After work one day, I followed a link from news article to this website concerning Microsoft's new Vista. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
I perused the link and found this snippet: ____________________________________________ 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 [Note C]. This conundrum is displayed over and over again in the Windows content-protection requirements, 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. ____________________________________________ What I would like to know: A) Will Vista really cripple certain applications as Mr. Gutman claims? Does anyone have experience with beta releases of Vista? Mr Gutman goes on to say that that certain nVidai HD video cards failed to work as promised, with Vista and it's DRM enforcement. B) If Mr. Gutman's claims are for the most part correct, can we expect a boost in migration to BSD/Linux/FOSS ? -- Kind regards, Jonathan _______________________________________________ CWE-LUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.cwelug.org/ http://www.cwelug.org/archives/ http://www.cwelug.org/mailinglist/
