The compiler identified the CPU and changed it's behavior to be unoptimized if not the "golden" part. This falsely caused publicly used benchmarks to show competitors parts to be slower.
Why on earth would AMD use Intel's compiler for benchmarks, it just seems like common-sense that they would want to control the compiler to ensure that it's output is properly optimized for their processor.
I have my doubts on both scores.
yes I do get that to be robust, Blu-ray DRM probably needs OS-level implementation, but why the hell should Microsoft be Sony/Blu-Ray Consortium's bitch at the cost of the usability of their OS and more importantly, the freedom of their own customers to use the product they bought with their own hard-earned money? I think its a reasonable expectation that I should be able to use a product I legally bought in any way I like. Who the hell are Microsoft to tell me how to behave? Especially when the DRM is actually stopping legal/legitimate use of my media too.
Perhaps because they had the astonishing idea that customers getting BluRay drives in systems might just want to play BluRay movies? You can make an arguement that the DRM system should have been an optional install, but I suspect the BluRay consortium doesn't allow that.
But since the DRM doesn't impact the playback of anything that doesn't have DRM I don't get the problem. If you don't like DRM content, don't buy it, don't play it.
It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.