Slashdot Mirror
No Full HD Playback for 32-bit Vista
snafu109 writes "Pity the Vista user with a 32-bit CPU. Senior Program Manager Steve Riley announced today at Tech.Ed Australia that full HD content shall only be played at the full resolution where only signed drivers are used — only in the 64-bit version of Vista. From the article: '"Any next-generation high definition content will not play in x32 at all," said Riley. "This is a decision that the Media Player folks made because there are just too many ways right now for unsigned kernel mode code [to compromise content protection]. The media companies asked us to do this and said they don't want any of their high definition content to play in x32 at all, because of all of the unsigned malware that runs in kernel mode can get around content protection, so we had to do this."'"
This is another example of the media companies dictating what the consumer can purchase in the marketplace. They have been hampering innovation since the beginning of time. If it were up to media companies we wouldn't even been able to purchase a tape recorder back in the seventies, a VCR in the eighties, and an MP3 player in the 90s, and now they are doing the same with HD in the 00s. I bet Linux will step up to the plate and be able to play HD.
Free Windows Admin Tools
The media companies asked us to do this and said they don't want any of their high definition content to play in x32 at all, because of all of the unsigned malware that runs in kernel mode can get around content protection, so we had to do this.
Because if Microsoft had said no, then the Media Companies would all have just jumped ship to Linux, thus destroying Microsoft's monopoly once and for all.
Seriously, in Microsoft's position they don't have to do *anything* they don't want to - I suspect large amount of money or other "incentives" changed hands here.
Sounds like an opening for competition against Media Player. If WMP is shipped brain damaged, what's to stop 3rd party apps from doing full HD payback instead?
VideoLan anyone? http://www.videolan.org/
"The media companies asked us to do this ..... so we had to do this."
Wow.
Well x64 sounds bad enough but now they're referring to the 32bit x86 architecture as x32. Just doesn't sound right.
Uh--so let me get this right, "Malware" now includes anything that does not "register" with Microsoft and adhere to unconscionable DRM schemes?
This is getting kind of ridiculous. I understand setbacks, feature freezes, etc. And delays! Boy do I understand delays. I'm a software developer.
What I don't understand at this point, is why *anyone* would be interested in upgrading to Vista. Is it me or does it just seem like XP with bigger hardware requirements and more annoying "are you sure?" dialogues?
I haven't run windows in fifteen years or so. But recently there's some software and features on win that I happen to need. But MS is making it *very* difficult, both by segmenting the market to inflate prices and feature limitations that I just can't justify the purchase. This is annoying. Over time computers are becoming less useful, not more! Who in their right mind would pay more for modern hardware and software to do less? These people are nuts.
Windows is nice because it is convenient. I can plug components in, copy my content around, play games, program, move songs and video to my portable player, etc., with no problems that aren't quickly fixed.
When the computer I'm using ceases to be my tool for handling data of my choice, it instead becomes a box where I have to ask permission, and it even goes so far as to prevent grey are usage (new console emulators with disc readers, remixing content, memory editors, No-CD checks for games I own, etc.), then I'd rather not use that kind of system. It is no longer convenient for me.
Now, the question is, how do you convince 'average' people that the new limitations will no longer be convenient for them? Or will it be too late for some forms of content when Vista and other DRM systems are completely mainstream?
Ryan Fenton
Just download them using Bit Torrent.
Since you already have the DVD why should you pay just for a new format. You have a license to watch the movie or show so why should the resolution matter?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Not that I support this move. Microsoft is in a strong enough position that they don't have to cave to the MPAA.
Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!
"This is another example of the media companies dictating what the consumer can purchase in the marketplace."
Much like the FSF "dictates" what some of it's users can do with its code.*
*Or to quote Linus, "he who writes the code, dictates the license". And to borrow another slashdotism. "If you don't like the license, don't use the code".
I don't really think this is going to fuel home computer sales because most people don't buy computers to watch movies or listen to music. What this does do is keep people who might be inclined to do this from escaping the need to buy the latest TV, HDDVD/Blu-Ray player, or next generation games console if they want HD content. As a general purpose device, the home computer is a potentially powerful competitor to traditional consumer electronics. That said, crippling media players on 32-bit CPUs is overkill because again, the average consumer isn't looking to use the PC for HD content.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
The issue isn't the resolution - it's the DRM. I've heard nothing yet about Apple's plan to support HDCP - so, at the moment, getting a Mac won't help you. Hopefully, however, Apple's position in the media distribution market will give them the power not to roll over at the media companies' discretion. That, however, is probably just wishful thinking.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
/me takes away your Apple card
Dude... no where in this discussion is there room for Apple. This is a Microsoft sucks because... well... they just suck conversation. Apple hasn't even released a machine that can play HD-DVD or BluRay Content yet. But... really it is a moot point because when Apple does include one, they will require you to buy a new Mac to use it. So, if a 64 bit OS is required for Apple, you would probably never hear about it because it would be your only choice. The right answer from Microsoft would of been to prevent OEMs from selling any more 32 bit copies of Windows 6 months ago.
alt.binaries.hdtv "posts" do not figure into this conversation as well.
and for the record... I am a diehard Apple fan, but I also know that they have a history of not supporting new hardware on older machines.
So what good is a Windows media center edition box if you can't put an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray drive in it? Or are all MCE boxes going to have to be 64-bit Vista Server class boxes?
This choice to bow to the media company pressure hands the home living room media center box to Sony on a silver platter with cherries on top and the head of Bill Gates wrapped up in a tasteful box on the side.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is where the whole separation between software and hardware companies is a huge benefit.
it is
w-a-l-l-e-t
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
And your customers (neither the users nor the EOMs) did not. Forces other than market forces are at work here.
And it occurs to be that Microsoft shareholders probably didn't ask for this either. Now would be a good time for Microsoft shareholders to ask Microsoft management for an explanation as to how telling customers "fuck you, we don't care what you want" is a reasonable strategy for maximizing the value of Microsoft's stock.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
That's what MS means by saying they "have" to do this. They don't mean that literally Sony has a gun to their head or anything. They could, if they wished, ship Windows without any DRM at all. However what would happen is the media companies would simply refuse them the licenses necessary to be able to play any of their HD content at all. While I'd like to see MS say "Fine fuck you and the horse your rode in on," I understand they realistically can't. They are doing a heavy push for this media PC concept and supporting HD is part of the hook.
So, I say what I say in relation to everything HD-DVD or Blu-ray: Boycott it. Don't buy it, just stick with DVDs. Doesn't mean you are shut out of HD content entirely, there are people doing some un-DRM'd HD stuff online (remember this new stuff doesn't mandate signed drivers for anything HD, just for anything with AACS, meaning HD-DVD and Blu-Ray). If HD-DVD and Blu-Ray fall flat, but regular DVD keeps going strong and new un-DRM'd content starts picking up, the media companies will have little choice but to drop it.
I agree with your assessment 100%. But the beauty, for lack of a better term, of the MS business model is that they don't need people to buy the OS. They just need people to buy new PCs, and their dopey OS will be there waiting for them. I know a lot of people who are running various MS OSes, and none of them went out and specifically bought the OS they have running. It just came with the box.
This space intentionally left blank.
It's like the secret agreements they have with computer manufacturers like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. If you look at any IT or technology magazine, you'll notice that every advertisement for every computer states something to the effect that "HP/Dell/Lenovo/[Insert company name here] Recommends Microsoft Windows XP Professional." I would be willing to bet that these companies don't actually recommend anything, but are required by their secret agreements with MS to make this statement, in order to qualify for their "discount" -- or else they'd be paying $299.99 for every copy of Windows they install on every computer, which would price them right out of the market.
Now I don't know if this is still the case, but it was a few years ago: MS also had, in those secret agreements, a clause that these computer manufacturers could not also install MS's competitor's OSes on the machines (Linux, for example). This was "proven" by then Be, Inc.'s then CEO "JLG", who offered BeOS for free to any computer manufacturer, to include free on any computer they build. Nobody took his offer. Now, you say that Be was not a competitor to MS, with only .0000000001% of the market at its peak? Then why did MS cite Be as a competitor in court, to prove that MS doesn't have a monopoly?
It is this monopoly power that allows MS to do what it does best: Crush its competitors and blackmail its customers (in this case, the computer manufacturers) with agreements that could not possibly exist if MS did not have a monopoly.
And here is where the above comes into the range of the topic: Since MS has a monopoly, they can now also blackmail those who write drivers. "Oh, you write drivers for Linux/Mac OS X, too? Well, then, we won't sign your Windows drivers." Which means that 90% of the market won't buy this piece of hardware, or they will return it to the store when they realize that it doesn't play full HD, even on 64 bit Vista, since the driver is not signed. Which means that you can expect the major graphics card vendors to stop producing drivers for other systems.
Blackmail. Where do you want to pay us against your will for software you don't want today?
HDCP doesn't need to work. As long as its there, the DMCA (or the EUCD/other equivalent laws) will do everything they need.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Come on. If microsoft decided it wasn't going to do DRM at all and stuck to its guns do you think the content producing companies would be able to just not offer the content at all?
Don't defend microsoft at all on this one. They have the market presence to dictate to the media companies the terms of making video work on PCs everywhere. They could have done what Apple did with their iTunes monopoly charging only $1 for songs. As a disclaimer- I hate iTunes. I use Amorok exclusively but I really like how Apple stood up for its position.
Microsoft demonstrated to me again that they are not in the business of making software that I want to use.
hardware makers and Congress aren't in bed with the FSF. That statement is analogous to, "If you don't like the PATRIOT act so much, move!" Granted, not supporting MPAA companies is a great start, but enough people still do support them that they're going to have clout with both lawmakers and hardware manufacturers for quite some time; both of those have affect the world around us, even if we are boycotting the MPAA.
--- What
You are right that supporting older OS's does cost money, the DX10 requirement for SOME games is an artificial constraint. Take Halo2 for the PC (when it comes out). It is going to require DX10 (and therefore Vista). But halo2 was of course a game for the original X-BOX, same as Halo 1. There can't possible be anything in Halo2 (graphics API wise) that was not also available in in Halo1, and Halo1 runs fine with DX9. DX10 wasn't even around when the X-Box was developed, so how is it possible that the PC port of Halo2 "requires" DX10? The only why is if Microsoft purposely added references to DX10 to prevent it from working with DX9. And the only reason for that is to sell copies of Vista. All because like sex, Halo Sells.
I find this fascinating. The personal and identity information of every PC user on the planet has been under serious and sustained attack for nearly a decade now from "unsigned" malware, but that really didn't elicit meaningful changes in the design of the operating system that most PC users employ. However, when the entertainment industry realizes that these techniques for privilege escalation can be used to hijack their content, serious design changes are created to support the policy these customers seek to enforce.
100 million individuals can be easily ignored because they produce white noise when speaking, but a dozen individuals with hundreds of millions of dollars can speak with a very clear voice and wind up with veto power over Microsoft. They have decided that everyone must upgrade their computers to watch HD content. (It's time to purchase shares in Intel, the top PC component suppliers, and the top 10 PC makers -- they'll all be selling more stuff as a result of this.)
The security needs of the individual consumer will continue to be largely ignored, except where they happen to overlap with the needs of really big clients like the entertainment industry. It's not clear how to aggregate those little voices to speak with one, loud and clear, voice, particularly as they don't know, on an individual basis, what to say or even that they need to say anything at all. I suppose if enough people start switching to Mac OS X or Linux, and cite security concerns as a primary reason, that might get attention in Redmond.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
According to Jack Valenti, former spokesman for the MPA, in a talk he gave on the campus of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign a few years ago at Roger Ebert's Overlooked Movie Festival, one should not be able to make their own backups. Consumers should buy another copy of the media because Hollywood studios (his former clients) invested so much money in making those movies. Nothing was said about the investment consumers spend in buying copies of the movies and the consumer's desire to not see that investment lost to sticky-fingered kids mishandling costly DVD collections. For Valenti, copying and illicit distribution is framed as "piracy" and "theft"; Valenti was clear to position copyright infringement to be exactly like shoplifting. He didn't once call it by the name the courts use: copyright infringement. Valenti thought it right and proper for Congress to extend the term of copyright again during Pres. Clinton's term, thus denying some works entry into the public domain through expiring copyright (most notably, one of Valenti's former clients' earliest movies). The MPA strongly backs increasingly punitive laws which punish copyright infringement more harshly than other illegal acts like rape.
The FSF doesn't place any of these restrictions on my use of their copyrighted programs. The FSF licenses are written to allow sharing and the FSF never stands in my way of making a backup copy for my personal use. The FSF's speakers I've heard (including Prof. Moglen, RMS, and Brad Kuhn) are against copyright term extensions. They frame copyright infringement as copyright infringement, speaking out against conflations of real piracy and theft. I don't recall anyone from the FSF advocating for more punitive measures to be taken against copyright infringers, but I do recall reading about the FSF working with GPL infringers to amicably resolve the infringement so that nobody pays a fine, goes to trial or prison, or is necessarily publicly embarrassed about their infringement. Even for works that express a political point of view or convey artisic merit, the FSF isn't out to nail the public to the wall as an example in order to scare us into compliance. Instead, the FSF asks us to examine the merit of the laws, consider what copyright law was meant to achieve in the first place, and to consider that there can be bad laws which don't deserve our respect because they stand in the way of building community or transforming a dog-eat-dog society into a place we'd rather live.
I don't think the FSF and MPA treat us the same way despite working under the same copyright regime. I also don't think these two organizations have the same influence over how that copyright regime works in the US or abroad. I think the FSF shows us by example that we can choose not to become harsh like the big book, movie, and music publishers are. By the way, for all of their continued rants against what they call "piracy", one wonders just how ineffective their MPA's measures are since they apparently can't contain the "problem". One also wonders if stopping copyright infringement is the MPA's goal in the first place.
Digital Citizen
BZZT. Wrong.
If crony capitalist laws like the DMCA were in force with cars the way it is with HD-/DVDs, you could not open your hood without being in violation of the law, much less service the parts within.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
No it won't. It only takes one person to strip the DRM and put up a torrent. Bingo, millions of pirated copies overnight.
That's why CSS didn't work for DVD even though most people haven't got a clue about the DeCSS court battle.
Time-shifted HD-material and pirated copies will play just fine on 32-bit computers, Vista or no Vista...
The irony...
Although I believe that the "average person" is basically lazy, he's not entirely stupid.
When getting something that normally costs money for free is on the line, never doubt the ingenuity of the Average American. (Or average person from many other countries, I suspect.) I know lots of people who can open a new port in their firewall, because they need to do that in order to download pirated movies off of Kazaa/Bittorrent/Gnutella/whatever. Or who can install Divx, because they need it to watch the AVIs they download.
I could keep going. The point is, the average person has the bare minimum computer skills they need to do what they want. They might seem like complete morons when it comes to doing something that we geeks think is important but they don't give a damn about (e.g. security, encryption), but when free shit is up for grabs, suddenly everyone and their brother wants to be an expert.
The real question here is "Will the average user care about watching HD?" if the answer is yes, and VLC or some other non-MS tool provides that ability (preferably for free), people will download and install it. They might not have the foggiest clue what they're downloading and installing, or how it works, and they probably won't care, but they'll do it if that's what's required to save a buck.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."