Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

High-Quality HD Content Can't Easily Be Played by Vista

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the i-thought-that-was-part-of-the-point dept.

Windows 434

DaMan1970 writes "Content protection features in Windows Vista from Microsoft are preventing customers from playing high-quality HD audio/video & harming system performance. Vista requires premium content like HD movies to be degraded in quality when it is sent to high-quality outputs, like DVI. Users will see status codes that say 'graphics OPM resolution too high'. There are ways to bypass the Windows Vista protection by encoding the movies using alternative codecs like X264, or DiVX, which are in fact more effective sometimes then Windows own WMV codec. These codecs are quite common on HD video Bittorrent sites, or Newsgroups."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow (5, Interesting)

ipooptoomuch (808091) | about 7 years ago | (#20208923)

So is this saying that pirating the movie will yield a higher quality then buying it?

Re:Wow (5, Funny)

NBarnes (586109) | about 7 years ago | (#20208925)

The beatings will continue until market penetration improves.

A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protectio (5, Informative)

Xiph (723935) | about 7 years ago | (#20209017)

Better known by it's the Executive Executive Summary:
The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history [Note A].
This [] should be required reading for people wanting to use Windows Vista for their media center

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20208979)

In the same way that it characterizes me playing an HD video on my laptop with an HD screen or via HDMI out as difficult. I have to play it with either media center, quickplay, or the WMP. Of course if I convert it over to a xbox 360 target then I have the option of playing via the media extender too, which is currently hooked up via Colorstream. Converting video to a 360 target IS annoying. I will grant people that. If Vista Ultimate (what I have) ripped video to 360 targets directly via WPM I probably wouldn't have any other wants. Aside from a couple grand to build a multi TB media server. Segate 750 GB drives for $190, Core 2 Quad w/ MB for $300....

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

XedLightParticle (1123565) | about 7 years ago | (#20209007)

Sounds so, it's a pity, but predictable, that DRM is, in this case as well as many others, producing worse original products than the pirated. Imagine if Chinese copies of brands were of better quality than the ones from the source... I'd want a Lolls Loyce then, despite the bad spelling. A scenario that deserves some concern.

You don't have to imagine (3, Insightful)

ipooptoomuch (808091) | about 7 years ago | (#20209123) 10/1236207 [] Chinese pirates HAVE started making copies of things that are of better quality than the ones of the source. That is of course, assuming that the companies claims are true... Chinese companies are becoming very good at reverse engineering and cloning a product. There are even clones of car brands in china that are such close copies that the door of the cloned car will fit on the actual name brand car. Crash tests come out much differently though...

Re:Wow (3, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | about 7 years ago | (#20209163)

Yes, as usual. See also BitTorrented FLAC's vs iTunes. It's the media industry that pulls the strings, neither Apple, nor Microsoft. Vista is merely repsecting the Image Constraint Token of the specs. Don't set it, nothing will be downsampled, even when using the proper Blu-ray / HDDVD formats.

Re:Wow (2, Interesting)

Solra Bizna (716281) | about 7 years ago | (#20209243)

See also BitTorrented FLAC's vs iTunes.

Because even my grandmother can tell the difference between a 128kbps AAC and a lossless stream!</sarcasm>

Seriously though. 16-bit, stereo audio sampled at 44.1KHz is 1378 kilobits. A 128kbps AAC is nearly 11:1 compression, while most FLACs are lucky to reach 2:1. That makes AACs at least five times cheaper to distribute (assuming the only cost involved is bandwidth, and that costs rise proportionally to bandwidth) than FLACs.

Vista is merely repsecting the Image Constraint Token of the specs.

That sounds to me like the format has a "make it suck" flag. Which I actually don't doubt at all... but it's still different from using slightly lossy compression to save half an order of magnitude on storage and bandwidth. Nobody's pro^Wmovie collection is in a lossless video codec, after all...


Is that really all? (1)

swokm (1140623) | about 7 years ago | (#20209383)

I was gifted with an early generation MiniDisc recorder back in the day that only required a specific resistor to be jammed into the remote control connecter to enter "debug mode" and turn off the "do not copy" bit to enable digital transfers. Are you suggesting a similar case here (not sarcastic)?

MS is an interested party, however, as selling a "copy proof" solution allows better access to media providers for exclusive content and codec sales. IMHO. MS is diverse. Surely they see this as a means to drive sales.

Re:Wow (1)

Scruffy Dan (1122291) | about 7 years ago | (#20209285)

thats how DRM usually works

Re:Wow (1)

SuperDre (982372) | about 7 years ago | (#20209317)

I think this is pure BS, since DRM-free content in Full-HD does play also in fullHD.. If you really read the original article, you can see that it's purely MS-bashing of the first grade..

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

kyrio (1091003) | about 7 years ago | (#20209367)

That has been the case in the music industry for about 5-6 years now, ever since we figured out how to burn/play 4.1+ channel audio CDs. You can upmix any stereo CD into a 5.1 album right on your own P4. The best part is that home made upmixes have, time and again, proven to sound better than what the studios put out.

They are still selling their mono/stereo 50 year old music albums for $20+, why would they care to put any work into promoting any higher quality?

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | about 7 years ago | (#20209381)

It will be interesting how the movie companies are going to fight the laws of economics. I have been boycotting HD technology, and I will for a long time, until they abandon DRM. To the average consumer, HD isn't really much of an improvement over DVD, so I don't see how they can possibly think that they can ram HD down our throats, especially with all the shenanigans that the customer has to go through just to watch a movie.

This has often been true. (5, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 7 years ago | (#20209405)

Not necessarily with quality -- I admit, some of the pirated stuff is pretty bad. But in terms of overall experience, piracy wins almost every time.

Let's take a few examples...

Movies (standard-def)

Buying a DVD outright is too expensive. I watch a movie once, maybe twice, then I'm done. It's also not convenient -- either I have to drive to a store, or I order online and wait days for it to be shipped.

Renting is too inconvenient, for the same reasons as above. Netflix comes close, but lacks instant gratification.

Both of the above deal with physical discs, which can scratch, break, etc. If it's a rental, it might come that way, and I have to wait for another one to ship. Also, many discs feature copy protection above and beyond CSS, most of which is designed to make the disc look corrupted to a ripping program -- but that can prevent me from playing it properly, even in a dedicated DVD player.

There are some other half-assed attempts, like the iTunes Music Store and Amazon Unbox, all of which require me to run proprietary, Windows-only software to make the purchase, and usually gives me a DRM'd file, which I must play on proprietary, Windows-only software. Ok, iTunes works on a Mac -- except I'm on Linux, so that's no help.

So, piracy wins on almost all counts -- I can get near-instant gratification, it's convenient, I can do it entirely with open source software (KTorrent to download, mplayer to watch), and it's cheap enough that I often download things I'm not sure I'd want to spend money on -- and sometimes I enjoy them, and sometimes I don't.

The only thing piracy loses on, currently, is that rentals give me full DVD quality in the time it takes to drive to the store. It can take several days to download an ISO at that quality, with all the extra features. But that's only a matter of time and bandwidth -- and even when I do rent a physical disc, I often rip it immediately, so that I can take the movie back and watch it whenever I have the time.

There is actually one other thing -- the movie theater itself. I do actually pay to see good movies in the theater, when they come out, even though I could probably download them a few days before they come out.

Movies (high-def)

This is a no-brainer: I currently can neither rent nor buy, because my monitor doesn't support HDCP, I don't have a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD drive, and neither is sufficiently cracked for me to just pop in a disc and play it on Linux, on the monitor I currently own.

The best bet would be something like iTunes or Amazon Unbox, which suffers from all the same proprietary issues -- assuming they even have high-def content -- plus I may run into the HDCP issue.

However, my Internet connection and my hard disk can both handle a 5 gig or so download of an h.264-encoded 720p movie -- which still looks damned good.

This is a case where I do actually want to be a good consumer, but can't. I'd like to buy the Serenity HD-DVD, but that would require me to buy either an HDTV and an HD-DVD player or a new monitor, new video card, and an HD-DVD drive, all of which is prohibitively expensive -- especially considering my current monitor is somewhere between 720p and 1080p (it's 1600x1200) and works fine, so I'd be buying a new monitor for no good reason.

TV shows

Well, TV itself (cable, satellite, etc) just sucks. It's not enough to interrupt you every 5-10 minutes with ads, they have now started pushing an ad into the middle of a show -- taking over a full quarter of your screen with an animated ad, with a little bit of sound to go with it. You're also required to buy channels in bundles, which limits choice -- if you pick and choose the channels you want, it may cost more than just buying one bundle that has them all -- but it will cost even more if your channels don't happen to all be in the same bundle.

Renting them sort of works. The frustrating thing there is, it makes sense to rent them one DVD at a time, so you can watch a few episodes, then come back for more. But then, maybe two or three discs in, you find one disc that's badly scratched -- or simply already checked out -- and you have to wait, and wait, and wait in order to see the rest of your show.

Buying has all the problems of buying movies, plus, you don't know what you're getting into -- I'd rent at least the pilot episode before I'd buy a season of a show. And it can get expensive, if it's a long-running show.

It seems to me that the best way to do this would be to wait till all the discs are in the store, then rent them all at once and rip them, and delete them as you watch.

Both renting and buying have a serious downside, though, versus movies: You have to wait until the series is complete, or at least until a season is complete. With piracy, I can download whole past seasons at a time, or I can find individual episodes of new shows.


Meh. My favorite way is often the radio anyway, and that's usually free.

And this argument has been rehashed so many times already. I think the market has spoken -- let me buy that one single I want, and give me a price break on a whole album versus individual songs. And anyway, a whole album isn't a bad price, given you'll probably listen to it more than once, probably more than a few times, compared to movies.

However, there's at least one place piracy wins here -- not all artists are on Magnatune or similar. Most of them are on iTunes or something similar. I would still buy them from iTunes, if I could buy a DRM-free track from a web browser -- but I can't. I can only make purchases on iTunes from within iTunes, which is Windows/Mac only.

Video games (console)

Here, legit has a clear advantage -- you can buy or rent one, pop it in, and it just works. Downloading and burning a game and modding your console can be a bit much -- especially for a game that may have less on it than the legit version, in order to make it fit on a single-layer DVD.

However, there's at least one place that piracy has a decided advantage: Old consoles. Not "last gen", I'm talking ancient, like NES, N64, PS1, etc. For these games, the physical media may be falling apart by now, not to mention the console itself. It just makes sense to download an emulator and a ROM/ISO here -- not only can you play all your games on one system (even if it ends up being one modded Xbox, or one PSP), but you can do all the emulator tricks like rapidfire buttons, pausing the game anytime you like, slowing it down or speeding it up, saving an image of the entire emulator when the game itself won't let you save, and so on.

The closest you get to that is old Nintendo games on the Wii, but I don't have one, so I can't tell you how convenient it is (or not).

Video games (PC)

Here is perhaps the most disturbing example. Not only will a bad copy protection scheme cause your game not to work, it can actually damage your computer (or rather, your software). It's bad enough that I've heard of people buying games and immediately downloading a no-CD crack, so they don't have to deal with that, and also because then they don't have to worry about scratching the CD.

In other words, even people who buy games legitimately often crack them in the same way that people who pirate them do.

There are ways to buy games for download, though -- GameTap, Steam, etc. Of these, I've used Steam, and I can say that it seems to work well. The downside is it's proprietary, but almost all games are, and almost all of them will force me to run Windows, and could technically stop working at any time the developer wanted them to. (For games that aren't online, maybe they just all stop working on April 1st.) Those are my primary objections to DRM schemes, but games force me to tolerate them, so I don't actually mind the DRM on any game that doesn't actually require me to have the CD in my drive, or prevent me from taking a game from one computer to another

So, Steam basically solves this. I can buy a game and instantly start downloading, and play as soon as I have enough of it -- which for some games (like Half-Life) is maybe 10-20% of the game, with the rest downloading as needed. I can then move to another machine, download Steam, enter a username/password, and re-download the game. The only limitation is that I can't have both machines playing the game at once, which is fair, because then it really would be piracy.

However, I don't use networks like these for games I can get for Linux, for obvious reasons. And the few games I've bought that are natively Linux come with pretty much no copy protection -- they seem to realize that when everything on the system is open source except their game, we could defeat any copy protection scheme they invent. It's here that I very rarely find a game that works the way I want -- which is to simply go online somewhere, pay, and download the game, no additional copy protection bullshit involved.

There are a few indie games that let me do that, and I never pirate those games, I just buy them, because under these circumstances, it's much more of a hassle to pirate, the games are cheap anyway, and every dollar (almost) goes straight to the developer.

There's also the games that offer subscriptions. A person who plays on the real World of Warcraft servers is pretty much guaranteed to have a better experience than someone who plays on their own pirate server (these do exist). And these games do not have to do any elaborate DRM schemes -- the worst they do is anti-cheat mechanisms.

However, this is the reason for my subject line -- most big-name commercial games, most of the time, have basically had bad enough copy protection that even people who buy them will also pirate them. But it seems the game industry is moving forward and dropping its most restrictive crap, while Hollywood is moving backwards and piling it on.

I expect this means that, in the future, I'll be buying more games than movies, even if I pirate more movies than games.

I almost forgot Software, but it's late (3 AM) and it's also pretty much irrelevant -- any software that's not a game is almost always something I can get an open source version of, and apt-get is more convenient than any warez system I've seen, so here, legit (but free) wins.

Features (3, Interesting)

pembo13 (770295) | about 7 years ago | (#20208927)

Say what you want, but these are much requested features from Microsoft's customer base. What is causing the confusion is that these wanting-to-see-HD-content people mistakenly think that they are Microsoft customers. They are Microsoft's consumers, all of whom have accepted the Windows EULA, and so might as well stop complaining.

Re:Features (1)

Bega (684994) | about 7 years ago | (#20209077)

Of course! They agreed to the EULA, so they have no right to complain whatsoever!

Oh wait..

Re:Features (0)

jlarocco (851450) | about 7 years ago | (#20209179)

Of course! They agreed to the EULA, so they have no right to complain whatsoever!

They can complain all they want. But I hope they don't expect anybody to feel sorry for them. It wasn't like Vista's DRM was a big secret or anything. There are hundreds of sites all over the internet that have been pointing out for years how Vista was going to be a DRM laden piece of crap.

You can counter that the general public doesn't read sites like Slashdot, but who's fault is that? There's nobody stopping them. They could have researched their purchase, but they didn't.

So they can complain all they want while I sit here and play the world's smallest violin, extra special for all the idiots getting exactly what they paid for. Boo hoo.

Re:Features (5, Informative)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 7 years ago | (#20209287)

Wow, your argument holds SO MUCH water for John Q. Consumer, who bought a computer with Vista on it. He doesn't read Slashdot, he may not even understand DRM at all. All he knows is that the stuff he wants (possibly, maybe he doesn't care about this either) to play won't play like it's supposed to. That's his fault somehow? Thanks for enlightening me to that fact.

I'm glad we have people like you looking out for other people, dude.

Re:Features (1)

WetCat (558132) | about 7 years ago | (#20209349)

But! The same John Q. Customer, I bet, will surely read all the fine print in contract when he is buying or even renting a house, or when paying taxes.
Why he didn't reject the EULA and ignore it?
How to make more awareness about EULA?

Re:Features (2, Insightful)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 7 years ago | (#20209437)

I think the fact that most EULAs are written in technical & lawyer language rather than something that the user can understand is the issue. Most people have a lawyer look at a house contract, use an accountant when doing taxes. I know myself that for me to rent a commercial property here in Australia I am required by law to take the lease to a solicitor to discuss it.

Who wants to spend a few hundred dollars on both lawer and technical consultant fees just to know whether to click "accept" when they first boot up their computer. That's just stupid, really stupid. The funny thing is that in an M$ EULA, most of the DRM & the likes is just eluded to. There's no straight up "If you attempt to watch a video over an insecure interface you will get shit quality" in it, it's more like "measures have been put into place to stop copywright infringement... blah... blah... blah."

Anyone who says that home users are just "consumers" and not customers of M$ is talk bullshit. If M$ is so not worried about what consumers want then why make a resource hungry eye-candy OS? Oh wait, HP, Dell, Toshiba, Fujitsu, etc, all requested M$ do that... I forgot, PC makers have ultimate control over M$, and not the other way around.

To be honest, users for years have been crying out for a sexy OSX rip-off... they have it now, and all they do is complain that it runs shit, etc. Meanwhile they could have told M$ where to go by buying an Apple, rather than demanding a poorly done clone. (and no, I don't own an Apple, I'm a Linux person myself. I just don't see Linux distros as mature enough to take on Bill and Steve... too many flying chairs and all).

Re:Features (1)

tsa (15680) | about 7 years ago | (#20209459)

Suddenly I'm reminded of a book that features someone lying in front of his house, trying to prevent it from being demolished by yellow bulldozers.

Re:Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20209235)

I get it now! Thank you. RIAA and MPAA are using Microsoft to erect a toll booth (more accurately, a concrete barrier) on the way to consumer satisfaction unless we pay up. Big time pay up. Microsoft is OK with this? The justifications to use Windows at all are getting very thin, especially since I see several of my co-workers who are relatively new Mac users having NONE of these issues. They absolutely love their machines. This week, I'm joining them. Moving from XP to Mac.

Eh (2, Insightful)

ipooptoomuch (808091) | about 7 years ago | (#20208931)

Once the enemy is the user and not the attacker, standard security thinking falls apart.

Re:Eh (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20208941)

If you're going to try and say something clever, try not copying it word for word from the article, jackass.

You can be mildly exonerated by the fact that this is Slashdot and you're unlucky that someone actually read it.

Re:Eh (2, Funny)

ipooptoomuch (808091) | about 7 years ago | (#20209073)

"Once the enemy is the user and not the attacker, standard security thinking falls apart." That better?

XP vs Vista (4, Insightful)

wall0159 (881759) | about 7 years ago | (#20208937)

I remember when XP came out, many MS apologists said "yes, XP sucks, but Win2K is really not bad."
Now that Vista is out I'm hearing things like "yes, Vista sucks, but XP is really not too bad."

Now, windows 2K was the last version I used much (praise the Lord), but from what I've seen of XP and Vista, Windows, while maybe becoming prettier (and having a better UI) now treats the user with absolute contempt.

Why do people (especially Slashdotters) put up with it, when there are other options that are so much better?

Re:XP vs Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20208975)

Agreed, however, Windows 2003 Server is better than Windows 2000.

Re:XP vs Vista (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | about 7 years ago | (#20209409)

Although any manager who demands his tech minions use Windows Server deserves to be pushed out his window. Assuming, of course, today's ivory towers have windows, and not just digital picture frames.

Re:XP vs Vista (1)

Graphic_Content (1047676) | about 7 years ago | (#20208977)

Better how? Less-CPU intensive (ie: Linux, etc). There are lots of other things better with other OS', but, as it stands, the developers stick with Windows as that is currently the most user friendly OR most well known OS. Enterprises are the ones that would help make the change to any other OS, but that is a long hill to climb.

Re:XP vs Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20209391)

"Windows as that is currently the most user friendly"

Ummmmm... OS X

Re:XP vs Vista (4, Insightful)

KanSer (558891) | about 7 years ago | (#20209023)


It's a sad lot.

Re:XP vs Vista (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20209043)

As a guy who skipped XP, and went from Linux and 2000 to Vista Ultimate. Vista kinda kicks ass. Like hard, and relentlessly. I still hate XP. There's goofy CPU hogging stuff you can do, or not do with Vista, Dreamscene comes to mind. I completely do not understand the hatred towards Vista, and I quite frankly don't care. In the interests of full disclosure, I even like the new IE more than Firefox. (To those gathering torches and pitchforks, I have a shotgun in the closet.) Much about the UI is vastly superior. The mac ad crap? After you set things up in about 5 minutes it just doesn't come up unless your installing or configuring new software, if then.

If 2000 is an F-15, Vista is the F-22. Expensive? The New Sexy? Untested, Unproven (maybe). But at the end of the day, it really looks like it's going to dominate. (I did look at a MacBook Pro too, but I didn't really care about weight/thickness and at $1000 more it ended up being not much of a contest.)

Re:XP vs Vista (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 7 years ago | (#20209115)

...and on top of it all, you are owned by Microsoft!

Cool! Where can i get some of that?

Re:XP vs Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20209145)

Know thy enemy and know thyself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know thyself but not thy enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not thyself, wallow in defeat everytime.
-- Sun Tzu

Believe the what people say because it's 'hip' to say, or see and choose for yourself. Microsoft isn't perfect, but they delivered with Vista

Re:XP vs Vista (1)

changling bob (1075587) | about 7 years ago | (#20209423)

Where's the -1, Funny button?

Re:XP vs Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20209139)

I just watched a 1920x1080i HD movie off my G4 PowerBook tonight. Old machine, current OS, never a worry. I used a Vista machine for 3 weeks and conclude Microsoft STILL doesn't "get it". Use your shotgun on your Vista machine before it infects the rest of us.

Re:XP vs Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20209425)

I don't think you watched that movie. I'm sure you tried very hard.

Re:XP vs Vista (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 7 years ago | (#20209089)

Why do people (especially Slashdotters) put up with it, when there are other options that are so much better?

Games. Wine hasn't ever worked well, and likely never will; this leaves Windows as the only alternative for playing most games or running certain programs (like Poser) on a PC.

Re:XP vs Vista (1)

dave1791 (315728) | about 7 years ago | (#20209373)

Games will help drive vista Penetration. DirectX10 is a Vista only thing and there are new, flashy games on the horizon that are DX10. The gamer crowd that thinks nothing of spending $1000 for a pair of GTX cards will slavishly go to Vista for DX10. On the flip side, if you are using DX instead of OpenGL, DX10 is very nice compared to DX9, so I can see game developers going to is as soon as they can.

Re:XP vs Vista (4, Insightful)

SpottedKuh (855161) | about 7 years ago | (#20209109)

Why do people (especially Slashdotters) put up with [new Windows versions], when there are other options that are so much better?

Because, unfortunately, the newest software is written for the newest versions of Windows. And, as much as I would love to never touch Windows Vista, I know that, eventually, some piece of software I need to run for work will only run on Windows Vista.

It used to be that a lot of software ran on Win9x/Win2k. Then, it was Win9x/Win2k/WinXP. Now, I frequently see either Win2k/WinXP/Vista or WinXP/Vista. It won't be long until the software I need for work only runs on Vista. And, then I have no choice but to upgrade to Vista.

And, as much as I love open source, I don't always have the option of switching to OSS (i.e., there's no viable OSS alternative). Or, sometimes switching to OSS isn't worth the hassle, compared to the time I save by just giving in to Microsoft and buying the newest version of Office (instead of dealing with the minor, but often horrifically irritating incompatibilities with And no: this is not a critique of OSS, nor is it something that I ever think will change. It is simply a fact of using a computer that I require to be easily compatible with the setups used by other people in my field. It's easier to spend to money on commercial software (that is, the monetary abuse I take from commerical vendors) than it is to piss away hours of my time trying to work around incompatibilities (that is, the kind of abuse I take when using some OSS). Sometimes, OSS works beautifully for what I need, and I love saving the money. Othertimes, I just have to pay up.

Re:XP vs Vista (1)

monsted (6709) | about 7 years ago | (#20209323)

Because, unfortunately, the newest software is written for the newest versions of Windows. And, as much as I would love to never touch Windows Vista, I know that, eventually, some piece of software I need to run for work will only run on Windows Vista.
With the rate of adoption by businesses we're seeing now, that'll hopefully be a while. DirectX 10 games is probably the first thing that people will notice.

Re:XP vs Vista (1) troll (593289) | about 7 years ago | (#20209135)

Software support mostly. Everything I want to run runs on windows, but not everything I want to run runs on Linux. Specifically Firefox, gaim, xchat, gvim, etc have all been ported to windows. Foobar2000, flashfxp/ftprush, official IM clients with full support of extended features, all the games, good video editing, good audio editing, etc do not run on linux.

On top of that last time I used linux on the desktop (~2 years ago, admittedly), there was still plenty of issues doing things that work fine out of the box on windows, like slapping two videocards in and stretching your display across them both. Or having apps register global hotkeys to control them without having to switch out of what you're doing to find them. Or playing sound from more than one source at once. Or playing >2channel audio with any soundcard capable of it (instead of just the single audigy i think it was that alsa boasted support for).

Really for both sides you get used to what you have and there is usually not enough compelling reasons to switch.

Re:XP vs Vista (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 years ago | (#20209275)

there was still plenty of issues doing things that work fine out of the box on windows, like slapping two videocards in and stretching your display across them both

This varies with hardware on both systems - for instance there's one system I can run a widescreen LCD at native resolution in linux but not in windows due to hardcoded driver limits and there were some linux systems where I could not reliably do the two display thing with two paticular video cards. I did this to a lot of systems recently - some ATI cards didn't play well with other things or do dual screen on their own, some ATI ones were perfect and even worked with nvidia cards. Matrox and nvidia worked well except for a few odd situations like only clone mode in 8 bit on some Matrox cards. Put a half decent card or two in an old system and two LCD screens and users think they have an entire new system (especially if the real work is done by grunty machines racked up in the server room). Suddenly their system with an old CPU not capable of much has 3D bouncing cows on a screensaver that it didn't have a chance of rendering at speed before. X is still just as chatty on the network but the remote stuff gets rendered too quickly to notice and everything looks faster.

What really matters is the applications. If you have a decent X program on MS Windows you can run all the linux stuff on a box on the network and have both.

Because we work for a living... (5, Insightful)

msimm (580077) | about 7 years ago | (#20209181)

Even the more technical among us. It's fine to be idealistic and all but there comes a point when it's simply impractical to pretend an operating system you don't like doesn't carry important weight in the real world.

Personally I like Linux for a lot of things. I've used it for maybe 8 or 9 years now? I'm a senior systems administrator and run deployments mainly focused on Linux based operating systems. That's not to say when I go to my office I fire up Ubuntu. Or when our CEO has laptop problems I curse Microsoft and implore him to adopt OS du jour.

Frankly XP was simply a better version of 2000. Yes, prettier. More user friendly. I won't say the same for Vista. At least in it's current incarnation it is not a slightly improved/prettier version of XP. It's sluggish and annoying. It's one step forward and 2 steps back. More like an improved 3.1. Maybe after SP1 comes out we will see something shine. I wouldn't give up. I just wouldn't recommend businesses upgrade right now.

Anyway, harping on Microsoft always seems a little silly. As a corporation they do some annoying things. Lots of corporations do. But they also hire some talented programmers and have actually helped do some good (you do like the PC platform, right?). Even helped set some high-water marks (not that I'm a fan of the most recent version of Office, but you get my meaning).

In the end using the wrong OS for the wrong task sucks. That's not being an apologist, that my friend, is being a realist. Something I think we can forget to do in all the mellow-dramatic politicking.

Personally (sorry I'm being a bit long-winded) my biggest disappointment with Vista is that it doesn't feel like an incremental upgrade to XP. I think XP was some of their best work to date. Aside from a few quirks I really enjoy using it. As I enjoy using Ubuntu on my laptop sitting in my bedroom and I enjoy the mindless reliability of the MythTV server I have sitting quietly and quite functionally in the closet to the left of me.

Their tools. Not personal credos.

VistaME (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20209385)

VistaME is the best description of Vista.
It really is just half baked.
It feels like something that they shipped due to an arbitrary date, not when it was done.

Things just don't work right.
For example, I have 2 (count 'em 2) Documents directories in my C:\Users\abc\ directory. F'ed if I know how the 2nd one got there. It is a regular folder, not the fancy Vista special folder.
The Command Line only sees the 2nd directory. The "My Documents" junction/symlink falls through to the 2nd directory too.
"Application Data" is another winner. Sometimes I can get there using AppData sometimes I have to resort to environment variables (attempts to Explore to AppData give me access errors).

I am not too demanding, but I do like to wheel around my own hard drive ... when I am an Admin user.

Re:XP vs Vista (1)

Scruffy Dan (1122291) | about 7 years ago | (#20209329)

I use MS because that where the games are on, and it is the only way to reliably read and write the most widely used office formats, other than Macs (which are more expensive)

Wait... (4, Insightful)

kmac06 (608921) | about 7 years ago | (#20208943)

Is the article really saying that ALL HD content, regardless of if it is indicated to be copyrighted or not, is degrade? IE if I take a video with my HD camera, I can't play it on Vista? It sounds like the article is saying

Re:Wait... (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 7 years ago | (#20208993)

That's what the guy is saying, but is there any non-biased confirmation one way or the other on this? Your own digital movies wouldn't have a copy protection bit set, so it doesn't seem like it would be throttled for the sake of throttling all high def content. OTOH, it's certainly simpler to program a codepath that just shunts all high def content through a filter rather than handle it differently in every case.

Also, 132 pages of PowerPoint slides? Jesus Harold Christ! Focus that presentation a little bit, wouldya?

Re:Wait... (2, Informative)

Macthorpe (960048) | about 7 years ago | (#20209021)

I can confirm it is most certainly not true - I've been playing downloaded HD movies (mostly game trailers) with no issues whatsoever on Vista. It does degrade quality on Blu-Ray/HD-DVD discs, but I have no intention of buying one for exactly that reason.

Re:Wait... (2)

Tsarnon (4195) | about 7 years ago | (#20209213)

That's because the stuff you're downloading probably isn't WMV (HD) content. Like the article says, it doesn't degrade formats like X264 or DivX. So if you have people with HD recording equipment and they have some encoder that defaults to WMV (HD), they're gonna get stuff that doesn't play on their own system.

Re:Wait... (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | about 7 years ago | (#20209369)

Sorry, but that's total bollocks. WMV content that YOU encode will not have DRM on it unless you ask for it.

Re:Wait... (1)

jlarocco (851450) | about 7 years ago | (#20209299)

I can confirm it is most certainly not true - I've been playing downloaded HD movies (mostly game trailers) with no issues whatsoever on Vista. It does degrade quality on Blu-Ray/HD-DVD discs, but I have no intention of buying one for exactly that reason.

Hell, I'd say that's even worse. Game trailers are free. You have to pay to watch degraded Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

Why even bother with HD disks when you can download full movies off bit-torrent for free and play them at full-quality?

Re:Wait... (1)

init100 (915886) | about 7 years ago | (#20209375)

I've been playing downloaded HD movies (mostly game trailers) with no issues whatsoever on Vista.

What codec was used for compression? The summary (I did not read TFA) said that alternative codecs, like x264 and XviD would work fine.

Re:Wait... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20209203)

Yes, because the required HDCP token isn't in the video. Consumers can't afford the expensive hardware/software to authorize it for HDCP, according to the original article; quality-hd-content-cant-be-played-by-windows-vista .html []

No, of course not (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 7 years ago | (#20209261)

As usual this is information being spun in to anti-MS FUD. Here's the deal: As some content providers are paranoid, particularly big media, new HD systems are coming with the ability to "close the analogue hole" they always like ot talk about. The method is to downsample information over non-encrypted outputs. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray can both do this, though as far as I know none of the discs set the flag to have them do it yet. If they do, what happens is you get HD out over HDMI or DVI, but only if your display supports HDCP. If it doesn't, or if you use the component outputs, you get something that is right around SD.

Ok well Vista supports the same thing. It's MS's bid to get content providers to use and support their stuff. They can have Vista check and if the output isn't encrypted, downsample the output (or refuse to play as well I believe).

Now is that mandatory? Of course not. It is only if the format is one that supports it, and if the content itself has the flag set to do that. So your own HD content is fine, and anyone else's unprotected HD content is fine. This is just for the media companies, who are paranoid.

So same kind of deal with HD-DVD and what not. If this bothers you, simply refuse to buy and use media that is so protected. It doesn't stop unprotected media from working fine. The DRM support they added certainly isn't what I'd call useful, but it doesn't affect you unless you want to play DRM'd media. Now while you might think that it makes it worse, consider that what is going to happen is that they just won't release it for platforms that don't support this. So it isn't a situation of Vista having DRM on the media and other platforms not, it is a situation of the media only playing on platforms with proper DRM.

My advice is just to refuse to purchase the protected media. Eventually they'll either sell unprotected media or just go out of business.

Re:Wait... (3, Interesting)

dabraun (626287) | about 7 years ago | (#20209307)

Vista will down-res DRM protected content that it is required to down-res. I hate it, you hate it, we all hate it - but the alternative is for it to not be able to play that content at all. The content that is being down-res'd is content that you simply can't play on any system without down-resing or 'breaking the law'.

Yes, the laws are rediculous - going so far as to allow, for example, resampled and up-resed DVD (normal) playback over VGA but not over component despite the fact that both connections are analog and have the same level of security (i.e. none). The only difference is that VGA is viewed as a PC monitor connection and HDMI is viewed as a TV connection.

This issue of course pre-dates the current concern for BluRay and HD-DVD playback which require a secure path to the display for full res playback. When you find another OS that can legally playback these formats over an insecure channel in full res then you can start complaining about Vista, but until you do you should restrict your complaints in this area to the media cartel that is creating these rules and the government that supports and enforces this type of behavior.

Or you can just accept, as I have, that the winner of the BluRay vs. HD-DVD war will actually be downloaded movies and normal DVDs and ignore any weird playback behaviors in BluRay and HD-DVD.

Short summary: (2, Insightful)

mdenham (747985) | about 7 years ago | (#20208945)

Vista harms system performance.

Re:Short summary: (1)

RuBLed (995686) | about 7 years ago | (#20209165)

Vista harms user performance.

Re:Short summary: (1)

mdenham (747985) | about 7 years ago | (#20209361)

Thank you, I perform quite well with Vista.

I especially enjoy it for playing chess against, despite the lack of any way to propose a draw to the computer.

Feature-Loss (1, Interesting)

Graphic_Content (1047676) | about 7 years ago | (#20208959)

Vista is supposed to be a very feature-rich OS. This hinders performance greatly if you wanted to watch some HD-DVDs. You now cannot even encode your own videos in WMV (HD) unless you don't mind the down-scaling. I still don't have Vista myself, but this would be another reason, albeit a small one currently, to not get it. The x264 codec is kick-ass codec for viewing high-res videos. I am betting Microsoft will release a patch or update early 2008 to remove this said "feature".

Re:Feature-Loss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20209293)

foolio. you are sucking down the muck this slashdot crowd is trying to rake.

the only thing going on here is that HD-DVDs and blueray discs will downsample if you have crappy old hardware. all other HD content will render just fine, within the limits of that hardware.

if you want to break the DMCA and crack up the content protection on vista, all of this disappears.

you people are just so gosh darned stupid some times.

in other words... (0, Flamebait)

JazzyMusicMan (1012801) | about 7 years ago | (#20208981)

all your HD-content are belong to us...

enjoy the shiny coasters you purchased for $25 each...

The end-user is simply viewed as a wallet... (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 7 years ago | (#20208985)

As long as the wallets get something for their money, it's [both MS and the MPAA win]. And if the wallets don't get to see what they paid extra for [namely HD], it's their own damn fault for buying such a cheap computer system.

Zonk, learn to speak English :P (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20208987)

Once again, excellent examples of simple English grammar/spelling errors that should have been fixed by the editor.

Handy link to the referenced paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20209001)

"A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection": ost.html []

LOL the "Executive Executive Summary"

Destruction of creativity (4, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | about 7 years ago | (#20209031)

I know a guy online who claims Vista stopped him from being able to produce his own video of some biking event he went to. After trying for a while he decided it was ridiculous and actually went back to XP.

That's the real damage that DRM is doing - it's creating a huge DIS-incentive for being creative. Everything from GPS software that's crippled so they can sell you more maps (that you can't afford or refuse to fork out for) to printers with extortionately priced consumables, to camera software that changes with each couple of models, to music players that suddenly stop file sharing (legal or not! think about free postcasts).

I use to love buying gadgets but now every time I buy one I wince because I know I'm going to spend more time with the product working around limitations that have been added, or general poor quality. The most idiotic thing is that what this ultimately means is that after a few sales to desperate consumers, many decide they don't have the time, or money or that its just not worth the grey hairs to get into a hobby, especially in a world where you're expected to work half your life or more away.

Re:Destruction of creativity (3, Insightful)

Knos (30446) | about 7 years ago | (#20209277)

I contend it's actually one of the goals of DRM, to hinder amateur creativity. Or at least to create a monetary barrier of entry to high quality creation tools. My example would be: for years, the minidisc format was totally closed to such things as bringing back into digital the analog recordings one would have made. Strangely, towards the end of its life, when only professionals or prosumers might use it, sony releases a device that precisely does this.

That, or its general contempt of the public.

Re:Destruction of creativity (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 7 years ago | (#20209401)

"I know a guy who..." ya If I had a nickle for every story that started like that and was exaggerated or not true.

Supposing this really did happen it is for one of three reasons:

1) His video editing software wasn't supported under Vista. You should always check compatibility before upgrading.

2) His video hardware wasn't supported under Vista. Again, check compatibility before upgrading.

3) His computer was insufficient to run Vista. Same thing I said the first two times.

That's it. No, Vista has no evil DRM gremlins that prevent you from doing your own media. At work, that's one of the things I do. I get video from our DV cam, computer screen caps, security DVR, and then use Vegas to composite them all together. Works just great in Vista. And no, the output isn't DRM'd. It won't be unless I want it to be, and it is actually rather a pain to setup the DRM tools.

So this "guy you know online," if the story is true and accurate, wasn't stopped by Vista he was stopped by failing to check compatibility before upgrading. This would be the same as me claiming that Linux stopped me from producing video because it doesn't have the codecs for the security DVR and screen cap software. That's true, but that isn't Linux's fault, it would be my fault for not checking to make sure everything I need is available.

Need a straight answer on this (1)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | about 7 years ago | (#20209041)

Alright. I load in HDV camera footage via CineForm, and edit in Vegas. I output WMV files and also MPEG HDV m2t files for output back to tape. I view the WMV files on the PC. Does Vista affect any of this? HDV is 1440X1080, and I occasionally render 1920X1080. This is all original content from my HDV tapes.

On a related note, has anyone successfully dual booted Vista and XP? (the only reason I can see using Vista is for DX10 and games)

No (Summary is incorrect) (2, Informative)

monb (1045556) | about 7 years ago | (#20209167)

Not all HD content is degraded, only specific protected content. At the moment this is only Blu-ray + HD discs, Some TV cable cards (I believe). In theory DRM'd downloaded WMV's could also use it but they currently don't. All other HD files, including your WMVs mentioned, are not affected, and do not have to have an encrypted path / downgraded resolution. That is not to say you may still have issues playing them, but in this case they would probably be driver related, not content protection related. For the second question, yes I've dual booted. I used an OEM version of home premium, and on installation it gave me the option of installing onto a different partition / disk.

Re:Need a straight answer on this (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about 7 years ago | (#20209207)

From my understand, and I could quite possibly be wrong here, the DRM they're talking about never touched anything in that situation you described. This is about playing DRMd high def content, usually HD-DVDs, on computers running Vista and having the quality degraded when played over high quality but unprotected (read: DVI) ports (presumably to prevent HD content getting out into the wild, which is so astoundingly naive I'm at a loss to describe it) and that's not what you're doing.

dual booted Vista and XP? (1)

snikulin (889460) | about 7 years ago | (#20209209)

Yes. I used XP-64 and Vista-64 Business on the same WS. No problems apart from re-installing all user SW for Vista.

I'm a Microsoft fan... (1)

siyavash (677724) | about 7 years ago | (#20209067)

...but this is f**k'ed up! Although, I think we should blame the MPAA. I mean, they are so powerful that they alter laws in their own benefit, who is Microsoft to stand against them? This is however a good reason NOT to use Microsoft's video format for encoding the videos. I don't think they killed themselves but I think they are killing their own format... atleast for now.

It'll be interesting to see how things will turn in the comming months, either way, I think 2008 will be an interesting year.

is this story just flamebait? (4, Insightful)

Ferzerp (83619) | about 7 years ago | (#20209069)

Since these things are required for them to be able to play blu-ray or hd-dvd content, what did you expect?

Did we honestly expect the largest OS vendor to create their OS to ignore the built in controls with the HD disk formats?

Get a proper hdmi supporting card and a proper hdmi monitor and you won't get down sampled output.

I think the whole thing is stupid as well, but this is an integral part of the hd formats. Reporting that Vista respects what is required to play these DRM laden formats "legally" is just pointless. What did you think they would do? Can you imagine the lawsuits? If your DRM'ed HD content is sent through a non-encrypted channel it gets downsampled. Gee whiz, who would have thought that... It's not like this has been common knowledge for years. Oh wait... Yes it has.

It's not like it will downsample non-drm'ed HD content.

(I have taken the slashdot approach and repeated the same thing many times in this post)

Re:is this story just flamebait? (1)

Pofy (471469) | about 7 years ago | (#20209095)

>Reporting that Vista respects what is required to play these DRM laden formats "legally" is just pointless.

What "legally" are you refering to?

Re:is this story just flamebait? (1)

scapermoya (769847) | about 7 years ago | (#20209195)

ever heard of the DMCA?

Re:is this story just flamebait? (1)

Pofy (471469) | about 7 years ago | (#20209257)

Not in my country, no. Why should MIcrosoft selling Vista all over the world implement an american law and force it onto users in other countries?

Re:is this story just flamebait? (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 7 years ago | (#20209313)

Because it's simpler for them to sell the same version everywhere, since they have to do it that way in the US.

Re:is this story just flamebait? (1)

scapermoya (769847) | about 7 years ago | (#20209331)

is that a serious question? why would an american company comply with american law to protect the media that is made almost exclusively in america?

get over yourself

Re:is this story just flamebait? (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 7 years ago | (#20209335)

Because they are a US corporation. While they could try arguing, and perhaps succeed, that they don't need to do it in your country they don't want to spend the time and money in court. It would go to court, especially since you know that people would illegally re-import copies of Vista without the restriction and the media industry would blame MS. Easier to just restrict it everywhere, especially since HDCP enabled videocards and monitors are the rule these days, not the exception.

Re:is this story just flamebait? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | about 7 years ago | (#20209151)

Agreed. Vista is not blocking HD signals or anything, they're merely respecting the specs. They'd be in trouble if they didn't respect the ICT flag [] and played full quality despite that. And if the flag is not set by the media manufacturer, then Vista won't care for downsampling. Erog; it is up to the media industry on what they decide they want downsampled, not Vista.

Re:is this story just flamebait? (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 7 years ago | (#20209377)

You don't need HDMI, DVI works fine. The video signal of DVI and HDMI are electrically compatible. You just need HDCP on both ends. Pretty much all LCDs since 2005, and some before, support it. Graphics cards are somewhat newer with support but any nVidia 7 series or above should support it and I think it is similar on the ATi side of the equation.

Of course I think a better idea is just to say "fuck you" to HD-DVD and Blu-ray. HD is neat and all, but really, DVD on a good upsampling player is pretty good. Screw the HD formats until they back off on the inane DRM.

HDCP (0, Offtopic)

rpillala (583965) | about 7 years ago | (#20209075)

I'm trying to reply to other posts but /. isn't letting me. The article states that any HD mvie/song/whatever that relies on (Intel's) HD Content Protection in hardware will be degraded by the system when that hardware feature is not present. The article mentions video card, but I'm guessing probably sound card and maybe the optical drive itself have to support HDCP. I have problems now when I try to play some DVDs I bought through my computer. Windows pops up some kind of error message about being unable to determine copyright something or other. This is more of the same. Or think of it like the old Macrovision method that made it harder to dub VHS tapes.

It's actually worse than that macrovision method. In that case you could still watch it on your TV, just any copy you made was crappy. In this case, Vista degrades the image at the DVI output. My monitor right now is connected by DVI. Do Microsoft and "Hollywood" expect that we'll be playing things other than physical HD media on our computers? Because I think a lot of that will be handled by external players or set top boxes of some kind for your TV. Streaming or net-delivered movies and TV? I guess that's growing.

then than then than (0, Offtopic)

choseph (1024971) | about 7 years ago | (#20209101)

(summary) "There are ways to bypass the Windows Vista protection by encoding the movies using alternative codecs like X264, or DiVX, which are in fact more effective sometimes Kb>then Windows own WMV codec."

I normally let these slide, but the than/then confusion gets to me more than the their/there/they're mix ups. Mabye it is the fact that I pronounce their/there/they're the same, but than/then differently? I hit the word when reading and my brain pukes and I have to re-read the sentence to see what I may have missed. Why is this so confusing and hard to get right?

Maybe I'll have to get all my stories read to me so I can just chalk it up to accent/pronunciation [] . Offtopic, but some of the samples on that site are hillarious...

Vista video playback restrictions (2, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | about 7 years ago | (#20209127)

The article somehow reminds me of early 2006.

So here's a nice and tidy list that summarizes most of it: 519180.aspx []

Like giving a link to the Nazi party ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20209221)

... to confront a Churchill speech.

And here is the original Churchillian speech: ost.html []

"Not specific to Microsoft" -- something that's repeated continually like a mantra in the MSMVPS link -- is a the "answer" of a weasel. Microsoft is the only operating system distributor that builds this kind of crap into the OS.

Gutmann dealt with the response of the weasels very effectively here: ost.html#response []

Re:Vista video playback restrictions (1)

Tsarnon (4195) | about 7 years ago | (#20209253)

If you read that article closely, you'll note that the author forgets to mention some combinations and corrects himself in the comments:

"If you have DVI or HDMI without HDCP (ICT set or not), you don't get any video output. You must use an analog connection at this point. You can either use VGA or Component. Again, if ICT is not set, VGA will give you full resolution still (which is 1080p). Component will give you 1080i if ICT not set."

So, he is saying you can't get high quality digital output in some cases.

HDCP (1, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | about 7 years ago | (#20209129)

HDCP can go fuck itself, and so can anyone that supports it. My $7000 JVC hd tv has a hdmi port that's busted PURELY due to a HDCP bug. i've been waiting MONTHS for the fix.

This article is a joke (3, Informative)

*MoonDogg* (709056) | about 7 years ago | (#20209189)

and full of errors and misleading statements. This guy [] put it better than I can.


Not this again... (5, Insightful)

ArcCoyote (634356) | about 7 years ago | (#20209191)

Gutmann has made valuable contributions to the IT security field, but fergawdsake, I wish he would keep his personal vendetta against MS/Vista to himself. He's missing the point, and it's making him look like a fool.

Vista does NOT downrez or restrict HD content that is not protected! I can record and play 720p/1080i HD digital cable (clear-QAM via HDHomeRun) on a 1920x1200 DVI monitor that is NOT HDCP-CAPABLE and see every pixel. Now, if it was HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, protected WMV, from a CableCARD system, etc... it would downrez or refuse to play.

I personally couldn't give a flying frog about that part. Guess what? DRM sucks in every way. The answer is not "don't use Vista", the answer is "don't bother with DRM"

Rip the DRM support out of Vista, (It can be done, just kill the right .dll files) and what do you get? The same thing as any other OS: Non-DRM content works, DRM content won't play. You're not going to magically get DRM-infested content to play at full-rez by NOT SUPPORTING DRM. Don't say "but $OTHER_OS can play it..." because with the very rare exception that will involve breaking DRM in unauthorized ways. You can do the same thing on Vista if you like: it's all fair-use, but it's not DRM support.

The point is, and what Gutmann fails to grok, is that Vista doesn't LACK the capability to play HD video at full rez, rather it HAS the capability to play protected HD at full rez on a compliant system. No other OS is going even play that content, even downrezzed, unless you break the DRM.


In related news.... (0, Troll)

stox (131684) | about 7 years ago | (#20209193)

Microsoft has bought a 50mm cannon to blow both feet off.

Thank you Microsoft (1, Troll)

forgoil (104808) | about 7 years ago | (#20209283)

Your public betas of Microsoft Vista gave me an excellent change to try out your new OS and it made me sure that I should upgrade from Windows XP, which I promptly did in January. What you probably didn't know though was that my upgrade path took me to OS X instead of Vista. The beta showed me just how horrible Vista is, just by trying to set a few things up after installing it. The dialogs / wizards were horrible, unusable, and almost worse than randomly created text file formats. It seems, by this article, that my buying decision was the correct one, and I urge all my fellow slashdotters to run an OS, of your choice, that caters to you, the user, and not enterprisy entity with the sole purpose of ripping you off.

For you stuck with Vista, enjoy your games.

That's all for me.

America is fucked (0, Flamebait)

DrSkwid (118965) | about 7 years ago | (#20209301)

Because it seems you have extreme difficulty in learning the fucking difference between then and than!

Vista Retarded is here (5, Funny)

NZheretic (23872) | about 7 years ago | (#20209311)

Getting down with the VCPs to get the DRM message out ... [With deepest apologies to the Black Eyed Peas for the parody of "Let get Retarded"]

Vista Retarded is here
Sung by the V.C.P.s
[voiceover] The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history [] .

Vista "Retarded", is here...

And content not playin' playin', not playin' playin',not playin' playin',not playin' playin', not
playin' playin', not playin' playin',not playin' playin',not playin' playin', not...

In this context,Vista disrespects, so when I click to play, the display disconnects.
We got find methods for us to reconnect to new codecs by the network effect.
Bout to lose your fair use. Microsoft's institution. Infect your computer with D.R.M. pollution.
Cause when we click on, the sound is gonna be down. You won't believe how we ow shout out.
Burn can't cause we locked out, Sample can't cause we locked out, act up from north,west, east south.

Everybody (ye-a!), everybody (ye-a!), let's get into it (Yea!).
Get stoopid (click on!).
Vista retarded (click on!), Vista retarded (click on!), get retarded.
Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.

Lose control, of privacy and goals.
Won't run too fast cause, bloat makes it slow.
Won't get away, your locked into it.
Y'all hear about it, Gutmann'll do it.
Get Vista, be stoopid.
Don't worry 'bout it, Ballmer'll walk you though it,
Step by step, you'll be restricted
Patch by patch with the new solution.
Transmit bits, with D.R.M. pollution
Claim the contents irresistible and that's how they move it.

Everybody (ye-a!), everybody (ye-a!), let's get into it (Yea!).
Get stoopid (click on!).
Vista retarded (click on!), Vista retarded (click on!), get retarded.
Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.

Playin' playin', not playin' playin',not playin' playin',not playin' playin', not...

C'mon y'all, let's get Do-do! (uh huh)-- Let's get Do-do! (in here)
Right now get Do-do! (uh huh)-- Let's get Do-do! (in here)
Right now get Do-do! (uh huh)-- Let's get Do-do! (in here) Ow, ow, ow!
Ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya...

Let's get ill, that's the deal
At the gate, Microsoft restricts your will. (Just)
Lose your mind this is the time,
Y'all test this will, Just and download still. (Just)
Rob the resolution, from your monitor or to your speakers.
Get pixel-ated and suck.
Yo' movies past slow-mo' in another head trip.(So)
Locked in now cannot correct it, so be ig'nant and left apoplectic .

(yeah)Everybody, (yeah) everybody, (yeah) get locked into it.
(yeah) Get stupid.
(click on) Get retarded,(click on) get retarded (yeah), get retarded.
Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.

You Cukoo! (A-ha!) -- It's Po-Po! (is here)
Be a Fool! (A-ha!)-- M.S. Tool! (be their)
Like Voodoo! (A-ha!) --You cukoo! (out here)
Ow, ow! -- Ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya...

Playin' playin', not playin' playin',not playin' playin',not playin' playin'

Home movies vs Hollywood movies (1, Troll)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 7 years ago | (#20209345)

What TFA is yammering about, is that users cannot play their own home movies properly. It seems that a user would need permission from Hollywood to play their own stuff. Oh, well, people can always buy a Mac or use Linux...

Crap! (4, Funny)

Absolut187 (816431) | about 7 years ago | (#20209413)

Both of the people who bought Vista will be affected by this!


How long until they release the mandatory "hotfix" to cripple XP as well?

And how is this news? (1)

liftphreaker (972707) | about 7 years ago | (#20209417)

This "feature" was identified by Peter Gutmann, among others, months ago, in fact it was even reported on /. so how is this news only today?

Well that summary is bollocks. (1, Insightful)

megla (859600) | about 7 years ago | (#20209471)

Yet another misleading summary brought to you by slashdot.

Vista supports HDCP over DVI - I should know, I'm using it. The claims of HD content degredation on DVI are bullshit; it works so long as your graphics card and monitor support HDCP over DVI.

It would be nice if submitters (and editors!) took the time to check facts before posting incorrect scaremongering to the front page.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>