DRM slows down Vista?

[w1retap]

You can play your unprotected content wherever you want. NOTHING changes that. If you have HDCP or not. Nothing changes that. I can take unprotected MPEG or AVI files, burn to a DVD and play it in my set top that has HDCP and my display which also has it. I can plug my computer into my display which had HDCP but my video card does not and it will still play.
You can even use your PC to capture HD content via an antenna without HDCP video cards and displays.

Nothing, nowhere, will stop you from doing whatever the hell you want with your unprotected content. NOTHING. HDCP or otherwise. If you have HDCP source and display it encrypts between source and display. This is ONLY when playing it. It has not permanently been encrypted and it won't be prevented from you making a million copies of your unprotected content. It's ONLY purpose is the make sure nothing can intercept that signal between your computer and your monitor. Which doesn't even matter because nobody captures content that way. So HDCP and your unprotected content will not affect anything you care about doing. You won't even know it's there. It makes zero difference. You can play it without HDCP and you can play it with. No difference.

The ONLY thing HDCP is used for is protected HD content. Protected HD-DVD's and Blue Ray. If you want to play them you need a HDCP video card or set top box and a HDCP monitor, TV or Projector. This is NOT limited or exclusive to PC's or Vista. Everything must comply with this. And your set top has to use HDMI or DVI or the signal will be degraded. Componenet, while providing an HD signal, will still be downgraded with protected formats.
So how does this affect you? If you want to play protected content on a PC then just get HDCP compliant video card and display. Done. If you don't care about playing HD-DVD movies or Blue Ray movies on your PC then none of this matters. Your set top players and TV are already compliant so it doesn't even matter.

If you want to back up these protected discs you buy, go right ahead. The copy protection has already been cracked and programs will soon be released to making copying very easy.

OH_MY_FNCKING_GOD! Finally! Someone who knows what they are talking about!

 

[jimmyb]

HDCP will prevent you from intercepting unprotected content as it goes to the display. So in a sense it does limit what you can do with unprotected content. Now why someone would want to do this is beyond me.

 

[Catweazle]

Here is a place where you can find all the information about HDCP that is publicly available. It is not a complete source, but it has enough information on it to show what HDCP is, and does.

http://www.digital-cp.com/home

Read it, and make your own conclusions. Based on this information, and others I made my conclusion. I explained my conclusion, and gave examples of my conclusion. What more do you want?

Read it over and make your own.

I'll add another voice. I've read all the technical documents provided at the site you listed, and numerous other technical papers about it also. I've also read the voluminous amounts of discussion and debate which have been conducted about the specification and its implications. I didn't do so over the course of a few minutes either. I don't believe the fellows who've objected to your conclusions in this thread paid such scant attention to information available.

I've been following these issues with interest for the past year or more, and the descriptions and experiences related above by people such as Archer75 and others are exactly as I expected them to be from the extensive readings I've conducted. To draw the conclusions you've reached I believe you've misunderstood the technical documents.

I, too, would like to know precisely what it is amongst the technical discussion which maks you draw the conclusion you have. You've not provided any detail, practical examples, or explanation.


The same applies for the contention which was the reason for this topic. The fellow(s) who was claiming in other threads that DRM is degrading performance has not come forward to justiy those claims, and it is clear that such justification cannot be provided.


I would like to see this topic added to the sticky list, to be quite honest! These nonsensical claims are a nuisance amongst considered discussion.

 

[Archer75]

Well, I'm outta here, have fun playing with HDCP, and AACS, and whatever other restrictions are imposed on you.

There are no restrictions imposed on me at all. I can copy my content freely and display it wherever I wish. I have done so many times and continue to do so on a daily basis.

So I have no idea where it is I am supposed to be restricted. But you can link articles and misinterpret them all you like. I however put everything into practice and am not restricted at all.

 

[Hypernova]

I went to sleep and when I'm back he still haven't managed to provide any proof? Does this qualify as trolling by pretending to be ignorant?

A little more on the HDCP preformance. The only place I can see HDCP affecting preformance is due to the need to decrypt and then re-encrypt data putting addition computational load on the system.

 

[bbz_Ghost]

I keep popping into this thread and I haven't bothered to participate because I've known for some time I can do anything I want with the content as long as I'm not actively playing it. Archer75 provided that magnificent explanation earlier about how the effects of DRM and HDCP really only come into any significance during playback of said content in real-time, not as it exists as a file on a hard drive or on the distribution media.

Why someone around here isn't seeming to get that is beyond me, and to be honest I really don't see what the issue is in the long run, even after what, almost 6 pages of this back and forth so far.

The OP asked the question or made the statement: "DRM slows down Vista?" and obviously, just in that there Linux popularity thread, the simple answer once again is:

"No."

The only time the "draconian DRM" or HDCP issues come into play is during real-time playback of the content in question so...

If you're trying to play Doom 3 or Quake 4 or Farcry of heaven forbid Crysis or maybe F.E.A.R. at 1920x1200 and watch some HD content off a BluRay/HD-DVD using HDMI and HDCP on your widesceen TFT or maybe S-IPS widescreen LCD and it's not F-A-S-T for YOU then you're just FSOL, PAL.

Doncha just love acronym hell?

 

[eeyrjmr]

HDCP will prevent you from intercepting unprotected content as it goes to the display. So in a sense it does limit what you can do with unprotected content. Now why someone would want to do this is beyond me.

because in the early days of DVD (before the encryption was cracked) intecepting the analogue data being sent out of the VGA connector was the only way to then create a digital copy of a DVD (to then share/sell)

CSS was cracked (out of nessacity) to allow the fair-use of John's DVD media on his PC (for linux). However pirates jumped on this because it provided a faster means to copy


because the content between player and displayer is now encypted this means of getting an un-copy protected HD film is removed - luckly someone has cracked AAC so if I ever get a HD-drive for my PC and films I will be able to watch them on my PC

 

[Godofdestrcution]

Steve walks weerily down the street
With his brim pulled down way low
Ain't no sound but the sound of his feet
Machine guns ready to go

Are you happy, are you satisfied, how long can you stand the heat
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
To the sound of the beat

Another one used DRM
Another one used DRM
And another one gone and another gone, another one used DRM
Hey, Vista will get you too, another one used DRM

Watch out Duby, Vista will haunt you in your sleep!

 

[bbz_Ghost]

because in the early days of DVD (before the encryption was cracked) intecepting the analogue data being sent out of the VGA connector was the only way to then create a digital copy of a DVD (to then share/sell)

I'm just picking on you for the way you said that: you make it sound like capturing analog output is the only way to get digital content... see how silly it sounds? VGA = analog so, you'd have to intercept that data stream before it hit the Digtal-to-Analog converters to retain the digital "copy."

I know what you said, and what you're saying, it's just how you said it that's a bit funny, at least to me. But I'm weird... go figure

 

[jimmyb]

because in the early days of DVD (before the encryption was cracked) intecepting the analogue data being sent out of the VGA connector was the only way to then create a digital copy of a DVD (to then share/sell)

Yes, there are reasons you might want to do this for restricted content (like you have just mentioned), but with unemcumbered content it is much easier just to make a copy of it normally.

 

[eeyrjmr]

I'm just picking on you for the way you said that: you make it sound like capturing analog output is the only way to get digital content... see how silly it sounds? VGA = analog so, you'd have to intercept that data stream before it hit the Digtal-to-Analog converters to retain the digital "copy."

I know what you said, and what you're saying, it's just how you said it that's a bit funny, at least to me. But I'm weird... go figure

not silly at all.

 

[kunsunoke]

^^

duby, your claim has already been negated and proven incorrect. Please answer the question.

By who? And on what basis? One guy's statement is now fact?

 

[bbz_Ghost]

OMFG will you kids please get over it...

 

[kunsunoke]

Lot of ground to cover here, so I'll split my response up.

This thread is not about whether Vista will downgrade our output quality when playing protected content. I don't really care about that. If any content provider is dumb enough to require Vista (or our set-top players) to do that, they'll simply lose my business.
This thread's purpose is to, once and for all, dispell the notion that Vista's DRM is slowing down the experience of unsuspecting users.

Let’s be honest about this, okay? The real purpose of this thread is to give you the chance to e-swagger. Why else would a mod have questioned you about this?

What you’ve really shown us is that you just didn’t get it when we had our earlier discussions about this issue. My main points:

1) Vista is not a significant improvement over XP or 2K to warrant purchase (opinion)
2) Vista has enough DRM, security and other baggage to keep me away (opinion)

But since you’re sticking to this little platitude, some of us do care about content degradation. It factors into buy/no buy decisions.

What you think of our decisions in that regard is of no consequence to me, or to anyone else who passes on Vista for the same reasons.

The burden of proof here is on those who insist Vista is slower

Uh, why is the burden of proof on us?

Does that burden include holding a gun to your head to ensure you read the source material we post?

and that the reason for that is DRM.

Strawman. Your words, not mine. DRM is baggage. It’s just one of many reasons we won’t buy onto the Vista bandwagon.

This is because there are a lot of people on this forum who are actually running Vista, and find it to be as fast as or faster than XP for everyday tasks.

Good for you. I personally think you wasted your money.

Actually, the THG article quoted by Kunsmoke shows that unless what you're doing involves OpenGL, you can expect only about a 1% slowdown on things like video and audio encoding. It's only areas affected by OpenGL that Vista falls flat on its face, and this is squarely the fault of the driver manufacturers.

You spelled my name wrong.

Some of us still use apps with OpenGL. I still put this partly on Microsoft for their implementation of DRM and security standards that the driver manufacturers have to live by.

Follow the logical progression, please, since you’ve demonstrated you’re too lazy to read source material.

- OS provider insists on new security / DRM standards
- OS provider insists on applying those standards to peripheral manufacturers
- Peripheral manus then have to account for them when building their hardware and writing the software that makes it work.
- The workload taken on by the peripheral manus is therefore increased.

On any project, one may control two of three things simultaneously – scope, cost (resources and finances), and timeline. This is a timeless axiom of engineering.

Scope has now expanded, thanks to Vista. So if cost has to remain the same (and it does), what does that do to timeframe?

After you've somehow proven that Vista is significantly slower than XP, you'll have to prove one or both of the following:

1. Vista is slower because the DRM is active, regardless of whether you're playing protected content.

Strawman, again. But since your sticking with your platitude and you won’t read source material, please follow the logical progression.

- Vista OS has greater requirements for DRM / Security. (Again, increased scope)
- Driver and peripheral technology hasn’t made a significant jump (Resources / finances are continuous) in the new OS vs. the old.
- What happens to timeframe per operation?

2. Vista is slower because the implementation of DRM is what's delaying NVidia and ATi in getting better drivers to us.

It is. If you disbelieve, try calling ATI and nVidia and asking them directly.

 

[kunsunoke]

As to the sources you cited, Kunsmoke, I read all of them except the whitepaper. The whitepaper I skimmed and it looks like things I already knew, presented in nauseating detail.

You spelled my name wrong.

The knowledge you fail to demonstrate here indicates that your understanding is superficial. Please try again.

Let's tackle them one by one:

1) 20 Questions on the Vista Blog

Everything here seems to tell me that the DRM can only consume resources when you're playing back protected content.

This shows you didn’t read carefully between the lines of marketing spin.

Marsh admits to the fact that Vista needs more energy, and that the DRM and security features consume OS resources. He later attempts to massage those truths by citing “enhanced functionality”.

DRM is not enhanced functionality from the perspective of the consumer.

Also, there's nothing about DRM slowing the driver development process

Heh…of course not. Marsh wouldn’t admit that. Meeting the standards set by Microsoft and its media partners are never Microsoft’s problems.

Nothing is ever Microsoft’s fault. Everyone else sucks.

Please refer to logical progressions posted above.

2) The whitepaper

Again, I only skimmed this, but there's nothing in there saying NV or ATi were slowed down by implementing this. If you want to prove me wrong, quote a specific passage from here.

Then you remain in ignorance, and we may assume that your assertions are pulled from your alimentary canal.

3) The Vista EULA

I'm going to repeat myself:
Quote:
Actually, I just did read it. Did we read the same thing? Let me link you to the license I read, just in case. In there is nothing that lets Microsoft revoke your license for no reason at all. It *does* say that if the software isn't properly licensed, it may stop working. This is copy protection, not "detonating of any boxes that use open source software."

Who exactly determines what is proper and what isn’t?

Key phrase – “Microsoft reserves all other rights”

 

[kunsunoke]

To be perfectly realistic, Microsoft alone could not possibly hope to provide the entire range of software that the end user could hope to use. Thus, restricting Microsoft operating systems from running non-Microsoft software, open source or otherwise, would only hurt Microsoft, since everyone and his brother would be running to switch to Linux just so they could run whatever sub-par clone of Quickbooks the open source community has seen fit to grace us with.

You’re far too naive.

Microsoft has a long track record of trying to break the kneecaps of its competitors, as evidenced by the disappearance of the once-dominant Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect and QuattroPro. Those of us with long memories recall how MS used its marketing position to intimidate OEMs into only supplying MS-created solutions – thus stripping its superior competition of fair access to the same market. Why do you think the USDOJ went after them?

4)THG Article

What this shows me is that Vista performs almost as good as XP, except in situations where OpenGL is used. Then it falls flat on its face because of the immature drivers.

Same strawman again.

If Vista is no better than XP or 2K, and may be worse, why would I buy it? The only reason would be someone forcing me to do it – by dropping support to my pre-existing OS, which they’re doing.

5) PolishLinux article

Nothing in here about the DRM slowing your computer to a crawl.

Your words, not mine. Try again.

They seem to infer a more far-reaching definition of revocation than Microsoft has officially stated.

Key phrase from the EULA – “Microsoft reserves all other rights”.

Also, you asked why cracking HD-DVD and the like would be illegal. It's in one of your own sources:
Quote:
We know that we can break almost any DRM restriction using easily available open source software. But what about the legal part? Is it legal to do this at home? Well, this depends… Depends on where you live actually. For instance, if you have the misfortune of being located in the United States or France, you are prohibited by law to play your legally purchased music or films (sic!) that are secured by DRM if you don’t buy an approved operating system (like MS Windows or MacOS) with an approved media player (like PowerDVD or iTunes). In the US this has been enforced by the DMCA act. In France, a similar act called DADVSI.

Strawman #2 – everyone who doesn’t like draconian DRM must be a pirate and a content thief.

Know why this bothers people so much? It has nothing to do with protection of content (especially since anybody with enough knowledge can make bit-for-bit copies of even the most thoroughly copy-protected BlueRay disk – with or without a computer). It has everything to do with a few companies trying to monopolize proper and fair access to that which has been legally purchased by consumers.

If I purchase a BlueRay drive or an HD-DVD drive for my PC, why does the content industry care what operating system I use to play it on? The money would be greater for them if people had more options.

Assuming the hardware is the same, what’s the big deal with using Linux or an older version of Windows to play the content? Aren’t I paying the licensing fees through purchase of the content and the hardware? Why then must Microsoft triple-dip? What happens to Fair Use, which is also on the lawbooks?

6) The "Cost of Vista" article

Already read it weeks ago. It's FUD. Disproven by one of your other sources, the 20-questions one.

Heh – that’s funny. You consider Microsoft an unbiased source. What did Marsh state to contradict the “cost” article? If anything, he verified most of it instead, despite his best efforts.

7) The EFF Article

It's main beef with Vista is that it will cripple your PC if you have something on it content providers don't like. Not true. If you have something on your PC content providers don't like, then the content providers won't let you play their content. It doesn't affect everything else on your computer.

When / if Defender cripples my video drivers as a result, then it does indeed affect the rest of my computer, doesn’t it?

Microsoft reserves the right to cripple my OS and/or drivers if they’re not happy with how I use my PC. Please go re-read the EULA, and this time have a retainer on call who can explain what the terms mean.

Nothing here either about DRM slowing your computer to a crawl.

Your words again.

This entire thread is nothing but lose and fail.

 

[Hvatum]

An extra layer of encryption and decryption? How could it not slow down Vista. Ontop of that you've got the extra resources the DRM cracking programs use, such as AnyDVD or Fairuse.

They* waste our processing time trying to take our digital rights, and we waste processing time getting them back.

*By they I mean anyone implimenting DRM, not just Microsoft.

 

[rantanamo]

LMAO @ all of the Vista hate. Articles telling people not to upgrade. Spreading DRM fear. I'm sorry, but do any of you people use Vista? IT IS a significant upgrade over XP. Those that don't think so are using betas, not using Vista at all or simply haven't tried to do much on their setup. I'm glad I upgraded and have not looked back. Stop this madness and rumors.

 

[Catweazle]

It won't slow down Vista because it's only in use when protected high-definition content is being played back. It's not impacting on anything under any other scenario.

And if I'm playing back protected content it's not taking anywhere near the full resources of my CPU, so I'm not really losing anything there either.

 

[kunsunoke]

LMAO @ all of the Vista hate. Articles telling people not to upgrade. Spreading DRM fear. I'm sorry, but do any of you people use Vista? IT IS a significant upgrade over XP. Those that don't think so are using betas, not using Vista at all or simply haven't tried to do much on their setup. I'm glad I upgraded and have not looked back. Stop this madness and rumors.

The "madness" and "rumors" exist for a reason. I would suggest to you that there'd be fewer of them if Microsoft weren't a convicted monopolist.

At any rate, perhaps I've been wrong.

In what way is this OS a significant upgrade over XP or 2000?

I'm perfectly willing to pay $300 or so for a retail copy of Vista Ultimate if MS can prove to me it's a significant advance over Windows XP or 2000.

Thus far they haven't done so, and I'm not hearing too many legitimate reasons to swap, other than Microsoft dropping support for the older OSs.

 

[Catweazle]

In what way is this OS a significant upgrade over XP or 2000?

It does more and it does it better. Doesn't matter if some of the things it does are similar to capabilities of Linux, OSX or anyhting else. Its only competitors are Windows 2000 and Windows XP, and that's all it can be meaningfully compared to.

Here's one of many examples. I've chosen one which is relevent to this thread.

More on Media Center and multimedia productivity.

Vista really IS very, very capable, and people should really STOP thinking about it in the way they think about XP. There are so many things you can do which require third party software on an XP PC!

LEGAL DISCLAIMER. The following comments describe doing something which simply ain't legal. I did it as an exercise and intend to dump the results.

This shit is so simple it's a no-brainer. I hadn't gone anywhere near XP Media Center, nor had a tuner card in my PCs previously, and decided to try it out with Vista Home Premium. Bunged in a cheapo digital tuner card, and Vista installed it right off. Bunged a splitter in the antenna cable to run a lead to the back of the PC and Media Center found craploads of channels as soon as I found and ran the necessary settings thingy.

So tonight I decided to record Cold Case off Win HD. Kinda cool. Scheduling a recording can probably be done in better ways, but I did it manually just like you set up the timer in a VCR. (Nope, I don't have a DVD recorder in the lounge either.)

I had no idea where it bunged recorded TV shows, or how it stored them, but a quick Google told me that they are *.dvd-ms files. So into Search with that tidbit and I found the file. Right-clicked on it and did a bit of fiddling to tell it to open with MovieMaker.

Finding the start and finish of the ad breaks was easy. Splitting the video file up gave me 6 chunks of video to drop on a storyboard, and choosing to publish the project to DVD gives me the thing in standard DVD format with chapter breaks on the DVD menu.

Not something you'd want to keep of course. Who the hell would want to keep shows that had free to air channel ID watermarked over them? But it's a kinda cool way to watch the thing later when you get time. I didn't get to watch it uninterrupted when it was on, because I had visitors pop in. And Mrs. Catweazle is away for a few days so she'll be able to give it a spin before I dump the thing. Point is, it only took me about 5 minutes of user interaction all up! And the OS was capable of handling it all.

I'm rather impressed. I'm sure there must be other facilities for 'time-shifting' which I've yet to discover, but they'd need to be good to beat this.

I don't care if you use other software to do that. Vista didn't need software to do it. It's part of what I want from a PC, and Vista adds the capability right from the outset. It made my PC a more useful device. No DRM inclusions in Vista intruded on it or rendered my system unusable. Matter of fact it didn't stress my system at all, until it came to encoding the video to bung it on the DVD. RAM restrictions kicked in then.

Oh wait! MCE 2005 could do that too? Well whoopti-doody. MCE 2005 was like buying XP Pro all over again, and I already had about 5 copies of that! Didn't want to buy another. This time around it's part of the purchase, so like many, many other people I'm finally getting it and getting a substantially improved OS as well.

Guess what? The multimedia features of Vista, when I had a play with them, spat me up a collection of video files from all over this jumble of drives, partitions and OS installs. I found video files which seem to have been accidentally taken with the digital camera, and had become lost amidst the jumble of photos on the PC somewhere or other. Short but reallt welcomed clips of my grandkids on holidays amongst them. I didn't even know the things existed. Bloody DRM didn't make the machine blow up finding them either.

I could go on and on. The upshot of it is that, even if you're a person who is somewhat knowledgeable about the PC and how it operates, Vista simply makes a lot of things much easier. 2000 and XP simply don't compare. If, that is, the user is prepared to let vista be Vista, rather than wanting it to be something else.

The FUD about DRM is, sadly, driving people away unnecessarily. DRM will go away when people refuse to pay for the content which carries it.

A PC can be a box of bits that you fiddle with. It can be a tool you use to do stuff with. Vista makes it a much better tool than previous Windows versions did. It's as simple as that.

There's a crapload of info available for anyone who really wants to find out what it does. It's not to be found amongst the whinings of people who want Vista to be something it's not. And it's not amongst the ramblings of people spouting emotive conspiracy theory rants, either.

 

[griffinhart]

The "madness" and "rumors" exist for a reason. I would suggest to you that there'd be fewer of them if Microsoft weren't a convicted monopolist.

MS wasn't "convicted" of being a monopoly as it isn't illegal. They were called on the carpet and punished for using their monopoly unfairly.

At any rate, perhaps I've been wrong.

Apparently, this is one of those times.

In what way is this OS a significant upgrade over XP or 2000?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Vista is a much bigger upgrade than most seem to think, and it's definately a much bigger upgrade over XP than XP was over 2000.

I'm perfectly willing to pay $300 or so for a retail copy of Vista Ultimate if MS can prove to me it's a significant advance over Windows XP or 2000.

The retail upgrade of Ultimate is $250, not $300.

Thus far they haven't done so, and I'm not hearing too many legitimate reasons to swap, other than Microsoft dropping support for the older OSs.

Not having done so and you not listening to the reasons are not the same thing.

Now, I'm not going to say that you should go run out and get a copy, but I've heard more FUD and lies about Vista than I have heard actual reasons not to upgrade.

I'm quite happily running Vista on all of my machines now. I'm not yet suggesting to my friends that they should upgrade yet, but neither would I tell them they should hold off if they decided they wanted to. And I'm their usual person for technical support!

Given my experiences with Vista, I wouldn't push them to it only because it's painful to install a new OS (or re-install an existing OS for that matter). That's not the OS's fault though. It's the installing all your apps over and making sure you have copies of your data before the process. On the other hand, If they were getting a new PC, or going to re-install windows anyway I would probably recommed doing the switch then.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

You win kunsunoke. Vista is just the latest cog in Microsoft's plan to dominate our computers.

I'm using Vista to type this message. Obviously, I'm choosing to ignore how much slower the system is than it when I was running XP. Even though I'm not playing a Blu-Ray disc, or HD-DVD, or any other kind of protected content for that matter, the DRM is waiting in the wings to strike, ready to lower my screen resolution at a moment's notice. That's putting a huge strain on system resources, but I refuse to notice it because the window borders are so pretty.

I'm also afraid to admit that I'm living in fear of the day when Microsoft will deactivate my computer remotely because I'm using open-source software like LAME and PuTTY, as well as third-party software like Trillian and Programmer's Notepad. Hopefully, when that day comes, Microsoft will have alternative products available for me to buy.

When I do game, I'm obviously keeping myself from seeing how Vista renders the games unplayable with its immature drivers and constant DRM interruptions. The games seem playable, but clearly my imagination is filling in the details, making it seem like I'm having fun when I'm really not.

At least what I paid for Vista was money well spent. Ignorance is bliss, is it not? Bliss is priced so cheap nowadays.

 

[bbz_Ghost]

Damn. I was thinking about a post in a similar vein, LstOfTheBrunnenG... good job.

 

[Catweazle]

- Post removed. It was not intended to invite a response. -

 

[odoe]

See.
That right there.

Pure flamebait. Cut it out.

 

[kunsunoke]

You win kunsunoke. Vista is just the latest cog in Microsoft's plan to dominate our computers.
SNIP

This isn't a competition. But I do agree with the statement that Microsoft wants to dominate. They've done it before, and they'll continue to try. It's business to them, but I don't have to chew their crap just because they say to.

Like I've always said, it's great that you love Vista. It's got too much baggage for me and it's not different enough or innovative enough to make me jump. Subsequently I'm not jumping. My boxen, my choice.

 

[kunsunoke]

MS wasn't "convicted" of being a monopoly as it isn't illegal. They were called on the carpet and punished for using their monopoly unfairly.

They were found guilty in federal court of engaging in monopolistic practices. The substance of the original ruling was upheld by the DC Circuit after the Supremes refused to review the appeal. Are you certain you aren't saying the same thing here?

Apparently, this is one of those times.

Cheap shot. It gets threads closed. Try some reasoned argument - works better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

I've seen it. As Anikin states in the bootleg of Ep. 3, - DO NOT WANT

Vista is a much bigger upgrade than most seem to think, and it's definately a much bigger upgrade over XP than XP was over 2000.

Why is it you think a bigger operating system would be appealing to me, given what you already know?

The retail upgrade of Ultimate is $250, not $300.

Not relevant. Assuming I was interested in going to Vista I wouldn't buy the upgrade versions.

Not having done so and you not listening to the reasons are not the same thing.

Now, I'm not going to say that you should go run out and get a copy, but I've heard more FUD and lies about Vista than I have heard actual reasons not to upgrade.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt come about for good reasons, and they help at least some of us to be better consumers. Microsoft has been its own worst enemy in the generation of the aforementioned FUD.

 

[NoEcho]

I don't know much about Vista but the little I've heard makes me think - yet again - of installing Linux... this time on something other than an antiquated, proprietary server.

DRM... not DRM... Vista appears designed to constantly waste some portion of my resources to spy on me. Is it 5%, 10%? I don't know and I don't give a shit. I don't like being spied on - by anyone for any reason even when I'm at choir practice in clean underwear. I sure as hell am not going to pay to be spied upon.

That just doesn't float my boat. To each their own.

There sure seems to be some extremely articulate arguments FOR Vista in the last few posts but none of them address the fundamental legitimacy of a feature - embedded in the kernel and therefore untouchable by the end user (afaik) - whose sole function is to spy on the user and allow him to be monitored or rebuked by external sources.

 

[Archer75]

DRM... not DRM... Vista appears designed to constantly waste some portion of my resources to spy on me. Is it 5%, 10%? I don't know and I don't give a shit. I don't like being spied on - by anyone for any reason even when I'm at choir practice in clean underwear. I sure as hell am not going to pay to be spied upon.

Not true at all. Vista doesn't spy on you, nor does it waste resources to do so.

The ONLY thing it does in terms of DRM is verify that your computer meets the same requirements for HD protected content that your set top player and TV do. That's it.

The DRM is ONLY active when you are playing such content.

The OS doesn't spy on you, report what you do, or block you from doing anything illegal on your computer.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

DRM... not DRM... Vista appears designed to constantly waste some portion of my resources to spy on me. Is it 5%, 10%? I don't know and I don't give a shit. I don't like being spied on - by anyone for any reason even when I'm at choir practice in clean underwear. I sure as hell am not going to pay to be spied upon.

I trust Microsoft to spy on me. I mean, I don't know the vulnerabilities of each of my programs and such. Microsoft knows these better than me, and thus I trust that when Microsoft tells me I can't do something they're acting in my best interest.

 

[kunsunoke]

I'm a little unclear on something. One of you says Vista isn't spying on us, and the other says that it doesn't matter to you and that you trust MS to spy on you. If the former were true and correct, why are we pondering the latter?

 

[Catweazle]

If you are connected to the internet then you are getting 'spied on' irrespective of what you're using. If you're running Windows your system is being checked for validation purposes also. If you are paranoid you'll imagine that this simple checking procedure represents something malicious.

And then you can go one step further, to the absolute 'nutter' who runs around crying "But you haven't given me any PROOF!" and then thinks he's somehow demonstrated that the fears about malicious intent have been justified.

There's nothing to be concerned about in the fact that Windows maintains a 'hardware hash' which is checked for validation purposes. Not unless you are running a warezed OS and Microsoft apps, and even then your only worry is that they could end up disabled. The procedure is not collecting any personal data.

DRM isn't 'spying' either. DRM software technology is simply a means of turning the PC into a compliant device for transmission of protected media. The fuss this time around basically revolves around HDCP. Hell, if you're really worried about HDCP being a means of spying on you then you'd better not ever connect anything with internet connectivity up to your new HD television, because that's one of the other devices in your household which has HDCP built into it.


Seeya. I'm heading off to watch some more X-Files

 

[bbz_Ghost]

I'm a little unclear on something. One of you says Vista isn't spying on us, and the other says that it doesn't matter to you and that you trust MS to spy on you. If the former were true and correct, why are we pondering the latter?

You're missing the hidden </sarcasm> tag LstOfTheBrunnenG is now using in all his Vista-related posts. Geez, you people disappoint me sometimes...

 

[kunsunoke]

Seeya. I'm heading off to watch some more X-Files

Enjoy. I'll be in the usual place, should you wish to vent your frustrations.

 

[Catweazle]

What frustrations would those be? Something to do with watching X-Files, perhaps? Please explain your comment, as its intent escapes me

 

[w1retap]

This thread reminds me of The View.

 

[odoe]

This thread has outlived its usefulness unfortunately.

Too bad.