Drivers in 32-bit Vista and DRM questions (Plus a Few other re: Vista!)

Hi,

A few small questions.

1. In the 32-bit version of Vista are all XP drivers compatible or does Vista use all of its own? If it does use all of it's own then I think I will skip it for a year or so and see what XP Service Pack 3 is like, by then SP1 for Vista should be out I hope.

2. What extra DRM is there in Vista, a lot of people don't like it due to it restricting a lot aparently. DRM was bad enough in XP and I did hear from a few sources its insane in Vista, does it stop you ripping Music etc from your DVD's???

3. Is Nero compatible with Vista? If so which versions?

4. Is there a Windows Classic or Windows XP theme included with Vista or do you HAVE to use Aero?

5. How well does Vista connect to a network where the rest of the PC's are running XP Home or XP Pro. Will file and printer sharing work perfectly?

6. When connecting a Vista PC to Xbox 360 will it share the connection easily with it and will all features work easily? I would imagine it would since MS make both!

 

1. Some Work
2. No Clue
3. Nero 7
4. Yes, you can use an old Theme, not sure why you would do that though.
5. Great, Yes
6. Buy me an Xbox 360 and I shall tell you !

 

6. My room mate just got a x360 and I didn't think anything of it, but I was sitting in the room with my vista 32bit and all of a sudden it asked to share a connection with the xbox, I was all like "ok". Other then that i didn't look deeper into what I can do with the 360, I didn't really care.

 

The reason for using an older theme is because I hear Aero can be a resource hog. Also I only have an Integrated X200M graphics card in my notebook.

Vista is a complete re-write from XP and therefore DOES have advantages that most users wouldn't really notice since the average user doesn't care too much about them. I will probably wait until the first Service Pack is released before upgrading but the temptation is there.

ATI do say my graphics card supports the Aero interface but I am skeptical as to how well it would run. The last thing I would want is to take a performance hit.

 

DRM Doesnt infringe upon the 'vista experience' at all, you won't even notice its there...

 

Not yet But the gun is pointed at you and loaded, you're just trusting them to not pull the trigger.

 

Is it true XP Service Pack 3 is still scheduled for release some time soon this year? If so have MS let on to what will be fixed and what new features (If any) will be added????

Hopefully they won't be adding more DRM to make it more like Vista in the DRM sense of things lol.

 

I don't think that anyone will be upgrading if they include DRM things. One of the two biggest advantage (in my opinion) to using XP is that there is little (relatively DRM) and it's STABLE

 

There isn't the same DRM in XP that there is in Vista. In fact, i can't think of a single circumstance where you can't burn/watch/rip music/video in XP. Once HD content starts to get mainstream is when we'll likely see DRM come into play. For now, i haven't seen/heard of any major (or any for that matter) issues with DRM. In theory it sucks for legit users who want to create/watch/rip ect legit media that they own, but it still remains to be seen how the whole thing will play out. There are some great articles out there with some heavy hitters weighing in on DRM. It's enough to make you re-think Vista, but since i'm still waiting to see the big fuss with it, i'll use Vista and leave XP on the backshelf for later.

 

As far as DRM goes, I have two words (or rather, cleverly titled acronyms) for you: WGA, and TPM.

You probably know what WGA is. But in case not, it's Microsoft's way of keeping tabs on Windows users to make sure they're not running pirated copies of Windows. Sounds fine, but the problem is that it attacks many legitimate users, sometimes including those who upgrade their PCs. This isn't usually a big deal for laptop users, but it could happen. Say you updated your optical drive. It could (emphasis on could) make WGA upset and think you a pirate (detecting the hardware change as a new computer thus having the OS on two computers). And when this happens, you will instantly lose features such as Aero, ReadyBoost, and spyware protection. After that, you'll be kicked into a "reduced-functionality" mode where all you can access is a web browser for an hour... then it boots you off the computer. In Windows XP (if you decide to install WGA), you will get 30 days of complete usage to resolve the problem. Also, WGA gives Microsoft the option of completely disabling any system running Vista at any time. So like Pita said, the gun is there, you're just trusting them not to shoot. See here for more details.

TPM is something that most people aren't aware of. It stands for Trusted Platform Module. TPM can be both a good thing and a bad thing. It matches software (OS) security with hardware security via a TPM chip that can be found on most laptops today. It allows software, media, and the operating system to interact with the TPM chip and verify the identity of the user of a computer. This is all well and good since it could help reduce online scams and identity theft. The problem is that media/software also have control over the TPM. If you do something that isn't allowed with a piece of media (say, copy a protected CD to your hard drive so you can listen to your stuff without the CD), the media will instantly recognize that and self-destruct (not blow up, just erase itself). The same goes with an Operating System; if you do something the OS doesn't like, it can trip the TPM and lock out the OS. In addition, it will be an identification for you over the net, immediately identifying your computer (and the owner) as soon as you log on to the Internet. Some people may look past these things and see a wonderful security feature (which it could be), but at the same time, I just don't think Microsoft has a good enough track record to trust with things like these. See here for more info (that's MSNBC as in Microsoft News Broadcasting Channel).

 

And that is why anything important I do is done on Linux. I use Windows for games, and one graphics program I still have a license to from my old company (cool stuff, www.3dnature.com), but other than that, nothing. I don't trust it.

 

Is that really a fair statement? I could understand don't "like" it, but is trust really the issue here? It makes me wonder, of the number of PC users world wide, how many individuals has Microsoft personally gone after legally? How much pressure has Microsoft put on casual users? Furthermore, having to re-activate and such is a PITA, which i could understand your dislike for it, but i don't think trust really is the issue, or correct me if i'm wrong? People throw that phrase around and i'm just not seeing it ever come into play.

 

I think that is a very fair statement. I don't know anyone who hasn't been affected by DRM, whether it comes to media, software, or personal files that can't be opened on another computer (such as files created on a specific program). WGA invaded that even more by "phoning home" every time you turned on your computer and sending information about your computer back to Microsoft. In addition, Microsoft has attempted to set up a monopoly and force out competition by including software with Windows such as Media Player, which they have already been sued over by the EU. Microsoft even accused Linux of "stealing" it's intellectual property and claimed that all Linux users (besides SuSE users) were in violation of the law. Of course, they never went out of their way to back any of this up, even though the Linux kernel is completely open source and free to view...

But if you want examples of people Microsoft has gone after:
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+sues+over+Google+hire/2100-1014_3-5795051.html
http://clevescene.com/2005-03-30/news/kill-bill/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/01/19/offbeat.mike.rowe.soft.ap/

Those are from the first page of a Google search of "Microsoft sues."

 

Microsoft is always in court, that's no secret. But what i'm asking is how a home user, a casual user if you will, can feel like they can't place "trust" in Microsoft. I'm not debating the dislike many may have for Msoft, but where does this whole "i don't trust them" thing come in? Are you in fear you're going to be put in jail by using Windows? Are you in fear Microsoft is going to steal your personal information and ruin your life? Are you scared Microsoft is going to send you a sobpeona because you downloaded music in the Napstar days? I don't concern myself with the ongoings of Microsoft and their leagal teams. Now if i was coding programs using things that infringe upon Microsoft, then i would be concerned. But where does this lack of "trust" come in?

edit: my point being, are you or any casual user you know involded in that litigation? I'm trying to look at this from a broad perspective...

 

Ask these questions of the hundreds or thousands of early Napster adopters that got sued. If you want to go on trusting Microsoft, that's your call. Personally, I think it's naive to trust a company with that much money and is sue-happy. Every time I think of Microsoft I think of that movie "The Net."

I'm forced to ask you how you come about trusting someone. The question here is not what Microsoft has done to make you not trust them. The question is what have they done to make you trust them? They install software on your computer that sends information about you back to them, they add "features" to their OS' that allow them to turn it on or off if they go on a whim to do so, they sue people for reselling their software after they refuse to accept a return, and they prevent you from doing what you want with your own personal files and media such as opening them on other computers, transferring them to other media, or even use them after a reformat of their sloppy operating system. How does that add up to a trustworthy company? Maybe one day these things will happen and those of us who have been saying these things will be believed, but I hope that day never comes. Unfortunately, I fear that's what it's going to take to get things to change.

 

To me, you're confusing trust with dislike. I don't trust nor dis-trust Msoft per say. Are there some things they do that i find questionable, you bet. Do i feel my life and livelihood is at risk every time i fire up a Windows machine, heck no. Do i feel like Microsoft is sitting in a dark room watching what sites i visit, no. Furthermore, would i honestly care as long as it was not affecting me directly? There are a lot of people out there with Microsoft based computer i don't "trust" but i don't fault a company for that. I guess our definition of trust in these cases vary greatly. I don't look at it like handing the keys over to a 16 year old type of trust like it appears you do. Sure i'm un-easy about things, but that doesn't translate into a complete lack of trust for a company. I guess what it comes down to is i don't buy into the "conspiracy" thought process as i tend to think you do. I don't worry about trivial things like i'm assuming you do based on your complete lack of trust for a company. I would pose you the question, where does your lack of trust come from? And how is your everyday like affected by this? Tell me you hate Msoft, tell me you think they have unethical practices, tell me you don't like them having the power they do, and i'm there with you. But i'm just not seeing (maybe not understanding) the trust issue.

 

Can you even trust something you dislike? And doesn't that absence of trust itself imply a distrust for said person/organization? I use Windows every day at work. I don't think that there's someone at Microsoft sitting there staring at everything I do. I'm not a conspiracy theorist here. All I am is a sensible user. Google turns over search reports to the U.S. government, but I still use Google and search the way I always have, just as I continue to use Windows (though I would admittedly give it up if I could). And believe it or not, I do not hate Microsoft, nor do I want to see them go away. I love my Xbox 360 first of all. Secondly, Microsoft has made some genuinely decent software. A lot of people hate Microsoft Office, but I actually find it very streamlined, and the way that all the programs in the suite inter-operate is very useful. Is it the best thing out there? Probably not, but it's still good.

I'll admit that most of my distaste with Windows comes from me being a Linux user. The thing is that as a Linux user, I realize the flaws in Windows. If Windows was genuinely a better system and supported the ideals I believe it, I would have no problems with it. I really wouldn't have a problem with it even if were still closed source as long as it didn't infringe upon my rights with DRM, excessive licensing, and ridiculous prices for something that is not as good or dependable as the OS I use that I can download for free. But I'm not just pointing the finger at Microsoft; I have my problems with Linux too, particularly certain parts of the GPL. To be honest, I would much rather be running a FreeBSD system, but it's not even close to the distribution of Linux, let-alone Windows, and thus not feasible for me. At the end of the day, I have to choose the system that most closely follows what I believe and what I can live with.

You can point your finger at me and call me paranoid all you want, but I'm not going to change or all of sudden start pseudo-trusting Microsoft. I could easily turn around and point you out for being lazy. Unlike you, I don't think sitting around dealing with something until it goes too far is the answer, and if anything, history has proven quite the opposite. I'm not saying it's ever going to reach the level where Microsoft shuts down everybody's computer just because they want to. But my feelings are that they shouldn't even have the power to do so whether or not they ever get the urge to. It's the fact that they set themselves up with this kind of power that makes me distrust them. It's the fact that they attack the competition on unfounded grounds that makes me distrust them. Unlike you, I'm not gonna sit around and use a product that violates my ethics just because it's easier. That's not how change happens. It starts with one person, and spreads. You say that you hate Microsoft, but you're not doing anything about it; that's ridiculous in my opinion. If you truly hated it, you wouldn't sit idle and watch things unfold just blindly abiding the world like a child; you would go out and try to change it. There is a better way, but until you see it, you're not going to believe anything I try to say. And that's fine; it's your right.

My distrust of Microsoft comes from not only the things Microsoft does, but because I know that the grass is greener on the other side. I won't be locked into something simply because it's the popular, easier thing to do. That's not the way I work, and I only wish more people felt that way. But I think things are starting to change. I've seen more activity in the Linux section of the board in the past few weeks than I've ever seen on these boards. But hey, this is just my opinion... take it as you will.

 

Fair enough.

First off i don't hate Msoft, but i would tend to agree with people that took that stance. What i mean by that is, i would agree with many of the things they say, as i do with your argument, but i wouldn't say what they do/have done drastically change my way of life. Certainly not to the point where i wouldn't use the software.

Secondly, you happen to feel Linux is a superior OS which you're entitled to your opinion, but i would tend to disagree with that for various reason (granted it's been awhile since i've used it). Does that make your argument of trust and what is "right or wrong" any more valid than mine? I wish i could blame Microsoft for being monopolistic, but i can't. I stand firmly behind capitalism and free choice. Each and every time someone buys a computer they have a choice of what OS they want to employ regardless of the argument that Msoft holds a firm grasp on the market. Like me, they have any number of means to research an OS and software, and implement it into their daily lives. I feel like you're implying that 90% of the computing world is just naive to what's going on around them and blindly places faith in Msoft. Personally, from a business perspective, it's quite impressive what Microsoft has achieved, but hey we're not here to talk about market share and success of one OS to another

As for my being "lazy", do you base this on the fact i use Microsoft and not linux? Because based on what you said that's the only reason i could come up with for you to tag me as such. I've used OSX, i've used Linux, i've followed Windows development for years, allbeit much closer than i have Linux, but i make my decision to install Windows based on my needs. Now whether or not that makes it right, or implies that i "trust" msoft is open to your interpretation.

I just see time and time again, people say they don't trust Microsoft and i guess i take that differently than you do. Hard to say in the same post you don't trust something when in the same post you say how you use it. The credibility goes out the window in my book. Personally if i don't trust something, i will avoid it. If i dislike it, but find a need for it, then that's another story.

I'll say though, i do applaud your crusade. I have no problem with people trying new things, and being educated about them. You seem to know why you use Linux, and have many reasons to back them up, so bravo. Unlike you though, i have more reasons to use Microsoft, so i tend to hop on that side of the fence. Guess you can't be right or wrong here, i understand your opinions, and many of them are completly valid. I just see the phrase of "trust" come up and can't help but wonder what Msoft has personally done to them to infringe upon my thinking of trust.

In any event, good read, much better than the typical flame war of "omg Linux ownz, msoft is monopoly!"

 

DRM in Vista

It's a bit of a long read, and I personally can't vouch that it is 100% accurate.

I notice that it doesn't specifically address the Image Constraint Token option in HD-DVDs and Blu-Rays, which itself has not been implemented yet (the media companies are supposedly giving us a grace period out of the "goodness of their heart", or at least until we've committed ourself to their format...).

However, the potential misuse/abuse of an encrypted path in your OS that you have no control over, and which can potentially deny you access to media you have legitimately paid for, is definitely not worth my shelling out 300 bucks to MS for me to experiment with. (Ironically, the only HD media a non-TPM compliant PC might play in the future is pirated stuff ).

The gist is that Vista won't go around adding DRM to your existing files, and it won't deny you playing non-protected stuff (not overtly, at least). It's much more insidious than that. With Vista (and TPM), Mircosoft is creating a silent monopoly of control over the distritbution and playback of media, not to mention exerting control over other operating systems' ability to do so (remember the CSS and Linux fiasco? This is going to be a million times worse). It already has tangible drawbacks to your ability to use your PC (eg lack of AEC in microphone inputs).

The bottom line is that the warier and more paranoid the consumer is, the more ground Microsoft will have to give. PC component makers are already reporting lower-than expected sales post-Vista. Vote with your dollar.

 

Awesome article. I'm not even half of the way through it and I've learned so much it's ridiculous. In a perfect world this would be knowledge to everyone, but we don't live in a perfect world...