[CP5670]

I will get Vista when some program requires it or benefits from it, most probably a DX10 game when those start coming out. At the moment, it wouldn't be an upgrade at all, as I have no use for its features and it's not any better than XP with running my existing programs.

[DeepSpace9er]

So basically, you all dont want to upgrade to Vista because XP had more security holes than cheese when it came out, and you still want to crack DVDs that may have DRM protection. You know that regardless of how much security protection they put on the disc, and even if its uncrackable (just for the sake of discussion) it still has to be shown to you as a raw movie and thats where you copy it, if it gets down to that.

[Flipside]

When the DRM means that I cannot watch movies I have paid for at the quality I paid for in my own room, I'm quite willing to Pirate in order to get my moneys' worth.

And XP's security holes that effected me were mostly Network exploits, oh, and Spyware/Pop-ups. Thank God for Firefox else things may have been a lot worse.

[SadisticSid]

Actually...when Windows XP came out performance was usually in favour of WinXP over Win98 and definitely over WinME.  As far as the consumer level OS was going...XP was an improvement across the board.

No way - remember that, at the time XP came out, the majority of machines were equipped with 128 - 256MB of RAM, and by comparison XP ran like a dog compared to the rather svelte memory footprint of 98. It was the Vista of its day.

[jr2]

... hook up DVI - out from one computer's graphics card to DVI - in on second computer's capture card.  :  Although I think they are trying to make a way to stop that, too.

[Bob-san]

Re: Vista memory usage:

What's the point of having 2GB of RAM if it's mostly unused and the OS swaps stuff to disk heavily? Point is that RAM should be consumed before the OS even begins to swap to disk; WinXP doesn't understand this and typically starts swapping after about 100MB of user apps are in memory. Even on a 2GB system.

You can turn off your pagefile or set a permanent swapfile on either your C: drive or a partition. If I had 2GB of RAM, I'd probably turn off pagefile.

[Sandwich]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

"Luke. I am... YOUR MOTHER!"

[Flipside]

Scary isn't it.

Problem is, it's actually probably more appropriate after the image of Anakin given in the first 3 movies All he needs is a Light-Sabre with a rattle in the handle

[Sandwich]

Well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgPsrG4TZVc

[Flipside]

'Use the instrument Panel Luke, that's what it's there for'

[Sandwich]

You never saw the entire ThumbWars?

[Flipside]

Nope, that Meme passed me by. I'll have to go catch up

[jr2]

You can turn off your pagefile or set a permanent swapfile on either your C: drive or a partition. If I had 2GB of RAM, I'd probably turn off pagefile.

I wouldn't turn it off... I use XP with 1-2 GB of RAM on my systems, and some apps just have to have virtual memory, IIRC, or they misbehave.  Although, I think you could safely set a permanent, fixed-size 512 MB swap file, preferably on a separate partition.

[jr2]

Well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgPsrG4TZVc

ROFL
*goes to find full torrent*

[Descenterace]

You should be aware that this wasn't something that Microsoft wanted to do - The MPAA and RIAA wanted this. It was either this or not have Vista be able to play back HD-DVD and Blu-Ray out of the box. OS X will have similar measures in Leopard. It's the Movie companies that are enforcing this stuff. I say write to congress if you don't like it, not blame M$.

Bull****. Microsoft wasn't 'forced' to do anything. If they'd told Hollywood where to shove their DRM, there wouldn't be much protected content being sold but Vista would still sell. Probably better. Movie sales would've been hit, not Vista sales.

Same goes for the hardware vendors. Implementing this horrific, pointless DRM scheme cost them a lot, slows down their products, and costs the customer more. There's nothing in this for the vendors. All they had to do was tell MS and Hollywood where to shove it, and suddenly Vista would be unable to play protected content properly on any computer. Rendering the whole scheme doubly pointless. Again, sales of graphics cards and stuff would be just as high, but it'd be HD movie sales that got hit by it.

Yes, dedicated entertainment centers would be able to play protected content, but Media Center computers are becomng more popular. Given the fact that HD is mostly a gimmick, I can't see people being turned off a machine that'll play DVDs, etc just because it won't play the overpriced crap Hollywood has decided to foist upon us just because, come to think of it, people really are gullible enough to buy what they already have if the next version has a few unnoticeable tweaks that the salesman swears blind are there, honest, even if they're not visible.

That last sentence didn't do a whole lot for my point, did it...

[jr2]

Blu-ray vs HD-DVD... makes me wish that 50-layer DVD technology would come out soon...  It'd be even better with a blue laser, of course.

[Bob-san]

The average consumer is going to ignore Blu-Ray and HD DVD until they've duked it out sufficently... one goes the way of BetaMax and the other the way of VHS (just like DivX and DVD).

[neoterran]

You should be aware that this wasn't something that Microsoft wanted to do - The MPAA and RIAA wanted this. It was either this or not have Vista be able to play back HD-DVD and Blu-Ray out of the box. OS X will have similar measures in Leopard. It's the Movie companies that are enforcing this stuff. I say write to congress if you don't like it, not blame M$.

Bull****. Microsoft wasn't 'forced' to do anything. If they'd told Hollywood where to shove their DRM, there wouldn't be much protected content being sold but Vista would still sell. Probably better. Movie sales would've been hit, not Vista sales.

Same goes for the hardware vendors. Implementing this horrific, pointless DRM scheme cost them a lot, slows down their products, and costs the customer more. There's nothing in this for the vendors. All they had to do was tell MS and Hollywood where to shove it, and suddenly Vista would be unable to play protected content properly on any computer. Rendering the whole scheme doubly pointless. Again, sales of graphics cards and stuff would be just as high, but it'd be HD movie sales that got hit by it.

Yes, dedicated entertainment centers would be able to play protected content, but Media Center computers are becomng more popular. Given the fact that HD is mostly a gimmick, I can't see people being turned off a machine that'll play DVDs, etc just because it won't play the overpriced crap Hollywood has decided to foist upon us just because, come to think of it, people really are gullible enough to buy what they already have if the next version has a few unnoticeable tweaks that the salesman swears blind are there, honest, even if they're not visible.

That last sentence didn't do a whole lot for my point, did it...

Microsoft is a near-monopoly. If they don't bow to political pressures (read : RIAA and MPAA lobbying groups) then they'll find themselves being questioned and possibly broken up by the government. (It almost happened, but bush came into power and they lucked out)

Your suggestion of what Microsoft should have done (crippled an entire format they're behind themselves) shows how ignorant your viewpoint is.

[Sandwich]

(just like DivX and DVD).

Not quite... DivX is nowhere near disappearing... in fact, more and more DVD players are being built to support playback of DivX movies.

[ChronoReverse]

He's thinking of the OTHER DivX, with disposable discs and all.  Consumers decided they didn't want that bull**** =)


And there's no way even Microsoft can dictate to MPAA even if they weren't a monopoly.  There are a lot of Windows machines, and many copies of Windows Vista will be sold.  But think about how many DVD players there are.  MPAA simply has more than a little bit extra leverage over MS in this regard.