Vista - Microsoft's Swan Song?

[ursatz]

This page - http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt - is written by a well-known and respected security expert. I don't have the background to evaluate the things he's saying. It may strike more of an alarmist tone than it needs to; I don't know. There are people whose opinion I value who take this very seriously. It's enough to make me look to other platforms than Windows for my music-making in the future.

I'd be grateful to know what folks here think about this.

Thanks,
Bill

[Richard Berg]

It's a very good article. Some things are exaggerated: many examples lead you to believe "my computer stops working" when the reality is closer to "premium content stops working." Still, it's the most comprehensive analysis I've seen yet, and its conclusion is undeniable. The costs of DRM are enormous.

The idea DRM will be Microsoft's downfall, OTOH, is farfetched to say the least. Luckily the bulk of the article is devoted to more concrete (though still exaggerated) scenarios. Since the author sounds like an intelligent guy, I assume he included that sentence to grab headlines, not because he really believes it.

[Scott McCallister]

"insainly paranoid" seems accurate.

Microsoft has been moving toward this with updates to XP even. More and more messages of the computer telling me what is allowed and what is not. The box works for me not the other way around.

If it's true that vista will disable ASIO then I won't be using vista. I need ASIO. Period.

[Pat Azzarello]

"insainly paranoid" seems accurate.

Microsoft has been moving toward this with updates to XP even. More and more messages of the computer telling me what is allowed and what is not. The box works for me not the other way around.

If it's true that vista will disable ASIO then I won't be using vista. I need ASIO. Period.
As a Microsoft employee, I want to confirm that we deliberately did nothing in Vista to disable ASIO. If you have a problem, it is a bug and we should know about it.

As for protected content, the official response to that article from Microsoft is here:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx

For those that want a summary with an additional opinion, ZDNet posted this:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=232

What you can do with protected content is entirely up to the author of the content, not Microsoft. Microsoft DRM features (and the infrastructure to support it) are simply a set of parameters that content authors can utilize to protect their content, in whatever way they see fit. It's our (Microsoft's) job to make certain that non-protected data isn't messed up by the protection mechanisms in Vista.

[dermod]

It is odd,isn't it, that a new operating system is put on the market, needing greater storage space and CPU usage on your machine than ever before, the function of which is to intervene and downgrade what you can see and hear. CPU is already at a premium for most techno musicians. The idea that less of it will be available after Vista gobbles it up for the above purpose, is not a normal person's view of a product selling point.

[fizbin]

It is odd,isn't it, that a new operating system is put on the market, needing greater storage space and CPU usage on your machine than ever before, the function of which is to intervene and downgrade what you can see and hear. CPU is already at a premium for most techno musicians. The idea that less of it will be available after Vista gobbles it up for the above purpose, is not a normal person's view of a product selling point.

But only while you're playing certain DRM'ed content that the content owner has chosen to so hobble - so so what? Don't buy that content.

As for use as a DAW, it will take a noticeably larger footprint to install on your hard drive, especially the 64 bit version. All of the RAM-hungry stuff can be trimmed back to XP levels and CPU usage should be roughly the same. Try to see through the FUD. I know its hard sometimes.

[Daryl]

In my experience the newer the OS, the greater the required resources. I don't think that Vista (or Leopard, when it exists) will be any different in that respect. However, with increased CPU speeds and huge amounts of RAM available, I doubt that within a year anyone will notice the difference.

D

[Robert Kooijman]

Pat,

thank you for the clarification and links.

It's good to see Microsoft chooses to communicate over these issues.

Regarding footprint: I'm running XP pro 64, taking less then 200 MB after having tuned things a bit. Very stable, hasn't crashed a single time! Look forward to explore Vista once Steinberg & co finally get their native 64 apps out.

[Leaf]

It is odd,isn't it, that a new operating system is put on the market, needing greater storage space and CPU usage on your machine than ever before, the function of which is to intervene and downgrade what you can see and hear. CPU is already at a premium for most techno musicians. The idea that less of it will be available after Vista gobbles it up for the above purpose, is not a normal person's view of a product selling point.I agree!



I don't see why Microsoft can't make it come DAW ready, with all the extra stuff turned off as a default, and then if you want you could go spend a lot of time researching and learning to be a very knowlegeable computer geek, learning how to find all those hidden controls and what they are to turn them on. Or better yet, a single control, on/off button to make it lean would be nice.

[Journeyman]

I don't see why Microsoft can't make it come DAW ready, with all the extra stuff turned off as a default Then why get Vista at all? Why is everyone SO compelled to upgrade, particularly if Vista mkes things more difficult?

[kbaccki]

Then why get Vista at all? Why is everyone SO compelled to upgrade, particularly if Vista mkes things more difficult?

But that's like saying: if win98 (or win2K for that matter) are working for you then why upgrade to XP?

The upgrade is not necessary, but it's inevitable. Disregarding the "generic consumer", many buy into the PC platform as the basis for doing some specialized function: making music, doing video, playing games, etc. Most will do so for two reasons:

1.) The Apple platform is the only other alternative (actually, the PC is the "alternative to the alternative", IMO), which is not an attractive option to some, despite the cutesy commercials

2.) The software one wants/needs runs on the PC exclusively (I use and love SONAR and other cakewalk products, and fully support that company and it's way of doing business)

The fact is: if either or both of #1 or #2 applies to you, then MS operating systems are your only realistic option. Linux is not a viable option, and Apple doesn't sell OSX for non-Apple hardware.

So... from my perspective it's never a question of "if" but "when" the upgrade will happen. XP will go the way of win98 and win2K at some point. On a related note: SONAR is not officially supported on win2K as of today.

If the perceived upgrade prospect is one of:

* The OS contains too much bloatware for my liking
* The OS requires too many system resources for my liking
* I don't need DRM facilities but I'm paying for the cost of it anyway
* etc.

then the fact that the upgrade is inevitable makes people feel trapped... and angry.

Much of this will sort itself out over time, I think. But the whole "well, if you don't want it then don't buy it" is not practical.

Let's assume 90% of the world personal computers run XP today -- is it even remotely possible that, say, in 8 or 10 years time only 75% of the world's PCs will be running Vista? Of course not. It will (most likely) still be 90%, because those 90% today are bought into the platform.

Just my $.02.

[kbaccki]

However, with increased CPU speeds and huge amounts of RAM available, I doubt that within a year anyone will notice the difference.

That's the problem. 3 or 4 or 5 years ago, or whatever, when the "vision" of Longhorn, Vista, etc., etc., was but a block diagram sketched out on some whiteboard, the techies and the marketing dweebs assumed that by the time the dream was realized machines would be Oh So Powerful that nobody would notice a few GB here, a few CPU cycles there.

Well, guess what... Vista has been released, and consumers are asking "why does it need so much disk, RAM, and CPU"? Saying "just wait for a year from now" is like saying "just wait 5 years from now" 5 years ago!

Here's how I think of it: do I want to spend an extra $400 on some RAM that I shouldn't really need, or do I want to buy the latest sample library or MIDI controller toy? Personally I'd like OS to do what OS' do best (manage disk, CPU, and provide user interaction with apps) and leave the $400 for libraries and toys.

[kbaccki]

As for use as a DAW, it will take a noticeably larger footprint to install on your hard drive, especially the 64 bit version. All of the RAM-hungry stuff can be trimmed back to XP levels and CPU usage should be roughly the same. Try to see through the FUD. I know its hard sometimes.

This is what I'd like to see... what will tweakers get the footprints down to?

My current 32-bit XP footprint is around 1.5GB for disk, and 54MB for memory on boot. So let's say I'm using 64-bit we can double those to 3GB and 100MB respectively.

From what I hear Vista requires minimum 15GB disk and 500MB memory (to boot). I see that as a 5x increase, for what exactly??? After all, I expect Vista to do exactly what I need XP to do, only with more kernel stability, efficiency (media streaming), etc. Hopefully I'll see that 5x increase reduced to something more like 2x-3x, which would be something I could more readily accept.

[kbaccki]

I don't see why Microsoft can't make it come DAW ready, with all the extra stuff turned off as a default,

I'd like to see this too. A barebones OS config with minimal disk, memory, and CPU footprints. I mean... in the year 2007 there are still guys who don't allow internet access on their DAW machine!

The kernel improvements with stability and enhanced streaming media support (WaveRT, streaming priorities, etc.) are very welcomed additions, and show a certain commitment by MS to niche market segments. But I agree that they could have gone a step further on the product side and made a totlly barebones version of the OS -- then we wouldn't be dependent on the tweakers, and we'd get officially-supported optimizations. DAW users and gamers would eat this up, IMO, and maybe you wouldn't see alot of the heated debate going on now about resource usage and footprints.

At this point, there are five flavors of Vista... why stop there?!?! Make it an even six! :p

Serriously, though, I think there is a market for it...

[fizbin]

In my experience the newer the OS, the greater the required resources. I don't think that Vista (or Leopard, when it exists) will be any different in that respect. However, with increased CPU speeds and huge amounts of RAM available, I doubt that within a year anyone will notice the difference.

D


It will definitely have more stuff running in the background out of the gate, but at the same time it's possible to shut it all off, so in effect, it will not be any more CPU or RAM hungry than XP if you are willing to just shut the extra stuff off. The installation will take up more room on your hard drive.

[fizbin]

I'd like to see this too. A barebones OS config with minimal disk, memory, and CPU footprints. I mean... in the year 2007 there are still guys who don't allow internet access on their DAW machine!

The kernel improvements with stability and enhanced streaming media support (WaveRT, streaming priorities, etc.) are very welcomed additions, and show a certain commitment by MS to niche market segments. But I agree that they could have gone a step further on the product side and made a totlly barebones version of the OS -- then we wouldn't be dependent on the tweakers, and we'd get officially-supported optimizations. DAW users and gamers would eat this up, IMO, and maybe you wouldn't see alot of the heated debate going on now about resource usage and footprints.

At this point, there are five flavors of Vista... why stop there?!?! Make it an even six! :p

Serriously, though, I think there is a market for it...

The barebones version is Vista Home Basic. It's not hard to pick out of a crowd.

You will have configuration control over your own OS. You always have. You can turn stuff off you don't need just like always. Microsoft has no way of knowing exactly the things that you want turned off ahead of time so a compromise must be made. I think it probably comes down to a minimum price they'd want to sell it for and the Home Basic version is it. In the end it'll be about 10-15 minutes of your time to go through a checklist of stuff after you first install Vista to get rid of all the stuff you don't need for you DAW. I don't think that's really too much to ask.

You can get Home Basic for just under $100 already - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832116196

[Haydn]

There is an article on Tom's Hardware site running benchmarks between Vista and XP. It's quite interesting and shows that Windows XP wins performance wise but not by much. Some of the games they tested have the biggest performance hit especially if the used OpenGL.

I didn't find the memory footprint much bigger than XP with a clean build once I disabled the fancy graphics, the toolbar and a few other items. This changes though once you start using the system though. There is a new feature which optimizes the loading time of apps called superfetch. This caches more stuff into RAM. I have another test machine (Vista x64) that uses between 625 and 700 MB of RAM before loading any apps. This was built by another group and you can tell that many apps had been run on it before they created an image.

There's another interesting memory feature called ReadyBoost. This allows you to cache to a USB flash drive. Hopefully this will allow memory currently held in RAM to the USB flash drive. Haven't had a chance to test this yet as I don't have a flash drive with enough space.

Plan on doing a fresh install if you install Vista. It's best not to carry over your old XP configuration plus it can take a long time to install.

Jim

[Steve_Karl]

It's our (Microsoft's) job to make certain that non-protected data isn't messed up by the protection mechanisms in Vista.

So then, the CPU won't be activly checking every second to see that the content is not protected?

[kbaccki]

The barebones version is Vista Home Basic. It's not hard to pick out of a crowd.

Hope you're right. From what I've read the only real limitation is that Home Basic will only support up to 4GB 32-bit and 8GB 64-bit. Will there be something about Home Basic that makes a non-option in the way that XP Media Center is a non-option for DAW users today? Will we find out that some advanced kernel scheduling feature or OS-level tweak is not available in Home Basic since, after all, it's designed for "browsing the Internet, using e-mail, or viewing photos"? I'll believe it when I see it...

Of course, word is that so few people will actually buy Home Basic (Paul Thurrott himself says "Do not purchase or use Windows Vista Home Basic" -- http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_02.asp) that I'll probably have to try it myself to see if it fits the bill... BTW, the Home Basic upgrade is $99, but the full retail is $199. I believe the upgrade requires XP to be installed on the target system, so that wouldn't be an option for me.

EDIT: also, the $99 version you pointed at is an OEM version which will have certain license restrictions that a full retail copy won't. I'd expect MS' more flexible Vista licensing (wrt. hardware upgrades and PC transfers) to exclude OEM.

[kbaccki]

I didn't find the memory footprint much bigger than XP with a clean build once I disabled the fancy graphics, the toolbar and a few other items. This changes though once you start using the system though. There is a new feature which optimizes the loading time of apps called superfetch. This caches more stuff into RAM.

Haydn, thanks for the info. Caching certainly explains the RAM usage... I mean, what else could the OS be doing to use so much more memory than previously? My question is: can superfetch and the other hibernate-ish features be entirely disabled? (My guess is yes)

[Haydn]

kbaccki,

I have done some experiments disabling superfetch both in the registry and the service it uses. Rebooted and tested and didn't notice much difference in memory usage. I'm still looking into why it appears to still be working.

Jim

[Journeyman]

What's the derivation of "swan song" anyway?

[nikolas]

Probably that Swans, right before they die they sing a lovely, beautiful song. And then BANG! they die! And nobody has ever heard this song (at least so the story goes...)

Same with Windows and MS? No idea really...

Why go to Vista? Becasue nothing new will work for XP. Simple enough!
1 question alone: Will Vista check every sec that everything is secured over DRM, or not? Cause if yes, then :(

Would Steinberg ever consider Linux? I know I'd like that... :-/

[fizbin]

Haydn, thanks for the info. Caching certainly explains the RAM usage... I mean, what else could the OS be doing to use so much more memory than previously? My question is: can superfetch and the other hibernate-ish features be entirely disabled? (My guess is yes)

Yes - I've done so already. Superfetch is an NT Service, as is the Search Indexer.

Jay

[fizbin]

kbaccki,

I have done some experiments disabling superfetch both in the registry and the service it uses. Rebooted and tested and didn't notice much difference in memory usage. I'm still looking into why it appears to still be working.

Jim

Try disabling the Search Indexer and the Windows Sidebar and I think you'll want to *not* run Aero on a DAW.

Someone will make a checklist of things and steps to accomplish them to make this easy soon enough.

Jay

[Richard Berg]

Unless you have an onboard videocard with shared RAM, disabling Aero probably won't do anything. I saw some benchmarks (on really low-end graphics hardware, even) that showed no difference with or without it.

The indexing service, as in previous versions of Windows, *should* wait until the system is idle, but I agree you should manually turn it on & off on a DAW used for recording or other critical disk i/o.

The SideBar is kinda annoying -- at least until some people write some killer apps for it. Who knows, I think it would be a great place for soundcard manufacturers to put basic mixer controls. Not worth the RAM hit unless you have 2GB+.

I can't wait to see DAW-oriented benchmarks of SuperFetch and ReadyBoost. Audio recording & playback probably won't be affected since it's largely streaming I/O. Sampling, OTOH, could be majorly improved since it's scattered but not-really-random.

So then, the CPU won't be activly checking every second to see that the content is not protected?
I don't understand the question. No content protection = no content protection, by definition :)

[fizbin]

Unless you have an onboard videocard with shared RAM, disabling Aero probably won't do anything. I saw some benchmarks (on really low-end graphics hardware, even) that showed no difference with or without it.

The indexing service, as in previous versions of Windows, *should* wait until the system is idle, but I agree you should manually turn it on & off on a DAW used for recording or other critical disk i/o.

The SideBar is kinda annoying -- at least until some people write some killer apps for it. Who knows, I think it would be a great place for soundcard manufacturers to put basic mixer controls. Not worth the RAM hit unless you have 2GB+.

I can't wait to see DAW-oriented benchmarks of SuperFetch and ReadyBoost. Audio recording & playback probably won't be affected since it's largely streaming I/O. Sampling, OTOH, could be majorly improved since it's scattered but not-really-random.


I don't understand the question. No content protection = no content protection, by definition :)

Sidebar and Search Indexer seem to take a lot of RAM. If RAM is not that precious for you then you can of course leave them running. Same thing with SuperFetch. If you don't want the OS caching non-DAW related binaries, then turn it off. If you don't need the extra RAM then leave it on.

[Haydn]

Jay,

I have turned off Superfetch, the indexer server, aero and the Windows Sidebar on my test machines. I've gained very little RAM with these changes. Unfortunately, I don't have an x64 RTM version to test as this OS as it uses sysprep for the install with many modifications. I don't have the time at work to reverse engineer the changes that have been made. I'm still trying to get the straight RTM version.

Jim

[fizbin]

Turn off Windows Defender and any stuff that Adobe Acrobat runs at startup, by going to msconfig and unchecking it. My install is still running a little heavier than XP, though I'm running x64 with 4GB RAM so there's still a lot left. It typically runs with about 600 mb RAM usage without anything else running.