Windows 7 Hits Build 7600 (Possible RTM) 671
An anonymous reader writes "One Microsoft Way is reporting that Microsoft has significantly incremented the build number of both Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: 'Reports across the Web are pointing to a build 7600 for both Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. This is significant because the bump in the build number would suggest that Microsoft has christened this build as the Release to Manufacturing (RTM) build. The RTM is expected to be given out to Microsoft partners sometime later this month and launched on October 22, 2009, the day of General Availability (GA). The build string is "7600.16384.090710-1945," which indicates that it was compiled just a few days ago: July 10, 2009, at 7:45pm. Microsoft only increments the build number when it reaches a significant goal, and the only one left is the RTM milestone. The last builds that were leaking were all 72xx builds, so such a large bump is suspicious but at the same time it is something Microsoft would do to signify that this is the final build.'"
Re:I just got sweaty palms... (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously? Windows 7? People are really going to play that game?
Yes - it seems there's genuine excitement about Windows 7. From what I can see, it does fix some of the glaring problems with Vista, and adds a few features:
* The backup utility actually lets you select what files to backup again, rather than just "Pictures" or "Documents".
* You can burn ISO files straight from Explorer.
* It's easier to enable BitKeeper. BitKeeper is pretty crap - it needs about 1.5GB unencrypted space to hold the 'system' files - but the installer now creates this space by default, so it's easier to actually turn encryption on.
But, as always, there are caveats:
* The backup utility actually stores backups as sets of 200MB zip archives. What. The. Fuck? Is something like Time Machine (which is like rdiff-backup) so complicated?
* You might be able to burn ISOs, but you still can't mount them. Loopback device anyone? Do I really need to pay $XX, or install some spyware-infested freeware crap, just to mount ISOs?
* BitKeeper is still only available in 'Ultimate' form.
Probably the most useful new feature is the Linux-like window manager shortcuts, so you can maximise, snap to left/right of the screen etc. I've been using these in KDE for donkey's years.
This guy needs a mod-up (Score:5, Informative)
This is quite astute.
I'd also like to point out another story [computerworld.com] detailing a strong statistical anomaly in the speed at which anti-microsoft and pro-linux stories get "buried" on social news sites.
Re:I just got sweaty palms... (Score:3, Informative)
It's actually called BitLocker, rather than keeper. ;)
I am going to take a chance on Windows 7 (Score:4, Informative)
I pre-ordered a copy for myself and my son.
Of course my Laptop will dual-boot both Windows 7.0 Pro and Fedora 11, so that if Windows 7.0 fails me, at least I have Fedora 11 to use. I will try to use the Windows XP virtual machine option with 7.0 Pro to run legacy software.
My son has been begging me for Windows 7.0 so I got him a Windows 7.0 Home Premium, I could not afford two 7.0 Pro copies, so I bought him a Home Premium version. If he needs the 7.0 Pro version Microsoft allows an upgrade to 7.0 Pro via the Internet and I can afford that later if needed.
If the XP virtual machine does not work to well, I'll be buying two old copies of XP Pro from pricewatch.com and run them in Sun VirtualBox later. I hope I don't have to do that, but the current Windows XP licenses would be invalid after the upgrade to 7.0.
My son's system uses a wireless adapter that does not have Linux support, and he showed no interest in Linux, most of his games work in Windows XP, and if they don't work in Windows 7.0 I'll look for upgrade patches to work with 7.0 or he'll have to skip playing those games until I can get a virtual machine set up to play his games.
Both systems were Vista boxes, downgraded to Windows XP Pro, so they should run Windows 7.0.
I know I am taking a risk, but I hope to find out what problems friends and relatives will have when they upgrade to Windows 7.0 as they'll be calling me and asking for help. Upgrading from XP requires a reformat and reinstall, and most of my friends and relatives are using XP and some are using Vista.
I preordered before July 11 to qualify for that half off special on upgrade copies. I am not sure if the old XP licenses will still work if Windows 7.0 fails and I have to reinstall XP, or if I have to buy new licenses for XP to switch back to XP.
Anyway I could always buy my son a wireless card that works with Linux and install Fedora 11 with WINE and see if that runs his video games better than Windows 7.0 and save money on XP licenses and virtual machines, and teach him how to use Linux as an alternative. But it is more important that he learn how the Windows upgrade process works and any troubles with it and how to resolve them. Right now to him the Windows 7.0 is cool, but if there are issues and it won't run his video games, he will learn that sometimes newer technology is not always better and even if it looks cool, it might not always do what he wants it to do. Because eventually they will upgrade to Windows 7.0 in his school, too bad they don't support Linux.
Re:I just got sweaty palms... (Score:1, Informative)
don't forget disk mirroring, forgetting RAID for a second. Every other OS around lets you at least create mirrors and windows won't unless you buy freaking Datacenter?
Re:Windows 7 makes me excited (Score:5, Informative)
Performance numbers so far show the games to run at the same speed _or_slower_ under Win7.
Google begs to differ: http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/25/windows-7-edges-out-vista-for-gaming-in-thorough-benchmark-tests/ [engadget.com]
However, common sense does tell you not to benchmark a beta OS.
Re:I just got sweaty palms... (Score:5, Informative)
* You might be able to burn ISOs, but you still can't mount them. Loopback device anyone? Do I really need to pay $XX, or install some spyware-infested freeware crap, just to mount ISOs?
As far as I know Daemon Tools is not spyware-infested.
Re:I just got sweaty palms... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This guy needs a mod-up (Score:5, Informative)
Or, you know, Microsoft could have about one hundred thousand tech savvy employees (like myself) who also happen to frequent tech sites and have a higher than average opinion of the company. Doesn't have to be nefarious. That might not even be it either. Especially since the launch of Xbox, there are a surprising number of MS-fanboys out there unassociated with the company in any way.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt, I have no real evidence one way or another - conspiracy theory away!
Re:I just got sweaty palms... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/620/xp_small_free_way_to_use_and_mount_images_iso_files_without_burning_them/ [tech-recipes.com]
Re:Windows Backup is actually quite good now (Score:5, Informative)
In all fairness, dd is a bit-for-bit image. That works fine except that it creates files that are just as large as the disk. Backing up a 40GB partition with 1GB worth of data on it creates a file 40GB in size. Not so great if you want to store multiple sets of images. Programs like Ghost and other more elaborate imaging tools know the format of the filesystem and copy only the actual data of the partition, making the file only as large as it needs to be, and making it possible to restore it back to a partition of an arbitrary size rather than only the exact size that the image came off of.
There are some tricks you can do to reduce the size of a dd generated image - namely defragging and zeroing out all unused space before imaging so that compressing the image eliminates much of the space, but that's a hassle and still carries the limitation of only restoring back to a partition of equal size.
Like most pro-Unix arguments that basically equate to "*nix has had xyz for ages.", saying dd is "about the same thing" is a gross oversimplification of the issue. dd has it's uses, but for most hard drive imaging tasks there are better ways to do things. I love Linux. I've used it for years, but the automatic tendency to assume that any and everything that ever occurs on any other platform has already been done better on Linux is just offputting, and usually not accurate.
Re:This guy needs a mod-up (Score:3, Informative)
Mildly off topic...
I actually hate the iPod embedded os and itunes. I use Rockbox and aTunes. I am really happy with the hardware.
The sad truth in the world is you do not have to delivery a world shattering application. You can simply ship average and have a really good marketing campaign.
It's when you ship below average that not even marketing can help.
Windows 7 isn't bad in my opinion. It's not great (I find consistency issues and some stability issues), but it isn't horrible to the point that I lose network performance when playing mp3s.
So barring any unforeseen disaster it should be an OK product. I fully expect the marketing engine to do the rest.
Re:Windows 7 makes me excited (Score:1, Informative)
Oh yeah, but Steve who?
Muahahahaa!
*twitch* DEVELOPERSDEVELOPERSDEVELOPERS *throwschair*
Re:This guy needs a mod-up (Score:3, Informative)
Or, you know, Microsoft could have about one hundred thousand tech savvy employees (like myself) who also happen to frequent tech sites and have a higher than average opinion of the company. Doesn't have to be nefarious. That might not even be it either. Especially since the launch of Xbox, there are a surprising number of MS-fanboys out there unassociated with the company in any way.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt, I have no real evidence one way or another - conspiracy theory away!
let's read the overall tone of your post, including the last sentence, and say it's not nefarious and/or biased by your paycheck with a straight face again.
I've spent plenty of time around xbox gamers and am a huge fan of the halo series, but the common thread among all of them is love for specific games and their independent developing houses (in the case of halo, it's bungie, which was developing the cannon for that franchise before MS bought it).
Most have it for the same reason they have the other consoles: exclusivity deals on certain titles give them no other choice as gamers.
Save the unique control system on the wii, there simply is not a substantial enough difference in the look and feel of the same title from one system to another, and as someone from a middle-income background I can tell you the exorbitant pricing on the latest generation of consoles has been shaking people's will to purchase them even if it means being denied exclusive titles.
Re:I just got sweaty palms... (Score:3, Informative)
Just for reference, Microsoft offers the Virtual CD Control Panel which will let you mount ISOs. I started using it sometime in late 2k5, not sure when it actually came out, and appearently it can be made to work in Vista at least.
http://blogs.msdn.com/charles_sterling/archive/2007/05/14/virtual-cd-rom-control-panel-on-vista.aspx [msdn.com]
I did some quick Googling and could find the main link to the MS product page for it. Prolly should have used bing, but I refuse to use a search engine that has changed names to get market share.
Anyway, if you actually use the MS Virtual CD control panel you'll quickly understand why they didn't include it. The management interface is some basic windows app that would have been accepted during the win95 internal builds, before the betas, not any time after that. But it does indeed work, after you figure out the sequence of button clicks required to get you going since it doesn't do anything other than what the button says, such as loading the driver automatically rather than requiring you to go to a different dialog first to enable the drive than come back and add a drive. Its just not end-user friendly. Geeks will figure it out quick enough though.
Interestingly enough, my Ubuntu install doesn't just let me double click on an ISO to mount it out of the box. Do any distros work this way? I'll fully accept it may be due to my futzing. I'm a FreeBSD user mostly, just play with Ubuntu so I have a general idea whats going on in the Linux desktop arena, and I've done some weird crap to it so it wouldn't surprise me if I pissed off some automounter gods or something.
I seem to recall it being more than a single mount command to do it in FBSD although I know it can be done with just a couple.
Re:Windows 7 makes me excited (Score:5, Informative)
The only things that run better (like video) are due to MS spending all of their time streamlining the DRM code that will prevent you from using *your* legally purchased files wherever you want.
The DRM systems are only active when DRM-encumbered media is being played. Further, the apply no more restrictions than any other DRM-enabled player capable of playing such media.
Re:OK, Since this is a non-event... (Score:2, Informative)
Will they make enough improvement that people want to switch away from Microsoft?
From my personal standpoint: when they make a computer that I'll actually buy. A couple other people in this thread have said a couple similar things, though my standpoint is slightly different.
In terms of desktops:
- iMacs have the big problem that the monitor is built in. The computer monitor is almost the only component of a system that it usually makes sense to inherit from one computer to the next, and the iMac makes this impossible. I'm seriously considering buying a $1400 monitor (the Dell 3008WFP) and will at least get a good one (definitely no TN panel) and will be pretty pissed if I can't use it at least through my next computer. When you replace an iMac, good luck inheriting the display. (The smallest iMac has a 20" monitor, and the cheapest 20" monitor on Newegg is over $100. The 24" seems to be an IPS panel, so too bad if you wanted to get a cheaper TN one and save a bit of money.)
- Mac Pros are very nice machines, and actually pretty reasonably-priced for a prebuild computer of its specs. If I were in the market for something in that range, I would consider the Mac Pro. But the cheapest configuration of a Mac Pro is $2500... that's way out of my price range. I have no need for a Xeon processor; a simple Core 2 would be fine.
- Mac Minis are easily the most attractive of the bunch, but they are not expandable (I have 3 hard drives in my current computer), even maxed out the specs aren't great, and it's still fairly expensive (the computer I built a year ago had better specs and cost about the same).
Now, if I were to buy a laptop, the story changes. The Macbook Pros are, I think, on par costwise with good Windows machines (like Thinkpads), and I would seriously consider buying one. Now, that said... my current laptop (from "work") is actually a tablet PC, and I really like the tablet aspects, and I'd also be very tempted to buy one of those. But guess how many tablets you'd find in the Apple store? [apple.com]
Re:apple needs better hardware like a real desktop (Score:1, Informative)
I'll bite, you troll.
A Dell eight 2.26GHz, 6GB of RAM, a 512MB video card, and a 500GB hard drive is $3,157. That's $142 less than a Mac Pro with the same specs (though the Mac has a hard drive with 140GB more space). $142 less - for a Dell.
Try to build an eight-core HP for less than $4,000. Good luck!
I'll bite: HP Z600 Linux Workstation [hp.com]
~$2000 when you add the second CPU. Maybe another $100-$200 if you want Windows
Granted, I didn't configure all of your fancy 6GB of RAM and other silliness :)
You just typed yourself a shill or an idiot (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I just got sweaty palms... (Score:4, Informative)
At which point you're back to spyware-infested [daemon-tools.cc].
Win7 netbook dream (Score:4, Informative)
I see a lot of people saying that win7 is going to be a viable OS for netbooks. I just installed it this weekend on a netbook, and frankly it was a miserable experience. When finished, it was totally unusable for two primary reasons. First the netbook has a 1024x600 10" screen, once windows was done drawing all its art in the form of huge taskbars and big ribbons, plus assorted other screen junk, about 1/3 of the extremely limited screen remained. Secondly, it was just a dog, the 1G memory and low end CPU just makes it crawl along.
Re:The "Lord of HOSTS" sayeth READ (serious) (Score:1, Informative)
"While 0 is a valid IP address and should work in a hosts file, dude, STOP ABUSING the hosts file like a clueless idiot! Seriously, 14MB of plain text that needs to be parsed for every lookup? That's the most retarded thing I've ever seen" - by TCM (130219) on Monday July 13, @12:12AM (#28672489)
First of all: 0 is no longer useable in the VISTA hosts file, after the 12/09/2009 patch tuesday update... & it isn't in Windows Server 2008, or Windows 7. AND, if you read lower, even "security experts" agree HOSTS are useful... so please, do read on (& the name tossing & such is not helping your case)...
Secondly: Ever heard the term "layered security"? I use HOSTS files to supplement IPSec, Port Filtering, & the native Windows firewall (to block access to known bogus sites)... &?
----
Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM tends to "2nd my opinions" & findings, here, per his article "RESSURECTING THE KILLFILE":
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]
----
(Nuff said, on THAT account... either you favor layered security, as much of it as you can use as possible, or you don't...)
----
"And anyways, diverting traffic to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 is changing semantics in so many ways." - by TCM (130219) on Monday July 13, @12:12AM (#28672489)
First of all - I don't run a webserver here (moot point on your part, that)... &, secondly?
Not for BLOCKING ACCESS to known bad sites, it works - I get my data from various sources for that, including SpyBot S&D's hosts file populations, SRI.com, stopbadware.org, & other reputable sources for that purpose (to stay safe - "if you can't go into the kitchen, you can't get burnt" type thinking)...
----
""Blocking" hosts by listing them in the hosts file is an evil evil evil ugly hack conceived by clueless idiots that can't manage to run a local proxy where you could block domains with simple regular expressions and only for protocols which need them blocked. Or running a local DNS cache where you could blacklist domains so you get a semantically correct (for your purpose) NXDOMAIN error." - by TCM (130219) on Monday July 13, @12:12AM (#28672489)
Oliver Day of SecurityFocus.com above would disagree with you, & so do I...
(Your name tossing & profanity doesn't make YOU sound too intelligent, so I wouldn't go tossing names anymore like idiot...)
APK
P.S.=>
"At those proportions, there are WAY more efficient methods." - by TCM (130219) on Monday July 13, @12:12AM (#28672489)
AND, I use them, in a layered security manner (things in my webbrowsers even, like opera's filter.ini, Firefox's block lists, & even IE's restricted zones) alongside IPSec, Port Filtering, & Windows native firewall (plus a CISCO technology based linksys router)... layered security is the trend & the way, & smart to do imo @ least...
(Whoever modded you up might have made a mistake, but... oh well, opinions vary - facts & noted security experts agreeing with my points, do not!)... apk
Re:I just got sweaty palms... (Score:2, Informative)
Daemon tools lite is a grand total of $0.00 and spyware free.
Re:I just got sweaty palms... (Score:4, Informative)
The "spyware" is something you can opt for (not sure if it's opt-in or op-tout) during the installation. It's not like they're not being upfront about what it is and what it does.
Been using daemon tools for ages, never seen anything unexpected from the app or the stuff it installs.
Matter of fact, considering how long I've been using it I should probably pay for it anyway :/
Re:I just got sweaty palms... (Score:4, Informative)
http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/b/6/7b6abd84-7841-4978-96f5-bd58df02efa2/winxpvirtualcdcontrolpanel_21.exe [microsoft.com]
Re:I just got sweaty palms... (Score:5, Informative)
"Spyware-infested" if you say yes to the clear and unambiguous "Install Daemon Tools browser toolbar" option in the installer.
Re:The "Lord of HOSTS" sayeth READ (serious) (Score:5, Informative)
So I've never heard of you before, but you seem to like throwing your initials round APK, or Alexander Peter Kowalski.
Your initial comments seemed idiotic, you were complaining about your 15mb+ hosts file being slow to load. Sorry, but what the fuck? You have a 15mb+ hosts file? are you really that clueless about IT?
But you try and justify it all by talking about security so I figured hey, I'll see what this guys credentials are. Well, a quick search turned this up:
http://www.ca.com/us/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=51276 [ca.com]
A piece of software that can arbitrarily run applications invisibly? Sorry what, did you really try and throw such a security threat onto consumer's PCs??
But wait, it appears you didn't stop there, I also found this:
http://www.thorschrock.com/2008/05/19/how-to-respond-when-people-threaten-to-sue-you-on-the-web/ [thorschrock.com]
So not only do you produce an app. that is a massive security risk, not only do you fail to see why it has been validly categorised as such, but you throw a hissy fit and threaten to sue? Not only that, but continue to spam the comments section of that site for over a month continuing to whine?
People make mistakes though so fair enough, I figured I'm sure there's more to this guy. I found this:
http://www.thenewtech.com/forums/chit-chat/today-4378/index32.html [thenewtech.com]
Er, a program built entirely around breaking the hosts file using it for purposes it is simply not intended? Again, do you have any idea about the subject you preach? Do you realise that your very own programs pose a security risk? Do you realise how trivial it would be for Malware to hide malicious redirects in hosts files of the size you are talking meaning yet another one of your programs is a vessel for anti-security?
And there's more:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/51009562/m/3680937305 [arstechnica.com]
Threatening to sue again on online forums because people didn't like the fact you were using them to advertise your dodgy Delphi programs?
Other than that, all I could find was a couple of dead web pages of yours and mention of a couple of long obsolete Delphi programs.
Your complaint is about the performance of using the hosts file for something it's never meant to be used for and the resultant performance drops of reading such a large file.
The fact that using the hosts file so incorrectly inherently severely decreases performance of DNS lookups anyway seems lost on you.
You talk of security yet you produce applications that are security threats.
You threaten to sue anyone who points out that your applications are security threats, you threaten to sue people who do not like you using technical forums to advertise your programs.
You complain here about how people obviously aren't programmers because they disagree with you yet your language of choice is object pascal via Delphi, hardly the language of choice for an expert programmer and second only to pre-.NET Visual Basic for the horifically bad bloatware it results in.
Do us all a favour, quit posting anything to the internet, spend a few years updating your knowledge to learn a worthwhile language like C++, Java or one of the .NET languages. Get a clue about security and understand why your applications are a far bigger security risk than anything you talk of and finally, stop threatening to sue anyone you disagree with.
Re:Windows 7 makes me excited (Score:3, Informative)
Win7 was probably cleanly installed a month ago after the latest Beta/RC.
Sure that could be it, but in cases where this is NOT true, the performance differences are still present.
This old laptop I am using at the moment was a Vista RTM/SP1/SP2 (SP2 Beta insstalls even) Win7 Beta 1, Win7 RC (using modded text file to allow upgrade. This computer is nothing special execpt it is my 'testing' work horse that I throw lots of crap at all the time and for its 'time' (2005) was a nice model, having a nice P4 and a 7950 GPU.
The main thing about performance gains with Win7, and I will speak in general, but it applies very directly to this laptop, is there are lots of 'UI' level optimizations that give a faster feel. This means when you open 'Computer' or 'Documents' it pops open and subsequent use of Explorer continues to be snappy and you get around at speeds that are beyond even what Explorer in XP felt like. (In fact some of the bug reports dealt with on Win7 have been from the Explorer UI responding too fast while scrolling, etc thus making the user not fully double click as the UI has responded faster than the User.)
So there is the 'feel' and this goes beyond Explorer and also just 'feel'. Many applications have a bit more of a lightness and spark to them (3rd party as well), and this has to do with DWM optimizations and other little refining steps. There are also less 'locks', as with XP and even some with Vista, you would find the Control Panel locked up while the system was applying a setting or a dialog stick to the screen, etc. These types of locks in the OS applications and Explorer and hard to find now.
Technically there are also reasons why lower level operations in the OS not only work a bit faster, but are also smoother, as granularity has been combed through in Win7, with many kernel and various layer locks removed as they are no longer necessary.
The memory footprint and memory usage is also a big thing, and helps performance, even on higher end systems with extra RAM.
On low end systems like 512mb or 1gb of RAM, the service model has changed in Win7 with a new event based service handler, this keeps services 'alive' but not 'running' in a classical sense, which reduces the service footprint considerably.
On high end RAM systems, the flipping in and out of RAM was improved in Vista, but again refined with a few new rules in Win7. This keeps Superfetch doing good things better and also lets some of the RAM flagging added in Vista smooth out for better overalall usage of RAM for Video and other things 'extra' RAM is used for.
Gaming does see improvements in Win7.
Part of this has to do with the RTM Vista Video drivers from NVidia and ATI sucked, and where barely working, let alone optimized. As everyone here should know, Vista introduced WDDM and this was not a 'revision' but a ground up re-write of video drivers. This was great for progress, but sucked for gaming as all the years of optimizations used in games and by the video drivers either no longer applied or had to be done another way. About Jun-Sep07, this changed as the NVidia and ATI drivers caught up to the XP speeds users had 'expected' out of Vista.
So going forward with 'more' optimizations and implementation of the WDM 1.1 specifications that give the OS more 'scheduler' level control of the GPU, brings the performance up a bit from Vista. Some GPUs will see minor improvements, some will see large improvements, and as the newer WDM 1.1 revisions are optimized, these 'boosts' could even grow, while giving the GPU multi-tasking abilities of the OS a more smooth experience.
On this 2005 laptop, I see about 5-10fps boost in games between Vista SP2 and Win7. It isn't massive, but helps. On an even older laptop at my house that is a P4 with a Geforce 5600M GPU, game FPS jump about 1.5 to 2x what they ran in Vista. The funny thing about this laptop, is that it has to use the same Vista drivers from Dec 2006, as NVidia doesn't update the driver for the FX 5xxx cards past
Re:OK, Since this is a non-event... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The "Lord of HOSTS" sayeth READ (serious) (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, 14MB of plain text that needs to be parsed for every lookup? That's the most retarded thing I've ever seen.
While I agree with you, Vista has two technologies which speed up this sort of thing. Actually, three. Two are shared with XP, one of which is shared with pretty much everyone in existence. Vista has disk caching, which will probably keep that 14MB in RAM at all times. If it doesn't, and you have some ReadyBoost-enabled flash hooked up, then the file will probably end up copied to flash because it will be very frequently read. Three, XP and Vista both reorg files to be contiguously located on the disk to speed up boot time.
Obviously, tampering with DNS results is a better solution than tampering the hosts file. It's not available to dumbasses though... but it seems like it should be, and it wouldn't be that hard to just give people a package that would provide it. I wonder if you can run dnsmasq on Windows :)
Re:Windows 7 makes me excited (Score:3, Informative)
> This is absolutely not true at all.
Gutmann's FUD has been refuted numerous times. Further, it's so stupidly trivial to demonstrate (eg: output video to an analogue connection) he is wrong, it's plainly obvious he didn't do even the most basic testing.
No DRM-encumbered media == no DRM systems active.