I'm sorry, 520k per frame is to me standard definition TV and not HD. It is a waste of time showing it on a 1920 x 1080 screen. Yo'd have to sit twice as far away as usual to be not offended by the quality.

Dave Marsh, Microsoft's Lead Program Manager for Windows (meaning he heads up the development) explains

I guess my comment is a bit too succinct. What I mean to say is that when my HD content is played back via my Vista PC with 520 k pixels per frame, I will take the disc back to a shop for a refund. I don't understand why the studios offend their customers like this. It seems to me exactly the same as what happened to copy protection on audio CDs. It will anger customers quite a bit.

After e-mailing a request to see this addressed, I didn't think it'd be done so soon. The main outrage came from the fact that Microsoft sold out to the industry that is attacking everyone from pre-teens, the dead, and everything in-between; I refuse to buy anything with DRM or copy protection added, if it means going without new movies/music then I am happy to do so.

I personally haven't brought a movie or music CD in more than 3 years, and since then many high-profile events have occurred that have made me feel good about that decision.

Handing over complete control to the RIAA/MPAA and allowing them to have the final say on what a Windows machine can and cannot do is completely unacceptable. I don't care if an exploit has been found in my drivers, unless it's to do with security in the sense of someone being able to compromise my machine I don't expect to see driver revocation just to satisfy some lawyer.

If you are going to offer the ability to playback movies and music but only on the condition that our machines satisfy the checklist that someone who has never worked in the computing industry has made, then thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather do without DVD-Playback and video/music playback from Microsoft, if Ultimate N was available I'd have asked for it at the end of the Beta. VLC and other open-source offerings that do without all the extra copy-protection that Microsoft add, if we're not going to use it, then why should it be forced upon us?

Do Corporate users have the ability to be exempt from Microsoft updates for "compromised" drivers, will the first playback of premium content result in my system being unable to render 3d images and games because I'm using basic drivers? What if the development cycle for third-party drivers doesn't fit in with Microsoft's revocation schedule? What about the users of DreamScene? Looping Video that's flagged as premium content would cause full-desktop image control into the copy protection system.

So for those out there who are willing to hand over control of their system's drivers to Microsoft and a team of lawyers have fun. But for the rest of us, what choice do we have?

Here's the question I want answered:

If I have a screen that does 1680x1050, but doesn't support HDMI and I buy a HDDVD player and disc, can I watch that HDDVD at 1280x720?

I think a big question that has not been answered is one of choice. If I were to live in an area where I was not bound by legacy copyright law, would I be able to turn off these features so that I wouldn't have a crippled operating system?

If as a user, I can't even install my own non-signed drivers, this sounds very much like a scheme to keep any non Microsoft-blessed manufacturer from making their own hardware (*cough* antitrust).

End-user choice and responsibility for those choices are hallmarks of the free world. I truly hope the market sees through this deliberate crippleware masquerading as an 'upgrade'.

It's still anti-consumer, and is there for one purpose and that's to give Hollywood control, often far beyond what copyright requires. There are people already punching holes in AACS (decrypting content and more recently finding the keys to do so in memory so they don't necessarily have to post those keys in public, making revocation harder) an HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are barely off the ground. Renewable or not this doesn't bode well for AACS. If the keys are exposed it doesn't matter how strong the crypto is.

Schneier's Law: "any person can invent a security system so clever that she or he can't think of how to break it."

I am disappointed that Microsoft has been so willing to cripple users PCs at Hollywood's request. I can only hope that some of features that got pulled (like WinFS) get released cause right now Vista isn't looking like an attractive upgrade.

What about Laptops?

Will it display videos with full fidelity on its attached display if I connect a extrenal Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive?

Do the laptop graphics cards need to support HDCP even though they are just displaying on a built-in attached monitor?

@jamieplucinski

"Do Corporate users have the ability to be exempt from Microsoft updates for 'compromised' drivers, will the first playback of premium content result in my system being unable to render 3d images and games because I'm using basic drivers?"

Like the FAQ in this page says:

"Revocation only impacts a graphics driver's ability to receive certain commercial audiovisual content; otherwise, the revoked driver will continue to function normally."

This means that your drivers will remain installed and will be able to do all the tasks they could to before except playing protected video media like HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.

@Francesco:

Yes... but for how long :P The point is that any ability to disable of revoke could mean that games or other software in the future would be crippled. The fact that there is another hook in the APIs to enable premium content protection in Vista doesn't mean it'll be used for just that, and therein lies the problem.

I remember having many applications in the past demand something of my system that it didn't actually need, but used anyway. With the many web-based video services like YouTube, Soapbox and the like, how long is it until they start to load premium content onto their sites and then require that my Flash player enable premium content hooks on demand.

It is not just a case of how Vista will act now, it's how much more Microsoft will twist thing at the whim of Hollywood and it's never-ending stream of law suits. The fact that something like this exists now only confirms many fears about how deep Hollywood is reaching into our homes in an effort to place blame and restrict creative freedoms.

Is any of this needed?

It seems like it's a lot of locks and protection for content which is already available as unprotected HD-DVD bittorrent feeds.

6-9 months ago I couldn't wait for Vista to arrive.

I got my free upgrade certificate for a laptop and a PC that I just bought.

I will send it in to get the upgrade, but until I am convinced they will never be installed.

I was planning to purchase upgrades for my other 4 computers, now I am not.

Until every possible risk associated with this technology is solved and known I won't install this os. I can't afford to have myself cut off at the knees for this.

A black and white easy to read warrantee where Microsoft will give full replacement value for hardware and software that is caused to fail or degrade plus the cost of business disruption would be the only thing that would even make me reconsider.

If anything, the post above makes me feel like an idiot for installing XP in the first place and choosing to buy a PC last year.

Microsoft has done something for someone else's benefit, why don't you have them pay for my PC then? I bought the computer, the software, etc... They have no right to mess with it!

When I buy something, it is mine mine mine mine! I don't want someone going in and violating what I own. This is trespassing and sabotage! If I buy a graphics card, I expect full performance 100% of the time or I demand a refund. I don't care if my graphics card is 6 years old, it better play or else I expect a full refund!

If they don't want to sell their stinking filth on DVD, then don't, that's their choice, but what gives them the right to mess with my PC?

They should have to give us a rebate on every purchase of either MS Software or other software that may be impacted by their scheme. They are decreasing the value of our investments in computers and other software.

@jamieplucinski:

"Yes... but for how long :P The point is that any ability to disable of revoke could mean that games or other software in the future would be crippled. The fact that there is another hook in the APIs to enable premium content protection in Vista doesn't mean it'll be used for just that, and therein lies the problem."

No wait, as long as I know by revokation it means that the drivers are:

1) removed from the web (and replaced with newer versions)

2) blacklisted somehow in the next hd-dvd and blu-rays distributed

So if there are games or software that relies on content protection they will have to include a blacklist (like HD-DVDs and Blu-Rays will). The actual software you have, unless you update it, won't stop working from a day to another without reason.

"I remember having many applications in the past demand something of my system that it didn't actually need, but used anyway. With the many web-based video services like YouTube, Soapbox and the like, how long is it until they start to load premium content onto their sites and then require that my Flash player enable premium content hooks on demand."

Nobody ensures you that there won't websites using that protection. However people will still have the choice to not use the websites that sell DRMed content.

"It is not just a case of how Vista will act now, it's how much more Microsoft will twist thing at the whim of Hollywood and it's never-ending stream of law suits. The fact that something like this exists now only confirms many fears about how deep Hollywood is reaching into our homes in an effort to place blame and restrict creative freedoms."

The ACSS protection forces all the content to be outputted over HDMI (encrypted with HDCP) when the Image Token Constraint protection is turned on.

Microsoft had no other ways to implement HDCP on windows without adding that DRM mess. And obviously in the living-room battle against Apple it would have been a bad idea for them to not include hd-dvd and blu-ray playback.

However at least now there are good news: DRM-free audio CDs: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/78008/index.html

so, when the old drivers are pulled and replaced with new ones.

Are my games and programs that depend on the old ones still going to work?

If not, who pays?

Will Vista Automatic Updates automaticly install the replacement drivers?

Where there be a choice on doing automatic updates without updating the drivers? If you do install the new drivers and you want to use the old drivers to make your old software work can you? Will Windows refuse to install these old drivers?

Will I have to reboot each time?

This essay has essentially CONFIRMED every horrible charge leveled at Vista by Gutmann. Using a bucket full of weasel words does nothing to convince me that Vista isn't screwing the consumer--or worse, the media/medical professional--for the sake of. . . of what? At the end of the day, the most infuriating thing about this crippleware is that it was done with such a blatant disregard for the consumer without a moment's hesitation.  In what universe is it appropriate to give a content producer the power to turn off a user's hardware? How can you have no moral qualms with this?

Klimax rant on:

It seems that my warning-unfortunately sent only from form on MS site not directly,was not heeded.DRM(CRAP)included in Vista even if inactive is too much.Everybody wants to be able to make a back-up of anything(PPV is not considered).I could understand rewritting entire kernel to remove old unnecessery things,which only caused problems,but rewrite it to place the worst CRAP in history,is total waste of money,time,...

And I DO NOT call DRM added fuctionality.Even requiring signed drivers is bad.I use huge variety of hardware and vast majority of HW will never have signed drivers and no new ones will not be.And then I use Daemon virtual drives.

May be we will see sooner or (a little bit) laterevery single protection cracked as they will use Linux based virtualization...And I hope they will crack Your Vista as quickly as possible-unnecesary CRAP removed!

And MS should refuse Hollywood immediatelly,because CRAP takes Vista down!How quicly?Cannot guess,because it is not stiil ot there,but I told everybody to avoidVIsta as much as possible-I work in small company,so they are not going to see Vista as well...

Klimax rant off.

When you posture DRM as a 'direct consumer benefit' you may as well just be saying 'It's double plus good' as you strap the rat cage to my face.

The boldness which Microsoft infringes on the interests of their end-users by pandering to their business partners under the assumption that consumers will choke down whatever we're fed.

I suppose in some respects we have choked down a lot in the past but the Zune, Office 2007 and Vista are all unrivaled in their inability to grasp the needs of their customers.

> Will the Windows Vista content protection board robustness recommendations increase the cost of graphics cards [...]

The answer given here is evasive. I recommend to read a presentation given by ATI at WinHEC 2005, available at Microsoft's web site: http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWEN05002_WinHEC05.ppt

Look for these quotes (yes, all from one presentation):

"These costs are passed on to the consumer"

"This cost is passed on to all consumers"

"This cost is passed on to purchasers of multimedia PC’s"

"Costs are passed on to consumers"

"Costs are passed on to consumers, especially early adopters"

> If the policies required protections that Windows Vista couldn't support, then the content would not be able to play at all on Windows Vista PCs.  Clearly that isn't a good scenario for consumers who are looking to enjoy great next generation content experiences on their PCs.

Did anyone think about those customers who couldn't care less about "[enjoying] great next generation content experiences on their PCs"? Oh yes, ATI did. They're the "all consumers", as in "This cost is passed on to all consumers."

It's very nice of you to link to the opposing point of view so that everybody an decide for themselves. No, really...

"In the case of HD optical media formats such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the constraint requirement is 520K pixels per frame (i.e., roughly 960x540), which is still higher than the native resolution of content distributed in the DVD-Video format.  We feel that this is still yields a great user experience, even when using a high definition screen."

YUM! I LOVE to get less than what I paid for, simply because I don't want my computer and monitor to pay licenses to Intel for a technology that is so weak (and misplaced) it is bordering on useless.

"Will the Windows Vista content protection board robustness recommendations increase the cost of graphics cards and reduce the number of build options?

Everything was moving to be integrated on the one chip anyway and this is independent of content protection recommendations.  Given that cost (particularly chip cost) is most heavily influenced by volume, it is actually better to avoid making things optional through the use of external chips.  It is a happy side effect that this technology trend also reduces the number of vulnerable tracks on the board."

...No. No, it wasn't about to be integrated onto one chip. And what about the license fees to Intel (for HDCP), Macrovision, etc? Clearly they increase the cost. ATI agrees (see previous post by Gonzo).

"Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?

Yes.  However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality.  Windows Vista's content protection features were developed to carefully balance the need to provide robust protection from commercial content while still enabling great new experiences such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback."

No, downgrading of *MY* content is not "additional functionality", and it is entirely unnecessary. Nor is the protection "robust", or indeed, protective at all. If Microsoft had left it to the industry to write this crap on their own, we would still have these "great new experiences". Instead, Microsoft is bending their OS (and their PR people, apparently) to the will of another industry.

"Will echo cancellation work less well for premium content?

We believe that Windows Vista provides applications with access to sufficient information to successfully build high quality echo cancellation functionality."

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Why can't Vista's echo cancellation functionality work with premium content? Does this mean premium content won't sound as good as normal, sane, content?

"Does this complicate the process of writing graphics drivers?

Adding new functionality usually introduces new complexity.  In this case, additional complexity is added to the graphics driver, but that complexity comes with the direct consumer benefit of new scenarios such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback."

Again, this is not new functionality and the complexity is unnecessary. It also adds cost to all consumers whether they want to play this stuff or not.

"Do content protection requirements mean that graphics chips have to provide hardware acceleration for video decode?

No.  The Windows Vista content protection requirements do not require that graphics hardware include hardware acceleration for decode for many years, but such support is highly recommended to improve the user experience for HD content."

In other words, the CPU is so taken up by the pointless decoding and encoding of the "protection", that the actual *necessary* work - dealing with the video codec - has to be hardware accelerated on the video card in order to provide a smooth playback experience.

Sorry, I won't allow any content producer to take  over my hardware even if this means installing linux as a second OS just for media (never used linux before actualy so I'm guessing it might do the job...)

hi,

if windows vista is supposed to be the new multimedia platform why is it that all video is still shown in video scale (levels 16-235 instead of 0-255)? the overlay mixer seems not to work (vista ultimate with latest nv 100.30 forceware drivers) which is not the problem, because media center uses the vmr9 which since ever only displays videos in video scale. video scale results in washed out colors and bad contrast. if you calibrate your monitor/tv to display video scale correctly then you will have to dark and oversaturated colors on everything else (like pictures or album art) in the media center. i can not understand why this has not been addressed till now.

-chris

Since when did you think that DRM would not apply to medical imaging.  Speaking as a physician, we ALREADY have this problem.  The medical image DICOM format has been split into various flavors by competing software vendors who do their best to make sure that you have to have THEIR viewer in order to see files saved in their version of the format.  

Further competing hospitals are choosing not to  install viewers that would allow MD's to look at films that were taken at their competition ( or perhaps their IT staff can't be bothered to install them -- either way the result is the same).   This proprietary behavior is already hindering patient care.

Vista's enhanced DRM only aggravates this nonsense!!

I have one DVD with video in WMV HD. When I used VGA connector on notebook with WinXP and integrated Intel graphics on Samsung LCD - it was able to play 1080i video with great image quality and smooth playback.

When I played the same video on Vista through HDMI connector, video looks like some MPEG 2 VideoCD quality without any smooth playback (P4 2.4, 1.5GM RAM and GF6600GT). This is "great user experience"? I don't think so!

Vista is great, but NOT for multimedia pc connect to HD Ready television.

Windows Vista team respond on the recent publication of a research on how Windows handles digital rights

@dila813

"so, when the old drivers are pulled and replaced with new ones.

Are my games and programs that depend on the old ones still going to work?"

Nobody knows. If those application protections will work like HD-DVD and Blu-Ray ACSS protection they will have to come with an internal blacklist of compromised devices, so that blacklist will have to be updated somehow (update from the internet? who knows).

I still doubt that games and applications (unless those applications are video players) will rely on those protections, because they heavily impact CPU usage.

"If not, who pays?"

Nobody is going to pay however you could complain with the company that releases DRM-protected software/games (it was their choice to adopt that protection). Many people complained with ubisoft about the starforce protection included in some of their games and Ubisoft stopped using it ( http://www.gamespot.com/news/6147655.html ). Same for DRM-ed audio CDs etc.

"Will Vista Automatic Updates automaticly install the replacement drivers?"

I know that windows update on vista has a Drivers section but it's up to MS to decide if a driver update is critical or not. I think they will be made critical (because many end-user don't even know what windows update is and surely won't be able to go on windows update and install updated drivers).

"Where there be a choice on doing automatic updates without updating the drivers?

I think you can disable and hide patches/drivers from the list like you could for XP. However I have to say that I never tried doing that.

"If you do install the new drivers and you want to use the old drivers to make your old software work can you? Will Windows refuse to install these old drivers?"

As long as I know there's no kind of protection that prevents you to reinstall old drivers.

"Will I have to reboot each time?"

No, theorically installing/upgrading video drivers on vista shouldn't need reboot because those drivers run in a sort of user-mode (I actually updated my ATI drivers without rebooting).

However, since drivers for most videocards also install external applications and services, nobody knows if they will require reboot or not in order to start working. It depends on the hardware producer to make driver setups that don't require reboots.

Cryogenic said: "Sorry, I won't allow any content producer to take  over my hardware even if this means installing linux as a second OS just for media (never used linux before actualy so I'm guessing it might do the job...)"

Don't expect Linux to play protected HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs for a while, probably a long while. Also, don't be surprised if any solution is illegal in the USA and difficult to find and set up. :-(

"Contrary to claims made in the paper, the content protection mechanisms do not make Windows Vista PCs less reliable than they would be otherwise -- if anything they will have the opposite effect, for example because they will lead to better driver quality control."

Prove it. Driver quality control will have a heck of a time maintaining quality as needless complexity is added.

The problem is that you seem to accept that "content has policies associated with its use that must be enforced by playback devices."  Where does the 'must' come from?  It comes from the content industry in league with the owners of patents used on HD content.  The idea was "If you don't play by our rules, we won't let you use the patents and then you won't be able to play HD content at all."

Microsoft is one of the predominant tech companies in the world and has considerable negotiating power because of the prominent place of Windows and other technologies.  Microsoft could have, and should have, used that muscle to negotiate a better deal with the content industry.  What were the studios going to do, say "Ok.  We'll just forgo all the extra revenue from selling HD versions of movies"?  Hardly likely -- you had the strong hand.  But, instead of pushing, you caved.

Nick,

<i>If the policies required protections that Windows Vista couldn't support, then the content would not be able to play at all on Windows Vista PCs.  Clearly that isn't a good scenario for consumers who are looking to enjoy great next generation content experiences on their PCs.</i>

I claim this is a fallacious argument.  The content protection policies are not laws of nature; they are arbitrary rules set by the content consortiums.  While a small vendor has no leverage to push back on these, Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on the desktop market, on which the majority of this content will play.

If Microsoft said "no" to the content rules, the rules would be changed.  It might take some time and negotiation, but the content vendors would be dead in the water without Microsoft desktop support.  Eventually, one of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray would have capitulated, and users would have fair rights to their purchased content.

As with Zune sharing, Microsoft had a choice -- do what's right for the content vendor, or do what's right for the consumer.  In both cases, Microsoft has chosen to sell out their paying customers.  In a free market, eventually the customers will leave.

--Jered

"Do things such as HFS (Hardware Functionality Scan) affect the ability of the open-source community to write a driver?"

"No.  HFS uses additional chip characteristics other than those needed to write a driver.  HFS requirements should not prevent the disclosure of all the information needed to write drivers."

I am interesting in what problems might arise when a programmer reverse engineers the non-disclosed information about the hardware.  Does the programmer get into legal trouble for using the undocumented features on a piece of hardware that he has paid for?

----------------------

Steve Stites

I read Peter Gutman's analysis and I just finished reading David Marsh's response.

I have to say that David has mastered the art of spin to respond to the questions.

Here is another example of David Marsh's prowess at spin doctor:

Will the 'tilt bit' mechanism cause problems even when the driver is not under attack from a hacker, e.g., when there are voltage spikes?

"Even if such an event did cause playback to stop, the user could just press 'play' again and carry on watching the movie (after the driver has re-initialized, which takes about a second)."

So Peter is right about the tilt bits and David thinks it is just Ducky that Vista is able to be "re-initialized". That is a exactly what Gutman predicted for people that know better.

I would like to know if MS ever thought to ask customers if we wanted our computers turned into an "Appliance" as David Marsh said in his Power Point presentation at HEC. Vista is taking computers a step closer towards set top devices like the cable companies provide to us.

David Marsh even hinted that MS has even more drastic Measures PAP,(PUMA), HFS, PVP-UAB and Encryption of the PCIe Bus that it plans to implement after consumers have accepted their computer has been turned into an Appliance like Device. Slide #6 from HEC

It seems to me that Vista is not consumer friendly but is an attempt to re-define the PC into a content delivery device sacrificing the customers own equipment in the process.

As it stands right now, I have no intention of buying and installing Vista. Why on earth would I want to turn my PC into an Appliance. MS has lost touch with its Customers and turned over development to the “computer experts” in Hollywood. This is so sad from a company I used to respect and love.

If I want an appliance, I will get the $50 box from China.

Nick,

There is a fundamental problem with Microsoft's decision to add enhanced DRM that most have overlooked thus far.  There are essentially 2 different core issues here.  1) DRM enforcement itself and 2) Microsoft's inclusion of the DRM "feature".

Assuming that all of your answers are completely accurate and that Microsoft can be trusted to implement all of these "features" properly without any unintended "features" (aka bugs); one HARD COLD PROBLEM STILL REMAINS.

You assume that EVERY single one of your customers wants your enhanced DRM as a feature.  Therefore extending the costs of enforcing/granting those features to EVERY single customer.  This is a blatantly error in judgement on Microsoft's part.

You should take into account that a customer might NOT EVER WANT to run HD/premium content, but like it or not, all of your customers MUST NOW HAVE IT--no choices.  How does this align with Microsoft's projected image of "balancing customer desires with partner desires"?

Why not simply package all of this "mandatory content protection" into just another downloadable update that is only installed when a user EXPRESSLY DESIRES TO PLAY PREMIUM CONTENT?  Then, those that want to play HD/premium content on their Vista system can pay the price just like they would expect when going out to purchase a standalone HD-DVD/Blu-ray player.  Why force all of your users to pay for this "functionality".  Seriously, wasn't that the whole purpose of "Minimum System Requirements"--why not have a little "Microsoft HD pack required" logo just like the while "PlaysForSure" thing?

Since you have drawn the comparison to consumer electronic devices, let me apply the same logic to that market segment.  "Premium content" is expensive to deliver, therefore, everyone that only wants a DVD player must now pay extra because some people want to play "premium content".  Somehow, this increase in cost is justifiable to the DVD player customer?

Right now, I can voice my feelings about DRM by simply avoiding all DRM laiden content.  Personally, I have done just this.  I also avoid media players that enforce the crippling of my Fair Use rights.  In Windows Vista, it is no longer possible to avoid these players as the functionality is built into the operating system.  And even if I never purchased any DRM content, by simply paying for Microsoft Vista I end up supporting the very companies and technologies I am trying to avoid.  No thanks.  And the same concept applies to the costs of hardware.

You side-stepped the whole hardware cost issue, but I can understand because you don't make most hardware.  One of the largest hardware manufactures has spoken up about the costs though, and you can't side-step that fact.  By your own admissions, being "Vista capable" does indeed increase the costs of hardware, which will be handed down to the consumer regardless of their chosen operating system.

The simplest explanation for mandating the DRM feature is simply that about adoption.  If you didn't pre-package this "update", no one would download, much less pay for it.  If that happened, how could all of the licensing and intellectual property costs that are necessary to implement the DRM "features" be properly "passed on to consumers"?

The sole benefactors of this decision are obvious--the consumer loses. Ever since it became possible to execute Fair Use rights on DVDs, the Content Cartell have been looking at better ways to mandate viewing/listening privileges from their crystal palaces.  Vista embodies all their wildest dreams.

From your very words, you are telling me that the primary purpose of Vista is to bring HD/Blu-Ray to consumers -- isn't this a gross miscalculation as to how the majority of your customers use their computer?  Aren't you being a bit optimistic about the adoption of HD/Blue-Ray in a hugely saturated DVD market?  Sure, some want the functionality of Media Center and will want the ability to play their overpriced and limited content, but not all of your customers; why mandate this on everyone?

Quite frankly, I am not interested in HD DRM content and the fact that Linux won't be able to play it in no way detracts from the attractiveness of being able to decide what my computer does.

-Court

How is Vista, and by proxy, Microsoft, able to arbitrate between our congressionally and constitutionally-mandated rights, and the reduction/violations of said rights by content providers?

Why doesn't Microsoft go to the courts in order to get a directed verdict on behalf of consumers with regards to content?

Lot of very excited people here. And yes, it's a controversial subject.

Have any of those of you who are so against the content protection measures in Vista stopped to consider that MS might not have a choice? If the alternative option was to not provide any way to play back Blu-Ray or HD-DVD in Vista, then what choice is there? Because I'm certain the content providers could prevent MS if they wanted to.

Many of you also have failed to read what was said. In no way will other applications on your system be affected if you're using protected content. That would defeat the object. David says that several times throughout this post, yet most of the commenters are still convinced that it does.

At the end of the day, if you're not happy, don't use Vista. Leave the rest of us to it!

If I want to run software that requires old hardware where there isn't any signed driver available. My understanding is that I can't install these drivers.

Since I need to run these programs, I could use a dual boot system or virtualization.

I think the only thing that Vista is qualified for is to run as a secondary os and not a primary. This seems the only way to work around the issues discussed.

Vista will never run as a primary os for anyone with the issues that I face. I think when consumers realize the only way of getting around this is to do the same.

Vista & media resolution: From this Microsoft staffer's blog, it sounds as though commercial media (like feature-films) will display at lower resolutions on Vista than it would on home-electronics gear, although non-commercial media can still display

MrTuffy,

I have indeed read ALL of the original post.  It is not that Microsoft made it possible to allow a customer to consume HD/Blu-Ray content, just that MICROSOFT IS FORCING IT ON EVERYONE WITHOUT LETTING THE CUSTOMER DECIDE IF THEY *WANT* HD/Blue-Ray content to display on their PC.  

You are extremely naive if you assume that the only costs involved with DRM are tied to the media that employ DRM.  The largest and most expensive part of DRM is what is required to enforce the DRM on the player side.

If a consumer wants to avoid DRM content, it is not right to still make them pay the hardware and software costs involved in enforcing DRM.  When will companies stop assuming their customers are criminals?

Don't assume that everyone wants HD/Blu-Ray support.  It should be optional--and don't give me that whole Business/Premier/Ultimate non-sense about the activation of these features.  Personally, I wonder what the hardware requirements of Vista would be for a version that does not contain all the draconian "features" mandated by the content barrons--would it be that the hardware requirements would decrease?  

Seriously, why do I need or want a process running on my computer that polls every hardware device every 30 seconds just to see if Windows should re-initialize my equipment?  And don't give me that nonsense about a dual core processor and that the process will be neglible; ANY time spent performing any such activity is UNWANTED and UNDESIRABLE.

-Court

For those who missed Lorenzo Barbieri's post because it was "accidentally" deleted, here is a link to the original essay:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

I hope it will not be also "accidentally" deleted...

I'm reading a lot of these responses and just shaking my head.  So, I thought I'd chime in with a few of my own Q&A's, since there seems to be so much confusion about what to me seems an extremely simple topic.

Q: If I run Linux, or the Mac OS (let's pretend for a moment that OSX has no internal DRM --which it does, but that's another story), or any other OS sans *any DRM at all*, will I be able to play the *protected content* I buy or purchase for download with no worries about the DRM policy restrictions built into Microsoft's OS'es?

A: Absolutely not. It seems to me obvious that regardless of OS employed, if the content you are trying to display with that OS requires DRM policies of some kind or another--you simply *will not be able to display that content.* Period. The OS you choose is not the issue--the DRM support required by the owners of the content you wish to display is precisely the issue.

Q: Who owns the content which demands DRM support before it will run?

A: In every significant case that I can think of, everybody *except* Microsoft.

Q: Was DRM Microsoft's idea?

A: Unless Microsoft was and is trying to shoot itself in the foot or the head, I cannot imagine this to be the case.  Why? Because DRM support of the kind the content providers are mandating is an extremely expensive undertaking for Microsoft and doubtless requires huge expenses for Microsoft in terms of time and money that could much better be applied elsewhere if at all. Clearly, Microsoft would much have preferred to stay out of the DRM business.

Q: So why did Microsoft implement DRM in the first place?

A: Well, let's imagine for a moment that Microsoft wants to provide a wide range of functionality to the people who it hopes to persuade to buy its OS software. Given a choice of supporting DRM to allow users to playback such formats as HD-DVD or BluRay movies on their PCs, or of denying potential customers the ability to playback such movies when running Windows by abandoning DRM, I think it is obvious that Microsoft feels that providing this functionality for its customer base is the  lesser of two evils.

Q: If I am a physician, and the proprietary and very expensive medical imaging software I am using saves image files in a custom format supported only by the medical imaging software company I bought the program from, am I yet another victom of DRM?

A: Absolutely not. This has nothing to do with DRM, but rather is an example of poor support from the software company you have chosen to provide your imaging software. I would suggest ringing them up on the phone and demanding a file conversion program so that you can convert your image files from the company's proprietary format into something else displayable by a wide variety of common display programs, such as jpeg, etc. I would strongly hint to this company that if they do not comply you will henceforth in the future not be buying their very expensive medical imaging software.

If you do decide in the future to buy from a different company then I suggest you assure yourself of the capabilities you want and expect before you write the checks.  This of course has nothing to do with the topic of DRM inside Microsoft's OSes, but I thought I'd pass along this advice just the same.

Q: Why doesn't Microsoft "stand up" to the RIAA/MPAA and just say "Hell, no, we won't go!"...?

A: Two reasons occur to me:

1) In that event the RIAA/MPAA would just go around Microsoft completely and implement their standards anyway.  It is of critical importance to understand the RIAA/MPAA knows full well that its demands for DRM inside 3rd-party distribution networks are a roadblock to wider consumer participation in the products the RIAA/MPAA are selling. These entities simply do not care at all whether any of their content is workable under digital formats of any kind. The RIAA/MPAA has been brought literally kicking and screaming into the digital age and they *obviously* do not like it one little bit, since it erodes the traditional distribution channels the RIAA/MPAA have controlled utterly for decades.  It would suit them just fine if nobody wanted any of their products in a digital format. These entities represent companies who would be more than happy--and are eager, even--to go back to the analog-only distribution formats and channels of the past.  

Ironically, Microsoft's willingness to jump through the DRM hoops these entities mandate actually contravenes the basic thrust of what these entities are after--which is the dissolution of the digital format for the distribution of their products.  In a very real sense, Microsoft has called their bluff and placed these entities in a situation they had hoped to avoid--the mainstreaming of their content via digital distribution. But I fear that irony is lost on many of the respondents here.

2) The other "option" that I see obliquely referred to here is the idea that Microsoft should be actively working to subvert the goals of the RIAA/MPAA by openly trying to use Windows as a vehicle to render the DRM mandates of the RIAA/MPAA ineffectual and inconsequential.  IE, that Microsoft should use Windows to hack the DRM policies of the RIAA/MPAA and render them ineffectual.

Well, does the word "lawsuit" spring into anyone's mind here? How about "Congressional investigation"...?  I think most of us might agree that it is more than likely that Microsoft has had quite enough of courts and government meddling over the last few years. Such conditions never become palatable.  

Q: What is accomplished by the endless spinning of "voltage spike" yarns and theoretical driver problems that have not yet occurred?

A: Absolutely nothing. Microsoft's goal here as I reckon it seems to be to provide functionality to the users of its OSes, whether the RIAA/MPAA really wants that to happen or not. In that vein I think you can trust to Microsoft's self interest to believe that such theoretical inconveniences to the users of its products would be completely antithetical to Microsoft's central goal of creating OS software that is attractive to the consumer as opposed to being repulsive. As such it would not be in Microsoft's direct self interest to allow such conditions and circumstances to ever develop. Microsoft is surely aware that you and I do not have to buy VISTA, aren't they?

In summary, it is my belief that the DRM policies of the RIAA/MPAA will indeed become so arduous and complex that they will ultimately prove unsupportable commercially.  But, contrary to the whimsical belief of the companies behind the RIAA/MPAA, the digital format for content will not suffer as a distribution channel.  What will happen is that piracy of the kind the 'AAs lament will skyrocket as people simply will not be denied the Fair Use of the content they have purchased for their personal enjoyment and use.  Rather than defeating piracy,   everything the 'AAs are attempting to ram down our throats in the way of complex DRM schemes will greatly stimulate it and provoke it. At some point in the future these companies will learn the hard way that trying to force a market to buy their products, over and over again, simply is an unworkable policy.  

At that time these companies will get smart and realize that pleasing their customers is much more important than trying to control them. I think it is barely possible to please your customers--I think that controlling them is impossible. And at that time I think we can look forward to a much more relaxed policy towards DRM inside any OS we choose to run, and I am certain Microsoft is looking forward to that day as well.

So let me understand this Microsoft is adding all these new security features to make the movie industry happy but I'm the one who is going to have to pay for it, yep sounds consumer friendly to me.

So now I have to decided to buy Vista or a Nintendo Wii, heck maybe even an Xbox 360.

I can see my children in the future having to make a simular decision. Do I buy Vista 3 or a new car.

Mac's are starting to really look attractive.

I want to buy a new computer this year but have decided to wait at least 8 months after Vista's release to see what the real truth is. If even just a small percent of what I've read turns out to be true, I'm buying a Mac.

KBsoftware:

We aren't talking about "security features." We are talking about DRM. Big difference.

OK, I give up...;) Please explain the similarities you see between "Vista or a Nintendo Wii, heck maybe even an Xbox 360."  I don't see any...;)  Also, if you can find a new car that's decent for the price of VISTA, please let me know what it is so that I can take a look...;)

"Mac's are starting to really look attractive." ??? Macs are loaded with DRM--oh, I get it now! It's not DRM which bothers you--it's *Microsoft's* DRM. Apparently you'll be very happy with Apple's DRM (I guess that even though it will have the same restrictions as Microsoft's, you can stomach it because it's "by Apple.") Try and remember that neither Microsoft nor Apple is responsible for the DRM mandates of the content companies.

I wouldn't want to discourage you from buying a Mac--but I will mention that if you buy it because you think it's DRM-free you had better think again...:D

Walt,

[quote]"Absolutely not. It seems to me obvious that regardless of OS employed, if the content you are trying to display with that OS requires DRM policies of some kind or another--you simply *will not be able to display that content.* Period. The OS you choose is not the issue--the DRM support required by the owners of the content you wish to display is precisely the issue."[/quote]

So you are actively admitting that if consumers don't want to support DRM in any way, that we must choose an OS other than Microsoft?  At least with consumer electronics I have a choice wether or not I buy a HD/Blu-Ray player.  With Vista, where is my choice?  I have no problems what so ever of never being able to play HD-DRM media on my PC--regardless of the PC. I do have a problem with my PC running in a way that expects premium content at any time and is ready with the kill switch should something go haywire at any time.  Let the ones that want their premium content pay for it -- I don't want anything to do with it as the costs far outweigh the benefits and I certaintly don't appreciate being forced to pay for it.

I completely understand wanting to deliver a platform that can play media content- I guess. My beef is that I will never ever need to play protected content on a Vista system at home, and of the business systems I manage, one or two MAY need to play protected content. The other few thousand will not. Why must all of these systems suffer the performance impact of this (to quote Leo Laporte) "insanely paranoid" OS?  How many trillions of cycles will be wasted hourly once Vista is the only choice with PC OEMs? I have to say as well, I quite like Vista, but it does perform noticably slower than XP on an equivalent system. Why make it worse than it has to be?

I just want an off-switch. I'm perfectly happy either permanently or temporarily shutting off the ability to play ANY protected content. Why aren't we given this choice? The pirates will pirate, no matter what- we are all paying the price.