Vista: Get it now or wait?

[Vocenoctum]

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.

I've got 2 desktops and a laptop, all with XP, so it's not worth the trouble for me to upgrade.

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.

It's probably like XP, where you have to call and verify stuff in order to switch to a new machine, PITA really and one more irritation to put up with.

It's the probably I have with most of this DRM stuff. They use piracy as one of the reasons for higher prices, but force all these anti-piracy things on us without lowering prices. We pay more for more inconvenience.

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).

Last I looked, prices were comparable for Vista vs XP editions. My main issue with all the high prices is the cost of extra licenses. When I was building the new PC, I looked into just purchasing a license, and it cost the same as the retail version of XP (IIRC). I got an OEM version for a lot cheaper, so buying just a license is pointless. (I think the OEM versions are also cheaper than upgrade versions, so I wouldn't bother buying the upgrade.)

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

Linux will always be marginal, the barrier of entry to even KNOW what Linux IS, let alone use it, is too high for normal folks.
I don't think Vista is any different from the previous Windows releases really. I remember having to get a new HD when 98 came out.
Every reason Apple hasn't "won" in the previous years is still in force now. I can't see Dell, Gateway, HP or any of the others making iMacs or switching to Linux, so I think it's a moot issue.

Sure there's folks that build their own, but they're not a huge impact. It's even possible that folks build computers for friends & family. The Customer Support required usually makes that not worthwhile though. (I installed an aunt's printer 4 years ago, why must I still supply tech-support! How did she get my cell #!)

 

[Banshee16]

I'm not a hardcore programmer, so maybe I'm missing something....but why is it in Microsoft's interest (or any of ours) to have Vista automatically degrade the picture quality of HD content we're trying to play on a computer? It seems to me if you had purchased an HD DVD player, and rented an HD DVD from Blockbuster, you're entitled to the full quality for which you're paying. What right do they have to determine whether or not we can see it? Is it because they're afraid of HD DVD security protection being bypassed by people copying the movies off disks onto their hard drives, and then trading them with others?

Seems like you're still throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The "honest" users are being penalized in order to protect against pirates..

Banshee

 

[ssampier]

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...

I understand. That's why I was asking they were new(er) machines with Win2k or old machines with Win2k preinstalled.

I know that a computer does not magically fall apart after 3-4 years, but eventually they are beyond their usefulness; the point whether your competition can do the job more efficiently than you do.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I'm not a hardcore programmer, so maybe I'm missing something....but why is it in Microsoft's interest (or any of ours) to have Vista automatically degrade the picture quality of HD content we're trying to play on a computer?

The way HDCP works, is that every component of the system has to recognize the DRM. They're afraid that pirates could send the signal to an unprotected system and do something or... something.

So, if you buy a BluRay player, your TV, your audio system, your <whatever else> all has to have the HDCP setup.


If you buy Windows Vista, a BluRay drive and go to play stuff, your video card, your monitor, your speakers, whatever. All of it has to have the same DRM setup.

It was a big issue because not all HDTV's have the setup required for the DRM.

It seems to me if you had purchased an HD DVD player, and rented an HD DVD from Blockbuster, you're entitled to the full quality for which you're paying. What right do they have to determine whether or not we can see it? Is it because they're afraid of HD DVD security protection being bypassed by people copying the movies off disks onto their hard drives, and then trading them with others?

Seems like you're still throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The "honest" users are being penalized in order to protect against pirates..

Banshee

Not sure if you're familiar with the DRM thing from back when PDF books were popular. It's a similar situation. You have Format guys (BluRay, HDDVD) and Content Guys (Movie studios, etc) who have come up with a scheme that makes them feel super special. The consumer's desires don't matter, because I'm sure they figure we're all retarded and will buy regardless.

How this affects Vista, is that in order for MS to use these formats, they have to use the DRM that goes with it. (I believe the DRM is also hard-coded into the actual Drives also).

 

[babomb]

I'm not a hardcore programmer, so maybe I'm missing something....but why is it in Microsoft's interest (or any of ours) to have Vista automatically degrade the picture quality of HD content we're trying to play on a computer? ...Is it because they're afraid of HD DVD security protection being bypassed by people copying the movies off disks onto their hard drives, and then trading them with others?

Well, not doing so would have forced a showdown with the content publishers. Imagine having a computer with windows, and wanting to play your HDDVD on it, but not being allowed because Microsoft decided to make a stand on DRM (and thus having the drive disable output because it detects the OS as unsecure). The result for many consumers might be anger at Microsoft (and probably not at the MPAA), because Joe Blow doesn't are about DRM, he just wants the movie to play. The threat of Microsoft holding out might have sufficient gravity that those on the other side would grant some concessions, but I doubt they'd drop DRM entirely. Would the pressure cause MS or MPAA to cave first? It's difficult to say. So it was politically easier and safer for MS to work with the DRM instead of against it.

Seems like you're still throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The "honest" users are being penalized in order to protect against pirates.

Yes they are, and the pirates will crack the DRM and continue with their piracy, inconvenienced at most, while legitimate consumers face the consequences. The problem is that only a relatively small number of people know anything about DRM, a smaller number realize how it hurts them, and an even smaller number feel strongly about it. That means the RIAA and MPAA can get away with a lot.

 

[Relique du Madde]

You also have to remember Blue-Ray AND HDDVD, unlike dvd, are not standardized formats. As a result, if Vista were to play them at 100% quality Microsoft would become a competitor of Sony (Blue-Ray) and Philips, Toshiba, etc (HD-DVD). Which is not good for dvd player producing companies considering that a growing number of people are using computers or on computer-based technology (ie ipod) to play videos instead of dvd-players. As a result, I woudn't be surprised if the "nice" folks at Sony, Toshiba, et al sent a memo to Microsoft mentioning that they would not create Blue-Ray/HDDVD roms (for pcs) if Vista were to play at 100% quality.

Wait and see how OS Ten (or what ever its called) plays HD-DvD and Blue-Ray. If it plays at a lesser quality like Vista then I know I'm right... If it plays at 100% quality then Microsoft's new CEO is a spine-less coward (unlike Bill Gates who probably would have allowed it).


If that were to happen, I bet you those companies would refuse to produce Blue-Ray/HD-DVD-roms since it would mean that less and less people would be purchasing their dvd-players.

 

[Vocenoctum]

As a result, I woudn't be surprised if the "nice" folks at Sony, Toshiba, et al sent a memo to Microsoft mentioning that they would not create Blue-Ray/HDDVD roms (for pcs) if Vista were to play at 100% quality.

HD content DOES play at 100% quality when the DRM enabled components are used. Same as with players and HDTV's.

This is what Steel_Wind and I were debating. The quality reduction is only for unprotected sources. Sony gets money from the BluRay discs, the license fees, the blue-laser diodes, and 80billion other things, but the content producers (one of which IS Sony...) wanted teh DRM before they would provide the movies and such.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

How long before I'm watching HD DVD flicks on my linux box without all the brand spanking new video and display hardware that you need with Vista?

Sucks if you dropped a few grand on a huge Apple or Dell 30" display only to find it isn't HD compatable, or bought a video card recently that cost 200+ and doesn't have full compliance with the DRM specs. Love that Windows!

 

[Vocenoctum]

How long before I'm watching HD DVD flicks on my linux box without all the brand spanking new video and display hardware that you need with Vista?

I'm sure they'll try to tie the drivers for the drives to DRM in some way.

There was a bunch of articles when it first came up because a lot of HDTV's that were made before they came up with the DRM scheme, don't have the HDCP capability. Imagine buying an HD-DVD or PS3, hooking it up to your HDTV, and getting regular video.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm sure they'll try to tie the drivers for the drives to DRM in some way.

I'm betting within a year or so of mass adoption you will find sites that will have playback keys and hacked drivers to run these movies without the DRM. The industry can try, but there are minds just as sharp working against them at every turn.

There was a bunch of articles when it first came up because a lot of HDTV's that were made before they came up with the DRM scheme, don't have the HDCP capability. Imagine buying an HD-DVD or PS3, hooking it up to your HDTV, and getting regular video.

Yep, it's not going to be pretty. People are going to be pissed when a TV that cost 5 grand a couple years ago doesn't play HD video from their playback devices. People are going to blame Microsoft, wrongly I suppose, when Vista doesn't play their HD-DVD at 1080p on their 30" cinema display. A lot of early adopters are going to be screwed big time by this I think.