Vista: Get it now or wait?

[Pyrex]

As with anything from Microsoft, consumer beware. Never, ever buy the first version of it. It always has bugs. While I'm no computer guru, I've found this to be very true.

Every piece of software always has bugs.

Not just v1, not just Microsoft, all of them.

 

[Pyrex]

On the desktop? Wow, some corps need to re-evaluate their desktop rotation.

As for servers, yeah, we have plenty of W2k Servers (many were replaced with Linux, of course, most were web servers).

Deploying new OS's can be hugely expensive for large companies. Not only do you have the cost of purchasing potentially hundreds of thousands of licenses, but many companies are still running critical line-of-business apps that are incompatible with newer OS's; so all of those solutions also need to be replaced. Not to mention the cost of retraining your workforce, creating and enforcing deployment & security policies...

 

[Steel_Wind]

There is a significant distinction between DRM and Defective By Design.

One is Digital Rights Management; the other is crippled software than can NEVER be made to work correctly. I am not a MS basher and I think they make great products.

Vista is not one of those great products.

They could have chosen to leave the media portion of the code entirely out and left it to be filled by third parties. We know what this would have meant. It would have meant that the DRM code behind HD DVD's and Blue-Ray would have been cracked and distributed in the same manner as that behind DVD's was cracked.

The result wold be that would would not have crippled software. Instead, because they wanted to market a "Vista entertainment hub" (a joke) they are passing off a defective design as a "feature".

Sorry, No freebies and papal dispensation here. I know crap when I see it - and that's crap.

 

[Vocenoctum]

There is a significant distinction between DRM and Defective By Design.

One is Digital Rights Management; the other is crippled software than can NEVER be made to work correctly. I am not a MS basher and I think they make great products.

Wouldn't it work correctly with properly certified software/hardware that was allowed under the HDDVD/BluRay terms?

The result wold be that would would not have crippled software. Instead, because they wanted to market a "Vista entertainment hub" (a joke) they are passing off a defective design as a "feature".

They could not leave out "multimedia features" in this day & age IMO. But either way I think the problem would not be as simple. I imagine that for the foreseeable future, DRM will accompany Blu-Ray & HD-DVD drives that want to obtain the licenses to make the stuff.

Something like this;
http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/dvdburners/0,239029405,240091720,00.htm

I don't think the HDCP is MS's fault, and can't fault them for putting it in Vista, it's common sense to me that they want multimedia and that they didn't didn't fight Sony over it.

Sorry, No freebies and papal dispensation here. I know crap when I see it - and that's crap.

To be clear, don't buy Vista if you want to use HD DVD's without the (probably unavailable) certified content viewer stuffage. Outside of this HD content problem, the DRM in question doesn't matter.


Basically you need a HDCP output (just like hooking a TV to the BluRay drive, or PS3 I guess) and also need the BluRay drive and such anyway. If you're looking for something to run BluRay's on your PC (at least commercial movies), you'll need to build to it more specifically than otherwise. It's irritating, but I stil fail to see how it hinders the Vista operating system.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Wouldn't it work correctly with properly certified software/hardware that was allowed under the HDDVD/BluRay terms?

No. That's the point. With 100% fully certified legal software and hardware, the maximum resolution that Vista will play is 520k pixels per frame (roughly 960x540). It will not go higher. It is defective by design. That's the point. It's not DRM.

720p, btw, is 1280x720. Vista will simply not play that resolution, let alone 1080p. It will stop SP/Dif SRS output too.

The entire point of HDTV, HDDVD and Blue-Ray 1080p is high resolution and 7.1 SRS. The hardware I own supports it. Vista ensures it will not work for the purpose intended.

I don't think the HDCP is MS's fault, and can't fault them for putting it in Vista, it's common sense to me that they want multimedia and that they didn't didn't fight Sony over it.


It's irritating, but I still fail to see how it hinders the Vista operating system.

See above.

I gather you do not use your computer monitors for watching movies and HDTV?

I, otoh, do. I spent significant money on large flat panel widescreen monitors for the very purpose.

 

[Vocenoctum]

No. That's the point. With 100% fully certified legal software and hardware, the maximum resolution that Vista will play is 520k pixels per frame (roughly 960x540). It will not go higher. It is defective by design. That's the point. It's not DRM.

720p, btw, is 1280x720. Vista will simply not play that resolution, let alone 1080p. It will stop SP/Dif SRS output too.

The entire point of HDTV, HDDVD and Blue-Ray 1080p is high resolution and 7.1 SRS. The hardware I own supports it. Vista ensures it will not work for the purpose intended.

I tried to reread the "what it costs" New Zealand article but it's not loading right now. I don't remember it from there, so maybe I missed it. Everything else I've read on the subject specificies that it's a limit imposed because of the certification process and is dependant on the items in use, not some artificial limitation that is a maximum.

I'll check it again later.

I gather you do not use your computer monitors for watching movies and HDTV?

I use my laptop as a portable DVD player during trips, but otherwise don't usually, no. I do recognize that people do of course.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I tried to reread the "what it costs" New Zealand article but it's not loading right now. I don't remember it from there, so maybe I missed it. Everything else I've read on the subject specificies that it's a limit imposed because of the certification process and is dependant on the items in use, not some artificial limitation that is a maximum.

I'll check it again later.

From the Vista engineers FAQ on DRM, located here on Microsoft's site:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx


Will the playback quality be reduced on some video output types?

Image quality constraints are only active when required by the policy associated with the content being played, and then only apply to that specific content -- not to any other content on the user's desktop. As a practical matter, image constraint will typically result in content being played at no worse than standard definition television resolution. In the case of HD optical media formats such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the constraint requirement is 520K pixels per frame (i.e., roughly 960x540), which is still higher than the native resolution of content distributed in the DVD-Video format. We feel that this is still yields a great user experience, even when using a high definition screen.

There you have it: 960x540 is the top end resolution for Vista protected content. Beyond that - it is constrained (artificially capped) It will not show 720p (HD-DVD and HDTV@ 1280x720) in the resolution intended. As for Blue-Ray and 1080p - not even remotely close.

Defective by design.

 

[Vocenoctum]

From the Vista engineers FAQ on DRM, located here on Microsoft's site:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx


Will the playback quality be reduced on some video output types?

Image quality constraints are only active when required by the policy associated with the content being played,

This is the part really. "As required" does not mean "always".

and then only apply to that specific content -- not to any other content on the user's desktop. As a practical matter, image constraint will typically result in content being played at no worse than standard definition television resolution. In the case of HD optical media formats such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the constraint requirement is 520K pixels per frame (i.e., roughly 960x540), which is still higher than the native resolution of content distributed in the DVD-Video format. We feel that this is still yields a great user experience, even when using a high definition screen.

There you have it: 960x540 is the top end resolution for Vista protected content. Beyond that - it is constrained (artificially capped) It will not show 720p (HD-DVD and HDTV@ 1280x720) in the resolution intended. As for Blue-Ray and 1080p - not even remotely close.

Defective by design.

The limitation is when the constraints are used. The constraints are used according to the HDCP setup.

 

[Vocenoctum]

No. That's the point. With 100% fully certified legal software and hardware, the maximum resolution that Vista will play is 520k pixels per frame (roughly 960x540). It will not go higher. It is defective by design. That's the point. It's not DRM.

720p, btw, is 1280x720. Vista will simply not play that resolution, let alone 1080p. It will stop SP/Dif SRS output too.

The entire point of HDTV, HDDVD and Blue-Ray 1080p is high resolution and 7.1 SRS. The hardware I own supports it. Vista ensures it will not work for the purpose intended.

Okay, the other link finally loaded. In it, the constrained media is all in relation to HDCP (or similar). He mentions right at the start about a problem with graphics cards not being available being the problem.

So, to sum up, as I said and all these places support:
Windows Vista will support Hi-Def feedback in any resolution, if the system is built to comply with the requirements of the content provider, i.e. HDCP. Components will need to be certified, probably graphics cards, HDDVD/BluRay Drive, monitor and any programs used.

Microsoft's only part in this, is complying with the requirements for using these formats, as instituted by the companies involved. Whenever you buy a HiDef format, you support these companies DRM schemes.

 

[greymist]

I expect that I will never buy Vista or any future version of Windows. At home I have Win2000 on my ancient desktop, WinXP Pro on my wife's newer but not overly powerful desktop and Win XP Home on my two laptops. I plan on converting all to XP Pro over time, and then stay put. I believe MS has confirmed that they will support XP for another 8 years, which is long enough for me. After that, I will hopefully be able to find a version of Linux that works well enough to become my new OS of choice.

And there is a good chance that any new computers I buy will be Macs. I bought an iMac last year, and it is an absolute joy to work with. Plugged in the power cable, turned it on, and I was connected to my neighbour's unprotected wireless network almost immediately! They just work.

It makes no sense to buy Vista right now, as SP1 is already being planned for later this year, that would be the earliest that I would even consider buying it. Also, if you get Vista installed on a new PC, the EULA does not allow you to install that copy of the OS on a new machine even if you scrap the old one, apparently OEM licenses are tied to the machine not the person.

And I think it was mentioned previously, you have to have WinXP installed on the computer if you are installing the Vista upgrade, you can't simply put in your XP CD for verification. This is a major inconvenience. If you have a hard disk crash you are going to have to install two OS's in order to get your computer running again!

Also, the cost of Vista is ridiculous. You pretty well have to buy the top end Ultimate edition to get all of the networking and media features, which Best Buy Canada has listed for $299 for the upgrade, compare that to $149 for OSX Tiger, or $249 for the FAmily Pack of Tiger (5 licences). Not to mention the hardware requirements are pretty high end. MS recommends 1 GB of RAM, but most reviews I have read say that 2 GB is the bottom end. That is a LOT of memory just to run your OS, IMO.

I wonder if Vista will actually push a critical mass of people to Linux or perhaps Macs?

Finally a comment about business. I work for one of the largest Federal government departments in Canada, around 40,000 employees, and we will be migrating from Win2000 to XP in the next two or three months. Our servers were converted from NT4 to Server2003 last year, and we are moving from Office 2000 to Office 2003. I expect there are a lot of large businesses that are like us, and will not be shovelling out the cash for Vista for many years!