One can not care about DRM and yet feel greatly about sweatshops. There is a scale for these things.
Yeah, but this is Slashdot where Microsoft is the most harmful company to have ever existed and Bill Gates the most evil man in the world. Of *course* DRM is a moral issue with few peers.
Of course, I tend to clarify it with the caveat that what they want to do can't hurt or take away the freedom of others.
Y'know, taken to its logical extreme everywhere, rather than just the issue you happen to be focusing on at this particular instant, that doesn't leave a lot of things you can do.
Got a job ? Sorry, you're taking away the "freedom" of someone else to have that job.
Eating food ? Sorry, you're taking away the "freedom" of someone else to eat that food.
Got a home ? Sorry, you're taking away the "freedom" of all the people who don't.
Etc, etc and so forth.
If you support copyright as a _principle_ (that is, creators of "works" should have ultimate control over those works) then you cannot rationally oppose DRM, which does nothing more than allow creators of works more control than they have previously had.
Device makers can and do use QNX or VxWorks as suitable. Or they could follow Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, which wrote operating systems from scratch for their respective game consoles.
Nitpick: Microsoft's consoles run a variant of Windows NT - and while Microsoft _did_ develop NT from scratch, it wasn't really written "for the XBox[360]".
Don't forget that States are not the whole world. There's also Europe. There's Asia with South Korea, Japan and CHINA.
In Europe, Copyright is considered a fundamental human right, not a legal privilege. Do you seriously think they're going to take a less restrictive path on enforcing copyright than the US ?
Another one is China: they don't even care about DRM. But who produces most of electronics? Who sets the prices?
Just like the US, China will start respecting international copyright (and patent, for that matter) laws when it becomes economically advantageous for them to do so. Again, when that happens, you're kidding yourself if you don't think Chinese (and multinational) content companies won't do the same thing there they have in the US.
Plus there's a Linux that is gaining very strong foothold especially in Europe.
I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. Linux is just a platform, it has no impact on the restrictions that are (or aren't) placed on media it is being used to view.
That would be correct, however root exploits are a little harder to achieve on a Mac. Harder, not impossible. The Mac, BY DEFAULT has you type your password every time you want to install software.
Irrelevant (not to mention untrue, in many cases and unreqiuired for most - assuming you are the default "admin" user setup on first install).
The Mac, BY DEFAULT has the root login disabled.
Also irrelevant. Elevating the typical user account to root privileges is trivial.
I don't know how this meme of "root disabled == safe" got started, but it's _wrong_. For the vast majority of things the vast majority of malware might want to do, elevated privileges are _not_ required. They're a nice bonus, but far, far from essential.
The Mac, by default has a better infrastructure then Windows....period...and I am not a fan boy.
The "security infrastructure" of OS X, which is based on traditional unix, cannot hold a candle to that of Windows NT. 10.5 might be better, but that remains to be seen.
I'll put up Linux, the Mac or any UNIX based system against the swiss cheese that is Windows XP any day. Yes, even Mac OS X and Linux are vulnerable, but the time to patch at least on Linux is very fast compared to Windows XP and the architecture is different and more secure....BY DEFAULT. They are all what Windows should have been.
In almost every way measurable, the architecture of Windows is superior to that of OS X and Linux. The vast majority of "security problems" in Windows have _zero_ to do with low level architecture or bugs.
Similarly, if a software company can be shown to be grossly negligent about the security of their operating system software (because, for instance, their marketing department didn't want to remove "convenient" but dangerous features), that company should be criminally and civilly liable for all damages caused by their product.
Something more esoteric that new Mac buyers might not be aware of, is that Apple's Nvidia drivers do not support display rotation. If you want to rotate your displays under OS X, you need a Mac with an ATI video card (I haven't tested it on a Mini, their GMA might support it as well).
I'm beginning to think Nvidia video cards are considered something of a red-headed stepchild on the Macintosh platform...
I bet to differ with the parent. The remote I use for my HTPC setup is the one that comes with Radeon AIW video cards. With a little irblaster and few scripts on the HTPC I can (and do) use the one remote to operate everything connected to the TV. That thing eats up far more than 5 sets of batteries a year.
I concur. My MCE Remote works its way through a pair of rechargable 2500mah AA cells every ~6 weeks or so.
Not quite. The Vista that is shipping to consumers at the end of the month and to businesses already is based off of 2003 Server.
Uh, yeah. Just like Linux 2.6 is "based off" Linux 2.4. You think OS developers start all over again with every release ?
Vista is a significant update to Windows NT, easily justifying a major version bump. It is NT 6.0, as reported by 'ver' on any Vista machine.
This is not NT 6.0. Service Pack 1 for Vista will update the Vista kernel to the Longhorn kernel which is NT 6.0.
No, it won't. Vista is NT 6.0. Vista Server (or whatever they end up calling it) _might_ be NT 6.1, but probably not (I can't think of anything it's set to being that would justify even a minor version bump).
All the major work that is going to be done to the NT kernel for the next few years (that the public will see) has been done. Not to mention, you don't deliver major system changes like a major kernel update in a service pack. Crikey, this isn't Linux. That reality discounts your theory.
The family tree looks like, starting from NT4 (I'd ASCII it, but Slashdot won't let me):
* Windows NT 4.0 begat Windows 2000 (NT 5.0).
* Win2k begat XP (NT 5.1) and 2k3 (NT 5.2).
* XP begat the unfinished development version of Longhorn.
* 2k3 begat XP64 (5.3?) and Vista (NT 6.0).
Major (recent) revisions of NT have been NT4 (4.0), 2000 (5.0) and Vista (6.0). Minor revisions have been XP (5.1), 2003 (5.2) and XP64 (5.3 or 5.2.1 maybe). Vista is unquestionably a major revision of NT.
There was a time once where Windows NT was CPU architecture independent, but this was just an experiment to if Microsoft customers could be used as a scare tactic and as pawns to strongarm Intel (Microsoft had no serious intent to be CPU portable).
WTF are you on about ? NT was designed from the ground up to be portable (first development versions weren't even targeted at x86) and this has carried through its development until the present. At any given time, NT has had ports to at least 2 - 3 different platforms under active development. Right now, it's available for x86, x86-64, Itanium and PPC (XBox 360). In the past, it's run on MIPS, Alpha and SPARC.
You could easily build a computer with disk I/O system capable of that sort of performance today, even with cheap consumer level components. Splash out on 10 gig ethernet and it wouldn't even need to be the same box as the one decoding the signal.
You have got to me kidding me. What is this? What age are we living in today? Why is it anything technology related makes people go back 2000 years in thinking?
2000 years ago, the very idea of ~12 "chilren" being "harmed" from seeing naked people - let alone anyone getting in trouble for it - would have been laughable.
This whole "innocence of childhood" thing is a very recent - and largely American - invention.
While we may not be entirely responsible and there may very well be natural forces causing the Earth's weather to act in a drunken manner, that does not mean we can not change it!
Practically, we can't. Short of cataclysmic events like global nuclear war, humanity cannot affect the entire planet in any reliably predictable way - primarily because the timescales are simply too big but also because there are simply too many variables to account for.
Attempting to deliberately change climate on a global scale is the epitomy of "chasing the dials".
And I get that you can install all the codecs you want on a MCE computer. But I'm not so sure about a full-blown computer hooked up to my TV. The XBox360 needs help to play media other than WMA and WMV, like transcoding from a MCE computer. Will a Windows Home Server do the same thing?
A "Windows Home Server" has no bearing on things like codecs. It's basically a fileserver (although I expect to see something like a "Windows Home Server and Media Centre", which will combine MCE functionality and WHS functionality, that you're expected to access via media extenders or XBox 360s (720s ?).
Microsoft may be starting to market Windows MCE as a set top box, I don't know, but that's nowhere close to what it seems to have been since the release. I've never been able to quite place what Microsoft was going for with it. Is it supposed to replace my VCR/DVD/DVR? Do I hook it up to my TV? Does the computer sit next to the TV? Do I run cables from the living room to wherever the computer is? Is it my choice? If Windows MCE is meant as a set top box, this functionality for the XBox360 is kinda redundant.
An MCE device is meant to be "the" set-top box. The one device you get to replace everything else - DVD player, DVR, etc. One place (and one remote !) to use to access all your "stuff".
The XBox 360 is meant to be a complement to your MCE device. It goes in another room and allows other people to get at all the stuff your MCE box can do, without stopping you doing it at the same time.
The first versions of MCE were not a comprehensive platform to do this (eg: max of two tuners supported "officially", although it's not hard to make more work), but it was a definite and obvious step down that path. I haven't tried Vista MCE yet, but I would assume it follows much the same principles.
(The AppleTV, on the other hand, is basically just a portal to the iTunes Store. I really do think Apple have miscalculated with a product of such limited scope. Sure, everyone today has the DVD player, the VCR, the digital TV box, the satellite TV box, the DVR, etc, etc - but I don't really think anyone *prefers* to have all those separate devices when a single box could do it all.)
Seriously, Microsoft should make a device similar to the Core XBox360, but strip the 3D acceleration out. Put a stripped down version of MCE on it that doesn't have the recording functions to keep the hardware requirements lower. Let it connect to Windows shares and off you go.
You can get these already, they're called Media Extenders.
How much did you end up spending for your MiniMac+MCE setup?
About AU$1300 (so probably US1000ish - you can probably do it cheaper in the US because hardware there is relatively cheaper). But that's with three TV tuners as well.
Microsoft now makes money on the XBox360, so the hardware is certainly cheap enough (on a large scale) that they could release a little media device for a price of $149 or so I'd guess. Put in a link to download movies or TV shows or whatever off of XBox Live. I'd buy it.
But then you've just got an AppleTV which is, I think (and I think Microsoft agree with me), a solution looking for a problem. It just doesn't *do* enough to be worth spending money, time, TV inputs and remote control frustration on.
The primary reason I set up Windows MCE was to combine all the functionality I wanted (primarily, DVD player, video streaming and digital TV - not even DVR at the time) into a *single* device which would then present a *single* consistent interface to access it.
I really think MCE has the golden opportunity here to "pwn" the market, by letting people consolidate all their "media consumption" functionality into a single place.
The fact that people don't care/know about DRM and availability of "official" content doesn't preclude the success of a "cheap" device. There's lots of content for it. The "publisher" is mostly irrelevant in the consumers' eyes; look at the amo
That depends on what you do with the hardware. If all you ever do with the hardware is press the power button, you're fine. If you make any upgrades, WGA may decide to cut you off.
WTF are you talking about. I can buy a low-end MCE device in _Australia_ for under a thousand bucks - it's hard to see how an equivalent would cost much more than US$500. Heck, you could build one yourself with a Mac Mini for under US$800, and that's hardly the cheapest way to go about it.
Holy shit. For US$2000 you could probably buy enough Windows MCE equipment to make it accessible in 4 or 5 rooms at once.
~$300 for an Apple Media Extender
Which has a mere fraction of the functionality of MCE.
If all you want is the few things an AppleTV does and don't mind sacrificing yet another TV input to do it, then great - but comparing it to MCE is just ridiculous. An MCE device is easily worth 2x or more the cost of an AppleTV.
Easy choice. And having the choice of server OS certainly reduces lock-in.
Why was this modded Troll? The poster is correct. Vista is packed with DRM, far beyond what Apple builds in. OS X doesn't disable or degrade drivers for hardware that can be used to record audio or video when you're watching protected content.
Yet.
They'll have to, however, because - as so many people forget in their irrational need to attack Microsoft - DRM and the impact of viewing DRMed content on DRM-incapable hardware, is being dictated by the people who provide the media.
Your options are not going to be "watch it degraded on Vista or watch it full quality on OS X or Linux", they're going to be "watch it degraded on Vista or don't watch it at all on OS X or Linux".
Apple will *have* to build the same kinds of capabilities into OS X, or no-one is going be be able to play the same DRMed content on OS X, because the *content providers* aren't going to licence a player on a platform that won't degrade/deny the output when they deem it necessary.
Your rage should be directed at the media corporations, not the companies who have to build tools to their specifications or go out of business.
At least for me personally, it's the WGA and activation DRM that determines if I'm still allowed to use my legally purchased OS license on my legally purchased hardware.
Which, if you have a legally purchased OS license, you are...
Now, you compare this behavior with Microsoft. As a musician, my concerns about fidelity and rights and restrictions are fairly wide-ranging. Vista, Microsoft's new OS, will degrade audio that is "unsigned", meaning, it didn't come from someone who has made some sort of agreement with Microsoft. So I can create high fidelity works, try t play them back in Vista, and it will intentionally screw them up on playback.
No, it won't.
The DRM in Vista is just as "consumer chosen" as it is on OS X. Don't want it ? Don't buy DRM-encumbered media.
I'll still use my 360 for games, but won't by bullied into either converting all my video to WMV or purchasing a pre-built (since the OS is only OEM) XP Media Center box.
So instead you'll limit yourself to Apple's proprietry formats and having to purchase stuff from the iTunes Store ?
The mind boggles at how someone could think moving from Microsoft to *Apple*, would reduce "lock-in"...
Slashdot Mirror
One can not care about DRM and yet feel greatly about sweatshops. There is a scale for these things.
Yeah, but this is Slashdot where Microsoft is the most harmful company to have ever existed and Bill Gates the most evil man in the world. Of *course* DRM is a moral issue with few peers.
Of course, I tend to clarify it with the caveat that what they want to do can't hurt or take away the freedom of others.
Y'know, taken to its logical extreme everywhere, rather than just the issue you happen to be focusing on at this particular instant, that doesn't leave a lot of things you can do.
Got a job ? Sorry, you're taking away the "freedom" of someone else to have that job.
Eating food ? Sorry, you're taking away the "freedom" of someone else to eat that food.
Got a home ? Sorry, you're taking away the "freedom" of all the people who don't.
Etc, etc and so forth.
If you support copyright as a _principle_ (that is, creators of "works" should have ultimate control over those works) then you cannot rationally oppose DRM, which does nothing more than allow creators of works more control than they have previously had.
Device makers can and do use QNX or VxWorks as suitable. Or they could follow Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, which wrote operating systems from scratch for their respective game consoles.
Nitpick: Microsoft's consoles run a variant of Windows NT - and while Microsoft _did_ develop NT from scratch, it wasn't really written "for the XBox[360]".
Don't forget that States are not the whole world. There's also Europe. There's Asia with South Korea, Japan and CHINA.
In Europe, Copyright is considered a fundamental human right, not a legal privilege. Do you seriously think they're going to take a less restrictive path on enforcing copyright than the US ?
Another one is China: they don't even care about DRM. But who produces most of electronics? Who sets the prices?
Just like the US, China will start respecting international copyright (and patent, for that matter) laws when it becomes economically advantageous for them to do so. Again, when that happens, you're kidding yourself if you don't think Chinese (and multinational) content companies won't do the same thing there they have in the US.
Plus there's a Linux that is gaining very strong foothold especially in Europe.
I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. Linux is just a platform, it has no impact on the restrictions that are (or aren't) placed on media it is being used to view.
I'm curious, where do you live where being in possession of copyright-infringing data is level ?
Ugh. Should be "legal", of course.
Which, I'm perfectly legal to do as I'm using direct FTP so the sharing is done by the uploading side.
I'm curious, where do you live where being in possession of copyright-infringing data is level ?
That would be correct, however root exploits are a little harder to achieve on a Mac. Harder, not impossible. The Mac, BY DEFAULT has you type your password every time you want to install software.
Irrelevant (not to mention untrue, in many cases and unreqiuired for most - assuming you are the default "admin" user setup on first install).
The Mac, BY DEFAULT has the root login disabled.
Also irrelevant. Elevating the typical user account to root privileges is trivial.
I don't know how this meme of "root disabled == safe" got started, but it's _wrong_. For the vast majority of things the vast majority of malware might want to do, elevated privileges are _not_ required. They're a nice bonus, but far, far from essential.
The Mac, by default has a better infrastructure then Windows....period...and I am not a fan boy.
The "security infrastructure" of OS X, which is based on traditional unix, cannot hold a candle to that of Windows NT. 10.5 might be better, but that remains to be seen.
I'll put up Linux, the Mac or any UNIX based system against the swiss cheese that is Windows XP any day. Yes, even Mac OS X and Linux are vulnerable, but the time to patch at least on Linux is very fast compared to Windows XP and the architecture is different and more secure....BY DEFAULT. They are all what Windows should have been.
In almost every way measurable, the architecture of Windows is superior to that of OS X and Linux. The vast majority of "security problems" in Windows have _zero_ to do with low level architecture or bugs.
Similarly, if a software company can be shown to be grossly negligent about the security of their operating system software (because, for instance, their marketing department didn't want to remove "convenient" but dangerous features), that company should be criminally and civilly liable for all damages caused by their product.
So which Linux maintainer can I sue ?
Something more esoteric that new Mac buyers might not be aware of, is that Apple's Nvidia drivers do not support display rotation. If you want to rotate your displays under OS X, you need a Mac with an ATI video card (I haven't tested it on a Mini, their GMA might support it as well).
I'm beginning to think Nvidia video cards are considered something of a red-headed stepchild on the Macintosh platform...
Huh? I am an Aussie, and I'm tell you that Fosters is the most unpopular beer in Australia, much as Bud is the most unpopular beer in the US.
That's a bit harsh. How about Power's Gold ?
I bet to differ with the parent. The remote I use for my HTPC setup is the one that comes with Radeon AIW video cards. With a little irblaster and few scripts on the HTPC I can (and do) use the one remote to operate everything connected to the TV. That thing eats up far more than 5 sets of batteries a year.
I concur. My MCE Remote works its way through a pair of rechargable 2500mah AA cells every ~6 weeks or so.
Not quite. The Vista that is shipping to consumers at the end of the month and to businesses already is based off of 2003 Server.
Uh, yeah. Just like Linux 2.6 is "based off" Linux 2.4. You think OS developers start all over again with every release ?
Vista is a significant update to Windows NT, easily justifying a major version bump. It is NT 6.0, as reported by 'ver' on any Vista machine.
This is not NT 6.0. Service Pack 1 for Vista will update the Vista kernel to the Longhorn kernel which is NT 6.0.
No, it won't. Vista is NT 6.0. Vista Server (or whatever they end up calling it) _might_ be NT 6.1, but probably not (I can't think of anything it's set to being that would justify even a minor version bump).
All the major work that is going to be done to the NT kernel for the next few years (that the public will see) has been done. Not to mention, you don't deliver major system changes like a major kernel update in a service pack. Crikey, this isn't Linux. That reality discounts your theory.
The family tree looks like, starting from NT4 (I'd ASCII it, but Slashdot won't let me):
* Windows NT 4.0 begat Windows 2000 (NT 5.0).
* Win2k begat XP (NT 5.1) and 2k3 (NT 5.2).
* XP begat the unfinished development version of Longhorn.
* 2k3 begat XP64 (5.3?) and Vista (NT 6.0).
Major (recent) revisions of NT have been NT4 (4.0), 2000 (5.0) and Vista (6.0). Minor revisions have been XP (5.1), 2003 (5.2) and XP64 (5.3 or 5.2.1 maybe). Vista is unquestionably a major revision of NT.
There was a time once where Windows NT was CPU architecture independent, but this was just an experiment to if Microsoft customers could be used as a scare tactic and as pawns to strongarm Intel (Microsoft had no serious intent to be CPU portable).
WTF are you on about ? NT was designed from the ground up to be portable (first development versions weren't even targeted at x86) and this has carried through its development until the present. At any given time, NT has had ports to at least 2 - 3 different platforms under active development. Right now, it's available for x86, x86-64, Itanium and PPC (XBox 360). In the past, it's run on MIPS, Alpha and SPARC.
Cue mobile version of Vista.
Vista is NT 6.0.
That equals 364500 KiB, or ~355.95MiB/second.
You could easily build a computer with disk I/O system capable of that sort of performance today, even with cheap consumer level components. Splash out on 10 gig ethernet and it wouldn't even need to be the same box as the one decoding the signal.
You have got to me kidding me. What is this? What age are we living in today? Why is it anything technology related makes people go back 2000 years in thinking?
2000 years ago, the very idea of ~12 "chilren" being "harmed" from seeing naked people - let alone anyone getting in trouble for it - would have been laughable.
This whole "innocence of childhood" thing is a very recent - and largely American - invention.
While we may not be entirely responsible and there may very well be natural forces causing the Earth's weather to act in a drunken manner, that does not mean we can not change it!
Practically, we can't. Short of cataclysmic events like global nuclear war, humanity cannot affect the entire planet in any reliably predictable way - primarily because the timescales are simply too big but also because there are simply too many variables to account for.
Attempting to deliberately change climate on a global scale is the epitomy of "chasing the dials".
And I get that you can install all the codecs you want on a MCE computer. But I'm not so sure about a full-blown computer hooked up to my TV. The XBox360 needs help to play media other than WMA and WMV, like transcoding from a MCE computer. Will a Windows Home Server do the same thing?
A "Windows Home Server" has no bearing on things like codecs. It's basically a fileserver (although I expect to see something like a "Windows Home Server and Media Centre", which will combine MCE functionality and WHS functionality, that you're expected to access via media extenders or XBox 360s (720s ?).
Microsoft may be starting to market Windows MCE as a set top box, I don't know, but that's nowhere close to what it seems to have been since the release. I've never been able to quite place what Microsoft was going for with it. Is it supposed to replace my VCR/DVD/DVR? Do I hook it up to my TV? Does the computer sit next to the TV? Do I run cables from the living room to wherever the computer is? Is it my choice? If Windows MCE is meant as a set top box, this functionality for the XBox360 is kinda redundant.
An MCE device is meant to be "the" set-top box. The one device you get to replace everything else - DVD player, DVR, etc. One place (and one remote !) to use to access all your "stuff".
The XBox 360 is meant to be a complement to your MCE device. It goes in another room and allows other people to get at all the stuff your MCE box can do, without stopping you doing it at the same time.
The first versions of MCE were not a comprehensive platform to do this (eg: max of two tuners supported "officially", although it's not hard to make more work), but it was a definite and obvious step down that path. I haven't tried Vista MCE yet, but I would assume it follows much the same principles.
(The AppleTV, on the other hand, is basically just a portal to the iTunes Store. I really do think Apple have miscalculated with a product of such limited scope. Sure, everyone today has the DVD player, the VCR, the digital TV box, the satellite TV box, the DVR, etc, etc - but I don't really think anyone *prefers* to have all those separate devices when a single box could do it all.)
Seriously, Microsoft should make a device similar to the Core XBox360, but strip the 3D acceleration out. Put a stripped down version of MCE on it that doesn't have the recording functions to keep the hardware requirements lower. Let it connect to Windows shares and off you go.
You can get these already, they're called Media Extenders.
How much did you end up spending for your MiniMac+MCE setup?
About AU$1300 (so probably US1000ish - you can probably do it cheaper in the US because hardware there is relatively cheaper). But that's with three TV tuners as well.
Microsoft now makes money on the XBox360, so the hardware is certainly cheap enough (on a large scale) that they could release a little media device for a price of $149 or so I'd guess. Put in a link to download movies or TV shows or whatever off of XBox Live. I'd buy it.
But then you've just got an AppleTV which is, I think (and I think Microsoft agree with me), a solution looking for a problem. It just doesn't *do* enough to be worth spending money, time, TV inputs and remote control frustration on.
The primary reason I set up Windows MCE was to combine all the functionality I wanted (primarily, DVD player, video streaming and digital TV - not even DVR at the time) into a *single* device which would then present a *single* consistent interface to access it.
I really think MCE has the golden opportunity here to "pwn" the market, by letting people consolidate all their "media consumption" functionality into a single place.
The fact that people don't care/know about DRM and availability of "official" content doesn't preclude the success of a "cheap" device. There's lots of content for it. The "publisher" is mostly irrelevant in the consumers' eyes; look at the amo
That depends on what you do with the hardware. If all you ever do with the hardware is press the power button, you're fine. If you make any upgrades, WGA may decide to cut you off.
No, it won't.
~$2000 for a Windows Media Center
WTF are you talking about. I can buy a low-end MCE device in _Australia_ for under a thousand bucks - it's hard to see how an equivalent would cost much more than US$500. Heck, you could build one yourself with a Mac Mini for under US$800, and that's hardly the cheapest way to go about it.
Holy shit. For US$2000 you could probably buy enough Windows MCE equipment to make it accessible in 4 or 5 rooms at once.
~$300 for an Apple Media Extender
Which has a mere fraction of the functionality of MCE.
If all you want is the few things an AppleTV does and don't mind sacrificing yet another TV input to do it, then great - but comparing it to MCE is just ridiculous. An MCE device is easily worth 2x or more the cost of an AppleTV.
Easy choice. And having the choice of server OS certainly reduces lock-in.
What on Earth are you talking about ?
Why was this modded Troll? The poster is correct. Vista is packed with DRM, far beyond what Apple builds in. OS X doesn't disable or degrade drivers for hardware that can be used to record audio or video when you're watching protected content.
Yet.
They'll have to, however, because - as so many people forget in their irrational need to attack Microsoft - DRM and the impact of viewing DRMed content on DRM-incapable hardware, is being dictated by the people who provide the media.
Your options are not going to be "watch it degraded on Vista or watch it full quality on OS X or Linux", they're going to be "watch it degraded on Vista or don't watch it at all on OS X or Linux".
Apple will *have* to build the same kinds of capabilities into OS X, or no-one is going be be able to play the same DRMed content on OS X, because the *content providers* aren't going to licence a player on a platform that won't degrade/deny the output when they deem it necessary.
Your rage should be directed at the media corporations, not the companies who have to build tools to their specifications or go out of business.
At least for me personally, it's the WGA and activation DRM that determines if I'm still allowed to use my legally purchased OS license on my legally purchased hardware.
Which, if you have a legally purchased OS license, you are...
Now, you compare this behavior with Microsoft. As a musician, my concerns about fidelity and rights and restrictions are fairly wide-ranging. Vista, Microsoft's new OS, will degrade audio that is "unsigned", meaning, it didn't come from someone who has made some sort of agreement with Microsoft. So I can create high fidelity works, try t play them back in Vista, and it will intentionally screw them up on playback.
No, it won't.
The DRM in Vista is just as "consumer chosen" as it is on OS X. Don't want it ? Don't buy DRM-encumbered media.
I'll still use my 360 for games, but won't by bullied into either converting all my video to WMV or purchasing a pre-built (since the OS is only OEM) XP Media Center box.
So instead you'll limit yourself to Apple's proprietry formats and having to purchase stuff from the iTunes Store ?
The mind boggles at how someone could think moving from Microsoft to *Apple*, would reduce "lock-in"...
+1 Funny.
+2 Funnier - because he's almost certainly serious.