Vista changes quite a few things, and some of the changes may seem unnecessary but at the same time supporting legacy code all the time must have been getting tiresome for MS, especially when they have to worry so much about security now.
Also, considering Vista is a major change to the Windows platform in general, supporting old interfaces would probably mean rewriting a lot of code that just isn't very useful anymore.
I'm on RC2 and damn, I'm finally really impressed. Beta 2 still sucked from a usability standpoint, RC1 was good but had limited driver support...which is still true of RC2 in general of course, but my setup works great :)
Still, I expected to be impressed when all was said and done, so hey...
Anyway, just thought you should know, have fun man.
You are too easilly impressed. I made the jump from 98 to XP and was impressed, but had to keep reminding myself that its pointless to be impressed by replacing a bicycle with a 1960's VW Bug... Everything I have read about Vista suggests that its going to be like trading in that 1960's VW for a 2006 SUV. I.e., its impressive, from the standpoint of improvements, but once you look past that you are still looking at something that is bloated, all flash, little true redesign on the inside and scarfs resources like a vacuum cleaner.
Part of the reason for this is "precisely" because MS realized that they couldn't get rid of the old architecture, since there wouldn't be any software for another 5-10 years to run on it (putting them on what would ironically be 180 degree opposite uneven footing with Linux than what they currently have, since some big companies now make Linux versions of their stuff, while MS would be nearly back at square one, with half the vendors scrambling to adjust to the new API). Its why their great .NET *isn't* part of the API, but must be installed seperately, despite all the hype, and why if you want some of the features they promised, you still have to buy third party (if even available) or throw out the OS for one that does support the features.
MS hit a brick wall with Longhorn. Vista is MS tearing down the brick wall to discover that behind that wall is a 100 ton granite boulder. lol
The only good thing... If they had been able and willing to change it to where they could incorporate all the vaporware they promised, help files and Guest account messages would look like mere warning labels on packets of peanuts, compared to what would have stopped working.
Vista is Longhorn, so that statement made no sense.
I am impressed because for the first time in a really long time, the sound engine, video engine, driver model, and networking engine are all majorly changed. If you think that doesn't constitute a redesign, you're wierd.
The GUI changes may or may not be impressive, but they are better (for the most part) and what's driving the GUI (the DWM) completely changes how Windows draws the GUI, and will make basic usage a lot smoother.
MS doesn't WANT to get rid of compatibility, as then noone would use their OS. But that hardly means they can't change things.
If by vaporware you're talking about the new file system? I say who gives a fuck. It probably would've inconvenienced me more than anything, judging by the probable performance issues with it.
.NET 3.0 includes the new APIs, and even if it isn't installed by default it will come with the OS and the reason the OS doesn't use it is because developing softwre on an unfinished developer platform hardly makes any sense whatsoever.
As for bloated, I really don't give a shit how much resources stuff I have use as long as it uses them for the right reasons. It just doesn't matter to me. It's one thing Linux lovers love to bring up, but we're just in different worlds here. My primary OS is for playing games. I don't really care what else it does or doesn't do as long as it's easy to use (which in several important areas Linux still isn't.)
No, Vista *is not* Longhorn. Longhorn failed. The head of the development devision literally went to Gates with a big chart that was something like 30 feet long and 5 feet wide (don't remember the exact numbers), told him, "This is what we know about how all the pieces fit together in XP and what its going to look like in Longhorn. Its *not possible* to make it work right with the new features you want added." They scrapped Longhorn and did a rework on significant portions of it, which is how they derived Vista. However, a lot of what was supposed to be in Longhorn will never appear in Vista, since it still has most of the fundimental flaws and dependency issues.
So no, Longhorn and Vista are not the same thing. They are closer than the people developing it would probably like, but they are more close siblings, one of whom had terminal cancer. All the stuff you mention where changed is *why* its called Vista, not Longhorn. Those where all the parts they could redo and stabilize, without a complete rewrite of the OS. Its also not just the file system that is going to be missing, though I don't remember at the moment what all else they had to throw away.
As I said, the problem isn't that it isn't better. The problem is, and MS knows this, Windows, as it exists, is reaching the end of its life cycle. They can't improve it much past where it is now with Vista without radical changes to the OS, which *will* break compatibility. Even their own development staff have admitted as much. This isn't to say its not an improvement, not better then the previous versions, etc., but its literally a dinosaur, which isn't fairing well in a world that requires adaptation to requirements that it can't impliment, so can't compete with.
Seriously though, these two sentences are really funny when taken together:
"If by vaporware you're talking about the new file system? I say who gives a fuck. It probably would've inconvenienced me more than anything, judging by the probable performance issues with it."
"As for bloated, I really don't give a shit how much resources stuff I have use as long as it uses them for the right reasons."
So.. What is the "right" use for resources? More fancy buttons, mattel style graphics and useless crap that makes it look pretty, but doesn't actually do anything? Because more than 90% of the changes they are making are "in" that useless garbage that doesn't in any way shape or form improve what the OS itself "does", just what it looks like. Personally, it pisses me off when I need a new $500 graphics card and twice the memory of the prior OS, just so that I can boot the damn thing, and "all" of it is because of the useless GUI elements they added that won't do anything at all to help me use the machine, but does waste massive ammounts of resources that would have gone, on the older OS, to running "real" graphics applications and games. And its even more insane when in most cases these elements would take "less" resources to produce on a more efficient OS, or could be simply turned off, without effecting the ability to use any of the software.
Oh, and don't even get me started with their plan to sell 5-6 different versions, then make you pay for upgrades when you suddenly realize the new application you installed won't work because X is missing and is only found in the next more expensive version...
But heh, if you are satified with getting the shaft from these people again, getting 80% of the improvements you really don't need at all, just to make things look pretty, having to buy all new hardware (or at least losing much of the existing performance and resources on what you already have), etc. more power to you. Personally the only reason I even got XP was lack of some key software I do use for Linux and having gotten tired of the slow creeping disease that infected 98 and which slowly ate away at it like some sort of strange necrosis, which was only solvable by radical transplant once a year...
Windows Longhorn is a codename. Much like Whistler was for XP, Longhorn is for Vista. Therefore, you're just making stuff up. It's the same product, whether or not it's changed along the line.
I have a graphics card that was $150 when I bought it a year ago, and it runs Vista fine. And I don't need a power supply or CPU upgrade either. Vista rates my system 3.7, and it'd be 4.3 if I had better than an ath64 2800+.
I plan to upgrade my components somewhere along the line, but not right now. It isn't needed. (For games, however...depends when I get decent pay, I'd definately update my vidcard.)
What do I care what the graphics look like on the GUI? Sure, they're improved. But they don't use any more CPU resources, just the vidcard...that's what pixel shaders are for.
Different tiers? Well, it is Microsoft. They want to make money. Go figure. Some people won't care for all the extra stuff that Ultimate offers, some won't even care for all the extra stuff Premium offers. And for those people, that works great, because it'd just be more shit on their puter they never use, so they won't have to pay for it. Tiers do make sense, even if they annoy those of us who buy high end. As for the business tiers, I don't really care.
What's the right way to use resources? A better user experience. Is there a better way?
Windows really isn't reaching the end of its lifecycle anytime soon. There is at least one more version after Vista that will take the same type of path, even if they change the inner workings considerably. I would expect more than one, but I couldn't say how things are going to go.
Sigh.. I have been reading up on the fiasco going on with Longhorn and what finally ended up in Vista. You could be right about the name, but you are wrong about Longhorn. It was a dead end, still is a dead end, even if its now Vista and will continue to be a dead end. Its quite clear from reading internal memos and other info about it that the internals are so broken, so heavilly interconnected and so highly dependent on the current structure of the OS that nothing short of a complete redesign will ever fix it. Its why it has taken them 10 years to put out a 3 year update.
As for better use of resources.. I would tend to agree with the idea that a better user experience is a great thing to put some into, however... Two problems. The first is that MS has a consistently strange idea what "better user experience" means. Their idea of a better experience is not to provide good help files, easy to use menus for setting up advanced changes or otherwise making the experience easy for "everyone". Their idea of a good experience is to ignore the 10% of the people that have to install, configure and maintain the OS for other people, so that the other 90% who can't program their own VCRs don't need to know anything about how the damn thing works. Fine, as far as that goes, but its total BS when you are one of those 10% and you find it nearly impossible to do anything without buying a dozen books at $50 a pop to explain what you are missing in the help files, and then find out it often can't be changed anyway.
As for tiered OS versions.. I think they are going to shoot themselves in the foot on that one. This is especially true is someone else, like Ubuntu where to come along and set up something in their installer scripts that let you auto-configure for the type of business you have. It would be real simple, just include in the default install scripts the same components MS thinks are great for each "tier" and let the user pick which one fits. lol Personally, I *know* that there are bound to be things in one version that won't work, simply because some OSS or shareware app I want to use depends on component X, which is only found in the next higher priced version. They are almost certainly "expecting" mistakes and to profit at the expense of people that start out *not* needing features, only to find that the next thing they stick on the machine does require it. I think its sneaky and underhanded, especially given that it already happened on occation with XP Home vs. Pro on occation, but no where near as bad.
But we can argue this for days. The fact remains that even Windows advocates in many cases are looking suspiciously at this thing and taking a second look at alternatives.
Still, nice to know that the expected "optimal" requirements for it are not as completely insane as everyone expected, but I bet the processor temp gets to 105+ when running it with all that fancy video (about what it hits when running a Direct 3D screensaver), where mine runs at a nice cool 95-96 under normal conditions. lol
But here's a good place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista
Most of the time, those people that won't install Windows are happy to have it that way. They don't want to set anything up because all they want to do is load web pages, print, and play card games. Whee. There's little complicated about it, unless it's a upgrade install, except that they wouldn't know where to start getting drivers and updated apps that work right.
The help files are definately improved, and connect to the net to get updated info on their own. But I see nothing in XP I ever needed to buy a book for on tech support, and I've used every MS OS except ME (and Bob, if you can call it one) since 3.1.
If anything expects a higher version for some stupid reason, the end-users will be able to upgrade their OS on the fly anyway. The upgrade capabilities are built in. Personally, I never once needed XP Pro, and I highly doubt anyone had issues with that except possibly on a laptop that they brought in to work. Of course, most notebooks I ever saw used Pro anyway.
And as far as Ubuntu, while they certainly could do such a thing, is a random user going to say alright, that free OS is suddenly just as free, lets switch? I doubt it. People stick with what they know, usually.
Anyway, I'm going to be on the road for six hours or so. Here's another good wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
Oh, and I just looked around at features dropped from Longhorn. If you're including the updated scripting shell (Monad) that was going to be included, it's still available, and called Windows PowerShell. It's at RC2 and available at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/topics/msh/download.mspx
I know there were a few more, but I'm going to have to cut this short.
I'm also curious what features you needed to get a book for. I've also used nearly every version of Windows since its DOS days, except notably ME which I never wanted anything to do with. I'm a "power-user" and did all kinds of customizations to the interface, but never once needed a book (or even a help file, really). Now I didn't mess around with writing my own ActiveX or COM components, mainly because I never felt the need to. However the people who do that are in such a vast minority (much less than the 10% figure you give) that I think it makes perfect business sense for Microsoft to not worry about them too much.
Frankly, if you want such complete control over your computer, you probably should be using something like Linux anyhow. Windows isn't supposed to do that. (Nor is Mac for that matter, but OS X being based on Unix has somewhat changed what you can do in terms of deep-diving changes.)
Yes. To be perfectly fair, if you a) don't mind buying pe-existing and often over priced solutions to every problem you need to solve and b) you don't mind doing everything MS' way, you'll probably be OK with XP and better off than that even with Vista. The problem is imho, if 99% of your user base is using VBScript to much around with web pages, since there is no other way for the basic, "I don't want to spend $300 for a compiler, and what is that anyway?", user, most of the stuff that ends up out there from those people is going to either not exist, since you can't do it anyway without the limits provided, or complete crap. Take literally *any* Windows base Kiosk system, even the ones developed for major companies like Safeway, where I am currently working, and I will show you something that is broken 20% of the time, because its "not" written by someone that actually knows why it breaks in the first place.
I guess I am just way to picky. I might, almost all of the time, be willing to put up with the boneheadedly insane limitations the OS imposses, often for not entirely clear reasons, or to provide "fast" security, instead of "robust and truly safe" security, but some times I want to get into the guts and do something. When I do, its inevitably about money, money and more money, after which I still have to spend more money, because nothing I bought to solve the problem provides complete examples or working explainations that can be understood by someone who isn't either using the books as texts for a class where someone that "does" know it already has a clue what is going on, or there is yet one more missing piece that they didn't document in the last five books I bought (nor in the compiler suite that is supposed to help me do it). So, yes. I am one of those people that isn't in the majority. I am merely a hobbyist, but most of the people in the same category are what are called "developers", and I know of few developers, including many from **inside** Microsoft that like the mess they have to crawl through to do anything with Windows. Vista probably isn't goint to change that.
I am looking at it from an engineering view point, not a pure user. To me, Windows is almost proof that one doesn't need intelligent design for operating systems, never mind genetics. A lot of professional programmers agree with that assessment, and most of them *are* coding Windows applications.
Oh, one good example.. Back in 3.11 or so Excel was developed to hard code 4 sundays into each month, in order to properly import Lotus files. Everything in Windows up to and including SP 2 for Microsoft Exchange has continued to perpetuate this glitch, including the newest XML document standard they released for document exchanges. As a result, as far as some critical office applications in Windows are concerned, next Sunday doesn't exist... This same problem with appear agains in three other years, though the only one I can remember at the moment that they mentioned was 2011. Oh, and since VBScript was developed originally to only be used in Excel, its own date functions apparently contain the same defect. Makes you wonder what other interesting little gems are hidden in the OS from the dark ages of the system. lol But, it does explain why things can go spectacularly wrong for no reason sometimes. ;)
I guess that my experience is simply diametrically opposed to yours. I'm also not sure we're even having the same conversation. You appear to be talking about a developer who is trying to do something deep down in the Windows API, which is not what I was talking about, nor Seawolf, if I may put words in his mouth.
I know plenty of linux fanatics. They love to ramble about random things that nobody was actually talking about.
I'm even friends with a few, God help me. ;)
But don't put things in my mouth, that's just gross.
(grin)
Seriously, everyone has different reasons for their likes and dislikes, and I respect that. I just get bothered when people don't have their facts straight.
Ironically enough, I transitioned the bulk of my work from Windows to Linux a short while ago. I find that Windows is actually much better for some things. For example, I should not need to restart the X server to change the number of buttons on my mouse; it should be much easier to change between one & two monitors enabled. But that's neither here nor there...
My main reason for using Linux is that I spend a great deal of time in Cygwin when under Windows, so I might as well harness that power completely under Linux. The Windows GUI (i.e. Explorer shell) is a wee bit too simple for me -- I was using Litestep to enhance that. Also, lots of open-source software is very Linux-centric, and running Linux makes it easier to use that software. I'm not fundamentally displeased with Windows, there were just several practical reasons to use Linux instead.
I have the same reasons as Ksilyan's last post mentioned, but I run XP Pro, volume license edition (I purchased a legal volume license when I worked for Gateway, through their employee sales) and I use an app called VMWare Workstation, and have linux installed in there, so that I can run my main XP apps, and also have FULL linux at the exact same time, so I could if I wanted to host asp pages, and cgi on the same computer, as it even creates virtual devices including NIC cards, with "REAL" mac addresses, and separate IP addresses, or you can use NAT. I even have windows 98 installed in this fashion, cause I have some apps that will not run on NT based OS's and the compatability wizard is a joke on those.
I think that users of linux know well the program called "Wine" as it can allow many windows apps to run fully, and many others to run partially. And then there is the somewhat opposite version which is cygwin, in which u can run an X server, and MANY, MANY linux apps. Has anyone picked up on the lack of apps that cygwin does support? Of course not, cause it supports MORE than Wine does, due to the Win API that was previously mentioned being so very riddled with holes in the documentation, that Wine will never be at the same compatability level as cygwin, as nearly EVERYTHING is documented, and re-documented, and overly-documented in linux api's, so the task of making linux run on windows is a more simple task.
I realize that I have a very sporadic thought posted here, but bear with me it is late, and I have been up for quite a few hours :)
I do hope that MS does realize that it does have a very small market of developers that are slowly becomming smaller with every release. This being attributed to the hole riddled documentation. I mean even the MFC classes are virtually undocumented, and this is from their own MSDN site, and also from an MSDN CD that came with MS VIs Studio Pro 6.0, even in my C++ book that used that very version of compiler did not document things enough, to such an end that my professor ended up making us all code on a linux server, that we would telnet into using putty. That having been done, if anyone from that class goes on to bigger and better things in programmming they are mroe likely to stick to linux, than use anything MS, due to being inconvienced once, and having to translate a book written for windows into linux based actions.
I tried using VMWare but was unsatisfied. The biggest problem was having a completely separate hard drive for the virtual machine, which meant moving data back and forth was quite the exercise.
In my dual-boot setup, my /home directory is on an ext2fs partition, and I have a Windows driver that can do full read/write operations on ext2fs. It sees the /home partition as H:. So I can completely and transparently share data between the two. Windows can't see the / (root) partition, and Linux can only read (not write) C:/, but that doesn't matter since I don't put any data other than program files there.
That being said, VMWare is a god-send for many applications, especially if you really need Linux in a GUI environment and don't have a Linux box to run it on (or to VNC into), or if you don't have an Internet connection available to use ssh over.
I have yet to play around with Wine. I don't have much time during the school year, and since I'm dual-booting Windows, the need is smaller. Of course, once I start running Photoshop again, it'll be a PITA to dual-boot into Windows just to do that, so I'll play with Wine at that point.
I wouldn't say that MS has a small market of developers. It depends a great deal on what part of the market you're looking at. If you're talking about developers who make end-user commercial products (including games) Windows wins hands-down. If you're talking about people who make mathematic, scientific, or development-related tools, then I think you're right and the Windows market is getting smaller and smaller. And for server-related stuff in general (cvs, svn, sshd, httpd, ...) Windows is also sorely lagging.
I guess I have never really had the "joy" of writing code to use Windows GUI APIs. I just use Java when I need to write a GUI, which so far has been a grand total of about 3 times, I think... :-)
I use Stardock apps to enhance my shell, myself. Man, after using Windowblinds 5, the default XP GUI feels horribly slow.
Ironically, my XP x64 box seems to have some speed issues (probably related to my drivers having been released before the OS was) but my Vista x64 box has nothing of the sort.
I really have no idea how development used to be, but it seems like MSes documentation has gotten much much better over the last however many years. I don't code, though.
I would say the issue isn't the small number of developers, but rather the small number of "good" developers. A lot of stuff I have seen sold for $500 I could have coded, and I knew way less when I saw the program than I do now about the Windows API. Sure, they put "time" into the application, but very little actual innovation. Linux often has the reverse problem. Lots of innovation and attempts to make sure X, Y and Z *always* work, but not quite as much time making sure everyone can use it easilly. This is why I can burn a crappy, badly made DVD with simplistic menus and its nearly impossible to use anything inexpensive to come close to producing a studio quality DVD like you get real movies on. In linux you could do this far more efficiently, with way better control and way more options for how to make it work, *but* just burning a "basic" DVD is almost impossible without knowing complex command line options or using a proxy application to control the burner, like the Nero version for Linux, which doesn't even support the full set of features in the Windows version. The fact that its merely a shell over top of a very suffisticated and detailed piece of software is ironically so hidden that someone using it would consider the capabilities of the OS to be garbage, when the real problem is the bad software sitting in between them.
So yeah. There are advantages to how Windows does things. Major ones, at times. Unfortunately, it got that way often by ignoring developers needs, catering to the worst common denominator among the users and, as in the case of the date functions in VB, Excel and MS Exchange, by intentionally crippling their own product, so they could shove someone else out of the market through the method of making deals with PC makers to install *their* product, which they rightly claimed was "compatible" with someone else's. There are so many compromises in the OS from this, and so much time spent gluing stuff together into an interdependent mess, that they can't even unravel it, never mind someone else that has none of the code, and documentation that, as Onoitsu2 points out, often has just plain totally ludicrous and unbelievable holes in it.
Yes, things are way easier to do "if" there is a way to do it already and/or you can afford to price of buying stuff that does. Even something as simple as dealing with icons under windows is virtually impossible *without* buying another application, because the stuff MS has PC companies pre-install can't deal with them, most graphics apps won't save in that format and the "basic" programs that come with the OS, like paint, haven't beed significantly improved since Windows 3.11, when it was "probably" actually easier to find a free font maker than it is now (though it would have probably been a DOS application...) Its those "ifs" that constantly trip me up. Coding a solution requires things I can't afford or stuff that was written on Linux, where it works well, but has serious installation and interconnection problems on Windows *or* I could buy a solution, but that might range in price from a full application that I can get for $50 to a 500 line widget you can't code without a $1,000 investment in extra documentation and compilers, which sells for $500...
Oh, and none of the solution are usually modular enough to borrow feature X from application Y, when its missing from Z. Most of my frustration is "usually" due to this sort of problem.
I think one problem is that your definition of "user" is way too broad. I read this sentence:
Quote: catering to the worst common denominator among the users and, as in the case of the date functions in VB, Excel and MS Exchange
and did an immediate double-take, because the vast majority of Windows users never use that scripting, don't understand it, and probably don't even know it exists. For the purpose they wanted to achieve, they generally did a good job at that.
By the way some people might take offense at your claim regarding number vs. quality of developers. :-)
Quote: Even something as simple as dealing with icons under windows is virtually impossible *without* buying another application
Icons have always been something that really ticked me off, yes. There are some easy-to-get applications that deal with them, but only partially; for instance they might not save in all sizes, with transparency, and so forth. On the other hand, I don't hold it against the developer that s/he charge money for an application that gives full icon support, given that it requires a fair amount of work. But again, most users don't really care about this.
Quote: Oh, and none of the solution are usually modular enough to borrow feature X from application Y, when its missing from Z.
Unfortunately that is the nature of most software in general, not just on Windows.
Quote: I think one problem is that your definition of "user" is way too broad. I read this sentence:
> catering to the worst common denominator among the users and, as in the case of the date functions in VB, Excel and MS Exchange
Actually, I was just using that as an example of the compromises they have done to shove people out of the market, not an end user issue. Its hard to be specific, but I have read "lots" of cases where some developer has griped about MS *not* adding 4-5 features they wish they had to make is easier to write code, yet adding 15 of them that do nothing but tweak a few GUI elements, move some menu options around or add some new wizard for picking the user's nose, because someone complained the couldn't figure out how to do it. I tend to agree with this assessment. And sometimes it seriously gets in the way, since they fail to think of more "obvious" solutions that everyone would benefit from.
Though, one example I can think of is that its real easy to "tell" something like Windows Media Player to associate some file type with itself. However, unless the other application you install is able to do so for itself, its nearly impossible to configure the settings for this any other way. Sure, you can try to use command line options, but some only work correctly with DDE, for which no mechanism is available to either discover. And for than matter, you can't revert anything in the OS, like file associations, without reverting entire installs, instead of just fixing the one thing wrong. Now, you might argue this is a bad example, but its the only one I can think of at the moment. Most of the stuff they do "does" make the software easier to use for people that have no clue *why* it works and who you find occationally blinking dumbly at you when you ask them if they accidently turned off the switch on the back of the computer (having informed you it won't start). The problem is, anyone that "knows" how it works and has some clear idea what they want to do is often "prevented" from doing it, precisely because of all the hand holding the OS forces on you and some of that you can't even turn off in your own applications without practically rewritting sections of the API with your own modules and objects.
I've found that setting extension handling manually sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Some applications seem to "take control" of their extension, e.g. PDF, and every time I changed the file name or the program it would get put back to PDF.
In Windows 98 or 2000, when I told it to make some association it was typically much more reliable than it has been with XP. It's harder to get at the advanced settings, for example, and it seems to really want you to use its simple "use this program..." dialog thing. This is actually a pretty good example of where something got dumbed down to the point where it's hard to use.
Still, I'm not sure the part about applications changing things is a good example. If you go in and change stuff around, it's kind of your fault if things don't work anymore; for the normal user who just installs a program and has it make the right changes, things tend to work. It's only when you want to do something unusual that you need to work at it a bit.
Also I think that handling extensions is a problem over all OSs. I'm not sure how much I like the Mac way of automagically picking the right program, either, when files don't have extensions; it stores some kind of meta-data in the directories. (I think OSX changed this because it uses the Unix way, if I remember correctly. I haven't looked into this for a while.)
Quote: You can change file type associations really easy. It's been in Folder Options for as long as I can remember. Am I missing something here?
Yes, you missed the part where I said that you can't "revert" them to prior settings, without in most cases reverting the entire install, and you couldn't even do that prior to ME. Also, if you *need* to use DDE, you have damn well better hope its documented some place on the web, since most applications have no help in them for telling you either command line options or DDE settings to talk to them, and this *includes* MS products, nor any way to find out what the correct DDE command is. So, lets say you have the following:
How the hell do you even figure out *what* to set these to in most cases? Applications with multiple functions for the same file, like "add to playlist", "play", "remove" and "burn", for example, are even worse, since not only is the DDE interface usually never documented, but, if you ever set these, or they are set by something else, to another application, you will "never" get them back, without reinstalling the original application and not all of those will ask, never mind reset, their own associations. This is being "friendly". The problem is, they are friendly, by not doing the BS that applications used to, and changing them without your permission, but some don't provide any way "internally" from their menus to fix the associations, even if you "do" want them associated, so once it sees that a) its already installed and b) something else has the file type, you're screwed. All of which was "much" simpler when DDE didn't exist. Now... The very feature designed to make it "easy" to define different behaviours actually makes it harder to set the perferences, if the application itself doesn't let you fix it.
Now, mind you, this is just short sightedness imho, since it would have made a lot more sense to have an ActiveX like "DDE" inspection system in place, so "if" an application uses DDE, the OS could list available function and set the correct settings for them. But.. The much bigger mess is "stacked" types. Paint Shop Pro has probably 90 file types stacked in it, several MS applications have 10-20, etc. There is "no" feature in the File Type settings dialog to let you "search" for a specific type, so unless you already know what a .tif or .xyz is associated with, if its one of 90 stacked types, all listed under, "JustToScrewWithYou Files", you have no chance of finding the association that exists, removing it, then patching in a new one, even if you "know" the right DDE or command line functions to use with it. Not unless you have root access and know how to use Regedit to find which one to change.
Put simply, you have to throw out the tools they "expect" you to use and use stuff that they have tried in the past to get rid of, or drastically limit, because they didn't think the "end user" should have any way to do it in the first place. And this is something "you" don't even think is broken. My personal favorite has got to be the idiot stuff like MS' applications forgetting where I last saved a file, so I have to navigate through 12 directories every time I want to export every single individual file, in say... Outlook, which *might* be 200 files. No single "export all" function is available, and even if it was, it wouldn't remember where the frack I last saved to again. Worse, this behavour was inconsistent as hell, working fine one day, then forgetting the other 10 times I used it. I never could figure out why it failed most of the time or what possible reason there could be for it to forget in the first place.
Just lots of little things that make you waste small bits of time, doing the same thing over and over, because somehow it turns out to be the one bloody thing MS didn't wizard or bother to get right, but which no one else you ever try, generally, screws up that way. When combined with the programming level idiocies, which hamstring developement... it can rapidly get seriously irritating.
I'm inclined to agree with most of what Shadowfyr has said in this thread. Often I think I manage to get things to work despite Microsoft's efforts, not because of them. And don't get me started on the Registry ...
I think it depends a great deal on what you're trying to do. For a very long time, my primary systems were all Windows, and I never felt this level of frustration despite customizing the system rather heavily. Perhaps it depends on what kinds of customizations you want. For example, never (well, maybe just once or twice, but it was pretty obvious what to do) did I have to go mess around with DDE settings in file associations to get things to work the way I wanted.
I think there's an important distinction to be made about things wrong in the OS and things wrong in the applications. The paradigm is that the applications set the associations; if the particular application isn't good at setting its applications, is that really Windows's fault?
Same goes for the "programming level idiocies". Plenty of people write Windows code all the time to develop advanced applications and seem to do fine. It would seem that Shadowfyr is simply cursed to be the one who wants to do things that nobody else wants to do. :-)
And finally, I don't think Windows should get the blame all on its own for what is really a feature of software development in general. Windows did an excellent job making the computer usable for normal people trying to do normal tasks, So did the Mac. Unix isn't good at that at all. Unix is very good for people who really know what they're doing. Not necessarily so for Mac or Windows, depending on what you're doing.
Well. I know my example wasn't "great", but the point is, they came up with this system, then failed to provide anything like the interface lookup, even as an optional extra, to expose the interfaces. Think about it. Lets say you want to "edit" a script in SciTE, but run it in Python... How? Right now, if .py is associated with SciTE, it **can't** be associated with the Python executable. Ironically, you could do this "prior" to XP, since that one didn't bother to check for duplicates. Now it will "tell you" that something else has the file type registered, refuse to let you change it at all, even if its to add an "edit" option, instead of "open", but **won't** tell you what its currently listed under or provide a way for you to find out. There might be several applications that use .py, each of which "might" have change the association, and no way to know "who" it currently belongs to, never mind find it, so that you can add a new option to edit it in some other application. Now, how "uncommon" is this likely to be, really? The setup was a pain in the rear to work with "before" DDE started to become common "some now have 'no' command line options at all" and now its worse.
But, XP has gotten better. I don't doubt also that "some" of the problems talked about here:
have been fixed in Vista. I am less happy with some of the EULA issues. Sure, they are "relaxing" their restrictions, but still robbing us of the ability to upgrade a machine as often and as much as we like. The average tech head is goingto run into the EULA 1-2 times a year, since they will replace their CPU and motherboard twice as often as that, and the license won't let you move it to more than "one" other machine... And that isn't even getting into the DRM BS in it.
There are some reasons why Windows is getting "worse" even as it gets better. There are also growing signs of Linux getting better in the ways you claim its a pain in the rear. Most versions can now detect and mount devices, as they appear, without fiddling with the system files. Hardware, as long as it doesn't require proprietary drivers (and even in some cases if they normally would) work out of the box, where under XP most still "require" a seperate install to work right and Vista is playing catch up. All Windows has is polish, not base line functionality. Painting a wooden nickle silver and polishing it until it shines, doesn't make it less of a wooden nickle.
Quote: I guess the file associations menu doesn't even exist in Vista, but you can still use Open With anyway.
Oh now that is just really helpful.. Given that its *usually* how things get screwed up in the first place and often doesn't list more than half the actual applications, if they are not ones the OS is actively aware of, like oh... some editors that use their own settings files, instead of burying their info in the registry. And even some that use the registry don't show up in that list. Bets on them removing the associations menu "because" it was a problem, but leaving "Open With", because its a "simple and easy to use method for *most* users", compromise? lol
Gee. So you don't like user friendly.. Well. I will post the gist of it here. If someone is kneeing you in the groin and trying to feed you five bricks, do you thank them if they suddenly decide to only feed you four?
Seriously, several people have also commented on a clause in the EULA, which no one bothers to read, which *could* be interpreted as redefining "piracy" as, "The act of failing to buy the next version of our OS when it comes out, assuming you stupidly agreed with this EULA." There are also clauses in there suggesting they will nail you if you try to use non-DRMed content, install it on a machine than also has another OS, and several other obnoxious bits of total and absolute BS. I thought they where just making a joke, then I discovered that lots of people are commenting on the EULA with near identical remarks about what it could be interpreted to mean.
As for handling defaults in Windows. Why the #$#@$@#$ should I have to go to a third party to find out how to change something in an OS, especially if I have to use a barely authorized, missing in some versions, and potentially dangerous method of changing them, because the people that made the bloody thing didn't provide a sane way to do so in the first place (or worse, removed the only broken and slightly defective method that "did" more or less work)? But then, this has been common practice, even with their browser. If its hard to fix, disable the feature, then hope most people don't notice, so you never "have" to fix it.
Enough already though. Its pointless to argue about MS tactics. Everyone knows what they have been, even if they are blind to some of what they have actually done, yet everyone gives them huge slack, as though building something that mostly works, making huge numbers of deals so everyone is used to it, and lowering their expectations to the point where "computer" has become a synonym with "something that only works for a while, then has to be rebooted" is the same thing as building a "good" product. Seriously, if this was a car, TV, VCR, elevator system, space shuttle (oh sorry, bad example in that case), etc. would "anyone" have put up with this? Yet, here we are talking about buying the next version from a company that is so paniced about "real" competition on the horizon they are adding things to the EULA that can imply lawsuits if you dare buy or use anything MS doesn't personally approve of... WTF?
I hear the bench is real comfortable and even has a head rest though. Don't mind the huge blade handing over the point where your neck is. lol
I disagree that everyone gives them huge slack. They don't get huge slack. I think it's just important to put things into perspective when you criticize them and look at the bigger picture.
It works better than the opposition at doing what I want it to do. Therefore, I'll pay for it. If it didn't, I wouldn't. If that equates to giving them slack in your alternate universe, so be it.
So gosh, if my head is in a guillotine because I choose to use what works best for me, I won't even feel it when it comes down, and I still won't give a shit. And my ghost won't give a shit either.
Obviously, it doesn't work better than the opposition at doing what YOU want it to do, and why you're so damn bitter about that, I have no clue. And I really don't give a shit about that either.
Anyway, I'm done here. See ya somewhere about never.
In that he argues that there is a trend (in Windows at least) to take control of your PC away from you and place it in the hands of people like Microsoft, and record companies, because they don't trust you, the end user.
If this gets taken to its extreme, PCs will become devices that you cannot control or load things onto, or change the behaviour of, in ways that are not "approved".
Imagine, for example, if you are only allowed to install Internet Explorer, and not Firefox. Or, if the only picture viewer program you can install is one that, perhaps unknown to you, reports back to its maker the name of every picture (movie, soundtrack) that you watch/listen to.
Nick, I think that point is one of the more worrying concerns about Windows (well, Microsoft, really) -- not this stuff about hyper-tweaking various components about the OS that very many people really don't care about. I think it's an issue because it's more subtle, and dressed up as "there to help you". I think that Stallman sometimes tends to get carried away, and so should be taken with a grain of salt from time to time; that being said, the whole DRM stuff is indeed concerning.
It's the kind of features that make sense in some contexts, like the corporate world, where maybe you do want documents to have lock-downs such that you can't open it after it "expires", or if you don't have the permission to open it according to some central server. But these features make a lot less sense in the "normal people's" world, and constitute in the end a risk of very severe privacy intrusion.
Well, those are "part" of the reason that I don't like the OS, the more technical stuff is just icing on the cake, since I know what I am being prevented from doing, while most people won't.
There is a tongue and cheek review of the Vista EULA here that just about covers the bases on stuff like Nick mentions:
Most digital products of any consequence will never be released without it. It's what keeps people from just giving the file to their friends. P2P has shown that there are obviously plenty of people who don't care in the slightest that they're trafficing stolen goods.
Any security system I've ever seen is built on one principle. Keeping honest people honest. Because you'll never be able to fight truly dishonest people, but most people have a guilty conscience and so definately wouldn't want anyone to know if they were to do something wrong.
I doubt MSes tech will ever be all that restrictive, as that would be a clear and deciding reason to switch off Windows. They're smarter than that.
As for DRM restricting what I can do with products, that is a pain in the ass, and it always has been. I haven't been able to finish Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory for example, because I went to XP x64. Also, I love to use cd images to play games, because it keeps me from scratching up or losing CDs. Or having to hunt before playing random games I like to go back to once in a while.
So you know, it's not as if DRM is a black hole. It's an understandable solution to a genuine problem. It's just genuinely annoying as well. To anyone who cries it'll bring about the end of the world, or something vaguely similar to that, I can only laugh.
DRM has its times and places. The other thing about it is that maybe DRM itself isn't fundamentally evil, but it's revealing a serious flaw in our distribution model -- when the world went digital, business and law did not catch up. Only now are we starting to get serious, widespread legal thought about how this changed world affects both consumers and businesses. It'll be interesting to see how that evolves.
In the meantime, what makes me nervous about DRM isn't so much the concept but rather how it's being used. See, for instance, Sony's rootkit fiasco. That is a ridiculous and inappropriate application of DRM.
Quote: So you know, it's not as if DRM is a black hole.
But it can be. Even with some "prior" games, there are hacks, which are vaguely legal, to run them, even though the companies themselves are defunct. There are some you can't even **find** unless you download them illegally or can afford to buy some 20 year old arcade machine, which might need repairs to even work. The versions re-released are often "not" the originals, or in a format that is as usable as the ROM files where, etc. And this is talking about stuff "before" the kind of DRM we are dealing with now existed. Now, you can't even legally crack it, even if there is no "owner" to protest, since the very act of cracking it, never mind selling the application to do so, is "illegal". How many of the classic games today might literally cease to exist, much the way that probably 80% of all the movies ever made prior to VHS tape? How many will sit, rotting on a shelf, until what ever the "real" life of CDs and DVDs passes, leaving them not just "mostly" unrecoverable, like a movie, but "completely".
Sure, the law hasn't caught up. But the problem is, while its busy catching up with "property rights", its taking what is already a public interest and historical fiasco and making it worse, by rendering any attempt made to prevent such a block hole for media from forming completely illegal, regardless of the consequence of doing so. This isn't just sad, its stupid.
We can see what civilizations thousands of years old wrote, and therefore what they thought, and did, because their writings were "low tech" like papyrus or engravings on jars or walls.
I bet that in 1000 years people will wonder that it was we did this century - the DVDs will have long ago rotted away, and even if they didn't the encryption on them may well be impossible to crack, partly because a degraded DVD will probably just be junk after decryption, unless every last bit is preserved.
I also agree about the games - many games I paid good money for but are now useless unless I can find the hardware to run them on, and also dig up the "product activation code", which has probably long since been lost.
Plus there is the fact that "copy protected" discs by their nature can't be backed up, so you have to let your children play with the original discs, which get dropped on the floor, scratched, and lost.
I think there are at least two different things being discussed here. Buying a book and having the pages tear or the ink fade is not that different from buying a CD and having it scratch or otherwise wear over time. Nor can you really "back up" a book, unless you're going to go to the trouble of scanning/copying every single page; the time you would spend doing that is probably worth more in currency than buying the book again.
The volatility of data is definitely very interesting. There are at least two kinds: one is the medium itself degrading and the other is not having hardware (or software) to read the correct bits. The first can be solved in various ways, if you take the trouble. (That's not so different from books, really. The only reason we still have access to a lot of knowledge from before is that the books were painstakingly copied again and again.) The second is much harder to solve, and that's where you start getting into DRM questions. (Well, you also have completely non-DRM related problems, e.g. not having a floppy disk drive and therefore not being able to read floppies.)
Take MUSHclient for example. If I lose my registration code, and for whatever reason can't get it back, I have to either buy another code or live with the delay. That would be quite inconvenient for me. Is that an argument for Nick to remove the shareware (which is DRM, if you think about it) from the program? I don't think so.
If you think about it, how would you even solve this problem? You would have to distribute the full source of not only the product (be it a movie, program or whatever), but also to every encoding scheme used along the way. Once the source is "out there", what is to prevent people from distributing it very easily? Simple laws don't really work; we have verified that hypothesis empirically already. DRM doesn't completely work either, but it slows things down. The interesting trade-off in my mind is between slowing down the "bad guys" and irritating the "good guys".
Should we release everything completely openly for the sake of posterity? That's not such a bad idea. In fact that's exactly why the public domain laws exist. But the problem is that now things change quickly, very quickly, and a format that was readable 5, 10 years ago (much less 30 years) is likely to be hard or nearly impossible to read nowadays without having access to the original specs (which were probably closed).
Perhaps the solution is to make the public domain timespan much shorter. That's an interesting debate, but I'll not get into that now. In the meantime, I think the issue is that DRM is the, admittedly unfortunate, solution to a very real problem. Removing all forms of DRM might fix some problems but will at the same time make a whole lot of other problems. Until our legal system -- and indeed our whole society -- adapts to this new form of digital media and distribution, I'm not sure I see any other choice.
The arguments you both have given I agree with. Yes, it's a real PITA to not have access to stuff from even just a few years ago. But I'm not sure I agree that that's a convincing reason to drop DRM. The problem, really, is not so much its existence but how it is enforced and the general culture around DRM.
I agree with both sides of this debate as well, as I mean from the companies side DRM is a godsend against piracy. BUT at the same time DRM would be quite annoying to the good guys that have special situations, like im my case, a real example, I lost several game CD's when I last moved, approx. $300 US in games. And I purchased them all legally, I had Diablo II, and Diablo II LOD, and have the LOD CD and key, but no main, and main is a requirement to use LOD. Also Bauldars Gate, and Neverwinter Nights (with 2 expansions) and have no way of obtaining them again without gettting a pirated version, which won't help with online play, or just to buy them again. I have proof of legal purchases, but am still unable to get the CD's nor a valid CD key, as there is no affiliation of a certain key with that purchase date. MicroStupid had a good idea of activation, but also bad at the same time, as it was an invasion of privacy with hardware info. It is good because it is registered in their databases that that PID# is assigned to the hash of your hardware. It could have been taken further, and in place of a hardware hash, a UPC code, or something SHOULD have been used, so that in the event of losing the CD or PID# you can obtain a copy of the CD for a small shipping and media fee, and if you lose your PID number, just give them the UPC code. I mean most shareware registration schemes are starting to log in a similar mannar, such as CC transactions. I mean Zmud is a great example, and the OLD eLicense scheme they used. You can track and obtain a new copy of both program and KEY, based upon your CC#, E-mail, or several other methods.
I think that if DRM is to succeed then they MUST implement a FULL database with SEVERAL different recovery methods, to recover both the program AND the key/serial, in order for it to not hinder the "good guys".
I also understand that MANY people also dislike MicroStupid for using the activation at all, and I too agree it is inconvienient unless you have a highspeed internet connection, as you must be able to log on to dial-up, and if the time had expired, you have 2 options, call on the phone, or reinstall the ENTIRE OS.
I don't like that the 2nd option was even an option at all, as it prevented you from using your legally, and fully registered apps, or might be preventing you from backing up important files. And in another case when the copy installed is the ONLY copy of a registered program, due to a loss of install media, and key, it also can make yet ANOTHER issue with a program unrelated to windows.
IMHO you should have been able to use windows, but not fully, so that it would have become "crippleware" if not activated in 30 days, where you only had say 30 minutes of use before it would logoff, only to start the 30 minute time limit at the next logon. This would allow a person to backup their valuable programs, photos, and other misc. files, and still nag enough to make them want to register the program...
I gotta say saying 'the law hasn't caught up' is crap. It never will. It takes politicians years to do anything that actually matters. Something nobody pays attention to anyway is hardly the subject of their attentions.
As to old games...you get what you pay for, both good and bad. This has always been true. I don't see why I should care.
BTW I'm on dialup, and I don't see the problem. Even on the one occasion I've had to call it in it was resolved within a minute or two. I really didn't care.
As for DRM, I'm just damn glad to see things like Steam. Never bothering with CDs, having no issues redownloading when I want/need to, having it be relatively self sustaining (as in being able to check if game files got damaged, and so on) are all very nice. I hope other clients like this get released, as being able to access your media as long as you can log in is a much better option than having to screw with it if you reinstall your OS or anything like that.
I had Diablo II, and Diablo II LOD, and have the LOD CD and key, but no main, and main is a requirement to use LOD.
I was in a similar situation, although I eventually found the disks with the key written on them.
About the only saving grace here is that once you have played modern games the "older" ones like Diablo look rather clunky, as they have a isometric 2D look, chunky graphics (designed for 640 X 480), and generally not a huge amount of fun to play, in comparison to what is currently available. However from a historical point of view, it would be nice to be able to look at them in 100 years time. That is where I think the gradual physical disintegration of the disk, coupled with the fact that they can't be copied, will make them unreadable.
I am uncomfortable, personally, with "losing control" of things I have purchased. If DRM is incorporated into PCs, so that only authorised software can run, I have lost control of it.
Already I am losing control of my emails (about 90% spam), and my home phone line (about 50% spam). Commercial TV stations are about 50% ads, and even some DVDs that you buy these days, whilst admittedly ad-free once they actually start showing the movie, force you to watch ads for their other movies, with the fast-forward, or "skip" button disabled. At least with my VCR I can always fast-forward to the start of the movie.
Just imagine, if these same brilliant marketing guys get ahold of PCs with DRM installed. "Hey", they'll say, "let's force the owner to watch a few ads every time the PC boots, or when they want to launch a program - they can't stop us, and think of the revenue we can make".
I can't see that happening. Nobody would buy a puter that did that unless they got a really damn good deal on it. Which, admittedly, could happen eventually, but I just don't see it anytime soon.
And if it does happen, I won't go for it, obviously. That would be lame.
Anyway, as long as you're comparing to spam (legit commercials don't count since it's the only way those TV stations really make money) you might as well mention that spyware does the same things and is already released. And for a long while, it wasn't illegal at all.
On-DVD ads are annoying, but at least they're kept short and relevant usually.
Quote: Perhaps the solution is to make the public domain timespan much shorter. That's an interesting debate, but I'll not get into that now.
No, we need to "restore" the public domain timespan. The problem today isn't that its too long, its that it *doesn't exist at all* for some things. The #1 reason why most movies made prior to VHS are gone or will be is because they are a) not public domain, b) never will be, so long as some company can extend the license and we have the current "no registration required" copyright and c) they can claim that there "might" be some obscure future date where the product is still "viable" for them. At one time, you had to "tell" the courts and government that you still needed to keep the copyright and that "yes, this product is still a financially viable item I intend to maintain copyrights over", now you get that automatically and *must* inform the agencies involved that you "don't" want those protections. I.E., the presumption has shifted from one of, "public interest overrides copyright and that copyright must be limited", to, "copyright is perpetual and public interest is only relevant when/if the owner decides that they no longer have a "personal" interest in it." Someone could, presumably, create anything from a game to a book, sell a few thousand copies, then simply decide, "My own personal interest is in never seeing another copy ever sold and letting the existing ones vanish!", and not even the government, as the rules now stand, can step in to say its violating public interest to do so.
But, most of the time the same works that are currently vanishing are doing so for the same reason that companies forced the issue of copyright and demanded perpectual ones in the first place. They are too damn lazy to keep track of what they own, if its not making them "immediate" money, so instead of losing the copyright to public domain for failing to re-declare it, like the old days, they instead lose the product entirely, because they forget that its shoved in between the Christmas decorations from 1921 and the extra 5.25" floppies used for financial backups in 1983, right up until they find it in 2030 they (re)discover it and it is now little more than colored plastic with a bit of random magnetic material clued to the surface. And of course, the same thing is bound to happen with CDs and DVDs.
And, I also agree with Nick's assessment of the misuse of DRM to force you to watch commercials or something to use your computer... The simple fact is, while these companies may "want" to use them for the supposed reasons they claim, while completely failing to grasp why this is only going to hurt them, in an of itself, the real problem is that not everyone "in" those companies or the companies they sell them to have ethical quams about screwing their customers, and if a big and significant enough company does it, like MS, you don't have any real choice but to either a) give up on the technology almost entirely, b) use partial alternatives that are never "quite" as complete, do to the very tactics and deals that you got screwed with in the first place, or c) kiss their asses and tell them how happy you are to use their junk. DRM type technologies are "never" going to be used by the majority of those than employ them to do anything other than protect "themselves", at the expense of the technology, interoperability, the customer or anyone else that might sort of count more in the long run.
Quote: If DRM is incorporated into PCs, so that only authorised software can run, I have lost control of it.
I agree, that would be horrible. But I think that's a very, very different kind of DRM than the copy protection on games and so forth. I think this debate is very complex because there are so many facets to DRM. Some forms of DRM are fairly tame and so far I've not seen an argument against them beyond "it's inconvenient" (and, well, yes, it is inconvenient).
As for the public domain issue, Shadowfyr, I don't think you have quite understood the issue. Yes, it's true that the US government has been extending copyright in a way that it shouldn't be for certain products (e.g. Mickey Mouse). It's much more complicated than you say. It's not "at some future time" etc. that Mickey Mouse would be viable, it's right now. Now I don't like it either, but if you're going to argue against it you should argue against it correctly.
Besides, the public domain delay still exists and is still applied. There have just been a few high profile cases where it wasn't (e.g. the early Mickey Mouse) and I think you're exaggerating those.
But even in the Mickey Mouse case, they've been working on it and extending it ever since. It's not as if all they've been doing is milking the same old stuff for money for 70 years. Given the continued work and effort they've put into it, is it really fair for it to be suddenly taken away from them? I'm not sure either way, but I think it's just far more complicated than you are making it seem.
Quote: As for the public domain issue, Shadowfyr, I don't think you have quite understood the issue.
Umm. No.. I am **not** talking about things like Mickey Mouse. While imho, they should need to re-register copyright for some works, its also a trademark and has other protections. No, I mean things like films made in the 1920-30s, which some company some place "owns" the story rights to, so it can't even be remade, but where the "original" is literally rotting out of existence. And often, even when the companies are both aware of the problem, their first reaction when someone asks about one of them is, "Ah ha! More money!", even if the person asking is a non-profit, the work itself hasn't been shown or sold in 70+ years and their is no one in their right mind that is going to buy rights to it for $200,000 or some such number, just so they can restore it and place it in public domain. Put simply, the people that are trying to protect those works don't have the money to do so, the companies that own them don't care, until someone specifically asks if they still have it and due to the nature of modern copyright, where its automatic, without need to renew, there is no overriding agency or interest "forcing" them to save those works from extinction or release any of them to the public, even to have the "story" be re-used to make a completely different work. Mickey Mouse is hardly going to vanish tomorrow if a non-profit doesn't spend $200 thousand to "save" any of the movies he is in. Nor is he going to land in the public domain, so long as he remains trademark, not just copyright material.
I would love to see companies *required* to show an active interest in what they have, or lose it, like it used to work. I don't care at all if some company that "does" have an active interest in something wants to keep it to themselves. Though, I might, if I where the one making the law, include a clause stating that "active interest" had to extend to "using" the character or material in some tangible fashion, not just locking it in a vault and telling people, "My only interest is keeping people from seeing it!"
Sorry, but Disney and Mickey Mouse have nothing to do with the disaster I am referring to.
There's nothing made before twenty years ago that I give a crap about, so I can't say I sympathise. As far as content, usually ten. So I really can't say I care.
But I say the owner reserves the right to choose what he wants to do with it. If I created something 50 years ago, and I don't want it shown for some reason, I should have that right. Same if I didn't create it, but own the rights legally. It's my call. That's the end of that. It's sure to annoy someone, but until that someone gives me a good reason to release it, I doubt I will.
Do you really expect companies to behave differently? All it would do for them is cheap publicity. It'd be a mostly pointless gesture of goodwill that ended with very few people remembering or caring. So one person wants it released. Or a few people. What will it gain for them? Nothing. In the case of software, probably more than a few nitwits asking for tech support on an app they stopped supporting ten years ago.
All companies play the effort vs reward game, unless they really don't care about making money.
Quote: (Seawolf) What will it gain for them? Nothing.
In fact it'll probably cost something. It might not be incredibly expensive, but it certainly isn't cheap to transfer the old formats to newer formats that people will actually be able to use. Maybe somebody is willing to volunteer the time to convert the original. OK, well, who then? Who decides who gets it? The company owning the material, most likely. But that puts us back in square one. The company has to go through this bother, which they don't want to because it doesn't get them anything.
Should it be a government agency? OK, well, fine; are you willing to spend your taxes on that? That's not an altogether unreasonable proposition, I find, but I'm not sure how many people here in the US would share that point of view. After all, if it's something nobody is really going to the trouble of preserving in the first place, you'd have to be fairly devoted to the idea of preserving culture for posterity to be willing to spend tax money on something you don't really care about in the first place.
Quote: (Shadowfyr) the nature of modern copyright, where its automatic, without need to renew
The copyright law you've read about must not be the same one that I have. Copyright is automatic and always has been; as soon as you create a work your copyright is placed on it automatically unless you say so. Copyright expires after a certain amount of time, except in the cases recently where the government has stepped in and retroactively extended copyright periods.
Quote: While imho, they should need to re-register copyright for some works, its also a trademark and has other protections.
Oh, by the way, the public domain laws override things like trademarks. It doesn't matter if you have trademarks etc. The law it complex but basically the work is under the authors' copyright for life plus 75, or, in the case of a corporation, 95 years from the point of authorship. The Mickey Mouse case prompted that change in law; it used to be 50 years. So, really, the law is not what you made it out to be.
This page explains the public domain law change fairly well, and in a quick and simple way, I think:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html
"The U.S. Congress first exercised its power to enact copyright legislation with the Copyright Act of 1790. The Act secured an author the exclusive right to publish and vend "maps, charts and books" for a term of 14 years, with the right of renewal for one additional 14 year term if the author was still alive. The act did not regulate other kinds of writings, such as musical compositions or newspapers and specifically noted that it did not prohibit copying the works of foreign authors. The vast majority of writings were never registered — between 1790 and 1799, of 13,000 titles published in the United States, only 556 were registered."
People being too fracking lazy to follow the law, eventually pressured the government to change copyright law. In ***1992*** they abolished the renewal requirement, making copyright perpetual and derailing the system that would have otherwise allowed works to enter the public domain. You don't know what you are talking about if you think this is how its "always" been. There was no need for them to abolish renewal requirements, just so that Disney wouldn't lose Mickey Mouse. They could have adjusted it, so that it included something like X years since the "last work" by the same company that was a direct dirivative of the prior work, or something sane. Instead they threw up their hands, went, "Who cares about some crap from 50 years ago that people don't watch, lets protect the mouse forever."
Sure, there is some "supposed" standard saying that some point in time exists when it "might" go public, but the truth is, without renewal requirements there is both a) no certainty of that for the owners and b) no guarrentee that they won't decide to extend it to 100, or 200, or 500 years some place down the line and tell everyone "screw you!".
As for old works. You're not thinking when you say that. The movies produced in the 1920 are the block busters of "today". Its certainly harder for "every" copy of a modern movie to be lost, but not impossible, especially if its under defacto perpetual copyright and 100 years from now the only copy is sitting on the shelf of Megacentury Pictures, who bought up who ever currently owns it and dumped everything they didn't really want in the basement. Hell, just in the case of books, which where written in my life time, there is no certainty that about 5% of the ones I own will "ever" be republished, "are" in the library of congress or any place else that would prolong them and will almost certainly in many cases cease to exist once the author is dead and the copies in private collections are eventually lost to time. Are those "irrelevant" too?
I can understand that you don't care about things you haven't seen and probably don't want to, but its short sighted and stupid. You might as well, with that attitude, be advocating something like the burning of the library in Alexandria in ancient times. But not to destroy the works, so much as because you don't care if they are lost or if anyone has a copy of them. We have produced more books and other things in the last two centuries than in the prior 2,000 years. Probably only 10% of those 2,000 years worth of works still exist. Think of all the movies you have ever seen, then pick 1 out of every ten *you* think should be saved, reminding you that history isn't going to care about which ones "you" want saved and half of those you pick might instead vanish, with the *worst* ones you ever saw in their place.
That is the world as it *was*. In 1790 they tried to both "protect" the interest of the artist *and* make sure they survived by "forcing" them into the public domain. Now.. The "ownership" outlives the artist and the media its on, depending on when it was produced **might** live anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of a human life span. That "still" means that maybe 50% of everything we have ever seen in our lives "might not" exist by the time we are in our 90s. The fact that its only half, not 90%, or 99% is better how, especially if copyright keeps being dragged out and public domain keeps becoming more and more of a total joke?
Oh, and to be clear.. You "could" makes something "based" from the prior work, more or less, but that won't stop some ass digging through the basement finding the script for something from 1925 and deciding to sue you for failing to pay some sort of royalties on the original. Its a complete mess and the only difference between people like David Brin, who shrug their shoulders and go, "Well, guess they copied another of my ideas.", when refering to the movie "The Core" (very similar to his book "Earth") and Hollywood is that big picture companies are not going to shrug their shoulders, they are going to go after you with attack dogs. Kind of makes derived works, even accidental ones, scary prospects...
Umm, Shadowfyr. Before going off on tirades like that, read what I write. :-) Almost nothing you said has much of anything to do with what I said. I said that copyright is automatically placed on your works unless you explicitly say you put it into the public domain. I also said that there was an expiry time. I'm not quite sure how what you posted contradicts what I said.
As for old works, I'm assuming you're not responding to me because the point you address isn't the point I made. But come to think of it, in particular you didn't address the point I made, which is how to implement in practice the solution to your problems. Enough hand-waving and complaining about problems, let's get down to practical solutions.
Anyhoo, this debate is getting a little too dragged out. Unless we can talk about practical solutions I think I shall retire and get cracking on all the work that's been piling up in front of me for class and the classes I'm teaching.
Fairly sure he meant me on the not caring bit. Why would I be advocating destruction by not caring? Is that like advocating having children by not having sex? Because that doesn't make sense either.
There is precious little in the material world that I do care about. So man, if that somehow makes me an advocate of Satan or something, well so be it. I'm sure I'll feel all bad about it while I don't care.
If there was a nuclear apocalypse, and I was one of the last five people on Earth, and the others were trying to hunt me down, I doubt I'd care then either.
If that makes me shortsighted and stupid, so be it. I tried caring once, and it really didn't get me anywhere.
On an awesome note, I finally got my legal copy of Vista installed, and it's great.
Perhaps relevant to this discussion, apparently the UK parliament has just recently refused to extend copyrights, meaning that copyrights will expire after 50 years instead of the proposed extension to 95. Sounds good to me. If only the US would do the same... except now they'd have to pass a law that canceled the extension they've already put in place.
Either way without people really fighting for change, things won't improve. There are a few consumer champion groups, but IMO they don't have nearly enough people to get anything done...and sometimes what they do just seems silly, as it helps criminals a lot more than other people.
So you know, as they say, put up or shut up. Whining about things won't change it.
So are there any changes to mushclient needed to accommodate Vista? I'm looking at buying a new laptop, and by the time I get one it'll probably come with Vista.
The point of my tirade, as you put it, is that there may be an "illusion" of some sort of point where the copyright is no longer valid and the work enters the public domain, but from a purely practical position, that is either set so far into the future that the original work can't be "expected" to still exist in many cases or it keeps being extended universally, instead of providing more specific extensions based on "if" the owner still uses it as a viable commodity. In either case, for all practical purposes, works can't enter the public domain, since they either cease to exist before that happens or the copyright is dragged on and on, with no end in sight.
Its the flip side of the problem with patent law, where in that case the problem isn't, "It will go on forever", but just, "We don't have the time or resources to make sure everything *is* unique and nontrivial, so nearly everything gets an approval stamp anyway." Both sides of the equation are getting to be quite screwed up and its the public interest that is getting kicked in the shins from it.
And I did suggest a solution. Adjust copyright so that companies have to show a viable level of interest in a work to "get" any extension, not just drop it on a shelf and hope someone else comes along that wants to buy rights to it.
OK, well... How long should the initial period be? How long is the extension? How do we define "viable interest"? Does that mean interest right now, probable interest tomorrow, possible interest in a few years? Is there a limit to the number of extensions? What happens when the period runs out? Who is responsible for putting the product into the public domain? Who gets to have the original storage medium/media? What if the original medium/a is all there is? Who pays for all this stuff? What about all the stuff under the current law?
And what about individuals' work? Do I have to show some kind of viable commercial interest to maintain my copyright on something? If I'm unable to sell it, for whatever reason, does that mean that it enters the public domain?
I just think these issues are much more complex than simply saying "no extensions unless interest is shown".
Just a few annoyances that I hope Nick will clear up before February.
For a moment there I couldn't remember what this thread is really about ... back to page 1 ...
Quote:
Problems people will run into with MUSHclient on Vista are the Guest account message at launch and the help files not working...
It is quite annoying to have to rewrite a help file system to simply accomodate a program (the help viewer) that has been in every version of Windows that I can recall, that Microsoft have suddenly decided to stop supplying.
However I note from one of my early replies that you can download the help viewer from their web site, so this is a fairly simple workaround.
I am not planning, at this stage, to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on a new operating system, probably a PC to run it on, and probably a new copy of the C++ compiler, simply to fix some minor problems with Vista.
I am not sure what the "Guest account message at launch" problem is, can you be more specific about that?
Yeah. I get that Ksilyan, but what is the solution, to let companies continue to say, "this is much to complicated and inconvenient, can't you just tack on another 25 years and then worry about it later?" That is what has been happening. No one wants to codify a sane set of rules, so we are left with a false presumption that its still possible for a work to enter the public domain, even as the law is constantly reworked to make that less likely. That's hardly helpful to anyone.
It's a wee bit of an overstatement to say it's a "false presumption" that works enter the public domain. They do, it's just getting pushed back for certain things that people wanted in particular. Things falling into obscurity due to formats and storage media is, I believe, another problem entirely. Sure, it's related to copyright duration, but you'd have that problem even with a duration of, say, 25 years. It's very important to keep the issues separated to be able to tackle them independently if need be.
At this stage I don't have a copy of Vista, so it is hard to make changes that support it.
You have switched clients, you say. I am curious to know which one you have chosen. I hope it fulfils your needs.
Perhaps you can do a comparison of features - for and against. I doubt if any one client is perfect for all users, it probably is a matter of what features are important to you.
I switched over to CMUD http://www.zuggsoft.com/cmud/
It's already supporting Vista, uses newer system interfaces, and although it's a little wierd since I'm so used to MUSHclient, it's not that hard to figure out, so it all works.
I've never been too good at comparisons, really...plus I mainly use basic functionality, so any scripting and whatever comparisons I made would be completely...made up.
I expect I'll be buying it as soon as I have spare cash...my paychecks are finally catching up on my debts.
It's 12:30 at night here so I'm not going into more detail right now....going to go do my laundry and go to sleep I thinks. (Sorry :) ) G'night.
I'm sure you've guessed by now, but despite being fairly analytical, I don't like describing things.
It's a failing of mine, I suppose.
I like the default options and the easier configuration of CMUD. Even word wrap is somewhat muddled in MUSHclients options...in CMUD I've never even had to bother with the options. (You may/may not remember I suggested a reorg on the options once, but anyway.)
Although I can't say what MUSHclients default state is like, mind you. I've been away from it for a few weeks now and don't really want to mess around with it and find out. (Just going on memory would do us all a disservice.)
I also like the connector list on startup. Just takes an extra step out of getting connected.
Obviously, the lack of Vista related issues is good. They've already done related work even, during the recent betas there were a few annoying issues with Vista that are already cleared up.
Anyway, sorry I can't do a real detailed comparison, but there you have it. I only use MOOs so I can't say anything about MUDS and MUSHes either.
I gather that Zugg has written Cmud from scratch (to replace Zmud), and thus avoids all the issue of backwards-compatibility that plagues software authors.
I admit that MUSHclient (like most mature software) tends to be a bit messy because it needs to support existing users, even though subsequently an improved method of doing something might arise. Hence some things (like Macros / Accelerators) are effectively the same thing done in different ways.
I would be interested to hear your comments in a couple of months, once you get past the smoother interface, is scripting easier in Cmud? Does it crash often? Is it fast? Are the world files easy to edit "by hand"? Do you find it easy to write plugins?
Well I've been using it for three weeks or so already. It is fast, I think it might've crashed on me once but 1.24 was the first non beta version available anyway. (Heck, I haven't even installed 1.24 yet, cause I'm so frustrated with dialup. Getting DSL VERY soon.)
You won't get much from me about scripting/plugins though. I wouldn't even know where to start.
The original query in this thread was that the help files were not usable under Vista. Whilst I think there are workarounds, like getting a copy of the winhelp.exe program, I have now released the help files in a different format. See this thread:
Basically the same information is available as 760+ html files, which cross-reference each other. Each file represents one page from the usual help file, and as long as you have a web browser, you can read them (and search with any text search utility) to your heart's content.
on conversion of existing .hlp projects to .chm, but I have only glanced at it, so I am not sure how complex it is. Assuming it could be automated somehow...
I'm new to mushclient. I'm also blind. I have a few observations from the perspective of someone new to mushclient.
1. Post-installation issues were resolved by modifying permissions on the worlds sub-directory to permit users to modify/write in worlds and all sub-dirs. This permits addition/modification by non administrator accounts. Subsequent to this, I can run mushclient as a normal user with no issuesconnecting/scripting/etc.
2. jaws plugin works well under vista, i'm actually fairly happy with it as-is. I have however made some mods. For some reason I couldn't get the changes I wished made/working in the jaws.xml file itself, so I used a charname.lua script file for the changes. I do the following:
function OnGetFocus ()
Execute("jfw")
end
ditto for OnLoseFocus. This way ctrl-tab between worlds shuts up the world you leave and enables speech on the world you enter. For me since I use multiple worlds for a single mud (my own little combat group), it cuts out all the repeatitive information in an automagic style. It's not perfect, but it's working well enough until I learn more and can redo it perfectly ;).
3. wishlist/todo list... learning how to properly use variables, for example: how to set the speak viariable in the jfw plugin to 1/0 from a seperate script. Figure out how to modify the teleport plugin to use 10 alpha char room numbers, and getting a reliable spell casting script put together. This last has proven the most difficult since there are at least 5 different failure modes for nilgiri and I want a single routine I can pass the spell to rather than one routine per spell. I have the sample that came with the client and will eventually learn enough to put this together, at least i'm motivated ;)
Lastly, I would like to thank Nick Gammon for the time and effort he has put into producing mushclient. It actually has the potential of improving my gameplay through it's extensive scripting. If I produce anything useful and clean i'll post it to the appropriate forum. Once again, Thanks!