|
|
|
Ask Your Vista Questions Here.
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. December 2006 @ 15:01 |
Link to this message
|
Windows Vista and the secret of full disk encryption
December 13, 2006 3:45 PM PST
Add to your del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg this storyDigg this
When I talk to large enterprises, they tend to be either deploying or planning to deploy PC encryption tools, especially for laptops. This is no longer a "nice to have;" it has become a "gotta have."
With Windows XP or older versions, this means adding on full disk encryption utilities from vendors like GuardianEdge, PGP, PointSec or SafeBoot for $100 to $200 per system. That can add up to a pretty big chunk of change in acquisition costs, let alone the dough needed for installation, configuration, and ongoing support.
Enter Windows Vista. Everyone talks about the new GUI or kernel modification restrictions, but enterprise-class versions of Windows Vista also come with BitLocker full disk encryption (note: BitLocker is bundled into Windows Vista versions for Microsoft Software Assurance customers). Like the software utilities, BitLocker provides protection against the "oops" factor -- lost or stolen systems. Windows Vista also supports the Encrypted File System which offers additional safeguards against malicious internal threats which are more likely to lead to a real data breach, not just regulatory-driven data disclosure.
So here's my thought. Since most large shops are going to upgrade to Windows Vista anyway, why not eschew the add-on tools and fast track the migration? In other words, use your need for laptop encryption as a rationale to jump on the Windows Vista bandwagon in 2007?
Now I realize that my suggestion borders on Analyst blasphemy. It is common wisdom to recommend waiting to upgrade to new operating systems while Microsoft "gets the bugs out." Operating system migrations are also more difficult and costly than simply deploying an encryption utility. Clearly, I am comparing apples and oranges and am way off base.
I don't think so. Here's my logic:
1. Rolling out a tactical security tool with a two-year life span is nuts. Do you really want to install software, disrupt users, and train support staff in 2007 then throw all this effort away in mid-2008? You can't even depreciate the software in that time frame so good luck getting this strategy by the CFO.
2. Windows Vista has a whole bunch of other ROI-type features in it that should help cost justify a more aggressive upgrade cycle. For example, patching systems with Windows Vista is a whole lot easier and efficient than with XP. On this benefit alone, users can recover the incremental cost of a Windows Vista migration.
3. Your gonna go to Windows Vista anyway so weighing the decision based on the relative work needed to install a security tools versus an OS upgrade doesn't flush. Buying an encryption software utilities seems like retrofitting a 1955 Dodge with air bags and seat belts. You can do it, but why would you?
Full disk encryption has become a laptop requirement and Windows Vista can provide this functionality for the price of admission. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Posted by Jon Oltsik
http://news.com.com/2061-11203_3-6143577...-0-20&subj=news
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
The_Fiend
Suspended permanently
|
14. December 2006 @ 00:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
If i want disc encryption, i'll use PGP or GnuPG.
Saves me from some bloatware.
irc://arcor.de.eu.dal.net/wasted_hate
Wanna tell me off, go ahead.
I dare ya !
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. December 2006 @ 02:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'll just stick with XP til Hell freezes over.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. December 2006 @ 03:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by garmoon:
I'll just stick with XP til Hell freezes over.
Unless the devs are indapendant MS will bribe and steal to have everything Vister only.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. December 2006 @ 13:56 |
Link to this message
|
Can Microsoft stay a step ahead of the Vista pirates?
This week, Microsoft began making available to select Windows Vista users an update to Vista that is aimed at thwarting downloaders who are circumventing Vista's build-in product activation. But is Microsoft's solution going to do much to stop the so-called "frankenbuilds" that combine combining test versions of Vista with the final code?
Microsoft is pushing out the new Vista update via the Windows Update Web site, as company officials explained on the Windows Genuine Advantage team blog on December 14.
"Windows Vista will use the new Windows Update client to require only the 'frankenbuild' systems to go through a genuine validation check," explained company officials on the WGA blog. "These systems will fail that check because we have blocked the RC keys for systems not authorized to use them. In other words, the wrong key is being used. The systems will then be flagged as non-genuine systems and the experience will be what we announced back in October, including losing certain functionality (e.g. Aero, ReadyBoost) and the system will have 30 days to activate with a good product key."
Robert McLaws, president of Interscape Technologies and founder of the Windows-Now Microsoft-enthusiast site, says Microsoft's intentions are good, but the results might fall short of the company's goals.
"Microsoft is no longer sitting by the sidelines and watching piracy happen," said McLaws. "But the problem with the Frankenbuilds is there's no way to tell a test key from a live key. They (Microsoft) should have used completely different systems, like a 12-letter test key and a 25-letter live key."
Microsoft officials acknowledged that there have been at least two distinct activation workarounds circulating for Vista that "have worked to some degree," and that there are no doubt more on the way.
Just this week, a new technique for circumventing Windows product activation (seemingly including Vista activation) was making its way around the Web.
LINK
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=154
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. December 2006 @ 17:22 |
Link to this message
|
Vista Anti-piracy Effort Will Drive People to Linux?
Joe Wilcox
Joe Wilcox
Oh, the wicked 2007 predictions people make, just because it's the end of the year.
The good folks over at IDC released their "Top 10 Predictions for Worldwide System Infrastructure Software, 2007." Overall, it's a good list, although I don't buy No. 9.
IDC predicts, "Microsoft's client operating system anti-piracy efforts will backfire. Microsoft's anti-piracy campaign will drive customers toward Linux."
Bwhahahaha. Somebody has been tipping back too much holiday eggnog. The anti-piracy campaign is biggest on the desktop--so, what? IDC suggests that Linux is finally going to gain desktop traction because of Windows product activation? Oh, the tears, I'm laughing so hard.
More likely, new anti-piracy mechanisms will drive customers to Windows XP, which has less stringent piracy checks. Microsoft's nightmare situation is that customers will stick with Windows XP and consume more Web-based products or services as means of extending operating system capabilities without upgrading.
Certainly, lots of people have no love for product activation and Genuine Advantage validation. Some comments on last week's Vista activation crack post express the sentiments:
* Dimitry: "There are many software producers that protect their software in a very light way (a serial number) and many that don't protect at all (Lotus Notes and Domino for instance). So I wouldn't blame pirates for what Microsoft does to protect their products. It's only M$ who is to blame, IMHO."
* Mike: "Boy, I am so glad that Apple trusts its users and doesn't follow Microsoft's scheme of everyone is a crook until proven otherwise."
* Art: "If MSFT would price the software for individual users at a more reasonable price, there would be less desire to crack the product. With Vista, they have almost priced it out of the range of the average home user, then you add in office standard and you have blown your annual software budget for two years."
I won't make excuses for Microsoft's approach to fighting piracy. What paying customer wants to feel like a criminal? Volume Activation 2.0, which is new with Windows Vista, is going to put strains on IT organizations. If mobile employees--such as work-at-homers or salespeople--don't reactivate within every 180 days, the Windows Vista off switch is going to flip on.
Most IT managers I talk to say the same thing: They make operating system purchases based on applications. If Linux had the appropriate applications--sorry, but that means Microsoft Office, for starters--maybe the onerous anti-piracy tools would drive away some customers from Vista. But in the absence of supporting applications, I don't see any serious exodus to Linux.
Maybe IDC will get nine out of 10 predictions right, which would still be a good showing.
Speaking of anti-piracy, Microsoft is treating Christmas like Halloween. The company has released a Vista update that's supposed to knock out "Frankenbuild."
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/v...2129TX1K0000535
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. December 2006 @ 17:28 |
Link to this message
|
Priming Vista Security for the Enterprise
Joe Wilcox
Joe Wilcox
Windows Vista security is in some ways a work in progress that's going to require lots of partner support and enterprise customer understanding before it's really ready for prime time.
Microsoft is right to tout Vista security enhancements, but some of them feel kind of make do. After all, Microsoft jettisoned security technologies like Palladium, just to get Vista out the door. The hardware-software combination promised to deliver a two-punch to hackers and malware. Where is Palladium--er, Next-Generation Secure Computing Base--now? Could it be in the WinFS graveyard?
Still, Windows Vista is more rugged than its predecessors. Internet Explorer is more secure, and Microsoft has changed Windows' user rights so that most people run as standard users, even when logged in as administrators.
Partners, Customers will make the Difference
The problem I see: Some of the best, potential security enhancements won't do without partner support. One example: Kernel Patch Protection, or PatchGuard. The controversial feature found in 64-bit versions of Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows Vista is supposed to harden the kernel against malware and hacking. But PatchGuard also heavily restricts some third-party security software, too. Microsoft is right to treat the kernel as sacrosanct. Whether Microsoft can keep out the hackers along with the security vendors is a major part of the PatchGuard debate. Meanwhile, Microsoft and partner squabbling creates for customers unnecessary uncertainty about Vista security.
A better example: OEM support for ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization). ASLR requires BIOS' supporting DEP (Data Execution Prevention). Together, the hardware and software apply a trick used by some open-source software: randomization of key data areas, which deters some malware. Simply stated: It's more difficult to deliver the malware package if the address is unknown (I wish my postal carrier had the same problem with ad circulars and junk mail).
My Windows Vista laptop supports DEP. Today, I changed Vista DEP to "all programs and services" from the default setting of "essential Windows programs and services only." I also followed Microsoft evangelist Michael Howard's instructions and changed Internet Explorer 7 to "enable memory protection to help mitigate online attacks." Now I have DEP working for me when browsing with IE 7.
Some of that DEP benefit may work against me, however. Howard explains that IE 7 DEP "is off by default. When it is enabled many plug-in components fail to run, often crashing the browser." Ah, yeah. If Windows-wide DEP is similar, using the security feature could negatively affect the Vista user experience.
Education is Key
The process of enabling DEP and even understanding the technology reveals the other reason why Windows Vista security is still a work in progress: Businesses have got to understand what's new, how it works and how they will support it. Because ASLR is new, its benefits must be articulated by Microsoft and its partners. Then IT managers must evaluate existing PCs for which they are considering Vista upgrades.
Merrill Lynch's recent CIO survey shows that businesses are thinking about hardware upgrades such as memory and graphics. DEP may not be on CIO's radars or supported by many older PCs, however. Finding out if older PCs may be arduous, with IT managers manually checking each PC BIOS to see if DEP is there and if it is turned on. Then there are software compatibility considerations and evaluations of performance risk weighed against security benefits.
ASLR is just one new security enhancement. The new user-rights scheme introduces new layers of management complexity--at least in the beginning before IT managers understand what the changes are, what they're for and how they work. My experience today is example. To enable DEP in Internet Explorer, I had to use the "run as administrator" option, even though my account has administrator privileges. Windows Vista's new token-based user-rights mechanism offers layered administrator rights. Anyone using Unix systems would be familiar with the rights approach, although Vista's technology execution is different.
Windows Vista's approach to rights and its User Accounts Control mechanism will require two levels of education, said Dan Cogswell, senior technical trainer for South Burlington, Vt.-based KnowledgeWave Training. Cogswell expects technical training of businesses' IT staff to start over the next six months. "The training for the end users will follow behind that," he said.
security%20snapshot.jpg
Software is Risky Business
I don't see Windows Vista as a security panacea, but, damn, it's got to be better than Windows XP. Realizing the security benefits will mean lots more cooperation among partners and Microsoft and lots more partner support for enterprises considering Vista deployments.
Meanwhile, risks continue to rise. According to the US Department of Homeland Security's National Vulnerability Database, there have been 6,140 reported security vulnerabilities in 2006 so far. For 2005, there were 4,869 vulnerabilities and 2,357 and 1,257 in, respectively, 2004 and 2003.
Security vulnerabilities touch all classes of software. How about not one but two zero-day vulnerabilities affecting Word?
Homeland Security database reveals more vulnerabilities. For individual products I can't speak for the accuracy of the database. I have seen the number of vulnerabilities change over time, which could be function of delayed reporting or the database's search and sorting mechanisms. I searched for all product versions and got back these numbers: Internet Explorer, 93 vulnerabilities in 2006, compared to 33 in 2005; Firefox, 92 vulnerabilities during the same time period, up from 75 the previous year; Windows XP, 49 vulnerabilities in 2006, compared to 66 in 2005; Mac OS X, which has a reputation for good security, 101 vulnerabilities in 2006 and 96 the previous year.
So far, this year, Mac OS X vulnerabilities are more than double Windows XP. Of course, no one seems to care.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/s...2129TX1K0000535
|
Senior Member
|
15. December 2006 @ 14:06 |
Link to this message
|
This whole vista thing is so confusing to us low tech computer users, I already heard and read so many bad things about vista, I myself so far don't care about it at all, my main gripe and still don't know how true it is that so many people like myself and many people that use AD wont be able to make a backup of our movies any more because it wont let you or whatever, does this mean the end of programs like AnyDVD and clone will be obsolete, and no I dont want to go to linux, stick with our old computers, or whatever else will need to be done to overcome this, I just hope I'm wrong.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. December 2006 @ 14:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
FredBun
they work on vista
anydvd 6.0.9.2 2006 12 05
- New: Added support for Microsoft Windows Vista 64
- New: All drivers are now signed as per Microsoft requirements
- New: Setup file is now signed
clonedvd Version 2.9.0.3: 2006 12 13
- New: Windows Vista (including 64bit versions) fully supported
- New: All drivers are now signed as per Microsoft requirements
- New: Setup file is now signed
|
|
The_Fiend
Suspended permanently
|
15. December 2006 @ 14:13 |
Link to this message
|
But they won't work on the final retail release ireland, due to DRM restrictions.
irc://arcor.de.eu.dal.net/wasted_hate
Wanna tell me off, go ahead.
I dare ya !
|
Senior Member
|
15. December 2006 @ 14:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
OK, just to make sure I get this right, what I heard and I do know there are all kinds of rumors out there probably some true or not, that vista will have some kind of blocking in it that will not allow you to make a backup of any kind of store bought meaning a dvd movie or music cd product no matter if you use clone or any other type of software of that type period, hearing that really upset me, I don't condone piracy never did any never will, but to make a backup for myself after I bought the damn thing and might not be able to do it really gets my goat.
|
|
The_Fiend
Suspended permanently
|
15. December 2006 @ 14:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's no rumor, that's a cold, hard fact.
Read some of irelands earlier reports in this thread for more info on it.
There will be all kinds of restrictionson copying dvd's, cd's, and ripping both of thoe to other formats.
So lets say you buy a Metallica cd, and want to make mp3's out of it for yer mp3 player, then with vista, that's not possible, or at least problematic or severely limited.
So, if you value your freedom of copying your owned cd's and dvd's, don't buy vista.
irc://arcor.de.eu.dal.net/wasted_hate
Wanna tell me off, go ahead.
I dare ya !
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. December 2006 @ 14:28
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. December 2006 @ 14:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
15. December 2006 @ 14:32 |
Link to this message
|
Wow, yeah thats what I was afraid of, I dont mess with things like mp3's etc. but I always make a backup of any music or movie I buy on blank dvd media, especially when you have a bunch of kids in the house your media can get ruined real quick, I learned to always let my kids use my backups after runing so many of my originals, anyway, so many threads on AD about help with things like clone, AnyDVD, dvddycrypter etc. sounds like it will be the death all them all, I don't know, this whole thing is crazy.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
16. December 2006 @ 09:28 |
Link to this message
|
Who's Afraid of a Monster?
Who's Afraid of a Monster?
Peter Galli
Peter Galli
Microsoft has released an update to Windows Vista to combat the workaround to the operating system's product activation technology, dubbed the "Frankenbuild" monster.
"Frankenbuild" uses files from various test and final versions of the Vista software to bypass Vista's product activation technology.
Microsoft officials are also being realistic about the fact that while several attempts have already been made to bypass the Vista product activation features, there are more to come.
A post on the Windows Genuine Advantage blog notes that the Frankenbuild workaround is far from the only one; the company has, in fact, seen a number of attempts to bypass the Vista product activation over the past few weeks.
One of those is a workaround that involves the use of some virtualization technology and Key Management Services -- practices used for activating larger business customers -- the blog post says.
While Vista has only been released to businesses with a volume license -- the software is set to be released to consumers on Jan. 30 -- the code is doing the rounds on the Internet, where hackers are trying to bypass its built-in security and product activation technologies.
The Vista update released this week will use the new Windows Update client found in Vista to make the Frankenbuild systems go through a genuine validation check.
The update will only affect systems that are running a specific binary-tampered version of Windows Vista, Microsoft said in a statement.
When detected, these unauthorized copies will be given a 30-day grace period to activate with a good product key, after which they will be placed into a reduced functionality mode, where features like the new Aero user interface and ReadyBoost are no longer available to them, and their use of the operating system is limited to 1 hour with their default Web browser.
However, users of these tampered systems will still have access to all their data by booting their PCs into Safe Mode, which has limited driver, display and networking support, but allows users access to their files.
Microsoft is also warning that "pirating Windows Vista will have real consequences and will, in turn, encourage people to check before they buy."
The Redmond, Wash., software maker also warns that if further illegal workarounds or other counterfeit Windows Vista code is posted to the Internet or becomes available through other means, "Microsoft may take additional steps to stop the spread and use of counterfeit versions of Windows Vista by releasing updates to the software, and then distributing the updates using various mechanisms, which may include Microsoft.com and/or Windows Update."
For anyone who's interested, Microsoft has also released images of what genuine Windows Vista packaging looks like, as well as that of a counterfeit copy the company recently obtained in Brazil.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/w...2129TX1K0000535
|
Senior Member
|
16. December 2006 @ 14:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well I quess the bottom line is if I cant backup any of my stuff because of Vista than they can go and stick it in thier gege, besides reading about vista on so many other sites not to many people have nice things to say, anyway, finally a good thread about vista'a problems, 6 months ago I tried to get people to discuss especially the issue about not bieng able to make a backup and nobody really didn't want to talk about it which suprised since there are so many threads on AD about making backups with all kinds of backup softwares out there etc.
Myself I dont do anything fancy with my computer not cause I don't want to its cause I don't know how, but thats ok I'm happy doing my meanuall things and injoy making backups for myself, so I will be sticking with my XP till doomsday I quess or until windows stops offering windows updates which I hope won't be for a long time.
I also was hoping that maybe in 6 months time I might be able to afford a new computer, I just hope if I do I wont be stuck trying to buy one that only offers vista, I still hope they will offer XP on new computers if I want it, or if not on the store shelves to at least be able to order one with XP, I don't have the know how to build one nor do I know anybody to build one and I especially don't want to go to Linux like some people have suggested to me in the past, even tough I hear people that really like it but in my opinion it's mostly geeks that like cause it is kinda complicated, and I'm far from bieng a geek, hell I haven't even reached 2nd base yet with computers and might never will,I'm just an old fart retired construction worker that pretty much tought myself about many things and actually learned more since joining AD within the past year than I have in the past 4 years.
I also had another tought, if in the near future I can only buy a new computer with vista only, would it be possible to wipeout vista and install XP without any complications, or could it still be a possibility that even after uninstalling vista one can still be stuck with not be able to make any backups cause God knows what the newer computers might have under thier sleeve.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. December 2006 @ 12:04 |
Link to this message
|
Vista? Yes, Bother
Joe Wilcox
Joe Wilcox
Colleague Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols asks "If your operating system isn't broke, why 'fix' it?" The very question is the problem.
The question reflects a sentiment I hear too often as an excuse for keeping old technologies in place--long after their real usefulness is gone.
Too many businesses, like the people they reflect, are simply too resistant to change. There is too much willingness to run just any old thing, because change is viewed as too much trouble. There is a culture of impedance, of friction to change, among many larger businesses. Disturbing: Some trusted advisers, spouting acronyms like TCO, preserve the culture of unchangingness by way of their guidance.
Total cost of ownership is an analyst convention that too many businesses have bought into. TCO is a great metric for analysts that want to advise companies about it. But I contend TCO puts the focus in the wrong place: Cost containment. Technology is viewed as a cost center, when instead it could be viewed as a profit center. What about immediate return on investment? Not ROI but IROI (yeah, it looks weird to me, too). I'm not suggesting that everybody should chuck TCO, but, rather, they reverse priorities so that IROI is the more important consideration.
Microsoft's success, too often dismissed by monopoly, is example of right priorities. Microsoft wasn't always a dominant software developer, and the company has continued to succeed in spite of its success; it's tough to sell products that most customers already own--yet Microsoft does just that. One reason for continued success, I contend: Microsoft regularly moves to the newest software, in part because it sells the stuff and in part because the company recognizes real benefits.
The only time I ever hear Microsoft talk about TCO is with respect to customers, because it's their priority. The company's own priorities are more about business benefits, such as improving efficiency. Microsoft faces similar hardships as other companies migrating to newer software--perhaps more, because the upgrades take place across the organization in a short span of time. Moving 70,000-plus employees to a new version of Exchange, Office or Windows is no simple task. Yet Microsoft is deploying all three products--and then some--about the same time. If the software's not broke and Microsoft fixes it anyway, maybe there is lesson for other large businesses.
What does this rant have to do with Windows Vista and whether people should upgrade? Everything.
I started testing Windows Vista with release of the first Community Technology Preview about 14 months ago. Starting in February, I switched Vista builds about every three weeks until Release Candidate 1. At no point during testing would I have considered switching to Windows Vista, and I advised anyone asking to steer clear of the operating system.
Shock! Something remarkable occurred in autumn. Microsoft's ugly duckling grew into a swan. Whew, and what a beaut. The Windows Vista finished product delivers a remarkably better experience than Windows XP. I'm noticeably more efficient using Windows Vista and Office 2007, and I enjoy working on a computer for the first time in years. I'll have to upgrade my household of PCs for Windows Vista, but I see the cost worth the benefits.
I challenge every IT organization to make the same evaluation--upgrade and see what Vista does or doesn't do for you. If you've been in the IT business long enough, remember back to when you upgraded the business to Windows 95 and Office 95. The problems Steven identifies--lacking applications and drivers, compatibility problems, etc.--were way more problematic moving from DOS/Windows 16-bit to Windows 95. Yet many businesses made the commitment, because of perceived benefits.
I'll point-by-point address some of Steven's reasons for waiting on Vista.
Hardware requirements. I'll be the first to acknowledge that Windows Vista requires much more horsepower than Windows XP. My minimum recommendation for acceptable experience: Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD X2 processor, 2GB of memory and 256MB of discreet graphics.
That said, Steven's example, of high-end video editing, doesn't cut it. Final Cut Pro's system requirements are significantly greater than Sony Vegas. Even under if Vegas were running under Vista, looks to me like Final Cut is power hungry, by comparison, on a Mac. Apple recommends 4GB of memory for high-definition editing.
The Softchoice study is another matter. Steven actually understates the problem. Softchoice claims that only 6 percent of average PCs in North America are capable of running Windows Vista Home Premium. Most businesses will want Windows Vista Enterprise, which from a feature perspective is the same as Windows Vista Ultimate. Whether Enterprise or Ultimate, the realistic system requirements will be greater than Premium.
PC replacement is reason to plan deployments, but not to ignore them. It's time the ostrich took his head out of the sand about costs and turned his tall neck to the sky and look around at the possibilities.
Supporting applications. The number of Vista capable, ready or native applications is immaterial. It's not how many, but the number you use. Steven throws around a 1,000 application figure like it's not enough. If you use one application and it doesn't work that's one too many. My testing has uncovered some goose eggs--and they hurt, like Cisco VPN or AIM 6--but most software runs just dandy. Universal search and other new features enhance the experience of older software that works with Vista.
As for that missing list of incompatible applications. I saw it when working as an analyst and before returning to journalism. I have to keep the non-disclosure agreement from my old role, but I can say that the list is nowhere as long as the one for Windows XP Service Pack 2 and in categories that won't matter to many enterprises. What's not on the list is what only businesses can put there--their in-house customized applications, which they will need to test.
The 1.0 release. Vista compatibility and application support are way better than was Mac OS X, when released in March 2001. Mac OS X was much more a 1.0 product than Windows Vista. Apple released the software without support for hardware shipped on customers' Macs, like CD burners and DVD drives. Apple didn't release DVD playback software until summer 2001, even though the software had been standard on Mac OS 8.x and 9.x since the late 1990s. Major supporting Mac OS X applications, like Photoshop, Mac Office and QuarkXPress, were MIAs. Mac OS X "teething problems" were pretty bad compared to what I've seen from Windows Vista.
Should 1.0 even apply to Windows Vista? I don't see how. From one perspective, Vista is version 3.0 from Windows 2000--and Microsoft is renown for getting products right on the third try. From another perspective, Vista is the desktop equivalent of Windows Server, which is the codebase from which Microsoft restarted the project in 2004.
To replace or not? Steven asks a good question: "If your car or washing machine is still running well, do you replace it?" Probably no and almost certainly no. But technology products are different, in part because they're more personal and because, at least from a marketing perspective, they're subject to Moore's Law. I know people that own four or five different iPods--and not one of them needed a replacement. Most people typically moved for some aesthetic reason, such as appearance or size, rather than absolute need. I've seen industry stats that indicate the average person swaps cell phones about every 18 months, again for perceived benefits.
If the benefits are there, or perceived to be, people will upgrade to Windows Vista. The aesthetics are compelling. If the IT organization doesn't see the value, fine. Microsoft is counting on the aesthetics and other benefits to generate some end-user sales pull.
"Even if Vista were gloriously perfect, I really don't see any good reason for most users to upgrade to it," Steven writes. Most users don't use Linux, like Steven does. His experience puts him into a unique class of highly educated computer users. But that's not most people.
Unfortunately, most people don't much like change. If there's a major reason why people wouldn't upgrade to Windows Vista, resistance to change is going to be it. As I stated at the start of this counterpoint, that's the wrong reason.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/v...2129TX1K0000535
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
20. December 2006 @ 07:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
here it is folks
Microsoft Releases Windows Vista System Requirements
You're going to need at least 800 MHz and 512 MB
Microsoft has updated its Get Ready Web site to include the minimum system requirements to run Windows Vista.
A Windows Vista Capable PC must include at least a CPU running at 800MHz, 512 MB of RAM, a DirectX 9 graphics card capable of at least 800x600, a CD-ROM drive and a 20 GB HDD with at least 15 GB free for the install. Of course, systems with bare minimum specifications will be unable to run Vista in the Aero interface.
In order a PC to be certified as ?Windows Vista Premium Ready,? it must have at least a 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB of RAM, a DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory, Pixel Shader 2.0, DVD-ROM drive, a sound card, internet access and 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
For Windows XP, users who did not meet the minimal requirements for XP Home (300 MHz, 128 MB) were still able to install and run the operating system, albeit rather slowly. It remains to be seen if Windows Vista will allow installs on machines lesser than minimal specification.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
20. December 2006 @ 08:59 |
Link to this message
|
Meet BadVista.org
p2pnet.net News:- Microsoft Vista is, "an upsell masquerading as an upgrade," says the Free Software Foundation (FSF).
So it's launched BadVista.org with the twofold mission of, "exposing the harms inflicted on computer users by the new Microsoft Windows Vista and promoting free software alternatives that respect users' security and privacy rights," it says.
Vista is, "an overall regression when you look at the most important aspect of owning and using a computer: your control over what it does," says the FSF.
"Obviously MS Windows is already proprietary and very restrictive, and well worth rejecting. But the new 'features' in Vista are a Trojan Horse to smuggle in even more restrictions."
BadVista.org says it'll be focusing attention on detailing how they work, how to resist them, and why people should care.
"The campaign will organize supporters into effective and unusual actions drawing attention to this daylight theft of computer users' rights, aggregate news stories cutting through the Vista marketing propaganda, and provide a user-friendly gateway to the adoption of free software operating systems like gNewSense," it states, adding:
"Among other harms, BadVista.org will focus on the danger posed by Treacherous Computing in Vista. Commonly called Trusted Computing in the industry, it is an attempt to turn computers from machines controlled by their user into machines that monitor their user and refuse to operate in ways that manufacturers don't authorize."
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto's Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you're Chinese and you're looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
(Wednesday 20th December 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/10792?PHPSESSID=...8e0af65e4df56ae
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
21. December 2006 @ 09:00 |
Link to this message
|
Zune works with Vista
p2pnet.net News:- Bill and the Boyz have finally figured out it would probably be a good idea if their Zune music box worked with their Windows Vista.
When Zune shipped last month, the software didn't support Vista.
So to remedy the situation, in a fix it's calling an update, Microsoft has shipped version 1.2 of its Zune client software, "providing compatibility with Windows Vista and a slightly simpler installation process" and "presumably" ending the "pointless controversy," says WindowsITPro.
"With this update, Zune is now compatible with Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2 (SP2), XP Professional SP2, XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, XP Media Center Edition 2005, and all versions of Vista,"says the story.
Under the "pointless controversy" it became known that Zune wouldn't play music Napster, MTV's Urge or Yahoo Music Unlimited, etc, all of which use Microsoft's Windows Media Plays[not]ForSure DRM (digital restrictions management) consumer control application.
"Today (Tuesday the 19th of December) we?re issuing a 22 MB update to make Zune compatible with Windows Vista," declares Zune Insider.
"The update also improves the Zune software installation process, addressing some of the known issues that users reported. Like Jason R said recently 'It is plumbing stuff, but it is stuff customers will notice and appreciate.' So you should install the update, even if you?re not running Vista."
But there's a 'but'.
"Zune isn't compatible with the x64 version of XP or any versions of Windows Server 2003," says WindowsITPro. "Users who install the Zune software on Vista will also need to update the Zune firmware to version 1.2."
When Microsoft said it was hopping to take on Apple with Zune, it used a tacky animation of a man cuddling a rabbit as the teaser, leading to the statement, "We're all friends here. We'll keep you posted."
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto's Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you're Chinese and you're looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
Also See:
WindowsITPro - Microsoft Updates Zune Software for Vista, December 20, 2005
pointless controversy - Zune hates Vista, November 16, 2006
Zune Insider - Zune Compatible with Vista: Today, December 19, 2005
tacky animation - Microsoft's Zune hops in, July 24, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
(Thursday 21st December 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/10804?PHPSESSID=...4d6a4fd58f2f79d
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
22. December 2006 @ 11:52 |
Link to this message
|
PART,1
Cost analysis of Vista DRM
p2pnet.net News:- DRM = Digital Restrictions Management = Consumer Control and the Vista Content Protection specification, "could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history," believes computer scientist / writer Peter Gutmann.
Below, he breaks his thoughts down. In detail.
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
By Peter Gutmann, last updated 22 December 2006
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. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all ardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.
Executive Summary
The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history.
Introduction
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, unless it's relevant to the cost analysis. 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 [Note A].
Disabling of Functionality
Vista's content protection mechanism only allows protected content to be sent over interfaces that also have content-protection facilities built in. Currently the most common high-end audio output interface is S/PDIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interface Format). Most newer audio cards, for example, feature TOSlink digital optical output for high-quality sound reproduction, and even the latest crop of motherboards with integrated audio provide at least coax (and often optical) digital output. 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.
Indirect Disabling of Functionality
As well as overt disabling of functionality, there's also covert disabling of functionality. For example PC voice communications rely on automatic echo cancellation (AEC) in order to work. AEC requires feeding back a sample of the audio mix into the echo cancellation subsystem, but with Vista's content protection this isn't permitted any more because this might allow access to premium content. What is permitted is a highly-degraded form of feedback that might possibly still sort-of be enough for some sort of minimal echo cancellation purposes.
The requirement to disable audio and video output plays havoc with standard system operations, because the security policy used is a so-called "system high" policy: The overall sensitivity level is that of the most sensitive data present in the system. So the instant any audio derived from premium content appears on your system, signal degradation and disabling of outputs will occur. What makes this particularly entertaining is the fact that the downgrading/disabling is dynamic, so if the premium-content signal is intermittent or varies (for example music that fades out), various outputs and output quality will fade in and out, or turn on and off, in sync. Normally this behaviour would be a trigger for reinstalling device drivers or even a warranty return of the affected hardware, but in this case it's just a signal that everything is functioning as intended.
Decreased Playback Quality
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. So if you're using an expensive new LCD display fed from a high-quality DVI signal on your video card and there's protected content present, the picture you're going to see will be, as the spec puts it, "slightly fuzzy", a bit like a 10-year-old CRT monitor that you picked up for $2 at a yard sale. In fact the spec specifically still allows for old VGA analog outputs, but even that's only because disallowing them would upset too many existing owners of analog monitors. In the future even analog VGA output will probably have to be disabled. The only thing that seems to be explicitly allowed is the extremely low-quality TV-out, provided that Macrovision is applied to it.
The same deliberate degrading of playback quality applies to audio, with the audio being downgraded to sound (from the spec) "fuzzy with less detail".
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.
Beyond the obvious playback-quality implications of deliberately degraded output, this measure can have serious repercussions in applications where high-quality reproduction of content is vital. For example the field of medical imaging either bans outright or strongly frowns on any form of lossy compression because artifacts introduced by the compression process can cause mis-diagnoses and in extreme cases even become life-threatening. Consider a medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to audio/video played back by the computer (the CDROM drives installed in workplace PCs inevitably spend most of their working lives playing music or MP3 CDs to drown out workplace noise). If there's any premium content present in there, the image will be subtly altered by Vista's content protection, potentially creating exactly the life-threatening situation that the medical industry has worked so hard to avoid. The scary thing is that there's no easy way around this - Vista will silently modify displayed content under certain (almost impossible-to-predict in advance) situations discernable only to Vista's built-in content-protection subsystem.
Elimination of Open-source Hardware Support
In order to prevent the creation of hardware emulators of protected output devices, Vista requires a Hardware Functionality Scan (HFS) that can be used to uniquely fingerprint a hardware device to ensure that it's (probably) genuine. In order to do this, the driver on the host PC performs an operation in the hardware (for example rendering 3D content in a graphics card) that produces a result that's unique to that device type.
In order for this to work, the spec requires that the operational details of the device be kept confidential. Obviously anyone who knows enough about the workings of a device to operate it and to write a third-party driver for it (for example one for an open-source OS, or in general just any non-Windows OS) will also know enough to fake the HFS process. The only way to protect the HFS process therefore is to not release any technical details on the device beyond a minimum required for web site reviews and comparison with other products.
Elimination of Unified Drivers
The HFS process has another cost involved with it. Most hardware vendors have (thankfully) moved to unified driver models instead of the plethora of individual drivers that abounded some years ago. Since HFS requires unique identification and handling of not just each device type (for example each graphics chip) but each variant of each device type (for example each stepping of each graphics chip) to handle the situation where a problem is found with one variation of a device, it's no longer possible to create one-size-fits-all drivers for an entire range of devices like the current Catalyst/Detonator/ForceWare drivers. Every little variation of every device type out there must now be individually accommodated in custom code in order for the HFS process to be fully effective.
If a graphics chip is integrated directly into the motherboard and there's no easy access to the device bus then the need for bus encryption (see "Unnecessary CPU Resource Consumption" below) is removed. Because the encryption requirement is so onerous, it's quite possible that this means of providing graphics capabilities will suddenly become more popular after the release of Vista. However, this leads to a problem: It's no longer possible to tell if a graphics chip is situated on a plug-in card or attached to the motherboard, since as far as the system is concerned they're both just devices sitting on the AGP/PCIe bus. The solution to this problem is to make the two deliberately incompatible, so that HFS can detect a chip on a plug-in card vs. one on the motherboard. Again, this does nothing more than increase costs and driver complexity.
Further problems occur with audio drivers. To the system, HDMI audio looks like S/PDIF, a deliberate design decision to make handling of drivers easier. In order to provide the ability to disable output, it's necessary to make HDMI codecs deliberately incompatible with S/PDIF codecs, despite the fact that they were specifically designed to appear identical in order to ease driver support and reduce development costs.
Denial-of-Service via Driver Revocation
Once a weakness is found in a particular driver or device, that driver will have its signature revoked by Microsoft, which means that it will cease to function (details on this are a bit vague here, presumably some minimum functionality like generic 640x480 VGA support will still be available in order for the system to boot). This means that a report of a compromise of a particular driver or device will cause all support for that device worldwide to be turned off until a fix can be found. Again, details are sketchy, but if it's a device problem then presumably the device turns into a paperweight once it's revoked. If it's an older device for which the vendor isn't interested in rewriting their drivers (and in the fast-moving hardware market most devices enter "legacy" status within a year of two of their replacement models becoming available), all devices of that type worldwide become permanently unusable.
The threat of driver revocation is the ultimate nuclear option, the crack of the commissars' pistols reminding the faithful of their duty [Note B]. The exact details of the hammer that vendors will be hit with is buried in confidential licensing agreements, but I've heard mention of multimillion dollar fines and embargoes on further shipment of devices alongside the driver revocation mentioned above.
Decreased System Reliability
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. In other words small variances in performance are a normal part of system
functioning. Furthermore, the degree of variance can differ widely across systems, with some handling large changes in system parameters and others only small ones. One very obvious way to observe this is what happens when a bunch of PCs get hit by a momentary power outage. Effects will vary from powering down, to various types of crash, to nothing at all, all triggered by exactly the same external event.
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. With the number of easily-accessible grenade pins that Vista's content protection provides, any piece of malware that decides to pull a few of them will cause considerable damage. The homeland security implications of this seem quite serious, since a tiny, easily-hidden piece of malware would be enough to render a machine unusable, while the very nature of Vista's content protection would make it almost impossible to determine why the denial-of-service is occurring. Furthermore, the malware authors, who are taking advantage of "content-protection" features, would be protected by the DMCA against any attempts to reverse-engineer or disable the content-protection "features" that they're abusing.
Even without deliberate abuse by malware, the homeland security implications of an external agent being empowered to turn off your IT infrastructure in response to a content leak discovered in some chipset that you coincidentally happen to be using is a serious concern for potential Vista users. Non-US governments are already nervous enough about using a US-supplied operating system without having this remote DoS capability built into the operating system. And like the medical-image-degradation issue, you won't find out about this until it's too late, turning Vista PCs into ticking time bombs if the revocation functionality is ever employed.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
22. December 2006 @ 11:53 |
Link to this message
|
PART,2
Cost analysis of Vista DRM
Increased Hardware Costs
Vista includes various requirements for "robustness" in which the content industry, through "hardware robustness rules", dictates design requirements to hardware manufacturers. For example, only certain layouts of a board are allowed in order to make it harder for outsiders to access parts of the board. Possibly for the first time ever, computer design is being dictated not by electronic design rules, physical layout requirements, and thermal issues, but by the wishes of the content industry. Apart from the massive headache that this poses to device manufacturers, it also imposes additional increased costs beyond the ones incurred simply by having to lay out board designs in a suboptimal manner. Video card manufacturers typically produce a one-size-fits-all design (often a minimally-altered copy of the chipset vendor's reference design), and then populate different classes and price levels of cards in different ways. For example a low-end card will have low-cost, minimal or absent TV-out encoders, DVI circuitry, RAMDACs, and various other add-ons used to differentiate budget from premium video cards. You can see this on the cheaper cards by observing the unpopulated bond pads on circuit boards, and gamers and the like will be familiar with cut-a-trace/resolder-a-resistor sidegrades of video cards. Vista's content-protection requirements eliminate this one-size-fits-all design, banning the use of separate TV-out encoders, DVI circuitry, RAMDACs, and other discretionary add-ons. Everything has to be custom-designed and laid out so that there are no unnecessary accessible signal links on the board. This means that a low-cost card isn't just a high-cost card with components omitted, and conversely a high-cost card isn't just a low-cost card with additional discretionary components added, each one has to be a completely custom design created to ensure that no signal on the board is accessible.
This extends beyond simple board design all the way down to chip design. Instead of adding an external DVI chip, it now has to be integrated into the graphics chip, along with any other functionality normally supplied by an external chip. So instead of varying video card cost based on optional components, the chipset vendor now has to integrate everything into a one-size-fits-all premium-featured graphics chip, even if all the user wants is a budget card for their kids' PC.
Increased Cost due to Requirement to License Unnecessary Third-party IP
Protecting all of this precious premium content requires a lot of additional technology. Unfortunately much of this is owned by third parties and requires additional licensing. For example HDCP for HDMI is owned by Intel, so in order to send a signal over HDMI you have to pay royalties to Intel, even though you could do exactly the same thing for free over DVI. Similarly, since even AES-128 on a modern CPU isn't fast enough to encrypt high-bandwidth content, companies are required to license the Intel-owned Cascaded Cipher, an AES-128-based transform that's designed to offer a generally similar level of security but with less processing overhead.
The need to obtain unnecessary technology licenses extends beyond basic hardware IP. In order to demonstrate their commitment to the cause, Microsoft have recommended as part of their "robustness rules" that vendors license third-party code obfuscation tools to provide virus-like stealth capabilities for their device drivers in order to make it difficult to interfere with their operations or reverse-engineer them. Vendors like Cloakware and Arxan have actually added "robustness solutions" web pages to their sites in anticipation of this lucrative market. This must be a nightmare for device vendors, for whom it's already enough of a task getting fully functional drivers deployed without having to deal with adding stealth-virus-like technology on top of the basic driver functionality.
Unnecessary CPU Resource Consumption
In order to prevent tampering with in-system communications, all communication flows have to be encrypted and/or authenticated. For example content to video cards has to be encrypted with AES-128. This requirement for cryptography extends beyond basic content encryption to encompass not just data flowing over various buses but also command and control data flowing between software components. For example communications between user-mode and kernel-mode components are authenticated with OMAC message authentication-code tags, at considerable cost to both ends of the connection.
In order to prevent active attacks, device drivers are required to poll the underlying hardware ever 30ms to ensure that everything appears kosher. This means that even with nothing else happening in the system, a mass of assorted drivers has to wake up thirty times a second just to ensure that... nothing continues to happen. In addition to this polling, further device-specific polling is also done, for example Vista polls video devices on each video frame displayed in order to check that all of the grenade pins (tilt bits) are still as they should be.
On-board graphics create an additional problem in that blocks of precious content will end up stored in system memory, from where they could be paged to disk. In order to avoid this, Vista tags such pages with a special protection bit indicating that they need to be encrypted before being paged out and decrypted again after being paged in. Vista doesn't provide any other pagefile encryption, and will quite happily page banking PINs, credit card details, private, personal data, and other sensitive information, in plaintext. The content-protection requirements make it fairly clear that in Microsoft's eyes a frame of premium content is worth more than (say) a user's medical records or their banking PIN.
In addition to the CPU costs, the desire to render data inaccessible at any level means that video decompression can't be done in the CPU any more, since there isn't sufficient CPU power available to both decompress the video and encrypt the resulting uncompressed data stream to the video card. As a result, much of the decompression has to be integrated into the graphics chip. At a minimum this includes IDCT, MPEG motion compensation, and the Windows Media VC-1 codec. As a corollary to the "Increased Hardware Costs" problem above, this means that you can't ship a low-end graphics chip without video codec support any more.
The inability to perform decoding in software also means that any premium-content compression scheme not supported by the graphics hardware can't be implemented. If things like the Ogg video codec ever eventuate and get used for premium content, they had better be done using something like Windows Media VC-1 or they'll be a non-starter under Vista or Vista-approved hardware. This is particularly troubling for the high-quality digital cinema (D-Cinema) specification, which uses Motion JPEG2000 (MJ2K) because standard MPEG and equivalents don't provide sufficient image quality. Since JPEG2000 uses wavelet-based compression rather than MPEG's DCT-based compression, and wavelet-based compression isn't on the hardware codec list, it's not possible to play back D-Cinema premium content. Because *all* D-Cinema content will (presumably) be premium content, the result is no playback at all until the hardware support appears in PCs at some indeterminate point in the future. Compare this to the situation with MPEG video, where early software codecs like the XingMPEG en/decoder practically created the market for PC video. Today, thanks to Vista's content protection, the opening up of new markets in this manner would be impossible.
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?
Unnecessary Device Resource Consumption
As part of the bus-protection scheme, devices are required to implement AES-128 encryption in order to receive content from Vista. This has to be done via a hardware decryption engine on the graphics chip, which would typically be implemented by throwing away a rendering pipeline or two to make room for the AES engine.
Establishing the AES key with the device hardware requires further cryptographic overhead, in this case a 2048-bit Diffie-Hellman key exchange. In programmable devices this can be done (with considerable effort) in the device (for example in programmable shader hardware), or more simply by throwing out a few more rendering pipelines and implementing a public-key-cryptography engine in the freed-up space.
Needless to say, the need to develop, test, and integrate encryption engines into audio/video devices will only add to their cost, as covered in "Increased Hardware Costs" above, and the fact that their losing precious performance in order to accommodate Vista's content protection will make gamers less than happy.
Final Thoughts
"No amount of coordination will be successful unless it's designed with the needs of the customer in mind. Microsoft believes that a good user experience is a requirement for adoption" -- Microsoft.
At the end of all this, the question remains: Why is Microsoft going to this much trouble? Ask most people what they picture when you use the term "premium media player" and they'll respond with "A PVR" or "A DVD player" and not "A Windows PC". So why go to this much effort to try and turn the PC into something that it's not?
In July 2006, Cory Doctorow published an analysis of the anti-competitive nature of Apple's iTunes copy-restriction system ("Apple's Copy Protection Isn't Just Bad For Consumers, It's Bad For Business", Cory Doctorow, Information Week, 31 July 2006). The only reason I can imagine why Microsoft would put its programmers, device vendors, third-party developers, and ultimately its customers, through this much pain is because once this copy protection is entrenched, Microsoft will completely own the distribution channel. In the same way that Apple has managed to acquire a monopolistic lock-in on their music distribution channel (an example being the Motorola ROKR fiasco, which was so crippled by Apple-imposed restrictions that it was dead the moment it appeared), so Microsoft will totally control the premium-content distribution channel. Not only will they be able to lock out any competitors, but because they will then represent the only available distribution channel they'll be able to dictate terms back to the content providers whose needs they are nominally serving in the same way that Apple has already dictated terms back to the music industry: Play by Apple's rules, or we won't carry your content. The result will be a technologically enforced monopoly that makes their current de-facto Windows monopoly seem like a velvet glove in comparison.
Overall, Vista's content-protection functionality seems like an astonishingly short-sighted piece of engineering, concentrating entirely on content protection with no consideration given to the enormous repercussions of the measures employed. It's something like the PC equivalent of the (hastily dropped) proposal mooted in Europe to put RFID tags into high-value banknotes as an anti-counterfeiting measure, completely ignoring the fact that the major users of this technology would end up being criminals who would use it to remotely identify the most lucrative robbery targets.
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 C]) 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 D], will you in exchange withhold this poison from the computer industry? Please?
Acknowledgements
This document was put together with input from various sources, including a number that requested that I keep their contributions anonymous (in some cases I've simplified or rewritten some details to ensure that the original, potentially traceable wording of non-public requirements docs isn't used). Because it wasn't always possible to go back to the sources and verify exact details, it's possible that there may be some inaccuracies present, which I'm sure I'll hear about fairly quickly. No doubt Microsoft (who won't want a view of Vista as being broken by design to take root) will also provide their spin on the details.
In addition to the material present here, I'd be interested in getting further input both from people at Microsoft involved in implementing the content protection measures and from device vendors who are required to implement the hardware and driver software measures. I know from the Microsoft sources that contributed that many of them care deeply about providing the best possible audio/video user experience for Vista users and are quite distressed about having to spend time implementing large amounts of anti-functionality when it's already hard enough to get things running smoothly without the intentional crippling. I'm always open to further input, and will keep all contributions confidential unless you give me permission to repeat something.
If you want to encrypt things, my PGP key is linked from my home page.
Footnotes
Note A: I'll make a prediction at this point that, given that it's trying to do the impossible, the Vista content protection will take less than a day to bypass if the bypass mechanism is something like a driver bug or a simple security hole that applies only to one piece of code (and can therefore be quickly patched), and less than a week to comprehensively bypass in a driver/hardware-independent manner. This doesn't mean it'll be broken the day or week that it appears, but simply that once a sufficiently skilled attacker is motivated to bypass the protection, it'll take them less than a day or a week to do so.
Note B: I see some impressive class-action suits to follow if this revocation mechanism is ever applied. Perhaps Microsoft or the content providers will buy everyone who owns a device that inadvertently leaks content and is then disabled by the revocation process replacement hardware for their system. Some contributors have commented that they can't see the revocation system ever being used because the consumer backlash would be too enormous, but then the legal backlash from not going ahead could be equally extreme. For anyone who's read "Guns of August", the situation seems a bit like pre-WWI Europe with people sitting on step 1 of enormously complex battle plans that can't be backed out of once triggered, no matter how obvious it is that going ahead with them is a bad idea. Driver revocation is a lose/lose situation for Microsoft, they're in for some serious pain whether they do or they don't. Their lawyers must have been asleep when they let themselves get painted into this particular corner.
Note C: The "kool-aid" reference may be slightly unfamiliar to non-US readers, it's a reference to the 1978 Jonestown mass-suicide in which Jim Jones' followers drank Flavor Aid laced with poison in order to demonstrate their dedication to the cause. In popular usage the term "kool-aid" is substituted for Flavor Aid because it has more brand recognition.
Note D: 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.
[Gutmann is a computer scientist-cum-photographer based in Auckland, New Zealand. He's particularly interested in security architecture, security usability (or more precisely the lack thereof), and hardware security, and has written widely in those fields. He's discovered assorted flaws in publicly released cryptosystems and protocols. He is the developer of the cryptlib open source software security library and contributed to PGP version 2. He's also known for his analysis of data deletion on electronic memory media, magnetic and otherwise, and devised the Gutmann method for erasing data from a hard drive more or less securely. For more from the Wikipedia, click here. Also check out Gutman's old home page ;]
(Cheers, Peter)
http://p2pnet.net/story/10823?PHPSESSID=...09cf077c019e799
|
|
The_Fiend
Suspended permanently
|
22. December 2006 @ 12:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
2 things come to mind afer reading some of your stories on this page ireland :
1) Joe wilcox has had his tongue up billy gates' @sshole so long he's able to tell what bill ate for dinner the night before, so what he says about vista is as trustworthy as a psychopath standing next to a corpse with a bloody knife, swearing he didn't do it...
2) it seems the negative stories and reports are the general tone about vista, which is good, because maybe now microsoft will finally be held accountable for their bullsh*t and antitrust law breaches.
irc://arcor.de.eu.dal.net/wasted_hate
Wanna tell me off, go ahead.
I dare ya !
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. December 2006 @ 12:51
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
22. December 2006 @ 14:30 |
Link to this message
|
Vista Won't End Windows XP Availability
Joe Wilcox
Joe Wilcox
I can't count how many times people have asked me if Windows XP would be available on new PCs following Vista's release.
In the near term, the answer is as much a factor of user demand and OEM and system builder policies. That said, Microsoft will make Windows XP available for from 12 to 24 months after Vista's general availability, depending on the sales channel.
According to Microsoft's Life-Cycle Policy Web site, Windows XP Home, Professional, Tablet PC, Media Center and 64-bit editions will be available in direct OEM and retail licenses for 12 months following the beginning of Windows Vista's general availability, which is scheduled to be Jan. 30, 2007. System builder licenses will be available for another 12--or total 24--months from Vista's general availability, it said.
License availability doesn't necessarily mean operating system availability. I presume Microsoft will get Windows XP off retail shelves as quickly as possible after Vista ships. OEMs are another matter. While I generally like Windows Vista, I agree with some users of the "gold" code who say the operating system feels unfinished, like a work in progress. Some customers choosing to wait may ask OEMs or system builders for Windows XP.
Kevin Bailey, an IT manager from Bowling Green, Ky., said, after experiencing technical support problems following a Windows Vista upgrade, "Microsoft isn't ready for the general release."
As businesses grapple with Windows Vista testing and deployment, and consumers with the hefty price increases (Vista ultimate's suggested retail price is $399, or $259 as an upgrade), Windows XP may yet have some sales longevity left.
Some advice to Microsoft, for the benefit of partners: Why not let OEMs and some system builders provide Vista DVDs without product IDs to consumers and small businesses that purchase Windows XP PCs after January 30? The DVDs would create opportunity for a later upsell opportunity for you and your partners--not just Vista but components like extra memory, too. The whole point of the new Vista DVDs is to make easier in-place upgrades, such as Windows Vista Home Premium to Ultimate. Why not extend that sales opportunity to post-Vista-launch Windows XP sales?
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/v...2129TX1K0000535
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
22. December 2006 @ 18:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
Here's what I know of Windows Vista Ultimate. You can have the option of installing 7 different types of vista. There;s a window change thing when you hold windows button/tab. The gadget sidebar is cool. The voice recognition is good. It is very stable. Has a elegant design. Installation takes half/hour. Almost anoingly great protection. Better search function. Usb drivers and most other drivers work. Almost all programs work and if is a game it will automaticlly adjust the color settings then put it back to normal when done. Over all a better experience. Ultimate rocks. I got it from a friend but his motherboard wasn't compatible with vista so the usb doesn't work. I love it and wen it comes out you should get it. Srry it this stuffs been posted but the post are soooooooo long.
Forgot to mention that this copy I have is genuine final copy RCM, VISTA FINAL. Its in no way a frankinbuild.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. December 2006 @ 18:31
|
|
