I'm staying off vista for now solely because of the DRM issues, and i think anyone technically inclined should do the same. DRM no matter in what form is bad for the consumer. While the scary things such as tilt bits and driver revocation are just a bit of speculation at this point, the fact of the matter is that it is BUILT IN to the OS no matter if you want to view HD content or not. Think about it... the OS is gonna restrict what you can do, not just the piece of software you're running. Thats kinda scary in my book. I have a copy of Vista Business lying around from the microsoft promotion, and until this DRM issue pans out (and from the looks of it a hack ready, it just needs to be released) I'm sitting content with my XP/Ubuntu setup.

You all forget that DRM is only used for media that is protected. It's not as if some omnipotent piece of software magically deems your music or films illegal and locks them out. It's just to let people play their HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs.
XP has the same bloody thing with DVDs.

I've used many versions of Windows, including Vista (Running it now), I've used Linux quite a bit and love Gentoo, and I've used OS X quite a tad too.
Vista is great, a fantastic and worthy upgrade.

Maybe I'll listen to your opinion when you've used Vista and you're more informed.

DRM is still DRM. It dismisses basic rights.

I'm not saying DRM is good, I hate the whole idea. But do you really think MS has a choice? It could either not include the DRM and piss off a lot of peiople who want to play BD or HD-DVD discs, or it can include it and let them play it, while pissing off us geekier customers.
OS X has DRM also, but you don't hear many people saying Steve Jobs is a **** (which, IMO, he is).

He may well be, but there's a difference between purposely making content considerably worse in quality, leaving security holes, and affecting a user's right to use their computer; and preventing others from listening to music you have purchased, a system which is optional and completely optional.

Originally Posted by Fophillips
I have never seen such tosh in my entire life!

It is probably the most uncomprehensive review I have ever read. You only included the "good" factors of Vista. Most of it was opinion, "it has a nice interface" or "ooh look, gadgets".

This was an overview of Vista from the enthusiast's point of view. I covered everything relevant to the enthusiast. You don't agree with my opinion? Go write your own review and get people to read that, be my guest. People come here to read what bit-tech thinks of a product, and that's what this review is.

You failed to mention the unimaginably awful things surrounding Microsoft's latest version of the bane of my existence. After being a long-time Macintosh, and GNU/Linux user I can honestly say Windows is, and always has been, lacking.

Regardless of your opinion, the market says otherwise. Windows has a 95% market share for a good reason. (For the record, I'm an OSX user).

Let's start at the first (and only) major difference with XP; the interface. Everything you mentioned in your review was purely opinion. I, for one, cannot stand the interface. It is ugly, over the top, obtrusive, and bloated. Translucent windows? Shiny buttons? I've had those for years.

w00t for you. For the 95% of the market, this is new. Most gamers don't have the luxury of running Linux.

Now, security. But didn't Microsoft say Vista was the most secure version ever, I hear you ask? Well, I think you're forgetting one vital point, "most secure" is not equivalent to "secure". And just because Microsoft say something, it doesn't necessarily make it true!

B1ll Gate$ $ux!!!!!1111 How did I miss this point?

The new UAC can be turned off! Neither Microsoft, nor the consumers realise that having a box pop-up to issue the most basic of commands won't make it secure. Users will become so accustomed to typing their passwords left, right, and centre, they will type it in without though, leaving them vulnerable to attackers. Or even worse, they will get tired of it and turn it off, making them administrators! Administrators!!

UAC doesn't require password entry. Try using it before critiquing it.

What about the sheer amount of choice? What the hell is the point? I think this cartoon outlines my feelings exactly.

Yes, the differing Vista versions are a little complex, there's no arguing about that. But are you saying you want MS to deliver less choice to the consumer?

Now the trivial stuff is out of the way, let's get to the truly awful aspect of Vista. DRM. While people recognise and will protect their property rights for their homes, cars and other such property, most are unaware of the attacks on the rights associated with information technology.

Imagine the builder of your home or the manufacturer of your car put locks on your doors and refused to give you the keys. They used the keys as a way to only allow you into your home when you have gained their permission to do so, and only under conditions they have set. The builder/manufacturer has made arrangements with other companies such that they will protect the interests of these third parties against you, the owner. The builder/manufacturer has also gone to various governments to make it illegal for you to remove their locks in order to put your own locks on, so that you can protect your property rights.

Guess what? You'd use another builder, one that you didn't think was ****ing you over. Don't like the restrictions on DRM content? Nobody is holding a gun to you and forcing you to buy DRM content. Go buy a CD. The market will decide.

This may sound like nonsense, but this is what has been proposed and in some cases already passed as law in some countries for information technology such as your computer, your home entertainment system, your digital camera, your camcorder, and your portable media players. They use confusing phrases like "Digital Rights Management" (DRM), Technical Protection Measures (TPMs) used by copyright holders, the "Broadcast Flag", and something the industry called "plugging the Analogue Hole". All of these are attempts to lock up technology which you could otherwise own, and make it a crime for you to use your own locks and/or remove the manufacturers locks.^[1]

See above. Nobody is putting restrictions on content you film yourself.

Microsoft use DRM lavishly. Inclusion of HDCP and DVP hinder the user's experience dramatically. Peter Gutmann, a computer security expert from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, has published a paper in which he raises the following concerns against these mechanisms:

• Adding encryption facilities to devices makes them more expensive, a cost that is passed on to the user.

The user is free to buy devices that do not support this encryption.

If outputs are not deemed sufficiently protected by the media industry, then even very expensive equipment may need to be switched off (for example, S/PDIF-based, high-end audio cards).

Users can purchase media that does not behave in this way.

Some newer high-definition monitors are not HDCP-enabled, even though the manufacturer may claim otherwise.

Show me a monitor that claims HDCP functionality that does not deliver. Seriously, link me one monitor that erroneously claims HDCP protection.

The added complexity makes systems less reliable. Gutmann cites anonymous sources from within Microsoft who, as he says, "are quite distressed about having to spend time implementing large amounts of anti-functionality when it's already hard enough to get things running smoothly without the intentional crippling."

Complexity always adds problems. Complexity also adds functionality. Are you saying that Vista should be functionally identical to XP, so as not to add complexity? Gutmann's quotations are anecdotal.

Since non-protected media are not subject to the new restrictions, previously legal users may be encouraged to illegally remove the protection in order to view them without restrictions, thus defeating the content protection scheme's initial purpose.

So wait... you argue against DRM, then argue that removing DRM is a bad thing? See above - no one is forcing anyone to buy protected media. If a consumer decides he doesn't want media with these protections, he is free to purchase alternative content.

Protection mechanisms, such as disabling or degrading outputs, may be triggered erroneously or maliciously, allowing denial-of-service attacks.

As can every other subsystem in an OS. Why don't we just remove internet functionality, that would solve everything?

Revoking the driver of a device that is in wide use is such a drastic measure that Gutmann doubts Microsoft will ever actually do this. On the other hand, they may be forced to do it because of their legal obligations to the movie studios.

Gutmann fundamentally misunderstands what revocation in the AACS spec is about. Nobody is talking about turning off functionality - what they are talking about is compulsory firmware updates / software patches to patch holes in the software. This is no different from the Sony PSP / PS3 / Microsoft Xbox, which forces firmware updates to maintain a consistant platform.

As you can see, Windows Vista did not deserve the 9/10 rating you deemed fit.

No, as you can see, your arguments are all total horse ****.

DRM is still DRM. It dismisses basic rights.

So don't buy DRM media and let the market follow, and donate to the EFF.

He may well be, but there's a difference between purposely making content considerably worse in quality, leaving security holes, and affecting a user's right to use their computer; and preventing others from listening to music you have purchased, a system which is optional and completely optional.

No DRM in Vista affects your ability to use your computer. It just affects your ability to purchase certain kinds of media, the usage of which is defined by pre-existing and publicised rules.

Get off the Vista DRM bandwagon and get your facts right. You sound like another blog-baiting know-nothing hungry to stick it to Gate$.

Do you even own Vista? Have you used it? Or are you just regurgitating the blogosphere?

Thought so.

Good point, use it before you bash it.

Originally Posted by Fophillips
...
Let's start at the first (and only) major difference with XP; the interface.
...

I stopped reading your post right there. There's a little more to the changes than that. Security: for one; not everyone has to run on an administrator account to get any real use out of the computer. DX10 also introduces significant changes under the hood. The list continues but I hope my point is made.

Originally Posted by Tim S
You'll be able to install unsigned drivers on 32-bit Vista. :)

that's what happens when I read a bit at a time. Still, this will cripple those hoping to use more esoteric or older hardware with 64 bit.

A note on OEM software:
It has long been the case that cheaper, licensed versions of Microsoft software have been purchased by enthusiasts building their own systems. Generally, you are entitled to buy OEM / system builder editions of MS operating systems if you're buying hardware, such as a hard drive, at the same time. You don't get retail packaging, just the disc, but you do get a legit key. There is a massive difference in price - the full version of Vista Ultimate can be had for around £130 on an OEM deal, and Home Premium for £75. Unless you have a distinct reason to buy retail, we'd suggest going with an OEM version. However, do note that once you've installed an OEM copy of Vista, the license agreement prevents you installing it on another machine. Upgrades, however, are permitted.

With upgrades you mean hardware upgrades? Because that's the only thing I want to know and still haven't got clear info on.. Can you upgrade/change the hardware in your PC when using a OEM Windows Vista?

Originally Posted by Fophillips
It is probably the most uncomprehensive review I have ever read. You only included the "good" factors of Vista. Most of it was opinion, "it has a nice interface" or "ooh look, gadgets". You failed to mention the unimaginably awful things surrounding Microsoft's latest version of the bane of my existence. After being a long-time Macintosh, and GNU/Linux user I can honestly say Windows is, and always has been, lacking.

I am sorry that you feel that Bit-Tech has not given your personal pet hate the critical attention that you feel you deserves. You may feel the review is subjective, but then again, you are not exactly starting off on a neutral and balanced tone...

This review necessarily limits itself to initial impressions of the user experience. If you want detailed analysis of use in various productivity scenarios and different hardware environments, you may have to wait a bit. It was only released yesterday, after all (and tell me, how does being a long-term user of other OS's make you an expert on Windows OS? Assuming that Will Harris is not exactly a novice PC user himself).

Originally Posted by Fophillips
Let's start at the first (and only) major difference with XP; the interface. Everything you mentioned in your review was purely opinion. I, for one, cannot stand the interface. It is ugly, over the top, obtrusive, and bloated. Translucent windows? Shiny buttons? I've had those for years.

OK, that is your opinion. Based on looking at static pictures.

Originally Posted by Fophillips
Now, security. But didn't Microsoft say Vista was the most secure version ever, I hear you ask? Well, I think you're forgetting one vital point, "most secure" is not equivalent to "secure". And just because Microsoft say something, it doesn't necessarily make it true!

Everything is "secure" for a given value of "secure" (think it over). Everything is "fast" for a given value of "fast" too. Don't believe what Apple says about that either... I guess everyone has their biases...

Originally Posted by Fophillips
What about the sheer amount of choice? What the hell is the point?

Of course MS could just release one version with everything, so people can then complain about having to pay for all those features that they don't need or use.

Originally Posted by Fophillips
Now the trivial stuff is out of the way, let's get to the truly awful aspect of Vista. DRM.

Oh yeah. Let's.

Originally Posted by Fophillips
Imagine the builder of your home or the manufacturer of your car put locks on your doors and refused to give you the keys. They used the keys as a way to only allow you into your home when you have gained their permission to do so, and only under conditions they have set. The builder/manufacturer has made arrangements with other companies such that they will protect the interests of these third parties against you, the owner. The builder/manufacturer has also gone to various governments to make it illegal for you to remove their locks in order to put your own locks on, so that you can protect your property rights.

This may sound like nonsense...

Not if you are renting the property. Then, all of a sudden, it makes perfect sense, and, is in fact common practice.

What people forget is that when you buy a film, some music, or software, is that you don't own it. You didn't buy the film, music or software (I mean, didn't you read the licence agreement? It is all that text just above the "I Agree" button); you bought the rights to use it. And there are conditions to this use, and by buying the product and using it, you are agreeing to them. You don't like it? Don't buy the product. Don't use it. Vote with your wallet. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Fophillips
Microsoft use DRM lavishly.

And if it doesn't, you'll be the first to point out how this expensive, ugly, piece-of-crap software doesn't even allow you to play a DVD or MP3 track. Don't blame Microsoft --blame the RIAA or MPAA. They got Redmond over a barrel just like us, the end user.

Originally Posted by Fophillips
As you can see, Windows Vista did not deserve the 9/10 rating you deemed fit.

Again, in your opinion.

Originally Posted by Fophillips
DRM is still DRM. It dismisses basic rights.

Fight the oppressor! --sorry, couldn't resist. :D

DRM affects consumer rights. Basic rights are stuff like life, health, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Consumer rights are a.o. getting what you thought you paid for, and paying a price reflecting the economic value of the product.

I'm getting a bit tired of people somehow feeling that films and music are their birth-right or something. I don't know, perhaps it is because I am an old fogey who grew up without his own TV in his bedroom. But it seems clear to me that there is a simple commercial transaction going on here. Media producers sell you their stuff, under the understanding that you don't make copies that allow more people to use said stuff than paid for it. The measures to which they will resort to ensure that may or may not be objectionable to the customer. If they are, just don't buy their stuff. But you are not entitled to that music or film any more than I am entitled to that Porsche.

AHEM.
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=1414510&postcount=45

Let's not beat a dead horse. :)

Been using vista for a few days on my school laptop, and Im not sure that I like it that much. The lappie is a two month old Dell Inspiron 9400 with a 1,6ghz C2D cpu, 1gb DDR2 677MHz ram and a nVidia 7900 Go and vista runs way slower than XP on it. And games.. I like to play games while having math, and I get about 15 fps less in Faces of War while using vista, then when im using XP. I dont care what everyone else says, I just dont like vista..
Although, if they release a program where you can remove security stuff and so, like the one avalible for XP, I might buy it.. (But just one of the cheap ones)

After reading some more articles on Bit-tech and other forums, I think its pretty safe to say that most people that stay away from Vista is because;
- DRM... well, everyone will agree that it's not done on an OS ;)
- Not a bulletproof driversupport (yet)
- So far it seems that games run quite a bit slower.

I do feel that I have to mention that it's pretty normal for a new OS to run somewhat slower then the previous version. After all, XP is 5 years old, and in those 5 years our hardware has become loads faster. Vista is at least 50% bigger then XP, with more features and graphic dooh-dah's. ANd it still needs a few updates to clean things up a bit, so it's quite normal for VIsta to be a bit slower.

But losing 15fps on a game, losing a healthy amount of driver-support/hardware-support and the fact that they STILL put in a DRM-system while more and more people start to either get rid of it or stop buying anything with a DRM on it... that's just impossible to understand. I really think MS is missing a few points when it comes to "user-friendly".

This "wow" hasn't started for me just yet ;)

Originally Posted by WilHarris
Regardless of your opinion, the market says otherwise. Windows has a 95% market share for a good reason. (For the record, I'm an OSX user).

Through monopolising, leaving people thinking there's no choice. Take for example most school technical administrators are blind to anything other than spending 1000s of pounds on Windows licenses, when there other, free options available.

w00t for you. For the 95% of the market, this is new. Most gamers don't have the luxury of running Linux.

Oh really?

B1ll Gate$ $ux!!!!!1111 How did I miss this point?

You have the wrong end of the stick, this could apply to any company. Companies, all companies lie. I was simply stating that you cannot believe everything you hear.

UAC doesn't require password entry. Try using it before critiquing it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/User_Account_Control.png

Yes, the differing Vista versions are a little complex, there's no arguing about that. But are you saying you want MS to deliver less choice to the consumer?

What is wrong with one edition with all the features? Seeing as all the discs are exactly the same, your serial key defines what packages to install.

Guess what? You'd use another builder, one that you didn't think was ****ing you over. Don't like the restrictions on DRM content? Nobody is holding a gun to you and forcing you to buy DRM content. Go buy a CD. The market will decide.

So I have no choice? Maybe I want the advantages of HD-DVD without the insane restrictions.

The user is free to buy devices that do not support this encryption.

Again, why can't the user choose their hardware to suit their needs, not those dictated to them by the manufacturer.

Users can purchase media that does not behave in this way.

See above.

Show me a monitor that claims HDCP functionality that does not deliver. Seriously, link me one monitor that erroneously claims HDCP protection.

Not being able to feasibly accomplish that, I cannot test this. But I am paraphrasing from a report which suggests otherwise.

What people forget is that when you buy a film, some music, or software, is that you don't own it. You didn't buy the film, music or software (I mean, didn't you read the licence agreement? It is all that text just above the "I Agree" button); you bought the rights to use it. And there are conditions to this use, and by buying the product and using it, you are agreeing to them. You don't like it? Don't buy the product. Don't use it. Vote with your wallet. Simple as that.

That is precisely the problem with DRM, you can't own software like that. "Don't buy the product" is the worst ****ing idea I have ever heard! Don't I deserve to be able to use a produce and not have my consumer rights compromised?

you'll be the first to point out how this expensive, ugly, piece-of-crap software doesn't even allow you to play a DVD or MP3 track

So the absence of DRM prevents you from even watching a DVD? Oh my, something must be terribly wrong with my computer...

Again, in your opinion.

I'm sorry, isn't a review an opinion piece?

Everything is "secure" for a given value of "secure" (think it over). Everything is "fast" for a given value of "fast" too. Don't believe what Apple says about that either... I guess everyone has their biases...

Secure, as in what is (or should be) recognised as secure. Immune to viruses, no wanton access to system files, under any circumstances (features turned off or otherwise), and a half decent built in firewall.

Though you may say "OS X and Linux have had viruses," OS X has had 2, yes 2, which didn't propagate successfully, and Linux has similar circumstances. For example for a virus to infect my computer I would have to manually execute the following:

tar xvf malware.tar.gz
cd malware
./configure
make
make install

If at any point it asks me for my password I know something is wrong. If I type "sudo" before "make install" I will have to type a password, but not after I verify the quality of the program, and developers. Plus, being open source, at any point I can open up any of the files in the tarball, and read over them to see what they are doing to my computer.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, I can also view the files before I untar them.

How easy is it to upgrade from RC1 (or any other beta for that matter) to the full version? :?
I want to upgrade, but I am a bit scared about losing all my stuff :'(

Wonder if they have made any advancement in their speech recognition software

This article will definitely affect my decision in purchasing Vista. I am worried about that whole UAC thing that I saw in whatever beta version I used.

My only problem here is why must every review compare Vista to a OSX? The only people who care are Mac fan(boys?) and Microsoft haters. I have used a Mac (9.something) so I atleast am not just some ignorant "MS Fanboy" just talking.

Anyway, I will be getting Vista, but not anytime soon. I'm going to wait for some (hopeful) improvements and a use for DX10.

Originally Posted by inflatable
Can you upgrade/change the hardware in your PC when using a OEM Windows Vista?

At the start of XP's activation system back in 2001 or whenever it seemed a very complex system, basically giving points covering the main hardware items (such as the CPU, hard drive, graphics card, etc) and you'd got to keep at least 7 points after upgrading. So changing the graphics card would lose a point, but changing it yet again wouldn't lose any more.

Now they appear to have simplified the system. A new motherboard is a new system, unless it's a replacement under the terms of the EULA, ie, the original motherboard has broken. Any other upgrades don't affect the OEM license.

Originally Posted by MS OEM System Builder Licensing Team
Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on your customer's computer and the customer may maintain the license for the original Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an upgrade or replacement of the motherboard. Unless upgraded or replaced under warranty, if the motherboard is upgraded, then a new computer has been created and the license of new operating system software is required. The original Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred to another computer.

See this thread for more.

I'll put off buying Vista (OEMFTW) until I next upgrade, as I'll need new mobo, processor, memory and graphics card; my two-year-old system is totally obsolete. Despite Da Dego's tree-hugger protests, it won't be too long.

Originally Posted by Mankz_91
I've allready had to order a copy of Ultimate so that I can run my PC on the School Network.

I've just got two little niggles with it..::

1) I think that Aero Glass thing looks absalutley hideous.
2) Lots of the photos you've displayed make it look like a Web2.0 version of OS X that will run on my PC. I think that someways with the design, Microsoft have just jumped onto the Apple Bandwagon (or is that iWagon ?? I forget these days)

Mate, I think you're lost. This isn't an Apple fanboys forum, this is a realist's tech forum. Everybody knows that they both borrow ideas off of each other, so if you're too blinded by Apple's ridiculous claims that Microsoft copy them all the time, then I think you need to reconsider your hobby.

Originally Posted by Fophillips
That is precisely the problem with DRM, you can't own software like that. "Don't buy the product" is the worst ****ing idea I have ever heard! Don't I deserve to be able to use a produce and not have my consumer rights compromised?

Your consumer rights have not been compromised. The producer has made explicitly clear under which conditions you can use their product when you entered the transaction. You can choose to agree to this transaction, or you can walk away.

Originally Posted by Fophillips
So the absence of DRM prevents you from even watching a DVD? Oh my, something must be terribly wrong with my computer...

Don't get facetious now. Without Microsoft including DRM, Vista cannot legally access DRM protected media. MPAA and RIAA would see to that. So Microsoft would have to block it.

Originally Posted by Fophillips
I'm sorry, isn't a review an opinion piece?

Exactly! So why do you accuse it of being subjective?

Originally Posted by Fophillips
Secure, as in what is (or should be) recognised as secure. Immune to viruses, no wanton access to system files, under any circumstances (features turned off or otherwise), and a half decent built in firewall.

Though you may say "OS X and Linux have had viruses," OS X has had 2, yes 2, which didn't propagate successfully, and Linux has similar circumstances.

Apple sold iPods infected with viruses; so much for security. Linux is indeed powerful and capable, but very unforgiving of inexperienced users and hardware that is not configured just right. Microsoft does not have the luxury of catering to knowledgeable geeks with an intimate understanding of their well-tuned PC. It has to cater to Joe Bloggs the computer noob, computer phobic admin staff at work, and to people with the weirdest old setups. It has to work every time, out of the box. Linux does not do that. It is a very different ballgame.

Originally Posted by MrBionic
This isn't an Apple fanboys forum

really? sometimes i wonder... :p


anyway, i thought i'd give vista a go and stick it on a spare hard drive i had lying around to see if its worth buying
thing wouldnt even install
try by booting from dvd, freezes up trying to start installer
start setup in XP, reboot, bsod on starting the installer
nice.


not like im running any odd hardware either, nf4 + AMD X2 + x1900

guess ill wait for sp1 and try again

Exactly! So why do you accuse it of being subjective?

At no point did I mention it being subjective, you're putting words in my mouth. I said it was uncomprehensive.

Apple sold iPods infected with viruses; so much for security.

You mean that virus that infected a Windows computer on the assembly line which then passed it on to the iPods?

Linux is indeed powerful and capable, but very unforgiving of inexperienced users and hardware that is not configured just right. Microsoft does not have the luxury of catering to knowledgeable geeks with an intimate understanding of their well-tuned PC. It has to cater to Joe Bloggs the computer noob, computer phobic admin staff at work, and to people with the weirdest old setups. It has to work every time, out of the box. Linux does not do that. It is a very different ballgame.

anyway, i thought i'd give vista a go and stick it on a spare hard drive i had lying around to see if its worth buying
thing wouldnt even install
try by booting from dvd, freezes up trying to start installer
start setup in XP, reboot, bsod on starting the installer
nice.

See, Windows isn't so hunky-dory after all. I just did myself a nice new install of Ubuntu, and guess what, it is working damn near perfectly with absolutely no configuration. Sure you can if you want, and I will at a later date, but it is by no means necessary.

Originally Posted by Fophillips
At no point did I mention it being subjective, you're putting words in my mouth. I said it was uncomprehensive.

You must have a short memory

Originally Posted by Fophillips
Most of it was opinion

oh, look, and again...

Originally Posted by Fophillips
Everything you mentioned in your review was purely opinion.

I would like to know if vista consumes too much resources over XP, I mean that will my games run considerably slower on vista than on xp (I wouldn't upgrade if I will have to sacrifice the gaming experience). I have a 3ghz P4, a Radeon x700 pro, and 1gb of ram.