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

[thunderfox5]

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.


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.

Actually, the EULA has legal binding, and it the basis on which a company responsible for releasing and selling software will defend themselves, as user agreement is mandatory. You aren't committing a crime exactly, by violating a license terms, but you are acting at your own risk from that point on.

As far as endorsement goes, we're talking about drivers, not just a simple browser. The drivers run in kernel mode, and are pretty much the only piece of software that is allowed to directly talk to the hardware. All drivers should be thorougly tested and checked, and only then signed. Just like it happens on the macs, mostly. Unfortunately, the "driver signing" is avaliable for everyone for a "small" fee, and Microsoft doesn't test everything on the drivers, they just check them for vulnerabilities. Some drivers are tested and signed, like the Alcohol 120% drivers, but since they run partly in user-mode, it's only natural for things to fail. This doesn't apply to Spore or C&C protections only. It applies to anything that may need to test the hardware, and finds odd answers there. Such as the well known (and badly implemented) Starforce protection.

Never forget: Everything might seem to work well, but if you're not respecting the program's license and documentation, you're on your own! It's just like driving a car, you're on a straight road, there's nothing preventing you to turn to either side, but if you do, it's not the car's fault if you crash!

 

[WarMocK]

Thank God the EULA ain't worth the paper it is written on here in Germany (a TOS that isn't accessible before purchasing a product and/or has too many restrictions is declared illegal here). Same applies for most european states btw.

 

[ToeClaws]

Thank God the EULA ain't worth the paper it is written on here in Germany (a TOS that isn't accessible before purchasing a product and/or has too many restrictions is declared illegal here). Same applies for most european states btw.

Nice! That's an great way of doing it.

 

[Revy]

I feel that Windows 7 is not needed yet, sure its better then vista I suppose, but I'm still gonna use vista with my current computer till 7 is avaliable on most brands. I'm not in that much of a hurry to waste money on a brand new OS when I'm perfectly comfortable with my currert one.

 

[net-cat]

I feel that Windows 7 is not needed yet, sure its better then vista I suppose, but I'm still gonna use vista with my current computer till 7 is avaliable on most brands. I'm not in that much of a hurry to waste money on a brand new OS when I'm perfectly comfortable with my currert one.

Heh. That's interesting. It was one of the reasons Vista failed so hard. It didn't really offer any notable advantages over XP. (That is, in the "XP is relatively stable and does what I need it to do" category. Nobody except people who would post in a forum about actually cares about technical superiority.)

 

[Aurali]

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.

Believe it or not.. the "switch" to steam stuff isn't really anti-piracy (not stoppable)as much as it is anti-gamestop (can be done). Think of it this way. You buy a game and pay 50 dollars. Game stop gets 8 of that. the rest went home. You sell it. Game stop gives you 5 dollars back. Someone else buys the game from game stop. They GET 45 dollars. All Profit.. The retailer don't see a dime of the money, and lost the profit from the consumer.

 

[Toaster]

OP you need to share your drugs.............

Also I think windows is a nightmare for anything that's sever related, and you have very little freedom with the OS (as in changing it.).

I've always worked with sever side stuff so I hate using windows. Windows is just about useless for every thing but art/gaming/flash dev.

 

[Aurali]

OP you need to share your drugs.............

Also I think windows is a nightmare for anything that's sever related, and you have very little freedom with the OS (as in changing it.).

I've always worked with sever side stuff so I hate using windows. Windows is just about useless for every thing but art/gaming/flash dev.

and apple is useless for anything but photoshoppin

and unix based is useless for anything but server related crap

/stereotyping

They all have their purposes. They all have their quirks.

It's all in which one you really like...

otherwise no one gives a crap about fanboism

 

[Toaster]

and apple is useless for anything but photoshoppin

and unix based is useless for anything but server related crap

/stereotyping

They all have their purposes. They all have their quirks.

It's all in which one you really like...

otherwise no one gives a crap about fanboism

This in bold is all I care about. I'm not a windows hater, I just don't like using it because I have no need to. Also why the hell use an Apple for photoshop when you do the same thing with windows? Mac is making a comeback but it isn't there yet.

 

[Revy]

Heh. That's interesting. It was one of the reasons Vista failed so hard. It didn't really offer any notable advantages over XP. (That is, in the "XP is relatively stable and does what I need it to do" category. Nobody except people who would post in a forum about actually cares about technical superiority.)

Well like I said I don't see why theres such a big rush to get the beta version, I can easily wait till its fully out when I buy a new computer, I can't use XP for some reason anymore it just seems so foreign now. I've had no problems with vista so I have no reason to complain about it tbh.

 

[Runefox]

This in bold is all I care about

Wow, you're pretty narrow-minded, then.

 

[Toaster]

Wow, you're pretty narrow-minded, then.

Well ok, maybe it's not the only thing I care about. As you can see I use my computer for other things.

 

[thunderfox5]

Although we're not discusing technicalities between XP and Vista, there were a lot of improvements on Vista. A lot of added security, a user-mode layer for running some of the new drivers (such as the graphics drivers), the new window model (implemented by the Windows Presentation Foundation) is native to the OS, vista supporting symbolic links like UNIX and having a window manager running separate from the actual shell... There are really a lot of things that have improved on the OS itself.

Now with the coming of Windows 7, only the interface seems to have improved. The underpinnings of the OS are still the same that Vista had (so much for all the fuss about the microkernel, we will still have the Vista-like monolithic kernel...) and the differences will be mostly aesthetical and focused on improving the user experience. People are now praising the one thing they criticized (and wrongfully) when Vista launched.

 

[ToeClaws]

Wow, you're pretty narrow-minded, then.

Aye, that or just not exposed to the various OS's.

10+ years ago, that statement was bang-on. Today, however, it's a lot more of a grey area that comes down to what the user wants or expects from their system.

Windows is still, by a vast majority (87%), the most popular desktop OS - why? Because it's good at it, because it was designed specifically for being a desktop OS. Also, because people know Windows. If you tell someone "hey, why don't you run Ubuntu?" They'll probably think you sneezed at the end of your sentence.

That's not to say though that you can't have a good desktop in Linux or Unix because nowadays, both are extremely viable desktop operating systems, and depending on what you're using the workstation for, may also be a better choice than Windows. Again - 10 years ago, no way, but today, absolutely.

In my career, I have seen many hundreds of servers (if not thousands now) come and go. Most servers, especially the more serious or large scale they are, don't run Windows. Likewise I have seen many thousands of workstations come and go, and most of them are Windows.

There are exceptions to the rules, and as the years go by, I see more and more of a blurring between the two. It's not uncommon now to see people using things like Ubuntu or Fedora on their work PCs, and more servers are being rolled out with Windows on them.

Each of the OS's has their strengths and their weaknesses, but in the end, a lot of it comes down to either personal preference, or (in the business world) vendor support.

 

[thunderfox5]

Firstly, one must define what is considered to be a server, as you might agree, there are many kinds of servers.

Most common users ignore that what they call "servers" are actually no more than PCs who have been given a specific role. UNIX and Windows (and even some Macs) included.

Most of those people have never seen or know what an iSeries is, or have fiddled with the OS/400, for example!

There's no certain way that one can state "this OS is for servers, and that OS is for desktops". You choose the OS based on the purpose you want to give to a computer. Linux, Windows and Mac OS are perfectly viable as desktop operating systems. Windows is perfectly viable as a server too, if you want to run a streaming media server or a game server, for instance. Or even an ASP.NET server.

Surely there are some limitations inherent to the core of the Operating System. Windows needs a lot of restarts when under maintenance, and UNIX is more likely to run forever with very little maintenance, but higher costs when it is needed. It's also harder to maintain. Going deeper into the kernel and the way memory and CPU are managed, we could even choose apropriately what we wanted, based on the memory management algorithms and the task managers.

These are things that the users do not care about. Actually, the user just cares about booting up the computer and having it run the applications he wants, the way he wants it. LRU? POSIX? The user doesn't care, he just wants his photoshop running smoothly. It runs on windows? Good! It runs on Mac? Good! It does what the user needs it to do. But the fact that is pleases a user is no basis to say one is better than the other. If we were to consider that, someone would barge in here and yell at us that MINIX3 is the best Operating System. And he'd probably be right, but no one uses it.

Point is: If it exists, it has a purpose.
(PS: Our ATMs run windows, for example. In brazil, they run Linux and work just as well.)

 

[Toaster]

Firstly, one must define what is considered to be a server, as you might agree, there are many kinds of servers.

Most common users ignore that what they call "servers" are actually no more than PCs who have been given a specific role. UNIX and Windows (and even some Macs) included.

Most of those people have never seen or know what an iSeries is, or have fiddled with the OS/400, for example!

There's no certain way that one can state "this OS is for servers, and that OS is for desktops". You choose the OS based on the purpose you want to give to a computer. Linux, Windows and Mac OS are perfectly viable as desktop operating systems. Windows is perfectly viable as a server too, if you want to run a streaming media server or a game server, for instance. Or even an ASP.NET server.

Surely there are some limitations inherent to the core of the Operating System. Windows needs a lot of restarts when under maintenance, and UNIX is more likely to run forever with very little maintenance, but higher costs when it is needed. It's also harder to maintain. Going deeper into the kernel and the way memory and CPU are managed, we could even choose apropriately what we wanted, based on the memory management algorithms and the task managers.

These are things that the users do not care about. Actually, the user just cares about booting up the computer and having it run the applications he wants, the way he wants it. LRU? POSIX? The user doesn't care, he just wants his photoshop running smoothly. It runs on windows? Good! It runs on Mac? Good! It does what the user needs it to do. But the fact that is pleases a user is no basis to say one is better than the other. If we were to consider that, someone would barge in here and yell at us that MINIX3 is the best Operating System. And he'd probably be right, but no one uses it.

Point is: If it exists, it has a purpose.
(PS: Our ATMs run windows, for example. In brazil, they run Linux and work just as well.)

Most game severs run on linux.....

 

[thunderfox5]

Most game severs run on linux.....

Mostly used games have server versions for linux. That's still a very small part of all existing games. Most smaller or less known games don't have server for linux. Even some big games, like Lineage 2 which hosts millions of players, have their servers running on Windows! Like I said, it's a matter of decision of the programmer, not of which OS is best.

 

[Toaster]

Mostly used games have server versions for linux. That's still a very small part of all existing games. Most smaller or less known games don't have server for linux. Even some big games, like Lineage 2 which hosts millions of players, have their servers running on Windows! Like I said, it's a matter of decision of the programmer, not of which OS is best.

Uh no, do you mean game sever as in a mmo? If you do then you must mean most game clients run on windows. But the sever it's self which the client connects to is most likely Linux based.

Smaller and lesser known games don't have severs for linux? This blows you out of the water man:

http://www.brockhaus.org/merc2.html

The above is lesser known, it's older than me, and its small seeing how it can only hold about 0-90 people (maybe less). Also the client is windows based because most people game on windows -even back then- and the sever runs on linux.

I rest my case for now....

**Also I do understand some game severs run on windows.
**Also before you can say anything about the above code, I'd say he was wrong to say it can hold 200 max, it's too buggy to hold that many

 

[Carenath]

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.

I'll probably do that at some point. I <3 Bash

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.

Thing is... HDCP is done in hardware on the graphics card that has HDMI support... and some graphics cards that only provide DVI connectors also support HDCP. Im not aware of any requirement for the OS to support it.

Nice! That's an great way of doing it.

Well Canada is more likely to do that... France will probably force Germany to "update" its laws... right after it finishes trying to shoehorn 3-strikes into national laws... once its done forcing IPRED on us all >.-.>
It makes me want to give Sarkozy a royal kick in the testicles

 

[thunderfox5]

Again, one game doesn't make the rule. Look at games like the Command and Conquer series, Halo, Soldat, and the more.

And you're missing the bigger point: I'm not saying Linux isn't or shouldn't be used for gameservers. I am a linux user myself, and am aware of linux can and can't do. My point is that there's no better operating system. They're just tools for several purposes.

 

[ToeClaws]

My point is that there's no better operating system. They're just tools for several purposes.

That's what I was trying to explain in my earlier post. Operating systems have become a lot like cars or clothing - everyone's got their own personal tastes in them.

Oh and yes, some people call PC's servers, but I'm talking about real servers - rack-mounted machines with multiple processors, multiple power supplies, hot-swappable drives, etc. Companies that just use PCs as servers scare me. :/

Well Canada is more likely to do that... France will probably force Germany to "update" its laws... right after it finishes trying to shoehorn 3-strikes into national laws... once its done forcing IPRED on us all >.-.> It makes me want to give Sarkozy a royal kick in the testicles

He has balls? :shock: That's okay, most people feel that way in general about those cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Hopefully Europe ignores them. As for Canada, I'm not sure what the policy is here on EULA, but that would be interesting to find out. I would hope the law sides with the consumer.

 

[WarMocK]

Well Canada is more likely to do that... France will probably force Germany to "update" its laws... right after it finishes trying to shoehorn 3-strikes into national laws... once its done forcing IPRED on us all >.-.>
It makes me want to give Sarkozy a royal kick in the testicles

And how are they gonna do that, hmm? ;-)

 

[Shino]

Wow. I love how anytime I talk about Windows the thread desolves into a OS war. I guess it's just the way of the- "A series of tubes-" Shut up, Gore!

Anywho, I've used all three big OSes all my life. (I grew up with MS-DOS and an Apple IIGS)

Each operating system has it's own strenghs and weaknesses. The way I see it:
Linux/Unix is for the loves-to-tinker power user,
Macs are for the people who love shiny things that are easy to use and have lots of money,
and Windows is for the rest of the world that just wants to send e-mail to grandma and type a report.

Of course, there's obvious exceptions to each rule, but there's a reason Windows is the most common OS in the world. Things may change eventually. After all, the computer is still a very young technology, relatively speaking. Who knows? In 50 years, we could all be using neural interfaces vis a vis the Borg or something along the lines of a holodeck interface like Andromeda.

All I was trying to say with this thread is that I've loved what they've done with 7 so far, and pointing out some more new features they've put in.

*Looks around, sees all the angry faces.*

Sorry, you can go back to your flame wars now.

*Sneaks out the fire exit.*

 

[WarMocK]

Locks the door and throws the key away*
Not so fast fuzzy! :twisted:

 

[Toaster]

We need an OS wars thread......