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.'"
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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!
Quite possibly. Microsoft is dealing with a monopolistic cartel, that has considerable influence over the legislature. As monopolies go, the RIAA and MPAA have levels of market saturation similar to MS, in the 90% range, and while their members are run by a few hundred major stockholders, adding just the top hundred or so together gives a picture of financial clout far exceeding Bill Gates'.
Almost nobody in the houses of congress has shown any public sign of personally hating any RIAA spokesman since a few criticized Jack Valetti 20 years ago, while according to beltway insiders there are some congressmen who have publicly expressed great dissapointment that Microsoft didn't get more penalties from the justice dept., and a few that will still publicly say that the company should flat have been busted up.
Notice that that cartel members make much less per year than the hardware manufacturers collectively do (by some estimates, the hardware companies are about 8x-10x as big as all the commercial media conglomerates put together), but their representitive group seems to be strong arming the hardware makers just fine. Notice too that Sony, for just one example, makes a lot more money on hardware than media, but the media division has steered the company into several stupid decisions in a row and still seems to have plenty of clout, at least internally.
The **AAs have whole groups of the most charismatic spokesmen possible willing to speak for them, and that greatly amplifies the effects of their campaign contributions. One appearance by the right movie star endorsing a particular candidate can be worth millions in an election year, while few voters would change their minds simply because Gates or Balmer endorsed anyone. (In other words, Microsoft has to do just about everything with money, while big media has other tools that sometimes work better).
Who is John Cabal?
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.