[Batman]

[quote name='jyin87']i agree fully.Don't fully agree. This entire article is based on unsubstantiated statements by a man who never even touched the OS. Hopefully I will be able to post an alternate viewpoint's link a few posts down.

[Batman]

[quote name='TheWitness']Ubuntu forever. After using Microsoft since the late 70's. I will no longer put up with this. Big Brother (Microsoft), should die.> > > > TheWitnessI'm afraid this may be a case of poor journalism on PCW's part. I attempted a post, but, despite my length of being a member, my entire post was not allowed, because I have not posted sufficiently. (As irritating as this is, it's justifiable on their part). Anyway, I should now have the sufficient posts, so, next one wshould explain things in greater detail.

[Batman]

One thing that really iritates me, is the sloppiness of journalists today. I suppose much of this is due to "deadlines" and pressures to get the scoop. But, shouldnt there be a minimum standard, one that requires substaniation, before making the claim?The issue here, is Jon Brodkin and ultimately, PCW, has taken the word of Peter Gutmann without question, and, because he is a security expert, have accepted his word, without even seeking to prove the claims. Instead, they accepted it as truth, and expect us to accept this article as factual, because they placed their faith in Putmann, and they expect us to put our faith in them, because THEY said it. I thought we passed this stage centuries ago.I don't like lazy journalism. So, now, here I am, being given all this information-- as are you; and we are being told to accept it as truth. Yet, there seems there may be a problem with this article, and the claims Putmann has made.George Ou, over at ZDNet has this to say about Putmann's theories, "Theres just one little problem: Gutmanns theories are unsubstantiated and theyre all wrong."Now, this presents an obstacle. One I want to overcome, and see that gets corrected. Who's right? Who's wrong? Why? For those interested, here is the opposite point of view, [url]http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673_I will be doing my own investigation; because I want to get to the truth of this issue. And, then, I want PCW or George Ou at ZDNet to print a retraction, and that they were in error. So, keep posted everyone. This may be fun. And, don't expect a quick answer. This will take some doing to get to the bottom of things. But, i will do everything possible to find out, what the truth is, and why we are being fed bunk. By whoever is wrong.

[TheWitness]

Batman,After reading the article on ZDnet, I feel somewhat used. Oh, well. I won't have been the first to have been fooled by such things. Thanks for pointing to a genuine article.TheWitness

[gs20]

i wondered why i had to run AnyDVD in order to play HD on vista.........now i know why.............my other fluid solution was the fabulous HDFury............enjoy.

[MoonDogg]

That article has them all. Do your research and you will see that Vista only restricts protected content when you don't have the necessary hardware/software requirements. Non-protected or hacked HD plays fine, with no degradation. This article is a joke.MDBTW: Vista runs circles around XP on all 5 of my personal workstations. Anyone sticking to XP 'just because' is just being silly. I have an XP partition dedicated to Gaming, because at this point it still makes sense for that purpose, and I also don't feel like rebuilding it. But otherwise, Vista works much better than XP ever did.

[donnyemu]

This is just a ridiculous claim. Microsoft is being required by the movie industry and various media companies to support HDCP and the content protection requirements of the industry. HDCP is required for high definition content playback and it's not available on all graphics cards. Right now only only specific video cards that specify that they support HDCP do. Many new laptop computers and desktop units have built-in graphics do not support HDCP content protection either. You have to make sure you buy these features. Adding a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD drive to your computer isn't as simple as adding the drive to your existing system. You must have HDCP compatible video cards. Degraded performance at least is the compromise that lets you see content. Blame the industry not Microsoft. We should be complaining at the industry for supporting copy protection. Like the music industry is finding out, people support and buy DRM free content first. See Steve Jobs about that..

[Batman]

Dont feel too bad. That's what this and similar sites and this and similar magazines are all about. To inform those of us who dont know; and to improve the knowledge of those who do know. It breaks down when those who are supposed to know better just accept the word of those who claim they know.[quote name='TheWitness']Batman,> > > > After reading the article on ZDnet, I feel somewhat used. Oh, well. I won't have been the first to have been fooled by such things. Thanks for pointing to a genuine article.> > > > TheWitness

[Alphabool]

Okay...I've been working with Vista on my sister's new machine, and although the extra glass and Aero doesn't do much for me, Vista is essential if you're planning on playing any up-to-date games in a year or so. Crysis looks awesome in XP running on DX9, but DX10 is only supported by Vista, and elevates the playing experience to a whole new level.

Now, I'm very unhappy with the lack of drivers for the latest graphics cards. The people at Crytek are telling everybody that new nVidia drivers will be released before, or with, Crysis, but it shouldn't come to that. I find it stunning that compatability problems are still in abundance under this new OS.

[dwt1966]

You only agree if your the one making the money.My 1000 dollae vista is no better yhan my 300dollar xp