Microsoft drops 'Kill switch' from Vista!

[bradavon]

Microsoft is to withdraw an anti-piracy tool from Windows Vista, which disables the operating system when invoked, following customer complaints.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7126902.stm

"It said efforts to tackle piracy had seen numbers of fake copies of Vista at half the level of XP" - That's because so few people are actually using it

It will be interesting to see how quick Vista progresses after Summer next year, when XP finally stops being licensed. SP1 is due early next year, from "my" perspective there's not a lot they need to fix.

[Yi-Long]

Did that anti-piracy tool only apply to 'illegal' microsoft software, or also from other companies, like Photoshop and Dreamweaver etc!?

[EvaUnit02]

There's still absolutely no incentive for me to even consider upgrading. DX9.0c rendered programs under XP are still significantly faster than both DX10 and DX9 run under Vista.

Crysis' supposed DX10 exclusive Very High detail settings can be enabled under DX9 using the appropriate cvars.

[bradavon]

Did that anti-piracy tool only apply to 'illegal' microsoft software, or also from other companies, like Photoshop and Dreamweaver etc!?

If you mean what the article refers to? It's not a tool at all (dumb wording) but code in Vista to stop it working if it considers you're running an illegal version.

It specifically relates to Vista nothing else. It's basically a more robust version of WGA already in XP and 2003.

DX9.0c rendered programs under XP are still significantly faster than both DX10 and DX9 run under Vista.

What's the reason why there is such a delay?

Would you upgrade if you didn't need DirectX? I'm interested.

I would imagine come next Spring when SP1 is out and more people have bought Xmas PC's Vista will start to take off properly. Vista will obviously replace XP eventually, that's a given.

[EvaUnit02]

What's the reason why there is such a delay?

Maturity of the technology probably. Nvidia's drivers have matured, making the difference between DX9 on Vista vs. XP only about 3-4fps. But DX9 rendering path are still significantly faster than DX10, the chasm between the performance of DX9 vs. DX10 is still wide.
http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ ... VzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.h ... VzaWFzdA==

HardOCP are highly regarded for doing benchmarks strictly grounded in the real world, none of that faffing around with 3dmark.

Would you upgrade if you didn't need DirectX? I'm interested.

No. DX10 would be my sole reason for even glancing at Vista. Currently there's no benefit at all. In the immediate future I plan to upgrade to a DX10 video card for their raw performance, but not to Vista. Minutely better visual effects aren't worth the massive performance hit IMO.

Support for DX9 won't be dropped either from most future games. Parallel platform development has become prevalent since the market has shifted from PC to consoles in recent years. Neither PS3 nor Xbox 360 have full DX10 GPUs.

I would imagine come next Spring when SP1 is out and more people have bought Xmas PC's Vista will start to take off properly. Vista will obviously replace XP eventually, that's a given.

With the mainstream whom buy Dells, sure. But not with enthusiasts.

[bradavon]

Outside of Games (I appreciate a big one for many) Vista is a definite improvement. I've been running it since May and have found it rock solid, more so than XP SP2 in fact.

The biggest improvement I still find (which strangely rarely gets mentioned) is memory and resource performance. Vista is so just more efficient at memory handling than XP ever was. Like I said outside of Games playing of course.

The other big improvement is that you run as a Standard User across the board. This could be achieved in XP but it wasn't half as seamless. It's certainly not perfect in Vista, you cannot "Print Preview" (or often Print) in IE7 or run WMC effectively unless you're running as Admin. Overall it works very well though.

All except for 2 programs run being none the wiser as a Standard User for me and those 2 programs are now fixed with a new version. UAC is just awful though, thank god to TweakUAC!

Otherwise a lot of it is gimmickry (but still worth it overall, just). Aero is cool but I'd happily lose it. Flip-3D is a waste of time, good old Alt-Tab is much quicker.

It's no leap from 98SE to 2000 though. It's more a case of XP Plus.

Parallel platform development has become prevalent since the market has shifted from PC to consoles in recent years.

Consoles have always held their own against PC's. They're two distinct markets. Even when I played games I not once considered buying a console.

With the mainstream whom buy Dells, sure. But not with enthusiasts.

Of course it will "eventually". I never said soon. As of Summer 2008 XP won't be available and I'm in doubt the performance issues with Vista will be fixed. As to enthusiasts, many IT enthusiasts don't play Games so they could benefit from the upgrade.

[EvaUnit02]

Consoles have always held their own against PC's. They're two distinct markets. Even when I played games I not once considered buying a console.

Game development is becoming more and more expensive by the day, with budgets that're starting to rival Hollywood. It's not very feasible to develop your titles for a single platform any more, developers are forced to go multi-platform. Where the money at the moment is in consoles, with consoles often being the lead platform. Sure an exclusive PC game market will always exist, but outside of multiplayer games it's becoming more niche by the day.

Of course it will "eventually". I never said soon. As of Summer 2008 XP won't be available and I'm in doubt the performance issues with Vista will be fixed. As to enthusiasts, many IT enthusiasts don't play Games so they could benefit from the upgrade.

A lot of enthusiasts whom run Windows overclock. Why do most of them overclock? To increase game performance. Most who don't play games probably run Linux.

[Lourdes]

My reasons for upgrading would be DX10 and DXVA2. I see no reason to bother otherwise though I'm sure I'll switch eventually.

[Yi-Long]

Personally, I would rather stick to XP, as that's always been a pretty good and understandable OS for me.
But when I get a new PC, I WILL get Vista. I dont play games much, so thats not a big issue to me.

Also, maybe a lot of complains come from people who were trying to run Vista on machines that might not have been strong enough to do so perfectly.
I'm sure it's not perfect, but many complains are about 3rd party software that isnt working properly, and that kind of thing.

If you mean what the article refers to? It's not a tool at all (dumb wording) but code in Vista to stop it working if it considers you're running an illegal version.

It specifically relates to Vista nothing else. It's basically a more robust version of WGA already in XP and 2003.

Thanks Brad

[bradavon]

Sure an exclusive PC game market will always exist, but outside of multiplayer games it's becoming more niche by the day.

Interesting. I remember the time when so many games were exclusive on PC's not just multi player games.

A lot of enthusiasts whom run Windows overclock. Why do most of them overclock? To increase game performance.

Most people who use Windows don't play games , obviously a massive portion do but most don't. Besides like I said eventually . Vista and Vista Graphics drivers will be tweaked to the point they overtake XP anyway.

Most who don't play games probably run Linux.

What? No they don't.

Personally, I would rather stick to XP, as that's always been a pretty good and understandable OS for me.

Aside from getting used to and learning how to work with UAC and running as a Standard User Vista is too. Vista really isn't much different to XP in how you use it on a day to day basis. Control Panel will take you a few minutes to re-familiarise yourself with but once you so it's all pretty logical. The layout of Control Panel is pretty damn different.

It still has My Computer, My Documents, Start Menu etc... The days of unstable Windows ceased nearly 8 years ago when Windows 2000 was released. It's no longer even an issue.

But when I get a new PC, I WILL get Vista.

To put XP on a new PC (if you don't play games) is just stupid really and shows ignorance.

Also, maybe a lot of complains come from people who were trying to run Vista on machines that might not have been strong enough to do so perfectly.

Probably. I hear Vista struggles on 1Gb but 2Gb it's perfectly happy. I was going to make use of ReadyBoost (whereby you add extra cache in the form of a memory card) but the speed increase with 2Gb onboard is minimal. That's what an in-depth review showed I read anyway.

ReadyBoost comes into it's own with 512Mb or 1Gb systems and even then ReadyBoost is no replacement for RAM.

I'm sure it's not perfect, but many complains are about 3rd party software that isnt working properly, and that kind of thing.

That's largely history now, unless you run ancient hardware that has no Vista drivers. Many old hardware has drivers built into Vista anyway, obviously not as good as proper drivers though.

The report that most software doesn't work is largely bollocks. It's mostly because few people realise Vista has a "Run as Admin" tick box in every shortcut. Tick this and it runs pretty much as it did in XP. Microsoft mostly got it right with letting software think it's running as Admin anyway when in fact it isn't.

It's not perfect but the way people harp on about XP you'd think that was perfect. It's not!

Thanks Brad

No worries.