Slashdot Mirror


Longhorn to Require Monitor-Based DRM

Mr_Silver writes "Engadget has an interesting article regarding a new feature in Longhorn entitled PVP-OPM (Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management) which detects the capabilities of the display devices you are using and manages how (and if at all) content is sent to it. In short, this means that if Longhorn detects that your monitor is not "secure" enough, then your premium video content won't play on it until you buy one that is. Who gets to decide? The content providers of course." From the article: "So what will happen when you try to play premium content on your incompatible monitor? If you're "lucky", the content will go through a resolution constrictor. The purpose of this constrictor is to down-sample high-resolution content to below a certain number of pixels. The newly down-sampled content is then blown back up to match the resolution of your monitor. This is much like when you shrink a JPEG and then zoom into it. Much of the clarity is lost. The result is a picture far fuzzier than it need be."

49 of 1,266 comments (clear)

  1. Outstanding by panxerox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As we live in a capitalistic society this of course means the end of Microsoft as an os providor as people generally don't want to buy crap (tm). I mean who would "want" to buy this?! I hope Linux is ready for the desktop (at least for Joe SP) when this rolls out because this is THE chance for linux to explode into the market.

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    1. Re:Outstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      people generally don't want to buy crap (tm). I mean who would "want" to buy this?!

      Anyone who doesn't care, which is going to be a lot of people. They'll buy a new PC, which will merely happen to come with this kind of restrictive DRM. But it'll come with an appropriate monitor too, so they'll never notice.

    2. Re:Outstanding by SocialEngineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is, people won't KNOW what it is. They may see "DRM security features" or something like that, and think it is something that actually benefits them.

      I know people who think MS products are the bees knees, just because of tech buzzwords and jargon. They'll buy Longhorn and wonder why it sucks - just like Windows XP, ME, 98..

      --
      "Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
    3. Re:Outstanding by stienman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      May I introduce you to OSX. It even runs on cheap intel hardware.

      I doubt that. It could run on cheap intel hardware, but Apple will restrict to expensive Apple hardware, which consists of cheap Intel hardware.

      -Adam

    4. Re:Outstanding by koi88 · · Score: 5, Insightful


      They may see "DRM security features"
      I can see the sales people in computer stores tell their customers that these security features make surfing the web and everything safe.
      I know it will happen.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    5. Re:Outstanding by gvc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "people generally don't want to buy crap (tm)"

      The world, and Americans in particular, seems addicted to corporation-controlled entertainment, be it music, video, or sports. There are alternatives, but I think you're overly optimistic to think that the public will overcome its addiction simply in reaction to this particular authoritarian measure.

    6. Re:Outstanding by paranode · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not a Microsoft product, it's an industry standard which is essentially the new wave of Macrovision.

    7. Re:Outstanding by infochuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone who doesn't care...

      Or anyone who doesn't know - ie, pretty much all non-geeks. You think MS is going to plainly and clearly announce this 'feature' on the box (yeah, yeah, who gets Windows in a box)?

    8. Re:Outstanding by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The hardware may be inexpensive (not cheap), but the quality control isn't. You're missing the point of what Apple is all about.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    9. Re:Outstanding by sgant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don' buy that...I'm thinking a lot of people WILL care.

      For instance...right now the average Joe would be more apt to buy a Windows base machine because this is the one that "runs the stuff he wants" like games and other stuff. I've talked to many people to see if they would switch to OSX or Linux and the first things out of their mouths are "but does will it run _____". Once they understand that DRM will constrict everything they do like "hey man, that machine you got if you get a movie and you don't have the right monitor, the movie will look like shit...you have to buy a pre-approved monitor yo which costs more yo" (I threw in the "yo's"...average Joe's use that today).

      I don't see this flying well with consumers at all. Because it may come with the appropriate monitor for that manufacturer, it's the CONTENT people that get to decide what is an appropriate monitor. "Oh, we have a partnership with Sony and you have an NEC monitor...sorry, downsampling for you!"

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    10. Re:Outstanding by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Until they plug their video capable iPod into it.

      All the good stuff they pull out of longhorn, then they keep crap like this? Screw them. The day it stops making my life easier to have a Windows machine lying around is the last day I'll ever use it.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    11. Re:Outstanding by kahei · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Apple is all about convincing some people that the exact same Taiwanese components are worth twice as much when they have the Apple brand on them. Usually this is done by coloring the case white; in your case, the natural tendency of people to believe that a more expensive product must be better made seems to have done the trick.

      I swear the instinct to buy the more expensive option and feel proud of it is one of mankind's strongest instincts. It's the sole reason I have a $1000000 bicycle. It's the sole reason for just about any buying decision my wife ever makes, which is why we have organic milk from Jersey cows fed on Supagrass(tm) in the fridge.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    12. Re:Outstanding by ferat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh.. have you purchased a mac recently? We just got a couple hundred of them at work and I'd say a good 10% are defective. Bad displays, bad hard drives, bad network cards. I've had to send more of these POS's back for service in the past 3 months than I did in 5 years of dells.

      Apple = expensive. You don't really get much besides the hype for the extra money.

    13. Re:Outstanding by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And OS X is UNIX for morons.


      True, if by "morons" you mean "people who want to get work done with their computer, rather than spend hours fighting with it to get it configured properly".

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    14. Re:Outstanding by Nasarius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're misinterpreting the GP. Quality control isn't about picking the hardware so much as supporting it. There's a good reason why Apple has succeeded at plug+play while Windows XP still doesn't recognize my very generic Intel PRO/100 Ethernet adapter. If you only support a small range of hardware, it's much easier to support it well. This is perhaps the most important reason that OS X won't run on generic Intels: not some conspiracy by Apple, but the simple lack of hardware drivers.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    15. Re:Outstanding by rpdillon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft has been peddling crap for years and it hasn't really made people switch, by and large.

      This is Yet Another Form of DRM, which in general is a Bad Thing, IMHO. I always hated CD keys for any software that could be used offline (like and OS, or most non-MMO games). When Windows XP went to not only requiring a key, but also requiring an online activation, as well as not letting me change my hardware too much without checking in, that sealed the deal. I only use Linux on all my machines now.

      But as to your point: if you'd told people in 1991 that their OS wouldn't let them install without a secret key, and without going online to verify their system, they would've said market forces would prevent such a crappy product from being a success. If you'd told them that it would analyze your hardware, and only let you upgrade a certain number of times or in a certain way before it forced you to check back in with the company who wrote it, they would've called you insane. But here we are, and people are buying it like there is no tomorrow.

      So, as much as I'd like to think the consumers will rise up and say "No more! I want to decide when I upgrade my hardware, I want to decide if I have to contact Microsoft, and I want to decide where, when and how I enjoy media I pay for!", there is no indication that it will ever happen.

      Of course, I feel the same about iTunes and Apple. Every around here lauds Apple's success at making DRM "work", but I stand by, thinking "It only works if you use an iPod, and if you run Windows or OS X, and only if you want Apple to dictate which devices can play your music." Sure, there is Crossover Office that pseudo-supports iTunes under Linux, and there is JHymn, so you can crack all the DRM on every file you download, but c'mon - why support a product that goes out of its way NOT to support you?

      And really, it is kind of sad, because it doesn't do anything to stop pirates (all the songs on iTunes are available on peer to peer networks already, so what are we trying to prevent?), and just hinders me from having a Linux client, playing the songs on my JetAudio X5 or my Neuros, or streaming them to my MythTV box in the living room so we can listen to the music during dinner.

      I'm not a huge Star Wars 1-3 fan, but I saw all of them in the theaters. The best line in all 3 was Padme's line in the Senate Hall:

      "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause..."

      And so it is.

    16. Re:Outstanding by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So check out OS X. By the time longhorn comes out, Apple will be shipping OS X on Intel. I am wating for this to happen and then I am jumping ship!

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    17. Re:Outstanding by VectorSC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hold a top of the line Apple Laptop in your hands, and a top of the line PC laptop in your hands. Feel how each are built, and how they work. Pretty similar, huh?

      Hold a $999 Apple Ibook up to a $999 Hateway El Cheapo Breakum 1000 model from Circuit Sh!tty. Pretty dissimilar, huh?

      There IS something to be said for good design and quality control.

    18. Re:Outstanding by metamatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a lot more to Apple design than painting it white.

      For instance, I have a G4 tower. It's a fantastic piece of design work, from a technical standpoint. If you want to service the hardware, you just power the machine off, pull the ring-pull, and the side drops open. All the cards are laid out there for you to tinker with. You don't even have to unplug anything. When you're done, lift the side back up and it clicks into place. Push the power button and you're ready to go.

      I build PCs, and even though I'm picky about components I've not managed to find anything remotely as good in the PC world. (In fact, if anyone knows of a PC case that's as good, that'll take 3 hard drives, please let me know.) As for consumer PCs--forget it. I had to service a friend's HP Compaq machine, and it was a piece of crap. Cheap plastic, awkward to get to the RAM and drives.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    19. Re:Outstanding by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Hi. 1998 called. They want their DRM paranoia back.

      Windows Media Player already prevents DRMed content from being output to a digital source.

      That's why Windows Media Player doesn't get used by a lot of people.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    20. Re:Outstanding by Skynyrd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's nice. Why don't people just buy new monitors for $200-$300 that have
      the capability of displaying the content?


      Are you fucking kidding?
      I need to landfill my current monitor and spend an additional $200 - $300 (or signifcantly more if it's a good one) just to watch certain content?

      100% bullshit.

    21. Re:Outstanding by tehshen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They may as well put something like:

      Windows Longhorn - now utilizes monitor-based DRM and advanced image resamnpling controls!

      and no one would have a clue what it meant, but would get it anyway (or preinstalled, yes)

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
  2. The Solution without a Problem... by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is not things that *CAN* operate with a wide variety of DRM option. The abilty to support DRM isn't a problem at all.

    The solution, as always, is simple. Vote with your wallet for either (a) DRM solutions that make sense, or (b) for solutions that don't take advantage of the richly enabled DRM fabic available to content producers.

    If I produce content, I should be able to decide what's done with it (for a reasonable time, anyway). If I want it to be one-peek-per-customer, that's my right, it's my content.

    You...just shouldn't be stupid as to buy it :)

    1. Re:The Solution without a Problem... by Potatomasher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If I want it to be one-peek-per-customer, that's my right, it's my content."
      Let me be the first to disagree with this comment. "Content", whether it be audio, video, art or whatever is a consumer product just like any other. Just because it is digital, does not allow the producer to decide how their product is used. DRM is setting a VERY dangerous precedent. Digital media is sort of unchartered waters for everyone at the moment. So its easy to fall in the trap, and accept these new restrictions as "normal". But what happens when similar principles start spreading to other industries ?
      Imagine this...

      Want to buy the new Harry Potter book ? Sure ! By buying the book however, you are implicitely agreeing to this EULA, which states that you cannot discuss the contents of this book (plot, characters, ending) with anyone else. After all, the author of the book would not want you to ruin the experience for everyone else. Its only fair !

      Want to buy this new GM car ? Sure. But GM is now forcing you to only buy GM branded gaz, oil, tires, etc. Oh and forget about after-market parts. It is now illegal to replace any parts of your car with non-GM sanctionned parts. After all GM made the car, they should have a right to decide how the car is used afterwards, no ?

      The new "digital media" era has no right to change the basic producer/consumer relationship which have been established in the last hundreds of years.

      Oh and you can try using your "if you dont' like it dont' buy it line". But when huge conglomerates (think sony, bmg, microsoft, etc) control both the content and HOW the content is delivered (or are in a position to influence companies), consumers don't really have a choice and lose out in the end. Do you really think that linux will ever become widespread if you can't play music and watch movies on it without breaking the law ?!

      I think we should all stop being so naive...

      --
      A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
    2. Re:The Solution without a Problem... by WaterBreath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Content", whether it be audio, video, art or whatever is a consumer product just like any other.

      Obviously you're entitled to your opinion. But let's just be clear that this is not the approach taken by US (or most other nations, AFAIK) copyright law. The entire concept of copyright was based on the idea that content is "different". A book is a product, a CD is a product, a painting is a product. But story, the music, the image, respectively, are not products. They are information. Information can be reproduced with trivial effort. But transcribing a usable, re-usable, distributable copy of the information was, until the advent of the VCR, prohibitively difficult/tedious. Possible, yes, but tedious. What this meant was that few people actually attempted to do such, to circumvent the creator's right of sole reproduction and distribution (AKA copyright). But when they did, there was a legal channel by which the creator could protect his right. "Unfair" forms of reproduction are what copyright was designed to protect. How can an artist make a living from his work if he has to compete with someone else to sell it who doesn't need to spend any time practicing, composing, or performing, and instead can sit and crank out copies all day long.

      The digital age brought about the triviality of reproduction and distribution of information. Which means that virtually anyone can now do so with virtually no effort, or even technical knowledge. You don't need to buy heavy equipment or expensive ad space in order to copy and distribute. But that doesn't change the fact that each instance of this is a violation of the creator's sole right to reproduction and distribution. Each instance is an infringement of the copyright.

      But that shouldn't be the final word. One must keep in mind the spirit of the law. Was it ever intended to prevent people from obtaining a copy and making use of that copy as many times as they want, in whatever ways they want, short of copying it for further distribution? Arguably, no. I would argue that any attempt to claim that a consumer should pay for each and every use, or even just multiple copies for different presentation devices, is unabashed money-grubbing. It is equivalent, in my mind, to an artist claiming grounds to sue you for reading his book aloud to your children-- or even just to yourself-- in the privacy of your home. Or an author claiming grounds to sue you for playing his song, on your piano, alone, again in the privacy of your home..... Unless you've paid for the license to do so.

      I don't think there's a valid argument that this is the type of profiteering that copyright was meant to protect. So the next question is, should we redesign copyright law to serve this purely commercial/economic purpose, as the **AA's seem to want? Or do we lobby to get back to the spirit of the law, and renew the principles of fair use?

      It should be obvious by this point where I stand, at least.

  3. Re:*sigh* by PepeGSay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well... the lock on your front door isn't to keep determined criminals out. It is there to keep the average Joe from just walking in on a whim and stealing your stuff. This is the same philosophy as a lot of security mechanisms, and I don't think DRM is much different.

  4. Microsoft making a spectacle of us. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Why don't they just cut to the chase and produce DRM-enabled eyeglasses for us to wear? They just turn opaque if we are viewing content we are not licensed to see. Package these with earplugs that keep out illegal MP3 sounds and the mouth-cork that prevents us from repeating privileged information. I, for one, welcome our "Tommy's Holiday Camp" overlords. It will give us time to hone our pinball skills.

    "we're not gonna take it. da da da da da-da da. we're not gonna take it da da da da da-da da"

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  5. This is a reason to buy Longhorn!? by Maul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, of the major features that were originally supposed to be the selling point in Longhorn...

    WinFS pretty much seems indefinately stalled.

    Avalon seems to be delayed until after release.

    The new shell will not be available until the Server release.

    But the crippling DRM feature that requires me to have an MPAA approved monitor to get "premium" video quality is right on schedule.

    --

    "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

    1. Re:This is a reason to buy Longhorn!? by blackmonday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, for the first time ever I'm thinking that Microsoft is fucked. Compare Windows 2000 -> Windows XP. What did you get? Not a whole lot. Now it looks like Windows XP -> Longhorn isn't going to get you a whole lot either, except for more restrictions, more DRM, more lockdown. What the hell have Microsoft been doing with their (m)(b)illions of R&D money?

      Windows 2000 is plenty good for anyone these days. It's a shame, that 5 years later there's no compelling reason to upgrade.

  6. Re:*sigh* by Hungry+Student · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But the "average Joe" wouldn't walk in and steal your stuff.

    Keeping an honest person honest is like keeping a tall person tall. The DRM may as well not be on there in the first place. The "honest" folk will do with their content what they would anyway, just as the DRM would allow them to (i.e. not distribute it on a large scale) , and the determined users will crack the DRM and do whatever they want with the content.

    This stuff is so basic, why invest time and money in an inherently flawed system when they could *gasp* be pushing the frontiers of technology and inventing some truly useful stuff for us users.

  7. Audio DRM by jason718 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How long until we see something similar with audio? "Users without an appropriately DRM-equipped soundcard will hear down-sampled audio played back through the Windows PC Speaker driver"

  8. Re:extreme case of DRM by afd8856 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you talking about the same Apple for which playing full screen video is an extra feature that needs to be paid for?

    --
    I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
  9. Re:Choices by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right. Just like copyrighted broadcasts aren't shown on TV since someone could copy them. And copyrighted movies aren't released to the public on DVD. As it is, studios are just testing the waters to see how much control they can grasp from the user. If the courts consistently rule they have no right to require "broadcast flags" or whatever they are calling it now, they'll get over it and go back to doing what they've done for years: releasing content knowing that someone can copy it if they want. Some people will pirate stuff, but the content producers will keep making money because enough people will buy.

  10. Not likely by paranode · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's doubtful OSX will not comply with this. It is a standard that is already built into TVs but was never really implemented in computer monitors. It will be included with HDDVD and probably Blu Ray. It is also being done by the manufacturers of the hardware and Microsoft is just implementing software to work with it. You really expect the creators of AAC to just say 'Hey we don't like content protection?'

    As far as Linux, expect that it won't work at all unless someone can manage to find a crack to unprotect content.

  11. Re:*sigh* by Jonner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, DRM is more like a padlock on a homeowner's breaker box or water heater, requiring the average, unskilled person to pay an employee of the manufacturer of the device to enable him to get electricity or hot water from his own property.

  12. What this means is by mcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is, people won't KNOW what it is

    What this means is, WE HAVE TO TELL THEM.

    People aren't going to refrain from buying Longhorn. People in a year or so literally won't have a choice; if you want a new computer you'll be buying Longhorn. However, we can make an impact on the secure monitors. It wouldn't be that hard to convince people (friends, family, neighbors, etc) that the new secure monitors and video cards are to blame (which they are, because if the secure monitors aren't picked up then the feature won't be used by content providers). Explain the feature enough that they'd understand it-- perhaps explain that the movie companies and microsoft want to stop you from doing certain things with your computer, and they can only do it if people buy these monitors-- them that and try to get them to pick some other brand.

    Longhorn is unstoppable. Microsoft can and will do literally anything it wants. However a consumer backlash against the feature itself is possible as long as the hardware is targetted. Unfortunately I fear the American consumer is so weak right now no one will bother to try.

    1. Re:What this means is by SocialEngineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem is, they won't listen. Society tends to be fairly apathetic about this sort of thing.

      While not an entirely similar instance, I have been pushing all my friends and family to boycott the RIAA and MPAA based on their recent tactics. Some of them are even file sharers.. Yet they don't care. They will happily shell out 18 bucks for the latest pop CD, even though I have explained to them time and time again that the artist makes practically nothing from CD sales..

      I hate being surrounded by apathy. Some solutions are incredibly simple, yet people aren't willing to make just a little extra effort to do the RightThing(tm).

      --
      "Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
    2. Re:What this means is by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny thing though. While people are apethetic about DRM and its impact they are also apethetic to copyright which is why so many illegally download mp3 s and video.

      Both the problem and its draconian solutions depend on apathy.

  13. Re:Will it stop a semi-serious pirate? by Chairboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you're assuming that the signal between the computer and the monitor will be analog. For this to work, it would likely be an encrypted digital stream that would take more then even a fourth year EE to decode.

    The keyword is encrypted. It's not just a matter of 'figuring out the protocols', it's also necessary to defeat encryption that is specifically designed to stop folks who are trying to do what you describe.

    Is it impossible? No. But it's a lot more complicated then just downloading the protocol, taking a scope to the wires, and hacking together an interface.

  14. Whats the point? by Viceice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This WHOLE thing is moot. We all know that DRM does't work and people go out of their way to avoid DRM content.

    For instance, they made ATRAC as a secure format for digital music, we all still use mp3. They made .wmv to secure online video, we use XviD. They region encoded DVDs, China starts pumping out millions upon millions of region free DVD players.

    So who wants to bet that this DRM will die still born along with the rest of the attempts to restrict media?

    --
    Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
  15. Not outstanding by Fzz · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I mean who would "want" to buy this?! I hope Linux is ready for the desktop (at least for Joe SP) when this rolls out because this is THE chance for linux to explode into the market.

    Unfortunately the choice the public will see is likely to be between:

    • Buy Longhorn, and be able to view this premium video content.
    • Run Linux/MacOS/BSD and not be able to view this content.
    Sure, it may be possible for someone to crack the encrypted path, and distribute unrestricted versions online. But you can't exactly advertise that in your marketing campaign, whereas Microsoft can advertise this premium content as only being available on Longhorn.

    I think this can only hurt other OSes.

  16. Re:RTA: It's not just Microsoft by greg_barton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't think Apple is going to do this too? What will happen with Linux though?

    In ten years, through the DMCA, it will be illegal to have an operating system that does not enforce DRM. Anything that does not enforce DRM will be considered a circumvention.

  17. Here's why this is a GOOD thing: by crazyphilman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First of all, it means they've failed to put their CrapWare(tm) in the computer's firmware. Less cruft in my motherboard is a Good Thing. Not that it would have killed Linux, anyway -- the Open Source community is pretty good at working around things like that. But still.

    Second of all, this means that in order to access their movie content and so on, you'll have to have one of the "special" monitors, but the system will only work through Windows -- it's primarily a software solution which looks for the monitor feature, and fucks up the imagery if it doesn't find it. So, again, Linux remains unaffected.

    Third, if we Linux guys decided to buy something like a future game console or set-top box (we wouldn't run a Windows computer per se, of course, because we're already wonderfully served by our Linux boxen) it would probably have this built-in, and we'd be able to do what we wanted with it.

    I'd say it's not a bad idea overall.

    --
    Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  18. Re:extreme case of DRM by TylerL82 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sad but true.

    http://www.apple.com/quicktime/pro/

    Apple's crazy-stupid when it comes to QuickTime Pro.
    Full Screen should NOT be a professional feature!

  19. But will it run ____? by jfengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's precisely the question, and we'll just have to see.

    Generally, when one asks "Will it run ____?" the blank is filled in with some commercial piece of software, usually a game or a productivity app. And the answer will always be yes: Photoshop, MS Office, Half Life 83, etc. will all run beautifully on this. Probably even the old versions will, since they're not video players. The same will apply to all of the most common media players; in fact, Windows Media Player will run right there.

    The most obvious question from the slightly more insightful user is, "Will it play my existing DVDs?", and that's the biggest question mark. If the answer turns out to be "No", if somebody upgrades their laptop and discovers the next time that they board an airplane that they have to read the in-flight magazine rather than watch Tomb Raider 9 3/4, then you're going to see some serious, serious backlash.

    I'm going to assume that MS knows that, and so existing DVD formats will probably play exactly as they do now (which does have various protections anyway, though they're easily bypassed.)

    Instead, I expect that this will apply primarily to new content (or rather, newly-coded content). For that, question would be "But will it run NFF (New Fangled Format)?" and the answer is "Yes". The flip side, "Will NFF run on my existing box" will be "No", but I think that user backlash on that is smaller than you might expect. They could take it as an opportunity to switch to Linux/OS X/PDP 11, but as long as they're buying a new computer, they could buy one with Longhorn, which will run NFF along with all of their old programs.

    The user is kept on the upgrade treadmill because at each step the logical choice will be "forward" rather than "right" or "left". That's partly because they expect that a side-step will just put them on a different treadmill, which is a whole different debate.

    So I don't expect this to cause a mass defection from Windows, at least not by itself. Other factors (cheaper Macs, improved Linux, the stunning revival of the Timex Sinclair) will make it hard to tease out whether I'm right or wrong, so maybe all this is moot, but, well, it's Slashdot and I get to shoot my mouth off anyway.

    1. Re:But will it run ____? by MikeFM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMO Microsoft's wealth is more an example of luck (and family connections) tied with shrewd (and supposedly illegal) abuse of a monopoly. They've rarely shown that they understand or even want to understand the consumer. When they had a monopoly they didn't need to understand but that monopoly position is getting harder to keep with OS X, Linux, and other choices available. DRM would be a smart business decision if their customer was content companies but their customer is the average joe and the average joe doesn't want the hassle or limitations of DRM. As long as that customer doesn't have choices than Microsoft doesn't need to worry but the choices for those customers is growing. They can choose to use non-Microsoft software and they can choose to find non-DRM (or broken DRM) content instead of going along with Microsoft's plan. How could that be a smart business decision?

      Don't believe having wealth is a symbol of intelligence. Intelligent people don't need great wealth to make things happen. Personally I like to have enough wealth to be comfortable and to have the tools I need to create cool stuff but I don't want to be rich. I think people like the Amish have the right idea. Keep life simple and concentrate on personal relationships instead of running around like a maniac, making yourself unhappy, trying to make money. :)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  20. Copy it once, copy it a million times by roystgnr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As soon as you need actual hardware to pirate the signal, copying movies becomes a restricted occupation again, just like selling free cable boxes.

    No, copying movies the first time becomes a restricted occupation. Once a single unencrypted copy exists, then making a million more is no more difficult than it is today.

    Whip out your favorite P2P client, and search for some copyrighted video. Do you see a hundred different rips made by each of the hundred different people sharing a copy? No, you see one or two of the best rips, each with hundreds of identical copies shared, in part because the swarming download protocols and hashing algorithms fundamentally encourage that behavior.

    So what difference will in-monitor DRM make? Instead of having a few zealous groups using software to rip tons of movies that are then shared by millions of people, we'll have a few zealous groups using hardware to rip tons of movies that are then shared by hundreds of millions of people.

    Wait - why will there be more people sharing these rips? Because most people will own some of the billions of non-DRM-capable monitors in existance, and the moron DRM-using publishers will have thus made it impossible for them to play a full-quality copy of these videos unless they have an illegal copy. Publishers couldn't do anything more stupid if they put a "Download free movies on P2P! It's the best!" advertisement at the start of every show!

  21. Talk about legacy support by indytx · · Score: 3, Insightful
    While Apple releases the Mini and encourages users to plug in their old monitors, keyboards, mice, etc., Microsoft is including a feature that will cripple content YOU'VE ALREADY PAID FOR because you haven't upgraded ALL off your hardware?

    It's not enough that the majority of installed PCs probably don't have the horsepower to run Longhorn, now M$ wants to force people to buy new peripherals. I hate to compare them to Apple, but I was using the old OS 9 on an old computer that wouldn't run OS X. So, I bought a used B&W G3, plugged in my ADB keyboard and a beige, Performa-era monitor, and installed OS X 10.3 which runs flawlessly. The OS was literally more expensive than the computer.

    M$, on the other hand, would force me to buy a new monitor in addition to a faster computer to view content that I'VE ALREADY PAID FOR? Once again, I'm having difficulty seeing Windows as a value added product.

    --
    Make love, not reality television.
  22. We're NOT consumers!!!!! by Quicksilver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People almost all of you are part of the problem. Not just non-geeks. Why do go around calling people consumers?? You've already been brainwashed. You're citizens or people!

    Who the hell cares if you can't see some dumbass movie or the listen to the latest manufactured pop star's video???

    I'm gonna be labelled a troll for sure, but hell this mentality burns my butt. The problem isn't DRM the problem is that you all believe you *need* to see the lame things being offered up.

    Come on. You got better things to *do* than just be a content "consumer". And for those that don't they deserve all the DRM and rights violations that are happening. Look at where you've been lead to think. If you don't think the content is worth the price they are asking for it then clearly the answer isn't to fight DRM.... the answer is just don't buy it.