PDA

View Full Version : More drm problems:P



Teroedni
August 4th, 2005, 01:47 PM
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25124

If this is really true i can seea alot og people looking for alternatives.
\\:D/

Brunellus
August 4th, 2005, 02:08 PM
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25124

If this is really true i can seea alot og people looking for alternatives.
\\:D/

Nobody has answered one basic question: why should any user shell out cash to upgrade to Vista/Longhorn?

Most businesses are still running win2k; many users are still running 98 and even 95(!). Vista will gain share because it will be pre-installed on millions of new systems all over the world. For those users purchasing new systems, Vista's DRM mechanisms will be user-transparent--their new systems will come bundled with monitors, and everything will work just like it should.

Brunellus
August 4th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Ohh
Your so right there. I kinda dident think it come preinstalled<--stupid me

No need to be sarcastic.

Again, answer the question: for a user who buys an entirely new system, monitor included, is Vista's DRM implementation even an issue?

The answer is no.

Does it bother those of us who don't believe in locked-down hardware? Yes. But end-users buying Microsoft and Dell's latest and greatest won't even notice.

macgyver2
August 4th, 2005, 04:12 PM
Reading stuff like that makes me think "lawsuit".

Teroedni
August 4th, 2005, 04:17 PM
Soory if i were a bit unclear. What i mean is that i really dident thinked over that the vista system come preinstalled.No sarcasm there.


Your are right about it and therefore the user wont notice it as all will work nice with eachother.


Again i was not sarcastic or anything else.

Brunellus
August 4th, 2005, 04:53 PM
Soory if i were a bit unclear. What i mean is that i really dident thinked over that the vista system come preinstalled.No sarcasm there.


Your are right about it and therefore the user wont notice it as all will work nice with eachother.


Again i was not sarcastic or anything else.

Microsoft's overwhelming dominance in desktop operating systems stems from the fact that it is installed on every new computer that runs the most popular personal-computer architecture out there (the intel x86 architecture).

New hardware has tended to mean an OS upgrade, in my experience. We were happy with DOS, until we bought a new computer that ran Win 3.11. We were happy with Win 3.11, until we bought a new computer that ran Win 95. We were happy with Win 95 until we bought a new computer that ran Win98, then WinME, now XP....each new version of Windows has been accompanied by a new computer. I think the last OS upgrade on existing equipment we attempted in our family was from DOS 5.0 to 6.2

Kvark
August 4th, 2005, 05:21 PM
New hardware has tended to mean an OS upgrade, in my experience. We were happy with DOS, until we bought a new computer that ran Win 3.11. We were happy with Win 3.11, until we bought a new computer that ran Win 95. We were happy with Win 95 until we bought a new computer that ran Win98, then WinME, now XP....each new version of Windows has been accompanied by a new computer. I think the last OS upgrade on existing equipment we attempted in our family was from DOS 5.0 to 6.2
Yeah, OS upgrades on old computers are rare. Some users actually think that it is impossible to change OS on a computer. That if it came with for example WinME then it's impossible to install any other version of windows or any other OS on it.

Brunellus
August 4th, 2005, 05:26 PM
Yeah, OS upgrades on old computers are rare. Some users actually think that it is impossible to change OS on a computer. That if it came with for example WinME then it's impossible to install any other version of windows or any other OS on it.

...probably because the hardware requirements for the new version of Windows are always cripplingly huge.

weasel fierce
August 4th, 2005, 06:51 PM
I wonder how much the hardware manufacturers paid for this one

KezzerDrix
August 4th, 2005, 07:08 PM
Speaking as a relatively new member to the Linux horde, I can state that one of the main reasons I switched to Linux is due to DRM and TCPA. I think it is wrong that an OS should play the Big Brother role. I don't need it, so I jumped ship.

Also, I enjoy the no spyware, or viruses thing too. As well as getting to enjoy my computer and not simply just maintaining it.

NeoSNightmarE
August 5th, 2005, 04:21 AM
Speaking as a relatively new member to the Linux horde, I can state that one of the main reasons I switched to Linux is due to DRM and TCPA. I think it is wrong that an OS should play the Big Brother role. I don't need it, so I jumped ship.

Also, I enjoy the no spyware, or viruses thing too. As well as getting to enjoy my computer and not simply just maintaining it.
Whoa. Now there's monitors? Damn. That sucks for Vista users. And to back the example used that a lot of businesses are using win2k, that's what my university uses. And yes, it sucks to have to use it but it won't boot into the live CD. I need to seriously find a way around that.

Brunellus
August 5th, 2005, 02:14 PM
Whoa. Now there's monitors? Damn. That sucks for Vista users. And to back the example used that a lot of businesses are using win2k, that's what my university uses. And yes, it sucks to have to use it but it won't boot into the live CD. I need to seriously find a way around that.

I detect a thread hijack in progress, but I'll abet it this time.

1) I have maintained, repeatedly, that the DRM implementation in Vista will be largely [I]user-transparent[I], since most Vista users will get the OS with new hardware anyway. When was the last time you upgraded Windows on an old computer? By the time a new release comes around, you begin to calculate that the bother of actually installing Windows (something that isn't as merciful as Ubuntu's installer...not to mention YAST in SuSE) is more trouble than the cost of new hardware.

2) You have to be fast with your computers. Not booting from the CD is a BIOS problem, rather than a problem with Win2k. Do this: insert the LiveCD, reboot--AND WATCH THE COMPUTER.....you will need to hit F1 or delete immediately when the BIOS splash screen comes on right at the start of the boot sequence. That should let you choose which device you want BIOS to boot from. Point it to the CD-ROM drive, and let 'er rip. Works like a charm!

aveline
August 5th, 2005, 11:21 PM
I detect a thread hijack in progress, but I'll abet it this time.

1) I have maintained, repeatedly, that the DRM implementation in Vista will be largely [I]user-transparent[I], since most Vista users will get the OS with new hardware anyway. When was the last time you upgraded Windows on an old computer? By the time a new release comes around, you begin to calculate that the bother of actually installing Windows (something that isn't as merciful as Ubuntu's installer...not to mention YAST in SuSE) is more trouble than the cost of new hardware.

2) You have to be fast with your computers. Not booting from the CD is a BIOS problem, rather than a problem with Win2k. Do this: insert the LiveCD, reboot--AND WATCH THE COMPUTER.....you will need to hit F1 or delete immediately when the BIOS splash screen comes on right at the start of the boot sequence. That should let you choose which device you want BIOS to boot from. Point it to the CD-ROM drive, and let 'er rip. Works like a charm!
some bioses are locked down with pwords & the like so its not possible to boot it from cd. ymmv ofc.

aveline