MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Dec 13, 07 - 11:30 am Comment from: Will

If it looks like shite, smells like shite,
it probably is shite FOR SURE!

And I thought MS could not confuse me more.... Or make me laugh at their efforts yet again. LOL

en

mdn word "two" as in "You can say that again two times"

Dec 13, 07 - 11:42 am Comment from: January 24, 1984

"Plays for Sure" on Tuesday, BSOD by Friday.

Upgrades coming.

Dec 13, 07 - 11:42 am Comment from: silverhawk

"Certified for Flush"

Dec 13, 07 - 11:44 am Comment from: Ampar

Misprint? It should read, "Certifiable* for Windows Vista".

*(definition number two)

Dec 13, 07 - 11:50 am Comment from: Realist

Two lies:

"PlaysForSure"

"Boom, It Just Works"

Certified for Vista?

How about: Circumcised for Vista?

Dec 13, 07 - 11:55 am Comment from: Ampar

That's a nice tip, MacRaven. Thanks.

Everyone is missing the standard MO for M$.

They think if they put "Certified for Windows Vista" they will encourage the less tech-minded that they will have to purchase Vista to get the best performance.

This is a blatant attempt by M$ to convince/lie to the uninformed that they should move to Vista.

Plus if they get the manufacturers of the music players to put this label on THEIR product it will be more free advertising for Vista.

M$ is rotten to the core, they are so conniving.

Dec 13, 07 - 12:01 pm Comment from: Jubei

LOL... this is just too stupid. Yet the 95% of computer users are on Windows. It's sad.

To me, only one word comes up: SUICIDE.
M$ is doomed!

Well, they certainly are certifiable.

Dec 13, 07 - 12:19 pm Comment from: ChrissyOne

It will now be so easy for them to say "huh... what? what do you mean "plays for sure"...? we didn't kill that. We honor our promises. we'd never kill a technology with such a horrendously misleading name as that. No, everything is fine. Forget you ever heard of PlaysForSure. These are not the droids you're looking for."

Certified for Disaster

Does anyone know if an update to plays for sure could make it compatible with Zune? If so could Microsoft be laying down the ground work to once again remarry these two formats into 1? .........i am just wondering

Dec 13, 07 - 12:31 pm Comment from: Spark

It is hard for me to grasp why anyone would choose a portable music/video device that ISN'T an iPod. I mean, is there ANY alternative that is even close? Those Zune and Sansa buyers must simply be anti-Apple for some reason that they are willing to cut of their nose to spite their face.

Dec 13, 07 - 12:33 pm Comment from: Tommy Boy

But could Apple please just give me an iPhone to composite video output cable? Or let a third-party make one?

Dec 13, 07 - 12:34 pm Comment from: DRM sucks

Why do I have the disturbing feeling that "Certified for Windows Vista" does not actually guarantee that it will work on Vista yet?

It's Marketing. The masses keep seeing Vista everywhere... and so they feel compelled to upgrade to Microsoft Vista.

Never mind the fact that the software they're using will work fine on XP.

Apple does similar things with its iPod. Adding new features to the newer models and compelling people to upgrade. Though, the difference is that these are actual features and not marketing.

I was trying to think of a time when Apple has changed the name of something to make it more "marketable" or to achieve a certain goal, but I can't think of any... Anyone think of any? It's always good to try to look at oneself before we criticize the competition.

Dec 13, 07 - 12:41 pm Comment from: ChrissyOne

@ ApplePi
"It's Marketing. The masses keep seeing Vista everywhere... and so they feel compelled to upgrade to Microsoft Vista."

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!!!

Dec 13, 07 - 12:42 pm Comment from: Micro Me

I thought PlaysForSure had been superseded by SquirtsForSure.

I am sounding a bit like Zune Tang these days...

Dec 13, 07 - 12:45 pm Comment from: Dale Sundstrom

Microsoft likes getting spanked by Apple. If not, they better learn to like it, because they keep positioning themselves to be a better target.

I'm a happy subscription music user. It's a great option if you like to explore lots of new music (if you don't, it's not). However, Microsoft hasn't been successful promoting it, and this is another bad move. Although I've spent hundreds of dollars happily renting music for years, I've never purchased DRMed music and never will.

Forking PlaysforSure into incompatible Zune was a bad and disturbing move, but it didn't affect me directly. Changing it to "Certified for Windows Vista" is so idiotic--it's hard to see it surviving much longer. I guess I should start looking for alternatives.

Microsoft's Redmond Reality-Distortion Field (RRDF) apparently allows them to convince themselves that Vista will soon be ubiquitous. And, they should prepare for and encourage this by giving Vista more visibility; Vista-branding all the Zunes and music they expect to sell, even forcing music partners to use Vista branding ('till they're extinguished by Zune). Its crazy; and Microsoft don't appear to be coming up for air anytime soon.

Dec 13, 07 - 12:48 pm Comment from: smackman

Yeah where the heck is Zune Tang lately anyway?

My buddy just had a $4400 custom built Vista PC. Dual monitors of the same model will not work with two different video cards on either Homw Premium or Ultimate version. Two monitors will work if they are different brands. Vista is too stupid and seems to get confused if the monitors are the same and therefore yield variable/inconsistant performance and sometimes just will not give dual display at all, let alone changing resolutions that will not stick at the next startup. He hsa gotten to level 3 M$ support without any success. My Mac Pro tower has no problem with dual Dell LCD's of the same model.

Dec 13, 07 - 12:54 pm Comment from: Jubei

Zune Tounged in the Butt is out because he's busy trying to figure out how to get his Zune to work with Vista Played Fer Shure now Certified For Idiots media files.

Dec 13, 07 - 01:00 pm Comment from: MacSmiley

I hate to be a stickler, guys, but where's the link for the full article? The link you've provided, MDN, takes you directly to Microsoft's ex-PlaysForSure page, not an article.

If this were an original MDN article, there certainly would be no MDN "Take", would there be? Where's the original work??

Thanks for responding quickly (as I assume you will).

Look at the HTML source on that linked page:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/playsforsure/

The page carries no DOCTYPE, although the W3C makes a list of valid DOCTYPES avaliable:

http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html


The HTML tag has something wierd and Microsoft-specific in it:

<html dir="LTR" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml">

WTF is that?

Try that page in the W3C's HTML validator. The page has FORTY-TWO (42) mark-up errors in it:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/playsforsure/&charset;=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

What makes this all so amusing is that Microsoft just claimed -- in response to a complaint made by Opera to the European Union's courts -- that it cared about web standards:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/12/13/opera/index.php

MS thinks standards are there to be broken, always has done.

Ballmer 09:20: "DON'T PANIC. DON'T PANIC. IT'S ALL GOING TO BE OK. RENAME THAT. NO NOT THAT BILL, THAT.

Ballmer 10:02: "LOOK OUT. LOOK OUT. WE'VE GOT TO CHANGE DIRECTION. QUICKLY. SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING.."

Ballmer 12:17: "OH NO! I DON'T BELIEVE IT. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. LOOK WHAT APPLE'S DONE NOW."

Ballmer 12:18: "Fuck it. I'm going to lunch. If anyone calls I'm out."

Interesting wording on the headline at that page:

"Same Compatibility Promise - Different Name"

Which means the PROMISE is the same, though not necessarily the compatibility?

A cynic might suggest they didn't use "same compatibility" to give a bit of wiggle room when the product ends up being, y'know, incompatible. Which, given their track record to this point, it likely will.

Can't really blame 'em for changing the name, though -- "Plays For Sure" ended up being a textbook example of Orwellian double-speak, right up there with "Ministry of Love,""reality TV," and "Vista upgrade."

Certified for Windows Vista is Certifiably Insane!

Dec 13, 07 - 02:04 pm Comment from: ken1w

Microsoft must have some secret investment in Apple stock, because it is doing more to help Apple sell Macs and iPods than Apple's own marketing.

Every "partner" who has come to depend on Microsoft will deeply regret that situation in the next five years. Every major PC maker other than Apple depends on Microsoft to supply the OS, and the best they can now offer customers is Windows Vista. Most digital media player makers also depend on Microsoft so, in addition to competing against its own partners with Zune, Microsoft renames PlaysForSure "Certified for Windows Vista" which is sure to confuse and concern customer who refuse to upgrade from Windows XP.

Microsoft, I'm sure Apple thanks you for being such a Microsoft.

Dec 13, 07 - 02:07 pm Comment from: Mr. Reeee

Tommy Boy:

Try this:

http://www.sendstation.com/us/products/pocketdock/av.html

So confusing as to be unbelieveable... but if there is any clear message it is that DRM really is the rasion d'etre for Vista.

I've been using Vista a bit
- The eye candy grows on you well.
- The way everything you learned in XP is changed is frustrating.
- The hardware incompatibilities will ease over time.
- The security is ridiculous (and has been implemented in some very developer hostile ways--considering how legacy compatibility cripples Windows, and how long it took to market, there are just some glaring things not available in the API), annoying, and some apps -- like quickbooks 2007 -- are not compatible with turning it off!

- The DRM is frightening. It's not your machine any more.

DRM is probably MS' biggest long term blunder. They've aligned themselves with content providers (who aren't even serious business partners for them) against both their partners (hardware and device makers) and customers. And they've spent so much on it and interwoven it so deeply into the DNA of their code that they'll never let it go.

Yes, Apple has DRM in iTunes and on the iTS. But their strategy is to delight their customers from *nix geeks to the myspace crowd. DRM is just a technology they need to make content available. It isn't their core strategy.

Vista is soooo expensive that short term MS will show rising profits even on slow adoption. Long term, MS should be truly frightenend... not by the growth in mac share but by WHO is switching.

Well they'll always have a nice little business providing Windows and Office to those who still need to run legacy stuff on their macs.

Dec 13, 07 - 02:20 pm Comment from: flyingcactus

@ ApplePi

"I was trying to think of a time when Apple has changed the name of something to make it more "marketable" or to achieve a certain goal, but I can't think of any... Anyone think of any? It's always good to try to look at oneself before we criticize the competition."

One comes to mind immediately: .Mac

This used to be iTools and was free - steve jobs said it would always be free, but they changed the name and started charging $99 a year for it.

So there is a bit of a history of apple changing the name for marketing reasons.

But will it be certified for "Vienna" - the delicious, delicate vanilla flavored cookie?

"Vista is soooo expensive that short term MS will show rising profits even on slow adoption."

I don't believe this hurts the Borg quite as much as it might seem to. Few people buy MS OSes boxed: they just get them on their OEM box when they buy. And, unlike Apple users, by and large they don't upgrade their software.

And business customers have their own arrangements, anyway.

But I do think making seven (count 'em) layers of Vista and denying the best of what the company has to offer (such as that is) to most customers is short-sighted greed. It sours people's view of Microsoft.

Perhaps I should have said, "It gives them a realistic insight into what Microsoft is about". In the end, it comes down to the same thing: the more anyone knows about Microsoft the less he likes or trusts them and the sourer his view must necessarily become.

The only exceptions seem to be dubious tech-press and online sources - the Thurrotts and Enderles of this world - who are often suspected of being on the take. Those suspicions may be unfair, but such people know their fortunes are intertwined with Microsoft's, so while they know as much as anyone what Microsoft is about they're not exactly eager to castigate them for it.

Anyone else, the more they find out about Microsoft, the less they like the company.

Dec 13, 07 - 03:02 pm Comment from: Cubert

I like how MS says the logo is "getting a new look" with no mention of the name change.

Dec 13, 07 - 03:22 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

@Mr Reeee

The Sendstation, while cool, doesn't support video output for the Touch or iPhone.

with these Certified Vista Music songs.

THEY do not work on my iPod... why!

I want fair downloading and playback... to whatever unit is out there.
Were are are those who COMPLAINED about Apple. Those Norwegians or Greenlanders... they best cast a vote against this TOO.

MacroSloth is not to be trusted.

Dr,Teeth

@ApplePi
"It's Marketing. The masses keep seeing Vista everywhere... and so they feel compelled to upgrade to Microsoft Vista."

Yep. And when they try to use Vista, they will simply flock to Apple next.
I'm seeing it all around me. Most friends are staying with XP, and my cousin who naively upgraded to Vista is so frustrated, he's getting a Mac next, AND HE USES HIS COMPUTER TO RUN HIS CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS.

Dec 13, 07 - 05:27 pm Comment from: Ampar

CertiFried for Windows Vista

This is just the latest in a trend of certain divisions in Microsoft (or is it the whole company?) acting like they are completely on drugs or something.

Has anyone seen the giant, butt-ugly Windows Live search bar they added to http://support.microsoft.com? The funniest part is that the Windows live logo in that bar is a PNG with alpha transparency, which looks like total s*** on their OWN Internet Explorer 6 because it fills in a kind of greenish puke gray into areas of PNGs that should be transparent (even funner, this can be worked around with a CSS hack, but Microsoft didn't bother to implement it!)

MS customers/partners = <b>"Played for sure"

Shit like this is why I rarely use Windogs anymore.

Magic word "child" as in "Sing Child"

BJ