begin oe_protect.scr
alt <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:36:24 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>>
>>>>> nessuno wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3922
>> [...]
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/s2a8r (MSWatch, no PR)
>> [...]
>>
>> "High Plains Thumper" <hpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1156528500.177108@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> Those are contradictory announcements, but not beyond my expectations.
>>>
>>> I find it hard to believe that with video accelerated cards, a 32-bit OS
>>> with higher end processor cannot handle high definition content.
>>
>> I don't think anything claimed that a 32-bit OS could not handle HD
>> content. Rather, the issue was that Microsoft had made it a policy that
>> 32-bit Vista would allow the running of unsigned drivers, while 64-bit Vista
>> would not allow the running of unsigned drivers.
>>
>
> The only thing not allowing anything but signed drivers to run on 64-bit
> vista will do is cause nefarious people to crack the signing and sign
> their own drivers.
>
> The other thing it will do is hinder development of new hardware for
> Vista.
>
> I can't believe that Microsoft would commit suicide like that.
>
There's still a pretty big fanclub out there, though, who're willing to
pay almost anything to the folks at Redmond; some of them post
off-topic material here regularly (and others here encourage them!).
I think MS are looking at a driver-signing business model; it's a way
of potentially squeezing even more cash from peripheral makers into the
MS coffers; they would have a licence-fee for each signature, rather
than just charge for the initial signing... but obviously they'll
charge for the initial signing too.
It's just another revenue line for MS, they don't care about security,
never did.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Take what you can use and let the rest go by.
-- Ken Kesey
|
|
