Microsoft Scales Down Palladium 475
bonch writes "Formerly known as Palladium, Next Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB) will not be fully available in Windows Longhorn after all. Instead, Longhorn will offer "the first part of NGSCB: Secure Startup," says Jim Allchin, Microsoft's group vice president for platforms. However, most hardware will not support this technology on release."
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Making MS lots and lots of good old cash.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Same old story really.
It's all marketing spin to keep it in the news (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only MS is guilty of using this vaporware tactics. All the media are lapping it up too, without even a single note of critisism. It seems we not only need the icbm adress of MS, but those of it's minion news outlets too
Re:It's all marketing spin to keep it in the news (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find interesting, however, is that Linux is not pulling ahead in the same time. Microsoft set their dates far into the future, and many people predicted that Linux would eclipse it in features by then. Instead, we're not really seeing any revolutionary features out of the Linux developers, and Apple is starting to eat everyone's lunch. What happened?
Re:It's all marketing spin to keep it in the news (Score:4, Insightful)
Things like SELinux and Xen promise various ways of locking things down that aren't evil and are also here right now. For that matter, support for motherboard crypto will also be here in a month or two. The way that is done will likewise be evil free.
The X.Org people and various projects are also working on 3D accellerated, eyecandylicious, vector desktops even as we speak. KDE4, GNOME, E, and other users of video infrastructure are incorporating these things.
Linux is already faster with new ideas in security and filesystems. As far as desktops go, Linux is developing at least as fast as Windows. Apple is bringing out new desktops faster but they are still riding on a maintained old version of BSD for their infrastructure. They aren't outpacing Linux there.
Re:It's all marketing spin to keep it in the news (Score:3, Interesting)
Umm... yeah. Spotlight not only searches documents, it searches mail, photo, contacts, and other databases. And it does it *way* faster than the "wait a half hour for your entire drive to be searched" command line method.
Advanced in what fashion? Multimedia handling has been mature for ages. The only thing new in Multimedia handling that I am aware of is a couple more codecs and DRM. Linux supports pretty much all the codecs.
Windows
Re:So... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)
Truth in Advertising? (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows 2000 -> Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP -> Windows NT 5.1
Longhorn -> Windows NT 6.0 or Windows NT 5.2?
Or maybe even Windows NT 5.11?
Re:Truth in Advertising? (Score:2)
Re:Truth in Advertising? (Score:5, Interesting)
DEVELOPER RANT: don't use if (win_version == nt5.1) use if (win_version >= nt51). It sucks, when I played around with the LH Alpha leaks, a lot of software didn't work out of the box because they didn't know what NT 6.0 is. Your firm may go bankrupt long before the LH release but don't go screwing your customers of any forwards compatibility.
But congrats to the Mozilla devs for having good native UI integration - Mozilla looks really good under LH 3653 and LH 4008 and the plex theme.
And among all the talk about LH being souped up XP in the past few days, isn't this feature called Aero still under lock and key? Or have M$ Shafted that too?
DEVELOPER RANT - Version checking. (Score:5, Interesting)
DEVELOP RANT: don't use OS version tests if you can use feature tests instead.
Not a comment specifically directed at you, I don't know if you do this, but I keep running into software on all platforms that doesn't run on older versions even when patches, service packs, hotfixes, software updates, backported libraries, or compatibility fixes have removed the dependency on the specific OS version they hardcoded into the application.
One of the nice things about the Amiga is that all the developer documentation showed code checking library versions instead. Not perfect, but much better than OS version checks. Palm provided hooks to do functional checks down to the entry point level, but then spoiled it by shipping example code doing OS version checking.
Re:Truth in Advertising? (Score:3, Funny)
I've seen a retail box copy of Windows NT 3.01, you dumb shit.
If you're coherent enough to comprehend it, look at http://www.ekta.ee/html/e741.htm [www.ekta.ee], which was the third result in my supposed "garbage" Google search. Under the System Software section, it references....how about that? Windows NT 3.01.
Next, check this tech reference from AMD (Google PDF-to-HTML version, since you'
Re:So... (Score:2, Funny)
The other possibility is that they realized too many programs and computers would stop working at once and at the same time which would "kill" (or at least stop) all the Windows machines connected to the internet.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
That and pretty pictures...
Microsoft can make a killing from the average joe, and then release Longhorn SE with the added features a year or two later. And make another killing...
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:2)
Things like IP addressable devices being treated as plug and play just like usb sound interesting, and it'll be interesting to see what security issues it causes.
Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)
Suck. It will truly suck. Literally it will suck your system resources dry without mercy.
Re:So... (Score:2)
More stability, security, etc.
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
you don't "add on more stability, security...". either it's there from the start or not.
all you can do later is restrict usability to give the illusion of stability, security ("you are not allowed to use that driver", "your settings do not allow you to access this page" etc.)
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right.
I think Microsoft knows they are losing traction because of their old and messy code that they can barely update and are taking this period to clean it up and try to fix and loop hopes in security and bugs. Why is this bad?
What else would they have been working on in the past 5 years after sending all their programmers for security training?
This is the first release (well not counting SP2)
They need to pull an OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
MS should do the same. Chuck the current hopeless mess into a virtual machine and start all over.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)
I only use M$ products at work, but when they first announced all the new features that Longhorn would have it looked promising. To me it looks like they bit off more they can chew in the timeframe they commited to, hence the dropped/postponed features.
And to think I used to worry about this... (Score:4, Funny)
Heck, Microsoft cannot even secure its own "proprietary" gaming console, why did we ever fear that they'd lock down all of our computers?!
Perhaps Microsorft have finally realised that such an invasive DRM system will cause a mass exodus of people from windows to Lenix. Microsoft seems determined to play into Lonis Torvaldez's hands with issues like these and I can't say that I'm ungrateful. Now if only WINE could play more games I'd switch straight away as the rest of my pirated material already works perfectly under linix.
Re:And to think I used to worry about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Re:And to think I used to worry about this... (Score:2)
Re:And to think I used to worry about this... (Score:2)
Would you mind to write names correctly? I mean, how am I supposed to do a search in
Re:And to think I used to worry about this... (Score:2)
I doubt Linus Torvalds has a masterplan for defeating Windows! He works on the kernel.
It's really up to those who assemble a distro from all the good (getting better) open source stuff that runs on top of it to bring out something better. And th
Re:And to think I used to worry about this... (Score:2, Interesting)
I know it was meant to be a joke.. but who knows, all these incidents might actually spur them to *gasp* learn about their mistakes and actually make an uncrackable system.
For all I know, the latest WMV DRM has not been cracked yet... and if Palladium were as good as that we might be in for quite a bit of trouble...
Soo..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Soo..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Soo..... (Score:2)
Yes, but at the rate machines are replaced these days (either to get new tech or because they fall to bits - there is a consequence of PCs continually getting cheaper), that factor alone will see Longhorn at 80+% within 3 years...
Re:Soo..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Soo..... (Score:2)
In short, it's Mac OS X for x86. Isn't that what everyone wants anyway?
Re:Soo..... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that "It just works" also depends on a decent hardware platform.
And of course there's the rather obvious question of whether Microsoft are actually capable of creating the software half of "It Just Works". History would seem to suggest not.
I still remember Bill Gates announcing that in Windows 3.1 there would be no more UAEs (Unexpected Application Errors)! You know how this miracle was achieved? They re-named them to GPF (General Proection Fault).
How does the saying go: "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"?
Re:Soo..... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Soo..... (Score:2)
Sounds interesting, could you ellaborate about this? I haven't heard it mentioned before.
Re:Soo..... (Score:3, Informative)
There's more here [dylangreene.com], but it's not too detailed. It seems they're assigning folders to files rather than storing files in a folder-like hierarchy.
This is similar to the storing your emails in folders (like in Hotmail, Yahoo, etc.) vs labeling your emails (Gmail).
Re:Soo..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Very cool idea and I can't wait to she how it works tomorrow.
-S
Re:Soo..... (Score:2)
Not about the GUI (Score:3, Funny)
You know, super secret stuff that they don't want to talk about in case Apple steal for the "Future Cat" operating system in 2020.
Reporting the obvious (Score:5, Informative)
So rather than this being something pulled from Longhorn it's just being emphasised that having a system with the TPM chip isn't a requirement for running Longhorn.
TP-M my ass. (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, no more pulling out a drive to virus-scan it then replacing it or replacing a drive on an OEM machine - that won't allow it to boot.
"The security platform depends on a TPM chip being present in the system. The chip is an industry standard governed by the Trusted Computing Group, a non-profit organisation which develops security standards."
All nonprofits rely on donations to survive, and I can bet that a LOT of donations are going to start rolling in to them from certain organizations involved in content creation and distribution.
Also, if it requires a custom chip, it ain't gonna go over easy - new motherboards will be required.
Re:TP-M my ass. (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably right about the virus-scan. Outside the machine, the drive probably will look like it is full of garbage.
However, I don't think replacement will become impossible. If the machines won't allow replacement disks, this means that a disk failure will result in a useless machine; this will probably also get in the way of people wanting to add disks -- and the people wanting to put Linux on a second-hand machine will cry foul -- so this is going to fly as well as those boat-anchors those machines would become.
And this iteration of Longhorn at least will not require these chips... you won't have to buy new motherboards just now. But, perhaps further down the line this may become a required peripheral for Longhorn, but this will not be until most motherboards have it in place.
It looks like mostly a way of keeping stuff on hard-drives secret. As such this is not so bad in view of how frequent notebook-theft is, or how big the security problems of second-hand equipment are.
Re:TP-M my ass. (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking as a computer tech who make money out of cleaning up viruses that would be a real bitch
Also, if it relies on a chip on the motherboard, what happens if the m/b gets toasted? Would all the data be history?
Re:TP-M my ass. (Score:3, Interesting)
I should say that soon the linux boot/virus scan disks will theoretically be able to read these nasty secure startup drives.
I don't think so. It depends on exactly what Microsoft implements as "secure startup", but what I would expect is that they'll hash the kernel plus important drivers and services into the TPM, then bind an encryption key to that system state, then encrypt the rest of the disk contents with that key (well, really, with keys encrypted with that key, but whatever).
The result will
Re:TP-M my ass. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:TP-M my ass. (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. From the description of Secure Startup, it sounds like the only purpose of this feature is to frustrate Sys Admins and their minions.
Improved security is an easy sell to executives in large corporations, so expect to see mandates sent to the MIS or IT departments instructing them to only buy TPM-enabled motherboards.
Of course, these same executives will later fire their Sys Admins just as quickly as they can walk into their offices and explain how all the data in their expensive laptops is now unrecoverable.
Re:TP-M my ass. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:TP-M my ass. (Score:2)
Re:TP-M my ass. (Score:2)
Or to recover data from a crashed OS install.
or replacing a drive on an OEM machine - that won't allow it to boot.
Is this also going to make it difficult to "clone" a standard install. If so then the TCO has just been greatly increased.
Re:TP-M my ass. (Score:3, Informative)
> I can bet that a LOT of donations are going to
> start rolling in to them from certain
> organizations involved in content creation and
> distribution.
"Nonprofit" is not a synonym for "charity". A nonprofit (or not for profit) corporation is simply one whose charter provides that it is not to distribute any profits to anyone: it exists for a purpose other than directly making money. Most charities are nonprofits, but so are trade association
Secure Startup (Score:2, Insightful)
Either I'm stupid or they are (for humility's sake, I'll assume the first), but doesn't file system level encryption already solve this problem?
Also, Apple is already one step ahead by removing floppy drives from the computers.
Re:Secure Startup (Score:3, Insightful)
> sake, I'll assume the first), but doesn't file
> system level encryption already solve this
> problem?
But it doesn't address the much more serious Linux problem.
> Also, Apple is already one step ahead by
> removing floppy drives from the computers.
Apples can't boot from a CD?
In Other News (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Other News (Score:2, Funny)
"Longhorn" will be renamed to "LongHaul" to reflect the wait users are in for. Another suggestion which was rejected by MS marketing was "ShortFeatures", said to be accurate but unwieldy in the marketplace.
Microsoft is totally dropping the ball (Score:5, Interesting)
I tell you, if IBM sunk $1 billion dollars into making a single grandma-usable Linux distribution, it'd be the best $1 billion they ever spent. That's a pipe dream, but seriously, if nobody capitalizes on this, it's a total missed opportunity to break the Microsoft monopoly.
In my opinion, the software is ready. KDE is all set to go. We've got office applications, dtp, multimedia, internet, databases... If somebody could fix CUPS, make software installation simple, and populate all the most important configurations in one area and give them easy-to-use and consistently-designed wizards (that the experienced users could of course ignore), this thing would be ready. Not World of Warcraft ready, maybe, but ready enough. Hell, I'd buy it in two seconds.
The problem is, you need someone with deep pockets to finance all the boring aspects of making a unified-feeling distribution and fixing all the intricate bits (like CUPS or whatnot), but if they did, and slapped a big old IBM on the cover, it'd be dynamite. And having IBM on it would probably add a center juggernaut quality that might make hardware companies more interested in doing proper driver support.
Re:Microsoft is totally dropping the ball (Score:5, Insightful)
One could argue that Apple has indeed capitalized upon this with Mac OS X Tiger, coming out tomorrow, which contains a lot of Open Source code in it (Darwin/FreeBSD, Apache, CUPS with an excellent interface, etc). And guess what? People are sitting up and taking notice.
No, no, and no. While IBM may have the deep pockets to do something like this, they are absolutely the WRONG company to do it. And I say this having previously been a long time IBM OS customer and as a former IBM employee.
First off, hardware companies have traditionally been afraid of IBM, because IBM has traditionally been a competitor (a view which probably hasn't changed much with the sale to Lenovo). Just take a look at how many hardware companies stepped up and supported IBM's previous consumer OS attempt, OS/2: support was often half-hearted, pathetic, or nil. The fact that IBM was behind it scared off potential hardware vendors (who, BTW, don't make their money off writing device drivers anyhow, and thus tend to like to keep driver development costs low by targeting as few platforms as possible).
Secondly, as anyone who bought in to IBM's OS/2 WARP v3 push and needed support probably knows, IBM just isn't set-up to provide end-user support. They have no experience nor expertise in consumer software support, and didn't do a terribly good job of it.
Sorry, but IBM creating their own consumer Linux would be the touch of death. IBM seems to know this themselves -- they have always expressed that they have no interest in creating their own Linux distribution, instead relying on partners to do this for them (like RedHat). There are much better options for such a company to produce such a Linux distro (and based on what I saw at LinuxWorld Canada last week, there are certainly some companies out there who are interested in trying).
Yaz.
Jack-off security.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Gimme a break. Who needs security from offline attacks more than security from online ones? If that were such a stretch, there are products http://www.computersecurity.com/laptop/cables.htm
As an ACTUAL Windows user (and yes, I do use it; software investment, unfortunately) I'd love to see more ONLINE security: integrated firewall, antivirus, spyware, etc. That would more satisfy me.
Re:Jack-off security.... (Score:2)
I'd like to see them turn the user interface clock back to 1995, before they started integrating the Internet with the Desktop.
That would do more to improve Windows security than anything else they could do. Look, if Steve Jobs can back down on "No Ugly Monitors on Nice Macs" and come back with "BYOKDM", then surely Bill Gates can back down on Internet Explorer Integration.
Wrong security (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact you, the user, are not the intended beneficiary of "trusted computing" at all.
The problem now is that people have too much control over their computers. From the perspective of somebody trying to limit what other people do, this is insecurity. If you write a computer program and sell it to someone, why, there's no guarantee at all that people will use it the way you wanted. People may find ways to trick your program into doing things it didn't intend, or even start to fiddle around with it and its innards, or use the files they made in your program in competing applications. It's as almost as if these people believe that just because they bought a copy of your software means they [i]own[/i] that copy. Something must be done about this. Vendors, like Microsoft, want to be able to "trust" your computer not to let you do things with it Microsoft doesn't want you to do. Hence, palladium.
Trusted boot is the first step in that. It convinces people that a piece of hardware in your computer that when switched on limits the ability to write to your hard drive to "trusted" pieces of code (and not scary things like Knoppix rescue cds) is a good idea. Somehow.
Re:Wrong security (Score:2)
Nor if you are sysadmin of a (large number of) machine(s).
Re:Wrong security (Score:3, Insightful)
So what *will* Longhorn offer then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now Avalon's being back-ported to XP, trusted computing isn't making it into the final product, WinFS has been pushed back to god-knows-when, and general security will likely be as god-awful and insecure as ever.
Against this background, what does Longhorn actually have to offer potential upgraders? Especially businesses?
Pretty Aero Glass UI? "Windows theme's always worked fine for us, thanks, and requires no user-retraining - why bother upgrading?"
But, it's all new! "Yeah, so we'll have to buy all-new hardware. And beta test it^W^W^W live with the inevitable but unfortunate 1.0 bugs.
Increasingly the reasons are "But, but, but, it's the new operating system from MS - you have to upgrade!", which is, obviously, no reason at all.
I was quite worried about LH when it was first announced - it sounded like a hell of a leap beyond anything Linux and Free Software had to offer (although, given time, I was sure FLOSS would catch up or surpass it).
Now, however, I'm having trouble retaining even mild interest - Microsoft hyped it so much, and are now so publicly failing to deliver on anything they've promised, that by the time it launches I wouldn't be surprised if they've Daikatana'd the thing practically to death.
Longhorn? Long-in-the-tooth, more like - a decrepit and crumbling shadow of it's former self that looks in danger of becoming irrelevent before it's even launched.
Of course, I may be condemning it unfairly here - are there any killer features that will save it from this downward trajectory?
Besides a billion-dollar marketing budget?
"world peace and cheap antigravity"! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what *will* Longhorn offer then? (Score:4, Interesting)
For just one example, where's the scriptability of compiled apps? I'm not talking about built-in VBA (hackcoughspit), but something more like Apple's system (SmallTalk? I dunno), or DCOP in KDE or GNOME (I forget which - a linux-based colleague once wowed me with how compiled, native, window-manager apps could be hooked by external scripts which received input and controlled the apps' behaviour.
Sure, ActiveX was a step in that direction, but it's not a "default" part of any Windows app - you have to code for it specifically and it's a nightmare. It's also a pile of shite, and insecure to boot.
I want to be able to write a script to hook when a certain colleague comes on-line in MSN Messenger, and automatically MSN him a file (fuck, I'd settle for only being alerted when someone from a certain group came on-line, but no-go). I want to be able to hook the end of a CD-burn and shutdown my machine. Or play a sound. I want to be able to script additional user-actions tied to a specific menu item in a specific program, or tied to a single menu item in every program that offers that menu item.
I know all these things can be done, either using kludgy workarounds, different apps or using VB/WSH/JS and ActiveX objects, but every solution is different. Nothing works the same. Most programs are entirely unscriptable, unless the programmer specifically tries to offer that functionality.
I want Visual Studio to expose DCOP-style scripting hooks for every app, unless you specifically turn it off (and even then, that shouldn't be easy). I want a proper, documented, sensible scripting language (or languages).
Sure, I can hear the calls now - "but users won't use those features - who even understands scripting apart from a few hackers, sysadmins and power users?"
But that's your fucking answer right there - the early adopters and pioneers, the people who advise on business-systems upgrades, and the people who bridge the gap and educate their fellow "ordinary users" so the skills trickle-down until everyone understands it. Fifteen years ago, who used and understood e-mail, or the internet? Hackers and sysadmins. And now?
Linux is successful because it's designed for hackers. Sure, it can be retrofitted for normal users too, but the reason it's still around is the thousands of hackers who tinker and play with it.
Microsoft is successful because of their enormous marketing budget, and their canny (and, to be fair, illegal) business practices. I'd even go so far as to say MS is successful in spite of their technology - it's generally inferior to FOSS, in my opinion, because they'll compromise on The Right Thing for marketing and vendor lock-in reasons.
If I were MS I'd be making my UI as scriptable and hackable as possible in an attempt to steal Linux's thunder. They've currently got the basic-user-desktop sewn up, although it's under attack from FLOSS. If they had any sense at all they'd be courting the hackers and power-users, to actually attack FLOSS where it hurt.
Build it and they will come.
Re:So what *will* Longhorn offer then? (Score:2)
What a surprise - NOT! (Score:3, Insightful)
Rest assured that the first service pack will consist almost entirely of draconian DRM "enhancements".
(You did read the EULA, didn't you?)
Re:What a surprise - NOT! (Score:2)
Steve Jobs - Balls of steel (Score:3, Interesting)
WINHEC finishes and then Tiger is released. Longhorn is shown to be an investment in distant future mediocrity and Tiger is released tomorrow.
Re:Steve Jobs - Balls of steel (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting point. It's a possibility, but is there much crossover though?
The sort of people WinHEC is for are very committed Win32 API developers. They aren't necessarily interested in anything else, Linux, OS X, or any other *nix, whether its tech is inviting or not.
These folk have years invested in the Windows architecture and WinHEC helps them prepare for the future of THEIR platform.
If the timing had been a more general consumer or business focussed conference, where it was important to grab the hearts and minds of potentially swinging technology pundits, then the deliberate timing theory might have more weight.
I think the so-called "looks over the shoulder" the Windows camp gives OS X are largely mythical. Apple's relevance is very small in the grander scheme of things, is it not?
Maybe you've got a point though. The topics of WinHEC itself did seem to address future developments in Windows that are currently strengths of OS X.
Re:Steve Jobs - Balls of steel (Score:2, Interesting)
The more I think about it the more I like the timing of it though. Apple have used their own WWDC as the platform for showcasing OS upgrades and I guess it would fit Jobs sense of timing to actually release Tiger around WINHEC time.
Not so much to hit developers but the rest of the potential users (and IT press) who have increasingly become watchers of those events.
Re:Steve Jobs - Balls of steel (Score:2)
Perhaps. However, MS' OS developers may not be watching OS X but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of influence from Mac OS pre X and Copland. After the death of Copland and the takeover of Apple by Jobs and the NeXT crew, many of the Copland core OS developers wound up working for Microsoft. I know that some of the features
Trusted Computing Group (Score:5, Insightful)
Who backs them? What is their official reason for existing? What is their real reason for existing? (This last question cannot be answered by merely reading this groups home page [trustedcom...ggroup.org]; you need to consider the motives of those directing or controlling this group.)
My guess is that their official reason this group exists is "to promote safe environments by protecting users from various malicious computer exploits" or similar sounding goodness.
In contrast, my guess is that their real reason for existing is "to strip users of their existing rights to use the programs and data on their computers so that copyright holders can dictate if, when, and how users may access them".
Re:Trusted Computing Group (Score:2)
In practice this is likely to take control away from a great many actual copyright holders. Since the majority of the data is most definitly not copyright of any software vendor. Typically the copyright holder will be either the user or the user's employer.
It really dosn't make
For those wondering what Microsoft HAS been doing (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank goodness for MS Vaporware! (Score:2)
Stripped? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is anyone here keeping a list of things that were supposed to be in Longhorn but aren't gonna be?
Secure Startup (Score:2, Funny)
What does this button doooo? (Score:2, Insightful)
One question: why ?
I thought modern processors (like the 386) already kept processes from reading each others data. So it's not for separation.
It certainly won't keep an application from hacking the operating system, cause I don't think the TPM could possibly figure out if the data it encrypts is harmfull or not. So if the system call is buggy, it will be hacked TPM or n
Re:What does this button doooo? (Score:2)
Six years for Microsoft to implement my solution (Score:4, Interesting)
The features I want in Longhorn (Score:3, Funny)
2. No support for *any* multimedia format except for WMA, WMV and ASF. Who cares for MP3 anyway.
3. It would be really nice to get a "Keyboard not detected - press enter ton continue" message for real in Longhorn
I say they should start again (Score:2)
Re:I say they should start again (Score:2)
They did that already. It was called Windows NT. Now it's called Windows 2000 and XP. Compared to the code that came before (windows 3.1, windows 95 etc) it is more functional, more secure and more stable.
Re:I say they should start again (Score:2)
What is secure startup ? (Score:5, Interesting)
What does it do ?
If a remote website asks your pc "do you run windows Longhorn ?" it will not be possible to lie. You can not give an answer at all if you choose not to, but you cannot claim you run windows longhorn without actually running windows longhorn.
Why is this useful ? DRM. The way to avoid DRM is to (for example) run a display driver that captures images and prints them out. So now the remote website can ask you "what version/configuration of windows are you running, please specify your display driver."
You can choose to respond in 3 ways
-> not at all -> access denied
-> you can lie -> lie is detected -> access denied
-> you can tell the truth -> access granted
Obviously, in the last case, you are totally at the mercy of their software, which is obviously the whole point of Secure startup.
With secure startup websites that only want microsoft browsers visiting them (your bank, your employer,
Secure Startup is what Microsoft really wants (Score:4, Insightful)
Secure Startup will eventually stop people running non-Microsoft OSs on computers.
Re:Secure Startup is what Microsoft really wants (Score:3, Insightful)
Secure Startup will eventually stop people running non-Microsoft OSs on computers.
I don't think so. It may make dual booting off of a single disk impossible, if the BIOS is configured to have the TPM hash the bootloader. If the TPM doesn't hash the bootloader then dual-booting won't be impacted, except that the non-Windows OS will be unable to read data from the Windows partition.
I'm not sure what the effect of reducing dual booting might be. Some users will be convinced to go 100% MS, others will
This is a good thing, isn't it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is everyone bashing Microsoft for dropping it?
Rejoyce!
Re:Nothing to see here move along (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see here move along (Score:2)
Your point being?
I stick with Windows because that's where all the software I use exists. That's what all the games I play are available for. That's where my digital camera plugs in without any driver installation nonsense.
That doesn't mean that I am happy with the changes Microsoft is trying to force through. That doesn't mean that I can't criticize them for wanting to take away my control over my own system.
It doesn't mean that I can't be f
Re:Is Anyone Honestly 'Excited' About Longhorn (Score:2)
Personally, I am more interested in ReactOS and will start playing around with that a bit more (once my MS USB Optical mouse and my WiFi LAN card are working and I can connect to the internet via ROS)
And the good thing about
Re:Is Anyone Honestly 'Excited' About Longhorn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)