Every edition of Windows Vista comes in a 32-bit and 64-bit version. I believe the final word on this was that the retail package will come with both versions...you choose which one to install.

There is one more thing I wanted to add, and rather than have this lost in my giant post above, I thought I would add it separately. Do you all realize how silly it is when you all start frothing at the mouth about the evils of Vista, and how you will stick with XP, or even 2000 pro because of these DRM issues, or use OSX, Linux, or *nix? Now, don't get me wrong...if you have other reasons to use these other OSs instead of Vista, or if you just like these other OSs better for whatever reason, by all means, it makes sense for you to use them. But if you say this (or, less likely, do this) because of DRM and copy protection paths built into Vista, you obviously do NOT understand this issue one iota. The copy protection is in the media, and no matter what operating system you use, you won't be able to play copy protected content on hardware/software combinations that don't meet the criteria.

Most people agree that this level of protection won't be swtiched on by the content providers until at least 2011 (that's right...the HDDVD and Bluray content you might own today doesn't have this level of protections turned on, and will play just fine in Vista on analog devices, etc.). When this protection does start to be released with new content some time probably in the next decade, having stayed on XP (or any other OS) won't help you. You simply won't be able to play the content in full resolution. If you have Vista, and all of the hardware/software needed to be in compliance with the DRM, you will still be able to play the content in full resolution.

Vista is adding features here, to allow you to play restricted content (that Microsoft didn't restrict, BTW...I can't beleive this is so hard to understand, but I find myself having to repeat this over and over to people who don't understand the issue). No features are being taken away, or restricted, that you have in any operating system today, including XP.

I'll break it down like this. Everything you do today on any OS will be supported just as it is now in Vista. The content that you won't be able to play out of the box that is released sometime in the future, you will be able to play in Vista, as long as your system meets the requirements of the content owners required capabilities. Very simple.

Bill, nice comments. You overlook two items though.

1, we are griping because this "nonsense" can affect honest and ethical computer users who aren't even trying to use protected content. Take a look at some of farss' responses in this thread.

2, DRM is only effective when playback systems cooperate. There is no physical or technological reason that a playback system cannot be made that will ignore all DRM restrictions and play back even the most protected content, digitally, full resolution, full quality, and allow users to do whatever they wish with the content, including ripping and copying. Of course, such a system is probably illegal, at least in the USA, but such "uncooperative" systems will exist and be available. And since they will be available, those who use Vista and all it's DRM protection problems will rightfully feel shafted.

Bill,

Your point is valid, but completely misses my point which is that anybody working with pro audio and video today would be a fool to install Windows Vista anytime soon.

Why?

Because of fundamental architecture changes that screw up everything we rely on to turn out deliverables. Hardware drivers, professional software, monitoring.

Because it is new and unproven, with a huge likelihood of containing an immense number of security holes that will keep us even busier than Windows XP keeps us today.

(As a complete aside, I can't help looking at the OS X Mac screen I have running next to my two XP PCs. It gets an occasional security update, doesn't get any frequent "security scans," doesn't need a virus checker, and just plain works great. But that is of course beside the point here.)

I expect Vista will be good eventually, because it will have to be for Microsoft's sake.
But it won't come easy for them, with the enormous bureaucracy they have built up to make decisions, and I'd say there is absolutely positively no way Vista can ever become great unless MS fills their now effectively empty Chief Software Architect position, previously held by Bill Gates.

It can't be just the head of OS development, because history has told us that his minions can just run to Ballmer to get what they want.

It needs to be somebody with enough cojones to challenge Ballmer.

Won't be easy to find that Chief Software Architect.

It would have to be somebody who walks with two wheel barrows, one for his brain and....

These things are SUPPOSED to be file management programs. They are SUPPOSED to allow you Total access to your files/folders/programs, and thay are SUPPOSED to give you factual information about your machine, and data.

XP has always been on the brink of failing the above definition (XP will actually LIE to you as to what is on your disk, deny access to certain files, and create files without your knowledge and/or consent).

And now Vista goes COMPLETELY over its boundries as a file mangement program... I will avoid it as LONG as humanly possible!!

Interesting thread...

FWIW of course....
People in the video world still do mundane things from web browsing to balancing the books, with maybe a game or three thrown in. By all accounts Vista is more secure, and when it comes to software, Vista does more to force coders to follow rules they ignored, even when their cutting corners caused us users all sorts of aggravation. The average user can benefit from that right now (well, in a day or so).

Microsoft also has a large amount of resources for business, for the corporate IT folk who are in no hurry to implement Vista on every desktop. I haven't seen anybody, anywhere even hint that business should rush to implement Vista. In fact, if you buy Vista your license downgrades to cover XP so business doesn't have to implement it today. Business desktop migration is a hopefully well thought out, drawn out process ideally done after extensive compatibility testing.

When it comes to media, remember that XP is hardly the ideal environment. If DS filter and codec conflicts are just reduced in Vista, that'll be a huge plus. OTOH if you rely on a Creative DSP for your audio work, might not ever go there.

As far as drm goes, it's been our fault, will be our fault if it gets too onerous with HD. Regardless industry involvement, as citizens of our respective countries if you don't like drm, join &/or start efforts to change it. If nothing else vote with your wallet. If drm schemes for HD loosen up, it won't be because of any number of editors or shooters, but because of pressure from the market & from people joining together.

Otherwise, & as is frequently pointed out, there's the MAC OS & Linux. It's a free market. If your favorite software isn't ported to one of those platforms, do what you can to show the company that they're missing a profitable marketing opportunity. Run the OS of your choice along with Windows, support your preferred OS's communities. Listen to the hype at Linspire/Freespire. Just please remember that there aren't all that many Saints in our world -- if Microsoft is BAD, how in the devil does that imply that everyone else (or anyone) is good?

That said, I'm terribly jealous... I really do envy all those who will not have to shell out the $, who won't have to spend the time, effort, and upgrades to get another OS online. You folks should be celebrating!

"Just please remember that there aren't all that many Saints in our world -- if Microsoft is BAD, how in the devil does that imply that everyone else (or anyone) is good?"

I don't think Microsoft is bad. In fact (although Bill gates is no longer any REAL part of Microsoft)... I admire him greatly, as well as Warren Buffet, for the work that they are doing for the needy... the 2 richest men in the world donating almost their complete fortunes to those in need.

What I do say thought is that Vista has overstepped its boundries.... It is no longer a file managment system... but rather a closer resemblance to BIG BROTHER, and that's NOT what people are buying it for. Microsoft has COMPLETELY lost touch as to what the main objectives of a file mangement system are all about. It started in tiny little snippets back with Win98 and has now snowballed COMPLETELY out of control with Vista. The BAD part of it is that they are big enough to get away with it.

It kinda reminds me of WallMart... and their demand to a few in the music industry that they change a few things in their CD or they would not carry it. When companies get this big and start using their size and strength in areas that they should not be... well... it just plain scary.

Vista is adding features here, to allow you to play restricted content (that Microsoft didn't restrict, BTW...I can't beleive this is so hard to understand, but I find myself having to repeat this over and over to people who don't understand the issue). No features are being taken away, or restricted, that you have in any operating system today, including XP.

Actually they are taking away and restricting features that we have today. Case in point would be that we now are able to buy any PC compatible hardware and, as long as drivers are avaiable and functional, we can us it in our PC's. Now Microsoft and 'the consortium' for DRM say that they want control of ALL PC hardware. Microsoft and 'the consortium' are saying that if they don't like a particular piece of hardware or driver, they can pull the plug on it. It doesn't matter that I payed for it (and possibly for the original "blessing") only to have to replace the hardware or driver or both. Hmmm, how would this NOT be M$ doing?

Under the M$ scheme, even hardware that will be intended to be installed in an OSS system will have to be blessed by M$ - albeit indirectly. Here again increasing our cost of ownership of ANY PC. So, even if I decide that I don't want to buy in to the 'the consortiums' BS, I will still have to pay more for "blessed" hardware (their likely won't be any choice), R&D for additional driver development, increased hardware costs due to the overhead of said DRM 'features' AND a less stable system - at least with Vista.

Now, lets look at the monopoly considerations... Due to the fact that open source software is unlikely to have access to or licensing for DRM technologies, regardless of the licensee, M$ will now have a lock on ALL set-top boxes (pc's). I'm sure that really breaks M$ heart and I'm sure they went to the mat to prevent that! [/sarcasm] Their participation in HD-DVD (another DRM format) would also serve as proof of this scenario and their willingness to restrict content.

In short, even if I decide to NOT get 'premium' content I will still have to pay for the hardware compatibility.

What if, sometime in the future, 'the consortium' decides that MP3 was/is a pirate friendly format, and revoke our ability to play them? Some say that "it will never happen". Myself, and others, always say "get it in writing!" However, all you can get from Microsoft is marketing spin.

But if you say this (or, less likely, do this) because of DRM and copy protection paths built into Vista, you obviously do NOT understand this issue one iota.

Actually, I beleive it is you that do not understand all the ramifications of this issue. Personally, I could care less about DRM because I don't pirate movies or music - at least not up to now. However, I agree more with Blink's point that the OS is to use what hardware is available in the system. Only M$ can get away with a minimum system spec for their "OS". That is insanely backwards - but I'm old school! The DRM issue and the related hardware mandates(dictates) will be the last straw for me. It's not DRM directly that I don't like. It's having my arm twisted by M$ and related minions about HOW I use a PC - regardless of premium content. Perhaps I'm being a bit idealistic but I'm also determined not to buy into their BS! If I'm relegated to watching commercial TV without time shifting, I'm sure as hell not going to give 'the consortium' a dime!

The only reason I still use winblows is due to my investment in software. When I need to upgrade my software, hopefully, there will be comparable software (Vegas or something like it) available for Linux. Personally, I don't care to give Bill any more money.

Good discussion, guys. I'd like to address the responses to my post.

Chienworks, said:
1, we are griping because this "nonsense" can affect honest and ethical computer users who aren't even trying to use protected content. Take a look at some of farss' responses in this thread.

My reply:
That's correct. I acknowledged that in my first post above (re-read it if you didn't notice it before). Most of us are ethical, although many of us are not, especially when it comes down to the respect of digital rights. Many even argue what ethical means in this sense. Some believe that it is not only ethical, but necessary to steal others digital work to "set the information free". This of course, is ludicrous, but the idea exists none the less.
Be that as it may, the owners of the content feel that the risk is great enough to alienate some potential customers to make it more difficult to steal. Again, my analogy of brick and mortar stores applies here; we all pay for "loss prevention" when we shop at any store, even though the majority of us don¡¦t steal. Likewise, we all pay for digital loss prevention even though many of us (I'm not even sure I can say most, here; reference this article that was posted on this forum not too long ago: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16828408/from/RS.1/) don't steal it. Have you ever been in line behind somebody who pitched a fit because the check-out person asked for an ID to verify that the person¡¦s credit card was indeed theirs? That's akin, in my humble opinion, to what many people are doing on this DRM issue. None of us like it, but our best (and ultimately only) option if we don't, is to not partake of the content. It is not our decision because we don't own, nor do we have inalienable rights to view, listen to, or read this content. That said, again, this is a choice of the content owners. Not Microsoft, Samsung, etc., who are creating technology to view the content. Their choice, like ours, is mostly one of, either we will support this and partake, or we will not, and go elsewhere. We can influence, I'll give you that, and I respect all of you for trying to influence. The best way, of course, is to not buy the content. Taking it out on Samsung, Microsoft, Toshiba, Sony (from a player standpoint, not from a content owner standpoint) will have a very, very marginal effect on this fight you've got yourself into. When the studios finally do switch on the DRM that keeps you from playing HD content in, say, Linux or OSX, or Windows XP, and you are unhappy about it, don't buy the content. This is your best weapon.

Chienworks, said:
2, DRM is only effective when playback systems cooperate. There is no physical or technological reason that a playback system cannot be made that will ignore all DRM restrictions and play back even the most protected content, digitally, full resolution, full quality, and allow users to do whatever they wish with the content, including ripping and copying. Of course, such a system is probably illegal, at least in the USA, but such "uncooperative" systems will exist and be available. And since they will be available, those who use Vista and all it's DRM protection problems will rightfully feel shafted.

My response:
Really? Honestly? You think people will feel slighted by Microsoft because Microsoft didn't break the law for them? They'll be mad at the makers of Vista because they are not helping them unlawfully copy and store content? I thought you just said we were talking about lawful people here. I quote you: "...this "nonsense" can affect honest and ethical computer users who aren't even trying to use protected content." You are on a very shaky stool here. The content owners have granted you license to use their intellectual property with limited rights. If you overstep those rights, you are being unethical, not to mention in most countries, unlawful. This is an absolutely ridiculous argument, and I actually laughed when I read it. I'm not trying to be mean, here. You are not the only one who I hear this from, and ultimately have to argue with (some, I convince). Just look at the "sky is falling" responses that are in this thread alone, and there are thousands more like this all over the Internet. Do you really want DRM to go away? I do. If you do, everyone needs to stop stealing, and that includes overstepping the rights that were granted you by content owners. You just contradicted your own arguments. This happens when you WANT something to be a certain way (I understand this; I've been there), and then you make up arguments to convince yourself and others that you are not in the wrong; some other greedy bastard is (think about...isn't it greed that makes us take more rights than were granted to us legally). Think long and hard about this the next time you start to call Sony Pictures, MGM, RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, or any other faceless (in your mind, anyway) entity greedy for not doing what makes you satisfy your own greed. This is simple people; services, content, and products are being offered by others. We evaluate what we need, what we want, and what we are willing to pay for it, and we make our choice. Anything beyond that and we are theives, greedy, and unethical. These companies exist to maximize profit. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do this legally. Anything short of this, and they have failed their shareholders. If you want to enjoy the content, but feel bad for supporting them, buy stock in the content providers, and then buy away and enjoy the content feeling good about the fact that while you are watching that movie or listening to that music, you are also making a little bit of money. :) As far as affecting users that don't even use or own any protected content; this is just false. These DRM protections do NOT affect anything but the content they protect. This will NOT affect your own videos/music productions, nor will it affect your existing CDs, or your existing stolen (oops, I mean borrowed) non-DRMd music, etc. For crying out loud, it doesn't even affect protected content yet, because the content owners aren't turning it all on yet! As for the existential meaning of "affecting users that don't even use protected content" in that we live in a world devoid of trust and honor, then ya, I guess you're right, and I concede the point.

Coursedesign said:
...but completely misses my point which is that anybody working with pro audio and video today would be a fool to install Windows Vista anytime soon because of fundamental architecture changes that screw up everything we rely on to turn out deliverables. Hardware drivers, professional software, monitoring.

My response:
Yes, there are changes in Vista. There are changes in every OS upgrade. I also would not recommend going headlong into Vista blind, without thought and testing and...you get the picture. Especially, I agree, if you make your bread with your workstations (like video editors and content producers do). As with ANY upgrade (including software upgrades, like Vegas 6 to Vegas 7), this needs to be a thoughtful, "bottom line" decision. Only make a change if it is going to make you more money (you greedy bastards!) by saving you time, hard dollars, etc. Or do it if it just makes you happy to do it. Other than that, don't do it. Don't NOT do it, though, because of this FUD being bantered about regarding DRM in Vista. I think, from your post, that you are admitting this...that you don't think it is a good idea for a pro to upgrade right now because of driver compatibility, software compatibility, etc. Nowhere did you mention because of DRM (in your last post), yet when you started this thread, you linked to an agenda-driven article about the evils of DRM in Vista. This was your ONLY original argument to back up your admonition to "Don't lose your XP disks!" This makes you appear, frankly, as reactionary at best, agenda-driven at worst. Either way, your post and argument would carry little real informational value. The only good to come out of it is the resulting discussion, which I think is healthy as long as everyone keeps an open mind, thinks for him/herself, and uses common sense. I am skeptical many times of things like DRM that pop up in the technology and content world, but most times, after reading from different sources and thinking it through, it turns out to be hype perpetuated by reactionaries.

Coursedesign said:
(As a complete aside, I can't help looking at the OS X Mac screen I have running next to my two XP PCs. It gets an occasional security update, doesn't get any frequent "security scans," doesn't need a virus checker, and just plain works great. But that is of course beside the point here.)

My response:
I don't think it is beside the point. I think if you truly believe that OSX is more secure, or more stable, and it meets your needs¡Kby all means, you should use it. Note, though, that you won't be playing "premium content" on OSX that is DRM'd, so again...not sure why, if this is the case, you linked to that article at the beginning of this thread because it really has nothing to do with upgrading to Vista. I won't address the virus/security thing right now except to say that I believe (and time will tell) that Vista will be the most secure desktop OS ever released (not just Windows...not because virtually nobody writes viruses and exploits for Windows (which is the case with Linux and OSX), but because of the opposite, because it IS such a big target. Real security, isolation, etc., will be key. All software of any magnitude has bugs, but because of the size of the target of Windows, Microsoft is getting better than everyone else at containing these risks. The best (and worst) thing that has ever happened to Windows in the security arena is that it is attacked so often and with such veracity.

Coursedesign said:
I expect Vista will be good eventually, because it will have to be for Microsoft's sake.
But it won't come easy for them, with the enormous bureaucracy they have built up to make decisions, and I'd say there is absolutely positively no way Vista can ever become great unless MS fills their now effectively empty Chief Software Architect position, previously held by Bill Gates.

My response:
They have one. His name is Ray Ozzie. I think he needs more than 6 months for us to pass judgment on his effectiveness. Also, the things he is working on won¡¦t be out for a while...he is supposed to be the glue, like Bill was, that keeps everyone paddling in the same direction. We'll see, right?

One last thing...I've got to comment on the "file management program" idea from blink. No modern OS attempts to be just a file management program. A modern desktop OS is a complete platform upon which other applications can run. It has evolved over time to include basic performance, security, and utilities to help run the environment well. A modern OS is a sophisticated and complicated patchwork of services, utilities, and libraries. It manages, hopefully as efficiently as possible, the memory in a system, swapping, timesharing, security, etc., etc., etc. Managing the files on a system is a tiny part of what is expected by MOST in a modern OS. Obviously, this differs for you. But, I ask you to really think about the quality of the software that you use on top of any OS, and tell me if you think the quality would be better or worse if each ISV had to implement everything (except file management) on their own that a modern OS does today. What if the Madison developers creating Vegas had to manage permissions on who can run it, how to talk to each individual piece of possible hardware, had to come up with they're own linking and embedding mechanisms, had to manage memory and play nice with other running application, and so on, and so on. Nobody in mainstream, general purpose computing (except for possibly you) wants an OS that does nothing but manage files. Oh...and one doesn't exist, by the way (again, for general purpose computing).

Mikkie...I basically agree with you...there is choice here, folks. I'm all for critical thinking about these topics (DRM), but I just don't see a lot of critical thinking going on with this subject; it is a lot of fear mongering and reactionism. Also...I want to be clear that I am not intending to personally attack anyone for your thoughts on this subject...I am simply pointing out my disagreements and my arguments why. I enjoy passionate discussion. I definitely don't want to make anyone angry with me, as I am but a meager amateur video hobbyist who will likely need the help of some of you pros and experienced guys out there who I happen to disagree with on this subject. One thing I think many of us can agree on is that we enjoy using Vegas (I've been a fan since v2, and been buying every version since). Call me a sucker, but I love getting the next version each time it comes out, and I'll likely do the same with Vista when I've done the testing and my apps work on it. I've already been using it for some time on my work laptop, on which all of my apps work splendidly. Someday I'm sure it will be on my editing workstation as well. I may even buy some premium content to play on it (but I won't try to rip it...I haven't been granted access to do that :)).

Cheers.

Bill~

Some very interesting notes on Vista vs. alternatives from a hardcore .Net developer in this .NETdevelopers Journal article.

Note, though, that you won't be playing "premium content" on OSX that is DRM'd

So you mean the 2,000,000,000 (2 billion!) DRM-protected songs, 50,000,000 (fifty million) DRM-protected TV shows and 1,300,000 (1.3 million) DRM-protected movies that Apple has sold so far have suddenly became unplayable? I thought I would have read about that in my newspaper...

Lemme check on my OS X Mac...hmm, no they still seem to play just fine.

Life is good. :O)

"So you mean the 2,000,000,000 (2 billion!) DRM-protected songs, 50,000,000 (fifty million) DRM-protected TV shows and 1,300,000 (1.3 million) DRM-protected movies that Apple has sold so far have suddenly became unplayable? I thought I would have read about that in my newspaper..."

So...did we just switch topics? Try to keep up...we are talking about the new DRM in what is being called "premium content" (i.e. HD, delivered today in HD DVD and Bluray). Everything else in Vista is the same as it always was...and your precious iTunes works like it always has...this is not what we are talking about here. While your checking to make sure that your locked in iTunes content still plays, check out that HD content. Oops...doesn't exist. I'm convinced, now, that you really have no idea what this debate is about. Again, you have tried to obscure the real issue. At first, I thought it might be deliberate, but I'm becoming convinced you just don't know what your talking about.

I have to say, though, since you brought it up...you are exposed, completely when you moan about DRM in Vista, and then politely say "thank you, sir, may I have another" to Apple's DRM. Once again...I'll say it slowly...Vista isn't restricting your content rights...it is simply allowing you to play content that has been severely restricted by the content owners, as long as you play within those restrictions. With the "premium content" (I've defined again what this means in this debate, so try to stay on this topic) that is now coming out, the owners of that content are restricting its use even more. This has nothing to do with Apple DRM, Plays4Sure DRM, or Zune DRM that exists today. It's really quite simple...surprised you didn't know that. :)

BTW, the article you linked to .NET Addicts Blog was a very interesting teaser. Should be interesting to see his comparisons when it is released. Isn't competition grand?!

Bill~

I agree that MS is enabling customers to play "premium" content but they are also limiting what customers can do. So many people use the analogy that stealing software is like stealing from brick and mortar stores. If MS is really limiting what users can do with their legally purchased content, that would be no different than Ford or GM producing a car that only allows its drivers to reach 65 mph so that its customers dont break the law.

As a customer who is ethcial and law abiding, being treated as a common thief is getting old really quick. At what point do I throw in the towel and start acting what I am accused of?

IMO, the best solution is to change the whole license thing. Allow people complete ownership in their purchases. If I buy a product, let me enjoy it my way whenever I want without restrictions. Modern licenses only restrict honest people not the theives. When I buy a car, I would be pissed as hell that once i got it home I found out that I could only drive in my city or during certain hours. How about that in order for my car to start, it has to connect to a server to validate my identity and then one day I go to start my car and the authentication server doesnt work?

Piracy is and always will be an issue. Honestly, IMHO piracy wouldnt have been that big of deal currently if it werent for all of those law suits filed against Napster and the media coverage. Would it be ramapnt? Of course. But think about how many people went out and bought computers because they read articles stating that users could download any music files they wanted. Same thing with DVD ripping. The public has done one thing that big business has feared for so long....they became educated.

Education is the key to everything. RIAA/MPAA/BSA failed to realize that in the beginning. Instead of educating people they sued them to use as examples. It back fired.

Will Vista help in that department? Probably not. I do have a problem paying the amount I did for Vista only to be able to do a couple things more than I did with XP and more hassle for the things I used to be able to do with XP.

The theory of voting with your wallet doesnt work. Its a flawed concept. When you refuse to buy something, most businesses will lower the price to get you to buy it. Software, music, video are the exceptions. These companies make sure they maintain their bottom line through price increases or inflated loss reports. So if a million people give MS the finger and say we arent buying your product, MS claims they lost sales to obvious piracy. If the consumer who spent $500 on entertainment the year before decides to give the RIAA/MPAA the finger and finds other legal ways to enjoy entertainment, those companies complain that piracy is the villian because they have enjoyed profits continually for so long.

Whats lost in this entire debate is the decline in ethcis on both sides, the consumers and the companies. The battle of good and evil depending on which side of the fence you are. They want our cash, we want the most for our money. Only difference b/t the two? The consumer doesnt have the money or resources to influence those in power to make laws.

Thanks for this post everyone. It is now officially official that Vista sucks.

I dunno why some people are in a panic..
legal or not, people WILL reverse engineer this and sooner (rather than later) there wil lbe means to play HD content in any way shape or form you please....

To date, EVERY system has been broken...

Everything can be broken. Humans have not grasped the concept that "0" and "infinity" are the same point in the universe.
JJK

Bill, why am i on a shaky stool for pointing out the logical progression of the technology and what people will do with it when given the chance? Every other protected format has been broken. DRM already has been. It's only a matter of time before the ability to play back DRM-protected HD material without DRM in the way is available to the masses. And yes, *some* people will feel mad or angry at Microsoft for placing the restrictions in Windows. I already acknowledged that it may be illegal. I'm not sure why you are so upset with such an obvious statement.

There is also no contradiction between my two statements that i can see. You seem to be pulling at straws in an effort to discount my two points. You assume a contradiction because you assume that i'm talking about exactly the same set of people in both points. I'm not. There may be some overlap though. I'm an ethical abider of DRM, yet i definitely wish it would go away. I've had a large library of downloaded and legally licensed content become unusable because of a DRM key file crash. MediaPlayer refused to import my backup file. Microsoft's response? Pay for the stuff again. That is unacceptable, and that is a case of DRM biting an ethical law-abiding user, preventing the user from using legally acquired content.. Fortunately, some of the stuff that was most important to me, i had already burned to audio CD format and ripped back as unprotected .wav files. Is this illegal according to DRM? I'm not sure. However, it is legal according to fair use laws. I just wish i had done that with my entire library. I certainly do that now with anything new.

Try to keep up...we are talking about the new DRM in what is being called "premium content" (i.e. HD, delivered today in HD DVD and Bluray). [...]...and your precious iTunes works like it always has...this is not what we are talking about here. [...] I'm convinced, now, that you really have no idea what this debate is about. Again, you have tried to obscure the real issue. At first, I thought it might be deliberate, but I'm becoming convinced you just don't know what your talking about.

Harsh words coming from somebody who apparently thinks that Vista's DRM will be applied only to HD, as in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.

You may be in for a very rude awakening...

If Vista's DRM is accepted at all, you can count on it being applied everywhere possible

For everybody else, I hope I have just done my civic duty to express my concerns, perhaps saving some grief for working schlubs who then don't have to join the lemmings on Tuesday to get Vista installed on all their PCs, but to wait until the bugs have been sorted out and the stream of security patches has slowed down to below machine gun speeds. Six months, a year, whatever it takes.

Microsoft is pretty brave to even sell Vista upgrades at this stage (as opposed to just on new machines). I would imagine that a fair amount of badwill will come out of that, and stores selling upgrades are going to be busy advising people re memory and graphics card upgrades, and probably in many cases (for excited consumers) ending up doing the installation too, for good money.

Even if just 10% of older PCs don't work well with Vista, that's a large number, and large corporate IT studies indicate the number is far higher than that.

New subject:
Today's paper show's Toshiba's 1080i HD-DVD player selling for $495, while their 1080p version of the same player costs double that, so no cost advantage for HD-DVD over Blu-Ray if you want 1080p. Very odd!

Retailers love upgrades, because the average consumer will be dependent on their " professional advice", hahaha.

MS has not been secretive about the their goal to control the disp. of media content and charging monthly royalty fees. Bill appears to forget that most pro audio/video editors have a lot of extra hardware for their work and a lot of $$ investment in this hardware. Just because Visa security is stated to be stability is far from proven.

I tell ya, it's not so much all this hoopla that's turned me off to vista, it's the system requirements, system managment, and all out bloat this OS has and needs.

I USE my system for content creation and prefer an OS that can be as streamlined as possible. This OS is a nightmare in that dept. Sys req's, warning popups for this that and all other things when managing, USLESS (and I mean COMPLETELY useless) UI visuals..and on top, possible problem driver support for new and dated devices (devices I need all the time or on occasion).

I've tested Vista well enough to know this release is for people who know no better, average ma & pa, or COMPLETE IDIOTS. I see no benefits for business systems with Vista, none with any user type for that matter right now. It's a ridiculous launch of a ridiculous unnecessary OS upgrade.
For the most part it's the visual candy that will feed the morons out there...too bad for those who know the term "streamline" there's a lot of morons out there.

There's nothing important vista can offer that win2k and xp cannot.
i don't hate MS, I HATE this OS. It's garbage.

Home basic doesn't include Aero, that's true.

If Dell isn't offering XP, you should try to order over the phone. Order a business machine, and ask for XP. You'll probably have to order XP Pro, but it's a better choice anyway.

Just my opinion, don't know if it'll work but I can't imagine they'd force business customers to order Vista.

Rob Mack

Most of the (large) business accounts will use their own image for PC installation, which normally includes OS+all production tools. These large customers normally also have a license agreement with MS which allows them to "downgrade" existing license, i.e. eventhough they are paying for Vista, they still can use XP (or w2k).

All home users and small business customers are forced to start using Vista with the new machines. Especially if they do not have separate existing licenses for those machines. So most probably you cannot order XP computer from Dell anymore or at least in the near future.

There is a pipeline of machines with XP pre-installed, and then you have OEM versions of XP being sold for hopefully a long time.