Windows 7: Even more reasons to love it...

[ToeClaws]

these two bug me a bit..

Windows can be even more functional than the other big OSes. but at the same time it can be less. Depending on your needs. (Unless you go 64 bit.. I can't find anymore annoying thing as running a game that won't install because the installer is still 16 bit)

I guess it depends on the definition and depth of complexity. Windows is designed primarily as a desktop OS, and primarily for the average-Joe user. As such, there are features it lacks and some aspects of its design that are weak, but only in contrast to the user's needs. You can do a lot of more interesting technical things out of the box with just about any Linux or Unix distribution than you can do with Windows, but whether it matters or not is ultimately up to what the user perceives as an important need or not.

The second one also depends on what "advanced" level is.. but at the same time, it is not really available to be tinkered with inside a code system, you can still do a LOT of modding to Windows; especially if you turn off it's fail-safes. (something I wished my Kubuntu box had more of )

Yes, Windows can be modified quite a bit - I certainly do it to my own copies of Windows and always have (I love stripping them down to absolute bare-bones minimums for efficiency, for example). The difference comes down to the level to which you can do these modifications. With Windows, you can only do so much before you're going to have to hack it or concede defeat. With most of the Linux and Unix OS's, you can change anything (even code your own additions or fixes if you really know what you're doing) so long as you have the patience and the desire to learn how. Doing so in a non-Windows OS though isn't always as simple and can be more tedious. Again - comes down to what the user is comfortable with.

 

[Shokuji]

does this mean to imply that Windows 7 does not go so great with "only" 4GB of RAM

No, in fact 3GB is probably just fine, actually.
But I didn't buy 3 or 4, I bought 6.
..Why are people going out of their way to start conflicts?

 

[Shokuji]

• Better than Vista? Yes
• Good for Games? Yes
• Interface? Good (improved and less annoying than Vista, but not as simple as Win2K)
• You love PC gaming and want to run the latest games
• You enjoy specific software not available to other operating systems and/or that don't run under emulators
• You actually like Windows
• You're not overly concerned about security

Sounds like me. I'll throw $200 at it, should be a decent upgrade.

• Pro-DRM? Yes
• Open Source? Hahahahaha... no
• It's the least secure of the major OS's.
• Though smaller than Vista, it's still bloated in size

I am fairly anti-drm, but I just don't buy content that is DRM protected (when possible). I don't really care about open source. If someone is going to hack my computer, they're going to do it regardless of what OS I'm running. Western Digital just put out a 2TB drive.. why can't programs expand with the extra space? If speed isn't effected, then most people won't care so much.

You have ethical issues with DRM and corporations controlling too much in the OS

What parts of Windows 7 do corporations control? o.o I don't follow this sort of thing too closely.

 

[Runefox]

I'd like to point out that "DRM" exists in Windows XP and Vista, too, being shipped with SecuROM. It's possible to rip it out, but I'm not sure what effect this would have. Still, I'm a little uncertain as to what sort of extra draconian DRM we're looking at for Windows 7, here.

 

[WarMocK]

I'd like to point out that "DRM" exists in Windows XP and Vista, too, being shipped with SecuROM. It's possible to rip it out, but I'm not sure what effect this would have. Still, I'm a little uncertain as to what sort of extra draconian DRM we're looking at for Windows 7, here.

Well, Win 7 blocks 3rd-party video codecs for WMP and WMC (though other players are supposed to work with them). This might be just in the RC, but it's strange nevertheless. :-|

 

[Runefox]

Could be that it doesn't use DirectShow the way it used to. I know for a fact that in some cases, especially with 64-bit Windows (Vista or XP), codecs for DirectShow/WMP sometimes will not work properly due to differences in the DShow model. It takes either 64-bit-specific DirectShow codecs/ACM's, or a workaround (forcefully registering the DLL's) in order for it to work.

And for reference, Windows Media Player/Windows Media Center use DirectShow codecs, which are installed system-wide.

 

[Shokuji]

I'm a little uncertain as to what sort of extra draconian DRM we're looking at for Windows 7, here.

I've never heard that word used before Spore. There are other words out there that can be used. Besides, Spore wasn't draconian considering it asked for only 2 things: 1) CD in tray 2) Log-in.

But that's a debate for another thread.

 

[Runefox]

I've never heard that word used before Spore. There are other words out there that can be used. Besides, Spore wasn't draconian considering it asked for only 2 things: 1) CD in tray 2) Log-in.

But that's a debate for another thread.

Yeah, while it required only those things, it was also rather sensitive to hardware changes, software changes, sneezing, and installed its own drivers so that it could monitor said changes. And the whole "so many reinstalls and you're out" bit got people jumping.

 

[WarMocK]

Yeah, while it required only those things, it was also rather sensitive to hardware changes, software changes, sneezing, and installed its own drivers so that it could monitor said changes. And the whole "so many reinstalls and you're out" bit got people jumping.

Not to mention that it didn't like things like daemon tools (which is installed on all my XP systems. I see no reason for carrying the DVDs with me that I recorded from TV if I can use their ISOs instead 8)).

 

[Runefox]

Not to mention that it didn't like things like daemon tools (which is installed on all my XP systems. I see no reason for carrying the DVDs with me that I recorded from TV if I can use their ISOs instead 8)).

Yeah, I've had several instances where even things like Alcohol 120%, which is burning software was unacceptable and caused games to fail to run. Not Spore specifically; I was never really interested in it to begin with. I can't recall exactly what, now; It WAS, however, an EA game. I think it was C&C Generals.

 

[thunderfox5]

I like to see people whining and complaining about Windows, and how OSX is so much better. But usually, when a windows computer fucks up, it's actually the users' own fault.

And there's no real advantage or disadvantage to running either of the OSes. OSX is much heavier than windows, but only runs very certified software on certified machines. Windows is heavy, but works everywhere as long as one can take care of his computer, and Linux is free and light, but it takes actual knowledge to use it.

Me, being a user of all three systems, I like to see people throw the most badly informed comments about each.

I'll let out a simple story for you Mac users: Imagine how it would be to use a Windows PC (which is very basic) when you've never used anything but a mac? It would be disastrous. When I got my first mac, I didn't know how to use it. So I did what I knew. I knew linux, so I made a lot of use (and abuse) of the system terminal. I ended up with all my permissions screwed, and formatted the mac twice the week I got it.

So you see. It's not about what OS is best... It's really a matter of how much the user is allowed to screw it up.

 

[ToeClaws]

Sounds like me. I'll throw $200 at it, should be a decent upgrade.

What I don't understand about Microsoft is why they don't make it $20, or even make the desktop machine versions free. They don't make their bread and butter off of the sales of Windows, and it would help to convert a lot more people.

I am fairly anti-drm, but I just don't buy content that is DRM protected (when possible). I don't really care about open source. If someone is going to hack my computer, they're going to do it regardless of what OS I'm running. Western Digital just put out a 2TB drive.. why can't programs expand with the extra space? If speed isn't effected, then most people won't care so much.

First off, on the DRM issue - it's not so much that Windows 7 has DRM enabled stuff that bugs me, it's that Microsoft, as a huge, rich and powerful company so quickly accepted adding it instead of telling the various media industries to go suck eggs. What would the media companies do if Microsoft said "ha... no, sorry - we're not adding that"? Nothing - they wouldn't have been able to do a thing to force Microsoft's hand. Instead, Microsoft agreed, and that only encourages the development of godawful technology like DRM.

As for your efficiency statement - that's a TERRIBLE mindset. I first learned coding on Commodores and IBM XT's. They were weak, pathetic systems and you had to really REALLY make sure your code was as efficient and tweaked as possible to get the performance you wanted out of it. That mentality seems to be all but abandoned because everyone today just figures you can throw more/bigger hardware at the problem. Sure, you can, and it'll work, but it's so damn wasteful. I hate that such a greedy, gluttonous mentality is driving the industry. It would be nice to see efficiency make a return, and have hardware's useful life extended dramatically so that more people the world over in more income brackets could all enjoy what computers have to offer.

Interesting sidenote there - for a while Microsoft actually planned to make a version of Windows XP that was basically XP-lite, designed to be installed on old Penitum type machines still in use all over the world. I thought it was great idea, and surprising to see them catering to older gear, but they abandoned the project in favour of going back to the model of trying to force people to upgrade.

What parts of Windows 7 do corporations control? o.o I don't follow this sort of thing too closely.

This goes back to the DRM thing. The decision to add it to the OS means the OS no longer lets you, the user, decide what to do with your PC. Instead, it will tell you that you cannot play a file, or install a certain piece of hardware. That's allowing a corporation to dictate what you do with files and hardware that yours. Again, it's not so much a Windows 7 thing as it is a Microsoft thing (and in some cases an Apple thing). For one reason or another, these corporations thought it wise to introduce controls in the OS that really aren't any of their business. If you don't have a problem with it, then there's no worries.

 

[Runefox]

Well, the way I look at it is, for the most part, Windows is fine. If you've got a router between you and the internet and don't trust anything that's "bundled", such as Internet Explorer, then you'll probably do well. An antivirus product will help you catch those things that slip through your fingers. Combine that with common sense and a little experience and you can keep it running indefinitely.

Mac OS X... Well, I have my own thoughts about that, but the point is, to many, the interface is user-friendly (not to me, though). It combines the stability of UNIX-based systems with the familiarity of a tightly-integrated, managed environment. Power users can make use of Terminal.app if need be, but for most people who don't need to perform advanced tasks or modify their operating system beyond the wallpaper, it's perfect, and in many respects, idiot-proof.

Linux/BSD/etc are excellent for servers, since they can be made very lightweight, and are generally quite securable. They can be run without GUI's, which ensures that more CPU cycles get put toward what is really important. As far as the desktop goes, however, while the interface can be just as friendly as the other operating systems out there, the sheer amount of alternative ways of doing things makes for a decidedly un-unified experience that leaves novices guessing about the choices they're forced to make. Of course, there are plenty of attempts to create integrated Linux desktops, with varying degrees of success, but nothing has really managed to penetrate very far into the market. Even Ubuntu isn't quite there.

Of course, the major problem with any non-Windows machine is software compatibility, since its market share on the desktop is nigh-monopolistic. That means that while Mac users might get thrown a bone once in a while, they'll be missing out on most major software releases, and Linux users typically have to rely on open-source projects to make up for the hole in software support. While not terrible, these often aren't very far along. Notable examples are Blender and OpenOffice.org.

EDIT: I'd also love to know what DRM is being included in Windows 7 that hasn't been included in Windows XP and Vista? DRM is typically provided on the software or file format level, not the OS level. XP/Vista come with SecuROM bundled in; What does Win7 come with? For every time that this has been brought up, the only thing that's ever been said about it is that it has "DRM", and of course, DRM is evil. But in what way does it have DRM?

 

[Shokuji]

Yeah, while it required only those things, it was also rather sensitive to hardware changes, software changes, sneezing, and installed its own drivers so that it could monitor said changes. And the whole "so many reinstalls and you're out" bit got people jumping.

But that's not how it was. If I recall correctly, on the box it did say that some drm software would be installed. And I believe it has a 'revoke' feature that gave installs back. And even if you did hit the limit all that was needed was a phone call. And as long as the user isn't abusing their game and sharing it out to people, then it probably would have been a non-issue for most. And it was nice to be able to re-sell your games if you wanted to (can't do that in Steam).

They don't make their bread and butter off of the sales of Windows

What do they make their money from? o.o;

Microsoft, as a huge, rich and powerful company so quickly accepted adding it instead of telling the various media industries to go suck eggs.

It could have been a legal issue. Just look at how many anti-trust this or that there is going around. I bet the industry would have gone after windows for 'enabling' people to pirate stuff or whatever.

It would be nice to see efficiency make a return

But does more data always mean less efficient? What if it's just more complex or sophisticated? Again, if they can keep the speed up I don't think most will care about giving up a few more GB for Windows.

That's allowing a corporation to dictate what you do with files and hardware that yours.

I've not seen any DRM for hardware yet, but this is why I don't (or try not to) support DRM content. If I don't use it, it won't effect me. And lately there's been lots of DRM badmouthing in the industry. I'd not be surprised if in some way it was at least reformed or even destroyed. On that note, what do you think of Steam?

 

[Runefox]

And it was nice to be able to re-sell your games if you wanted to

. . .

 

[Shokuji]

. . .

What am I supposed to take away from that?

 

[thunderfox5]

So, now we are complaining against windows having anti-piracy features, and that makes it a bad OS?

Seriously. Ever considered buying original stuff, like, legally?

 

[Runefox]

What am I supposed to take away from that?

Most likely that I'm shocked that the ability to sell a game is considered a function of this DRM. It's true that Steam games can't be sold, but... The ability to sell a hard-copy should be inherent with any software. The fact that this ability needs pointing out nowadays leaves me stupefied.

EDIT:

Seriously. Ever considered buying original stuff, like, legally?

Well, it's not that which concerns me, honestly. Anti-piracy is fine. However, DRM often fails in legitimate cases - Take Windows Genuine Advantage, for example. It couldn't reliably tell between a legitimate copy of Windows and a pirated copy, and so when false-positives began to roll in, Microsoft actually took the step of adding a "maybe" option to its scanning/reporting process. There are also many cases where Spore's DRM failed on legitimate users, as well as in other cases. In my case, my version of Command & Conquer Generals back in the day used to fail due to a program that I had been using at the time which changed my Windows installation ID or something like that. Of course, that's an external factor, but there are other cases where things like AnyDVD, Daemon Tools, and Alcohol 120% cause certain software to refuse to run. DRM failure simply by virtue of having a certain type of software installed is almost as bad as random DRM failure.

 

[Carenath]

First off, on the DRM issue - it's not so much that Windows 7 has DRM enabled stuff that bugs me, it's that Microsoft, as a huge, rich and powerful company so quickly accepted adding it instead of telling the various media industries to go suck eggs. What would the media companies do if Microsoft said "ha... no, sorry - we're not adding that"? Nothing - they wouldn't have been able to do a thing to force Microsoft's hand. Instead, Microsoft agreed, and that only encourages the development of godawful technology like DRM.

And Microsoft is only too happy to push its own DRM technologies while its at it too >.=.>

As for your efficiency statement - that's a TERRIBLE mindset. I first learned coding on Commodores and IBM XT's. They were weak, pathetic systems and you had to really REALLY make sure your code was as efficient and tweaked as possible to get the performance you wanted out of it. That mentality seems to be all but abandoned because everyone today just figures you can throw more/bigger hardware at the problem. Sure, you can, and it'll work, but it's so damn wasteful. I hate that such a greedy, gluttonous mentality is driving the industry. It would be nice to see efficiency make a return, and have hardware's useful life extended dramatically so that more people the world over in more income brackets could all enjoy what computers have to offer.

Agreed

Mac OS X... Well, I have my own thoughts about that, but the point is, to many, the interface is user-friendly (not to me, though). It combines the stability of UNIX-based systems with the familiarity of a tightly-integrated, managed environment. Power users can make use of Terminal.app if need be, but for most people who don't need to perform advanced tasks or modify their operating system beyond the wallpaper, it's perfect, and in many respects, idiot-proof.

I actually made extensive use of the Terminal for things like: SSH, Telnet, Ping, Traceroute, Dig, Whois, Host, LFT and NMap
When I started using a windows laptop again (upgrading to a Wintel was cheaper than upgrading the macbook), I missed the commandline that was a part of my mac system.. I miss those tools and utilities that I found so useful.

EDIT: I'd also love to know what DRM is being included in Windows 7 that hasn't been included in Windows XP and Vista? DRM is typically provided on the software or file format level, not the OS level. XP/Vista come with SecuROM bundled in; What does Win7 come with? For every time that this has been brought up, the only thing that's ever been said about it is that it has "DRM", and of course, DRM is evil. But in what way does it have DRM?

Lookup Protected Path, its a DRM technology that Microsoft added into Vista and Windows 7.. it purposly degrades the audio and video output of 'protected content' when the audio and video are transmitted over older unsecured connections, which basically means non-HDMI connections, since only HDMI supports HDCP to my knowledge. VGA is an exception to this. The DRM code itself also contains mechanisms to prevent apparent tampering... tilt-bits that will reset the video subsystem if it detects an attempt to bypass the protection... the tilt-bits however can be triggered by something as simple as a programme glitch..
The main issue with this, asside from the obvious, is the needless increase in cost for hardware which has to be purchased, since older hardware wont support it, and the cost of supporting it inflate the price of newer hardware, or something to that effect:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

But does more data always mean less efficient? What if it's just more complex or sophisticated? Again, if they can keep the speed up I don't think most will care about giving up a few more GB for Windows.

It is more of a case, that the increased size of the programme means an increased amount of RAM and processor resources required to run the programme, which means the programme is less efficient on resources as a programme that was better written. The general argument is that using 'lazy' programming languages like Microsofts .NET produces a more verbose programme when a more succint programme can do the same job more efficiently.

 

[thunderfox5]

Well, it's not that which concerns me, honestly. Anti-piracy is fine. However, DRM often fails in legitimate cases - Take Windows Genuine Advantage, for example. It couldn't reliably tell between a legitimate copy of Windows and a pirated copy, and so when false-positives began to roll in, Microsoft actually took the step of adding a "maybe" option to its scanning/reporting process. There are also many cases where Spore's DRM failed on legitimate users, as well as in other cases. In my case, my version of Command & Conquer Generals back in the day used to fail due to a program that I had been using at the time which changed my Windows installation ID or something like that. Of course, that's an external factor, but there are other cases where things like AnyDVD, Daemon Tools, and Alcohol 120% cause certain software to refuse to run. DRM failure simply by virtue of having a certain type of software installed is almost as bad as random DRM failure.

Windows Genuine Advantage has been known to never fail. The false positives happened when people exchanged their motherboards and windows wouldn't activate, which could be made in windows XP and solved through a quick phone call to the activation center. On windows vista, the ability to change your motherboard and keep your license was revoked, because the new license stated clearly: A computer is uniquely identified by it's core components.

As for the Spore activation and your C&C activation, it's pretty obvious that if a program changed your windows ID number, you either used a program with features that go against the Windows EULA, or you were using a pirated copy of Windows. Bottomline is: You "disobeyed" the rules.

Programs such as DAEMON Tools and Alcohol are also not endorsed by Microsoft, as they install third party unsigned drivers to your system to make the drive emulation. Such cases are also declined all responsibility by Microsoft on the EULA. Again, user's fault for abusing the product!

One of the first rules of computer engineering I studied on my course, regarding user freedom and control, was that a program has THREE kinds of limitations: Those imposed by hardware, those imposed by software, and those imposed by the programmers. The program licenses and documentations are rules, and people often disregard them. Yes, I'm not saying that I respect all of them myself, but it's not exactly right to put the blame on someone for the user's mistakes.

 

[ToeClaws]

Whew, too many things to quote, heh. Okay - DRM thing needs more clarification here.

DRM has been around a while. Microsoft first introduced it with Media Player 10, and fully integrated it into Media Player 11, so yes - as Runefox pointed out, it's been around since before Vista. With Vista and soon with Windows 7, it was integrated more so, and they added the capability to have hardware DRM. That means if you install a piece of hardware that does not meet certain criteria, that Windows could refuse to use it.

Now... DRM itself is not evil - in fact, there are some cases where one can see a lot of advantages from it in terms of security and ownership rights. The problem is that DRM has the capability of being turned against the user by forcing the user to buy only certain hardware, or perhaps even certain record labels. Because the OS decides on what it will or will not do based on the DRM signature it sees (or doesn't see), there's a whole world of possibilities.

If I buy hardware for a PC, I just want it work. I don't want the OS being the thing to make any further decisions on whether it's the right choice in hardware or not anymore than I want the OS trying to make sure I own the music I'm playing, or the DVD that I bought is 100% legit and so on - that is none of the OS's business.

Just for the record, my music and movies and hardware are all totally legit, so it's not like I'm worried that it will get in my way because I know I won't. What bothers me is that it's capable of doing it. It's that potential that bothers me.

On that note, what do you think of Steam?

Heh, oh boy - my mate's heard rants on that one. I both love and hate the idea of it. In some ways, it's awesome because it's what the PC gaming world has desparately needed for a long time - a standard to unite games and control piracy, and that's good. I hate it though because it's a bit too picky. Once I activate a game, I shouldn't have to ever log on to Steam again. Now, one can argue that I can put it into "off-line" mode, but to do that, you have to go on-line. The Internet should NOT be a requirement to play something I own. I also dislike that for many Steam games, even in off-line mode, you have to launch Steam to play the game. Why? That just chews up resources. (But then I get whiney if a single extra meg of RAM is being consumed).

In the community aspect, I dislike it's lack of privacy. You can't screen your on-line presence enough, and it's disturbing that it lets other people see what you're doing and how much you've played something - that's no one's business but mine. Now you can just not make an account, but then you can't play with friends. But psh... I'm just old and bitter, so I tend to have grumpy viewpoints.

 

[Aurali]

<snip>

We get it, you are anti-Microsoft.
Now can we get back on topic of how Windows 7 Pwns Vista in every way shape and form?

I am pro-drm. only cause i like doing stuff with legal copies of other stuff >.>

and as a game developer. I want my money.

 

[thunderfox5]

If I buy hardware for a PC, I just want it work. I don't want the OS being the thing to make any further decisions on whether it's the right choice in hardware or not anymore than I want the OS trying to make sure I own the music I'm playing, or the DVD that I bought is 100% legit and so on - that is none of the OS's business.

By the description, it looks like a Mac

In all my seriousness, I think this would be a great deal of technology! Well, it's not like it doesn't exist right now, because if you own a 64 bit windows vista version, it only lets you install certified hardware. But further extending this concept will make computers a lot more reliable! Imagine only running Microsoft approved hardware! It's a dream come true for computer manufacturers!

We see harmony and perfection on the verge of happening here
And I only see one kind of people who could complain here: The illegal windows users.

Ultimately, DRM is a win-win situation for everyone. PCs get reliability, macs and UNIX systems get a bigger share of market, and as consequence, intercompatibility is pushed one step ahead!

 

[Carenath]

We get it, you are anti-Microsoft.
Now can we get back on topic of how Windows 7 Pwns Vista in every way shape and form?

I am pro-drm. only cause i like doing stuff with legal copies of other stuff >.>

and as a game developer. I want my money.

Im anti-DRM, not anti-Microsoft. I dont want my computer's OS dictating what I can and cannot do with my own own computer. I dont want my computer's OS telling me what I can and cannot play regarding media files, an what I can and cannot use regarding hardware.

I dont see the big deal with people pirating Windows... Adobe or any other over-priced computer application, it just doesnt bother me.

 

[Runefox]

I actually made extensive use of the Terminal for things like: SSH, Telnet, Ping, Traceroute, Dig, Whois, Host, LFT and NMap
When I started using a windows laptop again (upgrading to a Wintel was cheaper than upgrading the macbook), I missed the commandline that was a part of my mac system.. I miss those tools and utilities that I found so useful.

You should download a copy of Cygwin, then, and do a full install. It'll give you Bash and all those tools you've come to know and love. I've got it replacing my command prompt full-time. You can even compile apps from source using its tools, just like in *NIX/Mac OS.

Lookup Protected Path, its a DRM technology that Microsoft added into Vista and Windows 7.. it purposly degrades the audio and video output of 'protected content' when the audio and video are transmitted over older unsecured connections, which basically means non-HDMI connections, since only HDMI supports HDCP to my knowledge. VGA is an exception to this. The DRM code itself also contains mechanisms to prevent apparent tampering... tilt-bits that will reset the video subsystem if it detects an attempt to bypass the protection... the tilt-bits however can be triggered by something as simple as a programme glitch..

See, this is actually more part of the HDCP protocol (which also supports DVI, which is directly compatible with HDMI so long as the signal is digital) than anything. As I understand it, this is all part and parcel of the HDCP spec, which will normally outright break a non-HDCP high definition video and degrade high definition audio. Given this, it seems more like Microsoft's implementation here actually provides extra support and a work-around for those devices that don't have HDCP.

Windows Genuine Advantage has been known to never fail

I stopped reading that paragraph here. There is so much evidence to the contrary that you're just not even funny. I'm not gonna touch this one any further. Perhaps you were thinking WPA?

As for the Spore activation and your C&C activation, it's pretty obvious that if a program changed your windows ID number, you either used a program with features that go against the Windows EULA, or you were using a pirated copy of Windows. Bottomline is: You "disobeyed" the rules.

Not against any EULA, really, though it was "disobeying" the rules. Normally that value would never be touched, though it's globally-identifiable since it never changes. That's why the copy-protection thought it was a good place to look to be sure that the computer it's running on is the same as it was the last time it was launched.

Programs such as DAEMON Tools and Alcohol are also not endorsed by Microsoft, as they install third party unsigned drivers to your system to make the drive emulation. Such cases are also declined all responsibility by Microsoft on the EULA. Again, user's fault for abusing the product!

Uh. What? Endorsed by Microsoft? Hell, Mozilla Firefox isn't endorsed by Microsoft, either. Microsoft isn't exactly in charge of what gets installed on their operating system. In addition, the drivers installed by Alcohol 120% (for its iSCSI CD/DVD-ROM emulation) are indeed signed drivers, and AnyDVD, to my knowledge, doesn't install any drivers. I can't speak for Daemon Tools, however, since I haven't used that in ages. No, the DRM failed because it specifically sought out these programs and failed if they were present on the system, not because they caused an incompatibility. It was a known "issue", and touted as an anti-piracy measure.

Yes, I'm not saying that I respect all of them myself, but it's not exactly right to put the blame on someone for the user's mistakes.

The point is, the EULA has no legal binding, and is also not an instruction manual. The presence of certain software on a PC has nothing to do with any EULA; It's the stupid design of DRM products of the day that caused these issues.

Heh, oh boy - my mate's heard rants on that one. I both love and hate the idea of it. In some ways, it's awesome because it's what the PC gaming world has desparately needed for a long time - a standard to unite games and control piracy, and that's good. I hate it though because it's a bit too picky. Once I activate a game, I shouldn't have to ever log on to Steam again. Now, one can argue that I can put it into "off-line" mode, but to do that, you have to go on-line. The Internet should NOT be a requirement to play something I own. I also dislike that for many Steam games, even in off-line mode, you have to launch Steam to play the game. Why? That just chews up resources. (But then I get whiney if a single extra meg of RAM is being consumed).

Buh? "Off-line" mode? Never heard of it. When my net connection dies, Steam just launches my Steam-bought games like normal.

Anyway, on a completely DRM-related note, as a Canadian, I've become rather used to and fond of the right to make and maintain personal backups of the media I purchase. DRM circumvents that right. In addition, issues with compatibility (if I remember correctly, I believe Casino Royale, in particular, when released, had issues with several players (amusingly enough, Sony players, too)) and reliability come into play, as well. It costs R&D money, costs money to implement, is completely ineffective (DRM-protected media is broken rather quickly), and basically passes the net result of piracy on to the consumer in the form of major inconvenience. There is no need for DRM, until it works properly and reliably, and the sooner people realize it, the better. EA, to their credit, has begun to have a minor epiphany over that.

EDIT:

By the description, it looks like a Mac

Not really. Such an OS would be really any current or previous OS.

In all my seriousness, I think this would be a great deal of technology! Well, it's not like it doesn't exist right now, because if you own a 64 bit windows vista version, it only lets you install certified hardware.

Not true. This can be disabled, and thankfully so. It does introduce a measure of reliability, insofar as reliability equals bribery to Microsoft, such as is the case with the Intel GMA 950 integrated graphics chips.

But further extending this concept will make computers a lot more reliable! Imagine only running Microsoft approved hardware! It's a dream come true for computer manufacturers!

I... I seriously hope this is sarcasm.

We see harmony and perfection on the verge of happening here

Nnnnnot... Really...

And I only see one kind of people who could complain here: The illegal windows users

Again, not really. Small hardware vendors will have a hard time paying for Microsoft WHQL'd drivers, and will delay hardware releases significantly as those drivers are queued up in the labs. Implementing DRM at the hardware level costs an exorbitant amount of money (hi, TPM chip!) and for very little purpose.

The chance for false-positives and general failures also means that this isn't really going to be as good as you might think. Imagine for a moment that every car had a sensor that detected when it was stolen - Don't ask how, that's a trade secret. So, when it detects this, the car fails to start, and the locks/ignition self-destruct, requiring you to get new ones installed.

Also, that gives Microsoft monopolistic powers far greater than even what it has today.

Ultimately, DRM is a win-win situation for everyone. PCs get reliability, macs and UNIX systems get a bigger share of market, and as consequence, intercompatibility is pushed one step ahead!

Um. There is no way DRM favours *NIX systems at all, much less "everyone", and surely not providing anything close to reliability, especially since DRM is software that, by design, is meant to break.