The Women Warriors

[MessiahMews]

They can keep it. There is no way, I want this piece of crap anti-christ operating system on my computer.



February 3rd 2007
by Editorial Staff
http://www.playfuls.com/news_06076_Windows..._Surprises.html

Windows Vista is out. And by now, almost everyone knows three things about Microsoft's first major operating system release in five years: it has enhanced security features, a snazzy interface, and better search capabilities.

But there's more to Vista than these three features - and the new is not all good. While some of Vista's secrets are bound to surprise you pleasantly, others could make you question your decision to upgrade altogether.

--- Registration lockdown

With Vista, Microsoft has gotten stricter than ever on acceptable use of its software. The company's Genuine Software Initiative has been picking up steam over the past year, forcing users to "validate" their version of Windows when a critical patch or desirable new feature is made available over the Internet. If, through this check, the software is deemed invalid, access to the download is denied. Complaints from paying customers of Microsoft's software are not rare under this system.

But with Vista, Microsoft has taken the Genuine Software Initiative to a new level. If you fail to "activate" - or register - your version of Vista with Microsoft within 30 days, the operating system goes into a "reduced functionality mode," which essentially cripples the operating system.

Once in reduced functionality mode, you'll be able to log on to Vista for only one hour. After that, Vista will force a system shutdown. Even during the hour you're logged on, Vista will disable the Aero interface and several other key features that make Vista what it is. About the only thing you'll be able to do is activate the product using one of the acceptable methods.

When Microsoft tried a similar scheme in the early days of Windows XP, there were so many complaints from legitimate users who were blacklisted that Microsoft published a workaround. Unless the program has been significantly improved, a number of users may again find themselves blacklisted - and this time, the complaints will be louder, since reduced functionality mode renders your PC virtually useless.

--- User accounts

Part of Vista's emphasis on security alters the way users of a PC are handled. Vista's new User Account Control (UAC) is at the heart of these security enhancements, and it's a feature that's bound to cause frustrations for a large number of people.

Here's why. By default, Vista monitors a user's actions and throws up a dialog box requiring administrator credentials before allowing any action that has a potential impact on system security.

UAC is designed to prevent malicious software from infiltrating your PC, and it goes some way toward achieving that goal. The downside, however, is that most users will have to deal with annoying dialog boxes whenever they run a program that requires access to sensitive locations. Many beta testers of Vista complained that UAC prompts showed up even when performing seemingly harmless activities.

To avoid such annoyances, Vista owners will have to become thoroughly familiar with the concept of UAC and configure their user account appropriately - no lightweight task.

--- Performance

Windows Vista requires more computing horsepower than any previous version of Windows. While that's not necessarily surprising, what may be is that Vista's visually impressive Aero interface won't even be available to you if your computer does not contain a dedicated graphics card. Roughly half of today's computers will need to be upgraded to run Vista adequately, according to U.S.-based Jon Peddie Research.

Notebook users will be especially hard hit by Vista's hardware requirements. That's because many lower-cost notebooks over the past couple of years were sold with low-cost integrated graphics controllers that work fine when displaying the standard business applications and Web pages in Windows XP. But for Vista, these machines will be inadequate.

Even worse, notebook users with integrated graphics won't be able to upgrade their machines just by purchasing a new video card. Most notebook computers would require an entire motherboard upgrade to work effectively with Vista. In other words, it will make more sense to buy a completely new machine.

Those who do have a dedicated graphics card with at least 64 megabytes of memory will have make sure their systems meet the other unspoken requirement of Vista: at least 1 gigabyte (GB) of system memory. Anything less will have you tapping your fingers far too often - or reducing the number of tasks you can undertake simultaneously.

By Jay Dougherty, Dpa

© 2007 DPA
_________________

[MessiahMews]

Installing windows vista (Video)

Take this guy's advice!

http://www.dumpalink.com/videos/Installing...Vista-87b3.html
_________________

[MessiahMews]

Government spooks helped Microsoft build Vista

Helping a Vole out of a hole


By Nick Farrell: Tuesday 09 January 2007, 14:26

THE USA GOVERNMENT'S cryptologic organisation, the National Security Agency, has admitted that it is behind some of the security changes to Microsoft's operating system Vista.
According to the Washington Post, the agency which was once so secret that it was jokingly referred to as 'No such Agency' has admitted making 'unspecified contributions' to Vista.

Tony Sager, the NSA's chief of vulnerability analysis and operations group, told the Post that it was the agency's intention to help everyone these days.

The NSA used a red and a blue team to pull apart the software. The red team posed as "the determined, technically competent adversary" to disrupt, corrupt or steal information. The Blue team helped Defense Department system administrators with Vista's configuration.

Vole said that it has sought help from the NSA over the last four years. Apparently its skills can be seen in the Windows XP consumer version and the Windows Server 2003 for corporate customers.

The assistance is at the US taxpayers' expense, although the NSA says it all makes perfect sense. Not only is the NSA protecting United States business, its own Defense Department uses VoleWare so it is in the government's interest to make sure it is as secure as possible.

Microsoft is not the only one to tap the spooks. Apple, with its Mac OSX operating system, and Novell with its SUSE Linux also asked the NSA what it thought of their products. The NSA is quite good at finding weapons of mass destruction that are not there.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36814

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Windows Vista Security, Microsoft Called in Pros

By Alec Klein and Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 9, 2007; Page D01

When Microsoft introduces its long-awaited Windows Vista operating system this month, it will have an unlikely partner to thank for making its flagship product safe and secure for millions of computer users across the world: the National Security Agency.

For the first time, the giant software maker is acknowledging the help of the secretive agency, better known for eavesdropping on foreign officials and, more recently, U.S. citizens as part of the Bush administration's effort to combat terrorism. The agency said it has helped in the development of the security of Microsoft's new operating system -- the brains of a computer -- to protect it from worms, Trojan horses and other insidious computer attackers.......

(Read More @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7010801352.html )
_________________

[MessiahMews]

Here is a rebuttal from Computerworld's blog regarding Vista and the NSA...reader use discernment.

The NSA doesn't need a backdoor to Vista

By C. J. Kelly on Wed, 01/10/2007 - 8:21pm

Don't get too excited when you read the Washington Post story about Microsoft working with the National Security Agency on Vista security. I don't think the NSA actually has the time or desire to create an operating system backdoor so it can spy on citizens, which is somewhat inferred here.

And here, Schneier says "A few years ago I was ready to believe the NSA recognized we're all safer with more secure general-purpose computers and networks, but in the post-9/11 take-the-gloves-off eavesdrop-on-everybody environment, I simply don't trust the NSA to do the right thing."

Okay, let's do a little calculating, shall we? The Post story says,


Windows commands more than 90 percent of the worldwide market share in desktop operating systems, and Vista, which is set to be released to consumers Jan. 30, is expected to be used by more than 600 million computer users by 2010, according to Al Gillen, an analyst at market research firm International Data.
I have no idea how many Windows systems are actually connected to the Internet as we speak, but having backdoor access to a gazillion personal computers doesn't sound very efficient when there are so many other ways to eavesdrop. Who needs backdoor access? Most hackers don't need a handy-dandy built-in backdoor. The NSA doesn't need one either. I would hope they are smarter than that, there in the security think tank with a federal budget behind them.

Why do we think that our own government has even the time to spy on us regular people? It is because we have this basic fear that some day we will not be free and that our government will become the evil empire and that the more power we give to our government, the more at risk we become. It's the basic distrust we have that actually keeps us as free as we are. A terribly difficult balance to achieve. You don't mind someone invading your privacy for a good reason if you trust them. If you don't trust them, you shoot them as soon as they step over the threshold. That's our mentality.

The sky is not falling. The NSA has better things to do. And besides, the bad guys are all probably on Linux.

http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/4330
_________________

[MessiahMews]

[MessiahMews]

Yet another tale of Vista upgrade woe

20 Feb 2007
Industry expert Clive Longbottom shares the pain of a Vista upgrade

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2183779/...omment-yet-tale

OK, I know that this may not be the first Vista installation story you may have read, but it may add further to the knowledge base of information available to help others make a reasoned decision on whether to go for Vista or not.

I bought a new Lenovo/IBM Thinkpad X60s last year as it was 'Vista Capable', unfortunately just a little early to benefit from the free upgrade to Vista available from many vendors.

So I ran the Microsoft Vista Upgrade Advisor Tool which came up with one major issue - the joys of Symantec Client Security, which had to be completely uninstalled - alongside a few warnings of "minor incompatibilities".

The tool also showed that I could run Ultimate Edition with all the bells and whistles of the Aero interface: 3D, transparency, the lot. Everything looked pretty good for a relatively seamless upgrade.

I went to the Lenovo site, which came up with further advice to uninstall a few pieces of its software, but again, nothing too major.

So, having followed all the instructions (very unusual for me), I put in the Vista DVD and off I went. Just over an hour and a quarter later, I had a machine running Windows Vista.

Aero was there, and all told, it looked pretty good. It looked like the upgrade had gone relatively smoothly. However, then came the problems.

Firstly, internet access just did not work from the Wi-Fi connection. No settings had been carried across to Vista, so I had to remember my WPA settings and so on, but even then, I could not get to any external sites at all.

I could, however, ping internal machines. Finally, by manually putting in DNS entries, I managed to get external access.

Then I found that most of the Lenovo tools did not work. I had to download new software from its site, but no advice was provided as to the order in which things needed to be done.

Even when I had managed to get the automatic updater working, Lenovo's site was still offering me a full range of possible updates, including some that were not Vista compatible.

Eventually, after another three hours or so, I managed to get the laptop to a position where I felt that I had wireless, wired network and 3G connectivity all working, along with the majority of the Lenovo tools working to a greater or lesser degree.

So, then on to the applications. In place of Symantec, I went to apply Trend PC-cillin 2007, which is shown on the Microsoft site as being Vista compatible.

Well, it is, but you have to have the specific Vista version, which is apparently only a beta, so my serial number does not work with the product.

Diskeeper defragmentation software also doesn't work, but there is a version available that you have to ask for specifically, which was all managed well by Diskeeper themselves.

My PDF software doesn't work any longer, and I'm not sure if the vendor is going to bring out a new version in the immediate future.

My main printer also stopped working, and according to Konica Minolta's site, there will be a new Vista driver coming through "sometime in Q2".

However, a quick Google search found a different part of the Konica Minolta site that said that just reinstalling the XP driver would work. Which it did.

Now down to performance. Remember that I had run the upgrade advisor tool, with a result that everything would be fine.

Running Vista on this 'Vista Capable' machine meant that the 1GB of memory ran at an average of over 80 per cent utilisation constantly.

Response could almost be measured in geological timescales. The machine was measured at a '3.1' by Microsoft's own performance tool, which I believe is meant to be pretty good. The games need around a 2.0 to run in full 3D capabilities.

I would not want to use the machine with the performance provided for long. An update to 2GB seems to have corrected this, although the performance figure remains at 3.1 due to the graphics capabilities of the machine.

So what lessons to learn? Well, a Vista upgrade still seems to be a techie thing, and consumers may want to look at either buying a machine with Vista already on it, or to do a clean install to an existing machine, backing up and restoring data files as needed.

For companies, it looks like it creates bigger issues. The upgrade advisor tool missed several compatibility issues that were found after the event. The 'Vista Capable' badge seems to be meaningless; if this was a machine that was built with Vista in mind, the upgrade should have been far easier.

If it just means that the existing operating system is capable of being over-written with a completely new installation of Vista, then this needs to be clarified.

And, if Lenovo is anything to go by, hardware vendors need to provide far better information as to how their drivers will be provided and applied for such 'Vista Capable' machines.

Imaging software may provide some capabilities to create 'golden' images that get around many of the problems found, but only if device drivers are more widely available for items likely to be found in small firms and large organisations.

Finally, many vendors seem to be woefully unprepared for Vista. The lack of programs that are fully Vista compatible, the lack of device drivers for basic things like mainstream printers, and the lack of available information on many vendors' sites is deplorable.

Vista does look good, and I believe that it has some functionality that will make life easier for users, as well as a greatly improved security architecture.

However, at this stage, I think that Vista is only for new machines, for machines where a complete over-write is possible and for techies who don't mind wasting a few hours.

Only when the market has matured a little to provide full support at the application and driver level could I recommend a general user to consider attempting an upgrade.
_________________

[MessiahMews]

Don't downgrade to Vista

Danny Colligan
Issue date: 2/28/07 Section: Commentary
http://media.www.thegeorgetownindepe...-2747338.shtml

Microsoft is using the catchphrase "The 'Wow' starts now" to market Vista, their new operating system. There is, however, nothing awe-inspiring about this software. In fact, it's more likely to elicit emotions that range from anger to revulsion. There is no need to "upgrade" to Vista, no matter how much Microsoft or other salesmen would like you to think the contrary. Installing Vista on any machine that you own, or purchasing one with it pre-installed, is costly, detrimental to your freedoms and, most importantly, completely unnecessary. If you're thinking about getting Vista, I have three (loud) words for you: DON'T DO IT!

Vista is one expensive piece of software. If you buy it straight off the shelf, it will set you back one hundred to four hundred dollars, depending on which version you get and if you are "upgrading" from a previous version of Windows. You might also pay this price when buying a new PC if Vista comes with it. Also, Vista consumes a huge amount of hardware resources, so the old processor and memory that you were running Windows 2000 on just might not cut it with Vista. Dell recommends that users have 2GB of memory while some, such as consultant David Short of IBM, think that twice that amount (4GB) is Vista's "sweet spot." The bottom line is any way you look at it, Vista will have you forking over a sizable chunk of cash.

Expense alone is no reason to shun any product, provided it yields value commensurate with its cost. But Vista has virtually no features that would warrant its cost. This is the grand irony of Vista: it provides essentially no value above and beyond its predecessor, Windows XP. XP, despite its flaws, can probably achieve all of the things a typical user needs a computer to do reasonably well: instant message, download files, browse the Internet, play video games, etc. In this sense, the push to "upgrade" to Vista is exposed for what it really is: a $900 million marketing ploy to make you fork over money for something you don't really need.

So why would anyone feel compelled to buy Vista in the first place? To be fair, let's take a look at some of the features that Microsoft says make Vista a worthwhile purchase. First there is Aero, the user interface. While it is, admittedly, slick eye candy, it is certainly is not anything new in consumer computing: Aqua for Apple's OSX and Beryl and Compiz for Linux all have more features and look better since they have had more time to mature. Second, there is the Instant Search feature which allows for quickly searching all the files on your computer. Again, OSX's Spotlight and Linux's Beagle beat Microsoft to the punch (not to mention you'd be just as well off downloading the free Google Desktop Search application for XP). Even after looking through Microsoft's "100 reasons why everyone's so speechless" promotional site, I'm still scratching my head-why would anyone pay money for Vista when other operating systems' features are superior and it doesn't offer anything compelling enough to "upgrade" from Windows XP?

Yet another reason not to get Vista is the draconian EULA, or End User License Agreement. You might also know this as the legalese that you don't read, scroll to the bottom of and hit the "I Agree" button. If you actually do take the time, however, to read the fine print on Vista's EULA, you'll find a host of distasteful surprises. For example, Microsoft reserves the right to regularly monitor your computer to check the legitimacy of programs and possibly delete ones without your knowledge. And don't even think about installing a single Vista copy on multiple computers: when you "activate" the software, you send information about your machine's hardware directly to Microsoft which will not allow you to activate a different hardware configuration . Add this to some lovely multimedia DRM that Microsoft includes in Vista, and you have an operating system that severely restricts your freedoms as a user. If you have any doubt about who is in control of your computer, just read the EULA for yourself: "this agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights."

Don't be hypnotized by the pretty graphics -- putting Vista on your computer is one of the least desirable things you could do this side of hitting it with a baseball bat. If you really do need a new operating system, try one of the free ones like Ubuntu Linux. If you need a hardware upgrade, don't buy a PC with Vista pre-installed. Either get one with Windows XP or another operating system, or consider alternative solutions, like a Macintosh. Whatever you do, just don't downgrade to Vista.

Colligan is a science, technology and international affairs senior.
_________________

[MessiahMews]

Microsoft Hit By U.S. DOT Ban On Windows Vista, Explorer 7, and Office 2007
Tens of thousands of federal workers are prohibited from upgrading to the latest versions, according to memos seen by InformationWeek.

By Paul McDougall
InformationWeek

March 2, 2007 12:00 PM

Citing concerns over cost and compatibility, the top technology official at the federal Department of Transportation has placed a moratorium on all in-house computer upgrades to Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating system, as well as Internet Explorer 7 and Office 2007, according to a memo obtained Friday by InformationWeek.

In a memo to his staff, the DOT's CIO Daniel Mintz says he has placed "an indefinite moratorium" on the upgrades as "there appears to be no compelling technical or business case for upgrading to these new Microsoft software products. Furthermore, there appears to be specific reasons not to upgrade."

Among the concerns cited by Mintz are compatibility with software applications currently in use at the department, the cost of an upgrade, and DOT's move to a new headquarters in Washington later this year. "Microsoft Vista, Office 2007, and Internet Explorer [7] may be acquired for testing purposes only, though only on approval by the DOT chief information officer," Mintz writes.

The memo is dated Jan. 19. In an interview Friday, DOT chief technology officer Tim Schmidt confirmed that the ban is still in effect. "We're analyzing different client software options and also integration issues," says Schmidt. Among the options the Transportation Department is weighing as a possible alternative or complement to Windows Vista are Novell's Suse Linux and, for a limited group of users, Apple's Macintosh hardware and software, he says.

Schmidt says the Transportation Department hasn't ruled out upgrading its computers to Windows Vista if all of its concerns about the new operating system -- the business version of which was launched late last year -- can be resolved. "We have more confidence in Microsoft than we would have 10 years ago," says Schmidt. "But it always makes sense to look at the security implications, the value back to the customer, and those kind of issues."

The DOT's ban on Vista, Internet Explorer 7, and Office 2007 applies to 15,000 computer users at DOT proper who are currently running the Windows XP Professional operating system. The memo indicates that a similar ban is in effect at the Federal Aviation Administration, which has 45,000 desktop users.

Compatibility with existing applications appears to be the Transportation Department's major concern. According to a separate memo, a number of key software applications and utilities in use in various branches of the department aren't Vista compatible. Among them are Aspen 2.8.1, ISS 2.11, ProVu 3.1.1, and Capri 6.5, according to a memo issued by staffers at the DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Any prolonged ban on new Microsoft technologies by the federal government could have a significant impact on the software maker's bottom line, as Microsoft sells millions of dollars in software to the feds annually.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showAr...cleID=197700789
_________________

[MessiahMews]

What's wrong with Microsoft Windows Vista?

by John Sullivan — last modified 2007-03-06 09:46

Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating system is a giant step backward for your freedoms.

Usually, new software enables you to do more with your computer. Vista, though, is designed to restrict what you can do.

Vista enforces new forms of “Digital Rights Management (DRM)”. DRM is more accurately called Digital Restrictions Management, because it is a technology that Big Media and computer companies try to impose on us all, in order to have control over how our computers are used.

Technology security expert Bruce Schneier explains it most concisely:


"Windows Vista includes an array of "features" that you don't want. These features will make your computer less reliable and less secure. They'll make your computer less stable and run slower. They will cause technical support problems. They may even require you to upgrade some of your peripheral hardware and existing software. And these features won't do anything useful. In fact, they're working against you. They're digital rights management (DRM) features built into Vista at the behest of the entertainment industry - And you don't get to refuse them."


DRM gives power to Microsoft and Big Media.

They decide which programs you can and can't use on your computer

They decide which features of your computer or software you can use at any given moment

They force you to install new programs even when you don't want to (and, of course, pay for the privilege)

They restrict your access to certain programs and even to your own data files

DRM is enforced by technological barriers. You try to do something, and your computer tells you that you can't. To make this effective, your computer has to be constantly monitoring what you are doing. This constant monitoring uses computing power and memory, and is a large part of the reason why Microsoft is telling you that you have to buy new and more powerful hardware in order to run Vista. They want you to buy new hardware not because you need it, but because your computer needs it in order to be more effective at restricting what you do.

Microsoft and other computer companies sometimes refer to these restrictions as “Trusted Computing.” Given that they are designed to make it so that your computer stops trusting you and starts trusting Microsoft, these restrictions are more appropriately called “Treacherous Computing”.

Even when you legally buy Vista, you don't own it.

Windows Vista, like previous versions of Windows, is proprietary software: leased to you under a license that severely restricts how you can use it, and without source code, so nobody but Microsoft can change it or even verify what it really does.

Microsoft says it best:

The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways.

To make it even more confusing, different versions of Vista have different licensing restrictions. You can read all of the licenses at http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx.

It's painful to read the licenses, and this is often why people don't object to them. But if we don't start objecting, we will lose valuable freedoms. Here are some of the ridiculous restrictions you will find in your reading:

If your copy of Vista came with the purchase of a new computer, that copy of Vista may only be legally used on that machine, forever.
If you bought Vista in a retail store and installed it on a machine you already owned, you have to completely delete it on that machine before you can install it on another machine.
You give Microsoft the right, through programs like Windows Defender, to delete programs from your system that it decides are spyware.
You consent to being spied upon by Microsoft, through the “Windows Genuine Advantage” system. This system tries to identify instances of copying that Microsoft thinks are illegitimate. Unfortunately, a recent study indicated that this system has already screwed up in over 500,000 cases.
Free software like GNU/Linux does not require you to consent to these absurd licensing terms. It is called free software because you are free to make as many copies as you want, and to share it with as many friends as you want. Nobody will be monitoring your actions or falsely calling you a thief.

What you can do to help protect your freedom

There is a battle underway between those who value freedom, and corporations such as Microsoft who wish to profit by taking that freedom away. DRM and absurd licenses are at the heart of that battle. Please join us on the side of freedom by saying NO not just to Windows Vista and other DRM-enabled products, but to proprietary software in general. Instead, use non-DRM, “free” software such as the GNU/Linux operating system. You can get your work done while ensuring that your rights and freedoms will not be restricted now and into the future.

As more and more of our lives become digital, it is vital that we protect our digital freedoms just like we have always worked to protect our freedom of expression in print and speech.

http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-...t-windows-vista
_________________

[MessiahMews]

Microsoft Vista and the Death of Internet Freedom

2007 03 21

By Kevin Smith


Bill Gates is the richest man in the history of planet Earth.
That is ok with me. I strongly support the capitalistic
principles that have built the richest nation on Earth. But, how
Bill Gates has come to have more money than many countries have
is a cause for great concern amongst those who love freedom of
speech, freedom of information, freedom of the media, and freedom
in general.

Freedom for individuals depends upon freedom of the press.
Without freedom of the press, the population is easily
manipulated with propaganda. For over a decade, it has appeared
that the press in America has been far less than free. It would
appear that the press has been strongly manipulated by corporate
bosses, and the slanting of the news has become so obvious that
the public has left mainstream media by the millions.

Any and every overt attempt to manipulate the media in America
would be met with such resistance that no administration could
withstand it. No legislator in his right mind would ever even
suggest that the press should be less than free. Such a
suggestion would bring the fires of media hell down upon his
head.

But what if a private businessman were make a decision that would
effectively bring about the death of internet broadcasting? That
would be a free-enterprise decision made in the private sector,
and without government interference.

There have been great grumblings since the days of the Clintons
that there is some vast right wing conspiracy manifesting itself
in talk shows non-supportive of the Clintons' policies.

True, the internet exploded with diatribes against the Clintons.
There was a massive growth in internet broadcasting, much of it
aimed squarely at the dynamic duo residing in the Whitehouse.
But, that was not a result of a conspiracy. It was the result of
technology finally making it possible for people who had been
ignored or stifled to begin getting their voices heard. People
who believed that Bill was dishonorable and dishonest could say
so openly, and with wide effect. Those who believed Hillary to
be a communist at heart could say so with wide effect. But that
explosion of bile was not a conspiracy. It was the vocalizing of
the opinions of many millions of people who finally had a means
of being heard.

The same type of heated talk has flooded the internet talk shows
since G.W. Bush was elected (then re-elected). It is not a
conspiracy. It is freedom.

Freedom is very uncomfortable for those who are elected. The
very people who elect you then armchair quarterback everything
you do. With the ease of internet broadcasting, just about
anyone can start a talk show that is critical of your votes and
positions. Freedom of information is very, very, uncomfortable
for the elected, but it is absolutely necessary for democracy to
survive and flourish.

Bill Gates' latest version of Windows is called "Vista". It is
one of the most serious atrocities ever foisted upon the public
in terms of its death knell for internet broadcasting.

In order for a broadcaster to broadcast live via the internet,
the computer system must be able to do both "playback" and
"record" at the same time. The "playback" side of the process
outputs recorded files (such as bumper music, commercials, etc.)
and the "record" side outputs the microphones and telephones. If
you disable either side, you have killed the live broadcast.
That is precisely what Vista does. I have been told by a couple
of software engineers that it is designed to not be able to
output "playback" and "record" simultaneously. It has been
purposely crippled, they say.

It was explained to me that this crippling of the new Windows
system, Vista, was not an accident. My sources say it was done
on purpose in order to enforce DMR (Digital Media Rights). There
is no fix for this crippling, either.

When you purchase a PC, you are now forced to buy Vista. That is
what is loaded on the PCs. If you are purchasing the computer
for the purpose of broadcasting, you are out of business. It
can't do it. As times goes on, computers that are broadcasting
now will have to be replaced. With Windows XP no longer being
supported (and that is coming) Vista will be the only OS
available from Microsoft. That means that online broadcasters
will go out of business by attrition.

Thankfully, there is a community of people out there who have
been warning of the potential downside of Microsoft software for
a very long time. They are the Open Source Community and their
primary operating system of choice is Linux.

As of right now, if you are planning on broadcasting via the
internet, and you have just purchased the computer to do so, be
advised that Bill Gates has determined you cannot. Linux is
where freedom resides.

I had a copy of XP, thankfully, that I could install on my new
computer. But if you do not have a copy of a previous Windows
system, your only hope for being able to broadcast is to leave
the control freaks at Microsoft and opt for the freedom of Linux.

Article received from Kevin Smith


http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=705
_________________

[MessiahMews]