Geoff
VIP Member
Thats not the reason for DRM.
They are trying to prevent people from freely copying the songs, and then distribute them over the net illegally, or sell copies that they make. Theres nothing wrong with making copies for yourself.
Is Windows Vista really bad?
- Thread starter Pamela22
- Start date
They are trying to prevent people from freely copying the songs, and then distribute them over the net illegally, or sell copies that they make. Theres nothing wrong with making copies for yourself.
tlarkin
VIP Member
[-0MEGA-];673291 said:
I disagree that is the exact reason for DRM, its to lock you into a market. Do you know that the RIAA wants you to pay for everything, and everytime you change formats? They want you to pay for the actual CD, and then pay again to encode it to MP3.
the Zune wants to lock you into a market, and the OS enables this kind of content. Remember the whole PIII serial number fiasco with intel and MS? MS and other software companies have been trying other methods of locking you into a market and using piracy as its excuse, and DRM looks like it is the ticket.
I just hate the fact that if I want to purchase content legally I am already limited by paying for it, however if I were to illegally acquire it I would not have those limits and could do whatever I wanted with it. it is really about marketing your product and locking in consumers to technologies and limiting their options to sell your product.
Oh, and Apple and EMI just opened the first ever DRM free downloads on the itunes music store very recently. The consumers have spoken and everyone thinks that DRM for the most part is a bad thing.
xBoom
New Member
Vista's not that bad! It's pretty good and i dont have any probs like i have in XP. Games run much faster (they did run slower with RC2 and the betas) than XP!
My crappy CPU stays at 2%-40% while burning things onto a rewritable dvd (Aero enabled). I also like the Windows Experience Index in Vista, I can compare my scores before and after overclocking. btw, my base score is 3.0.
I also don't know what DRM is.. whatever it is, it doesn't cause any trouble to me.
My last words (in this post): Vista rocks and doesn't suck.. for me..
My crappy CPU stays at 2%-40% while burning things onto a rewritable dvd (Aero enabled). I also like the Windows Experience Index in Vista, I can compare my scores before and after overclocking. btw, my base score is 3.0.
I also don't know what DRM is.. whatever it is, it doesn't cause any trouble to me.
My last words (in this post): Vista rocks and doesn't suck.. for me..
tlarkin
VIP Member
okay, but run benchmarks on your system both in windows xp and in vista and you will see that it doesn't perform faster, or better, and if it does, do you think that justifies the cost of upgrading?
I have vista, been running it since beta via MSDN subscription at my work. it has come a long way from totally sucking to sucking but not as bad. Also, I get memory and cpu usage spikes all the time in vista while idle.
I am willing to bet games don't perform faster, and if they do its not that much and you are experience the illusion of them running faster. To me vista just puts on the illusion of running faster.
I am not an elitist, or at least I really try not to be. I use OS X, windows XP and Linux on a daily basis for my work. I like all three OSes and platforms, but windows vista makes me want to run for Linux and OS X. Vista is chunky and it breaks lots of technologies. I hear a lot of people on this forum say that vista works great for them, but I am guessing their use for their computers is just music and video games. In my experience vista breaks a lot of things from networking and driver support, forced upgrades to applications, etc. In a professional environment vista is a huge mess, for an end user I can see how one might want it. me personally I think its not worth the upgrade. I still have a factory sealed OEM copy of vista ultimate on my desk at home which I got for free and its not installed on my personal computer.
I have vista, been running it since beta via MSDN subscription at my work. it has come a long way from totally sucking to sucking but not as bad. Also, I get memory and cpu usage spikes all the time in vista while idle.
I am willing to bet games don't perform faster, and if they do its not that much and you are experience the illusion of them running faster. To me vista just puts on the illusion of running faster.
I am not an elitist, or at least I really try not to be. I use OS X, windows XP and Linux on a daily basis for my work. I like all three OSes and platforms, but windows vista makes me want to run for Linux and OS X. Vista is chunky and it breaks lots of technologies. I hear a lot of people on this forum say that vista works great for them, but I am guessing their use for their computers is just music and video games. In my experience vista breaks a lot of things from networking and driver support, forced upgrades to applications, etc. In a professional environment vista is a huge mess, for an end user I can see how one might want it. me personally I think its not worth the upgrade. I still have a factory sealed OEM copy of vista ultimate on my desk at home which I got for free and its not installed on my personal computer.
Geoff
VIP Member
Don't get me wrong, im not trying to completely disagree with you or argue.
But i've run benchmarks and played games with both XP MCE and Vista Business, and all the games and benchmarks have given roughly the same results. I've seen reviews and such on magazines and online, and Vista only gets a few lower FPS then XP. But once games are made for Vista, im sure we will see an improvement actually in Vista.
patrickv
Active Member
i couldn't agree more, they just listen to music and play games. But when it comes to serious work like VIDEO EDITING and the likes etc..vista fails to support softwares.....vista right now i can say is ok but not good. i won't use it until it has proper updates and Service packs
tlarkin
VIP Member
[-0MEGA-];673343 said:
I concur, I think it will get better but then again MS might just make you buy vienna when it comes out in the next two to three years. Then it will be the next hot thing. I mean a lot of promises were broken with vista. MS promised EFI support, then dropped it. I also don't like how it was marketed.
either way, its not really worth the upgrade if your current system is xp and is running fine.
And yes you are right, when DX10 hits it big vista will be needed for the latest greatest games and gaming performance.
Geoff
VIP Member
I see your point (from a previous post), where it's a good upgrade for most end-users and maybe very small companies, but for a corporation and from a business point of view, I can see how it may cause problems and is something thats isnt really needed, since im sure everything runs well as it is. And it would also require employee training on the OS, which would probably cause more down-time and training costs.
And Vienna in 2-3 years? Come on, more like 5-6.
And Vienna in 2-3 years? Come on, more like 5-6.
tlarkin
VIP Member
I am just saying what MS has released about vienna, their target is 2009-2010 for its release date.
that is of course if it doesn't get pushed back a billion times before then.
I don't think vista is a good upgrade even for end users i really don't see the point, unless you want the pretty effects of aero. It doesn't offer any benefits tot he end user really, but that is something i have stated over and over numerous times.
that is of course if it doesn't get pushed back a billion times before then.
I don't think vista is a good upgrade even for end users i really don't see the point, unless you want the pretty effects of aero. It doesn't offer any benefits tot he end user really, but that is something i have stated over and over numerous times.
Jonyboy
New Member
The open source community if thriving well and could catch up easily (in fact, Linux is more stable and powerful then windows). Compiz and beryl are amazing effects.
I personally am going to by a mac, but mainly because it has garageband, which as a musician looks very powerfull considering other music software can cost around £250 (although i know you can get cheaper software like fruityloops, but that isn't as simple and powerful as garageband) (and a mac mini is only £400). I find that that the only thing going for macs in the home market is ilife. That's just my two cents.
As for vista, that kills my inner child. Although i do like the fact that it is dragging MS down.
I personally am going to by a mac, but mainly because it has garageband, which as a musician looks very powerfull considering other music software can cost around £250 (although i know you can get cheaper software like fruityloops, but that isn't as simple and powerful as garageband) (and a mac mini is only £400). I find that that the only thing going for macs in the home market is ilife. That's just my two cents.
As for vista, that kills my inner child. Although i do like the fact that it is dragging MS down.
I think Vista is just the same as XP, but yet again in some places it is better. I think once they get some service packs for it, we'll begin to see the true power. I currently have Vista, I was tired of the old XP interface, plus I got it for free from the Vista Upgrade thing for OEM computers such as HP. I have noticed that the I/O is more optimized, games load much faster. Not the hotest OS out, but soon it may.
xBoom
New Member
Ok, here it is: (I tested just Half-Life 2)
Windows XP
Average: 31 FPS
Min: 20 FPS
Max: ~57 FPS
Windows Vista
Average: 42 FPS
Min: 15 FPS
Max: 100+ FPS
I know XP has better minimum FPS but it's very hard to get the minimum FPS. I used FRAPS to get the min/max/avg FPS.
Also, about the cost, here in Malaysia, Vistas are pretty cheap. Retail version (not upgrade) Vista Ultimate could be RM (Malaysia Ringgit) 620 (182 US$). Vista Home Basic (Aero can be enabled in Home basic if applied with appropriate registry hack) can be as low as RM280 (82 US$).
When I exit Half-Life 2, Vista's desktop loads and idles faster (5 secs) than XP (8 secs). Look at Wikipedia for more info about Windows "Vienna".
tlarkin
VIP Member
thats weird I get opposite results. I get around on average 50 to 65 fps in HL2 and with vista is about the same maybe at times because vista requires a bit more hardware to run.
I use the built in net_graph3 console utility in HL2 to take in this information.
Also, MS windows is not cheaper in Asia, in fact MS was complaining how much it is pirated over there because of the high costs and no one can really afford it.
I suspect you are using non legal software or have a botched configuration. Vista offers no real world performance increase over windows xp pro, it just offers the illusion. It preloads applications in memory so they will launch faster, which is not making them run faster per se, its making the load faster but at the same time requiring more RAM to and eating up more resources to accomplish this.
Look at it how you want to, but in reality Vista offers no real benefits to the end users at all. They have added technologies for the IT people though: NAP, stability monitor, better system logs, etc. Any type of new multi media function is already available for windows xp or alternative OSes. Their indexing is a blatant rip off of spot light, and it doesn't run as smooth. the networking is botched to all hell and back. I hate how it auto shares music over the network by default. Several of us have installed vista and out of the box we all realized we could see each other's media players on the network with out even allowing it. The security warnings are extremely annoying. They totally changed the boot strap process and its now an .exe running for start up???? I am not sure if I like the idea of that.
I am not saying windows vista may have the features it was promised, but it may be a year or two before that is accomplished.
Also, vienna is MS's new OS. Which is slated to be released in 2009 so I am not sure what you are talking about there.
I use the built in net_graph3 console utility in HL2 to take in this information.
Also, MS windows is not cheaper in Asia, in fact MS was complaining how much it is pirated over there because of the high costs and no one can really afford it.
I suspect you are using non legal software or have a botched configuration. Vista offers no real world performance increase over windows xp pro, it just offers the illusion. It preloads applications in memory so they will launch faster, which is not making them run faster per se, its making the load faster but at the same time requiring more RAM to and eating up more resources to accomplish this.
Look at it how you want to, but in reality Vista offers no real benefits to the end users at all. They have added technologies for the IT people though: NAP, stability monitor, better system logs, etc. Any type of new multi media function is already available for windows xp or alternative OSes. Their indexing is a blatant rip off of spot light, and it doesn't run as smooth. the networking is botched to all hell and back. I hate how it auto shares music over the network by default. Several of us have installed vista and out of the box we all realized we could see each other's media players on the network with out even allowing it. The security warnings are extremely annoying. They totally changed the boot strap process and its now an .exe running for start up???? I am not sure if I like the idea of that.
I am not saying windows vista may have the features it was promised, but it may be a year or two before that is accomplished.
Also, vienna is MS's new OS. Which is slated to be released in 2009 so I am not sure what you are talking about there.
Geoff
VIP Member
Was that when you were playing HL2, or running the stress test? The only way to get accurate results is the stress test, not using FRAPS and playing for 10 minutes or so.
xBoom
New Member
[-0MEGA-];673991 said:
That was I were playing HL2, not the stress test.. I can't find the video stress test in HL2 but I do in CSS.
I recorded the FPS while playing the whole Chapter 2 (A Red Letter Day) with highest possible settings (Aniso 2X and AA off) and 1024x640 resolution (widescreen 16:10).
eric92park
New Member
Windows XP X64 has different coding, but with most of same features as Windows XP X86 just with upgrades(Like More RAM support, etc..)... Vista is a completely different story, how would I put it.... It is for those peope who mess with their computer, doesn't even know what their doing and screw the comp up... Well that only explains like 1% of why they put DRM on it, they should just made it optional...
eric92park
New Member
eric92park
New Member
Vista will require Whole bunch of updates and fixes, and Vienna, not such a good idea...
I have Vista Ultimate. Windows XP outperforms it at every turn. I ran Winamp Pro, Kaspersky 2007, and uTorrent all night and it had shut itself down with an BSoD over night. If you are a 'tard and don't know how to use a computer at all, Vista is for you. But if you want reliability and longevity, XP is the mastershake.
Vista will probably become a good OS after a another year of bullshit.
Vista will probably become a good OS after a another year of bullshit.
Twist86
Active Member
What I wanna know is with all the crap vista is putting the legal users threw...how many copies of vista REALLY sold?
They say 20 million but I seriously doubt that. I think they are adding any system sold since vista came out + business licenses of vista.
Also far as DRM goes there are a lot of smart talented people out there that feel the same way about DRM as others...I am sure they will find a way to remove it then share it with us.
They say 20 million but I seriously doubt that. I think they are adding any system sold since vista came out + business licenses of vista.
Also far as DRM goes there are a lot of smart talented people out there that feel the same way about DRM as others...I am sure they will find a way to remove it then share it with us.