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.

While I'm no defender of DRM-laden anything, I really wonder about the cry of 'we don't want this forced on us' that is prevailing here.

Vista is a commercial product, made by a software company. It doesn't appear on your computer unless you choose for it to be there.

If you don't like the product a company makes, don't buy it, don't install it. There are alternatives out there, and if an alternative suits you better, then use that instead.

All companies respond to commercial pressure - that's how they decide what to build. There are countless companies in history which have released a product that consumers have perceived as 'good but seriously flawed', or just outright 'bad'. They haven't sold well, and the companies that produced them have either had to rethink their tactics or go down the tubes.

I just read that Microsoft isn't the one responsible for the DRM in Vista and everybody else is. It is the content owners he says, the media companies he says.

Microsoft is the one that proposed this to the media companies, they didn't come up with this. Microsoft advised them to do this.

Why you ask? Because it will be hard for competing os to meet these requirements to play this content and the media companies aren't likely to certify these other platforms.

We know, we aren't a stupid public, and I smell anti-trust all over again.

WaltConnery,

Microsoft encouraged this DRM. We all remember all the meetings that were wrote about in the press where Microsoft was bragging about how they were on the inside.

Meeting with Sony etc.. to draft these standards and protection schemes.

MS is the boy crying wolf too many times. It lies and misleads so much that nobody really cares what it says.

When I find someone lies to me I ask them "are you  Microsoft?" Which means are you lieing to me and/or trying to steal from me?

DRM is the enemy and Microsoft is its instigator.

This is war.

Death to DRM!

Sam...

thx for share.

http://www.dl4all.com

I'm not bothered, I'll just wait for it to be cracked...wow, that was fast, it already has been!

Google would never sell out like this y'know...

I love Google.  And Linux.  And free copies of Vista.  But I'm gonna end up losing $400...sorry, $399 on my own legitimate copy of Vista...Microsoft can go jump off a cliff if they think I'm buying three copies for three pc's!

This is truly disappointing. The copy protection and digital rights management systems implemented in Vista will only serve to hurt those who actually own the rights to the media.

Why? Suppose you buy an HD-DVD, the expensive drive to play it, you even remember to get an HDCP monitor. But your graphics card doesn't support HDCP. Too bad: you're stuck watching your new film at a reduced resolution.

Now had you simply illegally downloaded a copy of the movie, you could watch it no problem since AACS has already been cracked and you would be watching a version without protection.  Everyone in the industry from the RIAA to Microsoft fail to realize that the reason most people download things illegally is that it's just easier.

dila813:

Yes, Microsoft were involved on the committees to develop the DRM standards. Why? Because if they hadn't been, it would have been entirely out of their hands. Knowing the RIAA/MPAA, without MS's input, the DRM standards would have been even more draconian. I would almost guarantee that Microsoft's representative on said committees was the voice of reason in many cases. Pure speculation of course, but it feels right, especially given what we know of the *AAs and how little they care about consumers.

Again, the DRM features are only active when you're playing protected content! Nothing is polling your system every 30 seconds to make sure it's secure, except when you're doing so! Hence, if you don't want to be restricted by the DRM, don't try to play secure content :) Simple answer.

Long term DRM will fail, with or without Microsoft's help. Trying to subvert it now will only lead to another extended legal battle, and/or the inability to play HD-DVD and Blu-Ray in Vista, both of which I'm certain MS would rather avoid.

And AlexA:

Buy 1 copy of Ultimate Edition: then you can buy up to 2 further copies of Home Premium for $49 apiece. It's not quite the OS X family packs, but it's better than nothing, and hopefully a commitment from MS to provide that sort of thing in the future.

Just in case you all think I'm some sort of Microsoft lover - I'm not. I use a lot of open source software, I've been an Ubuntu user for several years now, and I do believe that I should be able to do whatever I want with software. That said, credit where credit's due - Vista is an extremely nice OS, and I'm looking forward to further advancements in the future.

So if I don't ever buy / use a blueray or hd-dvd I will have absolutely zero impact? No lost CPU Cycles? Nothing?

Is there a guarantee?

If this is true, then I am ok with it, I just won't play them.

Does Microsoft lock out all these schemes except for HD-DVD and blue-ray? If someone trys to use these schemes will Microsoft sue them? How can this guarantee be backed up?

If there is some meat to this that this drm scheme will only be allowed to be used on there two applications strictly subject to a money back refund on every piece of hardware and software I buy. I can live with that.

Is Microsoft doing this?

Nice answers.

I just had my eyes opened to other "features" opened with DRM in Vista.

Rewritten apllications in Vista that shows media content are powerfull: Viewers, players, creaters, and playback.

So DRM infected flash player, Vista media player, Vista Divx Player, Vista pdf player, Vista word player, Vista http player, Vista content players in general.

(and don't forget DRM created content by others than the content mafia)

Content creators have that power to control if, when and how you can use content on your Vista.

So think about how you like DRM controlled web browsing?

DRM controlled online content?

DRM in control in the hands of Microsoft and

media mafia in general?

I don't feel safe with playback and behaviour control of content in hands of people that can act on what their wimps are.

Getting this kind of access to your box is totally unwanted.

Microsoft is finally giving people a good reason to move over to Linux. Until the DRM is removed from Vista, I won't touch it, and I can't recommend it to anyone else either.

I noticed on a recent newegg.com poll that close to 80% of people had no plans to upgrade to Vista. I think people are hearing about the underlying DRM and it is a feature they simply don't want.

It is bad enough that MS is releasing DX10 for Vista only, effectively giving gamers no alternative but to upgrade.

I have to agree. I control decisions for the company I work for here in Houston. I will not recommend Vista at all due to this subject. It's bad enough we live in a Microsoft world, the last thing I want is them telling me what I can and can't do with my computer. I'm not going to pay for an imperfect technology (DRM)by buying/selling  or recommending Vista. I was actually looking forward to installing Vista Ultimate on my HP Media Laptop and even got the company to approve the expense. Not now.

I agree with this comment: [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.]

Im tired of all this DRM stuff and will do my absolute best to not buy any device, or software that will have a hostile attitude from the beginning wether it means DRM or propietary software to load files or anything. I dont even own an ipod. I do own some mass storage driver mp3 players though.

Microsoft should have spoke for its customers to help protect our rights from DRM. This is seriously getting out of hand. What happened to the old days of recording a song straight off the radio onto your cassette. The music industry was still alive and well then, and will be alive and well without DRM. Same goes for Movie industry.

Things like this slow down the forward process of all industry, in this case the computing industry, the point is to simplify and make faster not to add new complexity to make new hardware already more burdened from the start

The DRM it self is not the main problem here.....

Regardless of what....

The facts are that Vista has become more bloated and complex just to be able implement these DRM requirements.

That hurts everyone!

That will lead to:

* increased compexity for everyone (drivers, 3rd party apps),

* more expensive development costs,

* Less open source and openess

* less control for developers..

Now we are back to the old IBM days, remember the microchannel failure due to patents and licenses? (See wikipedia)

Nobody, nor even the Die hard MS fans ,can't deny that!

Vista is a big step back for mankind! (sure there's some goodies in Vista, I won't deny that), but the DRM is not worth it!

So, what to do? Stick with XP for a couple of years more! I see no real reason for Vista, just a bloated desktop GUI fluff.....

dila813:

"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."

You have the situation incorrect in several ways.

1) This restriction only applies on kernel-mode drivers, not user-mode drivers. In Windows, most drivers (e.g. USB devices) are user-mode, whereas some (e.g. video cards) are kernel-mode. More importantly,

2) This restriction only applies in the 64-bit version of Vista. When you install Vista on a 64-bit processor, it gives you the choice between the 32-bit and 64-bit edition. (Both are included on the DVD.)

So Creative soundcards can suddenly play back EAX extentisons in directX games?

Because so far EAX ONLY works with a loopback through OpenAL on Vista.

(lots and lots of games are "broken" when they are made without openAL support)

I can't see that Creative labs can be made responsible for EAX became broken in Vista. (Vista wasn't even invented at that time)

This problem can only have been made because DRM "protection" in the sound playback.

Another instance where customers gets the short end on the DRM stick.

Let's not forget that Microsoft are also seeking to snuff out hobbyists and gain a level of control over the hardware with which Vista can be used.

http://boingboing.net/2006/01/30/msft_our_drm_licensi.html

Quote :

"Monday, January 30, 2006. Yesterday, I spoke at a DRM conference in London. Just before me was the opening keynote, from Microsoft's Amir Majidimehr, Corporate VP of the Windows Digital Media Division, which oversees licensing and deployment of Microsoft's DRM. (snip) Microsoft's DRM requires that device makers pay Microsoft a license fee for each device that plays back video encoded with its system. it also requires every such vendor to submit to a standardized, non-negotiable license agreement that spells out how the player must be implemented. This contract contains numerous items that limit the sort of business you're allowed to pursue, notably that you may not implement a Microsoft player in open source software.

The bombshell was Amir's explanation of the reason that his employer charges fees to license its DRM. According to Amir, the fee is not intended to recoup the expenses Microsoft incurred in developing their DRM, or to turn a profit. The intention is to reduce the number of licensors to a manageable level, to lock out "hobbyists" and other entities that Microsoft doesn't want to have to trouble itself with. (end quote)

DRM is consumer friendly? I think not. Remember the days when hobbyists were the backbone of Windows uptakers?

Hobbyists the world over will soon be discovering Linux. Especially if they had no intention of watching premium content to begin with. Finding out they have to pay for it, and suffer its consequences regardless, should they buy a license for Vista, should seal the deal.

The issue here seems to be that people are teed of with content produces being in control of the DRM design and implementation.  Who else is out there designing DRM that content providers can use to publish their content without giving it away to far east backroom counterfeiters?

Please stop the whinging and propose an alternative for content providers that can be at first marketed to the porn industry and once they are on-board it will be the de facto standard and RIAA and others that are to scared of China/HK copycat industry will have to publish the content. How about HD-DVIX or HD-xVID implimented on blue-ray data disks, difficult to manufacture and allows fair use copy maybe?

I'm afraid that this restrictive DRM will be the nail in the coffin for Vista for me. After this there is no way that I will be able to recommend    Vista as an upgrade path. Crippling a product with this level of DRM is simply counterproductive to the end user experience. I don't make that decision lightly but considering the answers here and the information thats being shared on the net about the requirements for Vista drivers and hardware it's simply too much.

And that is coming from a former MS MVP.

Hmmm, where to start. If Microsoft expects me to shell out 400 bucks for this upgrade, they really ought to consider what I (not they) want. The MPAA and RIAA are a bunch of terrorists with law degrees. Microsoft should have never climbed into their bed. As a systems engineer and security engineer I have had to deal with Microsoft gaffs  for years. To sell DRM as a benefit is deplorable. Every feature I looked forward to in Vista as a professional was yanked so it could meet deadlines. Now one of the big ones (features) being sold to consumers is limits and constraints.

I have always adopted operating systems early but this time I will be on the sidelines watching how this plays out. I hope the average  ignorant consumer wakes up and shows their non-acceptance by not buying Vista. I will probably switch completely to Linux which means I won't be buying many games anymore either- unless I can run them virtually.

re: running games --- check out Cedega.  "Triple-A video games such as Battlefield 2, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, World of WarCraft, Civilization IV, Madden 2006 and many more, can be played on Linux using Cedega"

http://www.transgaming.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=29

and Cider does the same thing for Mac's

http://www.transgaming.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=24

Man I just cant wait for the "Happy side effect" of my very expensive LCD and PC lowering my resolution to "roughly 960x540" so I can experience this "additional functionality." (or lack there of!)

Guess what... not going to buy it. On top of that, I will work my hardest to make sure people are aware of what they are buying with Vista. Shame on you Microsoft, just like Sony, you are forgetting who pays the bills.

Take all of this money you spent on DRM and apply it to actually penalizing the people who actually break the law and leave us consumers (and our PC's) alone please.

This is like blaming the dog when YOU fart.

How much latitude do you think Microsoft has in these matters? If you want legal playback of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, you must implement the associated DRM. You can't have legal playback without such DRM in any system. Thus, you should have more capabilities in a system that can use the DRM schemes. Maybe everyone is counting on the current unclear situation to continue indefinitely, where someone may/will eventually break any given scheme. Can you count on it?

In the end (with music, movies, and with computer games , although this discussion isn't about games), it is art. Nobody NEEDS it. If you don't like the DRM scheme of a copyright holder, don't buy their products. Vote with your wallet. Any sensible content provider wouldn't uphold policies that end up hurting their bottom line.

Another point completely is when DRM is used in material that someone requires for their livelihood. But if (e.g.) medical imaging is already under a DRM scheme, how is Vista going to change that? Is the current scheme easily breakable, and you fear Vista will make it more solid? The company that provides those medical imaging capabilities/archives is the one that made the choice of using DRM, and they will probably have some sort of DRM anyway, whether your OS is XP/Vista/Linux/OSX. If it isn't some standard DRM, they will build their own, which may lead to backdoors, more costs, etc. And few hackers will devote their time on breaking an obscure DRM scheme in medical imaging. Reigning in such use of DRM would require new laws, although if the images are really so valuable to you (and others), they would most probably come up with other ways of making you pay.

Like it or not, DRM is here to stay.

I am a consultant and I recommed solutions to small businesses, I truly feel as if Microsoft has turned it's back on the consumer. I will recommend Linux and Os X in the future. I have already been pushing Linux but this just confirms the reasons.

They seem to miss the point that it is not their job to enforce Hollywood agendas they should have been focusing on WinfS vs DRM and maybe they could have includedd it.  All the vaporware was replaced by this, let's be honest is this user added functionality no it's not this is ripping off the people who support you.

Then they wonder why people attempt to hack apart the OS you really screw them and leave them with a bitter taste in their mouth. It is not bad enough that they have to bite the cost when purchasing a new PC because most PC makers  don't sell PC's without OSes so we get Vista crippled. so I fully support Linux now Microsoft has lost their way.

I think the "CRAP" posting and the people that are dissenting against Vista's DRM technologies are a such a small group of consumers and so particular about their views of how computers and technology should work that they don't relate to any normal business concepts at all.

Many of these people have no qualms about downloading bittorrent versions of movies, hacking DRM systems to enable sharing of copyrighted material, and other illegal activities that their opinions are voided.

As far as I'm concerned, they can spin it any way they want. If they don't like Vista, then don't buy it and go build your own OS that does all the illegal things you want it to do. Build your own hardware that will play anything you want.

Vista isn't meant for these people. It's meant for people who don't even think about DRM, pay for their DVD's, and would never even know that there are such technologies built into the OS. Just as they don't know what's built into their VCR or DVD player.

I would gather that most people who buy computers are just interested in an OS that works, looks good, and is secure. I think Vista meets that criteria hands down and I'm one of the people that will be using Vista for years to come.

David Cornelson

Chicago-Dave

Has no understanding of the issue it is not about paying for the content it is about the requirement and degraded performance iof you lack certain hardware and imposing extra requirements on consumers who have legally paid for their PC's to upgrade to certain hardware so that hollywood can keep their media safe and sound. Again how is this fair to the consumer. SO I biught a PC last year I don't have a certain video card and monitor so I can't play a movie I bought from the store yeah real fair Chicago Dave learn the issue before speaking!

talkytalk,

Let me say it again -- I DONT WANT *ANY* PLAYBACK OF HD-DVD/BLU-RAY--If I do, I will go out and buy a consumer electronic device that can play it!

What you don't get and that has been stated before is that there are side-effects to the DRM even if you never watch any premium content.  So, the very existence of DRM in Vista costs me money on a "feature" that I don't want and never requested in addition to all the increased hardware requirements that Microsoft themselves admits is in large part because of the DRM encryption circus.

Simply avoiding the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray media is not adequate now to avoid supporting the content companies.  I changed my media consumption appetite 4 years ago to do just that--silly 'AAs, they think that piracy is the only cause for their "slump".

If only one idea is clear in all this, let it simply be this:  By purchasing Vista the way it is, you are purchasing a CD/DVD that is dripping with more DRM than even Sony could manage.  Put frankly, if you buy Vista, you are paying for the technology that enables DRM and are therefore supporting the very companies that you have been boycotting for so long.  I am perfectly okay with the default behavior of not being able to watch/listen to "premium content" and I would prefer if it did NOT play and If I ever did change my mind, I could be shown a nice GUI asking me if I wanted to download the "premium content HD pack"--viola!  problem solved!  Those that want to opt in, can do so.

Chicago Dave

"Vista isn't meant for these people. It's meant for people who don't even think about DRM, pay for their DVD's, and would never even know that there are such technologies built into the OS. Just as they don't know what's built into their VCR or DVD player."

Do you have any idea what implications this statement has for Microsoft and its consumers.  You're saying that Vista is not for people who knows what's in it and its limitations and how these are going to affect people who would buy it.  You're saying that it's for people who have no knowledge at all about these things.  So does Microsoft make products for consumers who are idiots?

"I think the "CRAP" posting and the people that are dissenting against Vista's DRM technologies are a such a small group of consumers and so particular about their views of how computers and technology should work that they don't relate to any normal business concepts at all."

We'll see just how small this group of consumers is when Vista begins to be forced upon them. Word spreads quickly, and when peole hear from someone they've trusted for years that a product should be avoided, they avoid it.

And the business concepts argument is pure rubbish. Businesses have been thriving for decades without DRM, and will continue to thrive without it.

MrTufty, if you're still reading this nasty little comment thread, I have a question: how long have you been using Ubuntu? "Several years" is pretty vague, I was just curious about specifics.

I agree with Walt Connery's Q&A post. The consumers will rebel en masse and will get around the studios' picket fences, as I did when I found out I could not play DVDs bought in the USA withoyut buying an extra DVD player (I live in the Netherlands). But it takes very long before the studios get such messages; they are still selling region-coded DVDs, so-called to "enable their business models". Microsoft is also not helping with their OSs (XP or Vista), since the drivers used by DVD region code killer software for some reason cannot be signed and often crash the OS or - as in Vista - simply stop working. And this is only region coding. If region code lasts more than 6 years, what about HDCP? Not a very nice vista...

I wrote a little about the production problems of high-definition a while ago; now the New York Times has...

Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers) | In case you missed it, Microsoft...

Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers) | In case you missed it, Microsoft

Have I just gone to the "No Spin Zone" with Bill O.?

After researching as much as possible about Vista over the last 6 months, I have come to the conclusion that it will never touch one of my computers. MS, you have made me go out and buy 3 books on LINUX and load it on two of my laptops. So far so good. My desktops are next.

I used to buy 5 or 6 CD's a month. Haven't bought one in three years since the RIAA went on there rampage. Yep, they bit the hand that fed them. I want music on my PC, my Non DRM MP3 player, and on my laptop. Score one for DRM.

I purchased over 300 DVD's over the last 2 years, then the MPAA didn't like DeCSS, didn't want me to watch video on my laptop while on a plane, didn't want me to back it up. Totaly got rid of my fair use rights. My son went through three copies of Finding Nemo. Would have been nice to back up that DVD.  Now after reading once again another Media Mafia outfit (READ MPAA)is going to bite the hand that feeds them with AACS, and MORE DRM, I am done. My almost new HD TV is rendered useless because it is not HDCP compliant. I will now find a "cracked" version of all media I want to watch! Score two for DRM!

DRM just created more pirates, and a now MS with their colusion, has created a happy LINUX user. Nick W. you must have been a lawyer.

"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."

Excuse me... last time I checked, a movie written on a DVD or any other disc was a form of data, not code. Data differs from code in that code is executed and then it performs any actions it wants and was programmed to perform, while data can't be executed, it has to be read by programs.

So data can't make decisions - a movie can't tell me it doesn't want to be played under such OS, simply because it isn't executed - a player is. A player has to load the movie and either play it or not. So it's not the problem with the data, it's the problem with the player. If I an unable to play a movie in a specific OS, it's not because the movie doesn't want to be played under this OS without such and such restrictions present, it's because the player doesn't want to or doesn't know how to play it. So we just have to fix or replace the player and the problem is solved...

Take PDFs for example. You have a PDF which has set restrictions that it can't be printed. You open it in Acrobat and you can't print it. Does the PDF stop you from printing itself? No, the PDF can't make such decisions, it's the Acrobat that stops you. When you open the same PDF in one of many Linux PDF readers, you will probably be able to print it without any problems.

The people saying "Vista will fail because consumers won't buy it" are, of course, wrong because Microsoft will limit the availability of XP to system builders. New PCs will start coming out with Vista. This will enable Microsoft to trumpet Vista's success, when it's actually just a victory for Microsoft's bundling agreements. No alternative solutions have Microsoft's PR budget or entrenched market position, and yet they are gaining ground - this must cause concern in Redmond.

What interests me though, is that lately Microsoft is looking more like an incompetent patsy rather than Chief Bully. Vista's kowtowing to the content cartels is tragi-comic in itself, but the recent publicity about content providers disabling the Zune's "squirt" function is just humiliating for the formerly near-untouchable company.

I don't care what happens to Microsoft, but it is fascinating to watch it floundering and stumbling. Mismanagement? Inevitable corporate flab? It could make a great subject for a business studies thesis (or several)!

I have two SOny Fw-900 monitors which are widescreen CRTs at 24 inches.  1920x1200 is what each desktop is set to on my displays.  I may be the exception to Microsoft and the "content providers" rule, but these monitors cost me in excess of $2000.00 USD each and because I own an HD-DVD or Blu-ray drive and own a copy of the movies and happen to have beyond HD quality displays that don't support HDCP I can't enjoy the full quality of my purchase.  I won't be purchasing a blu-ray drive or HD-DVD drive because of this lo-jacking.  I also will not be running Vista until these tubes die out.  Sorry.

Ugh... some of you people make my head hurt.

Microsoft isn't forcing *anything* on you or the rest of the world.  You don't like it???  Don't buy it.  Simple.  Problem solved.  Vote with your wallet.  

Microsft approached the Content providers because they wanted to provide additional functionality to their users.  In order to do this they had to play by the rules of the content providers.  The MPAA doesn't want content available on a PC *AT ALL* because that is the platform that it will most likely be pirated.  Because of that, MS had to jump through additonal hoops that CE devices didn't have to go through.

And for all of the whiners... Please tell me... what compelling reason do you have to upgrade to Vista right now?  Because its there isn't a very good answer.  What piece of new technology is there that you can't live without?  

Again... remind me... what is being *forced* on you by Microsoft?

What really cracks me up is that MS even bothered to reply to Guttman's rantings in the first place.  He clearly can't even distinguish between HD content and Protected content.  And I especially like how his "cost analysis" doesn't quote any dollar amounts except for some overinflated video card prices that aren't even remotely relevant to the discussion.

And another thing... content is data.  And if it is encoded (or encrypted) in such a way that the program doesn't understand what to do with it, it won't play.  The content didn't "decide" not to be played.  It was created in such a way as to only be viewed under certain circumstances.  If you don't believe me, try burning some quicktime or realmedia files on a DVD and try plying them in your settop DVD player.  This isn't the "disable the autorun" protection of the past.

Some questions:

1. For those saying they'll use another OS I'd love to know which OS you're going to switch to that will allow full playback of HD-DVD content from the actual HD-DVD disc?  Seriously, I'll drop Vista right now if you can list a single OS that will allow it.

2. For those that keep saying they make all the software decisions and say they'll recommend Vista I'm curious what you'll say to your boss when a security bug hits XP but not Vista?  What are you going to suggest instead to the people in accounting, that while are super smart with numbers can barely copy a file to a USB drive?  How about when the next version of their accounting package is Vista only?  Oh, just tell them to switch to something like OpenOffice?  Yes, that will go over really well.  Switching apps in a fit of moral outrage is well and good for us nerd and power user types but a lot of people just want the tool they know how to use.

3. Can someone give me hard, real facts that the baked in content protection which is NOT ACTIVATED unless watching protected content actually affects performance if you're not watching video?  It's been stated several times, very clearly, that unless you are watching HD-DVD or the like then your system IS NOT being affected.  Obviously some people disagree, I'd like to see the facts.  Saying "but they could in the future..." doesn't count.  Microsoft could also start charging by the mouse click and users of different Linux distros could start agreeing but I doubt either will happen real soon.

4. For the medical people: Why did you wait until Vista to start your bitching about the two separate medical imaging formats?  Seriously, that has nothing to do with Vista and hearing about it horrifies me.  That if I stumble into a hospital with my CAT scan on a USB drive I better hope they have the same software application as the third-party lab used?  Again, that has zero to do with Vista, it sounds like you'd have the exact same issues on XP, Linux, Mac or a fecking Amiga.

These are the facts as I see them unless someone has hard, cold, real facts to dispute them, not tin foil hat theories:

- Every other OS, or stand-alone CE device, has to implement the exact same restrictions in order to watch HD-DVD content.

- Your video sub-system is NOT impacted a single bit unless you are actually watching protected content.

- Boycotting Vista won't do a single damn thing to affect the DRM issue.  Boycotting iTunes and supporting sites like eMusic though just might.

r3m0t

All my systems are 64bit.

You say I only have an issue if I run 64 bit, but that is all I have.

What then?

MrTufty

you never responded to my questions?

reading the other posts and from what I am reading posted on other articles, your statements don't seem accurate

I understand about the issues with DRM and I don't even have Vista yet.

My Dad just returned his HD TV because it kept breaking down due to a bug with DRM.

TV would go black and he would have to power down the TV for 30 secs and then the TV would reset and he would be back in business.

Don't get me wrong, he loved that picture, but having this thing do this right in the middle of his football game really pissed him off.

He took it back to the store.

Q. Is it true or not true that my drivers will have to make calls to my hardware 30 times a second to make sure I'm not watching something I shouldn't be watching regardless of whether or not I am actually watching something? I ask because if this is true, it will no doubt have an impact on what I do like doing, gaming.

I would appreciate a direct answer to my direct question. The amount of hair splitting, sidestepping and double talk here is really turning me off to Microsoft.

DRM protection surrounds the kernel in Vista. So there isn't anything that you execute that is uncheched by DRM. (is why drivers must be written for DRM execution in Vista)

It's a matter of if it's DRM protected or not.

To get acceptable performance and distribution of a product in Vista it's not wise to put DRM protection on for starters.

But after adoption this can be done at a later time.

Vista without DRM kernel protection will be a faster and simpler OS.

dila813: Just run the 32-bit version on your 64-bit computer. Do you have more than 4GB of RAM?

What many of the nay-sayers are forgetting when it comes to this topic is that Microsoft have a track record of screwing people over. Take a look at what WPA did to machines, locking them up, directing people to buy "legitimate copies" of Windows XP from sites that didn't exist, actively disabling anti virus and firewall applications, and that was all done by Microsoft to protect their best interests and "protect" the consumer from the "dangers" of illegal downloading of Windows. Microsoft knowingly rolled out spyware to our machines, that checked in far too frequently and caused HUGE problems for the consumer, and not their target audience; software pirates (liberators).

With that in mind, this whole DRM fiasco stinks just like the initial uproar about WPA; people will moan, people will say it's all lies, including Microsoft, but after people stop falling for the same old spin from Redmond something will finally be done about it. Microsoft rolled out the defective and spyware like WPA to protect their own interests; now they've signed a deal with the devil and agreed to over-the-top and physically impossible guidelines to "enhance" their users' experience with "premium" content.

In reality this means that Microsoft will not only go all out to make sure they don't get themselves sued (again) but also to make sure that so long as they can control your machine, you don't matter. This point was already made countless times during the Vista Beta with testers, many wise IT Pro testers, complaining that there really was no REAL Administrator account for Vista anymore and that the only way an Administrator would have the same access to a machine as in Windows XP was to stay on XP.

This is, for future reference, the start of the next big AntiTrust suit against Microsoft, I know it, and as much as many of you will deny it, you know it too; I really did love testing Vista and working with some great people, but as the Beta progressed faith in Vista dwindled. I do not see Vista bailing out of this ever accelerating nose-dive into Windows ME territory.

Vista is, in all honesty, Windows XP Service Pack 3; and the only thing I see different for Vienna and the future of Windows, is Microsoft choosing passwords for you and the only account with ANY power on a Windows machine being TrustedInstaller. And with it's many locked folders and running processes that you can't even force your way into, I'd say we're already there.

dila813,

Really the TV had a bug with DRM?  Would you share what make and model TV is affected by the bug?  Is this documented somewhere?  

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not a big fan of Microsoft.  I'm certainly not a big fan of Vista.  and I *really* don't like DRM, but what I hate more than anything is uninformed people making snap judgements about technology that they don't fully understand, and making companies, products or technologies their scapegoats.

The FUD is getting so deep in here its ridiculous.

Next thing you know...

DRM is causing Global Warming

Microsoft is burning down orphanages

and Vista killed my cat.

Get a grip people.  If you don't like DRM don't use DRM protected content.  If you don't like Vista, don't buy it.  If you don't like Microsoft, use a competing product, or don't buy an freaking computer in the first place.  But please, oh please, stop whining about problems that you don't even know exist yet.  

If you insist on worrying about things that *might* happen let me give you some things might actually be worth losing some sleep over...

1) You could be diagnosed with a terminal illness tomorrow

2) Nuclear War

3) A rogue asteroid could colide with the earth at 10x the spead of sound, killing every living creature.

Thanks for the new site Feedback and great show inputs. I talk a little about getting Clearwire here at the house to complement cable. Sponsors: [Save 10% off on any order at GoDaddy.com!] Use Code Todd [Try GoToMeeting free for...

Thanks for the new site Feedback and great show inputs. I talk a little about getting Clearwire here at the house to complement cable. Upcoming Tech Podcast Round Table Sponsors: [Save 10% off on any order at GoDaddy.com!] Use Code...

Where are all of te people that had legit copies of Windows, properly installed on their machines that had problems with WGA?  I haven't heard a single first hand account of someone that has had problems.  I've hear counltess people talking about the potential horrors of WGA, but it didn't really turn out to be that big of a problem did it?  I'm sure some customers were adversely affected, but when you have an OS installed on a few hundred million PCs *anything* you change will adversely affect *someone*.  Come to think of it... Service Pack 2 dramatically improved security, but it also broke a lot of applications when it first rolled out.  So SP2 must be really awful too.

Microsoft using its clout as a monopoly to bully the MPAA into just giving away their content (which is what so many people on here are suggesting) is a First Class Ticket to AntiTrus Court.  Trying to provide additional functionality for their customers while *not* screwing over the MPAA is hardly anticompetitive.

Maybe there is an angle I'm missing, but if anybody is headed to AntiTrust court, its the MPAA.

@murdock:

Couldn't agree more about the MPAA being jerks too, but there is a lot more going on than I'm guessing you realize by your own admission. A lot I neither have the time or incentive to go into in a tiny text box.

Yes SP2 broke a lot of things due to incompatibility, that can be understood, but WPA broke things deliberately. And yes, many people were hit with it, even with the legitimate copies of Windows. I saw a perfectly legitimate machine have it's anti virus and firewall trashed by WGA, so again, deliberate actions make a HUGE difference in comparison to compatibility.

@Condor: Have you ever tried taking a video back for refund?  I wish you the best of luck, I don't know anyone who's succeeded yet.

GunVapor,

Thanks for the reply. So in short what you're saying is that no matter how good nvidia makes the drivers, they're always going to under a heavy load even before I load a game? This will, I take it, in turn tax my cpu, memory, etc etc etc. I suppose the reason why Vista gaming performance being so far below XP performance is becoming clear.

No I am saying DRM is a layer that you are required to pass through.

The application that is hocked into DRM either checks for DRM or not. (DRM layer checks for DRM required or not)

Drivers are required to include DRM control. (at least confirmed for sound and graphics)

Depending on number of DRM (checks) streams are required at a given time (applications that are flagged to: "must check DRM flags"), your computer is taxed.

Possible why slow performance.  (in directX I think you mean)

 Would depend on if DirectX 9L, and directX 10 must pass through DRM or not.

 Or if there is need to bounce on DRM before getting to kernel.

But to circumvent DirectX workaround, if I was Microsoft, I would have DirectX check with DRM also. (DirectX is not a single module but several modules: Sound, graphics, network, hardware, input hardware, and fallback to DirectX9c or previous versions)

Could someone please point me to the documentation (not speculation) that says that the DRM layer is always active?  

DRM content is encrypted, so it can't be played without decrypting it, so there is no need to have something in the background constantly checking to see if DRM content is being played.  If the decryption system is activated, then the DRM stuff can kick in, otherwise it serves no purpose.

The need for new drivers isn't proof of anything.  Drivers need to be rewriten so they have te ability to check and report for HDCP compliant hardware.  That doesn't have to happen all of the time.  Only when protected contend is being displayed.

My point is, I don't know for sure that all of the DRM stuff isn't always running in the background, but I haven't seen a single thing other than speculation to suggest that it is.

Seriously people.  Can anyone point me to anything definitive that says all of te DRM stuff is always running in the background?  Is everyone basing this on Guttman's ramblings?  The guy can't even do a proper cost analysis, let alone do technical analysis.  

Anyone?

Anyone?

Beuller?

                  WARNING !!!

Content of this post is associated with my own policy. You are allowed to read it only with left eye from the distance of 25 feet jumping on one leg. I even protected it with my own DRMs. Right here: #4#5#6#. If you will read this message without complying, it might be considered as cirumventing my DMRs system.

(I know it might not be perfect, but you shouldn't try to break it anyway)

           ~~~~ NOW THE POST ~~~~

(Please note that the first paragraph has been restricted to not use to many vovels. It is a special benefit for the reader as it is still more readable than hieroglyphs)

"In th cs f HD ptcl md frmts sch s HD-DVD nd Bl-R, th cnstrnt rqrmnt s 520K pxls pr frm (i.., rghl 960x540), whch s stll hghr thn th ntv rsltn f cntnt dstrbtd n th DVD-Vd frmt.W fl tht ths s stll ylds  grt sr xprnc, vn whn sng hgh dfntn scrn."

Terry pratchet had a very nice expression: "It is like pulling a tiger's tail... funny and scary at the same time". That's how I feel about the paragraph above.

Lets start with the limitation. At Blue Ray resolution of 1920×1080 number of pixels should be around 2.1M. I will be able to see it at only 520K. How about the regular DVDs ? Will they be displayed in 320x320 in black and white with mono sound ? It would still be better than first TV transmision !

Now the second part:

"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."

So actually My processor will be working slower because I will benefit from not seeing movies in full resolution, right ?

How about the cost ? You included all those benefits and passed the cost to end user. If I will buy Vista, it will be me. Now If I will ad the new HD-DVD or Blue-Ray drive, cost of all the DMRs hardwired into drive will be passed to me. The new graphic card cost will increase, because they will have to comply with Microsoft's standard (otherwise their drivers might be banned). Finally producers of "premium content" will pass the cost of licencing and applying DRMs to their movies. I guess that will be passed to me as well. So is there option to not use it ?

So.... Can you please send me a version that will not enchance High Definition experiences ? I assume that since I won't need all those benefits it will be much cheaper, right ?

BTW.. you owe me 25 cent each for implementation of my own DRMs in this post.

murdock,

I think the answers to your questions may be hidden up in the 20 questions? Although there has been plenty opportunity, they never just come out and say, "no, drm management is turned off if no protected content is in your machine".

What they do say is:

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

Yes.  However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable... blah blah blah... functionality... blah blah".

From what I gather, it's always on, it just doesn't force games into a lesser resolution like it does blu-rays.

Windows Vista includes content protection infrastructure specifically designed to help ensure that protected commercial audiovisual content, such as newly released HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs, can be enjoyed on Windows Vista PCs.  In many cases this content has policies associated with its use that must be enforced by playback devices.  The policies associated with such content are applicable to all types of devices including Windows Vista PCs, computers running non-Windows operating systems, and standalone consumer electronics devices such as DVD players.  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 i just here that you cannot play HD DVDs wich have copywright protection on other operating systems that dont have this protection scheem? They state here that vista would not beable to play HD dvd's without the restriction. (well till its hacked) i gess...

@Fum

No, the answers to my questions are:

"Well, we really don't know for sure."

"Nope.  I was just speculating."

Stop looking at inuendo and speculation.

Hard Facts People!!!!

@MarcinJ

You misspelled the word "vowels."  Since you can't spell that simple word correctly, I'm going to assume that you misspell everything and when you wrote "Will they be displayed in 320x320 in black and white with mono sound ? It would still be better than first TV transmision !" you simply misspelled several words, and the message you were trying to convey was... "I'm not sure how a DVD would be displayed.  Probably just like it would in a stand alone player, but I'll take a tiny shred of fact, and then exagerate it and distort it to make my point, even though I know its not really true."

See what I did there?  I did the exact same thing you did.

But to answer your questions...

"I guess that [extra cost] will be passed to me as well. So is there option to not use it ?"  Sure there is an option not to use it.  Don't use Vista to view Protected Content.

"So.... Can you please send me a version that will not enchance High Definition experiences ? I assume that since I won't need all those benefits it will be much cheaper, right ?"  Certainly.  It is called "Windows XP"

"So actually My processor will be working slower because I will benefit from not seeing movies in full resolution, right ?"

Your processor won't be working at all to decode Protected Content.  You've said so yourself.  Its not a question of slower or faster.  You've already said "I won't need all those [DRM] benefits"

So, AGAIN I ask... can anyone point to something concrete, without resorting gross exagerations or speculation?

Better yet, if you have an opinion, just state it as such.  

I'll even give you my opinion as an example.

I don't like DRM.  I don't like the concept or the implimentation.  

I'm not going to use Vista.  I think it simply brings a bunch of bloat and overhead without adding any useful functionality.  I think it is eye-candy galore.  Since I'm not going to be watching the above mentioned content on a Vista PC, I honestly couldn't care less how bad they screw up DRM, if anything it is just another reason for me *not* to upgrade.

I don't like the MPAA and RIAA for foisting this stupid technology on us in the first place, simply as a means and justification for their outdated business model to exist.

I *really* don't like the people that pirate content and software on a large scale.  *They* are the ones that are screwing everything up for the rest of us.

Of course that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.

---snip---

When are Windows Vista's content protection features actually used?

Windows Vista's content protection mechanisms are only used when required by the policy associated with the content being played.  For Windows Vista experiences, if the content does not require a particular protection, then that protection mechanism is not used.

---snip end---

Pretty self explaining.  

Coupled with the fact that several times Vista has been promised to be the most secure OS yet.

(read if you can circumvent DRM layer you are home free)

Coupled with another fact in Vista you have resticted rights defined by Microsoft. (read your eula agreement closely for Vista. You are allowed to use Vista as Microsoft thinks reasonable)

murdock,

Wasn't your question, "Could someone please point me to the documentation (not speculation) that says that the DRM layer is always active?"

Isn't one of the purposes of Nick White's thread to dispel the Guttman article, which in short asserts that yes, it is always active?

If the purpose of this thread is to claim Guttman was dead wrong, why didn't he simply say so? Why do you need "documentation" when you're already getting it from the horses mouth? Thus far, I don't see anyone denying it's always active.

However, I do see a big effort to split hairs. For example (not to pick on you GunVapor, sorry, no offense intended), it's been said that DRM mechanisms are only "used" when required by the particular content, evading the issue of whether or not it's "on" regardless.

It's clever, and it's one of the reasons why 1,900 words and 100 posts later people still are unsure.

Guttman appears to be doing a little misdirection as well.  Guttman implies that the DRM technology is always on.  He talks about how it will affect game performance and overall system performance, which /implies/ that it is always on.  Then people that don't know any better /assume/ that it is on.  I doubt that was accidental.

And yes, I think part of the reason this this thread is to dispel what Guttman asserted.  But why does everyone believe Guttman?  Guttman made the assertion based on what?  I saw a few references pointing to *how* the technology works, but not *when* it works.  If I missed something feel free to show me my err.

"Windows Vista's content protection mechanisms are only used when required by the policy associated with the content being played.  For Windows Vista experiences, if the content does not require a particular protection, then that protection mechanism is not used."

 ...is pretty straight forward in my book.  What I take away from it is that while the DRM processes my be "running" in the background, they won't be consuming any significant system resources.  It won't be trying to encrypt/decrypt anything.  It won't be polling devices.  It won't be toggling tilt bits, phoning home to Bill, or burning rain forrests.

It'll just be there minding its own business until the appropriate application gives it the signal to kick on.

If I've taken some giant leap with my interpritation of the MS quote, then by all means set me straight, but I think I've used pretty widely accepted usage of the terms.

So, according to Microsoft, the DRM system isn't used unless DRMed content is being displayed.  

So, I ask yet again... could someone, /anyone/ Puuhhhhleeeease point me to some sort of documentation, or other credible reference that says the DRM layer is always active?  Pretty please.  With cream and sugar on top.

Gutmann has responded; the response is: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#response

Some selected quotes are below:

"Some of the material was new and interesting (for example clarifying just what actually gets revoked when a driver revocation occurs), other parts seem more likely to have come from Waggener Edstrom (Microsoft's PR firm) than Program Manager Dave Marsh."

------

"[Quoting this blog entry:] 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. [End quote from this blog entry]

This claim is directly contradicted by a document by the same author ( http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx ) which states:

   Such tests could involve loading a surface with an image, and then getting the chip to apply various visual effects to the image and reporting back the resulting pixels.

and then later on:

   The internal workings of the graphics chip must be kept secret, such that a hacker building an emulator could not find out the required information."

murdock said:

"could someone, /anyone/ Puuhhhhleeeease point me to some sort of documentation, or other credible reference that says the DRM layer is always active?"

In the document titled "Output Content Protection and Windows Vista" published at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx

(available in HTML format from: http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.microsoft.com%2Fdownload%2F5%2FD%2F6%2F5D6EAF2B-7DDF-476B-93DC-7CF0072878E6%2Foutput_protect.doc&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&u=download.microsoft.com/download/5/D/6/5D6EAF2B-7DDF-476B-93DC-7CF0072878E6/output_protect.doc&d=UseslexsOKb1&icp=1&.intl=us ) is the following quote:

"In Windows Vista, the Protected Environment provides process isolation and continually monitors what kernel-mode software is loaded."

Note the word "continually" -- that seems a good synonym for "always active" doesn't it?

And the "Protected Enviroment" is certainly part of the "DRM Layer". Slightly further down in the document is the following quote: "The Protected Environment contains the media components that play premium content," -- i.e. the Protected Environment is the DRM layer.

So, that's a "credible reference" (from Microsoft, no less), "that says the DRM layer is always active".  You asked for it, you got it.  Next question?

I searched and did not see an answer to a question about laptops posted early in this thread.  If I buy a new laptop with Vista in it, and the laptop screen has the resolution to allow full resolution HD display, will I or will I not be able to see a BlueRay or HD-DVD in full resolution with Vista?

Wow.  Guttman is a master of spin himself.

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

Microsoft responds:

"Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality."

Guttman retorts:

"(Another way of looking at this is to rephrase the question to “Will viruses increase CPU resource consumption?”, to which the answer is also “Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality” (like spamming, phishing site hosting, and so on))."

Well golly!  I can play that game too!

“Will video editing increase CPU resource consumption?”

Yes.

“Will playing games increase CPU resource consumption?”

Yes.

“Will surfing the web increase CPU resource consumption?”

Yes.

“Will clicking on the start button increase CPU resource consumption?”

Yes.

Big friggin deal.  Doing *anything* on the PC will use CPU resources to some degree.  That doesn't prove anything.  In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.

And I also like how he selectively quotes the Microsoft documents...

Guttman quoted on of two bullet points.  Here are both.

"• The calculation of the answer in hardware must be so complex that it would be impractical for anyone to emulate the hardware necessary to calculate the answer.

- Or -

• The internal workings of the graphics chip must be kept secret, such that a hacker building an emulator could not find out the required information."

Anyone else notice that "Or" in the middle?  That means that the hardware manufacturers have a choice in how they impliment the DRM technology.

So, I'll answer Guttman's question for him.

*Can* HFS affect the open source community? Yes.

*Will* HFS affect the open source community? As always it is up to the hardware manufaturers.

Wow this guy can spin.

@ Cesar

Most likely the answer is "Yes" but the only way to get a definitive answer is to check with the laptop manufacturer.  

murdock said:

"could someone, /anyone/ Puuhhhhleeeease point me to some sort of documentation, or other credible reference that says the DRM layer is always active?"

In the document titled "Output Content Protection and Windows Vista" published at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx

(available in HTML format from: http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.microsoft.com%2Fdownload%2F5%2FD%2F6%2F5D6EAF2B-7DDF-476B-93DC-7CF0072878E6%2Foutput_protect.doc&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&u=download.microsoft.com/download/5/D/6/5D6EAF2B-7DDF-476B-93DC-7CF0072878E6/output_protect.doc&d=UseslexsOKb1&icp=1&.intl=us ) is the following quote:

"In Windows Vista, the Protected Environment provides process isolation and continually monitors what kernel-mode software is loaded."

Note the word "continually" -- that seems a good synonym for "always active" doesn't it?

And the "Protected Enviroment" is certainly part of the "DRM Layer". Slightly further down in the document is the following quote: "The Protected Environment contains the media components that play premium content," -- i.e. the Protected Environment is the DRM layer.

So, that's a "credible reference" (from Microsoft, no less), "that says the DRM layer is always active".  You asked for it, you got it.  Next question?

You know what.  I'm pissed that Microsoft has the nerve to include DNS in Windows.  They even had the nerve to build Acitve Directory around it, so I can't avoid it at work.  It sits there on my PC taunting me because I can't get rid of it.  

The audacity they have.  Assuming that I don't want to access everything by IP address instead of some stupid name.

And heaven forbid, I actually use it.  If I were to type www.iHateDNS.com into my browser, countless CPU cycles are wasted trying to resolve the name.

Oh, and here is the worst of it!  When DNS is being used, it sends data from my computer to some server out there on the internet.  I'm not sure but I think that information is being used for something sinister.

And I read that there are security flaws too.

And this one time, the DNS servers just stopped working.  I could access anything I wanted by IP address, but not by DNS name.  I called microsoft to yell at them, and they gave me some lame line about my ISP being in charge of those servers, but I'm pretty sure it was Microsoft's fault.

The more I read about this DNS thing the more I think I'm going to ditch Windows and TCP/IP all together.  I'm boycotting Windows, I'm boycotting Microsoft, and I'm so pissed, I'm going to boycott any company that has a DNS name registered.

LanTastic, Here I come!

/sarcasm.

murdok said:

"Guttman quoted on of two bullet points.  Here are both."

I presume you meant "quoted one of two"; typos happen to all of us.

However, while I agree that the quote Gutmann provided was misleading, your quote was misleading as well.  Directly following what you quoted was this paragraph:

"In practice, using a combination of complexity and secrecy is likely to be the best option. When secrets are involved, the HFS code in the vendor-supplied driver should be obfuscated to prevent it being reverse engineered, although there is no absolute requirement to do obfuscation."

This makes it clear that keeping drivers secret is encouraged; it's not just one of the options.

Now, a question that needs to be examined here is *what* exactly has to be kept secret, or made "too complex".  Maybe MS is only requiring hardware manufacturers to add a I'm-a-real-video-card-magic-code-module, and not restricting them from letting anyone write drivers that handle everthing else on the card.

murdock said:

"could someone, /anyone/ Puuhhhhleeeease point me to some sort of documentation, or other credible reference that says the DRM layer is always active?"

In the document titled "Output Content Protection and Windows Vista" (Adding the URL seems to trigger the comment being blocked, so I'm seeing if I can publish it without the URL; google for it.) is the following quote:

"In Windows Vista, the Protected Environment provides process isolation and continually monitors what kernel-mode software is loaded."

Note the word "continually" -- that seems a good synonym for "always active" doesn't it?

And the "Protected Enviroment" is certainly part of the "DRM Layer". Slightly further down in the document is the following quote: "The Protected Environment contains the media components that play premium content," -- i.e. the Protected Environment is the DRM layer.

So, that's a "credible reference" (from Microsoft, no less), "that says the DRM layer is always active".  You asked for it, you got it.  Next question?

One problem in all i dont see comming up. This was a choice by microsoft so that people would beable to watch HD DVD's on there computer or els hollyworld would have been stubbern and try there hardest to not allow computers to run HD DVD's. Dose this not mean that every other company, such as apple not have to do the same?

murdock said:

"Big friggin deal.  Doing *anything* on the PC will use CPU resources to some degree."

We seem to have gotten rather afield from the original point of Mr. Gutmann's section of CPU usage.  Let me quote from that section, to help bring us back to the real issues.

"In order to prevent tampering with in-system communications, all communication flows have to be encrypted and/or authenticated. For example content sent to video devices has to be encrypted with AES-128. This requirement for cryptography extends beyond basic content encryption to encompass not just data flowing over various buses but also command and control data flowing between software components. For example communications between user-mode and kernel-mode components are authenticated with OMAC message authentication-code tags, at considerable cost to both ends of the connection."

"Needless to say, this extremely CPU-intensive mechanism is a very painful way to provide protection for content, and this fact has been known for many years. Twenty years ago, in their work on the ABYSS security module, IBM researchers concluded that the use of encrypted buses as a protection mechanism was impractical. (Link removed so the filter doesn't block this comment; please see the original for the link)"

"In order to prevent active attacks, device drivers are required to poll the underlying hardware every 30ms for digital outputs and every 150 ms for analog ones to ensure that everything appears kosher. This means that even with nothing else happening in the system, a mass of assorted drivers has to wake up thirty times a second just to ensure that... nothing continues to happen."

It's not a question of "increase[ing] CPU resource consumption" -- the question is whether the increased CPU load is reasonable, or whether it is vastly disproportionate and wasteful of the hardware.  Gutmann's claim is that it is.  Rebut that, if you wish, but don't go off on the red herring of any-feature-uses-the-CPU.  That's just avoiding the point.

@JustALinker

No I don't consider monitoring to be "active."  Monitoring is quite passive in nature.  

Monitoring what kernal mode software is loaded, shouldn't have a signifigant impact on available resources, system performance or system stability.

Basically, from what that statement says, there is no DRMing going on unless a DRM enabled application is loaded (and even then it doesn't say if the loading of the application is what triggers the DRM tech to kick in or if it then just begins monitoring for a DRMed file.)

So I don't see any of that creepy sinister stuff that everyone seems so worried about running.

Your move :)

Murdock,

In answer to your question; "Could someone please point me to the documentation (not speculation) that says that the DRM layer is always active?"

Firstly, you are mistakenly using the term DRM to encompass all that Enhanced Copy Protection (or Protected Environment) is. What MS has provided is in addition to DRM, in the form of new hardware/software protection mechanisms.

But, wrt PE and your question, in Microsoft document;

http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/D/6/5D6EAF2B-7DDF-476B-93DC-7CF0072878E6/output_protect.doc

Read section 2.3.1 - PVP-OPM Initialization Sequence, which states the 5 things that occur starting at system boot or revival from deep hibernation. Other sections refer to PnP event actions, so things happen if you plug in or remove hardware.

You incorrectly stated; "DRM content is encrypted, so it can't be played without decrypting it, so there is no need to have something in the background constantly checking to see if DRM content is being played.  If the decryption system is activated, then the DRM stuff can kick in, otherwise it serves no purpose."

DRM does not require encryption. Neither does content processed by the PE.

To your whimsical idea that nothing needs to be going on in the background once some "decryption system" is activated...sorry, but you're missing the whole point of PE. PE ensures that neither hardware nor software is modified or tapped while content is being used. It does this, in the case of checking the tilt bit to see if the hardware vendors think something is awry, with every video frame (again, see the above documentation.) In other cases, such as HFS and ensuring that disallowed output connectors are disabled, it does this even more frequently...in the background...the whole time content is being used.

It is true that there are two separate processes involved in PE. One that is done upon boot/unhibernate and another that only occurs once premium content is "played." What happens when content is played is ongoing while it is playing. The earlier process occurs and as I mentioned above, continues to occur upon various events.

Seems there are more people than you expected who don't quite understand things...and make people's head hurt.

You then said; "The need for new drivers isn't proof of anything.  Drivers need to be rewriten so they have te ability to check and report for HDCP compliant hardware.  That doesn't have to happen all of the time.  Only when protected contend is being displayed."

Well, the need for new hardware and drivers is solely due to PE. PE is a requirement for Longhorn logo'ing if they want to be able to claim to play premium content. Even if they don't, they still have to be signed (new.) The driver requirements to be compliant/conformant with PE are extensive...and a continually used phrase is something like "and make sure nobody sees how you did it!" as obfuscation is deemed to be a significant component of the "security" of Vendor X's certificate status. They even go so far as talking about trying to use undisclosed pin-outs for chips and boards that don't expose pins through the back. HDCP is only one means of being PE compliant, and is not a requirement at all. PE is, IMO, suggesting that HDCP isn't really needed because PE is so great.

A driver's ability to report on its outputs, their PVP capabilities, and their status, is something that has to happen on many occasions, not just when premium content wants to run.

As for your assessment of Gutmann's abilities, seems you didn't read his entire paper...he explains what he refers to as "costs" in a way that makes your point about his ability to do a cost analysis moot.

If you've the skill to say his paper isn't technically sound, then surely you've the ability to give us a much better assessment of PE...with hopefully more knowledge than you've already shown you have of it.

Cheers,

Russ - NTBugtraq Editor

If you want some hard data on how much slower Vista RTM is compared to XP, check this out:

Gameplay Stinks with RTM Vista and Current Drivers

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/17/gameplay-only-gets-worse-with-vista

Of course no one can tell how much is attributable to Vista Content Protection (if any) and how much is due to graphics drivers which are immature.

I have tested various versions of Vista x86 and x64 and will continue to do so. But I will postpone any purchasing decision of Vista Ultimate for some 4-5 months. During this interval I will keep a close eye on articles and forums to learn from others' experience what difficulties they are having - particularly with regard to Vista's Content Protection.

On one side we have Peter Gutmann's prediction of Gloom & Doom. On the other side we have

Microsoft's Dave Marsh's prediction of All Is Well. Probably reality will lie somewhere

between these two extremes. I will eventually have to answer the question: "Do I think I can live with whatever problems others and I have found?"

If the answer is "Yes", I will plunk down my $249 for the Upgrade version. If the answer is "No", then I will stay with XP Pro. I think Microsoft will be supporting that OS for another 5 years.

I have no interest in High Definition content. I do not even own a TV. However I do

occasionally watch a DVD movie. I agree with the proposed option that it would have been

far better for Microsoft to have made all those features associated with HD Protected

Content to be an optional download for those who are interested. This would also have to

include special audio and graphics drivers. But to force feed those who have no use for such seems more than excessive to me.

Don't tell me what has been put in can't be taken out if there is sufficient will!

James D. Milton

BTW, there are a couple of very trivial points that seem to be forgotten here.

1. Content providers dictate what they want off, in terms of hardware outputs, while their content is being used. So if I have two monitors, one is likely to be turned off if the other is being used to display an HD-DVD. So I may not be able to read email and watch a movie at the same time. Not up to me, its up to the content provider.

2. Hardware vendors are to detect attempts at "hacking" into their devices/streams. If they think something is a hack, they set their tilt bit. Vista might do this on its own, also. When/if this happens, my video sub-system is likely going to be re-initialized. That sounds like what might have happened to  Dila813's Dad...doesn't it?

Point is, this might happen for who knows what reasons as every vendor has to make up their own. This could happen because I installed some application that has "suspect" drivers but isn't something I was planning on using with premium content (say, like some Video editing tool I want to use for my own videos, but the content industry has decided can also be used to try and hack their content!)

Point is, its out of my control, I have no way of knowing ahead of it happening, and I have no way of knowing precisely what is going to happen.

That's all fact, not speculation.

One point I haven't seen discussed here, maybe because it is rather speculative, is what direct benefit Microsoft can gain from Vista's DRM features.

The case of Apple, and iTunes Music Store, provides a illustrative example.  The music labels thought that, by encouraging Apple to put DRM on the music sold through the iTunes store, the labels could retain control over the secondary, i.e. retail or gifting, market for the music.  As it turned out, they were wrong.  The iTunes Music Store DRM in fact most benefited Apple itself, by locking Music Store customers into purchases of Apple products in order to listen to the music they'd already purchased.  Apple gained a powerful advantage over the labels by means of this lock-in.

What makes us think that Microsoft isn't trying exactly the same trick?  While there are differences, since some of the DRM protocols are available, unlike Apple's, the fundamental truth that DRM systems benefit their implementers, not those who put content in them, remains.  

If Microsoft can use the DRM features in Vista to prevent non-Microsoft programs from reading data produced in Microsoft programs, would they not do this?  They have been known to attempt such one-way compatibility before...  and with Vista's DRM, such efforts have great help.

This is a direct benefit to Microsoft -- while I'm sure the movie industry cheered when Microsoft suggested these DRM features, the DRM 's most powerful benefit is for Microsoft itself.

Why haven't we heard more about this?

murdock said:

"No I don't consider monitoring to be "active."  Monitoring is quite passive in nature."

I do appreciate this conversation; so thanks for that.

Regarding your claim that "monitoring" is "passive", I'd point you to the quote from Gutmann I mentioned above: "device drivers are required to poll the underlying hardware every 30ms for digital outputs and every 150 ms for analog ones"  That's not "passive" in any sense.

Regarding further examples of the always-on status of the DRM in Vista, this quote (from the same source as I've been using above): "applications to manually control the graphics outputs, whereas in Windows Vista the application is a remote control for the Media Interoperability Gateway (MIG) environment."  The MIG is part of the Protected Environment, and, according to the quote above, acts as a intermediary for ALL communication with the graphics hardware, not just stuff related to premium content.

The underlying point here is that the DRM features need to be in the circuit all the time in order to decide when to block things.  "Premium content", being data, rather than programs, can't activate the blocking features itself, but must be recognized by code that runs all the time.  Traffic on the bus must be encrypted all the time, because if the command to turn on the encryption was ever sent unencrypted, it could be faked.  The DRM can't ever be off, or it could be tricked to remain off.

Next?

Seems my first attempt at this reply to murdock failed, probably because I provided a URL. Others have pointed to the "Output Content Protection and Windows Vista" document. The link for it is in Gutmann's original message.

murdock seems not to understand the concept of PE, or Protected Environment, and DRM. PE is really the OS, or a very substantial portion of it. PE helps enforce DRM.

murdock said; "DRM content is encrypted, so it can't be played without decrypting it, so there is no need to have something in the background constantly checking to see if DRM content is being played.  If the decryption system is activated, then the DRM stuff can kick in, otherwise it serves no purpose."

Well, point of fact, DRM content does not have to be encrypted. If you consider encoding the same as encryption, then I suppose it is encrypted...but I don't see them as the same thing.

Section 2.3.1 of the above-mentioned Microsoft document describes the PVP Initialization Sequence, which occurs upon boot or when the system comes out of deep hibernation. Some of the 5 things that occur happen at other times, such as during PnP events.

So, is it always running in the background? Microsoft has not provided that information so nobody but them knows. They’ve implemented it in a way to satisfy content providers, and provided specifications to hardware vendors to know how to interact with what they’ve provided. Since so much of the documentation that is available says secrecy is an important component of success, perhaps they think it better for us not to know.

For what is available, it would seem that many events you might not expect to invoke some aspect of PVP do. PnP events would invoke HFS, so flipping from a built-in monitor on a laptop to a projector or VGA monitor, for example, may also invoke HFS and potentially other things. MS does not have to document what happens as long as they’ve convinced content providers its enough to protect their content. Since that is their only concern (and I challenge you to say that isn’t their only concern!!), documentation for us peons is unnecessary.

murdock also said; "The need for new drivers isn't proof of anything.  Drivers need to be rewritten so they have the ability to check and report for HDCP compliant hardware.  That doesn't have to happen all of the time.  Only when protected contend is being displayed."

Well, I'm sorry but I strongly disagree as others have already pointed out. The strong encouragement for non-disclosure of hardware and driver designs may very well put open-source at a disadvantage. Yes, it is up to the hardware vendor to decide, but even this is new compared to what has been possible in the past. Maybe this is what MS referred to as the "hobbyists" they wanted to reduce or eliminate. In any event, the whole object of hardware/driver (PVP) compliance is to prevent emulation. That will have a negative impact, even if it’s only in the ability for VMWare and other programs to provide full video functionality while in a VM.

As just one example, Virtual PC 2007 on Vista Ultimate provides only 32MB of VRAM to a VM, and does not support the actual video card present. So if you think Vista can be a 2nd OS to take advantage of its features, better look to someone other than MS to provide that capability. Equally, I doubt premium content would function within a VPC 2007 VM, but I could be wrong.

BTW, HDCP isn’t a requirement of anything in PE.

As for Gutmann's cost analysis being "wrong", you seem to have missed his description of what he meant by the term "cost."

Cheers,

Russ - NTBugtraq Editor

JustALinker asked; “what direct benefit Microsoft can gain from Vista’s DRM features?”

I wrote about this today in my MCPMag.com Security Watch article titled “What Does Windows Vista's Copy Protection/DRM Protect?”

PE provides a much better way to offer pay-per-use applications, such as Office, not to mention pay-per-use games.

In 1996 I worked on a project to try and figure out a way to give Microsoft MSDN subscribers pay-per-use access to their content. MS has been thinking about this for a long, long time.

Cheers,

A impressive example of the sort of odd, anthropomorphic language used in the technical documentation of Vista's DRM is the following sentence, from "Output Content Protection and Windows Vista" as usual.

"The HFS requirement is that the driver can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the hardware it is talking to is the valid hardware."

"beyond reasonable doubt"?  I thought that determining that required actual, live human beings, typically 12 of them (e.g. on a jury).  Now we are to expect video drivers to have the judgment and moral maturity to decide what is "reasonable doubt"?  I had no idea AI had progressed so far!

To quote Gutmann, it seems that the video drivers are being asked to "display as much dedication as possible to the party line"...  I'm sorry, but software isn't that good yet. ;-)

JustALinker,

Content Providers will be the judge as to how well the judgment of a given hardware Vendor's drivers are. If a complaint is lodged, and it is upheld, the Vendor's driver in question will be revoked. As the documentation states, if that happens to be a unified driver for every product the Vendor makes, they may well have to provide updates to every single one of their customers using the same driver.

Ergo, as Gutmann surmises, the concept of a unified driver is a problem if you're at all concerned some content provider might make a claim against you. Strong impetus to keep Vista drivers separate from everything else.

Cheers,

Russ - NTBugtraq Editor

Are these monitoring polling of the bus and software encrypted. Because that is how I originally read this.

""""Regarding your claim that "monitoring" is "passive", I'd point you to the quote from Gutmann I mentioned above: "device drivers are required to poll the underlying hardware every 30ms for digital outputs and every 150 ms for analog ones"  That's not "passive" in any sense."""

All this assumes that average developers are going to utilize the Windows Vista Secure API's. Why go through this pain which satisfies nobody?

The fact is that there is no secure way to do any of this - any cryptographer or developer NOT on the payroll knows this.  Key + Cipertext = decryption.

As every user has noticed, these are arbitraty rules established for content control.

And while I understand the industry reaction - I propose an alternative.  Why not make users culpable for sharing content instead?  This establishes a user identity mark on the content - but doesn't prohibit backups, multidevice usage, and creativity.

Using this watermarking technique(several exist already) we could allow users to do whatever they like with content - and at the same time identify the originator.  Those that rampantly copy and illegally distribute the content could be traced and prosecuted.

Perhaps this doesn't work with the Russian Mafia, or the Asian pirates - but I highly doubt anything is going to stop them as of now.

As it is, Microsoft is foisting the cost, burden, and complexity onto the developers - which in turn pass it onto you - the consumer.

It seems to me, that the Kings of ancient have appeared again, and the modern printing press will be cryptographically signed and protected by his men.

From a design point it makes sense to but DRM as a kernel loadable module. (else the OS could break if it was in buildin in kernel, with a DRM update or even kernel update)

To prevent direct access to kernel a graphic system execution call should talk with applicion layer, HFS, DRM then kernel.

(from application layer to DRM to HFS to kernel would  make it possible to circumvent DRM (but would be faster to execute))

Funny thing is that you can upgrade your Vista license on the fly to another version. To make this feature tamperproff it is required to load license in memmory, and store it in a tamperproff way. (must be checked in a secure matter also and activaced in a way)

Speculation:

Another thing worth investigating would be what effect DRM has with self created content in Vista.  (I still remember license information tags on ALL Office97 docs, before the outrage)

If self created content is either tagged or locked to system. Tagging would make it easier to be unnoticed for a while (if encrypted/obsqured).

If you already have DRM why shouldn't it go the whole way.

Joel Goguen,

taking something back to the shop to obtain a refund is not a problem with our (NL) consumer laws, even is there is nothing wrong with it, providing you do it within a period of - I believe - 8 days. I have done it successfully with CDs with copy protection that did not play on my CDi player.

Digital Rights Management, or DRM if you are an acronym lover, has caused quite a stir over recent weeks,

I appreciate your willingness to discuss Microsoft's efforts to protect "content" from "unauthorized use" by "consumers" to protect the "intellectual property" of major corporations. (Did I use all the right DRM-speak there?)

I would appreciate your addressing a major point in the original article - that Microsoft has taken extensive effort to protect (say) a frame from Little Mermaid using encryption, protected channels and the like, yet Vista will happily page my SSN, medical information, tax returns and credit card info to disk with not a whit of protection/

This mindset (corporate "IP" critical, personal "IP" not worth protecting) saturates Microsoft, to the extent that when I registered with Windows Vista Blog to make this comment, you sent my user name and password in a single unsecured email message back to me.

This exemplifies in ways the paper never could how... disdainful... Microsoft has become of its customers' privacy and rights.

Dave Marsh writes, "no worse than standard definition television resolution" ... "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."

For PAL viewers, standard resolution is, and has for decades been, 625 lines. 520K pixels per frame promises far lower resolution!

It is rather disingenuous to call this a "great user experience".

I have to agree with other posters that Mr Marsh's article does not compare favourably with Mr Gutmann's, and does disappointingly little to dispel the fear currently felt by many.

I look forward to hearing more from Microsoft to put people's minds at rest.

If you're an overclocker and your memory isn't stable (and how is stable defined) will Vista run a "tilt bit" on you and shut down? Also, with respect to memory and overclocking, if the key is in memory, and the memory goes south due to setting inappropriate timings, is the key rendered invalid?

Fum,

The tilt bit doesn't shut Vista down; it causes the video sub-system to re-initialize...not the same thing. The tilt bit is an indicator that the Vendor thinks something may be trying to hack its products/streams. What Vista does after that is another story, not well explained anywhere I've found. However, I suspect the most likely think is that it would attempt to report the tilt bit occurrence to the Vendor, for them to figure out if their product is resistant...IOWs, to help them figure out if someone is going to try and get their certificate revoked.

As for the key, its based on a session key, so it is invalidated every time the session is quit.

However, that all said, if your system is in such a state its hard to honestly expect that anything is going to work as its supposed to...and the failure of anything can hardly be blamed on the Vendor versus you're tweaking...don't you think?

Tolerance to tweaking is one of the concerns Peter Gutmann hints at.

It’s impossible to know whether tweaking will cause any problems in advance. Every Vendor can implement whatever tests they choose to determine if a hacking attempt is occurring. Each individual test may or may not be influenced by tweaks, and each tweak may result in different tests causing different results or not affecting them at all.

Vendors will likely decide to support overclockers or not...if such things matter at all to their PE tests.

Cheers,

Russ - NTBugtraq Editor

NTBugtraq,

Hi, first off, I think you're owning everything you touch here and have really enjoyed reading your comments, they've been very enlightening. NTBugtaq > MS DRM 10-0 :-)

"However, that all said, if your system is in such a state its hard to honestly expect that anything is going to work as its supposed to...and the failure of anything can hardly be blamed on the Vendor versus you're tweaking...don't you think?"

Well, yes and no. I guess I need to define "such a state". I don't boot up into an OS unless my memory tweaks can survive at least 8 hours of memtest86 without error, considered by most to be stable. Once in Windows, I don't decide an overclock is stable until it can do two things: pass 8 hours of Prime95 and run my games without issue. Thus far I have managed to achieve great success. I consider my system stable, but that doesn't mean others do. I will admit I've only had 3 "issues" with my overclock, all with BF2. I got 3 non-parity errors, but a simple reboot is all that was needed to solve the problem; nevertheless, no matter how insignificant, this is an "overclocking issue" and from what I gather, Vista may treat this radically different that how XP treats this?

I've tried to do the best I can to ensure my voltage to the machine is constant and clean. UPS and a rather nice PSU. So, while I am not so worried about voltage fluctuations incurring a tilt bit, I would like to hear further what happens when the memory "just goes off on it's own for a moment", so to speak. What's the process when something is re-initialized?

And please, feel free to make as lengthy a post as possible.

Reading your footer Nick. No I'm really not jealous.

About this issue. Am I right when I conclude that the 32-bit version of Vista is not affected by this "problem", as stated by r3m0t?

:cheers:

Fum,

Re-initialization isn't explained, so it’s reasonable to assume it’s simply a repeat of the initialization process. I suspect it would report back to applications that it (the PE) had terminated and restarted...so apps can decide what to do as a result.

Don't forget that apps and the content they're streaming to outputs are separate. So it’s conceivable that an app sees the re-initialization and simply pauses while the PE comports itself and then continues as if nothing happened.

My thinking about the problem you describe is that it’s more likely that all memory would become corrupt and the entire system is likely to crash...and the PE won't really know it’s happened. Therefore it wouldn't be involved and nothing would be seen as a hack versus a crash.

Cheers,

Russ - NTBugtraq Editor

The main problem I have is I want to game.  DX10 has new features that I want to experience.  Aside from that Vista is a waste of time.  So.. yes, Vista will be installed... and I will game... but for the rest of it... especially HD-DVD/Blue-ray... forget it.

I just hope that the open source/hacking community finds a way to port DX10 to Win XP or to lunix.

Via

Rugen, a pretty

insane diagnosis of all the media crippling in MS Vista.

(Included below the fold.) Some questions: Why is Microsoft doing so much for the content industries? They have billions of dollars; why don&#8217;t they fight? Google bough

Peter Guttman's response to this can be found at

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/%7Epgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#response

interesting cause he cites Microsoft's own documents and in my opinion throughly debunks this bit of marketing spin you've written.

Vista DRM == Really bad and over reaching;

I believe that Vista’s DRM is a paranoid and horribly inefficient mechanism that will make our systems more unstable and expensive.

I believe Fair Use is at stake, and Hollywood and Microsoft have declared war on their own customers.

I believe that this war will only invite piracy and criminalize the innocent.   And in the end, it's all moot.  HDCP has already been compromised for both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.  

I believe that the PC–my PC–is not a piece of consumer electronics, and Hollywood has absolutely no right to control major subsystems of it.

I believe that consumers should vote with their dollars and punish Hollywood and Microsoft for their practices and policies by staying away from Vista and the next-gen “premium” content delivery systems in droves.

I believe that Microsoft’s DRM is an erosion of my consumer rights and is yet another reason I’m staying as far away from Vista as I possibly can.

I find the concept of "premium content" somewhat odd. It is only premium at this time because there is nothing better, but remember when VGA was the best act in town? I see HD simply as the next step and it will, in time, be superceded.

MS and the content providers are presumably choosing this time to build-in complex DRM systems because MS want a slice of the commercial film action.

It strikes me as bizarre that MS are focusing all this development effort and added complexity on home users of Windows, whilst business users will have to install the same bloatware for no particular gain. This seems to be as good a reason as any for the business world to seriously look elsewhere for their desktop platforms.

As others have discussed, it would have made far more sense to have a design where a "DRM module" could be included only for users of such functionality.

It is now six days since this "blog" entry was posted, and there have been many responses, not least by Peter Gutmann himself. Time, perhaps, for Dave Marsh to address some more of the issues raised, this time with clearer and less obfuscatory language?

I would honestly be very happy for the Microsoft case to be put clearly and succinctly, and I hope that Dave Marsh will be able to do this in his next posting.

To the poster above who said MS caved into Media industry desires, wrong, the desires of the media industry are cover for MS's *own* desire to control your computer.

With control of your computer (X-box is where we are headed) MS has no more competition on the platform *at all*.

Even more importantly they begin to eliminate the *possibility* of competition on the hardware platform.

It is GNU/Linux they fear taking what they have (OS and Office revenue streams), and Apple and Google taking the revenue they want (media delivery and the web services delivery platform).

To all those that are shocked and outraged that MS could so lightly consider them, MS has given a great deal of thought to you, just not about what you want. They are figuring out how to charge and market you.

And the greater the control of the platform the greater the opportunity to "maximize revenue", your bank account is the "revenue".

Free and Open Source software is the last real competetor they face, since they can't stop it's growth they will try to poison the ground.

For any who want to leave to their decendants a digital world where they are software owners rather than software renters, the choice is rushing upon you.

What MS has done with Vista in forcing this additional content protection into the OS beyond what even WinXP already had, resulting in system performance degradation, is unbelievable and makes me really angry!  I haven't bought or rented any audio CDs or video DVDs in several years because of what the Hollywood "industry" has done with DRM, and now I am having to PAY for this capability by having my system resources consumed in part to support its operation, even when I'm not planning to use any protected content.  I have to PAY for it!  Unbelievable!  

Consumers are not stupid, I make chips for a living, and engineer network products, I know the extra cost and resources required to get all this extra content protection working for hardware manufacturers, not to mention the extra cost for support.  The answers Marsh gives are made to sound better, in part by what he's not saying.  MS needed this weasel like behavior in someone who could  lead a project exactly like what they've obviously done.

MS, YOU ARE NOT LISTENING, you will NEVER be able to put together a crack proof DRM system on a PC as long as all the information to decrypt is on the local machine!  You guys must be smarter than what it looks like from my view, when I see what you're doing!  Some moderate protection is OK to keep the average user from stealing, but the extreme measures you have now deployed will not stop those already intent on stealing content.

I don’t believe this protection system was only added for audio/video protection, Windows dominates the OS market, Hollywood would have no choice if MS didn’t agree to their demands.  I suspect consumers will soon see more limitations, especially from MS, where this system will be put to even more use!  For example, why not say to consumers in the license agreement that they can use their PC for 5 hours/day, and each additional hour will cost you $5 or we will deactivate your devices, slowly cut it off, one by one every hour, until you reactivate or authorize your copy with our “control of you” server.

I want to buy an OS that has performance and stability, I'm not willing to sacrifice that for DRM.  The benchmarks I'm seeing for Vista RTM compared to WinXP and other OSs clearly shows the performance hit.  Several years of no DRM purchases on my part will now apply to Vista, I will not buy it, and I absolutely will not support Hollywood's DRM demands.  The power I have as a consumer is my wallet, and I intend to make full use of that power.  My copy of Vista will sit on the store shelf!  In addition, my department at work will continue to use WinXP while we evaluate other alternatives.  It all now stops here for MS OSs as well.

Wow... All this contraversy. Ill just add in something wich is good (AND) bad news for your pockets.

You can still get the full HD experience IF you have a ATI/AMD (and dont know about Nvidia), but eather you will have to wait for prices to drop or pay the high fee to experience the full HD DVD experience.

two versions with this support.

ATI-7950GT

ATI-8800 series

(Again dont know about Nvidia, do they even have a media center card?)

Anyways Good luck with the argument. ;)

Gutmann's refutal is good. It doesn't just quote from the original Microsoft documentation, it also points out that the author of this original Microsoft document is the very same Dave Marsh who is now contradicting his own, documented words in this PR driven Blog-spot. Nothing less than we would expect from the Microsoft machine, and one of the reasons why, even if Microsoft were being straight with us, no-one would believe them.

My prediction is that Vista will end up being the second worst OS ever a close second to WinMe as far as consumers complaints go.That's why I call it Me2

First, let me say that I believe that the 520 dpi mentioned probably only applies to the

NTSC users of the world.

Second, I just want to say that I'm not that worried about DRM content. From time to time,

I'm downloading legal music and such things from the internet, and then the DRM in windows media player kicks in. This isn't to me the big problem with Vista.

The big problem with Vista as I see is that

Hollywood or Sony suddenly can decide that this driver, say the 93.71 driver for Geforce video cards is too insecure, and then suddenly revoke its license. This would prove disastrous to me, and other gamers as well, since Vista has this inbuilt ability.

Actually, I kind of like the new feature in Vista when you install programs and such, where you have to these programs explicitly permissions to run on your system. Hopefully, this will disable most trojans, spywares and such nasty things installing themselves.

(the only thing I van think of that we in denmark, europe, uses a lot are the signatures being used in netbanking/homebanking and in something we call an e-box or e-vault which we use to store important document, but I'm sure that there is a technichal solution to this).

The other big problem wtih Vista is that I've read somewhere on the net that Vista will check the ESRB rating on the games being installed and then deny the installment of

the game if the person installing it isn't

old enough to play these games.

Now being placed and living in Europe, there are two things which concern me. One is something about censorship; the other is that the american ESRB rating apparently now are going to be global, meaning that these ratings being used when installing any (new) games could mean that 16 year old european couldn't install a game that has an esrb rating of Mature=17+ or a game that the pegi.info board (rating system used in europe) has decided that a game should have a rating of say 12+.

I've think I read this info at http://fileplanet.com - in the editor's blog.

The first comment on censorship, well, that goes nearly without saying. It takes, imo, away the parents right to decide what is appropriate for their kids to watch, let alone what games they should be allowed to play.

As for Guttman's other topics, mentioned in his paper or article, I'm sure that the drivers needed for Vista will be developed.

However, I'm not that sure, when it comes to doing things, I now can do on win xp. Now I can go on the net, I can copy stuff and such things. Most sites even have a print icon, meaning that I'm able to print out the content from the web I want to print.

In his example I think Guttman makes a valid point, that Vista basically makes it so that you can't copy anything. This would mean that Vista disables the connection between the computer and the printer, simply because Vista think's 'hey' someone is copying something'.

"Windows Vista's content protection mechanisms are only used when required by the policy associated with the content being played.  For Windows Vista experiences, if the content does not require a particular protection, then that protection mechanism is not used."

In regards to this qoute, I think it just means that if say Hollowood or Sony Pictures demands that DRM content restrictions are used when playing a HD-DVD or a Blue-Ray Disc´, then they are used.

However, it would be interesting to know if this also goes for say regular DVDs as well or homemade dvds as well.

Someone mentioned that Amir ?? has made a comment on how MS wants to get hobbyists out of the market by making every hobbyists pay

license fees to Microsoft for getting their content DRM-ed. To me, this doesn't bode well for the modding communities in the gaming world. (I could, of course, be wrong).

My qualified guess would be that people will start using typewriters gain - if MS continues down this line. (i could, of course, also be wrong).

Karsten

At this point what surprises me most is Microsoft's willingness to keep this blog up. After the roasting its received I would have expected them to shut it down. I'm not sure which is the bigger hit to Microsoft's credibility, Gutmann's post and his rebuttal or the PR disaster that is this page?

It was clear, even to someone not as software savvy as me, that the Marsh posting was mostly spin as it avoided, cleverly, issues head on. It seems they think people aren't smart enough to recognize what they aren't saying, nor do they thing people are reading the comments... which are much more substantial and interesting than the original post.

One would think that one of those guys would hand over the steering wheel of that R.V. long enough to salvage their reputation?

I would like to take a second to use the current next-gen consoles as an example of the problem M$ is having.

The PS3 came out a year later than the 360 but didn't learn anything from it or improve anything. The main selling point of the PS3 vs 360 was and still is to justify the high cost,"It's a cheap blu-ray player" not that it's a better gaming system.

What is the point of a blu-ray player to me, or anyone, if I'm not interested in it? More so what use is it to those of use who don't have HDTV sets. As it now seems that doesn't matter either with the problems the PS3 is now having.

This presented $ony with a huge problem, people who didn't want blu-ray but wanted a P$3 any seeing the justification in the high cost for something imposed on them! To many the 360 looks great now!

This is now the same problem M$ has with consumers and Vista. It's ironic that Micro$oft has the same problem $ony has with the PS3 in trying to get Joe Consumer to buy into the idea it's better, because... it looks better, has better security (This remains to be seen as I can already see the disaster that's about to unfold with that statement and DRM), ect.

If I purchase Vista, as it stands right now, I would have to upgrade nearly everything so I can get crappy perform, just in case I "might" buy "premium content" that is still currently a rich boy with toys item (PC HD Drives still run upwards of $600 vs $40 or less for DVD Burners). Let's look at this from a consumers point of view who just bought a new system last year.

How many of you out there bought a LCD display with an HDMI port on it? Was that HDMI port 1.3? Who just spent $400 or more for that poly crunching video card that normally would last you 2 or more years, now have to upgrade. What makes it worst is that the Vista compatible version cost $50 or more even if you NEVER use "premium content" and to make better that video card doesn't perform as good as the one you just replaced. Wow, I feel like I got hosed just to have nicer looking GUI on Vista. Forget the fact that you can damn near make any machine running XP look just like Vista or better and still have better performance now.

The medical community would be effected but what about us in the media creation field. Those of use who edit video, photoshop, and so forth on a PC? How will that effect us? Would my footage look crappy because of a bad driver somewhere on the system or would the render time be significantly long because of all the needless extra calls to the CPU, ram, video card, drivers, and so forth?

And all of this for SOMETHING I DO NOT WANT NOR WILL ever use!

Oh finally what would happen if someone wrote a bad driver or some phony DRM code that just cycling your system to a crawl? I can see this becoming High Jacking Ware. Pay us or we'll cripple your system; Oh, wait that's about to happen now it's called VISTA! Thanks MS for looking out!

reading Gutmanns follow up on this answers from blog, I must sadly conclude that:

DoS attacks would seem to be even easier to make than before. Just make some dodgy code that force DRM action and "Media Foundation Protected Pipeline" will cripple your multitasking, and increase machine load.

Even other nastier stuff is possible. Like auto loading same code. Looping the code. Make it selfmutating. Making is morphing. Or combo of these technologies.

Making this kind of code to legitimate to bypass the virus scanner should be easy.

   Else virusscanner should be made to bypass the DRM. You should be able to start the the DRM before the virusscanner is able to "look at" the content.

Every way to look at DRM in Vista it's a added   continues cost. Both in hardware and maintainence like your powerbill, and licenses.

A la suite du rapport assassin d'un chercheur sur le système de protection des contenus audiovisuels dans Vista, l'éditeur réplique par une foire aux questions sur un blog. Microsoft vient de publier sur un de ses blogs une liste de questions-réponses

i don't want DRM I don't want product activation and I don't want vista.

Product activation is a crock and forces people to repay for using their license on another computer.

I can't take my hard drive and put in a new computer and let it work .. i have to reinstall and activate and pay support when i use too much hardware for my license.

And, with the proposed encrypted hardware for vista seriously, are you guys trying to make everyones computer a xbox? what if i want to use another operating system on the same machine? don't you think its invasive on consumer rights?

some of us just want a home computer ok?

not all this excess garbage lagging it down and wasting cpu assuming noone knows.

im not paying microsoft australia their scalping fee either and because of it i doubt anyone will here.

take vista DRM Product activation and your kiss ass attitude to the rip off hollywood and dump it.

>> 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.

This is a <b>blatant lie</b>.  Now that the DRM on Blu-ray and HD-DVD has been broken, I've tried playing the discs on my Linux machine with non-HDCP 1920x1200 monitor.  Guess what -- the discs play perfectly with the exact same drivers this machine had a year ago.  No HDCP, no DRM... nothing extra required.

Yes, I'm going back to Windows XP, and yes I've been saying I'm going to do it for a while but have either been too lazy or too occupied with playing WoW to do it. Which really is a shame, considering I had some cool things planned for Vista this year,

What is premium content to you? To me image and sound quality doesn't make up a premium product on it's own and doesn't warrant paying extra money for software and hardware upgrades just to watch new movies.

Hollywood is not the only way to experience quality movies. I have watched many foreign films without big budgets and special effects and have been extremely impressed. I have watched Hollywood films with large budgets and great special effects but felt disappointed, even to the point I have turned it off before the end.

If you think all good movie's only come out of Hollywood, you're seriously missing out.

Reading KB930985

You cannot use an upgrade key to perform a clean installation of Windows Vista.

Means if our haven't preinstalled your upgrade OS on your machine already, you can't upgrade Vista on top of it.

This isn't a good practice if you wan't to avoid driver incompabilities, and program incompabilities, on your machine in the first place.

Upgrades are not an option for customer that want a stable system.

Overwhelming Greed is the only answer to any of this,Microsoft doesn't give one iota about the consimer! To render virtually my entire system obsolete is outrageous! Microsoft is assuming that everyone will rush out and upgrade everything just so they can install the latest OS.,what arrogance!!! Because of ALLEGED loss of revenue from piracy,everyone will be FORCED to live with DRM,WGA and the rest of the so-called content protection schemes.I guess we are giving up more of our rights every day.I will stay with Win2K and XP. Microsoft will NEVER see any of my money ever again!!!

I hope you guys choke on te steaks you buy with the kickbacks!

Dave Marsh,

Further to previous requests, when will we see a less spin-doctored response from you? Honesty is always the best policy, unless you have something to hide.

Nick White,

You're product manager for the Vista launch, we appreciate you using your blog to give Dave airtime. Could you please ask Dave to respond further?

I've read Peter Gutmann's white paper and feel that it brings up valid concerns for potential Vista users. For those who are aware of Vista's level of DRM (and who have associated concerns), Microsoft has obviously not effectively provided a satisfactory response in presenting accurate information to specifically address the many DRM concerns. This is what leads to all of the wild conjecture. I've read every post in this blog to date. Some are intelligent and some are way off the deep end, but the concerns are consistant. That is the point (the message) that Microsoft should take from this blog - and take seriously.

At this point, there is a thick fog of theories and suppositions around Vista's DRM and the actual impacts, both for when protected content is in use and when NO protected content is in use. Until Microsoft provides sufficient clarification, the common information available for people to form their perceptions are Steve Gutmann's paper, Microsoft's specs and limited response, and blog discussions. Is Steve Gutmann 100% correct on everything? I doubt it. Just as it is for all of us, the information available to Steve for his basis is limited and non-definitive. But, there is enough there to raise valid concerns, which is what Steve Gutmann has done - and I applaud him for raising awareness. In my opinion, and I've heard it from others too, I really wish Microsoft would have at least provided a choice to their customers. For example, provide a version of Vista (without the DRM necessary for commercial "protected" content) for consumers with usage requirements that will never include display of protected content. Those who might prefer such a version of Vista might be businesses (for their corporate workstations), and home users that prefer using CE devices for enjoying their HD content, rather than their PC's. One blogger stated that Vista is not being forced on customers, but I believe that point is somewhat arguable. For businesses that have become dependant on Microsoft Operating Systems, Office and Business Applications, the options to move away from Microsoft are not compellingly attractive in terms of costs, compatibilities and learning curves for users as well as support teams. Most businesses are facing the decision to upgrade their workstations to Vista, because the support life cycle for WIN2K is over and XP's end of support is maybe 2 to 5 years away (if you're optimistic). For businesses that don't want to make the drastic migration to Linux or MAC, Vista (and its DRM) is, in a very real way, being forced down their throats. -Something not lost to Microsoft's business model, I'm sure-    

ITSpec,

That fog you speak of has lifted. All the bench marks I've seen say the same thing: XP is faster than Vista, in some cases like encoding, a lot faster, up to 24%.

So the bottom line is that with Vista you must buy new hardware just to get the same or lesser performance as you would have had you simply remained with XP.

Clearly, DRM, and all the work that the hardware/software must do to make sure it's protecting what it is it aims to protect has had a real and serious impact.

Reading microsoft technetmag about VistaKernel

microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/02/VistaKernel/

There seems to be some improvements, but there is also some nuggets is buried in this PR piece. (PR is related to media execution)

Media channel always eats away 20pct of your idle system, just to determine when is needs to cut back on timeslicing media priority?!?

[Quote]

MMCSS therefore reserves a percentage of CPU time for other activity, specified in the following registry value:

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\Currentversion\Multimedia\SystemProfile\SystemResponsiveness

By default, this is 20 percent;

[/quote]

Come on thats DRM working right there.

Any other windows version allocated resources on demand. Even other Operation Systems allocated on demand.

I only gain a larger power bill for those at 20pct "idle" CPU cycles.

Fum,

Good point. I've seen similar statements of performance impact. If this is what Dave Marsh was referring to with his statement:

-snip--

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.

-snip--

:then it is a performance decrease that only those who desire to use their Vista machines to view protected content should be required to accept. That is, if Microsoft would have made the business decision to provide their customers with the choice of say, a Media Center (DRM) version of Vista (capable of full protected content playability) and a Vista version with no DRM (that would not be capable of playing any protected content). I suspect that a non-DRM version of Vista would perform more comparably to XP and not require such drastic hardware upgrades. If that were proven to be true, then it would be a friendlier option to potential Vista users who are interested in some of the other Vista features. It would also be a friendlier option for Microsoft's corporate customers (as stated in my previous post). BUT... that is all suposition, since a non-DRM version of Vista is not known to exist - and is certainly not a current option available through Microsoft.

GunVapor,

In looking at the article from your link, I'm coming up with a little different interpretation. Tell me if this makes sense to you:

My take is that the MMCSS is essentially a multi-media thread priority manager, with the purpose of identifying registered MM threads and boosting their CPU priority to ensure stable playback. To ensure that other lower priorty threads don't get ignored for too long, MMCSS reserves 2ms out of every 10ms of CPU time for them, hence the default 20%. I think this is the 20% you were referring to, but I don't believe Microsoft's meaning to be that Media Channel is conctaintly eating 20% of your idle system. I could be wrong - and this is in no way any kind of defense of Vista's DRM, which I am very much against.

I would like to make a correction.

In a previous post, I referenced Peter Gutmann as "Steve" Gutmann.

Please excuse the mistake.

I absolutely will not condone such measures.

Microsoft did NOT have to implement restrictive or onerous DRM, nor was it "forced" by the manufacturers. Microsoft had the upper hand here. And what it did, yet again, was to sell out its own users by trying to "lock in" content to Windows.

THERE IS *NO* BENEFIT TO THE USER HERE!

If I told you that I built my car in such a way that it would only run on gasoline from certain companies? What if I told you that I had a remote that let me shut it off if I did not like the way you drive? Would you buy that car?

Why have consumers been putting up with so much BS from their OS, when they would not put up with anything like that in any other industry?

I have been playing with Linux for a while. I am beginning to become comfortable with it. I think I will just go that route, and steer well clear of Vista, with its huge hardware requirements and DRM crap.

MS is really stuffing its head where the sun is not on this one. The mention that content-blocking ability has been in Windows for a while is a red herring designed to mollify you. We are talking about the future, not the past.

It is no wonder people are switching to Macs and Linux. (It must be said that Apple has its own vision of DRM... but so far it has not been anywhere near as "1984" as Microsoft.)

how about these metaphors for upgrades, and licencing:

We will gladly take your old car. You only need to pay half price for your new car. But you are not owning your new car, you are just allowed to use it. (oh if you move address we maybe make your "right to use" forfeit, we haven't decided yet).

      But before your new car can get running we reuse most of the wiring, breakes, gearbox, lights, speakers, glass, and underbody from your old car. The rest is new. (with retail version is a completely new car) The upgraded car is refurbished.

      Oh and don't mind the black box and every connection (breakes, steering, cables, radio, antenna etc) from "your" car goes through, it's for your benefit we promise. If your are near internet possibility we even upgrade the blackbox software for you. Maybe even can offer your some free enhanced controls for your car.

  So are you monitoring "my" new (refurbished) car? We are giving you an enchanced performance of "your" car, when you need it.

Vista was released yesterday. Today, we can read various articles online relating to the breaking of Vista DRM. What exactly are Vista end users paying extra for? DRM that doesn't work? And how will Microsoft's team leaders in Hollywood, take these developments?

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/01/29/1811201.shtml

Whisperycat,

Good question -

And thanks for the link. From it, I wondered onto information I found interesting info on Alex Lonescu...

You listened intently and came to the conclusion that issues to focus on are disabling start-up sound, offering multi-copy product offers and easing licensing restrictions?

These are insignificant issues which have nothing to do with the blog, the article it was supposed to rebut or what 99.9% of the following posts are about. What is it you were listening to?

I still don't know what your position is. You were very careful to avoid issuing direct statements which answered direct charges, but it is nice to know that at least you're still here.

Nick White,

Thank you for this Blog and the opportunity it provides for feedback between Microsoft and the PC community. DRM is a topic that has stirred significant passion  - much of it in the form of anger and frustration. The sentiment conveyed in the majority of posts here, reflect closely to what I am seeing on many other blogs addressing the same topic. There is definite unrest in the PC community.

Financially, the potential yield from having dominance in the HD Content distribution pipeline is too significant for Microsoft to ignore. I understand that from a business standpoint. Content owners set challenging (infact absurd and offensive) protection requirements, which Microsoft ultimately accepted to form their business partnership. I don't like it, but I understand that too. The content owners may not have been very flexible on the choices they gave to Microsoft (I make no claim to know the details of their negotiations), but Microsoft could have given their customer base more flexible choices that separate business requirements from entertainment desires.

Not every PC/Laptop needs DRM. Many Corporate and private PC users would probably like a choice where if they don't ever use their computers to display "Protected Content", they don't have to deal with the addition costs and resource overhead of DRM on their systems.

I know that Bill Gates wants his O/S to become the center of everyone's home entertainment systems. I thought that was what the XBOX 360 was targeting. I own (and love) my 360 and I'm sure there is more DRM crap on that than I ever want to know. But I use it for entertainment – I made that choice. The point is, some people don't want PC's for that kind of entertainment - and they don't want DRM! Microsoft should have given their customers that choice.

Thanks for the response - it is nice to know that you're here.  I've am a  professional subscriber and I do want to know the real details surrounding these issues - any information is good.

There are several patches already for Vista like this one:

The Windows Vista Application Compatibility Update

support.microsoft.com/kb/929427

Other problems exsists with eg. Levono laptop drivers. Or drivers in general.

This one is more cryptical:

You may be prompted to activate Windows Vista on a computer on which Windows Vista activation was not previously required

support.microsoft.com/kb/931573  (corporate license?)

So far there should be 9 updates for Vista. And a service pack on the horison already. (As Soon As Fit For Consumption)  

This is a farce.  If I buy a standalone HD-DVD/Blue-Ray player and plug it into my HD-TV, with the audio going through my Hi-Fi, I wouldn't expect to have to purchase 4 additional devices to get it to work correctly.  From that you can hypothesis that I wouldn't expect to buy an HD-DVD/Blue-Ray drive for my PC and then have to upgrade everything else just to get it to work properly.

Surely, it should be up to the people who create the drives to make sure that content was secure - i.e. only an orinigal disk was playable; leave it to them to work out the technology to make that possible.  And then only individuals that want to use there PC to play HD-DVD/Blue Ray productions on their PC would be paying for it.

If all this is down to copyright and films etc. being ripped off, as DVDs have been, then perhaps if the media wasn't so expensive in the first place that wouldn't happen.  If actors (as well as everyone else involved) weren't paid quite so much, for instance (as a quick calculation) about 25 times what I will get paid in a life time for doing one film, then perhaps it would be affordable.  Even if I'm ultra conservative, a top actor will earn more for one film than I will earn in my lifetime.  That is an ultra conservative statement because the former is more true - it's also quite a statement to be able to make.  And if they're getting paid that amount of money with piracy happening...

Piracy is happening and has been happening ever since the advent of the video recorder, it will continue even with this.  Where there's a will there's a way, people will find a way round technology, but why should the rest of us who want to use our PCs for gaming, work, browsing the net, downloading the latest episode of Battlestar Galactica (for instance) because we missed it/forgot to record it from our paid channels (I'm in the UK and pay for SKY TV), etc, have to pay in increased hardware costs?

To conclude, Microsoft will support XP unit 2011, I guess that I'll be knocking the new technologies on the head until then and see what's available.  The gaming world will also have to be careful otherwise more people will kick their PC into touch and get a console instead.

ITSpec,

A very balanced and well articulated comment which encapsulates the issues very well.

You identify two very distinct customer bases, business & home (entertainment) for which Microsoft used to have two distinct product lines. Using a single codebase for the bulk of XP brought benefits both to Microsoft (reduced maintenance and development) and customers (home users in particular).

Now there seems to be increasingly only one product line, marketing labels aside. I couldn't agree more that the business & home-but-not-entertainment communities are the ones to suffer by having what appears to be a bloated and overfunctional (to be diplomatic) OS as the sole migration path.

It is quite sad and not what I had hoped and expected from Microsoft. The fallout will not be doing anyone (Microsoft or their customers) any good.

For the record, I am a longtime supporter of Microsoft, although it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain this stance.

I caught a report about Vista on G4 (gaming cable channel).  In it they stated that only 15% of current PCs could run Vista; new hardware is required 85% of the time.

There is a solution for all your problems: upgrade to Linux

I think the term "jumping" the shark comes to mind.  Did Microsoft jump the shark with Vista?

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

Why submit yourself to the digital rights pain and let another person control your computer.  It is a lot more simple to just switch and buy a Mac or run something like Ubuntu if you mostly browse the web and check email.  

To Nick White and Dave Marsh:

I think you guys owe me some money. I relied on the assessment of my PC in Vista Upgrade Advisor. My PC met only the absolute minimum standards for video memory and was OK (500 mb) of system RAM. My CPU and the rest of the system were fine. To attain better performance (and after seeing how my PC performed in Beta 2)I upgraded my video card and purchased another 1 GB of system RAM. From what you have said, it appears that my new video card will be useless with Blue-Ray and HD-DVD and my CPU will be weak.

As a result, to use these features of Vista I will have to buy a new CPU, a new motherboard (and associated accessories), and yet another new video card.  All of my current system RAM will be souvenirs if I have to upgrade that to DDR2. You really had the obligation to offer a more realistic Vista Upgrade Advisor and to explain the system resource implications of the new DRM at the outset.

bjmcm,

The horribly ironic part about your post is that if you upgrade your hardware, you will most likely have to pay for another copy of Vista.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36653

"So, when I change the mobo on my box, or an unspecified other bit of hardware or three, Microsoft decides that my box is a new computer and my $399 copy of Vista is a doorstop - I must spend another $399 to continue working."

Ian,

Thank you for adding your input on what we obviously both agree to be a significant issue. Your thoughtfully articulated statements added dimension to this point as well.

I have also been a long-time supporter of Microsoft, but some of their business decisions with Vista really disappoint me. I'm sorry to say that Vista is the first Microsoft O/S that I will probably not put on any of my home systems.

Home users have greater flexibility in O/S decisions. The question is, how many home users realize the potential impact of Vista's DRM to their computing and budget requirements and/or desires. I think there are a lot of surprising disappointments awaiting future Vista users that don't do their research.

I've also found that most of the major computer makers no longer provide XP as an optional O/S for new PC/laptops. The unsophisticated Windows user is being herded. I would have a difficult time believing that this is more of an accident than a strategy.

Corporate customers have less flexibility in their O/S decisions. The company I work with is planning a Vista upgrade to their users this year. Their current desktop O/S is WIN2K. Considering XP's position in its support life cycle, plus the time and costs involved with upgrading 12,000 users to a new O/S, XP is not a compelling option. The company feels too dependent on Microsoft to attempt a change to an alternate O/S. Vista wins by default.

I think it makes an interesting statement, when in such a large and competitive industry, customers are forced to decide on which undesirable option seems least undesirable.

Looks like you are currently (Feb 2007) allowed 10 re-activations before being required to either 1) convince Microsoft to grant you more activations or 2) buy another license of Vista.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061102-8140.html

Windows Vista - "WE own YOU"(R)

WRONG!  You've got it backwards.  When I buy something, it's mine.  An OS either works FOR me or it's OFF MY SYSTEM!  In your case, it will never be ON!

You people know the story about the frog that can be calmly boiled to death when placed in water. Slowly increase the heat and the frog's body adjusts to the temperate ... until it's too late.  You have be SNEAKING your total control into these products step by step, starting with WMP7 and gradually working it, irrevocably, into the OS.

Return control of our computers back to us.  WE are the masters, YOU are the servants.  Remeber what happened to Intel and their shot total control with CPU ID.  They've never recovered.  Neither will you.

Even palladium concept crashed and burned. Now Vista restores it as an software "upgrade". Only bolt on thing i want from Vista id DX10. And since it's bolt on to Vista it should be portable. (Vista didn't have dx10 6 months ago, it was born with DX9L)

A little bit of info that I just discovered from a friend who has Vista Ultimate installed.  He was troubleshooting some problems and disabled all of his services from running -- this triggered a re-activation.  Also, he wasn't sure if it was all of the services that caused it or if it was just the Universal PnP service that caused the reactivation.  

So, it would appear that there are indeed other ways that re-activation is triggered besides making hardware adjustments.

One more thing -- not all drivers show up in safe mode.  My friend gets a security warning regarding Sonic drivers but Vista won't let him remove the drivers and they don't show up in Safe mode.

For those still reading, Vista/OSX effects on a linux system near you:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cz_2vKq5cZk

Siento tener que poner esto en este blog, pero creo que es importante que todos estemos atentos a este

Microsoft is imposing restrictions and specifications on hardware that add cost and stifle innovation while reducing performance---These imposed restrictions and specifications by microsoft is unprecedented in the computer industry as in the past hardware manufacturers were free to develop products without such restrictions --- the worst part is it relates to drm which is not a function that is required or needed for an operating system.  

Microsoft making drm part of the operating system was completely unnecessary.  This has a familiar ring-ie:like when microsoft took the position that windows required internet explorer to be usable - something I still question.  Please, lets not go down that road again.  

Apple computer does not require drm specified hardware to make its software work. Nor is drm at the core of the apple hardware and operating system (its part of itunes - which i also have installed on my windows xp machine).    

The primary function of an OS should be to allow the user of a computer to use all of the hardware  of a computer to its highest reliability and performance levels without restriction or consequence.  Windows Vista does the opposite.  

I wish microsoft would of spent its time on vista doing more meaningful things such as streamlining and making it more secure --- instead it seams microsoft was more interested in developing a high end tivo player based on a computer --- something consumers already can buy.

It sure seems microsoft has sold all of us out to the entertainment industry as part of a liscense agreement and for some reason I would guess that such an agreement would disallow microsoft to turn off the drm part of vista for any user.  I hope I'm wrong on this as it essentially screws us and microsoft. I also question the long term legality of such agreement given the monopoly that would result.    

I've been loyal to microsoft, but unless the drm restriction can be disabled - I will need to move to linux or apple

I wish to clarify my comments relating to the following statement

"It sure seems microsoft has sold all of us out to the entertainment industry as part of a liscense agreement and for some reason I would guess that such an agreement would disallow microsoft to turn off the drm part of vista for any user.  I hope I'm wrong on this as it essentially screws us and microsoft"

What I wish to clarify is I noticed many postings that wanted microsoft to offer a non drm version of windows vista - somthing that I agree with as I use my computer for business and dont want the problems with the drm issues.

My guess is that windows cannot offer a non drm version of windows vista unless it somehow downgraded all of the video and/or sound outputs to a low grade or even non displayable level - otherwise it would violate the agreement with the entertainment industry

My assumption is that the agreement between microsoft and the entertainment industry was for microsoft to develop an operating system that would require all computers and operating systems to meet the drm requirements.   By requiring such, the entertainment industry would of achieved its long publicized objective --- eliminating the analog hole or other leaks that allow free viewing and recording of copyrighted material.

The problem that arises is that if Microsoft removed the drm protection from vista, it would mean that same holes would still exist and a work around could occur whereby someone could watch or record protected content without the drm liscense.

The bottom line is I just have to think that theres something in the agreement between microsoft and the entertainment industry that makes a non drm version a non option.  This is what screws all of us including microsoft as it leaves no option for a non drm version even for business users.  

I hope I'm wrong on this.

Let me know what you guys think

DRM is for Microsoft own benefit. Media control added from wishes from content industry on top of  drm, is not adding value to the Vista package.

Drivers seems to must be signed by Microsoft to work with all features. Drivers are possible to run in testing mode, but are not garantied to work with all features.

For a vendor to have a customer to install a drivers without hicups it's a must to be WHQL verified.  This costs the vendor money every time.

Previous norm for windows was that 95pct of every driver didn't need to be WHQL certified to work as expected. (most customer disabled the check anyway)

Translated: Already sold hardware will mostly not be Vista certified ever, because the cost for certification can't be transferred to customers.

Hardware with DRM protection is new technology and as such a new experience for everyone (there there could be flaws in the design or there could not (a.k.a. nothing is foolprof for  determined beings)).

Drivers are "rushed" to make Vista a "success". Same with some video games. This results in a setup environment where nothing can be tusted to be bug free.

Add to this an increased cost for new hardware to customers, it is not a sweet deal.

Look inside the gift wrapping before buying, the contents it will have is, probaly not even to to your likeing when you can identify it :-P

>>> Get a grip people.  If you don't like DRM don't use DRM protected content.  If you don't like Vista, don't buy it.

Heh. That's a good point. I personally own XP Pro/Office 2003 Pro and I'll continue to own it for a while until I get habit of Desktop Linux. Then I'll continue using XP for gaming only.

I am personally preventing my friends from going to Vista showing them the slow performance tests on latest RC (which I have beta key to). In the last two or three days many reports of vista slowdowns and problems appeared in the public forum which I currently support.

And the most important part. Being system administrator and having access to MSDN versions, I run a series of production tests of Vista on current platforms in my company. The last word is: I will be preventing Vista deployment until it gets stable/faster. And the conclusion is: it will never get to the XP level due to overconsumption of memory.

Regarding the DRM problem, it stinks. I have never understood DRM. Pirated media is FREE advertisement. Only the idiot can drop such an advertisement. The one who have no guts/money to buy protected content will never buy - it's easier to download. The one who respect the content will, but only if the content deserves it.

I personally never watched copylefted content for the first time. I prefer to download it from the torrents/ed2k (YES! SUE ME!) and watch. Then, if I like it, I do buy it. But if I dislike it I delete it after sharing with some friends. Most of them delete such crap too. For me, restrictive DRM is a nice try to get money out of CRAP which you'll have to buy only for evaluating and further kickin' into the bin.

And... if I have DRM which restricts me to PAL on HDTV, I will never watch it original. I will download it, watch and kick into the bin (again) because I can't get full quality from it.

That's personal opinion. Sorry for bad English, but I'm not native.

What gives Microsoft the right to put a Copyright Policeman in our computers when the Government cannot?

It all comes down to this, people -- vote with your wallets.  If nobody buys, it doesn't sell.

If you do buy, don't complain later.

I will never purchase an OS or computer hardware that assumes I'm a copyright infringer before I even power the unit on.

Has anyone read the novel "1984?"  Windows Vista on a PC is exactly what the TV screens were in that novel.  Anyone care to disagree?

Think about it....

Vista's DRM has been designed and engineered deeply into the O/S. It's not a component add-on. Not something that could be easily removed via Windows Update. It's also a first attempt at integrating DRM so deeply into the kernel. Nobody gets it right the first time. I wonder if Microsoft has a contingency plan, just in case major changes or fixes become necessary. What if the content owners decide to turn the screws even tighter on DRM requirements?

Steve Jobs recently requested that the music industry content owners relax their DRM requirements. They didn't budge an inch, but instead made the recommendation that Steve share his intellectual property (iTunes proprietary DRM "FairPlay"). So much for putting pressure on the Content owners - for all of you that still think Microsoft would have stood a chance in making a stand against DRM.

I'm not defending Microsoft. They have taken some controversial steps in the attempt to dominate new markets. Much the same as Apple (with iTunes) reaps huge benefits from dominating the digital music content distribution pipeline, Microsoft wanted to leverage Vista to dominate the HD content distribution pipeline. To achieve this, Vista had to be engineered with a level of DRM that would satisfy the premium content industry. There is a lot of financial gain for whoever owns that turf, but it comes at a cost. Unfortunately, it will be the customers who eat these costs in so many ways and for years to come. Microsoft made their decisions and now stands to be judged by their customers. Apple's iTunes has a large customer base - even though everyone knows it has DRM. The difference is, iTunes is an "application"... Vista is an "Operating System"! The real verdict on Vista remains to be seen through widespread, real-world usage in corporate and home environments.  

The root of the problem is with the Content Owners.

Entertainment industry content owners are way off in their own paranoid universe. They are out of touch with how much value the digital market can bring to them. Sure, there is going to be piracy - there always will be. The piracy is a percentage of loss associated with doing business. If the entertainment industry would actually embrace the digital market and work toward trying to realize the full potential it offers, rather than fearfully defend themselves from it, then they would probably find that the offset from piracy loss is acceptably low in comparison to the enormous profit gains. But, to think that they will realize this in the next decade or two is probably giving them too much credit. They seem far too content in letting their fear and paranoia cripple their business growth potential as well as create an unpalatable ownership and usage experience for the majority of customers who are actually not out to steal their profits.

Itspec:

You have an interesting point relating to the problem of content owners, however, I do not completely agree with statement that the "root problem is the with the content owners" thereby letting microsoft off the hook.  

In any event -- I agree with you in principal.  The root problem is that microsoft has allowed the content owners to dictate the policy of the entire computer industry - even in areas where drm is not relavent.  

The implications of the requirements of vista and drm are far more reaching than most consumers can comprehend as it not only relates to the hardware and core operating system requirements but also software in general.

Vista can remove any non compliant or other software it does not like--- there is no option in vista to select or stop vista from removing a program you installed- it simply does it.  

For example, if I had a program that would burn dvd movies to my hard drive, Microsoft or the "content owners" could require this be removed even it wasnt being used (there's no doubt the content providers would not want a program like this on my system).  If I had a an alternative media player (windows media player sucks by the way --- but thats a different isssue) that allowed me to play dvd movies on my hard drive, microsoft or the content providers could remove it.  I would not have any say on wether I could keep these --- vista would just remove the programs without my consent--- read the vista license agreement.      

I am not against drm or microsoft having an agreement with content providors but think microsoft has gone to far  Additionally, the drm requirements could spill over into areas that were previously not thought of -- ie: as Itspec said --- what happens if content providers decide to turn the screws even tighter --- example --- we dont want any more computers to have dvd decrypting software --- so its removed and theres nothing we can do about it. This removal can happen to any program you install (its interesting to think about how this impedes innovation as software developers could face leverage by content owners to modify there software or face removal) In a nutshell, microsoft as well as the content owners have taken complete control of your computer - software and hardware --- this is scary.

On a general note, I dont know why Microsoft has put so much emphasis in developing a drm based operating system while completely ignoring the business or pure power user.  I seldom use my computer for entertainment --- it seems to me that microsoft should of developed a computer set top type box that was specifically made for tv --- i may have gone for this --- instead, I will now have a dvd/tivo based computer sitting on my desk.

I also wonder what if microsoft would of spent all the time making vista more secure, faster, friendlier, and better looking --- what an operating system we would have --- instead, I think most of the work went into protecting the content owners and not us.

Also, it should be considered that much of the focus relating to content owners has excluded microsoft who is one of the largest vested content owners who may want drm.   Microsoft  may have just a big of interest in drm (independent of movies) as the other content owners.  I hope the small mom and pop software companies make it in this new market (ie:alternative media players).

Its going to be an interesting next few years. We are in untested waters.  Microsoft is taking a huge gamble that is risking all of us.  Microsoft has essentially jumped off the cliff without looking --- I just wish Microsoft woundnt have attached the rope to all of us before jumping. Itspec --- I don't think microsoft has a parachute either.  

Nick,

Would like microsofts input on this. I would like to know if I can keep a program that i wanted installed on my computer for whatever reasons even if vista wants or requires it to be removed.  

thanks

*sigh*

Microsoft, you win... I give up.

I was once a loyal MS fan. It did not matter what the product was, if it had the MS stamp on it, I bought it. Mice, keyboards, software, you name it and I ate it up. I took pride in the fact that my components were quality.

No more. Since this blog appeared I bought my first non MS mouse, a Logitech G5. I am also looking to upgrade my keyboard, most likely with a Logitech too. My mother, who needs an upgrade of her entire system (1999 Gateway),  is also getting all Logitech gear as I am the one who makes these decisions. Do I think MS products have deteriorated? No. It's  just that I don't trust you for squat... Where once when I thought of Microsoft the term "quality" first sprang to mind, now the only term that springs to mind is "smarmy lawyer".

My family, which is large (us midwestern folks breed a lot) all need upgrades. It's my task to build ~ 15 rigs this year for them (not counting what I build for others). Since they all call me for tech support anyway, I see no benefit and/or gain by installing a Microsoft OS. Thanks, it's been fun, but I think we're going to bite the bullet and move to Linux.

Straight answers would have been nice, but I suppose you have your reasons for not giving them? Oh well... all good things...

I feel that this discussion is a result of the change in mentality that has been going on in the last 5 years over at the Microsoft headquarters. Windows is not about the end-user or the operating system anymore, it's about making the most profit out of an established user-base. Instead of using that large user-base for a more noble cause such as implementing durable, universal free formats accross the globe you have done nothing else but abusing it to push your own and others' proprietary technology to the market. And that's just one example out of the thousands of cases where you abuse the user-base i'm unproudly part of. If that technology pushing comes at a cost of selling users' privacy, security and ease-of-use or penalizing the computer industry manufacturers then that is something you're willing to pay in return for the cashflow or ass-kissing coming from your partner organisations.

Monopolies are never good, and yours sure is putting a huge strain on the freedom that a computer user once had. You're even helping the monopolies in the gaming industry and the distribution market along the way with the release of vista, inflicting more pain for users along the way. Start making the right ethical decisions for once. Try to think about us and what we really need for once, please?

And oh yeah Nick, you could maybe stop playing with electronic toys, travelling the world and blogging about it and start thinking about how to deliver a product that's actually worth being called an operating system instead of that cell you're locking users in. We believe in you...

NOT.

Nick,

I recently just bought two new computers with a free upgrade path to the home version of vista;however, I just learned that I cannot use the home versions of vista to run in a vitual environment unless I buy the most expensive version (the business edition) for each computer.  I do not have the financial resources to upgrade to the most expensive vista product.

This issue may seem off the topic of this blog, but somehow I think not allowing home versions of vista to run in virtual machines relates to the drm requirements.  The business version of vista licensing states that protected content shall not be viewed and advises against third party products that allow such viewing.  It also makes reference that full disk encryption should not be used in a virtual environment --- which I would also guess relates to threats that could occur under a virtual environment related to protected content.  All of this implys that microsoft is not allowing the home versions of vista to run in a virtual machine because of drm concerns.  

In any event, I think its unfair for microsoft to require me to upgrade to the most expensive version.   I perform high volume scanning and ocr work and I seriously question how my software and hardware will work with vista. I need to use a virtual environment to test and work with vista.  It would be suicide for me to simply install vista as a host operating in the hopes that it might work (it maybe years before all the bugs are worked out).  

Microsoft advertises on its website the cost savings and benefits of using virtual machines when transitioning to a new operating system environments.   These benefits and costs savings are equally applicable to the small guy who may be using the less expesnive home versions for business.

There are also benefits of using virtual machines that can benefit the tech savvy home user.  For example, I use virtual machines to surf the internet as it provides a secondary means of protecting my host computer from virus's, spyware, etc --- Microsoft has now eliminated my most cost effective options of ensuring my computer is cleaned of internet threats.  

I also question the legality of requiring small business users such as my self to buy the most expensive. Additionally, this requirement is unprecendented in that it will require mac and linux users who use virtual environments to run windows to buy the "most expensive" vista product.  This would seem to me to be a form of restraint of trade.    It would also seem to me that the small garage type software developer could be effected by this.

This is the problem with drm and the content owners dictating the policies of the computer industry.  There is no consideration given to the end user who may be effected in areas where drm is not relavant.    

If microsoft wants drm --- fine --- but at least allow me the option to test the product without undue financial burdon.  

Please reconsider this.

Sorry for the cross post    

dsharp9000,

From reading your posts, it seems that we are in pretty close agreement on most of these issues. I have yet to read the Vista EULA, but your comments have raised my curiosity.

I don't want to seem as though I am letting microsoft off the hook. Vista is Microsoft's product and they are exclusively responsible for all of the decisions that made Vista what it is.

I wanted to point out the business motivation for Microsoft's decision to provide the use of premium content with Vista - which led to forging an agreement with the content owners and ultimately Vista's extreme DRM architecture.

From a business perspective, Microsoft has an obligation, to the company and its investors, to increase profits. This is the first and formost priority for most (if not all) publicly traded companies. One would think this should encourage businesses to satisfy and grow their customer base, but that is not always the outcome.

Faced with the opportunity to dominate the premium content distribution pipeline, and the enormous associated profits for years to come, Microsoft let their temptations lead to decisions that negatively impact the entire industry. I believe Microsoft took their established user-base for granted and failed to consider how offended people would be to Vista's DRM, how Vista's new mandates on hardware and drivers would impact the whole industry, how vista's unfriendly architecture impacts new developement and inovation and how Vista is moving away from all of the advantages of open architecture.

It was Microsoft's decision to poison ALL of their versions of Vista with DRM that is only necessary for PCs that will be used to play premuim content.

I understand the business motivation, but I am very disappointed with Microsoft's decisions on how to capitalize on their opportunities. So, NO - I am definitely NOT letting them off any hooks. I'm glad you brought that up, because I do want to make it clear.  

Windows Vista includes an array of &#8220;features&#8221; that you don&#8217;t want. These features will make your computer less reliable and less secure. They&#8217;ll make your computer less stable and run slower. They will cause technical support prob

dsharp9000,

I have some thoughts on your recent post to Nick. Consider them for whatever value they might bring you.

For the situations you describe, I would restrain from moving to Vista for as long as possible, with consideration to your business requirements (in terms of Microsoft support). XP is still in its support life cycle (though for how much longer remains to be seen).

From the information I've gethered, Vista's resource intensive nature makes it a poor candidate for running in a virtualized enviroment - especially if your hardware does not provide hardware vritualization assistance. At this point, I would only attempt to run Vista in a VM for compatibility testing, not as a critical production element to your business.

For safer web surfing, XP and WIN2K VMs will perform much better - and by virtue of the advantages of running any O/S in a VM, will provide the same level safety as you can discard your session changes.

This approach will keep you running efficiently and provide more time to evaluate Vista.

How about a good old class action?

Why the hell can't you people produce a simple O/S that does the basics well, efficiently, that is secure and doesn't crash. I hate DRM. I will not buy any media that contains it.

Why would I want to goo up the O/S and CPU so some idiot in Hollywood will be happy. I am a responsible adult without need for the latest music or mindless videos. I do personal business with MS Office and some personal video and still photography. I'll bet that will cover a lot of your customers just fine.

As the immortal Berra said, "Include me out".

Saberjim

Thanks for the input.  My intent was not to migrate to vista --- I wont do that until xp is extinct or something new comes along.  However, I do need to have vista in a virtual environment so I can learn about it and test how some of my own and customer applications interact with vista (some of my customers will be going to vista independent of my views).   This is whole point of having vista on a virtual machine --- so I dont have to use it as a primary operating system on the host.      With regard to the performance issue, id rather deal with a slow vm vista than a buggy vista on my host.  The overall problem for me is that microsoft has negated my free upgrade to vista that came with my computers by saying I have to buy the most expensive version of vista to use it on a vm.  Further, I believe this policy is in effect because of the "content owners" dictating to much policy in the computer industry.  

On a different subject, for your curiosity - Itspec --- look at section 6 of the vista ultimate liscence agreement. Section 6 makes it seem like if you turn defender off that software would not be removed --- however, the last sentence states ---"By using this software (vista), it is possible that you will also remove or disable software that is not potentially unwanted software".   The term "software" does not mean defender - it means vista.  --- Just thought it was sneaky how they got that in there.  

Another area of the licesnse agreement that is  curious is section 8 "You may not work around any technical limitations in the software"

This does not refer to drm -- it refers to "any technical limitation".If this type of language existed a decade ago, something like netscape could have falled under a "technical limitation" as windows was technically limited for use on the internet until netscape came along.  Would a better media player that allowed vista to play back video with better performance be considered a "working around a technical limitation"  Just thought that it was curious that microsoft wouldnt allow or encourage anyone (other than microsoft) to fix a technical limitation in vista - it would seem to me that the current language could impede innovation in the industry if the language is taken for what it states "may not work around any technical limitation".   Would like your guys input as to what this language means as I think it means what it states: "may not work around any technical limitation".      

At any rate, maybe getting a let off the subject.  I hope i didnt get the blog to off track as this was not my intent.  Just think drm is dictating to much overall policy of the industry in areas where drm is not relavant.  

In Professor Peter Gutmann's A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection he raised the concern

I've been writing software professionally for almost 25 years and been messing with computers since the old TRS80 days.  The software I write has to run on supported Microsoft operating systems, so I have a number of machines and every MS OS.  

I recently built a HTPC using MCE 2005 R2 after trying some Linux offerings.  MCE was easy for the wife and kids, so it won out.  We use the machine as a PVR, music player, and DVD player.  Never had any major problem with MCE 2005 that I couldn't get around.  

I have a full MSDN subscription, so I installed Vista early to make sure our software would work for our clients.  When it was released fully, I bought a copy for my personal use on my HTPC.  I pulled my MCE 2005 drive and installed Vista on a new drive.  After a little frustration with some sound drivers, it was working just fine.

Now for the problem.  I run an SVIDEO cable from my Dish Network receiver to my TV input card, Component out to my HK receiver, component out to my Sony HDTV.  I have never had a problem recording ANY channel in MCE 2005 when I needed too.  Well, MS blew it this time.  Restricted Content! Restricted Content??? My BACKSIDE!  I can't record something I'm paying for when I can record this same show on my old VHS recorder or my DVR?  Give me a break.  

Vista is off the machine and won't go back on.  Linux is looking good and dare I say MAC might not be out of the question.    

MarkDileo,

I think you just illustrated an excellent example of a point I mentioned in a previous post. I believe there will be a lot of these types of disappointing surprises in store for users who buy Vista with multi-media use in mind.

One of the marketing points of Vista is that it is the latest, greatest multi-media platform. However, as users will soon discover, Vista will "restrict" them from many of the multi-media capabilities and experiences, which they have previously enjoyed and are not restricted from by other Operating Systems - including previous versions for Windows.

I hope that any consumers who get Vista and find it so disappointing that they switch to an alternative O/S, notify Microsoft of their dissatisfaction and request a refund.

Dear Nick and team,

Thank you for the explanation, and thank you for this opportunity to give feedback to Microsoft.

As a software developer, I'm quite concerned about the future of Microsoft.  I use windows 2000/xp, and I write applications for imaging and control.  The use of DRM, tilt bits, degraded video output, etc, severely complicates the deployment of my applications.  My machine operators use a live, high-resolution video feed for interactive monitoring.  Can DRM controls be disabled so that they are never invoked during critical machine operation?  How can I adequately test this?

I am also concerned about the increase in CPU usage.  Cycles wasted on DRM cannot be used by my application, and therefore represent an engineering defect.

Thanks for your time and attention.  I really hope Microsoft can fix these problems, but in my mind there is a lot of uncertainty. I will be evaluating the alternatives.

Greg

Mark --- Another concern I ran into with drm was when I was attempting to edit a home video for my family and import music into the background ---  I realized I couldnt import any of my itunes downloaded music for use on the video as it was protected content - I could only use the music from cd's.

I wonder how microsoft and the content providors are going to address scenario's like this--- if all content is protected in the future , how do i import music for home videos - or if allowed - do my home video's now become part of a protected content scheme which can be disabled if I distribute them to anyone but myself - or maybe I have to pay a licensing fee for each video I distribute to relatives and friends.  

This is another area where I think the implications for drm are for more reaching than the average consumer or even myself can comprehend (i didnt realize this as an issue until i was editing my home video).  The problem is that by the time everyone realizes these implications it may be to late -- everything --- even our family home videos (if music was imported) may be tied to protected content requiring a liscense to play.    

I've noticed a lot of comments (including my own) relating to moving to linux or mac. What has not been considered is that many of us may need to run vista on a vm at some point in the future in order to make this transition successful.  

The problem is that Microsoft is forcing anyone wanting to run vista on a vm to buy the most expensive version   - something many of us cannot afford.  Further, microsoft has eliminated using any protected content when using vista in a vm.  While not allowing the use of protected content on a vm may seem harmless, the result is not, as it gives microsoft a complete monopoly in the protected content market - unless you have vista as your host operating system - you cant view protected content.  Further, not allowing the use of protected content while in a vm could severely hinder its use in the future in ways we dont fully understand.  

The combination of microsoft imposing high cost and eliminating the use of protected content features when using a vm may stop or severly hinder anyone trying to move to an alternative os such as linux or mac.  Further, those that already use linux or mac are looking at considerable additional expense to use vista in a vm; and, even for those that can afford it, they still would not be able to view protected content.

It would seem to me that the current policy of imposing high cost and limitations for use of vista on a vm only serves to further reduce or eliminate all consumer alternatives thereby giving microsoft a complete monopoly in the operating system and protected content market.

Quite sad to see what Windows Vista really is.  Since I first read this article, I tried to evaluate Linux on my existing computers.  I could have bought a Macintosh instead, but I already have fairly capable machines, and it was a simple test.  Ubuntu worked beautifully, and I already have a second hard-disk for dual-booting into Ubuntu.  A while ago I was looking forward to the Vista upgrade.  I only wish Vista came out sooner, so I would be using Linux like a pro right now.

Like dsharp pointed out, there is an issue running Vista on a vm, but I don't see myself _needing_ to use Vista in the next few years.  Protected Content is overhyped: I enjoy old Hitchcock movies much more than contemporary movies anyway, and I have all the music I could want on CDs.

This is Microsoft's attempt to leverage their desktop monopoly into a 'protected content' monopoly: a little like Apple did with iPods and music.

Now I understand why it is important for us to have control over our computers: otherwise our computers will end up controlling us.

Murdock, you mis-spelled "implimentation" :-)

I have question for you fellow bloggers who might be more tech savvy than me as I am not a computer or software expert.  It relates to what effects the drm hardware requirements could have on open source drivers for linux.

An article in Boing Boing stated:

"Microsoft's DRM requires that device makers pay Microsoft a license fee for each device that plays back video encoded with its system. it also requires every such vendor to submit to a standardized, non-negotiable license agreement that spells out how the player must be implemented. This contract contains numerous items that limit the sort of business you're allowed to pursue, notably that you may not implement a Microsoft player in open source [linux] software" - end quote.

The boing boing article also states:

"The bombshell was Amir's explanation of the reason that his employer charges fees to license its DRM. According to Amir, the fee is not intended to recoup the expenses Microsoft incurred in developing their DRM, or to turn a profit. The intention is to reduce the number of licensors to a manageable level, to lock out "hobbyists" and other entities [linux] that Microsoft doesn't want to have to trouble itself with".

The article from boing boing was also quoted by another commentor in this blog and I dont mean to repeat it; but the commenter said that the answer to his probelm was to move to linux; but it seems to me that the implication of the above article is that support for open source software such as linux might be limited.  

Additionally, Peter Guttman also seems to be saying that open source driver support could be eliminated because the specification must remain proprietary to microsoft for the drm to work.

However, microsoft's answer in this blog was that vista would not limit open source driver support because all of the drm stuff is on a different chip - 1) is this true? --- 2) must the chip be disabled for it to work in open source?  3) If it cannot be disabled, will the extra chip effect performance on a linux system? 4) Could microsoft release a non propietary version of its driver spec and still have drm work - contrary to what guttman said?  5) Could this effect overall driver support in the linux community?

Could really use some help on this as a lot of users including myself are thinking of migrating to linux - but I am worried about future driver support--- any comments would be appreciated ---.  

1) Not True. Current DRM implementation is verified with software functions

2) No chip there. so "disabled" atm

3) Should not. Unless you use an hardware component there normally no performance change.

4) Unknown. Possible basic function in Vista needs change first.

5) Unknown. Linux kernel is "comming" with DRM support. But difference is that DRM management is wished to be done by the local operator of the kernal. (instead of an out entity of your system)

Here is one type of hardware support for Vista DRM function

at : asus.com/news_show.aspx?id=5559

Trusted - TPM support (The TPM is purchased separately.)

This Motherboard supports Trusted Platform Module (TPM) – which provides enhanced data protection, security via high-level encryption / decryption and platform integrity. The TPM meets the Windows Vista BitLocker™ Drive Encryption hardware requirement for a more secure working environment.

But should we customers pay more for less control/performance/support?

to clarify-----

In my previous comment -- I reference the drm stuff is on "a different chip".  Should of read uses "additional chip characteristics" .   The questions that reference this error in my previous comment would thus read as follows: "can the additional chip characteristics be disabled to work in open source (linux) and, if not, will the additional chip characteristics effect the hardware performance on a linux system.

sorry for the confusion-

Gun Vapor,

Thanks for your response.  Why is linux moving to drm support at the kernal level--- Does this require a microsoft certification .  I have to tell you --- i hope linux is not going to deeply embed drm in its kernel --- otherwise it could be in same boat as microsoft vista unless the drm can be removed --- please say its not so --- would like to know what you mean linux is coming out with drm kernal support -- we need an operating system that is drm free at the core level.  My other concern is that microsoft could be leveraging linux to implement drm support at the kernal level in order to gain hardware support --- in other words --- in order to use hardware on linux using the new "chip characteristics" you will be required to use the linux drm kernal.   Whats going on here Gun Vapor    

DRM in Vista already requires HDCP on 1 or more different chip(s) for "premium content" enabled playback.

DRM is a control mechanism like e.g passport control in an airport. If airports (read OperationSystems)are different, then the control of passengers (read applications) is not the same either. (there are big difference requirements is on passengers to pass through)

The idea for drm business model for Linux, and Vista are similar. But with Linux you, HAVE the option to compile YOUR code without drm.

Some modules loaded by the linux could in the future require drm verification.

The Idea for linux DRM (as it was 4 months):

* DRM athhorisation is local. And manageable by "admin"

* Some modules can only work if signed by DRM. (kinda neat for local system)

Speculation:

  all in all personal DRM option is not bad. But any kind of external DRM control is bound to be abused.

Userbase (non-corporate) for Linux applications with DRM requirement is not there, so DRM "infection" would not get far.

 The requirement for an enabled DRM hardware presence, would not be something that will have support from the user base either (costfactor is to high atm).

 So heavy handed DRM control like Vista will probably not happen.

 Linux users in general would not like DRM control put in the "hands" of Microsoft. And they have no reason to "open" it to Microsfot this way either.

Fact:

Else reading final GBL v3 lisence will bring more clues.

Gun Vapor,

I appreciate your input.  If I understand you correctly, the linux option for drm would be something that is similar to the itunes drm currently installed on my xp computer and would require no special drm enabled hardware.   This might oversimplify what your saying --- but I'm not a computer or software expert --- just a computer and software user.  I agree with this approach by linux and I hope it stays in this direction.  This is approach microsoft should of taken.      

In regards to your previous comment "But should we customers pay more for less control/performance/support"  

-- the answer is no.  

In general, I think microsoft has increased the price of computers while decreasing performance for the sole purpose of implementing drm.     The extra testing that hardware vendors must go through to release a new product also means longer cycles between new products that would increase performance --- this could lead to stagnation in performance increases over time which has not been seen prior in the computer industry.  Further, this could also slow innovation as innovation often comes from increases in performance.  

Additionally, the introduction of vista in of itself may stall the computer industry.  For example, I perform high volume scanning and ocr work and believe that vista in its present form would not handle this type of work without seriously compromising the reliability and performance of my current xp system.  Therefore, there is no reason for me to upgrade to vista nor would there be a reason for years to come.  If most business users are like me, they wont be moving to vista - this could further stall the pc market.    

The long term effects of the high cost, reduced performance due to computer resources being used on drm, and longer cycles for release of new products may undermine the entire market place of the computer industry for the long term.  Hard to say what exactly will happen as this is a road we have not been down before.      

dsharp9000,

Keep in mind that there are many flavors of Linux. Some of them may experiment with some sort of DRM integration, but I doubt all will.

Also of possible interest to you, check out the project effort at