MS Vista: No beta or hacked drivers.

[Bires]

heard on www.rage3d.com:


Drivers must be signed for devices that stream protected content. This includes audio drivers that use Protected User Mode Audio (PUMA) and Protected Audio Path (PAP), and video device drivers that handle protected video path-output protection management (PVP-OPM) commands.

The White Paper (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/64bit/kmsigning.mspx)

[Cubsfan]

Ahh, everyone loves DRM. I really have no problem with it, until the restrict it way too much. I like how Apple does it. Sure, I can get around it, but they give me enough rights (burn CD's, three computers, etc...) that I don't feel like I need to do anything bad.

[Devhux]

Once again I repeat: where there's a will, there's a way.....

Besides, those are only if you plan to watch high-definition DVD's under Vista -- otherwise it makes no difference at all.

[apexbyte]

Yeah, my bet is that it is cracked. If movies can be seen with two eyes...they can be recorded.
If music can be heard...it can be recorded.

[cheapchinese]

thats why we have India for :P

[johnnymk]

Vista is looking less attractive every time I read about it. I wonder if Vista will be the next Windows Millenium?

[Grubbie]

Vista is looking less attractive every time I read about it. I wonder if Vista will be the next Windows Millenium?


Highly doubtful

[clutchy]

Vista is looking less attractive every time I read about it. I wonder if Vista will be the next Windows Millenium?

I was thinking the opposite. This might be the first microsoft product i purchase....

[zero2dash]

Excusing the DRM crap, Vista will be to Windows what OSX was to Macs.
(Specifically because it doesn't create Admin accounts by default, but instead uses Authentication just like OSX and Linux.) That in itself will eliminate a whole lot of problems across the board...

[Bires]

(Specifically because it doesn't create Admin accounts by default, but instead uses Authentication just like OSX and Linux.) That in itself will eliminate a whole lot of problems across the board...

Please elaborate.

[zero2dash]

Ask and ye shall receive. :)

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_beta1_03.asp

Running as least privileged user

In the final shipping version of Windows Vista, Microsoft is overhauling the way in which user security works, and in my opinion it's a long time coming. In Windows XP, you typically set up user accounts to be Administrator or Limited User types. More specifically, what everyone really does is give all the accounts Administrator privileges because Limited User is badly broken and doesn't work. Admin-level accounts are nice because you can install, run, and remove applications without having to worry about any restrictions. But these accounts are dangerous because everything on the system runs at the most elevated security level. And if you get hacked, malicious code usually gets to run under your Admin-level privileges as well. It's like a little hidden benefit that Windows gives you, for free.

Ahem.

In other modern operating systems like UNIX, Linux, and Mac OS X, this isn't an issue. Even when users on those systems logon with Administrator-type accounts, most actions take place using vastly reduced privileges. And when you have to do something that could harm or change the system configuration, the system will prompt you to supply an Admin-level password. Again, this happens even when you're already logged on as an Administrator.

In Windows Vista, finally, Microsoft is adopting the same approach. But there are two issues with doing so in Windows. First, Windows wasn't architected to accommodate this type of security, so Windows Vista needed to be extensively overhauled to make this possible. Second, the vast library of Windows applications out there was written to assume that the user will have Administrator privileges. Thus, part of the Windows Vista overhaul will need to fake out those applications to ensure that they work normally under the new system.

Microsoft calls this change User Account Protection (UAP; it was formerly called Least Privileged User, or LUA). In Beta 1 it is off by default, but you can enable it with a shortcut in the Start menu (Figure). I'm told it will be on for good in future builds. If my experience with Beta 1 is any indication, many Windows users are going to find this change very difficult, and much more aggravating than any of the security changes Microsoft added to Windows XP SP2. Maybe it will get simpler over time.

Here's how it works now. When you enable UAP (and logoff and logon again), you'll be presented with a Windows Security dialog (Figure) any time you try to do something dangerous. The sheer number of actions that trigger this dialog, however, is alarming. Virtually every single Control Panel applet makes it come up, for example, as does installing an application. And so on. It gets kind of tiring after a while.

Behind the scenes, Windows Vista is running under a vastly reduced privilege level automatically. When the system requires an elevated privilege level, the dialog appears and you provide a password. This password is good only for the action you initiated. Everything else you do--even while the elevated action runs--happens with reduced privileges. There are other changes, too. With UAP enabled, the Windows Firewall seems to pop up more often. For example, I used Firefox for days before turning on UAP. After I enabled UAP, however, Windows Firewall warned me before letting Firefox connect again to the Internet.

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/winvista_b1_48.jpg

This was taken from a guide when he covered the first beta. I'm assuming by the time the RC is done and copies start rolling out to retailers, they will have did some tweaking so that it's not so annoying/pesky...they've still got time.

There's quite a few good things they're putting into Vista, in addition to this. I can't wait. :thumb:

[Cubsfan]

Having been conditioned to be wary of Microsoft, I wonder how well they've actually implemented this. It'll be interesting to see how many exploits there are to elevate your priviledges.

[zero2dash]

Assuming that most problems are "brought in" from Internet Explorer - one of the other things I've read on the WinSupersite about Vista and IE 7 is that now the folder that is used for internet files can only store cookies and images and even then it is restricted in what is allowed.

So, again, figuring that most problems start with Internet Explorer (through downloads and plugins), if the problem cannot be written to disk without user interaction, and at the same time, if the program cannot run without admin priviledges and therefore must ask for those priviledges (practically eliminating the "I don't know what just installed" problem) - we're looking at a very secure (knock on wood) OS here. The best thing they could do is either a) get rid of ActiveX or b) severely restrict how it works and what it's allowed to do - that would further alleviate a lot of problems.

We'll see though. I can certainly say that things so far look promising. :)

[Bires]

where is Vista in its beta evolution?

[Grimm]

So, how will people develop drivers for their products if they have to be signed? A special version of Vista?
What about small shops that can't afford the special version?
What about people who want to write their own drivers?

[zero2dash]

where is Vista in its beta evolution?

(Grabbed off of the Home page of the WinSupersite)
Out now
Xbox 360
Office "12" Beta 1
Windows Server 2003 R2
Windows Vista December CTP (5270)
Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Public Preview

February
Windows Media Player 11 Beta 1
Windows Defender Beta 2
Windows Vista February 2006 CTP

First half of 2006
Internet Explorer Beta 2
Windows Vista Beta 2
Windows OneCare Live

Second half of 2006
Internet Explorer 7
Windows Vista Release Candidate
Windows Vista RTM
Office 2007/"12"
Exchange 12

Based off what Thurott says, we can look forward to 2 more Vista betas (3 total including the current one) before the RC comes along.