, costs money to implement, is completely ineffective (DRM-protected media is broken rather quickly), and basically passes the net result of piracy on to the consumer in the form of major inconvenience. There is no need for DRM, until it works properly and reliably, and the sooner people realize it, the better. EA, to their credit, has begun to have a minor epiphany over that.



Believe it or not.. the "switch" to steam stuff isn't really anti-piracy (not stoppable)as much as it is anti-gamestop (can be done). Think of it this way. You buy a game and pay 50 dollars. Game stop gets 8 of that. the rest went home. You sell it. Game stop gives you 5 dollars back. Someone else buys the game from game stop. They GET 45 dollars. All Profit.. The retailer don't see a dime of the money, and lost the profit from the consumer.


----------



## Toaster (Apr 3, 2009)

OP you need to share your drugs.............

Also I think windows is a nightmare for anything that's sever related, and you have very little freedom with the OS (as in changing it.).

I've always worked with sever side stuff so I hate using windows. Windows is just about useless for every thing but art/gaming/flash dev.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 3, 2009)

Ornias said:


> OP you need to share your drugs.............
> 
> Also I think windows is a nightmare for anything that's sever related, and you have very little freedom with the OS (as in changing it.).
> 
> I've always worked with sever side stuff so I hate using windows. Windows is just about useless for every thing but art/gaming/flash dev.



and apple is useless for anything but photoshoppin

and unix based is useless for anything but server related crap

/stereotyping

They all have their purposes. They all have their quirks. 

It's all in which one you really like...

otherwise no one gives a crap about fanboism


----------



## Toaster (Apr 3, 2009)

Eli said:


> and apple is useless for anything but photoshoppin
> 
> *and unix based is useless for anything but server related crap
> *
> ...



This in bold is all I care about. I'm not a windows hater, I just don't like using it because I have no need to. Also why the hell use an Apple for photoshop when you do the same thing with windows? Mac is making a comeback but it isn't there yet.


----------



## Revy (Apr 3, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Heh. That's interesting. It was one of the reasons Vista failed so hard. It didn't really offer any notable advantages over XP. (That is, in the "XP is relatively stable and does what I need it to do" category. Nobody except people who would post in a forum about actually cares about technical superiority.)


 Well like I said I don't see why theres such a big rush to get the beta version, I can easily wait till its fully out when I buy a new computer, I can't use XP for some reason anymore it just seems so foreign now. I've had no problems with vista so I have no reason to complain about it tbh.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 3, 2009)

> This in bold is all I care about


Wow, you're pretty narrow-minded, then.


----------



## Toaster (Apr 3, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Wow, you're pretty narrow-minded, then.



Well ok, maybe it's not the only thing I care about. As you can see I use my computer for other things.


----------



## thunderfox5 (Apr 3, 2009)

Although we're not discusing technicalities between XP and Vista, there were a lot of improvements on Vista. A lot of added security, a user-mode layer for running some of the new drivers (such as the graphics drivers), the new window model (implemented by the Windows Presentation Foundation) is native to the OS, vista supporting symbolic links like UNIX and having a window manager running separate from the actual shell... There are really a lot of things that have improved on the OS itself.

Now with the coming of Windows 7, only the interface seems to have improved. The underpinnings of the OS are still the same that Vista had (so much for all the fuss about the microkernel, we will still have the Vista-like monolithic kernel...) and the differences will be mostly aesthetical and focused on improving the user experience. People are now praising the one thing they criticized (and wrongfully) when Vista launched.


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 3, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Wow, you're pretty narrow-minded, then.



Aye, that or just not exposed to the various OS's.

10+ years ago, that statement was bang-on.  Today, however, it's a lot more of a grey area that comes down to what the user wants or expects from their system.

Windows is still, by a _vast_ majority (87%), the most popular desktop OS - why?  Because it's good at it, because it was designed specifically _for_ being a desktop OS.  Also, because people _know_ Windows.  If you tell someone "hey, why don't you run Ubuntu?" They'll probably think you sneezed at the end of your sentence.  

That's not to say though that you can't have a good desktop in Linux or Unix because nowadays, both are extremely viable desktop operating systems, and depending on what you're using the workstation for, may also be a better choice than Windows.  Again - 10 years ago, no way, but today, absolutely.

In my career, I have seen many hundreds of servers (if not thousands now) come and go.  Most servers, especially the more serious or large scale they are, don't run Windows.  Likewise I have seen many thousands of workstations come and go, and most of them _are_ Windows.  

There are exceptions to the rules, and as the years go by, I see more and more of a blurring between the two.  It's not uncommon now to see people using things like Ubuntu or Fedora on their work PCs, and more servers are being rolled out with Windows on them.

Each of the OS's has their strengths and their weaknesses, but in the end, a lot of it comes down to either personal preference, or (in the business world) vendor support.


----------



## thunderfox5 (Apr 3, 2009)

Firstly, one must define what is considered to be a server, as you might agree, there are many kinds of servers.

Most common users ignore that what they call "servers" are actually no more than PCs who have been given a specific role. UNIX and Windows (and even some Macs) included.

Most of those people have never seen or know what an iSeries is, or have fiddled with the OS/400, for example!

There's no certain way that one can state "this OS is for servers, and that OS is for desktops". You choose the OS based on the purpose you want to give to a computer. Linux, Windows and Mac OS are perfectly viable as desktop operating systems. Windows is perfectly viable as a server too, if you want to run a streaming media server or a game server, for instance. Or even an ASP.NET server. 

Surely there are some limitations inherent to the core of the Operating System. Windows needs a lot of restarts when under maintenance, and UNIX is more likely to run forever with very little maintenance, but higher costs when it is needed. It's also harder to maintain. Going deeper into the kernel and the way memory and CPU are managed, we could even choose apropriately what we wanted, based on the memory management algorithms and the task managers.

These are things that the users do not care about. Actually, the user just cares about booting up the computer and having it run the applications he wants, the way he wants it. LRU? POSIX? The user doesn't care, he just wants his photoshop running smoothly. It runs on windows? Good! It runs on Mac? Good! It does what the user needs it to do. But the fact that is pleases a user is no basis to say one is better than the other. If we were to consider that, someone would barge in here and yell at us that MINIX3 is the best Operating System. And he'd probably be right, but no one uses it.

Point is: If it exists, it has a purpose.
(PS: Our ATMs run windows, for example. In brazil, they run Linux and work just as well.)


----------



## Toaster (Apr 3, 2009)

thunderfox5 said:


> Firstly, one must define what is considered to be a server, as you might agree, there are many kinds of servers.
> 
> Most common users ignore that what they call "servers" are actually no more than PCs who have been given a specific role. UNIX and Windows (and even some Macs) included.
> 
> ...



Most game severs run on linux.....


----------



## thunderfox5 (Apr 3, 2009)

Ornias said:


> Most game severs run on linux.....



Mostly used games have server versions for linux. That's still a very small part of all existing games. Most smaller or less known games don't have server for linux. Even some big games, like Lineage 2 which hosts millions of players, have their servers running on Windows! Like I said, it's a matter of decision of the programmer, not of which OS is best.


----------



## Toaster (Apr 3, 2009)

thunderfox5 said:


> Mostly used games have server versions for linux. That's still a very small part of all existing games. Most smaller or less known games don't have server for linux. Even some big games, like Lineage 2 which hosts millions of players, have their servers running on Windows! Like I said, it's a matter of decision of the programmer, not of which OS is best.



Uh no, do you mean game sever as in a mmo? If you do then you must mean most *game clients *run on windows. But the sever it's self which the client connects to is most likely Linux based.

Smaller and lesser known games don't have severs for linux? This blows you out of the water man:

http://www.brockhaus.org/merc2.html

The above is lesser known, it's older than me, and its small seeing how it can only hold about 0-90 people (maybe less). Also the client is windows based because most people game on windows -even back then- and the sever runs on linux.

I rest my case for now....

**Also I do understand some game severs run on windows.
**Also before you can say anything about the above code, I'd say he was wrong to say it can hold 200 max, it's too buggy to hold that many


----------



## Carenath (Apr 3, 2009)

Runefox said:


> You should download a copy of Cygwin, then, and do a full install. It'll give you Bash and all those tools you've come to know and love. I've got it replacing my command prompt full-time. You can even compile apps from source using its tools, just like in *NIX/Mac OS.


I'll probably do that at some point. I <3 Bash



> See, this is actually more part of the HDCP protocol (which also supports DVI, which is directly compatible with HDMI so long as the signal is digital) than anything. As I understand it, this is all part and parcel of the HDCP spec, which will normally outright break a non-HDCP high definition video and degrade high definition audio. Given this, it seems more like Microsoft's implementation here actually provides extra support and a work-around for those devices that don't have HDCP.


Thing is... HDCP is done in hardware on the graphics card that has HDMI support... and some graphics cards that only provide DVI connectors also support HDCP. Im not aware of any requirement for the OS to support it.



ToeClaws said:


> Nice!  That's an great way of doing it.


Well Canada is more likely to do that... France will probably force Germany to "update" its laws... right after it finishes trying to shoehorn 3-strikes into national laws... once its done forcing IPRED on us all >.-.>
It makes me want to give Sarkozy a royal kick in the testicles


----------



## thunderfox5 (Apr 3, 2009)

Again, one game doesn't make the rule. Look at games like the Command and Conquer series, Halo, Soldat, and the more.

And you're missing the bigger point: I'm not saying Linux isn't or shouldn't be used for gameservers. I am a linux user myself, and am aware of linux can and can't do. My point is that there's no better operating system. They're just tools for several purposes.


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 3, 2009)

thunderfox5 said:


> My point is that there's no better operating system. They're just tools for several purposes.



That's what I was trying to explain in my earlier post.   Operating systems have become a lot like cars or clothing - everyone's got their own personal tastes in them.

Oh and yes, some people call PC's servers, but I'm talking about _real_ servers - rack-mounted machines with multiple processors, multiple power supplies, hot-swappable drives, etc.  Companies that just use PCs as servers scare me. :/



			
				Carenath said:
			
		

> Well Canada is more likely to do that... France will probably force Germany to "update" its laws... right after it finishes trying to shoehorn 3-strikes into national laws... once its done forcing IPRED on us all >.-.> It makes me want to give Sarkozy a royal kick in the testicles



He has balls? :shock:  That's okay, most people feel that way in general about those cheese-eating surrender monkeys.  Hopefully Europe ignores them.  As for Canada, I'm not sure what the policy is here on EULA, but that would be interesting to find out.  I would hope the law sides with the consumer.


----------



## WarMocK (Apr 4, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Well Canada is more likely to do that... France will probably force Germany to "update" its laws... right after it finishes trying to shoehorn 3-strikes into national laws... once its done forcing IPRED on us all >.-.>
> It makes me want to give Sarkozy a royal kick in the testicles


And how are they gonna do that, hmm? ;-)


----------



## Shino (Apr 4, 2009)

Wow. I love how anytime I talk about Windows the thread desolves into a OS war. I guess it's just the way of the- "A series of tubes-" Shut up, Gore!

Anywho, I've used all three big OSes all my life. (I grew up with MS-DOS and an Apple IIGS)

Each operating system has it's own strenghs and weaknesses. The way I see it:
Linux/Unix is for the loves-to-tinker power user,
Macs are for the people who love shiny things that are easy to use and have lots of money,
and Windows is for the rest of the world that just wants to send e-mail to grandma and type a report.

Of course, there's obvious exceptions to each rule, but there's a reason Windows is the most common OS in the world. Things may change eventually. After all, the computer is still a _very_ young technology, relatively speaking. Who knows? In 50 years, we could all be using neural interfaces vis a vis the Borg or something along the lines of a holodeck interface like Andromeda.

All I was trying to say with this thread is that I've loved what they've done with 7 so far, and pointing out some more new features they've put in.

*Looks around, sees all the angry faces.*

Sorry, you can go back to your flame wars now.

*Sneaks out the fire exit.*


----------



## WarMocK (Apr 4, 2009)

Locks the door and throws the key away*
Not so fast fuzzy! :twisted:


----------



## Toaster (Apr 4, 2009)

We need an OS wars thread......


----------



## Shino (Apr 4, 2009)

*Looks around nerveously*
"Look, it's Bill Gates and Steve Jobs!"
*Runs away*

Ok, is this the part where I get beaten down by rich english majors with a Mac fetish? Or the part where I get surrounded by code-hungry linux monkeys?

Sticks and stones _will_ break my bones, so let's stick with calling me names, ok?

Oh, and that thread is a sticky at the top of this forum.


----------



## Toaster (Apr 4, 2009)

Shino said:


> *Looks around nerveously*
> "Look, it's Bill Gates and Steve Jobs!"
> *Runs away*
> 
> ...



This is the part where Linux steals your brain........ Good Bye free-will.


----------



## Shino (Apr 4, 2009)

*Opens mouth, pauses, closes mouth*
Uhh... I don't get it.
Are you for or against linux?


----------



## Runefox (Apr 4, 2009)

> "Look, it's Bill Gates and Steve Jobs!"


You forgot Linus Torvalds and/or Richard Stallman, so the few Linux users are still around to block your escape. D=



> This is the part where Linux steals your brain........ Good Bye free-will.


Er... OK?


----------



## Shino (Apr 4, 2009)

Runefox said:


> You forgot Linus Torvalds.


 
My bad, I'm running on 2 hours of sleep and a microwave burrito.

Hmm... maybe I am a linux user after all.

*Ducks to avoid the flying keyboards*


----------



## Toaster (Apr 4, 2009)

Shino said:


> *Opens mouth, pauses, closes mouth*
> Uhh... I don't get it.
> Are you for or against linux?



for.


----------



## hollowx64 (Aug 7, 2009)

windows seven is very good.

I might be a little... extremist but now it is my default OS.

WMP 12 sounds just awesome, Directx 11 gives higher framerates than Dx10, win7 has better multicore support and performance.

testing it from the build 7000, 7077, 7264 & 7600 RC x64.

I just love it, I will be a happy buyer of this awesome OS ^^

*far away better than vista, =P*


----------



## thunderfox5 (Aug 7, 2009)

Yeah, Microsoft should have delivered it yesterday to MSDN subscribers...

I'm still expecting it!


----------



## SailorYue (Aug 7, 2009)

i dont think my machine is powerful enough to handle WIN7... i only have 1gig RAM, so ill just stick with XP thankyouverymuch


----------



## Runefox (Aug 7, 2009)

Bit of thread necro going on around here. Still, yes. I think I will _buy_ Windows 7.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 7, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Bit of thread necro going on around here. Still, yes. I think I will _buy_ Windows 7.



Yeah... what's with the ancient thread revival? 

And I'm still not buying Windows 7.  Only thing that would change my mind is Microsoft:

a) Removing the DRM stuff and refusing to support any unethical RIAA or motion picture industry DRM type measures at an OS or application level.
b) Making it Open Source and free, because no one should have to pay for a consumer-level OS, especially one as bad as Windows.  Charge for support instead.

Edit: And I know that there's no chance in hell of either happening, so Windows ends at XP for me. *shrugs*


----------



## Runefox (Aug 7, 2009)

But... Windows XP incorporates "DRM" at the OS level, too - SafeDisc and SecuROM. So you mean Windows ends at 2000 for you.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 7, 2009)

Runefox said:


> But... Windows XP incorporates "DRM" at the OS level, too - SafeDisc and SecuROM. So you mean Windows ends at 2000 for you.



*chuckles* technically, yes.  I had 2000 until very recently when they stopped supporting it.   As far as Windows goes, it was the best one they ever made.

Not going with Windows 7 will eventually mean the end of mainstream games for me, but oh well - would rather do that than agree to Microsoft's EULA and give them any of my hard-earned money.  I donate that instead to various Open Source projects.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 7, 2009)

You know, there was almost a Windows 2000 Home Edition, codenamed Neptune, which would have had a similar multimedia focus as Windows XP, but it was merged with Odyssey to create the Whistler/XP project and the current state of affairs we see today.

That said, what DRM components of Windows 7 are there that weren't present in XP?


----------



## Toaster (Aug 7, 2009)

this thread sucks almost as bad as windows 7


----------

