Windows Vista DRM

[Effef]

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

This literally makes me sick.

Vista's content protection mechanism only allows protected content to be sent

over interfaces that also have content-protection facilities built in.

Currently the most common high-end audio output interface is S/PDIF

(Sony/Philips Digital Interface Format). Most newer audio cards, for example,

feature TOSlink digital optical output for high-quality sound reproduction,

and even the latest crop of motherboards with integrated audio provide at

least coax (and often optical) digital output. Since S/PDIF doesn't provide

any content protection, Vista requires that it be disabled when playing

protected content. In other words if you've invested a pile of money into a

high-end audio setup fed from a digital output, you won't be able to use it

with protected content. Similarly, component (YPbPr) video will be disabled

by Vista's content protection, so the same applies to a high-end video setup

fed from component video.

Decreased Playback Quality

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

Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires that

any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality

that passes through it. This is done through a "constrictor" that downgrades

the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up-scales it again back to the

original spec, but with a significant loss in quality. So if you're using an

expensive new LCD display fed from a high-quality DVI signal on your video

card and there's protected content present, the picture you're going to see

will be, as the spec puts it, "slightly fuzzy", a bit like a 10-year-old CRT

monitor that you picked up for $2 at a yard sale. In fact the spec

specifically still allows for old VGA analog outputs, but even that's only

because disallowing them would upset too many existing owners of analog

monitors. In the future even analog VGA output will probably have to be

disabled. The only thing that seems to be explicitly allowed is the extremely

low-quality TV-out, provided that Macrovision is applied to it.

Beyond the obvious playback-quality implications of deliberately degraded

output, this measure can have serious repercussions in applications where

high-quality reproduction of content is vital. For example the field of

medical imaging either bans outright or strongly frowns on any form of lossy

compression because artifacts introduced by the compression process can cause

mis-diagnoses and in extreme cases even become life-threatening. Consider a

medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to

audio/video played back by the computer (the CDROM drives installed in

workplace PCs inevitably spend most of their working lives playing music or

MP3 CDs to drown out workplace noise). If there's any premium content present

in there, the image will be subtly altered by Vista's content protection,

potentially creating exactly the life-threatening situation that the medical

industry has worked so hard to avoid. The scary thing is that there's no easy

way around this - Vista will silently modify displayed content under certain

(almost impossible-to-predict in advance) situations discernable only to

Vista's built-in content-protection subsystem.

This is the worst:

Once a weakness is found in a particular driver or device, that driver will

have its signature revoked by Microsoft, which means that it will cease to

function (details on this are a bit vague here, presumably some minimum

functionality like generic 640x480 VGA support will still be available in

order for the system to boot). This means that a report of a compromise of a

particular driver or device will cause all support for that device worldwide

to be turned off until a fix can be found. Again, details are sketchy, but if

it's a device problem then presumably the device turns into a paperweight once

it's revoked. If it's an older device for which the vendor isn't interested

in rewriting their drivers (and in the fast-moving hardware market most

devices enter "legacy" status within a year of two of their replacement models

becoming available), all devices of that type worldwide become permanently

unusable.

Thoughts?

[zircon]

Thoughts? If this crap is true, then audiophiles and videophiles won't buy Vista and will stick to XP, which is perfectly functional. Free market.

This IS bs, but XP SP 2 works fine for me so I don't have any reason to buy Vista at all.

[Effef]

Thoughts? If this crap is true, then audiophiles and videophiles won't buy Vista and will stick to XP, which is perfectly functional. Free market.

This IS bs, but XP SP 2 works fine for me so I don't have any reason to buy Vista at all.

Truth. I am sticking to XP for as long as possible and then going to Linux, if it still exists.

Also, SP3 is coming around 2007 time.

[KWarp]

Same. Nothing about Vista intrigues me at all.

[The Damned]

Considering how much a copy of Windows costs these days, I'd keep my current one regardless of what Vista offered. It's just not economical anymore.

[Dyne]

Thoughts? If this crap is true, then audiophiles and videophiles won't buy Vista and will stick to XP, which is perfectly functional. Free market.

This IS bs, but XP SP 2 works fine for me so I don't have any reason to buy Vista at all.

Open source will be our final refuge. I feel that Microsoft has lost touch with its consumers in a huge way. Restricting the release of media via software controls? That's great. What's next? Are we going to have to burn CDs on a legacy system so that they work in anything besides the computer you burn them on?

Also, for those of us here on OCR who are remixers and who do video over the web, where does that leave you? Out in the cold, that's where. It pretty much screws anyone not running Linux or using a Mac.

So in response, if it comes to the point where MS decides to discontinue support of XP, I'll sell my PC and buy a MacBook or an iMac or something. Why keep pumping money into an organization that doesn't care about what you want to do with a computer?

Their new slogan should be: "Where DON'T you want to go today?"

[Stargem]

For now, I will wait and base my actions on what happens.

[EdgeCrusher]

I honestly don't really care as of right now.

[zircon]

Thoughts? If this crap is true, then audiophiles and videophiles won't buy Vista and will stick to XP, which is perfectly functional. Free market.

This IS bs, but XP SP 2 works fine for me so I don't have any reason to buy Vista at all.

Open source will be our final refuge. I feel that Microsoft has lost touch with its consumers in a huge way. Restricting the release of media via software controls? That's great. What's next? Are we going to have to burn CDs on a legacy system so that they work in anything besides the computer you burn them on?

Also, for those of us here on OCR who are remixers and who do video over the web, where does that leave you? Out in the cold, that's where. It pretty much screws anyone not running Linux or using a Mac.

So in response, if it comes to the point where MS decides to discontinue support of XP, I'll sell my PC and buy a MacBook or an iMac or something. Why keep pumping money into an organization that doesn't care about what you want to do with a computer?

Their new slogan should be: "Where DON'T you want to go today?"

I don't think people will stand for the restrictions imposed by Vista, if they're as severe as the article claims here. And if they ARE severe, I don't see the problem in just using XP for awhile. Plenty of people still use older versions of Windows.

[Drakonis GTR]

The only problem I forsee with switching to Mac is Microsoft's control over Mac. Something tells me that when Vista goes mainstream, something along the same lines will happen to Mac OS. I could be acting paranoid here, but I prefer to think negative, so if the positive happens, I'm pleasantly surprised.

And while I'm not questioning the authenticity of this article, I don't think that Vista will be quite that restrictive. Or at least, there will be versions available (probably for high price) that will have lower restrictions. As the article pointed out, certain fields, such as medicine, can't have systems like this in the way, causing obstructions or modifying info. Especially when it means a person's life. That would pave the way to all kinds of lawsuits, some or most of which would hurt even Microsoft. It's just not smart, regardless of how much Hollywood or the RIAA are paying them.

But yeah, I have no intention of buying Vista anytime soon, regardless of its usefulness, or lack there of. And as far as I'm concerned, Fuck Microsoft.

[Unstable Hamster]

Beyond the obvious playback-quality implications of deliberately degraded

output, this measure can have serious repercussions in applications where

high-quality reproduction of content is vital. For example the field of

medical imaging either bans outright or strongly frowns on any form of lossy

compression because artifacts introduced by the compression process can cause

mis-diagnoses and in extreme cases even become life-threatening. Consider a

medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to

audio/video played back by the computer (the CDROM drives installed in

workplace PCs inevitably spend most of their working lives playing music or

MP3 CDs to drown out workplace noise). If there's any premium content present

in there, the image will be subtly altered by Vista's content protection,

potentially creating exactly the life-threatening situation that the medical

industry has worked so hard to avoid. The scary thing is that there's no easy

way around this - Vista will silently modify displayed content under certain

(almost impossible-to-predict in advance) situations discernable only to

Vista's built-in content-protection subsystem.

Good to know the world might just be worse off with Windows.

Linux time!

[Emura]

I think I should help clarify something here. Most of the quotes from the original post have been taken out of context.

The downgrading of AV quality only apply to copy-protected high definition content from HD DVDs and Blu Ray discs, which both use the High Definition Content Protection (HDCP). This is a requirement of Intel's HDCP specification, and not a pointless restriction by Microsoft to frustrate users. All (legal) operating systems will have to work this way, including Windows XP, Mac OS 10.4, and your favourite flavour of Linux.

I have been running Windows Vista now for about 4 months, and frequently watch high definition content downloaded from the internet. I can honestly say Vista is the best thing to happen to Windows ever, from the fancy-pants user interface, to the search-based desktop, to the hardened security.

I'll leave the discussion on what OS is better to the rabid fanboys and flameboys. I will say though, for those running Windows XP already and who can afford it, Vista is an excellent and obvious next step.

[SilverStar]

I tried Vista. I was part of the public beta. I didn't keep it installed more than 2 days(rarely more than 6 hours), because it just wouldn't do anything I normally do with my computer.

It really does have driver issues, which caused my sound AND video cards to shit all over the system(Radeon X1600 Pro AGP 512MB video card and a Creative Soundblaster Audigy 4 soundcard). it hated the drivers, to the point that my video was reduced to alternating vertical black and white lines, with just my mouse being visible(it was suspended "above" the rest of the image), and Windows constantly losing the audio drivers(it'd start off by saying there was a problem.. then fix it a couple minutes later, then forget the drivers another couple minutes later...).

And you know what? XP is just FINE for security, if you know what the hell you're doing. On my system, I run without a software firewall OR AV program(though I do have an AV installed for the occasional system scan, just to be safe), including the built-in Windows firewall(XP SP2), with the Administrative account.

I burn through 50-100GB a month, mostly in downloading, and I haven't had a virus on my system in over 3 years.

My entire security consists of 2 things: 1) My router, which acts as my firewall through NAT. 2) My knowledge, which stops me from doing stupid things like sitting in the DMZ or installing whatever BS scripts a website feels like trying to install, if I don't trust it.

With those two things, even Win95 would be plenty secure. Control the packets that get to your internal network, then control the data that makes it to your computer. And a cheap, 40 buck router is a hell of a lot more cost-effective than going for a whole new system just to run Vista(Sempron 3000+, 1GB DDR, felt like I was running XP with everything enabled, on my old P3 800 with 192MB SDRAM), then still needing to go for a "real" antivirus program(I use AVG, with the autoruns disabled until I need to use it), and then investing in a commercial firewall(as I said, I just use my router).

If you know how to use your computer, rather than simply being a user of it, then there's nothing Vista offers that's worth it. A 3D desktop interface.. that doesn't even make use of the 3D features? No thanks. "Enhanced security" that stops me from being able to update my drivers.. and tells me that it's "too soon" to uninstall them? No thanks. An OS that eats up 16GB just to install? No thanks.

[Emura]

I tried Vista. I was part of the public beta. I didn't keep it installed more than 2 days(rarely more than 6 hours), because it just wouldn't do anything I normally do with my computer.

Do you think think that testing a beta version of Vista for 6 hours is really enough time to get a feel for what it does?

And I'm pretty sure Vista can do anything that Windows XP can do.

It really does have driver issues, which caused my sound AND video cards to shit all over the system(Radeon X1600 Pro AGP 512MB video card and a Creative Soundblaster Audigy 4 soundcard). it hated the drivers, to the point that my video was reduced to alternating vertical black and white lines, with just my mouse being visible(it was suspended "above" the rest of the image), and Windows constantly losing the audio drivers(it'd start off by saying there was a problem.. then fix it a couple minutes later, then forget the drivers another couple minutes later...).

Microsoft doesn't write device drivers for anybody but Microsoft. Your frustration with ATI and Creative's Vista drivers should be directed to those corporations, not blamed on the OS.

As a footnote, the machine I ran Vista on had a Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Platinum card and it ran beautifully. I never had any other driver troubles. Those issues certainly sound extreme, but by the time Vista is out all the driver issues should be resolved. I don't think you should judge an OS based on 3rd party beta drivers.

And you know what? XP is just FINE for security, if you know what the hell you're doing.

ROFL

On my system, I run without a software firewall OR AV program(though I do have an AV installed for the occasional system scan, just to be safe), including the built-in Windows firewall(XP SP2), with the Administrative account.

I burn through 50-100GB a month, mostly in downloading, and I haven't had a virus on my system in over 3 years.

My entire security consists of 2 things: 1) My router, which acts as my firewall through NAT. 2) My knowledge, which stops me from doing stupid things like sitting in the DMZ or installing whatever BS scripts a website feels like trying to install, if I don't trust it.

With those two things, even Win95 would be plenty secure. Control the packets that get to your internal network, then control the data that makes it to your computer.

I see where you're coming from and what you're getting at, but I wholehearted disagree. Let me start by saying I am a full-time Information Security Analyst.

I do know what you're saying when you argue XP can be secure. The PC I'm on right now is an XP Pro machine running without any anti-virus software. By following good best practices I've kept myself virus free.

Mostly that's by sheer luck, though. I was lucky not to be hit by the WMF exploit. I was lucky not to get compromised by the VML exploit. I was lucky not to get attacked by the SetSlice exploit. These three attacks in the last year alone could have compromised my machine, but I was lucky enough to avoid them.

I feel the people who will experience the greatest benefit from Vista's enhanced security will be those, unlike you or me, who aren't quite up to speed on computer security. There are millions of grandmas out there who go out to Best Buy and buy a computer so they can "have the internet," and these are the people who will benefit from security the most. For the tech guys, it's a less significant, though still important, bonus.

And a cheap, 40 buck router is a hell of a lot more cost-effective than going for a whole new system just to run Vista(Sempron 3000+, 1GB DDR, felt like I was running XP with everything enabled, on my old P3 800 with 192MB SDRAM), then still needing to go for a "real" antivirus program(I use AVG, with the autoruns disabled until I need to use it), and then investing in a commercial firewall(as I said, I just use my router).

Out of curiosity, how well did Windows XP run on your Windows 98 machine? How about 95 on your 3.1 machine? Or, what about OS X on your System 8 machine?

Don't blame Microsoft for Moore's Law

If you know how to use your computer, rather than simply being a user of it, then there's nothing Vista offers that's worth it. A 3D desktop interface.. that doesn't even make use of the 3D features? No thanks. "Enhanced security" that stops me from being able to update my drivers.. and tells me that it's "too soon" to uninstall them? No thanks. An OS that eats up 16GB just to install? No thanks.

Actually, Microsoft hasn't advertised Aero Glass as being a "3D" interface, this is something consumers have done themselves. I like the "live taskbar thumbnails" thing that shows you a thumbnail view of the windows you have in your taskbar when you hover over them, and I like the new "flip 3D" way to alt-tab. Though, as you say, those features alone aren't enough to convince one to upgrade.

What's "worth it" will definately be different for everyone. For students who get Vista free through their school's MSDN agreement, it would certainly be worth it. For the hobbyist system builder looking to save his pennies, then Linux would be the no-brainer. It all depends on what you need from your OS.

I wouldn't go out and buy it next month just because, but when I build my next PC, for sure one of my OSs will be Vista. All the features I've already mentioned, plus superfetch, drive encryption, integrated searching, and particularly DirectX 10 means it makes sense to me. Obviously your mileage may vary.

[SilverStar]

If you are indeed, as you claim, a "full-time Information Security Analyst," then you know that 99.995% of all security holes are due to the direct actions of the end user, including inaction for simple preventative measures. Your job is safe because of the sheer number of stupid people out there, to whom even Vista will fall open and become a mindless zombie on a spam network.

And MS did indeed claim Aero Glass as being a 3D Accelerated interface. And I have no use for it.

And it's not "Moore's Law" that I blame Vista's performance on. MS could, very simply, take the entire interface of XP and slap it on the underlying code of Vista and they'd have a system that has all the "security features" of Vista, without the 700MB memory footprint.

And no, Vista could not do everything I do with XP. I micromanage my system with external tools. The way Vista is designed, a majority of those very things that I customize, are impossible to even touch.

To me, the entire Vista experience is like having WindowsBlinds installed over an incompatible video card with a heavy transcoding job running in the background. It's painful to even browse my computer, for how slow the interface makes it, and everything -lags-.

If they didn't screw Vista up so badly and try to put more shit in there than is wanted or needed, I'd even have been willing to go for the Ultimate package. But, since I'd have to invest close to 3 grand into a new computer to be able to run it even as fast as I can run XP on my current machine, I'm not going to bother.

[EdgeCrusher]

Microsoft betas, ROFL!

[Psychonaut]

I'm not sure why MS thinks people will adopt Vista at all with their inane EULA and obscene amounts of DRM. So far the only compelling reason I've seen is for DX10 support, but most software makers are going to make their stuff backwards-compatible for some time anyway, and I imagine some sort of "solution" for those of us who have no desire for any bullshit software restrictions will be devised.

Really I think the age of open source is upon us. As soon as people start flocking away from Windows in droves, Linux will get that final little oomph it's needed to be a real competitor.

[suzumebachi]

I'm not sure why MS thinks people will adopt Vista at all with their inane EULA and obscene amounts of DRM. So far the only compelling reason I've seen is for DX10 support, but most software makers are going to make their stuff backwards-compatible for some time anyway, and I imagine some sort of "solution" for those of us who have no desire for any bullshit software restrictions will be devised.

Yeah, until Microsoft starts buying off people to make DX10 exclusive software. It's inevitable.

A hypothetical situation:

Some development firm decides they're going to write some new middleware for PC games. Let's say, a physics engine. And everyone is going to want this new fangled physics engine for all their new fangled games. Their software is so inventive, that they manage to secure a patent, so they hold the rights to creating this kind of physics crud for years to come. Before they release their middleware to video game developers, Microsoft offers them an enourmous sum of money to make their physics engine only compatible with DX10. The developers of course oblige, and so now all games with these new physics are DX10 compatible only.

Or Microsoft could just go straight to EA and say "make DX10 exclusive games or we will break you."

Ahh the joys of monopoly.

[Negativeions]

This is the beginning of the end for microsoft and windows. good times.

[The Damned]

This is the beginning of the end for microsoft and windows. good times.

Yes... the end of the largest software company in the world, with billions upon billions of dollars in the bank, and almost the entire world, both personal and business, using their OS... And they have they little X-Box 360 thing, which is seeing a lot of movement and starting to actually make some money... Truly, you are a sage or a magician or a witch or something, because you've predicted the future.

Shut up and come back when you knew what you're talking about.

[The Mutericator]

... And they have they little X-Box 360 thing, which is seeing a lot of movement and starting to actually make some money...

AHAHAHAHAHAno. I agree with the rest of what you said, but this is so flat-out wrong that I couldn't let it go. MS won't be making a profit off the X-Box line for YEARS yet.

[Xuande]

Phft, I doubt Microsoft can legally disable hardware that someone owns. Imagine if government computers are running on old hardware that gets disabled. Microsoft would find themselves in a rather bad place, as it sounds to me like they're taking the law into their own hands.

[OverCoat]

I'm not sure why MS thinks people will adopt Vista at all with their inane EULA and obscene amounts of DRM.

Naive capitalist idealism is so cute.

Once Vista is released to all consumers, the big prefab computer companies: Dell, Gateway, Compaq, etc. will all package their computers with Vista. Millions of computers are sold every day. Vista will succeed whether linuxfags want it to or not. I know, I'm sorry.

From the sound of it, everyone who hasn't used Vista is super-skeptical, but everyone who's actually used it already say it's a big step up from XP. I wonder who to believe...

[Dhsu]

I think my main concerns about Vista are the cost and resource consumption, but if my school gives it to me for FREE...well, I might go for it after all.

[SilverStar]

Phft, I doubt Microsoft can legally disable hardware that someone owns. Imagine if government computers are running on old hardware that gets disabled. Microsoft would find themselves in a rather bad place, as it sounds to me like they're taking the law into their own hands.

Think for a moment about what you just said..

Running -VISTA- on -OLD HARDWARE-? That just.. doesn't work! o.o