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
... by the time Vista finally hits store shelves, 32-bit CPUs will be a long forgotten antique.
i guess this the major upgrade MS is talking about!
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
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.
HD definition content is and will still be playable on any Windows computer with the proper hardware and software. However, HDCP protected content will not be playable in full definition unless the proper DRM requirements are met.
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
"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'm right there with you.
I honestly have not heard anything that makes Vista seem appealing, at least from a feature standpoint.
The only motivators for 'upgrading' to Vista seem to be the lock-ins. Take for example directX 10 being only for Vista. This means that I will have to buy Vista to play newer video games. And of course this is not because there is something inherently better about Vista - it is simply an artificial constraint.
The one technology that had me interested was the databasing file system, but it was announced that this was pulled from Vista long ago.
It's as if Microsoft is an automobile manufacturer from whom you must by the newer model car to be able to use the newly built highway. Not because the new car is better, any safer, or indeed really any different from your current car. But simply because it is a Microsoft brand.
I wish I could believe that the consumer will not stand for such blatant charades - but technology is merely magic to the lay, so they have no choice but to accept what they are told, and they will buy Vista because they 'need' it to watch new movies, and I will buy it because I 'need' it to play new games.
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
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 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.