×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vista Security The 'Longest Suicide Note in History'?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the /wrists dept.

Upgrades 467

rar42 writes "The Inquirer is reporting on an analysis of Vista by Peter Gutmann — a medical imaging specialist. This isn't the usual anti-Microsoft story — just a professional looking at what is going to happen to his computer if it is upgraded to Microsoft Vista. From the article: 'Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost,' says Gutmann."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

467 comments

Unnecessary Decline? (5, Insightful)

P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) (1012109) | more than 7 years ago | (#17361912)

From TFA:

If I do ever want to play back premium content, I'll wait a few years and then buy a $50 Chinese-made set-top player to do it, not a $1000 Windows PC. It's somewhat bizarre that I have to go to Communist China in order to find vendors who actually understand the consumer's needs.

At first, I shared some cognitive dissonance with Gutman; China, however, is governed by Chinese and for Chinese: they're allowed to act in their own best interests.

The U.S., on the other hand, is beholden to parasites and corporations; and compelled into an unnecessary decline.

Re:Unnecessary Decline? (4, Insightful)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17361982)

China, however, is governed by Chinese and for Chinese
*cough* I think you meant by Chinese Corporations for Chinese Parasites who also happen to hold government positions.

Re:Unnecessary Decline? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362020)

The U.S., on the other hand, is beholden to parasites and corporations
*cough* I think you meant by Chinese Corporations for Chinese Parasites who also happen to hold government positions.
Fixed that for you, you quoted the wrong part of his post.

Re:Unnecessary Decline? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362100)

China, however, is governed by Chinese and for Chinese
*cough* I think you meant by Chinese Corporations for Chinese Parasites who also happen to hold government positions./quote]

Yes, but the Chines parasites don't have a financial interest in the content, so their needs happen to align with our needs as consumers in this case.

Re:Unnecessary Decline? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362286)

All governments are parasites but it seems to be worth the effort expended in having them for the occasional time they save your ass. ;^)
You know, like saving us from those fscking evil other-parasites in WWII.
Am I libertarian yet? :{O

Re:Unnecessary Decline? (-1, Offtopic)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362452)

The other fscking parasites having been created by the same government in WWI. Simply put, without big countries there would be no wars. Majority of men able to wield arms would be just interested in killing any intruders, not starting their own conquest.

Re:Unnecessary Decline? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362044)

China, however, is governed by Chinese and for Chinese: they're allowed to act in their own best interests.

Your cliched anti-capitalist rant aside, this has to be one of the craziest things I've ever read on Slashdot.

Re:Unnecessary Decline? (1)

P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) (1012109) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362438)

Your cliched anti-capitalist rant aside, [...].

“Anti-capitalist?” American capital seeks the continuation of power at the expense of its subjects (viz. by preferential treatment of aliens); it's a classic case of governmental degenerescence.

Degeneration into tyranny, however, is not peculiar to capitalism.

Re:Unnecessary Decline? (2, Insightful)

StrawberryFrog (67065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362400)

China, however, is governed by Chinese and for Chinese

You meant to say: China, however, is governed by a few Chinese and for those Chinese.

they're allowed to act in their own best interests.

I'm not calling the Chinese government corrupt; I wouldn't know. But governing a county in your own best interest is generally neither good nor allowed, that is to say, it's illegal.

The U.S., on the other hand, is ... not all that different?

Well then don't use it (5, Insightful)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17361952)

You're not supposed to use a consumer grade OS for mission critical apps anyway. So if you went with a vendor that builds its apps on such an OS, then you are at fault.

Re:Well then don't use it (5, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362182)

Unfortunately there's very little choice. The systems that run medical scanners tend to run some form of UNIX, and you can buy a workstation for a couple hundred thousand that will do the same thing, or you can use the hospital's PACS web front end... which in most cases works pretty much exclusively with IE.

Re:Well then don't use it (3, Interesting)

Mike McCune (18136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362218)

Venders build mission critical apps on Windows all the time. It is easier to use what you know than the best tool for the job.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/6767 [securityfocus.com]

The worst case I ever saw in person was at an assisted living facility. Their pull chains (that the residents pull when they are in trouble) was being monitored by a PC running Windows 95 (this was in 2006).

>You're not supposed to use a consumer grade OS for mission critical apps anyway. So if you went with a vendor that >builds its apps on such an OS, then you are at fault.

It was supposed to be a C3 O/S !!!! (5, Interesting)

Cassini2 (956052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362266)

Many industrial and medical applications run on Windows. You forget that Windows NT was advertised as a high-security C3 operating system. Many applications were ported on this advertising. Some of the lock-down permissions in Windows NT were pretty draconian, and worked really well.

With Windows Vista, Microsoft appears to be completely abandoning any pretense of high-reliability.

Many industrial and medical applications have fairly high reliability requirements. Using commodity software and hardware has some cost and reliability advantages. It is easy to source replacement parts, and implement hardware redundancy. Being able to easily obtain replacement hardware is a big advantage if downtime costs are large.

The problem is that Microsoft appears to have abandoned the high-reliability sector. Windows XP has a continuous stream of rolling updates for both XP and the Anti-Virus packages. The result is that your high-reliability application can stop working for no apparent reason. From all indications, Windows Vista will make this worse.

Recently, I have been looking harder and harder at Linux. Linux offers a much more stable platform, and I can customize the installation to make it much more difficult to corrupt. The issue is that such a high software investment has been placed in specialized Windows solutions, that it is difficult to port everything to another operating system overnight.

Industrial Lab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362456)

I was running an industrial validation lab, and ran into similar stuff. In this case, it was stuff being pushed onto machines that needed to be operating. Combined with the usual blue screens, we had problems hitting time targets. se mabla

Not trolling.... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17361956)

I've seen Vista in action, and sure it's pretty and everything. I'm just not willing to trade the whole purpose of my computer for some graphical niceness. My computer is my media machine. I download video and watch it. Legally circumventing the TV licence fee. I'm not paying for a product so I can pay for more products. No way.

Re:Not trolling.... (1)

JamesTRexx (675890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362238)

Which is also the reason why I switched from windows 2000 to Fluxbox on Ubuntu as soon as I could. I can watch video files on my VIA EPIA without having to close the X11VNC session I use to control it. With Windows I had to close VNC because the framerate got too low.
A lightweight DE on *BSD and GNU/Linux makes a real difference.

Re:Not trolling.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362392)

Legally circumventing the TV licence fee.

If you're watching BBC programmes in the UK then there is no such legal circumvention. The law is very comprehensive in that area and has covered computer viewing for years.

Re:Not trolling.... (2, Informative)

celardore (844933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362460)

Legally circumventing the TV licence fee.

If you're watching BBC programmes in the UK then there is no such legal circumvention. The law is very comprehensive in that area and has covered computer viewing for years.

You're wrong. The TV licence covers the receiving and recording of broadcasts as they are being broadcast. I've got the documentation on my lap right now. The website clarifies this here. [tvlicensing.co.uk] This does not cover the shows that are available for viewing on BBC sites such as BBC Two's Watch Now [bbc.co.uk] . (IANAL though)

I don't much care for the TV licence.

Dupe from Friday (4, Informative)

ahecht (567934) | more than 7 years ago | (#17361958)

Re:Dupe from Friday (4, Insightful)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362050)

In this case, dupes are a good thing.

This attack on your freedoms needs to become widely known.

If they dupe this every other day until next June, it is good.

Re:Dupe from Friday (4, Funny)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362240)

If they dupe this every other day until next June, it is good.

If? You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot.

Re:Dupe from Friday (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362278)

Yawn

Not really. Sounding like a broken record harping a point over and over again is unlikely to sway anyone, particularly business customers who are going to purchase Vista because they're supposed to and home customers who will get it because it came with their machine. All of the other groups out there either tuned into their particular camps out of a nearly religious conviction or our of an active decision process. Those who actually make a well thought-out decision only need to be told once.

Re:Dupe from Friday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362402)

Sounding like a broken record harping a point over and over again is unlikely to sway anyone

Sure it will, as long as it comes across as if a bunch of different people are saying it. That's the basis of most propaganda, and the basis of most advertising. A majority of people believe something is true if they hear the same thing said by a number of different people, without any critical thought actually being involved in the process.

Re:Dupe from Friday (1, Interesting)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362052)

/signed

Mod parent up.

Mod story -1 redundant.

Mod me -1 offtopic.

Mod yourself Merry Christmas.

TLF

Re:Dupe from Friday (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362140)

mod yourself -1 dead by fucking killing yourself fucktard

Re:Dupe from Friday (3, Interesting)

quentin_quayle (868719) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362426)

I don't mind that it's a dupe. However, it is mis-titled.

It's not about Vista security. It's about Vista DRM.

The difference is that security is about the owner of the hardware establishing and protecting his control over it, while DRM is about a party A trying to claim some control over hardware belonging to another party B, on grounds that some pattern of bytes which A or a third party owns is currently instantiated, or might at some time be instantiated on B's hardware. When used for DRM, the term "security" becomes a meretricious euphemism designed to mislead an audience about who is securing what from whom.

Priorities (2, Informative)

bigberk (547360) | more than 7 years ago | (#17361960)

For the kinds of purposes I'm interested in (research, science) this will make workers question the priorities of the operating system they are using. Is the priority to have maximum flexibility, performance, compatibility and extensibility (*nix) or to have maximum convenience for consumers (Windows).

Without a doubt, Windows is still the most convenient platform for consumers. But the priority behind the design is not purely performance and flexibility, but protecting content and other commercial interests.

We sure know the priority isn't security either

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362126)

Without a doubt, Windows is still the most convenient platform for consumers.


I would think that most people would consider spyware/virii inconvenient...

Re:Priorities (1)

MouseR (3264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362130)

Without a doubt, Windows is still the most convenient platform for consumers

*humf* *cough* *cough* bleargh!!!!! *puke*

Nice trolling.

Re:Priorities (5, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362162)

Without a doubt, Windows is still the most convenient platform for consumers. But the priority behind the design is not purely performance and flexibility, but protecting content and other commercial interests.

Houston; we have doublethink.

KFG

Re:Priorities (4, Insightful)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362176)

We sure know the priority isn't security either

In fact, if they only wasted the half of the time they wasted in DRM in security improvements...

I mean, if you read the DRM protection [microsoft.com] work...they completely redid everything that could break DRM, they break compatibility, they're even planning systems that need to re-do the hardware to require encryption on the *system*bus* just to keep hardware hackers from stealing contents at that place and hence making the DRM useless.....

If they had wasted all those efforts in improving security...vista would be the most secure consumer os available

Re:Priorities (4, Insightful)

zCyl (14362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362430)

I mean, if you read the DRM protection work...they completely redid everything that could break DRM, they break compatibility, they're even planning systems that need to re-do the hardware to require encryption on the *system*bus* just to keep hardware hackers from stealing contents at that place and hence making the DRM useless.....

The message is clear. They believe their monopoly can be best maintained by catering to producers, rather than to consumers. Consumer choice is not driving that market.

Re:Priorities (1)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362316)

maximum flexibility, performance, compatibility and extensibility (*nix)
Please repost when you've rid yourself of the Unix Virus. *nix may be the best thing on today's market for desktop or server operating systems, but it does not in any way meet those criteria. Hell, nothing can ever give maximum in all of those, especially compatibility.

I'd prefer a less pre-loaded stance (3, Insightful)

eschasi (252157) | more than 7 years ago | (#17361970)

This writeup would be more useful if the author could maintain even a marginal pretense of objectivity. His constant use of loaded images ("grenade", "suicide note", "violate the laws of physics") works against him, and this butter-wouldn't-melt-in-his-mouth gem actually gave me a sad laugh when seen in context with his full note:
This document looks purely at the cost of the technical portions of Vista's content protection. The political issues (under the heading of DRM) have been examined in exhaustive detail elsewhere and won't be commented on further...
By "elsewhere" he must mean "in other sentences in this document." His facts, which he rarely backs up, are extremely suspect given his inability to separate his prejudices from his presentation. Considered as a persuasive essay, I'd give it a D. Which is not to say that I like DRM. It sucks, and Vista may become an unparalleled disaster because of it. But the author is far more adept at scoring points than he is at making his points persuasive.

Re:I'd prefer a less pre-loaded stance (5, Interesting)

aralin (107264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362088)

You know this is a problem when dealing with Microsoft. You come into the process as objective person without prejudice to them and then you study the subject. If you study in a sufficient detail, you will become so enraged by what they are doing and that you are now hopelessly prejudiced against Microsoft. Look at the judge Jackson in the Microsoft trial. That is a person who's living depends on being objective and he got so pissed off by studying Microsoft practices that even he was not able to keep being perceived as impartial and so his ruling got thrown out by court of higher instance.

The most sad part is that Microsoft is abusing this by pointing to every such study as prejudiced and often rightly so. But what is the general public to do now? You either have experts that study the matter and become prejudiced or you have those with only superficial knowledge who can keep the illusion of objectivity but more often than not they do not know enough about the matter. Often to the point to believe studies paid by Microsoft as being a source of objective information. And if you want to keep the illusion of objectivity you need to cite those and it just seems wrong to me.

Sometimes you are just not supposed to be objective. Some topics do not invite that form of discussion. Is the Earth flat? I don't think anybody expects you to present the supporting opinion in equal length. Did holocaust happen? Again, not really a question in need of giving equal space to both sides. So why 'Is Microsoft crooked and do they intentionally cripple their product to harm consumer and competition?' needs any more discussion even after it was affirmed by Findings of Fact published by a federal judge? The matter of do they or don't they has long been settled. At this point the only question should be: "How exactly are they trying to cheat this time?"

Re:I'd prefer a less pre-loaded stance (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362300)

I don't disagree with your very good point about how difficult it is to stay objective when judging Microsoft. Be careful though: you seem to be blurring the distinction between objective judgment and balanced review. A balanced review will attempt to present things from both sides, whether the observer believes the facts to be balanced or not, the purpose being to allow readers/viewers to make objective (or subjective - that's their call) judgments of their own. Such a review needs to be objective in itself, but that doesn't mean that objectivity denotes balance.

Judges have to routinely be objective and judgmental at the same time - that is, in effect, their whole job. A potted definition of objective judgment might be "deciding what is meritous against a set of reasoned, independently appointed criteria" (meaning of course that the setting of criteria would have to be objective too, but such is the recursive hell of jurisprudence).

I'm not saying this guy was objective, or that anybody looking at M$ has been or will be. I'm just saying that a perfectly objective judgment that falls against M$ would be indistinguishable from a carefully penned biased judgment. If M$ is irredeemably evil to all but the most cursory scrutiny, you will never find a considered, objective, balanced judgment. As humans, we are constantly judging everything according to the facts as we understand them, and this in turn alters our perception of the facts presented to us. Ergo there is no such thing as absolute objectivity in humans. You just have to choose those authorities you believe you can trust, and keep questioning the values of anyone with a stake in the discussion - including yourself.

Re:I'd prefer a less pre-loaded stance (2, Insightful)

elgatozorbas (783538) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362364)

Sometimes you are just not supposed to be objective.

Why not?

Some topics do not invite that form of discussion. Is the Earth flat? I don't think anybody expects you to present the supporting opinion in equal length. Did holocaust happen? Again, not really a question in need of giving equal space to both sides. So why 'Is Microsoft crooked and do they intentionally cripple their product to harm consumer and competition?' needs any more discussion...

Disclaimer: I don't want to choose sides here. But apart from being subject to Godwin's law [wikipedia.org] , your argument doesn't hold for 100%. Assuming that 'earth flatness' and 'holocaust realness' are in a set of undisputable facts (most people agree here. anyway: not the topic now), it is imho a subjective act to put the Microsoft stuff there as well. To the NRA the right to bear arms may appear as obvious as the danger of doing so may appear to others.

Re:I'd prefer a less pre-loaded stance (1)

KNicolson (147698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362122)

I had the same feelings too reading that story.
violate the laws of physics
Where is this outlined? I didn't see anything in the body of the article to suggest why this is so.

Re:I'd prefer a less pre-loaded stance (1)

OECD (639690) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362288)

Where is this outlined? I didn't see anything in the body of the article to suggest why this is so.

It wasn't highlited, but I think what he meant was that the same performance was expected despite the increased overhead.

Or something like that.

Re:I'd prefer a less pre-loaded stance (1)

Grym (725290) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362418)

Where is this outlined? I didn't see anything in the body of the article to suggest why this is so.

This part of his paper is using phrases from the larger debate about content protection and "Digital Rights Management" (DRM) in general. If you don't follow this stuff avidly, I can see why you might feel like this statement of his is hyperbole.

However, it is not. Fundamentally, DRM and content protection is impossible. Simply because no matter how the super-encrypted, SSL-delivered, digitally-signed content is secured, it must be experienced in an analog form that humans can perceive (usually through lights and sound, though not necessarily). And once in this analog form, any control you may have had over its distribution is now gone. Another term for this is "the analog hole."

Therefore, so long as human anatomy remains unchanged and people still perceive things physically, what the content/media-distribution industry is asking from hardware and software manufacturers IS impossible and DOES violate the laws of physics.

-Grym

Re:I'd prefer a less pre-loaded stance (4, Interesting)

Cassini2 (956052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362406)

It is quite difficult to work in industries were Windows Vista might be used, and not wind up with a pretty mean-spirited anti-Microsoft argument. Typically the train of reasoning goes like this:

1. Power plant uses Windows PC's to monitor "x".
2. If "x" can't be monitored, we shut the power plant down. This is "fail-safe".
3. If enough power plants shut down, then we have to shut down the power grid. Shutting down the power grid affects the entire east-coast. When the power grid is shut-down, we automatically shut down all power plants. This is a fail-safe response. After the power grid is shutdown, it takes a few days to restart things.
4. If we shut down the grid, then several people will die (via indirect sequences of events). At a minimum, many people will be placed in high-risk situations, and large numbers will be inconvenienced.

What would it take to shutdown a network of identical Windows PC's making up a power system? A piece of malware, a rogue anti-virus update, etc. It really wouldn't take all that much to wipe out the power grid for the east coast. A series of inept coincidences could potentially succeed.

As a Professional Engineer, a person who is supposed to be able to advise companies on this stuff, it is extremely difficult to avoid sounding excessively alarmist. I work on industrial applications that are supposed to be fairly high-reliability. It is very difficult to keep Windows PCs isolated from the outside world. If you don't isolate the PC's, then you are vulnerable to Windows service-packs and Windows Anti-Virus software shutting down your production line. How do you even explain the problem to people? Everyone uses a Windows PC, and a Windows PC could never hurt them, right?

What do I recommend? I don't know the answer. Mostly, I try not to think about it too much. With the large amounts of specialized Windows software, it is difficult to think of any easy fixes.

A biz idea for the new year (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17361972)

Nobody ever asked for Vista. Nobody wants it. I'm tired of MS trying to ram it down our throats.

Did you know DirectX 10 will only be released under Vista? Even if you have the latest and greatest G-card and a fast system, sorry, if you run XP you'll be stuck with DirectX 9. There's no technical reason for this. It's just that MS wants you to 'retrograde' to Vista.

How about someone do a web site reselling old XP licenses? eBay refused to do this because MS asked them not too. How about someone will some guts and enterpreneurship takes a go at this. Could be a huge market for XP resales especially to businesses?

As for games developers, do what I do: Switch to OpenGL next release.

Re:A biz idea for the new year (1, Interesting)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362004)

Nobody ever asked for Vista. Nobody wants it. I'm tired of MS trying to ram it down our throats.
Well if nobody wants it then it's not going to sell very well and your alleged problem solve itself. Then everybody who didn't ask for Vista can move along and have Linux rammed down their throats which nobody asked for either.

How about someone do a web site reselling old XP licenses?
Why would you do that? Nobody asked for XP either. How about we all go back to having Desqview on DOS 3.3? Ah, those were the days.
 

Re:A biz idea for the new year (1)

GFree (853379) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362174)

Who the hell modded this troll? He has a valid point. Just because logic goes against your love of Linux doesn't mean he's trolling.

Re:A biz idea for the new year (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362338)

Because Linux will not be rammed down anyone's throats.
Furthermore, people have an option, they could get a Mac.

Re:A biz idea for the new year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362178)

DeskView? DOS? Common, that's just useless junk.

Now working on a machine level on ENIAC, that's a different story! True, we had a bug here and there, but man, those were the days!

Re:A biz idea for the new year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362350)

"Common"??? Come on, learn to spell past Grade 3 level.

Re:A biz idea for the new year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362294)

Nobody wants Vista. What we all want is the latest games and programs, which will now run only on Vista thanks to MS. And so people will still buy it.

Re:A biz idea for the new year (1)

TheAngryDome (1035092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362312)

Well if nobody wants it then it's not going to sell very well and your alleged problem solve itself. Then everybody who didn't ask for Vista can move along and have Linux rammed down their throats which nobody asked for either.

It's going to sell quite well because it'll be shipped with every new computer, a bunch of "impartial" reviewers will call it the best thing since the mouse, and Windows XP will become less and less convenient to either buy or have pre-installed for the majority of consumers.

Re:A biz idea for the new year (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362158)

Here's an interesting tidbit from the WINE folks [winehq.org] :

Direct3D10, which will ship with Windows Vista in a few months, doesn't seem to be a large cause for concern. At first glance it appears to be more of an evolutionary change rather than revolutionary. New shader support will be needed, but extending ours once OpenGL supports it should be pretty easy. Stefan mentioned Microsoft is currently offering a lot of incentives for Windows developers who develop D3D10-only games since they'll only be usable on Vista - there's no plan to backport D3D10 to XP. Dan Kegel asked if that means we should port Wine's forthcoming D3D10 implementation to Windows, which would be relatively easy when we switch to WGL.

I don't know if that's all a good idea... (2, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362306)

...but from the PR standpoint, it's a WIN. I'm all for discouraging Windows use, but I'm also one for personal
choice. And if it means someone has to give people crutches in the short-term to score points in the long run
so be it.

Re:A biz idea for the new year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362198)

Nobody ever asked for Vista. Nobody wants it. I'm tired of MS trying to ram it down our throats."

Did you know DirectX 10 will only be released under Vista?
Did you know that it's Microsoft's choice as to what they release Dx10 for? Here's a hint: no matter how much you whine about it, companies aren't forced into doing what you want them to do. If you don't like it don't fucking buy it you whiny troll.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362416)

No, you have it wrong. Your "companies" exist only from being granted a governmental license to be of the public interest and then make profits,in that order and not reversed, given that they follow the law all the time. MS is a convicted abusive monopolist of the highest order, totally guity of numerous crimes against consumers and other businesses. This is fact, not theory and not debateable. And they aren't done in court yet, either in the US or overseas. They are on the thinnest ice right now despite their huge size, and that psychopath Ballmer is on even thinner ice legally despite his braggadacio.

  At one time Enron was huge, too, but their arrogance and questionable antics lead to their downfall and execs beinc charged and convicted.. The same can happen to MS and their goon hierachy as well. And the government-the people-can require the companies to do anything they say or lose their business charter, their incorporation.. yes, they CAN be forced. They do NOT have any "right" to be a corporation,none, zero, no rights at all, only named individual humans have "rights". They have limited PERMISSION to offer consumer products, as long as they don't screw up into illegal acts, which in their case they seem to have a hard time avoiding, they seem to be addicted to criminality. Telling the consumer they don't have to buy criminality is correct, we as a society can bust them up and chuck their executives in jail if we feel like it and pull theior products from the market and let the shareholders just eat ir raw.

  IF we can get some non bribed off people back into government,which is *quite* possible now with the semi regime change that has happened, we can go back and revisit MS criminal actions, past and present, and bust that criminal gang up like they deserved to be a long time ago and their vista could be hasta la vista.

    "Companies" are NOT allowed to just "go do what they want" even if you believe that in some sort of "money is god" cult like utterance.

    If you want that sort of market try the horn of africa, no rules there other than how poewrful you and your fellow criminal hoodies are. In the civilized world, "companies" are coming under more close inspection because of the bogus crap they try and pull all the time and their alleged "products" can be regulated. In their case I think a total code audit is in order to see how much copyright violation is going on and how many patents they have infringed. Want to bet they are 100% clean? I wouldn't. In their business we need to see how much bribes or illegtimate "consumtant fees" are being paid to officials and purchasing officers in order to sell their products. Think they are really clean there too? That's two things society can do to take a look at these convicted criminals to see how much more mischief they have been up to to make the sort of profits they show. There's something not quite right there...

  Starting to get it yet, shill? You start draggng billions out of economies all over and get caught time and again pulling illegal stunts eventually you WON'T be doing that. And there goes your paycheck.

    And if they offer something for sale, they usually have to make it work, not hurt other people, and not hurt rival businesses by using illegal tactics. Fail any of those three things and they can get their product recalled, happens ALL THE TIME with other products, by law. They have been convicted before, think they have changed? Just because they have gotten away with being assholes for a long time with some joke fines doesn't mean they always will.

    If it can be determined that Vista runs afoul of fair use rights, etc, or unfairly restricts other business or consumers with what they offer as software by abusing their monopoly status again, or if they acted in collusioon with other vendors to dominate a market illegally, they could possibly and should be told to either alter their software radically, or have it confiscated and pulled off the market and refund 100% purchase price to the consumers, in between some high level muckety mucks getting slammer time and the parasite and no-nothing drooling stockholders getting a well deserved and long overdue expensive lesson in governance of "their" company and how laws and civlization really work.

  We, the civilized and honest humans on the planet, don't take to heinous predators in other words, and MS has been warned numerous times, and by default, their "stockholders" have been warned too. The rest of the planet has noticed as well and some pretty powerful folks in other nations governments are looking at your company now with more than a bit of suspicion, and it's not like there aren't any alternative products out there to replace their crapware.

In essence, you "free market-anything goes-no limits-no laws-FU" types are a dangerous medieval anachronism in society and need to be civilized by force of law or exiled to some territory where you can play "caveat emptor" to your heart's content with the other snake-oil peddling predators.

Not an "upgrade", just a different flavor (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17361994)

Microsoft was legally forced to remove version numbers from Windows as the software they ship was technically no longer improved.

Cat got my tongue! (3, Funny)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362002)

``This isn't the usual anti-Microsoft story just a professional looking at what is going to happen to his computer if it is upgraded to Microsoft Vista.''

Doesn't any professional investigation of Vista inevitably end up being an anti-Microsoft story?

(Just kidding. I actually think Microsoft put a lot of good things in Vista - although I'm not convinced it's a good product, and I'm definitely not dying to use it)

if its a good OS, todays ver is the final (4, Interesting)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362398)

Look at linux... its not like we have Linux 3.0 and Linux 4.0 where nothing old works.

Its still linux. 8 year old stuff still compiles mostly, its fluid.

If windows was so great, it would stay at one version XP forever, with unlimited updates forever, SP4 SP21. etc...
Just because they are forced by marketing to make a new version is admiting its core is crap and needs a rewrite.

They could just as easily update/replace portions of XP gradually, six monthly. And make sure each other component isnt
too tied to others. ie WMP shouldnt need IE7 or something else... it should be detect and use if available.

This whole idea of , lets stop current dev and all new dev is placed into a new 'version' edition is total marketing crap, and
old school stuff of the 80s. Modern complex systems should never have a major rebuild, its always small step updates, like real
biological evolution.

OSX is basically the same, but again its articially versionized because of just new components added, and the silly side effects like
newly compiled made software not working on old OSX's even if they use no new features, thats my biggest pet pieve of OSX. Sometimes
its only the result of the installer package, not the code it self which would work fine. If X library is less than version Y, then dont use
those features.

Btw does apple make the old OS10.1 and 10.2 upgrades from 10.0 FREE NOW? what about any one left in 10.2 land, do they get a free 10.3 upgrade
once 10.4 is widely installed? Having too many versions installed out there should be a worry for them, they should allow all 10.3 machines to upgrade
for free. It would surely be cheaper to have no support for pre 10.3 if you provide free upgrades.

Primary Sources, FTW! (4, Informative)

Grym (725290) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362012)

Here's a link [auckland.ac.nz] to the actual paper referenced in the article.

I would post the entire paper, but it's too large. Here are some notable excerpts:

However, one important point that must be kept in mind when reading this document is that in order to work, Vista's content protection must be able to violate the laws of physics, something that's unlikely to happen no matter how much the content industry wishes it were possible. This conundrum is displayed over and over again in the Windows content-protection specs, with manufacturers being given no hard- and-fast guidelines but instead being instructed that they need to display as much dedication as possible to the party line. The documentation is peppered with sentences like: "It is recommended that a graphics manufacturer go beyond the strict letter of the specification and provide additional content-protection features, because this demonstrates their strong intent to protect premium content". This is an exceedingly strange way to write technical specifications, but is dictated by the fact that what the spec is trying to achieve is fundamentally impossible. Readers should keep this requirement to display appropriate levels of dedication in mind when reading the following analysis.

Vista's content protection mechanism only allows protected content to be sent over interfaces that also have content-protection facilities built in... Since S/PDIF doesn't provide any content protection, Vista requires that it be disabled when playing protected content. In other words if you've invested a pile of money into a high-end audio setup fed from a digital output, you won't be able to use it with protected content. Similarly, component (YPbPr) video will be disabled by Vista's content protection, so the same applies to a high-end video setup fed from component video.

Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires that any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality that passes through it. This is done through a "constrictor" that downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up-scales it again back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in quality... Amusingly, the Vista content protection docs say that it'll be left to graphics chip manufacturers to differentiate their product based on (deliberately degraded) video quality. This seems a bit like breaking the legs of Olympic athletes and then rating them based on how fast they can hobble on crutches.

Vista's content protection requires that devices (hardware and software drivers) set so-called "tilt bits" if they detect anything unusual. For example if there are unusual voltage fluctuations, maybe some jitter on bus signals, a slightly funny return code from a function call, a device register that doesn't contain quite the value that was expected, or anything similar, a tilt bit gets set. Such occurrences aren't too uncommon in a typical computer (for example starting up or plugging in a bus-powered device may cause a small glitch in power supply voltages, or drivers may not quite manage device state as precisely as they think). Previously this was no problem - the system was designed with a bit of resilience, and things will function as normal... With the introduction of tilt bits, all of this designed-in resilience is gone. Every little (normally unnoticeable) glitch is suddenly surfaced because it could be a sign of a hack attack. The effect that this will have on system reliability should require no further explanation. Content-protection "features" like tilt bits also have worrying denial-of- service (DoS) implications. It's probably a good thing that modern malware is created by programmers with the commercial interests of the phishing and spam industries in mind rather than just creating as much havoc as possible.

The high-end graphics and audio market are dominated entirely by gamers, who will do anything to gain the tiniest bit of extra performance, like buying Bigfoot Networks' $250 "Killer NIC" ethernet card in the hope that it'll help reduce their network latency by a few milliseconds. These are people buying $500-$1000 graphics and sound cards for which one single sale brings the device vendors more than the few cents they get from the video/audio portion of an entire roomful of integrated-graphics-and-sound PCs. I wonder how this market segment will react to knowing that their top-of-the-line hardware is being hamstrung by all of the content-protection "features" that Vista hogties it with?

The worst thing about all of this is that there's no escape. Hardware manufacturers will have to drink the kool-aid (and the reference to mass suicide here is deliberate [Note D]) in order to work with Vista: "There is no requirement to sign the [content-protection] license; but without a certificate, no premium content will be passed to the driver". Of course as a device manufacturer you can choose to opt out, if you don't mind your device only ever being able to display low-quality, fuzzy, blurry video and audio when premium content is present, while your competitors don't have this (artificially-created) problem. As a user, there is simply no escape. Whether you use Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows 95, Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, Solaris (on x86), or almost any other OS, Windows content protection will make your hardware more expensive, less reliable, more difficult to program for, more difficult to support, more vulnerable to hostile code, and with more compatibility problems. Here's an offer to Microsoft: If we, the consumers, promise to never, ever, ever buy a single HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc containing any precious premium content [Note E], will you in exchange withhold this poison from the computer industry? Please?

Interesting to say the least.

-Grym

Re:Primary Sources, FTW! (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362068)

Vista's content protection requires that devices (hardware and software drivers) set so-called "tilt bits" if they detect anything unusual. For example if there are unusual voltage fluctuations, maybe some jitter on bus signals, a slightly funny return code from a function call, a device register that doesn't contain quite the value that was expected, or anything similar, a tilt bit gets set.

This is the first time i've seen this mentioned, is it true? If it is, and it's actually enforced by Vista (somehow forcing drivers to implement this functionality), my guess is that the average PC won't even be able to boot. Taking a multimeter and measuring voltages arround a motherboard can be a, well, enlightening experience.

Re:Primary Sources, FTW! (1)

oostevo (736441) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362444)

Yup, it's true.

In fact, here's a paper from Microsoft which includes details of how it's going to work. Sorry, but they've got it in .doc format.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/D/6/5D6 EAF2B-7DDF-476B-93DC-7CF0072878E6/output_protect.d oc

Since when is Gutmann a medical imaging specialist (3, Informative)

The Monster (227884) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362022)

From TFA:
"Peter Gutmann's report describes the pernicious DRM built into Vista and required by MS for approval of hardware and drivers," said INQ reader Brad Steffler, MD, who brought the report to our attention. "As a physician who uses PCs for image review before I perform surgery, this situation is intolerable. It is also intolerable for me as a medical school professor as I will have to switch to a MAC or a Linux PC. These draconian dicta just might kill the PC as we know it."
Gutmann is a CompSci guy who has been a biggie in the crypto community since about forever. You'd think an 'editor' would know that. Alas, Slashdot has people with the title, who don't do a job that deserves it.

Wrong job description. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362076)

Slashdot "editor" isn't about being tech-savvy, and never was. It's about people like Roland Piquepaille and PreacherTom. It's about profit.

The "editor" is there to post as many stories as possible which will boost Slashdot's share of ad-revenue. That's the only requirement.

It doesn't matter if the story is uninteresting, irrelevant, or just plain idiotic. So long as Slashdot get's a cut of the advertising bucks, mission accomplished.

You'd think after all these years everybody would have figured that out. Why else would we have had to endure clueless gits such as Zonk, ScuttleMonkey, kdawson, or -- dear gods -- Michael Sims?

As a onetime colleague and friend of Peter, I can say that Slashdot employees are really the anti-Gutmans of the tech world.

Vista is a fantastic piece of ... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362036)

Vista is a fantastic piece of modern day engineering. When that boot screen loads, I almost cream my shorts. People are saying that Vista is a clone of the MAC operating system. Are they mad? Vista was planned 6 years ago, the MAC OS stole from those early demo versions that where released.

MAC is simple if you do everything Apples way, think outside the box and you will feel frustrated.
Vista is so versatile, smooth and it has all the DRM goodness a man can get.
Linux is for hardcore 1ee7 haxors, with no dress sense.

PS: Linux users are breaking the LAW every time they watch a DVD using their OS.

Re:Vista is a fantastic piece of ... (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362134)


PS: Linux users are breaking the LAW every time they watch a DVD using their OS.


Bullshit. I've burned quite a few movies to DVD from archive.org [archive.org] and I doubt any of them violate even the US's draconian laws.

Re:Vista is a fantastic piece of ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362138)

Hmmmmmm, Microsoft users are breaking the law each time they connect to the Internet.

Re:Vista is a fantastic piece of ... (3, Interesting)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362146)



>PS: Linux users are breaking the LAW every time they watch a DVD using their OS.

Untrue.

Distributors of some types of DVD decoding software may be doing so in violation of civil statutes in certain jurisdictions, but I must ask you to cite the specific prohibition you claimed in your PS:. Chapter and verse of the applicable law, please, don't waste our time with "DMCA". I know all about the DMCA, the DVD/CCA/CSS issues, etc.

Medical Imaging Specialist???? (4, Informative)

perry (7046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362066)

Peter is a security guy. He's written widely used crypto software. He is not a medical imaging specialist. Where did /. get the idea that he's a medical imaging specialist???

Re:Medical Imaging Specialist???? (2, Informative)

Pinky3 (22411) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362226)

From a quote in the Inquirer article. ",,,INQ reader Brad Steffler, MD, who brought the report to our attention. 'As a physician who uses PCs for image review before I perform surgery, this situation is intolerable.' "

OK, so the submitter couldn't distiguish the quote from the INQ submitter from the subject of the article, but at least he didn't make the whole thing up.

Al

Duped FUD (1)

nanarchy (1034866) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362074)

This article was poorly researched FUD the first time it appeared on /. last week. Editors if your gonna dupe something, At least make it something worth reading.

Re:Duped FUD (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362232)

Why you think it's FUD? The guy basically argues that forcing sound card companies to encrypt the data from the memory to the sound card through the bus is a stupid idea that only increases costs and that consumers haven't asked it. IMO it's a good article.

Re:Duped FUD (1)

nanarchy (1034866) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362454)

If that was what he was arguing that would be fine. Instead makes stupid comments about how it prevents him playing crap and is forcing him to change platforms. Vista DOES NOT force anyone to use DRM, it doesn't take your non drm'ed content and suddenly magically add DRM to it, it does not prevent ANY of your existing or any new non DRM'ed content from working exactly as it works now. The ONLY thing Vista does is to ALSO allow you to play DRM content. Hence it is FUD, FUD is Fear, uncertainty and Doubt. This article relies on very little facts and pushes FUD with nothing to back it up.

biased analysis, with a crunchy core of truth (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362082)

The tone of the article and analysis is very slanted, but the one basic statement that cannot be argued with is the following:

"...spend time implementing large amounts of anti-functionality when it's already hard enough to get things running smoothly without the intentional crippling."
The days of PCs as a general purpose, low cost, programmable machine are done if content protection at the hardware level becomes reality. Things *barely* works as it stands, you can't add all this complexity and intentional obfuscation and think it will continue to work.

Bending Over Shows A Knew Vista (1)

chromozone (847904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362094)

Well it's becoming more evident everyday that many corporations, politicians and media sorts see people in markets as not much more that cultured bacteria in a dish. They give you a marginal amount of satisfaction and then stick you in the eye hoping in the end you will be just one more percent more satisfied than less and so they keep you in orbit that way while they move on to the next triangulation.

I bought a highly rated Dell 2007WFP last month and it turned out Dell was now making that model with a whole new panel without telling anyone. A 8 bit S-IPS was replaced with a junky 6 Bit S-PVA. It's a very different monitor now. Dell pretty much shows it has contempt for customers and Microsoft is the same. You get a few nice new features (some not ripped off from Apple) and then you get spanked and are told its for your own good (or somebody's).

I only cut Microsoft some slack because other parasites try to bleed Microsoft non-stop. When all the big players get done wrestling each other the little people not trampled yet get the chance to overpay for some compromised item that's more sizzle than steak. Vista will be ok - good enough to use. But it will kcik you in the balls all the time just to remind you that you are an extension of your computer (and those that run it) and not vice versa.

Now I will try to watch the game on television. They still show some of the action in between endless commercials that scream at you.

Call Kevorkian (0)

Chiminea (696521) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362108)

As Microsoft moves further into the entertainment business the actual computational side will either spin off or die off. Frankly I don't give a damn if the hollywood guys and the music guys all go broke. We have somehow bought into this idea that what they "create" entitles them to obscene profit and privilege. The resources law enforcement wastes making sure these parasites can afford more hookers and crack is a travesty. Now you can expect to have your mission critical and production machines lose their minds when some content protection system kicks in.
Sorry about the rant.

When will the majority of consumers wake up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362132)

I could have Windows legally for free (university license, which includes copies for students for non-commercial use) but since it would mean that MS could claim one more legit copy of Windows in the world I won't to do it - but most consumers are willing to pay for shit like that? When will people wake up? I stopped buying music long time ago due to certain draconian legislation and music is just entertainment whilst I actually have to settle with being slightly less productive and more frustrated using certain Linux apps that aren't as good as some Windows equivalents.

obviously fud (2, Funny)

farker haiku (883529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362144)

fta: Disclaimer
Any opinions expressed on this page are not in fact mine but were forced on me at gunpoint by the University of Auckland.


He a shill! :)

Peter who? (4, Funny)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362220)

No matter how good a medical imaging specialist Peter Gutmann happens to be, I think I'm going to wait for some security experts to weigh in on Vista issues before I jump to any conclusions.

Re:Peter who? (2, Informative)

Thanatopsis (29786) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362234)

You realize the original poster confused the original computer science guy with some one commenting on his article right?

BTW the link to the paper is here.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c ost.txt [auckland.ac.nz]

Re:Peter who? (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362258)

Gadzooks! The sarcasm was too subtle.

Oh, well, now I'll be modded to hell.

Re:Peter who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362394)

Subtlety on slashdot requires a big blinking "look at me be subtle" marquee in 32 pt violet text and a looping midi playing "subtle days are here again" at maximum volume.


Otherwise people don't get it.

Remmember..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362236)

The trouble with M$ + SONY all that long ago 1999 cira...

Just shows what has happened. Not even SONY want to play with M$ in this game cause SONY have RESPECT to the people!

Just goes to show,

SONY dumps M$ for human colors not $

Happy XMAS!

Progress requires that RIAA/MPAA be screwed over (2, Interesting)

ConfusedSelfHating (1000521) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362244)

The record and film industry do not want new technologies to be available to the public. They will fight bitterly until the last, until the new medium is forced on them. And then they will make money on it. Think of home video. The film industry brought the VCR manufacturers all the way to the Supreme Court until they lost. Now the film industry makes significantly more money in home video sales than in the theatres. Technology must be imposed non-consentually on the content providers. The manufacturers need to release their products regardless of the complaints of the content providers.

I don't know why Microsoft is bending over for the media companies. They should just publically state that any mandated copy protection will hurt the ability of corporations to develop their own proprietary software. I'm sure there is at least a dozen companies which will gladly provide written statements about how the copy protection hurts their business. Microsoft then gives the media companies the middle finger. Pirates rape the media companies in innovative ways by releasing the content in manners not approved by the owners. The media companies are forced to create new media delivery methods to match consumer demands. This increases their revenues which were stagnant because of media executives who couldn't innovate their way out of a paper bag. The consumer benefits from new options in the market. Everyone benefits from the rape.

I don't believe piracy for profit should be legal. However, I don't believe that non-profit piracy is that bad. Many people would never purchase the movie or television show. Many people later purchase the legal version of the pirated product. For example, let's say a Slashdot reader named Jim missed out on the first 8 episodes of Heroes. He had heard it was a really good show, but didn't want to watch number nine first. Let's say that Jim downloaded the episodes in non-approved manner and watched them. Now Jim is a loyal Heroes watcher. Or let's say that Jim downloads technical books, finds which ones he likes and then purchases them online. Does Jim contribute to the media companies bottom line or does he hurt the media companies bottom line?

Re:Progress requires that RIAA/MPAA be screwed ove (1)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362304)

I don't know why Microsoft is bending over for the media companies.

Isn't it obvious ? Microsoft markets their OS to the movie/music companies as being the only system secure enough for them to release their content in. In turn, the movie/music companies only release their content to play back under Windows. A nice little win-win situation all round (except for the poor consumer, who loses twice...)

Re:Progress requires that RIAA/MPAA be screwed ove (1)

goodcow (654816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362404)

Except Microsoft basically owns the OS market, and they can therefore dictate their own terms, much like Apple and the iTunes store in the portable music sector.

What are the media companies going to do, not release media that will play on Windows operating systems if Microsoft doesn't implement their DRM? Hell no. So again, why is Microsoft bending to their demands?

that's why microsoft is to be the pimp...... (1)

hguorbray (967940) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362370)

MS are inserting themselves in the stream because they want to be the pimp of all media. they will shutout non-microsoft obedient hardware vendors as well as stopping use of VMs, alternative OSs and legacy multimedia I/O such as spdif and composite video

Watch for iPod Vista compatibility 'problems' to start surfacing for the benefit of Zune. The other big thing this DRM play will also try to do is to reintroduce protected CDs or to make it more difficult to play/rip unencumbered CDs.

MS want the cartel-on-cartel action that the music and video industries also want so they can dominate the mOS/HW market the media cartels want to force the users to go the leased-conent model and eliminate private music ownership -it would almost be socialistic -in the Kremlin sort of way, but not like true Socialism :-(...

Plus they need more leverage against iTunes/iPod

-I'm just sayin'

Re:Progress requires that RIAA/MPAA be screwed ove (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362448)

Let's say that Jim downloaded the episodes in non-approved manner and watched them. This one is totally off base. If you can download the content, why purchase it? I certainly wouldn't

I'm new here but... (5, Informative)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362246)

Could someone please like, read....something before they post a summary? I found no indication that Gutmann is a medical imaging specialist from his web page or report. He's a computer scientist who specializes in compression and encryption, which actually makes him a little bit qualified to perform a professional review of the new operating system.

The only thing remotely medicine related here is a quote from 'Brad Steffler MD.', a surgeon who claims that Microsoft's restrictive DRM methodologies make it more difficult for him to do his job.

it's amusing... (1)

digitaldoom (1026916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362292)

to see these old chestnuts dragged out with every new version of Windows. There isn't a single new complaint since Windows95. Most of it unqualified paranoid ranting. Keep notes and you can be amused when all this starts again with Windows Vienna!

Slashdot editors ... thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362372)

Thanks for keeping the presses rolling on Christmas.

The SIMPSONS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17362446)

There is a brilliant episode of the SIMPSONS that has an XMAS 'SHIT' in it, it realy reminds me of Micro$hit!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...