Vista - this review, its promise and DRM

[dasickninja]

You know, I've never understood why you guys practically make it a forum goal to drill into the heads of every passing poster about what we all know is in Vista or Mac OS. I'm not. Because I've already found my way around Vista's DRM... :mrgreen:

 

[pkellmey]

Not to be a prick but if you don't get it by now you never will.

So you really think that a new OS should have the same price comparison as the old one when it comes to new features? You also believe that a driver that has more enhancements should take up the same amount of resources? You also believe that re-writing code for a new OS and writing brand new code for an OS are the same in cost? Really? I completely remember the Win95 days when everyone wrote their own drivers/code and the BSODs occurring everytime you installed something new. Complying to standards that don't do this seems to have made Vista more stable. For media, the posts are already showing that people are blowing up the issue from what it should be - HD-DVD/Blue Ray compatibility - to every type of media, which is simply not the case. There is simply no evidence from anyone anywhere yet that MS is looking at your Vista desktop, just a few rants from an article about the possibility. Potential does not equal guilt especially when there is absolutely no evidence of privacy violations anywhere - and people have been searching.

 

[Ghost9]

Potential does not equal guilt

If you don't look at the potential, then by the time it happens(if it does) it will be too late to do anything about(if it's not already).

 

[pkellmey]

If you don't look at the potential, then by the time it happens(if it does) it will be too late to do anything about(if it's not already).

Just buying the gun won't get you prosecuted until you use it. Believe me when I say, if MS ever did what you believe they are simply theoretically capable of doing, the class action lawsuits will bury them. As far as locking out the competition through driver revocation of companies they compete with, that lawsuit is already impacting them in financially in Europe forcing them to open up Media Player and OS codes. U.S. and Europe wants DRM compliance, but going beyond that would bury MS in government courts and they know it.

 

[MxM]

Again I will ask you, Where is the version of Vista that doesn't have all of the DRM B.S in it.

I miss your logic. Why are you asking that? Why there should be Vista that doesn't have DRM thing?

So you read the article and of all of the sections below and you still have no problem with DRM/HDCP?

Disabling of Functionality
Indirect Disabling of Functionality
...


Oh! I understand the implications, but my question is why do you ask ME where is the non-complaint VISTA version. Did I mentioned before that there is one? I just do not understand what do you try to say by asking that question.

 

[ScottyDog]

I am not completely sure - isn't DVD not fully 1080p compliant but 720p instead - so there should be no down-conversion, right? The only DVD that I personally know of that has extra security are Lucasfilms like Star Wars, but I have not tried copying those yet (my old DVD player will not even play them because of their extra security layers).

EDIT: I just saw Zorg's post, so as along as it is not being upconverted, there should be no issues, right?

I am not sure what you mean by complaint here, but DVD resolution are (taken from Wiki)

* PAL:
720 × 576 pixels MPEG-2 (Called full D1)
704 × 576 pixels MPEG-2
352 × 576 pixels MPEG-2 (Called Half-D1, same as the China Video Disc standard)
352 × 288 pixels MPEG-2
352 × 288 pixels MPEG-1 (Same as the VCD Standard)

* NTSC:
720 × 480 pixels MPEG-2 (Called full D1)
704 × 480 pixels MPEG-2
352 × 480 pixels MPEG-2 (Called Half-D1, same as the China Video Disc standard)
352 × 240 pixels MPEG-2
352 × 240 pixels MPEG-1 (Same as the VCD Standard)

As you can see, there is no 720p resolution here. 720p is EDTV, not SDTV.

DVD is 480p max unless you have a player that does up-conversion. HD-DVD and BluRay plays at 1080p or 1080i.

David Marsh - Lead Program Manager for Video has recently responded to the article by Peter Gutman and has confirmed that Vista will not allow you to play HD content at full resolution.

This is a direct quote from David Marsh:
" In the case of HD optical media formats such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the constraint requirement is 520K pixels per frame (i.e., roughly 960x540), which is still higher than the native resolution of content distributed in the DVD-Video format."

The design specifications for HD is that it will output at 1080. So MS has decided along with Hollywood that your hardware will not output the proper resolution even if you have a certified HDCP monitor that you paid big bucks for the ability to view HD on your personnel Computer.

Please read Peter Gutman's response to David Marsh's 20 questons(scroll down to Microsoft's Response):
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#response
and another great rebuttal to the blatant lies that David Marsh used in his 20 questions article:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37091

So please explain how MS is not using DRM to completely change the design specifications of your computer and hardware.

Let me leave you with this from a MS employee blog about exactly what MS has planned to do with DRM. I copied this directly off his blog:

To the poster above who said MS caved into Media industry desires, wrong, the desires of the media industry are cover for MS's *own* desire to control your computer.

With control of your computer (X-box is where we are headed) MS has no more competition on the platform *at all*.

Even more importantly they begin to eliminate the *possibility* of competition on the hardware platform.

It is GNU/Linux they fear taking what they have (OS and Office revenue streams), and Apple and Google taking the revenue they want (media delivery and the web services delivery platform).

To all those that are shocked and outraged that MS could so lightly consider them, MS has given a great deal of thought to you, just not about what you want. They are figuring out how to charge and market you.

And the greater the control of the platform the greater the opportunity to "maximize revenue", your bank account is the "revenue".

Free and Open Source software is the last real competitor they face, since they can't stop it's growth they will try to poison the ground.

For any who want to leave to their descendants a digital world where they are software owners rather than software renters, the choice is clear

 

[exisnet]

I'm really not understanding the issue here. The OS is now compliant with laws and regulations that MS has been slapped by before. They promised, as part of the federal investigations, that the new and future OS would be fully compliant.

Please post a link to these laws and regulations.

Thank you,

 

[MxM]

This is a direct quote from David Marsh:
" In the case of HD optical media formats such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the constraint requirement is 520K pixels per frame (i.e., roughly 960x540), which is still higher than the native resolution of content distributed in the DVD-Video format."

The design specifications for HD is that it will output at 1080. So MS has decided along with Hollywood that your hardware will not output the proper resolution even if you have a certified HDCP monitor that you paid big bucks for the ability to view HD on your personnel Computer.

I think you are taking the quote out of content. The question was "Will the playback quality be reduced on some video output types?" Notice the word "some"? So if you have a certified HDCP monitor and complaint drivers for you hardware, you should be able to see 1080 in full glory.

Also you omitted the first part of the quote "Image quality constraints are only active when required by the policy associated with the content being played". Meaning, again, that if your monitor and drivers are withing compliance of the protected media, then there will be no image quality constraints.

 

[Zorg]

Not to be a prick but if you don't get it by now you never will.

So you really think that a new OS should have the same price comparison as the old one when it comes to new features? You also believe that a driver that has more enhancements should take up the same amount of resources? You also believe that re-writing code for a new OS and writing brand new code for an OS are the same in cost? Really? I completely remember the Win95 days when everyone wrote their own drivers/code and the BSODs occurring everytime you installed something new. Complying to standards that don't do this seems to have made Vista more stable. For media, the posts are already showing that people are blowing up the issue from what it should be - HD-DVD/Blue Ray compatibility - to every type of media, which is simply not the case. There is simply no evidence from anyone anywhere yet that MS is looking at your Vista desktop, just a few rants from an article about the possibility. Potential does not equal guilt especially when there is absolutely no evidence of privacy violations anywhere - and people have been searching.

I'm not even addressing any privacy violations. How about a complete reworking of the computer industry. How about the ability of M$ to revoke your video card/motherboard drivers at will. How about the nine tons of additional overhead/instability that is built into vista and compliant hardware. How about locking out alternative OS's due to DRM driver compliance etc. etc. etc. etc. and on and on and on. M$ has several different options for Vista. How about a Home non-HDCP basic for those of us that don't want the DRM. Oh by the way, do you work for M$?

 

[Zorg]

You know, I've never understood why you guys practically make it a forum goal to drill into the heads of every passing poster about what we all know is in Vista or Mac OS. I'm not. Because I've already found my way around Vista's DRM... :mrgreen:

Kudos, unfortunately that has no affect on the damage M$ is doing to the industry in the name of HDCP compliance

 

[Zorg]

Again I will ask you, Where is the version of Vista that doesn't have all of the DRM B.S in it.

I miss your logic. Why are you asking that? Why there should be Vista that doesn't have DRM thing?

So you read the article and of all of the sections below and you still have no problem with DRM/HDCP?

Disabling of Functionality
Indirect Disabling of Functionality
...


Oh! I understand the implications, but my question is why do you ask ME where is the non-complaint VISTA version. Did I mentioned before that there is one? I just do not understand what do you try to say by asking that question.

The question was rhetorical. I know that a non-DRM Vista version doesn't exist. If you know the implications then why do you continue to defend M$. What am I missing here?

 

[MxM]

Again I will ask you, Where is the version of Vista that doesn't have all of the DRM B.S in it.

I miss your logic. Why are you asking that? Why there should be Vista that doesn't have DRM thing?

So you read the article and of all of the sections below and you still have no problem with DRM/HDCP?

Disabling of Functionality
Indirect Disabling of Functionality
...


Oh! I understand the implications, but my question is why do you ask ME where is the non-complaint VISTA version. Did I mentioned before that there is one? I just do not understand what do you try to say by asking that question.

The question was rhetorical. I know that a non-DRM Vista version doesn't exist. If you know the implications then why do you continue to defend M$. What am I missing here?

So far, according to the license and official interview I see only reasonable attempt to comply to law and regulations. In all honesty, I can't blame MS for that!

 

[Zorg]

So far, according to the license and official interview I see only reasonable attempt to comply to law and regulations. In all honesty, I can't blame MS for that!

So that's what I'm missing. You must be kidding. Could you give me a little more to work with.

 

[MxM]

I'm not even addressing any privacy violations. How about a complete reworking of the computer industry.

Each new system requires quite "complete" reworking of the industry. I think DRM is only a small portion of the whole Vista compliance of hardware and drivers. In graphics cards, for example, you have to write DX9 and DX10 drivers for Vista. Plus new, Vista-like interface. Not too shabby eh?

How about the ability of M$ to revoke your video card/motherboard drivers at will.

Which part of the official document/interview you use to form this opinion? Because all I can see in license is that Vista can block the protected content for non-complaint drivers, leaving everything else intact, including the use of this drivers with other content! In fact, according to their own license, MS can't do anything more than that. If MS does, then it will have a class action suit on their hands, quite soon.

How about the nine tons of additional overhead/instability that is built into vista and compliant hardware.

Do you have reports on bad Vista stability? All I hear is that Vista is very stable.

How about locking out alternative OS's due to DRM driver compliance

THAT would suck, but where do you get information that they can do it? If you boot the alternative system Vista can do nothing about it BECAUSE IT IS NOT RUNING.

How about a Home non-HDCP basic for those of us that don't want the DRM.

That would be actually nice, but realistically it would help only very small percentage of computers which are not powerful enough to play standard DVD and have DRM checked at the same time. I do not know if realistically people with such weak systems would upgrade to Vista anyway.
And if you do have computer powerful enough to play and check DRM, then why do you care if it uses some recourses on you computer? What are you going to do with those recourses when you watch the movie?

 

[MxM]

So far, according to the license and official interview I see only reasonable attempt to comply to law and regulations. In all honesty, I can't blame MS for that!

So that's what I'm missing. You must be kidding. Could you give me a little more to work with.
My I ask you instead to indicate what unreasonable staff they are doing in compliance to regulations? It is easier to do that then for me to list everything that they did and prove that it is reasonable.

I am open minded, and initially I was flaming about DRM staff in Vista. But that's because I have read couple runt articles. After that I have decided to try to find the truth myself and read the license, instead of opinions of people about it. And it changed my mind. So you can change my mind again.

 

[exisnet]

The question was rhetorical. I know that a non-DRM Vista version doesn't exist. If you know the implications then why do you continue to defend M$. What am I missing here?

Linux uses packets for additional features (if I’m not mistaken) be nice if Vista allowed packets; DRM if you wish... and Vista shoulda been the super-fast must have tight code configure it as you please OS. A super snappy OS that reacts as fast as a click on current hardware. Instead we have this DRM embedded over bloated take it or leave it appliance software.

 

[Zorg]

So far, according to the license and official interview I see only reasonable attempt to comply to law and regulations. In all honesty, I can't blame MS for that!

So that's what I'm missing. You must be kidding. Could you give me a little more to work with.
My I ask you instead to indicate what unreasonable staff they are doing in compliance to regulations? It is easier to do that then for me to list everything that they did and prove that it is reasonable.

I am open minded, and initially I was flaming about DRM staff in Vista. But that's because I have read couple runt articles. After that I have decided to try to find the truth myself and read the license, instead of opinions of people about it. And it changed my mind. So you can change my mind again.

Actually, they are doing more unreasonable stuff than reasonable stuff. See the link below which is an interview by the venerable Leo Laporte, of Tech TV, and Steve Gibson of GRC SpinRite with Peter Gutmann, the author of the article that you question. As you listen to the interview take note of the fact that Gutmann isn't some fringe lunatic, but a well respected and knowledgeable individual. Let me know what you think.

http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-074.htm

 

[MxM]

So how Vista would comply to regulations if you had an option of not installing DRM part? Something still needs to be there to prevent you from viewing or copying DRM protected content, if it is complaint to the regulations.

 

[Zorg]

The question was rhetorical. I know that a non-DRM Vista version doesn't exist. If you know the implications then why do you continue to defend M$. What am I missing here?

Linux uses packets for additional features (if I’m not mistaken) be nice if Vista allowed packets; DRM if you wish... and Vista shoulda been the super-fast must have tight code configure it as you please OS. A super snappy OS that reacts as fast as a click on current hardware. Instead we have this DRM embedded over bloated take it or leave it appliance software.

I'm not that familiar with Linux. I've got a copy of Kubuntu but I really haven't put the time into it. I'm with you 100% about Vista and I'm guessing that I will ultimately have to put the time into Linux, assuming that M$ doesn't crush it first.

 

[Zorg]

So how Vista would comply to regulations if you had an option of not installing DRM part? Something still needs to be there to prevent you from viewing or copying DRM protected content, if it is complaint to the regulations.

If you don't install the DRM part then you can't view DRM content. But also your machine isn't completely pigged up with DRM encription and Vista won't need to brick your machine when someone cracks the DRM.

Edit: encryption

 

[exisnet]

So how Vista would comply to regulations if you had an option of not installing DRM part? Something still needs to be there to prevent you from viewing or copying DRM protected content, if it is complaint to the regulations.

I keep read about DRM regulation but can't find anything substantial. There's allot of discussions and talk of US regulations as I google DRM regulations. Please post a link of the regulation Vista must comply with.

Thank you

 

[Zorg]

So how Vista would comply to regulations if you had an option of not installing DRM part? Something still needs to be there to prevent you from viewing or copying DRM protected content, if it is complaint to the regulations.

I keep read about DRM regulation but can't find anything substantial. There's allot of discussions and talk of US regulations as I google DRM regulations. Please post a link of the regulation Vista must comply with.

Thank you

Regulations?...Regulations?....We don't need no stinking regulations!

 

[Zorg]

MxM,
Did you get a chance to listen to the audio clip? What did you think?

http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-074.htm

 

[MxM]

So how Vista would comply to regulations if you had an option of not installing DRM part? Something still needs to be there to prevent you from viewing or copying DRM protected content, if it is complaint to the regulations.

I keep read about DRM regulation but can't find anything substantial. There's allot of discussions and talk of US regulations as I google DRM regulations. Please post a link of the regulation Vista must comply with.

Thank you

Regulations?...Regulations?....We don't need no stinking regulations!

Then you admit that it is not MS fault, but of those who wright these regulations (i.e. the government).

 

[exisnet]

So how Vista would comply to regulations if you had an option of not installing DRM part? Something still needs to be there to prevent you from viewing or copying DRM protected content, if it is complaint to the regulations.

I keep read about DRM regulation but can't find anything substantial. There's allot of discussions and talk of US regulations as I google DRM regulations. Please post a link of the regulation Vista must comply with.

Thank you

Regulations?...Regulations?....We don't need no stinking regulations!



Then you admit that it is not MS fault, but of those who wright these regulations (i.e. the government).

Interesting and what I expect from wannabes... I would like to read the laws and regulation that was posted in this forum about M$ had to follow; don't you?

Vista may have a huge negative impact on the PC community, please take the time to find out. This is not the every day argument to take lightly. Research and find out what really is going on.

I've been a M$ customer for two decades and a shareholder for one decade, I'm very disappointed with the direction M$ has taken. Please do not take my word for it, check out all the reviews and the links provided and go outside and do some leg work on your own then post some useful information.