Getting SEV to work with linux

[Atrocities]

I have been thinking about buying a 1.0 gig USB jump drive. I am just afraid I might loose it.

[Baron Munchausen]

Hugh Manatee said:
question, could you put out a game with it's own O/S? like when it installs it makes it's own partition on your HD and has it's own set of drivers and such, effectively bypassing dx10 and vista's compatibility issues? Like say it was one of the smaller linux distros with enough functionallity to install itself, launch the game, and detect and debug the drivers for all the devices? Maybe with a built in web browser and some basic tools....

What an interesting idea. You do know that in the early days of Pagemaker for MS-DOS it included a custom version of GEM Desktop because "Wind'ohs" was so cruddy at the time. So there is a sort of precedent for a custom OS with an application. The problem now is that hardware is many times more complex than in the days of MS-DOS and you'd need to get custom drivers for God-knows how many video and sound cards. Linux can only have drivers that are available with source. Since many companies are not willing to release source and possibly give away their 'technical secrets' MS now has a stranglehold on much of the PC industry because of their control of drivers.

And then there is Direct X, which saves many game developers a lot of time and effort to develop basic graphics libraries. Spending the time to develop a substitute would be a very large hurdle to get over.

[Phoenix-D]

Linux can have drivers without source. Its more of an issue of the companies not being interested in making Linux drivers, and the community having to build them from scratch by reverse engineering.

There are equivalents to all the DX functions, but they aren't always as robust (OpenGL, OpenAL, etc)

[AstralWanderer]

Imperator Fyron said:
But if most people do not migrate to Vista in a timely manner, as has happened with all previous incarnations of Windows...

The key word here is but. WinXP requires online activation so all MS has to do is close down the XP activation service to force users to move to Vista. Even those with currently activated copies of XP will then need to purchase to cover against the day when it demands re-activation (with one hardware change too many).

As such, continued reliance on Windows (and continued development) risks gamers being forced onto an upgrade treadmill very much under Microsoft's control.

[Fyron]

AstralWanderer said:
WinXP requires online activation so all MS has to do is close down the XP activation service to force users to move to Vista.

You have to be extremely paranoid to think that MS would stop activation of XP before the planned product life cycle is up. We have at minimum 5 years after they stop selling licenses (which they have not stopped yet). Windows 2000 had several extensions to its support cycle due to customer demand (mostly from the volume license customers), so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that XP will as well.

As such, continued reliance on Windows (and continued development) risks gamers being forced onto an upgrade treadmill very much under Microsoft's control.

No, it doesn't. This is all just typical Internet fud with little basis in economic or legal reality. There is no way MS could or would pull off such a ridiculous kill switch operation.

[parabolize]

AstralWanderer said:
WinXP requires online activation so all MS has to do is close down the XP activation service to force users to move to Vista.

That would only force them to either kill WPA or not use XP. It would not force anyone to use Vista. I actually hope Microsoft is dumb enough to discontinue XP before people stop using it.

[AstralWanderer]

Imperator Fyron said:
You have to be extremely paranoid to think that MS would stop activation of XP before the planned product life cycle is up.

Why? It carries an obvious financial benefit for them and as Vista's DRM-heavy architecture has shown, Microsoft has relatively little concern for end-users.

Of course, you don't need to take my word for it - Microsoft's own FAQ has the less-than-100% reassurance "Microsoft will also support the activation of Windows XP throughout its life and will likely provide an update that turns activation off at the end of the product's lifecycle" If it was their intention to provide a cast-iron guarantee, why use such vague wording?

parabolize said:That would only force them to either kill WPA or not use XP. It would not force anyone to use Vista.

Knowledgeable and technical users could use hacks to disable WPA. The vast majority of computer users wouldn't fall into this category.

It certainly would be a PR-disaster for Microsoft but so, arguably, was the introduction of product activation. Given the higher prices charged for Vista and the tighter licensing, the financial benefits are greater and the limited scope for future growth (most people who would/could run Windows already doing so) means that Microsoft's future finances depend more on upgrades, voluntary or not.

[Fyron]

Current machine upgrades have never been a big source of profit for MS. Most of their OS sales come from licenses on brand new PCs. It doesn't make any sense for MS to kill XP activation prematurely. Doing so will not sell more copies of Vista; manufacturers selling PCs are what will sell more copies of Vista.

The vast majority of computer owners have never installed an OS, and never will. You don't even need to run WPA when you first run Windows on a new machine (at least, for laptops from Dell); most people have never even used WPA in the first place. The very small subset of people that have installed OSes is very much intersected by the subset that can install a hack to bypass WPA. Killing XP activation prematurely provides no financial benefit whatsoever to Microsoft. Nada, zilch.

Don't use DRM as a boogeyman like some trade groups use piracy... it doesn't help your argument.

Your quote from the FAQ even supports my point that MS wouldn't arbitrarily and prematurely stop activating new installations of XP... Again, the end of XP's lifecycle is at least 5 years after they stop selling licenses for it. Even if they don't provide an update to remove WPA, we are at a minimum 6 years from that point. How many new installations of XP will there be in 6 years?

[AstralWanderer]

Imperator Fyron said:
Current machine upgrades have never been a big source of profit for MS. Most of their OS sales come from licenses on brand new PCs.

While you are correct to point out that the majority of Windows sales come from new PCs (only 10% being retail according to this article), 10% of $13.2bn (Windows sales for 2006) can hardly be considered pocket change. Business users on volume licence programs are not included in that figure so the upgrade market could end up considerably larger.

Imperator Fyron said:Killing XP activation prematurely provides no financial benefit whatsoever to Microsoft. Nada, zilch.

Now this is hyperbole taken to an extreme. First of all, that 10% figure above is a significant benefit. Secondly, most families now already have a computer so even if they purchase a new one, they could still be affected by a forced upgrade for their older system.

Imperator Fyron said:Your quote from the FAQ even supports my point that MS wouldn't arbitrarily and prematurely stop activating new installations of XP... Again, the end of XP's lifecycle is at least 5 years after they stop selling licenses for it.

XP's lifecycle is whatever Microsoft chooses to make it, nothing more. That FAQ is worded in a way that allows them to drop XP activation tomorrow and that alone should be enough to cause concern. Product activation (and DRM generally) allows one side to set, change and enforce terms arbitrarily and while WPA isn't the most serious example, it is certainly capable of being used to consumers' disadvantage.

[Fyron]

You seem to have glossed over the assertion that the segment of the computer using population that installs OSes on their own is very much intersected by the segment of the population that can download and use a crack for WPA, in the extremely unrealistic event that MS decides to stop allowing activations for it prematurely. Noone will be forced to upgrade to Vista in this manner.

Now this is hyperbole taken to an extreme.

The only hyperbole is your entire premise. I don't feel like repeating myself again; I just hope noone else is fooled by these tired anti-MS arguments with no basis in reality.