Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Answers Vista DRM Critics' Claims
skepsis writes "Recently there have been some stories on Slashdot claiming that Vista would downgrade the quality of audio and video for every application in a machine where protected content was running. One of the stories painted a scary scenario where a 'medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to audio/video played back by the computer' would have his medical images 'deliberately degraded.' A post has been put up on the Vista team blog explaining exactly how the content protection works, and it turns out the medical IT staff and audio pros can relax. From the post: 'It's important to emphasize that while Windows Vista has the necessary infrastructure to support commercial content scenarios, this infrastructure is designed to minimize impact on other types of content and other activities on the same PC. For example, if a user were viewing medical imagery concurrently with playback of video which required image constraint, only the commercial video would be constrained -- not the medical image or other things on the user's desktop.'"
From TFA:
That Microsoft needs to engage in counter-propaganda is already suspicious: it means they've abandoned elegance for ad hoc-ery; transparence for evasion; and trust for tyranny.
I'm putting my money on the knaves and crackers to dispatch* their “content-constaint” in months, not years.
_____________
* 1600 HOLLAND Livy XXII. vi. 435 The heat of the sunne had broken and dispatched the mist.
Recently have been some recent stories on Slashdot claiming that Vista would downgrade the quality of audio and video for every application in a machine where protected content was running. One of the stories painted a scary scenario where a 'medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to audio/video played back by the computer' would have his medical images 'deliberately degraded'.
Slashdot posting anti-MS stories with only speculation to their correctness? Say it isn't so!
We are Microsoft.
We are your friends.
We only want to help you.
Wait! Do we see Microsoft's collective noses lengthening???
such as newly released HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs, can be enjoyed on Windows Vista PCs.
Arrrr. I despise the use of 'enjoy' in that way. When you see the word used that way, you know the writer is selling something.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
"the content protection mechanisms ...... will lead to better driver quality control."
Less freedom = better quality?
Might as well say it.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.....
This is OT so mod me down at will... I hate that Bill Gates Borg pic on the main stories page. It was what prompted me to register here at Slashdot: the ability to customize my front page and turn those story icons off.
/. is causing me to to visit the site less.
I had a bookmark that logged me in and took me right to my customized front page with one click. Now, for some reason, that 1-click logon to custom FP is gone. Site redisgn, cookies, javascript, Ajax, I don't know what the reason is. All I know is this: The inability to bookmark an auto-login front page at
Flameproof undies on.
Wait this is M$ right?
The company that abandons the users on older machines, to help their customers sell new machines.
Of course they do not have any errors in the DRM or other processes that the error will not happen.
So why again I do not own the hardware in my equipment to be used HOW I WANT TO USE IT?
WTF?
"lower quality" = "better user experience" now? We already smashed the whole "higher cost = better quality" idea years ago, but now we're stretching it.
Even if we accept Microsoft's word that Vista really is designed to affect only commercial content, how reassuring is that? Given the number of bugs in Microsoft's software, the only way we should honestly feel at all reassured is if the capability simply isn't present. Even if Microsoft does their absolute best to ensure the munging happens only when it should, experience indicates that their best simply isn't good enough.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
At best, this will prevent point and click piracy. With HD-DVD already compromised and Blu Ray on its way, I hate the idea of losing CPU cycles for a copy protection scheme that doesn't even work. If it comes to a point that everyone and their grandmother can pirate high defintion content with the click of an icon, can Microsoft make a Windows Update that removes this "feature".
Who decides if it requires image constraint?
Who else except me has such a call to make on my private property?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Give us your money, drop your pants and we may let you use your computer for mainstream entertainment!
'medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to audio/video played back by the computer' would have his medical images 'deliberately degraded'
For the $400 per hour I get charged, that PhD can focus his whole attention on my MRI. If you job is important enough to complain about possibly degraded video, it's also important enough to not multitask. Listen to MP3's on your own dime.
We are all just people.
a
Am I hearing a resounding yes?
Yes, we know that what we call DRM they call "an additional functionality".
How can one say "yes" that will sound mostly like "no"? See above.
All in all, the article is a great read. There are useful details about the bricking mechanism (it's actually more forgiving than was suspected), and a general consensus with the costs identified by Gutmann.
http://drobek.nadrobeny.net/koule.php?id=2512&koul uj=1
Ignorance is Strength!
Just Wow. That's the biggest piece of bullshit response I think I've ever seen. Look closely and compare that and the original article. For example, the original article says that the component and S/PDIF can be disabled by the disc you put in the drive, and this article says that "Similar to S/PDIF, Windows Vista does not require component video outputs to be disabled, but rather enables the enforcement of the usage policy set by content owners or service providers, including with respect to output restrictions and image constraint" which sidesteps the point that a disc can disable the current standard connection from a normal computer to a normal TV you fucks!!! Of course they also go on about how the degraded image is still DVD quality, which is a great help to the people who spent an extra few grand to set up HD DVDs when they could have just gone to the shop and bought a DVD. They then also point out that you don't actually need a dedicated decoder, even though the original article pointed out that CPUs simply aren't strong enough for the task.
So all this Microsoft article has done is only confirmed my conclusion that they're trying to give the movie studios every opportunity to rape the people who try to watch their stuff. This is just bullshit marketing spin.
These guys do have a doosie though (emphasis mine)
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
I think we both know that they'll never let go. The more control over our computers they have, the more they want. Sadly, too few people realize that they intend to tighten their grip slowly and ensure that there *are* no alternatives to turn to via software patents, "trusted" hardware, and all that other crap.
All I can say is that I, for one, have no intention of putting up with DRM, "reasonable" or otherwise.
However, this press release has really hit home with me, just how justified that borg picture of Bill Gates really is.
In short, thier press release, reminding us all that Vista will be infected with DRM "functionality" is just another reason that I should stop procrastinating and start learning to use Linux, because by the time I get my next computer, I'm sure as hell going to want (nay need) to use it rather than Vista, and Vista sure as hell won't be touching this computer.
There is absolutely no reason for critical medical imaging systems to be using any version of Windows, let alone Windows Vista.
Those are the kinds of systems that need to work. Thus they should only be run on systems that have a history of high-quality and reliability. We're talking about Solaris on Sun workstations, AIX on IBM workstations, HP-UX on HP workstations, or IRIX on SGI workstations.
Those machines are designed for no-nonsense computing, which is exactly what is needed for many medical imaging applications. Even if staffers from Microsoft claim that the DRM features of Vista won't have any effect, it's not worth the risk when lives are at stake.
To me, the scarier implication of the original posting is, Vista forces manufacturers to lock down hardware and drivers - making them, in essence, impenetrable black boxes. As I read it, once hardware is designed to operate in a Vista environment, it will never be usable in Linux or other open source situations. Can someone expand on this, please?
I can't help but think that you guys are missing the point.
Anyone building hardware and/or software to play back modern media currently has two choices:
1) Implement the restrictions and allow the content to be viewable.
2) Don't allow the content to be viewable at all. (i.e. No HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback, period.)
Microsoft doesn't create movies or music. Their only interest in implementing these things is so that users have a way of playing content on their operating system. Apple and Linux vendors will also have to bend over for the RIAA and MPAA if they want to be able to support viewing the content. There's a chance that Steve Jobs will bend the universe to his will on this and avoid it, but it's doubtful. Linux users will probably just find ways hack around it, and ignore the fact they're breaking the law (no matter how ill-conceived that law may be; the point is that if Microsoft breaks the same law they would be sued into oblivion. It's simply not an option.).
Blaming Microsoft for this DRM fiasco is lame. If you don't like DRM, focus your blame on those that deserve it and buy your media from sources that don't promote it.
That said, one thing that could be argued is that Microsoft wields enough money/power that they could fight back against the RIAA, MPAA, etc. and block the media industry's attempts to create such lame DRM policies. Personally I don't believe they have this amount of clout, especially with the antitrust thing still hanging over their head.
Why would any one use anything that purposely degrades any of your stuff. Vista made me a full time linux user. I tried there vist compatabilty software and i said my laptop was compatable with vista but it did not work with my dvd burner. Why would i buy expensive hardware just to have it crippled. sabanyon linux is better than windows of any kind. I started with Microsoft dos 3.1 and have done every upgrade sense then, but I really have to jump ship here. The only other time i jumped ship was for doctor dos for a little while. I have used linux some with dual boot but this time i format c: echo y And as soon as i can i will be buying a Mac book pro. Guess Microsoft is taking down Dell HP ect. with them everyone I know and with 20 years in the industry it's alot of people have already done it or plan on doing it. Even my mom likes linux guess it took a while but unix like operating systems are finally winning. This time i am replacing all the pc's in my company with Mac also. My employees to my suprise said they cant wait.
>>"playback of video which required image constraint, only the commercial video would be constrained"
NO!!!
There has never been a video on MY computer that "REQUIRED" image constraint. There never will be. Thank you very much.
Remember lads, "If it's not chess, it's poker, and you may be the pokee".
s/chess/FOSS/
s/poker/proprietary/
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Ignorance of the customer, is the strength of whoever selling Window Vista.
That's not too far from 1984.
I think people should just pay Microsoft (and Apple and the others) with Money that has restrictions on it... Here, you can have this money but you can't use it to sue anybody with it, or buy a ferrari. If you do decide to sue, the lawyer will show up late and sleep through the trial, and the ferrari will have a bum paint job and break down conspicuously on the side of the highway every 15 minutes.
Over the holidays, a paper was distributed that raised questions about the content protection features in Windows Vista. The paper draws sharp conclusions about the implications of those features for our customers. As one of the Lead Program Managers for the technologies in question, I would like to share our views on these questions.
;)
... !
Oh, how sick that wording makes me ! Instead of being honest and calling us 'retards', he dares to 'share our views'.
Am I the only one with an allergy against this use of the verb 'to share' ?
When people share their code by using a sharing licensing scheme, like BSD or GPL, Apache, whatnot, I don't develop rashes; rather appreciate the gesture.
But what to make from a person (scroll down on that article) who shares the following about himself:
I'm a Product Manager at Microsoft working on the Windows Vista launch team. I also work with key influencers in our user community. This means I get to do cool stuff, play with lots of electronic toys, travel the world, and blog about it at the same time. I know you're jealous
No, I'm not that frantically jealous about people who prostitute themselves to make a living
The answers to Nick White's twenty questions are so far beyond useless that they actually inspire rather than calm fears about the potential and likelihood of Windows Vista's DRM technology being abused and/or abusive.
Tell ya what, Nicky. When my customers start calling me about why their computers are performing exactly as you and Microsoft designed, contrary to what they (the consumers) wanted, I'm going to lay it all out for them, straight and level.
I'm going to tell them who it was who sold them a windowless room and told them it was a wonderful vista. I'm probably going to tell them up whose rear ends they can shove their copies of Windows Vista, a task I'm pretty sure they'll want to do rather violently. Then I'm going to name half a dozen OS products that fit their needs beautifully, products without digital restrictions management (DRM) inhibiting their right to fair use, and not a one of which is a Microsoft product.
Oh, and just to be clear, Nicky, I don't sell computers or operating systems, just computer service and consulting. (I'm often told I should start selling computers, but it'll be a shop free of Microsoft products if I do.)
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
It will still be embedded, even if you never buy one of these disks. How long do you really think it'll take for a worm to start activating this stuff?
Do you trust Microsoft to implement this correctly? How will you really know that your medical image isn't being downgraded, causing cancers to be missed? It's unlikely MS will show you the source so you can verify correctness.
They want to turn it into a toaster, an "appliance." They want control over what you can and cannot do, and they are slowly gaining it too, from region codes (RPC II) in DVD drives, encryption (in EVERYTHING) like HD DVD and BluRay, HDCP, HDMI, etc... "trusted computing." All of this stuff is creeping into hardware daily, and it's getting to where you can't buy computer hardware WITHOUT this shit.
Of course, this is all necessary so you can "enjoy" all of the great "premium content." This is not normal 'content' mind you, this is Gee-Whiz Shazzamo "PREMIUM" awesome content that just requires all of this new DRM-out-the-wazoo hardware.
And here I thought it was the same crap they have been peddling for years in slightly higher resolution... Guess what, my computer can ALREADY play 1920x1080 AVI's perfectly fine (Elephant's Dream). And I don't have any of that DRM crap on MY system...
PK: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
...deliberate sabotage, any way you slice it, designed on purpose to perpetuate a business model developed when duplicating content was hugely more expensive than it is now from a strictly technological viewpoint. It is (very generally speaking of course) the work of those already rich and powerful to stay that way, and to seek to lock away technological advances only to themselves as much as possible, through obvious and unchecked wide scale cartel market manipulation actions and also through extensive lobbying to make the laws reflect the profiteer's paranoid-and elitist- neoluddism.
It's Ok for the rich and powerful to have any advances and advantages from modern technology-but don't let those slavering "masses" folk have the same, even when it becomes technically and economically possible. Cuts into that "bottom line" thing, or at least that is their paranoid theory.
Enforcing artificial scarcity combined with the broken-windows economic model is the height of their intellectual business acumen.
No one disputes this is immensely profitable for them, given our current social and economic infrastructure. It remains to be seen if this will always be the case.
We left the caves a long time ago, seems like maybe it might be nice to leave the medieval period some time soon. But I guess the aristocracy isn't quite willing to give that up yet.
I think people are forgetting who are Microsoft's customers.
The end users are not Microsoft's customers. The end users who purchase Windows are very much in the minority - the overwhelming majority of users get their Windows bundled with their PCs. Microsoft's customers are the computer vendors and big media. Microsoft's customers are demanding that content be controlled and that users are given an incentive to buy new hardware.
The customer always gets what they want.
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
Kind of like when I put my tv card in my windows xp box and it informed me that since I didn't have drm crap enabled, my picture would be downgraded. Obviously Windows folks do everything possible for our safety and enjoyment and in order to provide the 'best windows experience possible' Yeah, right. Like I would believe these guys if they said anything. Like a previous poster who mentioned the Orwellian way of speaking, war is peace and other fun ways to confuse reality with words meaning something else.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?
Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality. Windows Vista's content protection features were developed to carefully balance the need to provide robust protection from commercial content while still enabling great new experiences such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback.
Ohhhh....
I see... Now it makes perfect sense. So the "additional functionality" is "the need to provide robust protection from commercial content" for the user. Billy'O'Borg only has the best intentions of protecting you and me from commercial content. If we can't see it it won't harm us.
Good ole' Bill, bless his (borg) heart.
Shakespeare poems - infinite monkeys with infinite time.Computer tech support - a few trained ones working from 9 to 5.
1. The original paper was mostly FUD.
2. Vista only does what the copyright holders tell it to do.
3. If you don't want your life negatively impacted by DRM-encumbered content, don't buy it.
they say something like "our brand of overly restrictive is OK 'cause we're M$ (bitch)"
Power to the Penguin!
if i pay $250 for vista, and obtain my media through the zune store or other legal channels, there is still a chance that it will play in downgraded quality. if i download ubuntu and get my media through torrents, i have nothing to worry about. hmmm, i wonder which option i should choose
As Guttman was claiming that this content protection would de-stabilize your computer even if you never played protected content, this seems to have been refuted.
i.e.
Driver revocation, tilt bits, image constricting and encrypting the PCIe bus only happen when you play premium content, and can only affect the content being played. If you're worried about all this don't play HD-DVD's on your PC, play them on your 50 USD Chinese HD-DVD player.
Ideas that your graphics card can be turned off remotely by Redmond, or that accidentally playing a web page with 'protected' content in the background will cause medical images to be degraded are plain incorrect.
Concerns about Audio and Video editing in Vista are unfounded as their content is unprotected and will not go through the protected video path. And if AAC is properly cracked then HDDecrypter.exe is unlikely to use a protected video path / HDCP montior is it?
Points about this open source graphics drivers are a bit more ambiguous, but it seemed graphics drivers were moving towards a closed source model anyway. And there is nothing stopping graphics manufacturers from producing non-HD-capable cards for the business market so it isn't going to drive up all hardware prices.
Having said this, *if* you want to play protected content legally then I think there will be pain.
People will be frustrated by the graphics card and monitor compatibility, and there is every chance that the 'Protected Video Path' will not work as smoothly as intended. Even now HDCP is causing problems with standalone players. And even if it all works concerns that you are no longer trusted on your own computer are valid.
However you can quite happily use Vista and not be affected by the 'content protection' at all.
If you thought Microsoft was going to be able to stop the draconian restrictions on HD-DVD then the think again - their biggest market is in standalone players rather than people playing the movies on their PCs so they could do without Microsoft if they desired. I don't believe Apple will be immune, although they'll probably roll it out on new iMac's and rely on its physical design to
In conclusion, there are issues with the DRM in Vista but if you never play protected content you will never experience them.
Not one of those "OS products" will be able to legally play the content restricted software. To play the new hi-def content, Apple is going to do exactly the same thing that Microsoft is -- because they will be forced to. Good to know that you advise your customers to break the law.
This is what I think of Gentoo.
So I am to believe that I should be GLAD that commercial media will be degraded by Windows Vista playback?
Maybe I should also be glad that Microsoft is trying to degrade my viewing experience!
Maybe I should be glad that my viewing experience WILL be degraded in ANY way, shape or form - especially when I will HAVE to BUY this alleged operating system, whether I want to or not if I want technical support in the future!
Maybe I should be GLAD that I am getting my DVD definition CUT and having to PAY MORE for it!
Maybe I should be glad that I don't USE Windows Vista!
Maybe...
Mmmmmh! MRI-Porn!
(Probably NSFW unless you're an MD... or maybe NSFW only if you're an MD)
sig? Oh, that sig...
The only real reason that you could possibly want to update to Vista is either buying a new computer with it previously installed, or if you want to code on the most publicly distributed OS on the public planet. For all other intensive purposes, you can run linux, throw Basalisk II on there, throw some Cedega and simple Dos Emulators on there, and you can not only code for windows, linux, and Macintosh, but you can play games for all three systems. I say this only drives the already turning current even further in the direction AWAY from microsoft.
Do content protection requirements mean that graphics chips have to provide hardware acceleration for video decode?
No. The Windows Vista content protection requirements do not require that graphics hardware include hardware acceleration for decode for many years, but such support is highly recommended to improve the user experience for HD content.
I just love this answer, in the beginning of the sentence he says no, but at the end he says yes. Wow!
All thought this debate are statements like "Vista requires that any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality that passes through it if premium content is present." (That's straight from Gutman's paper under "Decreased Playback Quality".) Now, I can understand downgrading premium content if it hasn't been paid for, or if it's passing through an unprotected output path which might allow unauthorized copying, but these statements make it sound like premium content always has to be degraded. So what's premium content for? Are there any circumstances under which it can be viewed undegraded? (I'm sure there are; I'm sure I'm missing something here.)
Say this new DRM stuff costs 3% extra CPU cycles. Say this is a nett 1.5% extra electricity for windows market-share, worldwide.
As a national leader, US should mandate un-needed features can be turned off, throttled back. Or Japan can tel us what the 'burden' is.
Its as stupid as adding a 100lb sack of sand to a race car, as the 'ballast' improves enjoyment.
I hope a class action comes up, with the electricity people throwing money into the pot. Add in the extra air-conditioning cost, and these DRM burdens pose a significant threat to the US economy.
I was just reading through the UK's PCPlus magazine, and their Vista benchmark, even on the CPU benchmarks, showed a solid and consistent 20% loss of performance compared with XP. I will not be keeping my beta Vista install. I will be going back to XP when my license key quits, possibly before.
I keep a Windows machine purely to run Flight Simulator and other games. Anything else can run in Parallels, or has a Mac equivalent.
-- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
Cedega is a step in the right direction, but I tried it. It doesn't work. It tries, and tries very hard to make things run, but as far as DirectX emulation is concerned, it can't make Windows games automagically work under Linux. So I bought one of these new MacBooks so I can have my POSIX-y OS, and my Windows OS in one, tight, little, (SHINY) package that cost me way too much money. Problem solved! :P
Unlike porn, which yada yada rimshot hey-ooh!
>> So I bought one of these new MacBooks so I can have my POSIX-y OS, and my Windows OS
Wow. Didn't you realise any old PC or laptop can dual-boot windows and linux?
The fact still remains that Microsoft has no right to dictate how I use my PC, or what I choose to do with any content on that machine. I've been using MS products since 1987, and am a professional programmer of Microsoft products, but am now using a Mac at home thanks to Vista. Nobody has the right to dictate how I use my computer, or for what purposes. Many governments in the world have tried, and they can all go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. Why should I respect the demands of a corporation who has even less right than a government to impose arbitrary censorship rules on me? They can rot in hell. I'm done with Microsoft.
I work at CompUSA and every Vista Ready PC we've tested with Vista [RC1] hasn't failed to even launch Media Player to play a DVD with out crashing. It seems to me that if a computer meets the minimum requirements: DVD playback should be a no-brainer. I generally don't watch movies on my computers anyhow, but I'll be sticking with my PowerBook.
~ Normality is merely the achievement of the mediocre...
OK, so Vista gives content providers a way to lock-down and restrict their products. Microsoft has "added value" to a product for a segment of people that are not their customers.
So as a paying customer (I buy operating systems for personal use, and oh...by the way, I am responsible for IT purchasing for my ENTIRE company), what does Vista give me and my users, that should make me cut a check?
From what I understand, Vista works pretty much like XP, and now thanks to Volume Activation 2.0 Vista corporate copies will now all REQUIRE activation.....every time we re-image a machine. Activation now requires me to either run a key management server (and baby-sit all my roaming users making sure they connect to my network twice per year) OR use multiple activation keys....that means phone calls to Microsoft when eventually the keys stop working.
So microsoft, tell me, why should I fork over my (or my company's) cash?
-ted
"...For example, if a user were viewing medical imagery concurrently with playback of video [ which required image constraint ], only the commercial video would be constrained -- not the medical image or other things on the user's desktop.'"
First up, the part about *requiring image constraint*, is just too ridiculous. Microsoft seems to think they have some kind of God given right to control what and how information is viewed by people... as do lots of other greed focused media outfits like RIAA, MPAA, etc.
And to the 95% of computer users that use Windows and suck-up and take this kind of abuse, I have to say, well you allow these M$ bastards to do this to you so don't waste anyone's time complaining about it. If you really don't like the abuse then do something about it - stop using these products and quit viewing their media. If you think about it, most information being sold these days only serves to waste ones time, influence how one thinks, or suck money from ones budget. So why not tell these media pigs where they can put their wares!
required image constraint... minimize impact... would be constrained...
How exactly does limiting the quality of the video translate into providing consumers with additional functionality?
I'm advising my customers to break the law? What law is broken when the law itself breaks its own law? Quick recap: The DMCA explicitly permits fair use, but the same DMCA explicitly prohibits the exercise of fair use. I'd be advising my customers to break the law just as well by advising them to buy a product which denies them their rights under the law and just live with it, as the HDCP system within Windows Vista seems designed to do.
In spite of MPAA victories such as the banning of 321 Studios' DVD X Copy, victories for the consumer such as the legalization of DeCSS (and the overdue vindication of DVD Jon) and the existence of libdvdcss going unchallenged set a precedent which will create similar victories against HDCP-style DRM.
Those victories won't come until the laws allowing lock-in or lock-out (depending on your perspective) are challenged. What else will get the law changed for the better but a slew of teed-off consumers wronged by Microsoft caving in to the immoral and possibly illegal demands of the music and movie industries?
Besides, they're not going to turn to me for help until they buy an HD disk that already broke their Windows boxen, or until their boxen break without the aid of actual protected content.
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
They say it the DRM will only be turned on when using certain protected content, but the buggers never say what turns the content protection on. There have to be some heurisitcs that affect when it turns on and when it doesn't, and it's quite amazing that the article doesn't list any of them. We are supposed to just take MS's word on it, then, that it can somehow tell the difference between recording equipment inputs.
That sounds like the classic schoolyard antic of yelling something to the effect of: "You're an ugly egotistical fart sniffer. No offense." or Google never getting any of its products out of Beta. Or legalizing civil unions. "They're not getting married, they're just pledging to live as a family unit in which two adults engaged in a monogonous long term realtionship."
Slashdot posts it, therefore it's slashdot's news. It would also be like the New York Times not taking responsibility for any of the articles it posts since "well that's just what our author wrote."
DRM Exists solely to protect the property of the Artist, not to alienate the user. It's sad that we have to live with DRM due to the piracy that is rampant across the internet, but piracy will still continue even if restrictions are imposed upon users with DRM. It's not a deterrent to the pirate, it's an annoyance to the user.
The idea that any image constraint needs to be applied other than matching the output to the specs of the available hardware is a specious one at best. Legitimate users get punished, and it's unlikely to affect the illegitimate users in the slightest. Even if there's no spill effect on user-created and managed content (such as the hypothetical medtech or audio/video pro) there's still the ticking time bomb of constraint, revocation issues, and even post-hoc restrictive changes to EULAs to consider. Right now user-generated content might be unaffected for the most part by spillover...that can be changed with one shot of code. Note that the code to cause major issues in this area does *not* have to come from Microsoft...but Microsoft is going to take the hit for it when it happens.
Wait until China starts importing something other than the Cherry (Chevy) to the U.S.
Next it will be the ChiPC computer line, and I'll bet the OS does not have DRM on it, and I'll bet it undercuts HP & Dell.
No special graphics card.
No special chips.
No VISTA
Microsoft has a LOT to LOSE by aceeding to the demand/acquescence to load the whole system to protect media companies from common consumers. Again, I think Warren Buffet said it right when he said he would not invest in Microsoft because he didn't understand the business model for the long term.
It's also only 2 chars, or 3 keystrokes as opposed to 9. Makes sense to abbreviate such a commonly used noun here.
Also, since M$ made their name as a BASIC vendor, it seems appropriate to use a BASIC-style variable.
And mods, the parent did not deserve a 'flamebait' mod. Save that for posts that are just hurling feces at the monitor.
"play them on your 50 USD Chinese HD-DVD player"
Which will probably suit more people better than that fancy $1,500 Aero-enabled Vista computer.
It takes real engineering prowess to do that. On both sides.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Notice how all the answers are along the lines of "Windows XP did that - so it must be okay" (previous crimes do not justify current and future ones), "don't worry your little head about it" (we know what's best for you so shut up) and "this change was inevitable" (no, it wasn't, until you made it).
/mentally converts my "next PC" savings into a Mac Pro fund, then moves saved HD-DVD money into the Mac Pro fund.
Thanks, you industry-pandering bitches. Just when I was looking for another reason to avoid next gen-media and Vista, you gave it to me.
...... after they got through making a secure OS. Well thanks, I was wondering.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
This version was recently shipped to major PC makers. One thing that was noted was that mp3 files played through the default player or any player (winamp and iTunes), showed a much degraded quality than when played on a Windows XP machine.
Same files when run through an audio editing application on the Vista box did not show any quality degradations. (Test: Steinberg Wavelab).
Vista is NOTHING but a DRM platform that also happens to run Windows applications.
I am currently running Vista Ultimate on my laptop, a closed system with an integrated nvidia video card running Microsoft Certified drivers... I cannot play videos that *I* have created of screen recordings at full screen, I have to play them back in a window. Running full screen in Windows Media Player causes the playback to simply pause. I also cannot play videos that I have created from scratch and integrated into newly created powerpoint 2007 slides. When playing back on my laptop screen, the video plays fine, but when feeding the signal to the projector screen through the analog video output, the video plays for 1 second then pauses for 1/4 second repeatedly.
This is not protected content.
Sure, it isn't *supposed* to be applying DRM "features" to *MY* content, but it is.
This is horseshit, horseshit, horseshit! And for any of those who don't know what I'm talking about, its the shit that comes from a horse.
You cannot build restrictions into every device, every driver and expect it not to have unintended consequences in everyday usage.
Vista is completely defective by design.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
I never have and never will "Enjoy" Coke, Diet Coke,or Sprite!
Enjoy Breathe-O-Smart?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
That I find difficult to believe. Games have already been benchmarked on both and the performance difference was negligable (GameSpot reported at least once that the difference was +/- one frame per second.) In addition, CNet tested iTunes, Photoshop CS2, and FEAR, each showing roughly equal performance. Stop spreading FUD that Vista will slow down your applications. Thank you.
O RLY? In fact, some people enjoy coke too much.
or Sprite!If you enjoy video games on 8-bit or 16-bit computing platforms, you enjoy sprite.
poopdeville, you're right. Citation for Lost as a reality TV series
What a mindless drone, you are. You embody consumerism refined on a level that most marketing people would never even dream of only a few years ago.
Teh Lunix works on computers as old as the Commodore 64.
The amount of ignroance and pure FUD in here is just horrible.
Yes, I know if you can't compile your own OS you are not free.
Let me let you into a little secret.
This isn't 1967, this is 2007.
I know you want to act like dumb little liberal hippies
and Microsoft is evil and all that, but you might want to actually
use your brain and stop smoking pot.
For example, if a user were viewing medical imagery concurrently with playback of video which required image constraint, only the commercial video would be constrained -- not the medical image or other things on the user's desktop.'"
I wonder how they do the mixed content when the degradation is done at the hardware driver level. It must make for a pretty complicated driver to degrade only part of a screen. Maybe the driver is able to do video overlays and degrade just one overlay.
Audio must have the same multipath drivers, one for each application. The phone will work fine while the online subscription radio station is disabled due to the lack of a fully secure audio path to the speakers.
The truth shall set you free!
"Do you want some help?"
Though, come to think of it, this does explain why the Zune turned out the way it did.
What's the GPU in your notebook? Sounds way more like a problem with YUV hardware overlay on a secondary display to me.
Try turning off your internal display, and just go out to the external. I bet it'll work fine.
My video compression blog
Factually wrong.
There are multiple software players producing full-rez HD DVD and BD playback on XP today, via VGA, internal laptop screen, or HDCP connection.
My video compression blog
Row over angry, penis-removing doctor
Though he might have been listening to Bryan Adams' "Cuts Like A Knife," I don't really know.
*sounds of head banging against inside of MRI machine*
Why is everyone complaining? What, you don't like the asshats who won't sell you their movies on your terms? Well, this is capitalism, so do without their movies. Almost all movies suck anyway. What, you don't like how Windows is a shitty OS *AND* has DRM coded into its core? Well, this is a free country, so use a Good operating system instead, there are several of them, and a few of those are even Free. Windows is just about the worst OS out there anyway.
Look, if Freedom wasn't a good enough reason for you all to switch away from Windows, then, damn, maybe this DRM crap will be. It's not like you don't have choices. If nobody bought Vista, and it was because of the DRM thing, and no one bought movies anymore, then how many weeks do you think the DRM bullshit would continue? Four weeks? Maybe eight? You don't think the movie industry would be so stubborn as to go three months with zero movie sales just to prove their ownership over the content, do you? There is one and only one motivator here: money. Speak with your dollars, or STFU.
Clippy: "It looks like you're trying to render an image of a spleen -- Is that what you'd like help doing?" ...
User: "Yes."
Clippy: "Are you sure that's a spleen? -- kinda looks like a liver?"
User: "No, it's a spleen, please help render the medical image."
Clippy: "Your liver is done. Onions still on the grill."
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
It's illegal to buy Vista, now, huh? You tell people this? And refer to them as "customers"? I take it that your business venture has something to do with the linked web site?
I have Vista installed as my primary OS at home (dual-booting with my previous installation of XP SP2.) I was quite shocked when I first fired up my usenet newsreader and discovered that I could download at sustained speeds of *24 MBit/sec* over my *8 MBit/sec* Comcast cable modem connection.
After happily shouting "Holy crap! What the hell?" I verified this download speed on several speed test sites on the web. In addition, my wife's XP computer on the same network seems to be unaffected; she can surf the web with no slowdown, as if I'm not even downloading at all. When I used XP, my download speed would affect her download speed considerably, so that I had to throttle my downloads whenever she was at her computer. I tested my speed by booting back into XP, and my speeds top out at 8 Mbit/sec, as expected.
I have no explanation as to how Vista accomplishes this "magic" speed boost that exceeds the rated speeds of my cable modem line by three times. Something about IPv6? Does Comcast have a separate IPv6 network built for future use that I'm tapping into? I don't know enough about networking to know. I can download a GB of data in about 5 minutes, so I'm definitely not complaining.
Don't discount the new tcp/ip stack in Vista so quickly without trying it yourself. It's the best feature in the OS. I don't like everything about Vista, in fact there's a lot NOT to like about it, but the enhanced tcp/ip performance is reason enough for me to keep it. I do a lot of downloading that would probably not be condoned by the RIAA/MPAA, but so far Vista hasn't stopped me from playing anything, the way I want to play it...including HD video. I don't intend to use HD-DVD or Blu-Ray any time soon...neither my HD-resolution monitor nor my video card have HDCP anyway. But who needs that when you can download DRM-free HD video TODAY?
I'm just waiting for Comcast to discover this "bug" and throttle my connection, as soon as new Vista-preinstalled computers start to appear at the the end of the month, and Comcast sees their bandwidth usage triple. I've been downloading daily, almost 24/7, at 24 MBit/Sec, for over a month now, and have yet to receive a letter from Comcast informing me I'm using too much bandwidth. (However, since I download at 24 MBit/sec, I don't NEED to download 24/7, my downloads finish so quickly!) It might be the fact that I live in a fairly poor area of my community (the poor side of Hillsboro, OR), where the computer and broadband penetration is probably not that great...so I'm not likely impacting many others' cable performance with my downloads.
I'd like to hear from other Vista users, to see if I'm just an anomaly, or if others have experienced the same download speedups. I could find nothing on google to explain this, except the following link, an in-depth interview with the Microsoft team that wrote the new Vista network stack:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116
Quite a long video (40 minutes), but very interesting. They say at one point in the video that they were able to realize drastic speedups using a Vista computer on some of their data lines...with no change on the server side, the only change being using a Vista computer as a client.
Speaking of the QoS on Vista...while I was watching that video, Vista automatically throttled the bandwidth allotted to my newsreader, allowing that high-bandwidth streaming video to play without a hitch. As soon as the video completed, my newsreader's full data bandwidth was restored. No, I have no complaints about the new network stack in Vista.
Since the processor used in the Commodore 64 was part of the 6502 family, it has no privilege levels. An OS that can't have a separate kernel space and user space can't be Linux. The GP is correct, you need a minimum of a 386 to run any version of Linux.
... and when it can't distinguish between the two it degrades both!
Zune is a clear lesson here, when they 'jizzed' their tunes from Zune to Zune, they decided to stick a DRM wrapper on it regardless. Whenever they couldn't determine the copyright status, they stuck a DRM wrapper on it.
So no, you can't trust Microsoft to make sensible balanced decisions on the copyright status of your works, and you may find yourself in a position where these idiots have slapped a DRM wrapper around stuff to reduce the rights you have over it.
While techies may not ever touch protected content, ordinary users certainly will.
Guess who is going to have to clean up this mess and explain why their freshly downloaded (and paid for) movie wont work?
Yep. Us.
Your quoting one publication and he is quoting another. Your spreading FUD as much as he is.
Why do you care if some random person is spreading FUD about a product made by some corporation?
I honestly want to know why any human being anywhere would care whether somebody was lying about an MS product.
evil is as evil does
Also...un-DRMed HD video, including 1080i & 1080p, plays just fine in many different video players in XP and Vista, and Linux and OS X as well. Including Zoom Player, VLC Media Player, and even Windows Media Player, as long as you have the correct codecs installed. No HDCP necessary. No DRM, no degradation. We're talking broadcast HD video captured from over the air, digital cable, or satellite, as unencrypted transport streams. Star Wars Ep 1-6, Serenity, 2001, Batman Begins, The Fly, etc., in 1080i and 1080p HD. *cough* usenet: alt.binaries.hdtv *cough*
Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't an O/S be an enabling piece of software, not a disabling one?
With the respect to this technology, I am not too worried. If I find that the O/S (should I get it from somewhere) does this to a piece of content I shall never ever buy another piece of content. Hence the people pushing this will be at a loss over their idiotic, money-spinning bulls**t. Rant over.
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
I seriously doubt that a dramatic boost in speed can be attributed to Vista. Not because it's Microsoft, but because it's just a pretty outrageous claim. I would think that the ISP changed something, or that the previous OS installation was horribly misconfigured or handicapped in someway, rather than a miraculous feat of genius in coding. And really, to provide 3x speed under standard usage conditions would be pretty miraculous with just a software change. It'd be on par with the invention of Bittorrent, probably even more impressive than that.
"Why would someone doing medical imaging play music/videos on the same computer?"
Because he wants to, and is an expert in his field and a better judge of his circumstances than some dick in Redmond?
You assume the media he's playing is unrelated, but it could be a medical video on the subject, a rights restricted audio, etc.. The person himself is in a better position to judge his circumstances and why the fuck should he have to justify how he uses his PC to you or Microsoft?
OK let's go through this. To be clear: I'm not going to talk about whether MS were forced to implement this stuff or not (I think it's pretty clear that a) they were, but b) it's in their best interests to anyway, and they were probably part of the driving force behind it).
It's just sufficient for us to determine whether this is bad or not.
Sorry to have replied to so much of TFA... there was just a lot to comment on. It's hard to tell whether this was written by a program manager or a politician, with all the spin going on.
These guys were on holidays?
So... what you're saying is, you've been doing this stuff all along without us knowing, which logically makes it OK to keep doing it.
Would it be ironic if I pointed out that making copies of digital media is not new to the content industry. In fact, at one time it was quite possible to make copies of your own data, and hasn't resulted in significant problems to their business models - as evidenced by the increasing sales of physical and downloadable content over the past decade. Therefore there is no reason to prevent it.
What? Are we just stabbing at straws here for a reason why they might have the opposite effect?
In an unprecedented move, the people of the free world may now choose the manner in which their freedoms shall be crushed!
1. No, STFU and stop limiting my options. 2. Answer the question about cost.
In other words, "Yes". I don't consider
It IS pretty unbelievable. Which is why *I* didn't believe it at first, but when my files continued to download at 24 Mbit/sec for weeks, I was forced to conclude it was real, and it was due to something in Vista. Boot back into XP, 8 Mbit/sec downloads using NewsBin or Firefox. Boot into Vista, 24 Mbit/sec downloads using NewsBin and Firefox. It's easily reproducible. If it's not Vista causing this speed difference, what is it? And if it is Vista, what exactly in the tcp/ip stack is it that's causing it? I'd really be interested in the answer to that, I've been highly curious ever since it started. I'm a pretty skeptical person, but I can't deny what's happening right before my eyes, on my computer.
:) Every new version of Windows has had some improvements (except Me...I "upgraded" to Me, then soon after downgraded back to 98SE) and some downfalls. Vista, in my experience, has vastly improved networking speed. Vista's version of file Explorer...not so great. Lots of changes for no apparent reason, except just to do things differently I guess. Takes a while to get used to. Vista's Explorer also refuses to move a directory that contains DVD-video files (VIDEO_TS, VTS_01_4.VOB, etc.)...it says I don't have permission, and there's no way to bypass it (I turned the UAC off after a few days and noticed Explorer was quite a bit peppier right away. I've had a total of one virus ever, which I was able to remove immediately, so the added "protection" of UAC for me was dubious.) You have to create a new destination directory, then copy the DVD-video files to the new directory, then delete the old directory after. Some kind of copy-protection/DRM related to DVDs, I'm sure.
And this is downloading compressed RAR files of already highly-compressed Xvid and DivX avi files, so it's not some data compression causing this. I realize there is no way I can prove my claims, and you have no reason to believe me. I just ask that you keep an open mind, and try it yourself before dismissing the OS as a huge pile of crap.
Sure, it's tempting to think something was wrong with my previous XP install, but I assure you (only my word, of course) it was a highly tuned lean install of XP with only the minimum programs running. I had installed XP fresh only a month or two previously (I do so at least twice a year.) Standard install of XP SP2. Using newest 4-in-1 chipset drivers from VIA, as well as the VIA IDE accelerator and SATA/RAID drivers.
I've been building my own PC computers since 1994 or so. (Before that, I had an AppleIIc.
I do understand that anecdotal experience does not connote a trend. Which is why, in my previous post, I asked for other Vista users' comments, to see if anyone else's networking has sped up since installing Vista. Maybe I just have some strange combination of hardware and software that exploits some Vista bug or Comcast configuration issue. I am running an XP driver for my USR gigabit ethernet card, since Vista drivers don't exist (and might not ever exist)...hmm...
M$ says that Vista/DrmOS 'degrades' unlawful (or whatever they're calling it this morning), video streams.
Now, how hard is it for some irritated hacker to find the conditional jump for 'Degrade Video' and simply convert it to a few NOPs. Recalculate the driver checksum and voilà, c'est fait.
He could even write a neat package installer to 'Automagically Correct DRM Bugs in Vista OSs'. They'll be plenty of those floating over the various p2p and torrent nets.
M$ are shooting themselves in the foot (again).
Your average Joe will complain, the teenagers will download a hack (or even the whole of Vista, hacked), the computer know-it-alls will use a FOSS OS and the rest will buy a Mac.
Me, I'm sticking with my old decrepit OEM WinXP machine with dual-boot/coLinux combo Slackware 10.2
Much better...
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
If you can't give an explanation of how Vista miraculously triples your download speeds, don't expect me to be impressed any more than I am by Creationism. Sorry.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
From a resilience and business continuity point of view,
DRM is a serial chain of single points of failure.
On top of that, it is further a conceptual, hardware and software version 1
(i.e. it has never been tried before in this way, and AFAIK there are no plausible recovery scenarios yet).
Any business who implements this should have their liability insurance canceled or the premiums at least doubled - in my opinion implementing anything with DRM amounts to willfully exposing the company to increased risk for no benefit to the business.
Ergo, from a boardroom perspective this should not be touched with the proverbial barge pole, and anyone who suggests this upgrade without looking at alternatives should consider their position in that light.
Simple. Any more questions?
I'm not a Microsoft programmer. Maybe you should ask one of them?
I have no way to prove to you my claims are true. You have no way to prove my claims are false. I gave several theories in my previous posts why this could be happening. Since I'm not a programmer, I can't tell you why this is happening.
Let's just assume for the sake of argument that my claims are true. I'm simply asking my fellow geeks if they have any theories as to what could be causing this. Believe me or don't believe me, it's all the same to me.
That is fucking disgusting!! It is kind of funny, though it is off-topic.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
Your quoting one publication and he is quoting another. Your spreading FUD as much as he is.
Only on Slashdot would a post saying Vista isn't any slower than XP be considered "FUD".
The M$' PR guys of course target the people who haven't read the original paper.
What PR says is in fact in direct contradiction of purpose the DRM/HDCP was implemented in Vista: to close analogue hole. As long as any kind of unsecured channel remains - and can be used simultaneously with secure one - data could be leaked.
On other side, if the guy isn't lying, then M$ didn't really closed the analogue hole - and hacks are to be expected soon. Somehow, I find that more probable. Blood of innocent bystanders (and that's all industries minus RIAA/MPAA) in the DRM/HDCP vs. analogue hole battle is too be expected.
P.S. I'd rather have M$ PR drones to answer that DRM related question:
Worse part, the remark is made my Microsofty - the worker of M$ itself. Just try to imaging the gap between management and normal workers present in M$ right now.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Funny you should mention that. I got a Mac Book as well recently, to run Linux. I appreciate good engeneering and nice design but I don't like OSX. I really don't, it's too much like windows except I don't have experience with it.
With cedega I agree with you with one exception, I don't believe they're really trying. Last time I used it, two months ago, I couldn't get anything to run without crashing at some point, even the games they listed as "Supported". I fixed it by getting an old PC and slotting in an AGP Geforce 7600, that one runs Windows Xp and will until it's 200W PSU detonates. It runs everything at high detail and full speed, all my other computers just run linux and don't bother with games.
How do you kill that which has no life?
FUD would be saying that Vista is the same speed as or faster than XP in the majority of everyday applications keeping all other variables constant. :P
He is quoting PCPlus and your quoting C|Net. Why are you saying he is spreading fud?
(IMHO I wont believe much about Vista benchmarks that I read about. With MS giving away laptops and probably other things you dont know who to trust.)
In conclusion, there are issues with the DRM in the Zune but if you never play copyrighted content you will never experience them.
/ 20/0350207
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01
Track record.
Here's a thought: some copy protection schemes for games and other software use kernel-mode drivers. I somehow doubt most of the drivers in question are quality-checked or signed by Microsoft. Even if current versions of Windows allow playback of protected media with unsigned drivers loaded, I doubt it'll remain that way once the first hack using one comes out. So eventually, everyone will probably have to choose between being able to play protected games and protected media.
playing a web page with 'protected' content in the background will cause medical images to be degraded are plain incorrect
Just like intalling a MS patch breaking something else is, with most probability, plain incorrect.
Based on past experiences of MS interlacing so much of the OS and not being able to follow specs properly, it isn't plainly incorrect that playing protected media won't affect normal media.
What about the fact that Microsoft is flagrantly flexing it's monopoly power to force video card makers to play along? This is ALL the reason I need to avoid Vista and hope like hell they have non-Windows versions of these cards. What about the fact that your hardware will be polled for complaince every so many seconds? I think Steve Gibson got it perfectly right when he said they should have put the same effort into making Vista stable and safe. I disagree with him, however, when he says there are so many good things in Vista that it offsets this bad thing. The ends don't justify the means. This is really very simple, Microsoft is (as usual) taking a "lets go to the MPAA and RIAA to see what we need to be compliant first, then craft our product in a way that we can market it to the customer." Meanwhile, Apple and Linux are saying, "lets craft our product in a way customers want and then build compliance only where necessary." What do you want, folks? Top-down or bottom-up!?
Oh happy joy! Clearly microsoft is in bed with RIAA/MPAA. Now, i'm a firm believer that most of the stuff they (RIAA/MPAA) is shit, and I don't watch/buy/download it, but the thing is, if i buy a movie, or what have you, i licensed the content. I should (morally) be able to do whatever I like with said content for my own personal use, be it convert to another device, or whatever (classed as "fair use"). DRM technology eliminates that and requires that whenever a platform shift happens i need to re-buy my content.
How the fuck is technology that encourages/mandates this a "happy side effect"?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Sorry but your simply wrong about attributing this to Vista. Either you were upgraded to a higher tier by your ISP ala Optimum Online Boost or Vista is reporting inaccurate speeds.
Vista is no magic bullet, it will only dramatically improve download speeds for DSL/Cable users who have a hosed XP system. These same users would get the same result from reinstalling XP.
The reason why you can't "find anything to back your claim up" is because you've come to the wrong conclusion as to why you might be seeing faster download speeds.
Easy test for your problem. If you don't see the same magic speeds when you boot off of a Linux LiveCD like Knoppix then you can chaulk it up to Vista's new improved TCP/IP stack lying to you.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Theories:
1) Your XP was horribly misconfigured.
I'm wondering what perhaps, booting into Knoppix, and seeing what performance exists would tell us.
And perhaps some data, too. What files, from where, start time, end time, filesize, and what system ( XP or Vista )
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
...because the Microsoft DRM will *never* activate inappropriately due to a bug, and the hospital workers will have *no* troubles flying through the hoops necessary to tell the software that this isn't DRMed material.
Chris Mattern
There are alternatives to Windows. Linux, OS X, BSD, and others. You don't have to tolerate the DRM-fest which is Vista. Or hell, buy Windows 2000 off of feeBay if you must run Windows.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Citing a source = spreading FUD now? Interesting outlook you have there.
1) So my XP is so horribly misconfigured that I was able (and still am able, my XP is still installed as dual boot) to download at the supposed maximum limit of my Comcast cable connection? That makes sense. ;)
I'm paying Comcast for a 8 MBit connection. Comcast does have some kind of turbo deal where it speeds up some downloads. I was occasionally able to get 12 MBit/sec in XP, but it always only lasted a minute or two at the most.
Ok, some data. I timed a newsgroup download with a stopwatch:
11 50.0 MB RAR files = 550 MB
3 min 32 sec
2.59 MB/sec = 20.75 Mbit/sec
You and one other poster suggested a Knoppix cd. Ok, I'm game, I'm on the Knoppix site now. I'll download a copy and try it out, and go to dslreports and get a speed rating from there...or do you have a better suggestion of a download site that should be able to max out a 20-24 MBit connection?
BTW, here's a dslreports url for a test I just did, in Vista:
http://www.dslreports.com/im/22303118/7336.png
Not sure if that url is persistent, but it's working right this second at least. The Atlanta, GA server seems to be the fastest. Not as fast right now as earlier at 3 am, when I was getting 23 Mbit/sec. Didn't save the png url like above though, sorry.
Ok, downloaded the 696 MB ISO in about 9 minutes. Off to burn this cd and go to dslreports from within Knoppix. I'll post back with my results.
Actually I would think that the medical field would embrace Apple with open arms.
OS X is far more reliable and stable than any windows flavor hands down. Apple hardware may cost more than the generic Dell, but is always of high quality. Getting something that is a few hundred dollars cheaper where you are charging more than the cost of the hardware just to look at 1 X-Ray would not make any sense.
If there is software available for OS X that meets the needs of the medical staff, there is no need to take the risks associated with using any flavor of windows, from ME, to Vista.
Think about is Slashdot readers, your life depends on this, which would you see being used?
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
- Windows Vista Home Basic
- Windows Vista Home Premium
- Windows Vista Business
- Windows Vista Home Ultimate
- DVI or HDMI video support with HDCP
- A non-revoked DVI driver (version 2.11 or higher) or a non-revoked HDMI driver (version 1.53 or higher)
- an authorized media player (such as Windows Media Player 10)
- video card, sound card, etc...
Please visit http://www.sonypictures.com/ for a complete list of supported hardware and software.If so, I hope Microsoft's goal here is to stop people from playing HD content in computers. I doubt most people will go through that kind of trouble to watch a movie.
Of course, it may just be the case that your HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs just aren't guaranteed to play in your computer's HD-DVD and Blu-Ray drives, and may not work without warning. Like some CDs.
A very well written post. I cannot help but find myself agreeing with it, even though I smell a hint of demagogy in there.
to be honest i would rather have a kiosk that has the only software on it being run is the software that is needed to view the image from the mri machine, no commercial os, no other software running on it behind the scenes.
Most of these workstations are have to interact with specialized hardware. This hardware often requires expansion cards in the computer, or legacy ports like serial and parallel ports to be used (since the hardware revisions for stuff like this last a longer than in the computer world). Apple's hardware is simply not flexible enough to be up to the task. Also, this equipment tends to be in use a lot longer than the liketime of a typical computer. In the PC world you can buy Socket 478 (a current Intel socket) boards with ISA slots, allowing a failing 386, 486, or Pentium computer to be updated, so perfectly good older equipment can still be used. Yes, I have seen these boards in use. Apple is far too quick to drop legacy standards or to completely change their hardware (not to mention drop support for older versions of their OS) for their computers to be considered for this kind of application.
Also, OSX will soon be hobbled by the same DRM that currently inflicts Vista. So I don't see these kind of specialized workstations switching to Apple anytime soon.
So I'm in Knoppix now. Knoppix appears to have approximately the same maximum network bandwidth as Vista (on my computer.) Running a speed test at dslreports, I can get 19.83 Mbit/sec:
:) The way I read it, it's not that Vista is so great...it's the fact that XP's network stack is bad...or at least slow. But then we probably all knew that already. Which is why Microsoft rewrote it for Vista. So now it is as good as Linux's network stack...at least as far as: sustained download speeds from newsgroups using Comcast. Who knows if it's as good in any other way. Time will tell. My point in posting in the first place was to say: I was getting drastically better download speeds using Vista, so Microsoft definitely did at least one thing right - but YMMV. I think I'll keep Vista, it works for me.
:)
http://www.dslreports.com/im/22307322/3521.png
I'm big enough to admit I was wrong...sorta.
It seems like it's pretty obvious now that both Vista and Knoppix are exploiting Comcast's speed boost somehow. Because I don't pay for a 20 Mbit connection, I pay for 8 Mbit, and 8 Mbit is all I was getting in XP...with the occasional boost up to 12 Mbit. When I was doing sustained downloading in XP using NewsBin, I would get a constant 8 Mbit/sec. But in Vista, I can sustain 20-24 Mbit/sec, for days at a time, while downloading from newsgroups. Don't know if I would be able to do the same from Linux...maybe, maybe not. I can't really test it since I'm using a live cd, and I don't think NewsBin is compatible with Linux...although I understand it runs fine under Wine.
I'd still like to hear from any other Vista users. Anyone else's internet speeds dramatically increase while using Vista? Or is it just me? (And thanks to those that responded to my posts. It was educational.
Apple hardware may cost more than the generic Dell, but is always of high quality.
Don't make ludicrous assertions. Remember, this is a form of tech people, not a Graphic Arts convention or a fashion salon in the arts district of a big city.
Are you saying there isn't a single Macintosh out there that will run the current version of Mac OS that I can use my expensive General Instruments (LabView) NuBus data acquisition cards in?!?
So much for single-sourced hardware platforms....
The current print edition of 'PC Magazine' (article apparently not on the Web edition) compared Vista to XP on eight common apps/tasks (Photoshop being one of them). IIRC, Vista was faster (significantly, if I recall) on two tasks and slower by anywhere from 7% to 23% on the other six.
I was just thumbing through the print edition at the local bookstore and don't have a copy with me. Perhaps someone else here has a subscription and can give us a recap, as I don't recall the exact apps/tasks tested, just that Photoshop was one app that was significantly slower on Vista, doing that particular task(s). Enough that pro graphic artists (such as myself) might think twice about it.
* * * * * *
A man's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink.
--W.C. Fields
Apparently it's the current print edition of 'PC World' that ran the article. I still can't find an online version, but this blog references it:
http://www.neowin.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php/ t526459.html
* * * * *
Common sense is instinct, and enough of it is genius.
--Josh Billings
Yes, there is one scenario under which you can LEGALLY watch premium content at full quality: If you have end-to-end HDCP encryption, meaning a monitor that support HDCP (extremely rare), a video card that supports HDCP (rare), an OS that supports HDCP (Vista), and playback software that supports HDCP. If you are missing any elements of the above, Vista will not LEGALLY playback HD video at full res. Furthermore, XP will never have the ability to LEGALLY play HD-DVD and Blu-ray at full res. So, in short, all you need to do is wait till the consumer Vista release, and purchase a Vista Ultimate system with a brand new monitor to replace the 23" LCD flat panel you bought last year. Don't forget the DVI-HDCP compliant cables, and the 5.1 digital speakers with HDCP support. OR, YOU CAN WAIT 2 WEEKS FOR THE CRACK.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
TiVo runs Linux but isn't a PC. What notable application of Linux on PC-class hardware doesn't include the GNU software stack?
Content and DRM are orthogonal.The nine major members of the MAFIAA (Sony, Warner, WMG, Universal, Vivendi, Fox, Disney, Paramount, EMI) disagree with you. They see handcuffware as the only way they know to publish their works while preventing widespread flagrant infringement of their law-given exclusive rights.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...demozoggery, and yes, I do it all the time, I freely admit it. Have since I was a kid. Once wrote a conservation essay just slap fulla of it and won a state wide contest. You gots to have some zeal in life!
I get pretty passionate about politics, and you can't twist economics from politics, they are completely entwinned, so I have at it.
With the software vendors and the media hardware folks and then the criminal (yes criminal) **AA products companies and those nutso orgs-if they would have just kept dropping prices drastically as new tech advances made that possible to the consumer, there wouldn't even have been much of a napster-like problem. They got used to making x-profit based on costs back 35 years ago or something. Tech advances made it so they could drop distribution costs to a few percent of that now with downloading and with cheap plastic disks. They in no way, manner, shape or form dropped prices accordingly, not even close. That's it, that's their big mistake, and it is glaringly obvious. They could have easily upped their market by doing hugemongusly larger volume sales, and never pissed off one customer.
Instead of doing that they maintain thoroughly ludicrous pricing levels, they come up with insane DRM schemes every other week, they bribed and bullied their way into making their complete insanity "law", and none of that will ever really work, all it has done is push their own customers away by treating them like crap,and they still keep shafting their own talent by cheating them of more and better sales, etc. And they you have big companies like MS and all the others *who are going along with it*.
Nuts. I call it like I see it, them boys may be rich now, but they are still *nuts* and they are hurting society in general by trying to legislate away decent technological advances.
I tell ya whut, I make food for folks as my primary income. If ever a food replicator tech comes along that puts me out of a job..GREAT! NO problems at all! If the planet can be fed for much cheaper and better, eliminating mass starvation and the expense for people, drop it down to much more affordable, I am all for it, even if it means I need to go do something else for a living. I don't care, the overall benefits outweigh any temporary inconvenience for me. I'd switch to being a hunting guide or teach outdoor skills or work in the alternative energy business or just write or work on my wild ass inventions or something else I can do good, I wouldn't care a bit. I certainly wouldn't push for legislation which artificially cripples people's ability to have or use a food replicator or drive up the cost just to maintain some status quo.
That's why on the ag side I am TOTALLY against GM manufactured "terminator" seeds/plants, or plant patents for that matter. Completely crazy there, DRM for FOOD. That's even worse than what they are doing with digital bits, this is aFOOD we are talking about now, a necessity, I won't do it, wouldn't use it, would fight against it, and have. My own garden, open pollinated-no patents, all the way.
No Food DRM!
It will be nice to see third party tests under these conditions. Also, what will happen when content providers try to tweak the systems? I don't think Microsofts developers or any others know. Still, I hope it has all been a tempest in a teapot.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"The current print edition of 'PC Magazine' (article apparently not on the Web edition) compared Vista to XP on eight common apps/tasks (Photoshop being one of them). IIRC, Vista was faster (significantly, if I recall) on two tasks and slower by anywhere from 7% to 23% on the other six."
I'm no MS apologist, and I'm personally not going anywhere near Vista at least until SP1 is released,
but I think its still too early to take current benchmark comparisons between vista and XP seriously,
especially for stuff like graphics processing and editing.
Most likely driver support or lack thereof is one of the major problems with vista at the moment.
Windows XP had teething issues as well at launch, and many people didn't start migrating to XP
until after SP2 was released.
Similarly with Win98 it was kinda crappy until 98SE made it quite a bit less crappy.
Of vista course always go the route of WinME which was completely craptacular, but with a facelift!
What a joke, DRM has NOTHING to do with protecting content, it is all about enforcing payment schemes and screwing users. It is power, pure and simple, to build non-interoperable walled gardens so they can extract more payment.
Other than Blu-ray, there is NO DRM infection that has ever protected anything, ever. Before you point to BR as a shining example of the new order, give it time, not much time at that. I am confident that it will be comprehensively cracked too, and the nothing protected ever thing will stand.
DRM for content protection is a mathematical impossibility. DRM as a revenue stream is evil, anti-consumer, and the new way.
-Charlie
...no commercial os...
You would rather have the people not only have to write the software but also write everything to interface with all the hardware as opposed to let them use APIs in an existing OS where the fundamental bugs were ironed out a decade or few ago?
My bad. I forgot that /. equates expressing a basic understanding of rights and responsibilities under the law with pretending to be a lawyer. Sorry. I'll try not to do that again.
To which link do you refer? If you mean my spare-time link, then no.
So what are people going to do when Vista doesn't let them do the things they want, things they have the right to do under the law but which the software outright forbids them to do, despite the capability being evident? This is much more likely to happen through Microsoft error than through MPAA intent, though the latter shouldn't be discounted either. What then? What are people going to do?
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
Bye
Given That Information Wants to Be Free...
...and it's proven time after time that Information becomes free in the end.
If you have bits that somebody else wants to read, and those DRM'd bits come into possession of the public, given enough attention, they are going to be read.
Amateur Librarians everywhere are always ready for the freed bits with their BitTorrent.
Why haven't they learned that is a foolish, wasted, investment to develop or implement DRM technology?
In the final analysis, it's no less or more difficult to copy anything with DRM than without. It's just a fun and interesting challenge for the motivated and talented research hackers.
I feel sorry for any engineer who spends their time working on DRM. I suppose that some of them might be getting rich by selling this DRM snake oil to the willing buyers. I suppose the unwise among us believe they can create an unhackable DRM system.
Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
The content of this discussion is subject to being monitored by microsoft employees, or people receiving
payment from the same. Some who have actually been around long enough to generate a few moderator points.
Note that these people may originate comments claiming FUD, perhaps without providing backup evidence.
When they do, actually read the links given and note the originating source.
Games have already been benchmarked on both and the performance difference was negligible (GameSpot reported at least once that the difference was +/- one frame per second.)
I find that surprising, as there are no "real" drivers out for ATI or NVIDIA yet. Ati still has their beta version up on their page, and Nvidia has drivers for RTM. Waiting at least until both companies have released WHQL drivers for the release version of Vista is in order before one can judge any potential performance difference.
Does it exist? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. Get rid of it. I want more control over my content and my computer not less. Microsoft only gets business partners not customers.
If you see content sold in such a fashion, do not purchase it. If manufacturers sell hardware that supports it don't buy that hardware. If given a choice of drivers supporting it or not, choose those not supporting it. If you have a choice between knowing your OS does not violate your privacy and your functionality then chose one that doesn't. I use windows XP primarily but have a few Linux boxes. My suggestion is that only Linux can protect your privacy and your security (from prying corporate eyes) and that Windows Vista does just the opposite.
There's no compelling reason to purchase Vista. The choice should be for XP on new boxes. As those you purchase from and demand non-right-infringing software.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Are any of you out there breathing a sigh of relief that some radiologist isn't going to be making a mistake during the examination of your X-ray while listening to Welcome to the Jungle? Seriously, how stupid and unlikely was this doomsday scenario anyway?
Drivers, DON'T WORRY! If an unauthorized steering wheel is detected, ONLY THE STEERING will be affected, and ONLY FOR THE ROAD YOU ARE ON. The brakes, accelerator, and "oh shit" handles will still function 100%.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Not that a promise from Microsoft to deliver security updates is worth much, but officially Windows 2003 is still fully supported, and Windows 2000 (Professional as well as server editions) is in the extended support phase (and will be for another three years), which means there is still free security updates.
There are plenty of valid things to complain about with Microsoft -- no need to complain about any invalid ones
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
no. it's called keeping it as simple as possible. it's impossible to make a full featured os like linux/unix/macos/windows etc bug free.
"If you never play copyrighted content..."
Uhm, then why do I need a Zune?
To play back pictures of ME?
Sorry, I'm not that cruel to myself.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Electronically-distributed reference and training materials are likely to be protected, as well as other material required by doctors, architects, artists, audio and video engineers, and so on. Every copy protection ever implemented has turned out to protect too much, so I think it's likely that this will interfere with medical imaging, audio chart notes, professional graphics, audio and video production, and so on--with actual work done on these computers. Some life-threatening results in the medical and building professions seem likely. I think Microsoft has probably made an honest effort here, and they believe this will work as claimed. But it doesn't seem likely that it will. As if this were not enough, it's probably going to make these systems unreliable for general consumers, and while I think the media companies will be happy that consumers end up not wishing to use computers to view their oh-so-precious content, I doubt that MS will be happy about it. Finally, it strikes me that the resources that went into these protection schemes could have been used to improve the Windows UI, develop applications, and, well, do useful things instead of waste everyone's time.
Damnit! The point is not whether or not they are currently misusing their power to decide what content will be delivered at what quality; the fact is that they do have that power. In other words, they decide what you can view and how you can view it!
Now, given Microsoft's record in the industry (I won't discuss that right now, it is all too well documented in the DOJ's case against Microsoft and a matter of public record) why in the hell should we assume that it will always be this way?
Goddamnit people! We are all too willing to document sex offenders, label chronic drug users and poor credit risks as poor candidates for certain jobs; why in the hell are you willing to credit Microsoft, a convicted monopolist, with some sort of forgiving attitude about what they do next with the power they have been granted by **AA and their $millions in bribes to Congressmen? Do you really believe they will continue to do the right thing? Then you are morons! Their addiction is money! They crave it; they must have it; and they wil do anything to get more of it! Why the hell do you think we have any reason to trust them?
"What is their alternative? Should they let others spew incorrect FUD all day long?"
Seems ironic doesn't it?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Everything he said about your attempt to invalidate posts you don't agree with by using the "Give me proof" bullshit is true. Look it up yourself Dude... it's not that hard.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Oldest to newest:
So, while it seems Gutmann's article had some truth in it, I'd take it with a huge grain of salt.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
No. Blaming someone else for spreading FUD when they're quoting a publication, then quoting a different publication yourself to refute his point of view...
If you state the first person spreading FUD, then so does the second, since he's doing exactly the same. So either or neither.
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
The only reason that M$ can be sued for this is because it's a US company, so it can be confronted with breaking US law. However the linux developers are generally not living in the US, and them breaking a US law is completely inconsequential. The only problem that you're going to get here (and it already exists as far as encryption/decryption schemes go) is that the specific modules that break the US law on copyright/IP/(crypto) can not be used in the US, can not be distributed to/from the US, and anyone in the US found using these will be in breach of the law.
However, if I use a DES-128 encryption scheme in say Europe, I don't break any laws in my locale. Exporting this to/Importing this in the US however is a problem where I *will* be breaking the law, since I'm using more than a 54-bit scheme and will fall under the US munitions law.
Splut.
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
More exactly if you don't play back copyrighted and restricted content, files you ripped yourself or "received" without DRM on them aren't subject to any limitations.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Well, yes, that's what people do when they make software for embedded systems.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
that the person is incorrect.
If YOU can't find proof they are wrong (e.g. someone else led the DRM charge on the Home PC) then you don't KNOW they are wrong.
You state "wrong" but don't back up that claim.
Missed the point completely, I see.
Files without DRM aren't subject to limitations. Well, that's obvious, now, isn't it?
Files that are are protected with DRM are subject to limitations. That was the point of the criticisms of Vista.
My question was: why would I buy a Zune if I don't want to play any commercial content? And if all commercial content ends up with DRM, exactly what would I "rip myself" or "receive" that would be without limitations - just the stuff from the past, right? Nothing new, right?
So if I want to avoid DRM, I end up not being able to play most commercial stuff.
So, again, why would I want to buy a Zune NOT to play anything?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Dell rivets their cases shut. Really makes it easy to clean the CPU's cooling fan! I guess next they'll be welding them shut.
Which came first, impenetrable or black?
There's loads of commercial content that isn't DRMed. CDs, mp3s, etc. As long as they're still selling CDs you can get DRM-free material.
It's not like the currently DRMed stuff would be DRM free if MS didn't support DRM, their products would just be incapable of playing those files and somebody else (e.g. Apple) would offer a DRM format that the content gets released in so you'd be just as SOL whether MS offers DRM or not.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Where's the proof bub...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
If they're using Mbps instead of MBps then you're not really going any faster :-)
NOW there are loads of non-DRMed material.
The point of Vista and the RIAA is to get rid of that stuff - even from the independents (which I doubt is possible, but they will try.)
The bottom line is that the IT industry could have simply said, "We aren't doing this because it will piss off our customers." And the media industry would have had to back down and find some other way to be assholes. Microsoft alone is nearly bigger than either the music industry or the movie industry.
Gates is using this to assert more control over HIS customers and make an attempt to get a toehold in the media industry himself (in order to take away Apple's business) - NOT just to support the media industry's paranoia.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
The point of Vista and the RIAA is to get rid of that stuff
I haven't seen anything that suggests Vista discourages using unrestricted content.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Microsoft isn't being forced to implement DRM. Microsoft WANTS DRM. They aren't looking to protect content providers, they're planning on becoming a content provider. That's what this is about. Microsoft does what Microsoft wants, nobody tells them what to do unless it makes no difference to them anymore. And even if Microsoft didn't plan on selling media content, you now who already does? Bill Gates. Ever hear of Corbis?
Since you are getting more bandwidth out of Vista and Knoppix than your provider expects you to, I'd guess that XP is sending packets in the way that your provider's bandwidth throttling system expects, while the other OSes are sending slightly different packets which the throttling system doesn't understand (but passes anyway), allowing you to reach the theoretical maximum of your connection rather than the throttled maximum. This would be consistent with the fact that your other XP machines don't notice a downgrade in speed while another OS is sending packets. In that case, the speed increase is not because a particular networking stack is better but because the provider's software is misconfigured. If so, any advantage of Vista or Linux will vanish as soon as enough Vista machines come online for the provider to realize their mistake.
Thanks for actually reading my full posts and thinking about the possible explanations before simply knee-jerk responding that a perceived Vista improvement couldn't possibly exist, like some others have done. You've given me an explanation that sounds like it's spot-on with my experiences. Sounds like you know a little something about networking.
;)
In fact, it looks like Comcast finally figured it out, as just yesterday I started getting throttled back to 8 MBit/sec max in Vista. Damnit. Hmm, a few days after I post that I'm getting extra speed out of my Comcast connection...does someone at Comcast read slashdot?
Now, I generally will get a spike up to 12 MBit/sec and sometimes as high as 24 MBit/sec, but it quickly drops back to a solid 8 MBit/sec within 30 seconds. Oh well, the extra speed was nice while it lasted. And I'm not really complaining - Comcast has consistently provided me with exactly the amount of bandwidth they promised to me...which is unfortunately all too uncommon with ISPs.
WARNING PLEASE DONT READ In 1945, a young girl named katu lata kulu came over to America in a grey boat from Africa. A mysterious man killed her by cutting the word "LATUALATUKA" into her back. now that you have read this message, she will come to your house on a full moon and steal your soul unless you follow these directions: 1. Retype this message as a comment for 3 other stories.