AMIGA OS is dead and so every other OS not being VISTA.. check this out

[Roondar]

It still never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to keep feeding trolls.

On a side note, I watched that clip and didn't see anything so amazing about it. Clips like that have been floating about for ages now and about multiple OS-es too. (I saw one -literally- years ago for the Sun sparc machines. I also saw something similar a few years back for Macs and as a PC application)

There is nothing there an adequately specced PC/Mac/Etc couldn't do today. Without Vista.

And a far more important question is: What's the use? Cool clip aside, I can't see me use that. It looks like a bad UI design if anything.

Marketing use? Get real, cool clips won't help push more Vista PC's. They're the only real OS supplier anyway and joe sixpacks isn't gonna buy a Mac/install Linux regardless.

[Roondar]

Chrizz wrote:
That's not true. The whole Amiga community aches to see new hardware being released and new OS being developed.

Is that so...

FYI, I for one am perfectly happy doing retro stuff on an A600 with a flashram HDD replacement. Heck, I even regularly use an even more ancient C128 with a single floppy drive. For fun. And I'm 100% certain there are others on this site that are just like me.

Heck, I'd probably do stuff on a ZX81 if I had one just to see how that feels. Apart from the sore fingers of course.

Don't think you speak for everyone and don't mistake 'using/enjoying retro computers' for 'wanting a new Amiga'. It'd never be the same anyway, so why bother.

Other than that, I can do anything computer related I need to do on today's hardware with todays operating systems. I do not need Vista. Nor does anybody else. The only people who 'need' Vista are Microsoft and the people selling PC's.

[Roondar]

Chrizz wrote:

Other than that, I can do anything computer related I need to do on today's hardware with todays operating systems. I do not need Vista. Nor does anybody else. The only people who 'need' Vista are Microsoft and the people selling PC's.

That's why Microsoft sells while Amiga is dead.

Purposely missing the point of my post and replying only to half of it won't win you any debates. My Amiga still works fine, thanks. It's not dead. I don't care it's not being sold anymore. I don't care about market size. I don't care about my A600's viability for modern computing tasks either. You seem to think I do tho, which is both amusing and dead wrong.

As to the rest:

I stand by my point, I don't need Windows Vista to do what I need to do with my PC. Windows XP does the job just fine.

Oh and by the way, the main reason Microsoft sells is because it's installed by default by computer sellers. It's because of this and the laws of scale that we only* have Microsoft operating systems being sold. It has nothing to do with quality, price, comfort or looks of the system (which does not by necessity mean Windows Vista is bad, after all Windows XP was quite reasonable).

In other words, Microsofts current supremacy has to do with ubiquity (as in installed base), not with their product being superior.

*) Being fair, the Mac just doesn't sell in large enough numbers to truly count.

[Roondar]

DonnyEMU wrote:
Also for those making the DRM comments about copy protection of materials (like the protected path stuff), if you own the original it works fine) and if you don't violate copyright laws then this new feature probably shouldn't bother you that it's there. It just protects the presenters original intellectual property rights.

Anyone complaining about this probably doesn't like this new safety feature because they steal other people's work.

I have no problem with this new functionality as it doesn't affect my work or my own creative works and it will actually protect them. So if you don't like this blame Hollywood, blame people who pirate stuff illegally that it is felt necessary that it be better protected.

These features don't impede your work.
-Don

I disagree. I do not want my computers OS deciding it has to crypt my personally created works. I want those to be as interchangeable as possible. I do not want layers of protection on it. I want transparency and interoperability on my work.

Microsoft/any other OS maker has no business deciding that my own work needs to be protected by them. At all. Ever.

On a sidenote, accusing anybody who disagrees with you of being a thief before they even had their say is rather a dishonest debating tactic. One that should not be used in civil discussion if you ask me.

[Roondar]

DonnyEMU wrote:
My point with the thief thing is not to call people thieves (if you are offended though you should be asking yourself why and if you did anything to make you feel that way), but what do you care if you are not making illegal copies of something if it's in there or not..

So if someone calls you a thief without reason you won't be offended?

Honestly?

And secondly, you surely can see that the people least affected by Vista's DRM will be the pirates and thieves anyway? They'll figure out ways around the protections (and if that doesn't work, they'll find ways to get unprotected masters) and carry on. They always have, they always will.

The only people that will run into DRM are the ordinary, law abiding folk.

As an example, I had a whole bunch of DRM protected songs on a laptop of mine. The laptop fell down and broke into two bits (no fun that). I managed to salvage most of the files on the still intact hard disk and put them on my new laptop. Obviously, everything worked. Except the DRM protected songs, which refused to play.

I had to contact the service who had sold me the songs and  beg them to reinstate them, convincing them I was not trying to steal from them in the process. This made me feel like a bad person even tho I had done nothing wrong. Since that experience, my tolerance for DRM systems is exactly zero. I am not a thief but the people who sell me music treat me as such. What fun.

DRM is evil. Copyright isn't, but DRM is.

[Roondar]

DonnyEMU wrote:

So if someone calls you a thief without reason you won't be offended?

No and I wouldn't feel bad about asking the company I bought the licensed material for another copy of it. I have to admit something here, I am involved with a company called the 9thXchange (www.9thx.com). We provide our members with downloadable media, and we also provide them a library backup of stuff they have purchased. So if they have downloaded something they always have a backup available from us and a license file if they have legally purchased something. We do DRM right and support the people who buy from us. The company also provides resale of files purchased and provides royalties to the original creators.

If you are not a thief get some backbone, and don't worry about it. If you position is defensible then you are in the right and you shouldn't take it personally or assume someone is calling you a thief.

I don't need to grow a backbone, I don't deal with companies that tell me -in veiled terms- I'm a potential thief that wants to steal their wares. Simple enough. I shouldn't have to ask them for a new license/file to begin with, I payed the original. The file should just work, no excuses, no re-downloading. Period.

Or better said: Yes I am offended by people who assume I want to do bad things with copyrighted materials. My entire PC and my laptop contains zero pirated software and no media I have no rights too. And yet, I still feel this way. I am a customer, I should be treated like one, not like a potential crook.

The basic attitude from the media suppliers is wrong. I'm not the one who should grow the backbone. The people selling media licenses should grow one and refrain from calling me a potential thief.

Another point: In my country there is an FBI warning on DVDs that says copying dvds even in the advent of no monitary gain is illegal and punishable by X number of years in federal prison even if it wasn't done for monitary gain. That tells me that if you bought a dvd it's not covered under fair use, you are simply buying private exhibition license to the content on that particular disc on a specific playback system and it covers nothing including backups or jukeboxes..

The FBI and similar warnings on DVD's are a pet peeve of mine. I know I'm not supposed to copy a disc. I don't need some people telling me I shouldn't do bad stuff every time I put my original DVD in the player.

And you are wrong by the way, a DVD falls under fair use just as much as any other copyrighted object. Only breaking the encryption is illegal when you want to make a backup and there are plenty of ways to copy a disc without breaking the encryption. Which is perfectly legal under the DMCA.

Besides, if I buy a perpetual license (like the one I get when I buy a DVD) the seller had better offer me a perpetual form of access to the stuff licensed. And until they do, backing up my media is a very good and quite legal way to make sure I can watch my legally obtained, licensed media in the future. DRM only makes sure I eventually need to buy my content again.

Like I said, Copyright is not evil. But DRM is.