[Pool]

I have been reading around Vista being even more restrictive with all its DRM.

While I tried to ignore most of them, I argue against it on this one:

https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?b...83374645829893

But it seems like they have proven a point... I don't know... is there anything that I don't know of?

[Judas]

reading through a little bit of it.

some of the comments made are purely "linux" fanboish with NO REAL idea about vista.

Myself, i've NEVER ran into a DRM problem, all 10,000+ MP3's i've had since 1999 ALL works out of the box within vista. DRM Memory footprint is huge? wtf, they don't know what they are talking about, they make it sound like DRM system in vista is on 24/7, running checks every split second of the day, and sucking up cpu and memory cycles like crazy, complete BS.

I've actually been able to get around DRM in vista much easier then xp, but i guess it all depends on a few things.

Either way, usually if a file has DRM, you either can easily get around it, or you can't... my experiences with DRM otherwise hasn't been any different then XP.

Personally, linux is all fine and dandy for users that are exceptionally familare with it, but any john/jane doe will never fully understand it let alone tollerate it. I know, i've seen some people with machines, loaded with linux by there "linux pro, anti-windows" friend and were told it'd work great, but not knowing how to do alot of the things required to get specific programs to load, let alone running into the whole "supported" issue drove them nutz to oventually not being able to use the machine for anything they wanted. I fixed them up with windows, haven't been happier.

Sorry, this isn't a linux vs windows thing specifically.

What other concerns do you have about windows vista? maybe we all can help you out.

[Golbeze]

Indeed, I've had NO problems with DRM in Vista. I have a bunch of music on my computer and every last track plays just fine. The only time a DRM is called is either when I open Windows Media for the first time after a reinstall and it comes across a protected track while re-adding music to Media Player's library, and its only at that time when it asks me to log into my URGE account to reactivate the track so I can play it, which is the other time it runs the DRM. It has never prohibited me from playing music that didn't have any protections; ALL of my unprotected music plays just fine.

[Pool]

Originally Posted by Judas

What other concerns do you have about windows vista? maybe we all can help you out.

Pretty much the DRM and privacy stuff that I have worried about, let me just quote some comments instead of having you to go through them:

In terms of licensing and DRM, Windows Vista is in fact restrictive. DRM stands for "Digital Rights Management" - but its name is misleading, and some people suggest that DRM really stands for "Digital Restriction Management" this latter naming is closer to what DRM is!!

DRM is software that uses some kind of encryption such that a downloaded\bought song only plays on one hardware. Similar to activation of windows where the Windows XP (and now Vista) locks itself to one hardware configuration and when moved to a different hardware it stops working. So if you take your hard disk and try to run it on a friend's hardware windows will lock you out!!! You will only be able to unlock it by calling Microsoft's customer support and giving them a proof that you own that windows copy! Same thing happens when you buy a new computer and want to install your windows copy on that computer, you'll have to explain to Microsoft's customer support the situation.

Microsoft allows you to install retail versions of Windows Vista on only ONE computer (unless stated otherwise)... Upgrading the motherboard or CPU will count as using a "new" computer. You are allowed to transfer your copy to a new computer only once (after calling customer support of course). So if you buy a new computer, or upgrade your computer, you would have used your only transfer available. If you upgrade your computer again you will have to BUY a new windows Vista license!! So they even restrict you on how many time you upgrade your computer!!! [On XP all you had to do, is call MS customer support and give them a proof that you own the copy, and they would transfer it as many times as you want!! On Vista, as I explained, you can transfer your copy only once!]

Back to DRM, many music companies provide music that is encrypted that can only be listened to using certain hardware! DRM causes many problems, say you downloaded a song on your computer, you will not be able to run it on your MP3 player for example...

By the way, windows' genuine advantage "calls home" from time to time. Microsoft installed this "feature" on customers' computer without their acknowledgment... This behavior is characteristic of spyware, Microsoft's genuine advantage is spyware, except that for some reason its "good" spyware Microsoft says!!

The Windows DRM merely requires you to have more computer than you need in a vain attempt to kill piracy. Only days after Vista came out, people were claiming that the encryption scheme had been cracked.
http://apcmag.com/5512/pirate_crack_...oem_activation
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38926
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/29/1811201

The end result: you are paying more and losing choices of hardware/software for a failed system.

So tell me one bit of extra functionality that you gain by switching to Vista because of the DRM scheme? Truthfully, there is no added functionality to the system because of DRM. All that DRM does is require the end-user to buy more expensive and power-consuming hardware. Your processes are slowed because there is a lag to decrypt all of the information. Copying a CD takes about 2 times longer in Vista than it used to take with XP. DRM functionality in action.

At the end of the day, unprotected content will play fine, yea? But the number of protect content are increasing, take HD-DVD for example, would Vista make it much harder to backup my collection? And just how much more resource it takes for this DRM stuff?

And the phone home issue, no one really knows about how many calls Vista makes... but on Linux you are kind of sure that things are never phone home unless you give it permission... or so I heard...

[Judas]

WGA (windows genuine advantage) only Phones home if you will, to check with your copy of windows is legitimate, and being that windows vista has it preinstalled, and if you have a legal copy, there is absalutely no reason to worry about this feature enless your purposely trying to pirate it, use it in a manner (such as a single copy on multiple machines at the same time) that wasn't intended. It doesn't send ANY information to microsoft, it meerly connects to microsoft, downloads the keys or information it needs to check your current install is indeed legitimate. Other then that, no other programs, or anything is checked.

And it only does this when you first fire up the machine, AND when you do updates/upgrades. Those are the only times that i've been aware of WGA doing a check.


Still i find alot of what is in those quotes either completely false, or just halfway scewed so they seem bad.


IF you pop in a CD, rip the music with DRM enabled, then your probably going to run into issues (however i think you can still transfer the liecence over to a different machine). But why would anyone do that?

I use windows Media Player 11 within vista to rip music, to MP3 320kbps CBR. I can transfer that music to any computer, cd, whatever and play it back like nothing. Vista isn't SLOWER at ripping cd's, i'd say it's pretty much that same, These guys are full of shit. Like i had said before, they apparently don't have a clue.


As for Windows Vista itself, you install an OEM copy on a computer, it's glued to that machine, install a retail copy on a machine, you can transfer it (orginally thought 2 times) but some are claiming that the retail copy has allowed them to transfer it to more.

DRM, a resource hog.... seriously that's just a load of crap i say again.

On my current vista install, i've swapped my video cards, my optical drives, and hardrives around (ones i wouldn't need to reinstall vista on) and i've yet to have to reactivate.

[Pool]

Well thank you very much Judas for clearing that up!!! Vista sounds very reasonable yea it seems like a good upgrade to XP! I might need hardware upgrade before it though...

[Judas]

if you want to be absalutely possitively confident using vista...

when you install it, make sure to uncheck "automatically activate" and also, do not punch in a CD key, simply skip that part and select the version you purchased, this way you won't lock it down on the system, you can trial it for 30 days (and using the activation reset, you could prolong your testing and trialling)..... And if you don't like it, you can pop xp back on while still having an unregistered/locked down vista sitting ready for whichever machine you decide to install it next on. After 30 days however, the entire machine will go into lockdown mode, you con't be able to do anything at all (enless you reset the activation beforehand)

[Ferret_Style]

You can reset the activation even in RFM (reduced functionality mode) check the tips in the sticky at the top i gave a walk through on how to do it. But yah i have been testing it as i own the ultimate and not sure i want 32 or 64 for the past 3 months. With the resets (documented even on MS website!) you can prolong up to 9 months before activation.

[Pool]

No I mean I probably have to upgrade my computer hardware before upgrade to Vista...

But if you just want to give me a tip on how to run Vista longer thanks for that!

[Jakob]

Originally Posted by Judas

WGA (windows genuine advantage) only Phones home if you will, to check with your copy of windows is legitimate, and being that windows vista has it preinstalled, and if you have a legal copy, there is absalutely no reason to worry about this feature enless your purposely trying to pirate it, use it in a manner (such as a single copy on multiple machines at the same time) that wasn't intended. It doesn't send ANY information to microsoft, it meerly connects to microsoft, downloads the keys or information it needs to check your current install is indeed legitimate. Other then that, no other programs, or anything is checked.

And it only does this when you first fire up the machine, AND when you do updates/upgrades. Those are the only times that i've been aware of WGA doing a check.


Still i find alot of what is in those quotes either completely false, or just halfway scewed so they seem bad.

WGA is spyware. Microsoft doesn't claim that it is spyware, but by coloquial definition, it is. http://www.windowssecrets.com/comp/060615/ (Scroll down a bit!) If you used a packet sniffer, you would see these spyware type of transactions occurring in WGA. I agree that validating a copy of Windows is a viable business practice, but not this method when it invades the privacy of a confidential business.

And how about WGA failures?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=148
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=142
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=98

Want to know what data it collects from you?

http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/Fac...displaylang=en

But this is all they say it takes. How do you know? You can't check them because they are proprietary and closed source. But the fact still remains that it is worthless and acts the same as spyware.

Personal proof that it doesn't work (because I have to have proof before I believe something): There is a hack out there for Vista. It's a BIOS date change. A coworker did this trick. Vista installed fine and gave no problems with the WGA stuff. He can even get the upgrades! So, how does this prevent piracy? It doesn't. But the data still gets sent to Microsoft. And what do they do with it there?

IF you pop in a CD, rip the music with DRM enabled, then your probably going to run into issues (however i think you can still transfer the liecence over to a different machine). But why would anyone do that?

One would transfer their music collection from one PC to another when upgrading.

DRM, a resource hog.... seriously that's just a load of crap i say again.

Well, just so you you all know that I'm not just blowing smoke, I have to say that I've been using Vista Ultimate at work for the last month and a half. I'm in a pretty good position because I can also run a laptop next to me with Fedora Core 6. It's a nice way to do a comparison. I also have another 10 computers with XP on them, and another 10 with Windows 2000.

The test machine is an MPC P4HT 2.8 GHZ with 2 GB of DDR2, 80 GB SATA hard drive, ATI Radeon X300 128 MB, and a 52x CDRW/DVD ROM.

To run Vista basic, using http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...uirements.mspx as a reference, you need 800 MHz processor, 512 MB of RAM and 20 GB hard drive with 15 GB free.

Let's compare to Fedora Core 5, what I use for my server/desktop at my house. required is 192 MB RAM, 400 MHz x86 processor (unless you want to run it on something different like a Mac or PPC based system) and a complete install in 9 GB. Wow! At least doubled on all of the specs.

http://docs.fedoraproject.org/releas...fc5/#id2954733

Let's compare what runs on them, now (in complete install of what is on the Vista Home Basic DVD vs. Fedora Core 5 DVD).

Vista:
-Operating system
-Windows Desktop
-Notepad
-Wordpad
-Paint
-Gadgets (Plugins for the desktop to show time, weather, news updates and the likes.)
-Internet Explorer
-Windows Movie Maker
-Windows Media Player
-Windows Mail
-Games (Solitaire, Minesweeper, Hearts, Chess and the usual lineup)


I know there's some more, but I can't get a good list to come up. We know that it doesn't come with Office or any other productivity software, though.

By contrast, the services included on Fedora Core 5:

-Operating system
-KDE, Gnome and Fluxbox desktops
-GEdit, KVIM, JOE, OpenOffice.org Writer and KOffice for editing and productivity.
-Blender 3D renderer, GIMP image manipulation (like Adobe Photoshop), Tux Paint, Font editor, and a few other image manipulating programs.
-Plugins that go right into the taskbar and have been there for a couple of versions. These plugins do weather, stock reports, battery meter, clock and so much more.
-Mozilla Firefox, Konqeror and Mozilla (Netscape style).
-KAudio, Helix player, Movie Player and a few others.
-Thunderbird and Evolution e-mail clients.
-GAIM, an internet chat client that operates over Yahoo, Windows Messenger, AIM, ICQ, IRC and Napster protocols.
-I can't list all of the games here.
-2 web servers(have your own www site at home!)
-2 E-mail servers (have your own @yourname.com e-mail address!)
-FTP servers (Transfer files from any computer with network access!)
-Windows compatibilty networking, including domain controllers.
-Windows emulator.
-Kids entertainment suites.
-OpenOffice.org suite (Office minus Outlook, which is replaced by Evolution. Includes spreadsheet, database, word processor, and math solver.)
-Development tools to program your computer and make web sites.
-Financial management software, GNUCash.
-Recipe organizers.
-Palm Pilot software.
-Phone syncing software.
-Dia, a replacement for Visio.
-A replacement for Project.
-Network diagnostics tools.
-Other geek tools like a circuit builder, a stellarium, a satellite position prediction renderer, VOIP software, and more!


Now, off of half the memory, 6 GB less hard drive space, and half of the processor speed, I can run all of the servers, any of the desktops, and play a game while editing some documents on Fedora Core 5. But Vista alone needs more resources than Fedora Core 5 and all of its applications and processes. How is Vista not a resource hog?

Plus, let's throw one very tantalizing fact out there. Vista Home Basic is $200 for the full version, $100 for the upgrade from XP. (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...c/default.mspx) Fedora Core 5 is free. You don't even have to pay extra for Office. Productivity software is included. So is networking.

[BlueMak]

And not forget all the major new commercial releases of games for Fedora. Oh, wait.

[Ferret_Style]

Why does every one have to compair linux to windows... they are apples and oranges. How many home users can install and support linux (outside of ubuntu). Have you tried to let a non computer person use your linux system.. i have ... it is painful. Windows is what it is and there is no compairing.

The other problem with your test is your video card. I have seen the better your video card the better windows vista will run. Second issue is vista is built for dual core.. end of story. If you are not running one keep with XP truefully.

I can run vista... worlds of warcraft... burn a dvd and doing a paper in word with 0 issues so i am unsure what all the fuss is about vista performance in that way.

[Judas]

I wasn't comparing linux to vista at all, (or vice vs) that is utterly fruitless/pointless in every possible way.

Enless your completely familare with computers and linux, windows is going to be the best offer, this thread isn't about linux, it's about vista. And specifically what problems anyone would have with Vista.

If you had read through my previous information i had posted, Windows vista Precache's a huge amount of memory (shown as using memory but it's actually precached and available yet)

The whole comparison is somewhat pointless, as i've used windows vista on a even less powerful computer then you used and it ran things very very well. even compared to that of xp

[Ferret_Style]

judas = Jakob? If not then i was mostly point at the discription of compairing fedora 5 vs vista.

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Ferret_Style

judas = Jakob? If not then i was mostly point at the discription of compairing fedora 5 vs vista.

?

no i'm not jakob..

i wasn't talking to you lol

[Ferret_Style]

Opps sorry about that was confused... Back to topic.


What is wierd is either i am not looking hard enough or not been trying enough to see much in the way of DRM. Though i have not ripped any new CD's since i went to vista. My old MP3's and WMA's play just fine on wifes xp and my vista.

[Jakob]

Originally Posted by Judas

I wasn't comparing linux to vista at all, (or vice vs) that is utterly fruitless/pointless in every possible way.

Enless your completely familare with computers and linux, windows is going to be the best offer, this thread isn't about linux, it's about vista. And specifically what problems anyone would have with Vista.

If you had read through my previous information i had posted, Windows vista Precache's a huge amount of memory (shown as using memory but it's actually precached and available yet)

The whole comparison is somewhat pointless, as i've used windows vista on a even less powerful computer then you used and it ran things very very well. even compared to that of xp

Judas, I knew you weren't comparing. I was comparing. And even though you may have run Vista on a slower computer, the minimums for Vista are still double what GNU/Linux uses, and 8 times more memory than XP required. And for what? The interface hasn't changed enough to make it totally unique. The gadgets shouldn't take up too much memory unless the programmers were sloppy.

So, all in all, Vista's interface hasn't changed much from XP, it requires more hardware resources, it wastes your resources on a DRM scheme that was broken in the first day of its existence, and it isn't compatible with as many hardware devices as its predecessor! I would certainly call that somewhat junk. Even being a Windows user as well, I would stick with XP. Anyway, there's my two cents...

Why does every one have to compair linux to windows... they are apples and oranges. How many home users can install and support linux (outside of ubuntu). Have you tried to let a non computer person use your linux system.. i have ... it is painful. Windows is what it is and there is no compairing.

The other problem with your test is your video card. I have seen the better your video card the better windows vista will run. Second issue is vista is built for dual core.. end of story. If you are not running one keep with XP truefully.

I can run vista... worlds of warcraft... burn a dvd and doing a paper in word with 0 issues so i am unsure what all the fuss is about vista performance in that way.

What is wierd is either i am not looking hard enough or not been trying enough to see much in the way of DRM. Though i have not ripped any new CD's since i went to vista. My old MP3's and WMA's play just fine on wifes xp and my vista.

Ferret_Style,

My wife uses my Linux machines all of the time. In fact, she's installing Fedora Core 6 on my backup server as we speak. She uses KRecipes and GNUCash, primarily, but she notices how much more enjoyable it is to use it.

Windows and Linux are apples and oranges. However, one is healthier, arguably, than the other, right? The apple doesn't need to be peeled to be enjoyed, and the orange can be a pain to peel. That's the comparison.

And you just said something right there. Why should I have to buy a newer video card just to run Vista? Above and beyond that, show me where Microsoft says that dual core is required to run Vista? It's not on the hardware requirements page. Not to mention the fact that the processor being used is hyper threaded, so it emulates dual core capabilities. Your argument is invalid, and you are telling me exactly what I've pointed out before; you have to buy more computer than you need. Why should I buy an nVidia 7800 just to run Vista? That's basically what you are saying in your argument. I don't need a high powered video card for operating on the computer like I do. Why should I be forced to buy it? That's what Vista is doing.

You won't notice a visible difference in your DRM protected files. The DRM scheme is hidden from your view. You may only notice a difference when Vista suddenly turns off your ability to play certain media files. It's happened before, it can, and probably will happen again. (see http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005269.php)

And what if you update your hardware, or make some slight change in your computer? Your media files are "kaput." Microsoft admits this themselves. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891664 So, I'm not supposed to update my system as I choose anymore? My old AMD is just that; old. I can't replace it to make an all around better computer? Hmmm. Sounds like DRM is extremely wonderful to me. (A hint of sarcasm should be detected in that statement.)

Vista is only the start of DRM and the problems inherent with the system. Vienna is not going to be better. It's just going to be more restrictive. And XP, while a better alternative to Vista, still shows the early signs of DRM. I can't play some of my LEGAL videos that I have downloaded. DRM kills them.

Thanks for your time,

Jacob

[Ferret_Style]

Jacob,
The issue is not that if someone can use linux but it ease of use. I like linux, specifically ubuntu but it is hardware for the average user to use. Windows and OS X have always had the leg up on linux in this matter. It is not a matter of better or worse but a matter of total market too.

With regards to your system and better video card, you only need a better one if you want to get the higher end features. You can run half the load and tune vista down but how can you expect to get the top of all features with bellow top hardware? even in linux this is true with gaming. AS for the dual core, it says it no where on MS site. This is a person expereience and a note that i have seen from many people regarding the speed of vista on dual core vs single core (even HT systems). HT emulates but can not handle the same dual instructions as well as a dual core can. Vista is not the best but i have to say it is good. There are alot more features to it other then just the UI, there are increases to security and decent changes to the total core of the OS that make it much more stable then prior OS. Mind you I have had 1 crash only my desktop while i have been running it since release and that was my fault of using a bad driver (xp old driver).

[PangingJr]

ever notice how some of us are not satisfied with Vista and by thinking it's a resource hog operating system.

hmm i even think Vista handles all of the system resources better than XP, include it has always managed to have less wasted RAM than XP, and to me Vista is not a resource hog operating system at all.

compared with the XP, which i did before. after having a large number of running processes, both Windows were still responsive, however i did experience a few lag periods in XP, while doing the same tasks in Vista there was no lag found. i don't have the pictures during running the observation programs with me any more.

[Jakob]

Originally Posted by Ferret_Style

Jacob,
The issue is not that if someone can use linux but it ease of use. I like linux, specifically ubuntu but it is hardware for the average user to use. Windows and OS X have always had the leg up on linux in this matter. It is not a matter of better or worse but a matter of total market too.

With regards to your system and better video card, you only need a better one if you want to get the higher end features. You can run half the load and tune vista down but how can you expect to get the top of all features with bellow top hardware? even in linux this is true with gaming. AS for the dual core, it says it no where on MS site. This is a person expereience and a note that i have seen from many people regarding the speed of vista on dual core vs single core (even HT systems). HT emulates but can not handle the same dual instructions as well as a dual core can. Vista is not the best but i have to say it is good. There are alot more features to it other then just the UI, there are increases to security and decent changes to the total core of the OS that make it much more stable then prior OS. Mind you I have had 1 crash only my desktop while i have been running it since release and that was my fault of using a bad driver (xp old driver).

Ferret_Style,

Actually, the difference in use of linux (using KDE or Gnome) and Windows is quite minimal. In fact, it is my personal opinion, having tried all of these systems, that the learning curve from XP to Vista and XP to KDE or Gnome is roughly the same. Ease of use isn't so much of an argument, anymore. My wife finds it much easier to use KDE than Windows. I use her as my guinea pig for everything.

The top features of Vista? You mean the 3D window change thing? I'll tell you right now that that doesn't impress me enough to go buy a new video card to run Vista. linux has this neat program called Beryl, and it turns all of my workspaces into a cube. I can rotate this cube around to change my desktop. Or, I can lay all of them flat and scroll through them. I can make any window transparent with the scroll wheel. These functions are a lot cooler than the Vista functions.

But you know the difference? Beryl runs with half of the minimum suggested stats as Vista, except for the processor, which is suggested 1.2 GHz. But these features are worthless, just like the Vista graphic features. They just look cool.

Yes, you should have a better graphics card for games, even on linux. But if I don't run games on it, it's a moot point. I don't need a screaming graphics card to run linux, just the operating system. If I was running games on it, I would need a better graphics card.

But you need a better graphics card just to get the added graphics tweaks in Vista. That doesn't seem much better. It doesn't seem worth it.

While HT doesn't do the job of dual core, it doesn't matter. You said it yourself, Microsoft never states it as a hardware requirement. Moreover, a dual core system is going to make any operating system function better, so where's the argument?

Improving security over XP wasn't exactly a big step. All they would have to do is fix the bugs that they shipped XP with, and fix the problems that they never fixed with XP. How many security updates have you done, though? Not that it really matters, because nothing is ever going to be perfect. Even in regards to security, linux isn't perfect. But statistics prove linux stability beats Windows. This paper is an interesting read for corporate types. http://www.guardiandigital.com/cgi-bin/go.pl?id=pr001

http://linux.wordpress.com/2007/05/0...ime-and-speed/

We have yet to see what Vista has done for uptime, though. I can't make an argument about it yet.

Again, I can run a current distribution of linux on my old Toshiba Satellite 75 MHz, 40 MB RAM. 814 MB hard drive. Anything past Windows 98 can't claim that. I don't need high-speed hardwdare to create documents, touch up pictures, listen to music, watch movies, check e-mail and surf the web. I don't even need it to run Apache, Postfix, Samba, Squirrelmail and Moodle. I can do all of this with a slow computer, and I can do it well! So what is the argument for me to use Vista?

Vista hasn't had enough test time to tell anyone if security is better than its predecessor. When it's been out for a year, I'll say that it would be an argument worth looking at.

Tell me what differences there are in the core operating system. I haven't heard of many changes, short of the encryption and DRM services.

Thanks,

Jacob

[PangingJr]

Jakob,
sounds and seems like you like to use linux, and also have know-how to use it, or your are already a linux guru and that can be a wow! i mean you can be very helpful. seriously, stick around to help those who are not as smart or fortunate as you are.
DH's Linux OS forum is also available here -- http://www.hardwareheaven.com/linux-operating-systems/

[Jakob]

Originally Posted by PangingJr

ever notice how some of us are not satisfied with Vista and by thinking it's a resource hog operating system.

hmm i even think Vista handles all of the system resources better than XP, include it has always managed to have less wasted RAM than XP, and to me Vista is not a resource hog operating system at all.

compared with the XP, which i did before. after having a large number of running processes, both Windows were still responsive, however i did experience a few lag periods in XP, while doing the same tasks in Vista there was no lag found. i don't have the pictures during running the observation programs with me any more.

PangingJr,

That's great. Evidently, you're right. XP was not as good at handling the resources that Vista is according to this picture. But since that had nothing to do with the arguments at hand, please tell me the point?

Obviously, you are running way above the specs required by either operating system. Good on you. Also, there's no specific list of all of the processes you are running. Some processes hog more than others. I see you are running the same number of processes, but that doesn't show me the specifics.

Going back to what the actual point of the matter is, you have to have, at a minimum, 512 MB of RAM, a 1 Ghz processor and a 20 GB hard drive just to run Vista. XP required 64 MB of RAM, 233 MHz and 1.5 GB of free hard drive space. So, 8 times the memory, about 4.29 times the processor and 13 times the hard drive space is required for Vista. That's a huge leap in the requirements.

And you're forced to get Windows when you buy a computer, for the most part. The only other choice readily available, as far as most people go, is Mac. And because of the familiarity of Windows and the fear of trying something new, most people choose familiarity. But that doesn't matter, because Mac is not as readily available. Circuit City and Best Buy, the "main-stream" places to get a computer, don't sell Mac. Therefore, only the one choice is available.

I'm getting off of the topic. The point is that most people don't need that much computer. You have to buy it to get Vista, though. It's not like XP is still available on most computers that you can buy. Now, you have to have that much computer.

And the open-source community won't be able to run this new hardware because the method of talking to it is proprietary. If you use the certain encryption scheme to talk to the hardware and you don't have permission from Microsoft, you are infringing on patents. This puts open-source out of business because they would have to pay Microsoft for the rights to use it. And everytime the open-source community released the code, Microsoft would get another payment because every copy of that software would have to be charged just to be used and distributed. It's forcing the competition out of business, a.k.a. a monopoly.

Anyhow, this is getting farther into the idealogical parts of the matter than should be here without provocation.

PangingJr, you are the only one who has given any resemblance of proof in their arguments, even though it was in the wrong direction. Thanks.

Thanks for your time,

Jacob

[PangingJr]

hmm i was not arguing with you. Jacob

[PangingJr]

when it comes to Vista, ever notice how some of us are not satisfied with it, and try to convince you that you are wrong that you choose to use Vista?
they won't just to post their point of view on what thay thinks about Vista and let it be, ever notice that no matter what you try to explain to them they will forever think you are wrong,
some even start accuse you of being wrong, some are insanely addicted to being right and will argue you Vista users post after post. some even try to bring linux OS and/or Mac OS X system into their arguing, or by keep comparing them with Vista. and keep telling you that you should use linux over Windows or Vista.

so if you are already know or tried linux OS and if you are already knew that you will never get your works done, or with the ways you want it with linux. this means you are already knew that you are a Windows user.

and so that, before you decided to use Vista you may want to compare XP and Vista system, and with your own experience, you want to make sure that Vista is not a resource hog operating system. Don’t compare linux with Vista, and Don’t waste your time trying to explain yourself why you want to use Windows to those who like to use linux.
good for them if thay want to use linux, you can let them be.

[akm1988]

It is a nice post.......

[Neshi]

[temeteus82]

Thread Closed!