I REALLY like its 4th use :9

It's quite a handy one :D

Well not for me, really, because I store my pornstuffs on my laptop (I prefer the keyboard and privacy of the screen) but still, the tag searching is much needed and useful :3

Very handy porn uses, I'll admit!

However, being a tech nerd, the mountain of reasons not to switch to Vista currently bar my purchasing the product. Windows XP still handles my porn just fine. :D

I will ask though, did you have to edit file properties to add keywords to your picture files to have them come up? Somehow, I doubt pictures come downloaded with "content tags" to help you find them with use #4.

Reasons to not get Vista are an entirely different issue (having the hardware, spare computer and free copy it wasn't much of a problem for me) but ya, XP will do porn well :P

It really depends. Using either the Windows shell or various programs you can add the keywords yourself. I have found cases where pictures I'll get have keywords, and sometimes even full-sentence comments with URLs in them. Apparently JPEG and other sorts of files can quite easily carry metadata like MP3s do. If somebody is so inspired, they could add that info to a file before uploading it, and it would carry over to the people who downloaded it.

I personally re-keyword them all with genders, fetishes, species, and so on. It's immensely time consuming when you have more than a few hundred pictures (such as my collection with tens of thousands) but hey, what are ya gonna do? :P

Eh, my reasons to not get Vista have nothing to do with hardware, but more security and privacy issues that come with some of the new "features" of Vista. Personally, I think Billy G. has gotten too invasive, and my lack-of-purchase is more out of principle if anything. I'll use Vista if it came with the machine on the price tag, otherwise, I'm not willing to shell out money for the product.

Of course, that's assuming I stay with Windows. I'd like to see how Mac and Linux flavors handle DRM/WGA-like issues before I go supporting another camp.

I've heard way too many rumors about things Vista does or doesn't do (it uninstalls pirated software! it won't let you burn MP3s to a CD! it won't run on less than 1 GB of RAM!) to believe anything without solid, substantiated proof. Until people can do more than mumble vague things about "Microsoft downloads all your files and invades your privacy", I won't give them too much thought.

Honestly, with Windows being one of the major things which people steal without remorse (the others being MP3s, videos, and Photoshop), I can't blame them for having to validate their software. If a "mere" 1 million copies of Vista are pirated they lose hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue, and the pirates just shrug it off as "who cares, it's just Microsuck", can you blame them either?

I am interested how Mac and Linux will handle Blu-ray and HD-DVD stuff. I do hope they also have to have a protected video path like Vista does, so that people screeching about "omg DRM" will either have to stop using computers altogether, petition for everyone to stop using it, or stop complaining about it in Vista. Don't get me wrong, I hate DRM as much as the next guy, but even more than that I hate people who get pissy at Microsoft for adding HD media DRM as required by the hardware providers.

I'm not claiming that Windows Vista does or doesn't do anything. I just don't believe in having an OS that operates in a matter to which I - the user/owner (regardless of how they word it in their EULA) - have no say in the matter. Not to meantion that I don't want this feature, yet regardless, I have to pay for it in used CPU cycles and outright pay with the actual hardware for DRM checks.

Even with Windows being one of the biggest pirated software targets out there, there will always be piracy. Locks only serve to keep honest people honest. All the added WGA checks do is bog down your legitimate customers with additional hassle/tasks/bandwidth/problems (and yes, WGA has had *many* false positives). Personally, I don't like shelling out money to businesses that will treat me like crap.

And yes, seeing what Mac will do will be interesting...but the OSS structure of Linux will always allow users to pick-n-choose how their system runs. There is no way one can force DRM upon a system like that.

Plus, there's still plenty to loathe MS for on their DRM decision path. They could've easily told the entertainment companies to go pound sand when it came to mandatory inclusion on their OS. However, they opted on introducing their own DRM system to try and generate a new source of revenue for themselves. Yes, they are a company out to earn money...but to say they were helpless in the matter is simply untrue.

They could've told the companies to go screw themselves, said they won't use DRM. And you know who that'd punish? The users, and the users only. The number of people who use their computers for playing DVDs and such is so small compared to those who buy cheap, stand-alone players for their TVs.

I don't get it...wouldn't the users have a *better* computing experience if their OS wasn't crapped up as such? Especially if they're supposed to use "cheap, stand-alone players"?

Not trying to harp on you...I just don't understand your argument there. Personally, I think a computer slipping out of operating control from the owner/user is much more of a punishment than playing HD-content (which is *still* better played on media center sets, IMHO).

I think that many users are simply too stupid to use their computers properly as media hubs, right now at least. Hence why they usually use cheapo DVD players. Though you can get DVD drives for computers far cheaper, and basically have to if you want to store lots on optical drives.

Users don't get a better computing experience by Microsoft saying "sorry, we aren't going to do what you want us to in order to put in these HD players". If they do add that restriction and you don't want an HD optical drive in your computer, fine, it doesn't hurt you. If you do want it, it's necessary. If they DON'T allow for the drives to function with the OS and you do want that functionality, sorry, you're fucked.

I don't see how it's slipping out of operating control from the user. It's pretty simple, really. When, and only when you play stuff from HD optical discs, Vista kicks in its protected video path to try and keep you from ripping the video stream to a file. I do wish we could do that, because I do enjoy a good pirated movie now and then, but I can understand why Microsoft would have to introduce that.

All that HD-DVD and Blu-ray drives will realistically add to my computer will be the ability to store 5-10 or more times as much data on a single disc than DVDs do, making my video backups take up fewer DVD binders. For anyone who wants to make video discs or backup discs, you've got to buy a writer for your computer anyway, and seeing as they're cheaper than stand-alone players, why bother getting the stand-alone shit anyway?

Because the DRM encoding/decoding is done on levels that a user is denied access. For media content, the user has no access to the channels to which media encodes/decodes/verifies the play data. As for file DRM (ie. flagged "disposable" files), for those same "disposable" purposes, you have no access to change that information. Of course, these are all using out-of-the-box means...I can guarantee you that hackers will make all this protection moot sooner than later. (Hell, HD-DVD and BluRay encryptions have already been broken!)

...more to come. ^_^

I... err... how to put this...

Without the DRM, the files won't exist... or at least they're not supposed to. To protect their stuff, the media providers add DRM so people can't rip it off.

Is it any surprise or problem that the user isn't legitimately allowed to mess with the encoding and decoding stuff?

I just... as much as I dislike the idea of DRM, unless you can get the media-producing folks to stop using it, or crack it, you can basically just choose to use it or not O.o

Alright, now getting to sit down again really quick...

For a quick wrap-up, I'm all for giving users the choice to run DRM media/content. However, for those users who plan to absolutely not use that purpose, we still pay the cost for the sytem, as well as the CPU verification checks that're made even if we're not using it.

Then, there's the concern when malware comes along and operates on these protected channels. If there are processes/areas of an OS you cannot change (and are left to *any* other company to assume they know best), then once you're infected, you haven't a prayer for extraction...save for a full format.

The owner/user should have full control over their computer. With Vista, operating control slips away to a "trusted" platform which (if it doesn't include the user for diagnostic purposes) could very well not be trustworthy at all.

Problem with having full control, from the view of media and software providers, is that it makes your computer into your own universe in which nobody else can influence anything. This is good for users, but they don't like it.

After all, if you make software which has to be installed on a system, or media which has to be played on a system, without any way of verifying that you do in fact have the rights to be using that stuff, then the companies are a bit fucked if users decide to become dishonest. Say the music industry decides to put out all DRM-free stuff. MP3s of everything! You have to pay for it of course, but no program, operating system, or anything else will ever be able to check to see if what you have is what you are supposed to have. If you and your friends amass 20 GB of music and share it, getting copies of eachother's songs, then the music industry doesn't get any money from that, and nothing they can do will stop it. Same with video--Blu-ray and HD-DVD. And software. If Microsoft can't verify the legitimacy of its OS or software, then if somebody figures out an exploit (which people do, because they're crafty), it means Microsoft can't do anything to catch people ripping them off.

There are a few solutions. If the software/file providers decide to leave things are they are and not use any DRM or protected whatnot, then they continue to lose business like they have in the past. If they do implement things which have various security features, but the solution is half-assed (you can't convert file types for purchased music), then people find ways around it (just record your computer's internal audio signals to an MP3). If they try for the full security approach (verified optical drives, variable encryption, certified safe video drivers, tamper-proof cables connecting the video card to a monitor) then they might get a system in which users can't steal their stuff as easily as before, but people complain.

There's really no way for everyone to win unless users either agree to stop stealing things if the DRM is dropped, or the companies just shrug it off as unavoidable loss of business. Frankly both are hard to imagine... people like enjoying stuff whether they paid for it or not, and companies like getting paid, whether they deserve that much or not.

This isn't justifying DRM. I hate the shit. I wish I could be watching ripped Bluray movies right now on my computer. It's just saying that Microsoft is increasingly finding its hands tied if it wants to be able to offer software and media to consumers.

That's just the thing...every other business does factor in loss as a part of their standard operation. **AA/Microsoft's latest venture just attempts to tighten screws where any other company would know better to just back off. Unfortunately, the only thing they'll catch in doing so, is the fingers of their own paying customers.

Digital media rule #1: "If it can be played, it can be copied."

Nomatter how much they want to eliminate piracy, it will always be around, and it's their own legitimate customers that foot the costs/inconveniences of such systems.

...and as per "DRM is necessary"...that is total bunk. There are current-day software developers that are putting out brand new games and (surprize!) people are buying their software even if they could easily copy it from friends. Hell, recently, one of the big 4 music industries has decided to move to a DRM-free option in iTunes. I doubt they'd make such a move if it spelled imminent doom for their profits.

Pirates will be pirates, and unfortunately, they'll always be stealing s***. It's cliche...but locks only do keep honest people honest. Many of the tech-savvy communities I dip in have seen Vista as the "stepping off" point to the Microsoft OS series. Linux will always be an option, and I'm fairly sure Macs will find less user-invasive methods to continue running shop.

...oh, and by the by...Bluray and HD-DVD formats have already been broken by pirates. They currently have the master keys to decrypt the data. The only holdup is the file size. 30+ GB of data per movie is just time-prohibitive for people to download.

I know that Bluray and HD-DVD stuff happened with the pirates, but... um...

I don't buy the filesize limitation for a second. When you get a DVD-rip, does it take 4.7 or 9ish GB of data? No, it takes 700-1400 MB usually. When you get an HD rip, it will take 5-10 GB. That falls in line with HD movie trailers which are typically well under 100 MB per minute.

Through BitTorrent it's possible to get rather fast speeds, I've seen single torrents go over 2 MB/sec. Seeing as people already put up full-size DVD images (ISOs and such) of TV shows which are 5-10 GB each, I don't find it possible to believe nobody would download an HD rip just because it's in the same size range. Shit, I would.

I'm assuming full disc file sizes, as any HD-DVD movie, scrunched down to computer-orientated movie files will *still* be 700-1400 MB. Buying content in DVD and HD-DVD is all about the extras and uber graphical pizzaz that comes with the media.

Downloading full DVDs (extras and all) is ~5-9 GB. Given the average broadband speeds of today, that's still a wait, but reasonable. However, a full HD-DVD or BluRay will be much, much more, and there would be horrendous wait times to copy each disc.

...and 2 MB/sec? That's an ideal speed if anything. You're still looking at more than 24 hours to download each full HD-Disc or more, unless you're parked behind a T3 or something.

I don't get why we're looking at full disc sizes. All I give a shit about is the resolution and quality, if I actually want the extra features I'll go for that. I've got a lot of HD video on my computer just because I like to see things with that level of detail in motion.

I wrote a whole rebuttal to an Inquirer article about why pirating HD-DVDs and Blu-ray discs wasn't a problem. I basically tore the entire argument apart.

But no. I completely refute the notion that you'll have to have to get 30 GB worth of files to enjoy a pirated HD movie.

1 MB/sec maintained transfer speed would mean a 9 GB video file would take 2.5 hours to download. Worth the wait if you ask me.

And if you're on a local network like me, 9 GB is a joke. I can get 40 GB in an hour, and that's only because this particular dorm doesn't have Gigabit ethernet.

Would I spare 15 minutes and 9-10 GB of buffer space to enjoy free pirated HD movies? Why yes. Yes I would.

The resolution is one thing, extra content is another (especially for transitioning between a "regular" DVD and a special edition). If you're taking a 30 GB disc and only getting 10 GB of Data out of it, you're losing features, resolution, or both.

...and doing local network transfers isn't the same thing as pirating over the internet, and especially when downloading behind a college's vastly increased speed network.

Put it this way, given most introductory tiers of DSL/Cable internet (~256k), downloading a full DVD is viable, whereas downloading a full HD-Disc is not. And of course, LAN speeds (10-1000 MBs), even full hard drive backups are viable directly over one's own network.

Sigh. I feel like I'm not getting anywhere with this.

If you take a 30 GB disc and manage to strip it down to a 10 GB file to send, then yes. You're losing features, because those are optional and less important to the pirate than the main content. You're not losing resolution, just a bit of quality. Similarly to how you can take your 5-9 GB worth of DVD content and squeeze it down to 1.5 GB or sometimes less than half that, you can do the same with an HD equivalent. You do lose a bit of quality, but frankly, it's the best you can hope to do, short of $500-1000 for a player and more for a TV.

I do realize that local network transfers aren't the same as the 'net. However, that's where a lot of pirated movies will circulate (out of our university of 15k people or so, currently 621 of them are on our hub, sharing 20.6 TB of data at 100Mbps or 1Gbps). Point is there will be circles where it will be feasible to circulate things, and you just need a few people to get copies into those circles to have some good file sharing.

This stuff is so off-topic.

Ahhhh, hehe, I'm going to put this whole argument to rest. You know how? Go to https://www.mininova.org and search for "HD". Then sort by file size. There are Blu-ray and HD-DVD rips up there, typically 4.4 to 8.8 GB (1 or two data DVDs). Some are 12-36 GB though.

There we go. People can and do distribute rips. Yay!

More importantly, is there porn?

Screw porn! I'll live with furry porn (which is often "HD" in its own sort of way), and be content with feature-length films in HD.

Sepf's getting me "Enemy At the Gates" in 720p right now <3

Well, I use the term "porn" all-encompassingly. (ie. if you get your fap on, it's porn!)

Though, if you're watching it on your computer, barring uber flatscreen use (ie. my laptop), the difference in quality between pirated DVD and HD content is moot. You really need a damn good entertainment system and/or cutting-edge computer to exercise the difference.

>.o Grrr... you're the second person who's said this to me.

And it couldn't be more wrong.

I'm a PC gamer. I've been playing games at >720p for over 5 years. Watching anime and TV shows in SD for a number of years too. The difference is huge. As long as the screen supports 720p or larger, for me at least the increase in detail is not "moot", it's immense. SD TV shows blow a single pixel up to occupy nearly 10 on my display. With 720p, a single pixel becomes about 1.5 which is hardly a noticable increase.

I've watched all sorts of HD stuff--movie trailers, game trailers, and a short clip from Enemy at the Gates... and the difference is huge.

Note the part "unless your machine is really good" to my last part there. My "gaming" laptop is approximately 2 (going on 3!) years old. The amount of resolution contrast on a Windowed display of a movie w/ a resolution of 1280x800 isn't going to be all that impressive.

If you have a high pixel resolution and the screen to show it, the difference is noticible. However, if you're running it on a low-to-mid end system, it's a pretty good bet the resolution difference won't make a hidge of piddly. A DVD played at full resolution will *still* look the same as an HD DVD played at the same resolution.

I wouldn't consider my machine really good though, it's 2 (going on 3 as well) years old. Display is 1600x1200 which was pretty awesome when I got it, but now my mate has a 24" display at 1920x1200, which really puts mine to shame, and that's to say nothing of the 30" displays I salivate over. THOSE would be really good machines, ma friend.

If you're running on a low-to-mid range system, you probably won't be able to play HD content very well anyway (my computer can't handle most 720p ;-; ).

I will give Vista a run over again once a service pack or two come out. Its XP all over again! xD

Ehhh, I'm not so sure about that personally. I keep telling people, service packs are silly nowadays... they issue security patches and software updates and new versions several times a week, there's no need to send out a several-hundred-MB "service pack" :p

There is when you have dozens of serious bugs that are closed because the release date isn't going to be pushed back any further :P

That and you can slipstream the service pack into your install disc so you don't have to download hundreds of MB's in security patches <cough>

The addition to an installation disc is an interesting point, but kinda... I don't really know the term for it. If you get it early on and just stream the patches as they come out, it's basically no bandwidth to the average user. A couple MB here and there over 6-9 months could add up to the same 200-300 MB and you wouldn't even care or notice. Shit, with the automatic patching and minimal restart requests, I don't even notice that it's patching itself! >:0

Mmm I never use automatic patching :> Then again I never use system restore or "protection" as it's called now....then again, I'm usually using Beta OS

Gah I still hate Vista, come on SP1 program :P

I didn't used to let it do the automatic patches. I liked to know what was going on it, just because I'm the sorta guy who enjoys watching things update or defragment and such. It was turned on by default though, and after a while I realized it wasn't so bad. Still manually check for updates sometimes though :)

System restore has saved me on a number of occasions, so while I regularly delete all but the most recent restores to save sometimes 5-10 GB of space, I do at least leave one so if I fuck it up, I can un-fuck it ^-^;

I used to used automatic updating but ever since windows released their WGA "updates" I tend to pick and choose what I want off WU :P Like my Vista Ultimate wants to download 1.8GB of language updates off of WU some of those languages I actually use but if MS had their way my 37GB Raptor drive would be full if I didn't keep MS in check heheh :>

I love how Vista just hard freezes on my laptop every time I close the laptop and leave it on the table haha :)

o.o How interesting. I can't vouch for that, I don't have your laptop, but Windows has done stranger things... ah well. My experiences have been fairly positive :D

Check your wireless driver...I had seen this issue at work when a customer had purchased a brand spankin' new laptop with Vista Home Premium...

The issue was, every time you'd close the lid and the system would go either into standby or hibernation mode, it would cut the wireless off as well. Now, on my personal laptop, it doesn't have much of a problem, you have to tell it to reconnect (I do all of my stuff manually...because...well, I don't like computers doing things that I don't -tell- them to do). On said customer, based on using the Event Viewer, the wireless driver was locking up the system every time it came out of standby and hibernation. New patch to wireless driver, and they were on their way.

Dunno, just thought it may help.

And this is why we get the 150 GB Raptors. :3 Buffer-space to the 7200s. And...language updates? x3 I didn't download any of them...I was more interested in the Ultimate Extras and such :3

Curious -- my Compaq Presario laptop running Ubuntu 7.04 does exactly the same thing if I try to put the thing into standby or hibernate. All that happens is that the screen goes into the low-power blank state (backlight stays on). Resuming, the wireless is disconnected, and only a reboot will get it working again. Standby/hibernate worked fine in 6.10, but broke completely in 7.04.

My Asus R1F did a similar thing using Sabayon Linux.

Bios update fixed that, although HP/Compaq is really horrid when it comes to bios updates. x.x

That certainly is pretty useful. :3

I have vista and iv heard Stalker dosent work on it. Is this true?

If it's true, then I've been spending many hours drugged over the past day or so, because I could've sworn it utterly dominated my Saturday :p

whats stalker?

A game? :>

It's a free-form FPS which takes place in 2012 around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It's 30 square kilometers with a full day/night cycle, upgradeable weapons, a weight-based inventory system, etc. It's a wonderful hybrid between free-roaming RPGs with hundreds of unique NPCs and optional missions with a fully-featured FPS control style. It's a bit lacking in polish but still an interesting experience :3

The funny thing is...I don't really use the new search function in Vista very often. x3 I know exactly where most of my files are located, and manually opening the folder doesn't take too terribly long...

And most of my porn is sorted into 'moods' x3

<.<; Bah, you moody folf.

I dunno bout the usefullness...isn't it just easier to keep the files you want to reference in easily recognisable folders and put the folders in a place where you'll remember it?

You mean for use 4? I used to keep ma porn in folders divided up by species and content, the problem became when I had things which went in more than one folder. I keep it divided up by artist now, with tags to search the content.

As for other things, TV shows and such, I do keep those in highly structured nested folders, but it's faster to hit the Windows key and start typing than navigate.

I work for Sony tech support and the whole Vista release has been a disaster for my department. We have some models that the drivers were like 97% Vista compatible but not 100% so it jacks up your computer and you need to format it and reload Vista. We have some models that some basic functions such as wireless internet just don't work in the past two to 4 weeks the driver update page of sony support has exploded with updates. Also, the Vista pre-loaded models cannot be back dated and formated for XP. There are no XP drivers out yet. Apparently there won't be until July. It's a disaster and as much as I love the new functions of Vista, I wish they'd waited for Sony to actually develop proper drivers for our computers instead of leaving them all unprepared.

~ Tekie

To be honest, I have little patience for companies which don't have drivers or software ready for Vista. People moaned and groaned about it being so late (which it was) and missing its... what, 2004 launch? 2005, 2006 as well! Coming out in 2007, Vista was by no means a surprise to anybody, there were multiple Betas and release candidates and final versions available to software/hardware folks and even average consumers. The fact that Apple doesn't have compatible software yet, Wacom took a month or more to get working drivers, Creative still doesn't (I believe) have their sound drivers working, and apparently Sony doesn't either... this isn't Microsoft's fault. And frankly, if they had to wait for -everyone- to say "Yeah, we've got our stuff ready" they wouldn't be shipping Vista until 2009.

So while I can sympathize with the problems you guys are getting, it's not really Microsoft's fault that your higher-ups didn't give priority to making Vista drivers by or before launch ^-^;

Am I the only person who doesn't have a porn folder? >.>

I don't *really* have a porn folder, I just have a folder which has lots of porn in it <_< It's somewhat scattered across my desktop and some other folders too.

I think folder with lots of porn in it is the definition of porn folder ;)

D: How else would you store your porn?

nice to see some Boolean ops on the search now :D

Hell yeah. Nested too!

Ah, didn't realize it supported boolean. I just need to retweak and clean up the index and my files in general. I finally jumped to Vista Ult. x64 recently, and I haven't had any problems with it except a wonky Bluetooth driver. ^^

Good show. But! Windows 7 comes out in less than 5 months xD

Yep! that's one reason I made the jump, so I can just glide right into Win7. And, I lucked out and got a TechNet subscription, so I don't have to hack up a couple hundred for the top edition.

I used the beta on a POS FrankenDell, and it ran like a charm. Love it and can't wait.