Ran across this today, and it is pretty interesting. Thought you all
might enjoy it.

Ken

Here is an amazing analysis of issues with Vista relating to content
protection.

URL:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...€¨â€¨Executive
summary:

Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to
provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data
from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources.Â* Providing this protection incurs
considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical
support overhead, and hardware and software cost.Â* These issues affect not
only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the
protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever
come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for
example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server).Â* This document
analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral
damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.

To reply with email, please remove "ECM" from email address.

All the articles I see about Vista are negative IMHO.
Today PC World showed how V was slower no matter what kind of PC you
had.
Could this be the first failed MS program?

jl

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 04:05:47 GMT, Ken Spencer
<mistercrispECM@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Ran across this today, and it is pretty interesting. Thought you all
>might enjoy it.
>
>Ken
>
>Here is an amazing analysis of issues with Vista relating to content
>protection.??URL:
>http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...txt??Executive
>summary:
>
>Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to
>provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data
>from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources.* Providing this protection incurs
>considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical
>support overhead, and hardware and software cost.* These issues affect not
>only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the
>protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever
>come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for
>example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server).* This document
>analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral
>damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.
>
>To reply with email, please remove "ECM" from email address.

They said the same thing about going to XP from NT

Joe Lauton wrote:
> All the articles I see about Vista are negative IMHO.
> Today PC World showed how V was slower no matter what kind of PC you
> had.
> Could this be the first failed MS program?
>
> jl
>
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 04:05:47 GMT, Ken Spencer
> <mistercrispECM@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Ran across this today, and it is pretty interesting. Thought you all
>> might enjoy it.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> Here is an amazing analysis of issues with Vista relating to content
>> protection.??URL:
>> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...txt??Executive
>> summary:
>>
>> Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to
>> provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data
>>from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs
>> considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical
>> support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not
>> only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the
>> protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever
>> come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for
>> example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document
>> analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral
>> damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.
>>
>> To reply with email, please remove "ECM" from email address.

Joe Lauton wrote:
> All the articles I see about Vista are negative IMHO.
> Today PC World showed how V was slower no matter what kind of PC you
> had.
> Could this be the first failed MS program?
'
I think focus has moved away from performance (e.g. how much can the PC
do in 5 seconds) to productivity (how much a person using the computer
can accomplish in a day).

I don't think anybody is clamoring for Vista, but does it matter? Vista
will still come with every new PC after a while. And most larger
businesses pay Microsoft's license fee every year whether or not they
get anything in return.

"Joe Lauton" <JL@Lauton2000.com> wrote in message
news:5beup2575s9jvkpopfjn84h6oacnc9pecd@4ax.com
> All the articles I see about Vista are negative IMHO.
> Today PC World showed how V was slower no matter what kind of PC you
> had.
> Could this be the first failed MS program?

No MS had its share of failed programs.

MS Bob (big time!)
IE versions 1 & 2 (IE3 is debatable)
Windows ME (most failed OS to date by some)
Windows versions 1 and 2
MS Word for DOS (most never heard of it)
MS Works v1 (only ran in real mode I believe)

Those are just off of the top of my head.

--
Bill

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:53:02 GMT, Kevin Weaver
<kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>They said the same thing about going to XP from NT
>
>Joe Lauton wrote:
>> All the articles I see about Vista are negative IMHO.
>> Today PC World showed how V was slower no matter what kind of PC you


Yes I recall so clearly.
I was even slow to move from dos to 3.1 - 95 -98 then a skip to XP.
V only has 'greater security' going for it - at least that I'm aware
of.
I may skip the free V 'upgrade' for my recently purchased laptop since
it has become the most stable PC I ever had. Have yet to have the
first crash or lockup. Why risk a good thing?

jl

BillW50 wrote:

> MS Word for DOS (most never heard of it)

This is a bit misleading. Word for DOS was actually Word for Windows
1.something with a single application environment of Windows.

<zwsdotcom******.com> wrote in message
news:1168113737.155616.310830@38g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com
> BillW50 wrote:
>
>> MS Word for DOS (most never heard of it)
>
> This is a bit misleading. Word for DOS was actually Word for Windows
> 1.something with a single application environment of Windows.

No they actually had a MS Word for DOS! Last version was 5.5. And guess
what? You can download it for free on MS website. lol

http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...S/Wd55_ben.exe

I told you most never heard of it. lol

--
Bill

"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:y4Mnh.57392$qO4.26568@newssvr13.news.prodigy. net
> They said the same thing about going to XP from NT

Ummm no! At least I didn't hear too much about it anyway. But Vista is
very different. As it really doesn't have anything worth upgrading for
IMHO. A lot of computers being sold today can't even run it. I don't see
it as becoming a big hit or anything. The only thing that will save it
is that it will come preinstalled with new computers for years to come.
lol

--
Bill

You are correct; there was a Microsoft Word for DOS, which was not Word
for Windows. I still have it. In fact, it's installed on this very
computer. And I think I also still have a copy new in a shrink wrapped
box. On 5.25" floppies.


BillW50 wrote:
> <zwsdotcom******.com> wrote in message
> news:1168113737.155616.310830@38g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>> MS Word for DOS (most never heard of it)
>>
>> This is a bit misleading. Word for DOS was actually Word for Windows
>> 1.something with a single application environment of Windows.
>
> No they actually had a MS Word for DOS! Last version was 5.5. And guess
> what? You can download it for free on MS website. lol
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...S/Wd55_ben.exe
>
>
> I told you most never heard of it. lol
>

No, bill was right. Word for DOS preceeded Word for Windows (WinWord)
by several years, and was a totally different product.


zwsdotcom******.com wrote:
> BillW50 wrote:
>
>> MS Word for DOS (most never heard of it)
>
> This is a bit misleading. Word for DOS was actually Word for Windows
> 1.something with a single application environment of Windows.
>

I would not by any means put Word for DOS in the losers category. It
was quite popular in it's day .... which was from about 1984 to about
1990 (when Windows 3.x came out and most people moved to WinWord, Word
for Windows).


BillW50 wrote:
> "Joe Lauton" <JL@Lauton2000.com> wrote in message
> news:5beup2575s9jvkpopfjn84h6oacnc9pecd@4ax.com
>> All the articles I see about Vista are negative IMHO.
>> Today PC World showed how V was slower no matter what kind of PC you
>> had.
>> Could this be the first failed MS program?
>
> No MS had its share of failed programs.
>
> MS Bob (big time!)
> IE versions 1 & 2 (IE3 is debatable)
> Windows ME (most failed OS to date by some)
> Windows versions 1 and 2
> MS Word for DOS (most never heard of it)
> MS Works v1 (only ran in real mode I believe)
>
> Those are just off of the top of my head.
>

Lots of MS programs have failed, but the only OS to ever really fail was
ME. So even if Vista "fails", it won't be the first program or OS to do
so. Will it fail? Very unlikely, I think. Whether people upgrade or
not, within a year, all new PCs will come with Vista, and therefore
within 4 years, probably more than half of all PCs will be running it,
without regard to whether or not people would prefer it or not.


Joe Lauton wrote:
> All the articles I see about Vista are negative IMHO.
> Today PC World showed how V was slower no matter what kind of PC you
> had.
> Could this be the first failed MS program?
>
> jl
>
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 04:05:47 GMT, Ken Spencer
> <mistercrispECM@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Ran across this today, and it is pretty interesting. Thought you all
>> might enjoy it.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> Here is an amazing analysis of issues with Vista relating to content
>> protection.??URL:
>> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...txt??Executive
>> summary:
>>
>> Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to
>> provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data
>>from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs
>> considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical
>> support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not
>> only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the
>> protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever
>> come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for
>> example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document
>> analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral
>> damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.
>>
>> To reply with email, please remove "ECM" from email address.

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45a0099e$0$9008$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
> I would not by any means put Word for DOS in the losers category. It
> was quite popular in it's day .... which was from about 1984 to about
> 1990 (when Windows 3.x came out and most people moved to WinWord, Word
> for Windows).

I don't know Barry! As WordStar was the king from '81 to about '86
(WordStar continued until '94 with v7.0d). And Word Perfect held it from
about '86 to about '92 or so. Both WordStar and Word Perfect came out
with Windows versions around '91. WordStar for Windows was a big failure
(and came out much later than WP or Word for Windows)! Word Perfect for
Windows wasn't doing too bad. But a bit later, MS Word for Windows
started for the first time had taken over the lead and has had it ever
since.

MS Word for DOS wasn't very popular Barry. It had a small following, but
nothing Earth shattering. Weird thing, there was a interview video of
Bill Gates around 1990 and guess what was on his DOS screen in his
office? WordStar! lol

WordStar was the best and first. Nothing else could touch it. Although
Word Perfect came along and it wasn't better, just cost more. And the
only thing why it beat out WordStar was I believe the salesmen made more
money and told those that didn't know any better that it was better than
WordStar. lol

WordStar remained popular for those who used WordStar first, writers,
and programmers (why Bill Gates probably had it on his computer). There
are still thousands of WordStar users (over 1000 and probably under
10,000). WordStar sold more than 5 million copies back in the 80's. Not
bad for back then.

I always thought there should be a WordStar newsgroup and wondered why
one was never started. I would create one if I knew how. There are two
current email lists for WordStar though.

--
Bill

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45a00af3$0$9008$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
> Lots of MS programs have failed, but the only OS to ever really fail
> was ME. So even if Vista "fails", it won't be the first program or
> OS to do so. Will it fail? Very unlikely, I think. Whether people
> upgrade or not, within a year, all new PCs will come with Vista, and
> therefore within 4 years, probably more than half of all PCs will be
> running it, without regard to whether or not people would prefer it
> or not.

Well not many bought Windows v1 or v2 either. Neither one was preloaded
I don't think. Preloading came out with Windows 3.0 for sure. And
Windows 3.1 had over 1000 bug fixes and improvements and was the most
popular Windows version up to this time.

And I was thinking much like you are Barry. Although I also know
Microsoft doesn't kill off anything that is still selling well. And here
is what I am thinking of a possibility. And one or another is possible.

1) Some computers will continue to be sold with only Windows XP on them
long after Vista is released. We have seen this before. As machines
being sold with Windows 98SE was still popular even after Windows ME,
Windows 2000, and Windows XP was first released.

2) This one is a bif if, but if a large number of Vista users get fed up
with Vista and remove it and install Windows XP on them. If this
happens, Vista will indeed be a big failure. Of course, MS will win as
most would have paid for an OEM version of Vista and then a downgrade
version of Windows XP. lol

Hell! I just thought of something! Maybe MS knows Vista won't be a big
hit and are betting on #2 happening and still winning. lol

--
Bill