If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   In what may be seen as an obvious admission to poorly implemented bloatware, Microsoft prohibits benchmarking of Vista OS   (pcworld.idg.com.au) divider line 169
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

16940 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Nov 2006 at 9:33 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-11-01 08:32:45 AM
erm?

that's damn odd. this takes me back to the early SQL benchmarking days.

that eula is whacked.
 
2006-11-01 09:31:39 AM
It's the worst EULA since Poser 5 ("Thou shalt not read file formats for the purpose of writing competing software"). Dumbasses.
 
2006-11-01 09:37:58 AM
Wow. Well since they keep dumping RCs at users. I'm sure someone will post some benchmarks.
 
2006-11-01 09:38:51 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good thing EULAs aren't legally binding. Suck it, Microsoft.
 
2006-11-01 09:40:47 AM
uh oh... that's like a movie studio that doesn't want critics to review the film before it's out.

RUN AWAY!!
 
2006-11-01 09:42:17 AM
Software companies that try to ban benchmarking are anal bum covers.
 
2006-11-01 09:43:07 AM
The recommended 2GB of ram needed to run this bloatware should be a clue to Vista's performance.

I'm still using W2Kpro. There was no reason to go to XP, and there is even far less reason to go to Vista. I can do without the integrated spyware, licensing problems, DRM, or the so-called 'windows advantage'. Plus I can upgrade my system as many times as I want without begging M$ support for permission to do so without having to buy another license.

fark M$.
 
2006-11-01 09:43:25 AM
Does it matter? I'm going to be running it inside virtual machine software anyway.
 
2006-11-01 09:43:33 AM
...unless they comply with conditions found at a Microsoft Web site

Several attempts to reach that Web site to see what those conditions are for benchmarking were unsuccessful on Tuesday, as the page for unknown reasons could not be displayed in Internet Explorer 7.


So if you go to the website that has the conditions, and it's down, doesn't that imply that there are no conditions until it's back up? "404 not found" doesn't sound very limiting to me. They'll sue you and you can say you went to their site and it had no stipulations on publishing the benchmark when you checked it.
 
2006-11-01 09:44:45 AM
Good thing EULAs aren't legally binding. Suck it, Microsoft.

Good luck fighting them in court. There's just too much money there. Victory by paperwork burial is inevitable.
 
2006-11-01 09:45:12 AM
I have a question.

I'm going to a 1-on-1 demo with a MS product manager today, who will likely answer some of these questions.

So seriously, what else do you peeps wanna know? I'll ask the pertinent ones, and at least get some insight into these things.
 
2006-11-01 09:45:35 AM
Can someone explain this to me in slightly simpler terms? I don't really understand the term "benchmarking."
 
2006-11-01 09:46:40 AM
Dean Moriarty
So seriously, what else do you peeps wanna know? I'll ask the pertinent ones, and at least get some insight into these things.

How well is it going to run inside virtualization software?
 
2006-11-01 09:47:13 AM
Nacho Daddy

EULAs have been proven over and over in court again to be completely nonbinding legally. The only thing a corporation can do if you violate their EULA is to revoke your license to use that particular copy of the software.

The only parts of EULAs that are enforceable legally are those that simply restate existing laws, such as the DMCA.
 
2006-11-01 09:47:19 AM
Avilion
Can someone explain this to me in slightly simpler terms? I don't really understand the term "benchmarking."

You can't run tests on it to see how fast it is.
 
2006-11-01 09:47:36 AM
DeanMoriarty
Ask him if they're going to implement a subscription operating system with monthly payments after everyone is thoroughly used to intrusive product activation.
 
rpm
2006-11-01 09:48:37 AM
Spontaneous Defenstration: EULAs have been proven over and over in court again to be completely nonbinding legally.


Incorrect. It's a mixed bag. Some EULA's have been upheld, some not. It varies by court.
 
2006-11-01 09:49:09 AM
Avilion: Can someone explain this to me in slightly simpler terms? I don't really understand the term "benchmarking."

Using a consistent set of various tests, with eveyone knowing exactly what they are so they are applied equally to all other products tested. Then citing the results.
 
2006-11-01 09:50:19 AM
L.Darte: The recommended 2GB of ram needed to run this bloatware should be a clue to Vista's performance.

2GB?

Jeeze. That's what I need on this box to be able to run CAD software.

WTF, Vista? If you don't have CAD models for all your icons, viewable at every angle with infinite zoom, then that's a shiatload of wasted memory you're using.
 
2006-11-01 09:51:11 AM
Avilion: Can someone explain this to me in slightly simpler terms? I don't really understand the term "benchmarking."

Making that OS do certain tasks, and comparing it with how other OSs on similar hardware do the same tasks.

IE, seeing how fast it goes.

If they aren't allowing benchmarking, then something screwy's going on.
 
2006-11-01 09:51:40 AM
"2006-11-01 09:45:35 AM Avilion

Can someone explain this to me in slightly simpler terms? I don't really understand the term benchmarking."


Donny you're out of your element!
 
2006-11-01 09:52:34 AM
Avilion

It would be like GM saying that car magazines can't run their cars through quarter miles and share the results.
 
2006-11-01 09:53:44 AM
Yeah, right. My gut reaction (and IANAL, nor do I play one on the Internets) is that this is pseudo-legal intimidation, and to wonder how it would stand up in court.

Even if it was upheld in the US, what about here in the EU, or in other countries? And, legal or not, someone is going to do it anyway somewhere, and say "sue me".

If we can forget how Gates is trying to be reincarnated as Saint Bill, this is an excellent reminder of why MS are hated by so many. Realistically, only 1 in a million people will be interested in running these benchmarks themselves, and it probably won't stop them being done in practice; but as a reflection of MS arrogance and bullying general, it's pretty good.

Still, if the Linux advocates wanted to play MS at their own FUD game... well, you know... Vista must be pretty poor if MS are so desparate to stop people measuring its performance. :-)
 
2006-11-01 09:54:36 AM
Thanks for the explanation, all.

By the way, Flippity, yes, I'll admit, I know almost nothing about certain aspects of today's technology. I wish that were different, which is why I like to ask questions :)
 
2006-11-01 09:57:37 AM
The link seems to be farked.
But from what I read on a German IT news site, this isn't new.

According to that fine article:
it's not about Vista per se - only the used .NET-3.0 components and has been in .NET EULAs for some time.
It doesn't prohibit all benchmarking. It requires benchmarkers to document/publish the setup and conditions that were used so that the benchmarks can be reproduced - probably to avoid skewed ".NET sucks" results by using unfavorable settings (e.g. by omitting to apply some patches).
 
2006-11-01 09:58:29 AM
"Vista is just an evolution of Windows XP," he said. "It still requires a mouse, a keyboard and a file system and it runs Office. Is it really that revolutionary? No. I want it to read my mind. When it can do that, then I'll be impressed."
 
2006-11-01 09:59:19 AM
People should use Linux. Download Ubuntu. They just released the latest version. Very easy even for Windows people to install. Very easy to dual boot too if you're a gamer. Plus using it is mostly just like Windows. Some more advanced stuff is vintage Linux/Unix, but they did a great job of implementing a lot of things into the GUI.

Also you can use a Live CD version, which lets you check out the OS without installing anything on your computer. And teh latest Open Office.

And it is absolutely and totally FREE!!!!

And safe!!!
 
2006-11-01 09:59:29 AM
MS can suck it. Hard.
 
2006-11-01 10:01:33 AM
orrinbloquy It's the worst EULA since Poser 5

I thought you were making that up. A quick googles this link about the EULA:

Proprietary Files and Formats: Files with the following extensions: CM2, CR2, FC2, HD2, HR2, LT2, MT5, PP2, PZ2, PZ3, any proprietary compressed formats, and/or future proprietary file formats

Damn!
 
2006-11-01 10:02:32 AM
I dunno. Vista runs exceptionally smooth on a p4 2.8ghz with 1gb ram and radeon 9800 video using the full aero interface dealie. Not bad considering it is a 4? year old computer.
 
2006-11-01 10:02:47 AM
Did anyone really expect anything different?
 
2006-11-01 10:02:54 AM
Don't understand TFA...English, por favor?
 
2006-11-01 10:04:45 AM
I said it before and I'll say it again, no one should support this platform as XP and Win2K get the job done (albeit poorly at that...ha ha ha) and Mac is becoming a major player again. Vista is going to bury M$, no wonder Gates is stepping down.

/won't upgrade
//would rather buy a Mac instead of Vista
 
2006-11-01 10:06:07 AM
What the fark does it do as an OS that requires 2 GB RAM? I'd love to know.
 
2006-11-01 10:06:41 AM
What next, prohibiting portscanning a Vista box to see what ports are open?

/Ooh, look what just came out today...
 
2006-11-01 10:10:53 AM
sylaak : I dunno. Vista runs exceptionally smooth on a p4 2.8ghz with 1gb ram and radeon 9800 video using the full aero interface dealie. Not bad considering it is a 4? year old computer.

Yeah - it might be 4 years old - but it's a really high end gaming computer of 4 years ago.

What's your Vista Experience score on that? I have a 2 year old computer here that is a 3GHz Pentium 4 with 1.5GB of ram and an ATI Radeon X800XL 256mb and it got a Windows Experience Index of 4.2

Oh - is this benchmarking? Come arrest me, MS!!
 
2006-11-01 10:12:46 AM
I can understand why they don't want anyone benchmarking it right now. Technically the program is still in beta and not ready for full release. That it's in beta implies it's not the version they plan to release, and could change between now and its street date. Thus, any benchmarking would not be representatitve of the retail product and therefore invalid.
 
2006-11-01 10:14:11 AM
I'm wondering how well it will run on the laptop I got today, since it came with a rebate for free Windows Vista Ultimate on release...

1.6GHz AMD Turion64 x2
1GB DDR RAM
GeForce Go 6150
120GB SATA HDD

/thinks his macmini may be better ;p
 
2006-11-01 10:14:46 AM
L.Darte

Very true. But isn't Win2k is next in line of OS they'll stop supporting?

BTW, are they still posting updates/patches for that OS?

//just curious
 
2006-11-01 10:15:06 AM
I should note it has a 'Vista Capable' badge
 
2006-11-01 10:16:32 AM
So what's to keep someone from installing Vista and agreeing to the EULA, then having someone else publish the benchmarks? The second party didn't agree to the EULA.

Magazine editor to contract worker: "Hey Bob, we'll give you a free copy of Vista if you'll install it, bring your box in tomorrow, and let us borrow it for a couple of days"
 
2006-11-01 10:16:57 AM
"Does it matter? I'm going to be running it inside virtual machine software anyway."

No you're not. The EULA prohibits that too.
 
2006-11-01 10:16:58 AM
The way I read it, the article isn't exactly truthful...the EULA just requires what The Voice of Doom said...just making sure peep's use latest patches, settings, etc. Is it wrong that they don't want a bunch of MS haters skewing the tests?
 
2006-11-01 10:17:01 AM
It *doesn't* require 2GB of RAM. I believe that the minimum requirement is 512MB (though, really 1GB is probably more realistic). Some of the OEMs like Dell are saying that 2GB is the minimum so that they can sell more RAM.
 
2006-11-01 10:18:37 AM
Gosh, what a terrible EULA:

Benchmark Testing, Microsoft .NET Framework

You may conduct internal benchmark testing of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components (".NET Component"). You may disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Component, provided that you comply with the following terms: (1) you must disclose all the information necessary for replication of the tests, including complete and accurate details of your benchmark testing methodology, the test scripts/cases, tuning parameters applied, hardware and software platforms tested, the name and version number of any third-party testing tool used to conduct the testing, and complete source code for the benchmark suite/harness that is developed by or for you and used to test both the .NET Component and the competing implementation(s); (2) you must disclose the date(s) that you conducted the benchmark tests, along with specific version information for all Microsoft software products tested, including the .NET Component; (3) your benchmark testing was performed using all performance tuning and best practice guidance set forth in the product documentation and/or on Microsoft's support Web sites, and uses the latest updates, patches, and fixes available for the .NET Component and the relevant Microsoft operating system; (4) it shall be sufficient if you make the disclosures provided for above at a publicly available location such as a Web site, so long as every public disclosure of the results of your benchmark test expressly identifies the public site containing all required disclosures; and (5) nothing in this provision shall be deemed to waive any other right that you may have to conduct benchmark testing. The foregoing obligations shall not apply to your disclosure of the results of any customized benchmark test of the .NET Component, whereby such disclosure is made under confidentiality in conjunction with a bid request by a prospective customer, such customer's application(s) are specifically tested and the results are only disclosed to such specific customer. Notwithstanding any other agreement you may have with Microsoft, if you disclose such benchmark test results, Microsoft shall have the right to disclose the results of benchmark tests it conducts of your products that compete with the .NET Component, provided it complies with the same conditions above.
 
2006-11-01 10:19:04 AM
mikekol: It *doesn't* require 2GB of RAM. I believe that the minimum requirement is 512MB (though, really 1GB is probably more realistic). Some of the OEMs like Dell are saying that 2GB is the minimum so that they can sell more RAM.

512MB minimum?

WTF?

Still way too.....bleh.
 
2006-11-01 10:19:04 AM
DeanMoriarty

Ask them if they're really serious about:

a) only one re-installation of the product after purchase

b) no running of Basic and Premium Basic in VMWare

c) how they expect customers to stick with them with these rules

Game Developers: It's time to switch to Linux. Seriously.
 
2006-11-01 10:19:48 AM
EULA changes (no pops).

You can benchmark Vista, you can benchmark .Net 3.0, you just need to document the tools and system you used and make the information availible so that others can replicate the test to verify (or not) your results. Really, any half decent review would include pretty much all the information the EULA requires anyway. (And honestly, that reads as only for the .Net components, running the basic sweet of canned productivity / gaming benchmarks probably isn't even required to follow this at all).

The 2GB of RAM is recommended for high end systems, not a requirement of the OS. RC1 runs fine on an AXP 2400+, 512mb of PC3200 and Radeon 9800SE. And Oblivion and Supreme Commander can eat up the 2GB of DDR2 667 I have on the gaming rig with XP no trouble. Asking a high end system shipping early next year to have 2GB of RAM is not unreasonable, be it on XP or Vista.
 
2006-11-01 10:19:48 AM
2006-11-01 10:16:57 AM cranched


"Does it matter? I'm going to be running it inside virtual machine software anyway."

No you're not. The EULA prohibits that too.


Only on certain SKUs (like Home Basic).
 
2006-11-01 10:21:00 AM
Buyer beware, so much for consumer rights.

Can we get a Lemon Law for OSs?
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report