Any word on whether Vista's Media Center will support QAM?

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Most of the hype about Vista revolves around applications. Because they are shipped with Vista, and because Microsoft markets them as part of an operating system, some of you think these applications are part of an operating system, but they aren't.

Aero, Media Center, most security features, search features, are all applications. Vista makes incremental changes in lots of these, note I say changes, not improvements, because the changes aren't universally improvements.

I don't think you have much to teach the community here about what an operating system is, or isn't. In my case, specifically, I had a pretty clear idea what one was when Jimmy Carter was still president.

Media Center is an application. If you can find a note from any of the regular members here suggesting that they think it is part of the O/S go ahead and post it. Aero is a GUI, and regardless of what layer of the system you think it ought to be described as inhabiting, it certainly isn't an application in the usual sense of the word.

Your last comment is an opinion, and you're welcome to it.

I was programming in Fortran when Gerald Ford was President, I don't bring that up other than to assure you that I've been involved with computers for quite a long time.

It's unfortunate that people accept marketing as fact, because the only reason for their to be any debate about what an operating system is, comes from the marketing efforts of the companies involved.

However, if you want to accept Microsoft's definition, that doesn't change what I said. Aero is an incremental change, not a revolution.

Instead of addressing that issue, why don't you comment on the substance of my post, which is the function of an operating system with regards to access to hardware, and if Vista fundamentally changes that ?

Because that is the issue that is relevant to the topic, isn't it ?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Tom
Markbnj's comment was an observation, not a CHALLENGE. You can stop trying to obtain stupidest thing ever posted status if you want.


His observation had nothing to do with the topic. My post did. If he had something to say that was relevant, he should have said it, which is what I said in reply to him.

As far as your or his assessment of the quality of what I said, that is completely irrelevant to the topic, unless you specifically refute some point I made. I'm sure neither you or he are capable of doing so though, which is why instead of making a useful post, you make cute remarks.

Please don't PM me with this crap. Post it out here in the thread where I can ignore it.



What is it we're supposed to be refuting again? Is it the "Vista's purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer" comment? It's too retarded to get a response. Explain WTF you are saying man.

I'm glad you thought my responses were cute. Thanks 🙂

I pmed you instead of posting, because your post added nothing to the topic, all you did was restate what was said earlier by someone else.

I already posted a more detailed explanation of what I meant, if that explanation doesn't clarify my point of view for you, please make specific reference to the part that isn't clear.

If you do understand it, but disagree, then please take the time to make at least a minimal of why, or explain to me how calling somone's posts "stupid", makes this forum more useful than hearing different points of view does ?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Most of the hype about Vista revolves around applications. Because they are shipped with Vista, and because Microsoft markets them as part of an operating system, some of you think these applications are part of an operating system, but they aren't.

Aero, Media Center, most security features, search features, are all applications. Vista makes incremental changes in lots of these, note I say changes, not improvements, because the changes aren't universally improvements.

I don't think you have much to teach the community here about what an operating system is, or isn't. In my case, specifically, I had a pretty clear idea what one was when Jimmy Carter was still president.

Media Center is an application. If you can find a note from any of the regular members here suggesting that they think it is part of the O/S go ahead and post it. Aero is a GUI, and regardless of what layer of the system you think it ought to be described as inhabiting, it certainly isn't an application in the usual sense of the word.

Your last comment is an opinion, and you're welcome to it.

I was programming in Fortran when Gerald Ford was President, I don't bring that up other than to assure you that I've been involved with computers for quite a long time.

It's unfortunate that people accept marketing as fact, because the only reason for their to be any debate about what an operating system is, comes from the marketing efforts of the companies involved.

However, if you want to accept Microsoft's definition, that doesn't change what I said. Aero is an incremental change, not a revolution.

It sounds like you are stuck in the Fortran days, friend. Do you even know what Aero does or do you just thinks it's a fancy skin with flip-3d?

Instead of addressing that issue, why don't you comment on the substance of my post, which is the function of an operating system with regards to access to hardware, and if Vista fundamentally changes that ?

Because that is the issue that is relevant to the topic, isn't it ?

Here. I'll refute your whole point. Easy-peasy... I can now perform transactional writes to my disk in Vista when I couldn't under Windows 5.x. Does that mean I can do MORE with my computer hardware or LESS? Couldn't do before = MORE. If I can do more then Vista has removed restrictions on what was possible with my rig. See? Easy to refute. It was a stupid unsubstantiated point to begin with.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Most of the hype about Vista revolves around applications. Because they are shipped with Vista, and because Microsoft markets them as part of an operating system, some of you think these applications are part of an operating system, but they aren't.

Aero, Media Center, most security features, search features, are all applications. Vista makes incremental changes in lots of these, note I say changes, not improvements, because the changes aren't universally improvements.

I don't think you have much to teach the community here about what an operating system is, or isn't. In my case, specifically, I had a pretty clear idea what one was when Jimmy Carter was still president.

Media Center is an application. If you can find a note from any of the regular members here suggesting that they think it is part of the O/S go ahead and post it. Aero is a GUI, and regardless of what layer of the system you think it ought to be described as inhabiting, it certainly isn't an application in the usual sense of the word.

Your last comment is an opinion, and you're welcome to it.

I was programming in Fortran when Gerald Ford was President, I don't bring that up other than to assure you that I've been involved with computers for quite a long time.

It's unfortunate that people accept marketing as fact, because the only reason for their to be any debate about what an operating system is, comes from the marketing efforts of the companies involved.

However, if you want to accept Microsoft's definition, that doesn't change what I said. Aero is an incremental change, not a revolution.

It sounds like you are stuck in the Fortran days, friend. Do you even know what Aero does or do you just thinks it's a fancy skin with flip-3d?

Instead of addressing that issue, why don't you comment on the substance of my post, which is the function of an operating system with regards to access to hardware, and if Vista fundamentally changes that ?

Because that is the issue that is relevant to the topic, isn't it ?

Here. I'll refute your whole point. Easy-peasy... I can now perform transactional writes to my disk in Vista when I couldn't under Windows 5.x. Does that mean I can do MORE with my computer hardware or LESS? Couldn't do before = MORE. If I can do more then Vista has removed restrictions on what was possible with my rig. See? Easy to refute. It was a stupid unsubstantiated point to begin with.

I'm sure that are areas where Vista improves access to hardware, thanks for the example, although I'd like more info that this is not possible without Vista ?

What about these features of Vista, quoted from Microsoft's website ? (my bolding)
_________
"Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management (PVP-OPM) makes sure that the PC's video outputs have the required protection or that they are turned off if such protection is not available.

Protected Video Path - User-Accessible Bus (PVP-UAB) provides encryption of premium content as it passes over the PCI Express (PCIe) bus to the graphics adapter. This is required when the content owner's policy regards the PCIe bus as a user-accessible bus.

Protected User Mode Audio (PUMA) is the new User Mode Audio (UMA) engine in the Windows Vista Protected Environment that provides a safer environment for audio playback, as well as checking that the enabled outputs are consistent with what the content allows.

Protected Audio Path (PAP) is a future initiative under investigation for how to provide encryption of audio over user accessible buses."
________


Whether good or bad policies, these seem like new directions for an operating system to go, in regulating access to hardware.

I think these features possibly are more relevant to the issue of QAM, than "transactional writes", don't you ? Based on these policies, I wouldn't expect QAM to be possible in Vista, unless cable companies give the ok, and why would they do that ?

As far as Aero, if there is some revolutionary function, I profess I haven't heard of it. I know it has a new search feature, and the little pictures of running applications. Please tell me what part you think is revolutionary ?

 

[spyordie007]

This thread has gotten way off topic, but I was under the impression it was possible to receive unencrypted QAM channels using Vista with something like the Fusion HDTV5:
http://www.fusionhdtv.co.kr/eng/Products/RTGold.aspx

With this product not only will you receive analog and terrestrial HDTV broadcasting, but also cable HDTV receptions and unencrypted digital cable broadcasting programs, so you can easily convert to HDTV broadcasting at home.
-Digital Cable is Supported (64/256 QAM)-

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read this that you can use this product to receive unencrypted QAM channels. The only thing I'm unsure about is if you can do it directly from Media Center or whether you would have to have it do the recording and direct it to your Recorded TV (or another watched location).

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Most of the hype about Vista revolves around applications. Because they are shipped with Vista, and because Microsoft markets them as part of an operating system, some of you think these applications are part of an operating system, but they aren't.

Aero, Media Center, most security features, search features, are all applications. Vista makes incremental changes in lots of these, note I say changes, not improvements, because the changes aren't universally improvements.

I don't think you have much to teach the community here about what an operating system is, or isn't. In my case, specifically, I had a pretty clear idea what one was when Jimmy Carter was still president.

Media Center is an application. If you can find a note from any of the regular members here suggesting that they think it is part of the O/S go ahead and post it. Aero is a GUI, and regardless of what layer of the system you think it ought to be described as inhabiting, it certainly isn't an application in the usual sense of the word.

Your last comment is an opinion, and you're welcome to it.

I was programming in Fortran when Gerald Ford was President, I don't bring that up other than to assure you that I've been involved with computers for quite a long time.

It's unfortunate that people accept marketing as fact, because the only reason for their to be any debate about what an operating system is, comes from the marketing efforts of the companies involved.

However, if you want to accept Microsoft's definition, that doesn't change what I said. Aero is an incremental change, not a revolution.

It sounds like you are stuck in the Fortran days, friend. Do you even know what Aero does or do you just thinks it's a fancy skin with flip-3d?

Instead of addressing that issue, why don't you comment on the substance of my post, which is the function of an operating system with regards to access to hardware, and if Vista fundamentally changes that ?

Because that is the issue that is relevant to the topic, isn't it ?

Here. I'll refute your whole point. Easy-peasy... I can now perform transactional writes to my disk in Vista when I couldn't under Windows 5.x. Does that mean I can do MORE with my computer hardware or LESS? Couldn't do before = MORE. If I can do more then Vista has removed restrictions on what was possible with my rig. See? Easy to refute. It was a stupid unsubstantiated point to begin with.


I'm sure that are areas where Vista improves access to hardware, thanks for the example, although I'd like more info that this is not possible without Vista ?

If you'd like more info, go fish. You've spouted about your expertise so I shouldn't have to explain. If this was possible in previous versions it should be easy to find. One quick link and my argument will fail. Good luck, off you go..

What about these features of Vista, quoted from Microsoft's website ? (my bolding)
_________
"Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management (PVP-OPM) makes sure that the PC's video outputs have the required protection or that they are turned off if such protection is not available.

Protected Video Path - User-Accessible Bus (PVP-UAB) provides encryption of premium content as it passes over the PCI Express (PCIe) bus to the graphics adapter. This is required when the content owner's policy regards the PCIe bus as a user-accessible bus.

Protected User Mode Audio (PUMA) is the new User Mode Audio (UMA) engine in the Windows Vista Protected Environment that provides a safer environment for audio playback, as well as checking that the enabled outputs are consistent with what the content allows.

Protected Audio Path (PAP) is a future initiative under investigation for how to provide encryption of audio over user accessible buses."
________


Whether good or bad policies, these seem like new directions for an operating system to go, in regulating access to hardware.

What about them? You have restrictions on what you can do. Before you couldn't do it at all. That's enabling your hardware, not regulating it. If you want a complete absence of restrictions take your gripes to the MPAA and RIAA. They own the IP, not MS.

I think these features possibly are more relevant to the issue of QAM, than "transactional writes", don't you ? Based on these policies, I wouldn't expect QAM to be possible in Vista, unless cable companies give the ok, and why would they do that ?

You didn't ask for any degree of relevance. I cited an example. I could sit here and spew one example after another but I'm not. You've got your head in the sand by your own choice. Your "Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible" argument crumbles with the slightest touch.

As far as Aero, if there is some revolutionary function, I profess I haven't heard of it. I know it has a new search feature, and the little pictures of running applications. Please tell me what part you think is revolutionary ?

Yeah, that's what I thought. You don't even really know what Aero is. The search feature really isn't what makes Aero.

Revolutionary part of Aero:

You can now run full motion video on your wallpaper, video/dvd in media player, video in your taskbar thumbnails, video in your flip3d. It's not those "little pictures" you mention that are the impressive part. It's the fact that it does it with no CPU hit.

You are no longer having your CPU draw up all your windows, tile in and out the sections that cover each other then shoving a measly BITMAP out to a $500 3D graphics card.

"Aero is an incremental change, not a revolution" you said. Did that evolution or incremental change happen any time between Windows 1.0 and Windows NT 5.2?? (there are certainly a lot of 'increments' between those two). All that time and it didn't happen. Now suddently in one version it's available. That's revolutionary, not evolutionary.

 

[Tom]

"What about them? You have restrictions on what you can do. Before you couldn't do it at all."

Really ? So before Vista, no one could use a dvd drive, sound card, or video card ?

At least you agree with me that they are restrictions, which is my point; that is something new at the operating system level.

As far as Aero, yes, it's true, I don't think displaying video on wallpaper or thumbnails is revolutionary, but if you are correct that Vista can do it without using the cpu, that is something.

 

[Markbnj]

"Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management (PVP-OPM) makes sure that the PC's video outputs have the required protection or that they are turned off if such protection is not available.

Yada yada yada

I fail to understand why it always comes down to the presence of DRM. Is that your sole criteria for evaluating an operating system? Whether it restricts your ability to get content for free? Smilin' has already done a good job of refuting this, but I'll just reemphasize: it isn't Microsoft's content; they don't care if you steal it or buy it; the content producers apparently would rather you buy it (horrors!); so Microsoft is attempting to create an environment where both parties can get what they want. So how is this "restricting access to hardware?" Admit it, you just don't like the idea of protected content. And supposedly this makes Vista a "non-operating system?"

Your comments on Aero reflect ignorance, to be honest. Yes, Aero adds eye-candy, just as every new version of a GUI since 1990 has. It is also a completely redesigned and reimplemented interface engine and desktop manager. As a developer I've already had a chance to poke into and program this interface, and it's slick as hell. As a user I have already experienced how much better it works running on Direct3D than did the old engine running on GDI+. If you had any idea of how much this changes things you wouldn't have made the comment.

Honestly dude, I have nothing against you, and you're entitled to your opinions. But since this is a message board others are entitled to react to your opinions when you air them publicly. If you want a debate, and I admit they are fun, then post assertions or statements of fact that are granular enough, and have enough grounding in reality, to get one started. Posting stuff like you did is essentially nothing more than thread-crapping.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

"Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management (PVP-OPM) makes sure that the PC's video outputs have the required protection or that they are turned off if such protection is not available.

Yada yada yada

I fail to understand why it always comes down to the presence of DRM. Is that your sole criteria for evaluating an operating system? Whether it restricts your ability to get content for free? Smilin' has already done a good job of refuting this, but I'll just reemphasize: it isn't Microsoft's content; they don't care if you steal it or buy it; the content producers apparently would rather you buy it (horrors!); so Microsoft is attempting to create an environment where both parties can get what they want. So how is this "restricting access to hardware?" Admit it, you just don't like the idea of protected content. And supposedly this makes Vista a "non-operating system?"

Your comments on Aero reflect ignorance, to be honest. Yes, Aero adds eye-candy, just as every new version of a GUI since 1990 has. It is also a completely redesigned and reimplemented interface engine and desktop manager. As a developer I've already had a chance to poke into and program this interface, and it's slick as hell. As a user I have already experienced how much better it works running on Direct3D than did the old engine running on GDI+. If you had any idea of how much this changes things you wouldn't have made the comment.

Honestly dude, I have nothing against you, and you're entitled to your opinions. But since this is a message board others are entitled to react to your opinions when you air them publicly. If you want a debate, and I admit they are fun, then post assertions or statements of fact that are granular enough, and have enough grounding in reality, to get one started. Posting stuff like you did is essentially nothing more than thread-crapping.

I don't get content for free. I don't object to drm either. You are way out of line making accusations that I steal anything. I have an issue with the way it's being implemented at the operating system level.

My comment about a non-operating system was an exaggeration, but it was made in the context of a thread about the lack of implementation of QAM, which is one area, television, where copyright protections frequently interfere with legal fair use.

I did not say Aero isn't "neat as hell", in fact I said I'm open to opinions or facts that would change my opinion.

And I don't think I've "evaluated" the operating system, I fully expect I'll like it, overall.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Tom
"What about them? You have restrictions on what you can do. Before you couldn't do it at all."

Really ? So before Vista, no one could use a dvd drive, sound card, or video card ?

At least you agree with me that they are restrictions, which is my point; that is something new at the operating system level.

As far as Aero, yes, it's true, I don't think displaying video on wallpaper or thumbnails is revolutionary, but if you are correct that Vista can do it without using the cpu, that is something.

Vista places no restrictions on anything you could previously do with your DVD, sound card or Video card. It places restrictions on things you could NOT do before. The *net result* is you can do more, not less. You should read up on this.

Displaying video on the wallpaper is part of that "revolutionary thing". You couldn't do it before...well you could but you would hate life because of the overhead. This is another example against your assertion that Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It clearly allows me to do *more* with my computer than I could in XP.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Tom
"What about them? You have restrictions on what you can do. Before you couldn't do it at all."

Really ? So before Vista, no one could use a dvd drive, sound card, or video card ?

At least you agree with me that they are restrictions, which is my point; that is something new at the operating system level.

As far as Aero, yes, it's true, I don't think displaying video on wallpaper or thumbnails is revolutionary, but if you are correct that Vista can do it without using the cpu, that is something.

Vista places no restrictions on anything you could previously do with your DVD, sound card or Video card. It places restrictions on things you could NOT do before. The *net result* is you can do more, not less. You should read up on this.

Displaying video on the wallpaper is part of that "revolutionary thing". You couldn't do it before...well you could but you would hate life because of the overhead. This is another example against your assertion that Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It clearly allows me to do *more* with my computer than I could in XP.

I don't think you're correct about what is possible. For example, with XP, I can purchase a dvd, and watch an unpconverted picture that passes through my non-hdcp compliant video card to my hdcp-compliant hdtv.

With Vista, my video card will have it's function restricted to prevent this, even though I'm watching legally purchased content.

There are similar restrictions for sound outputs, like s/pdif, that can be used for legal purposes with XP, and will be disabled under Vista, as I understand it.

You probably are correct that overall, we can do more with our computers with Vista, to the extent my comments could be interpreted that way, you've corrected me.

But I think there are going to be areas where what we can do, is going to be decided for us, even if the hardware is capable of more, and I mean legal uses, not illegal uses.

 

[spyordie007]

I don't think you're correct about what is possible. For example, with XP, I can purchase a dvd, and watch an unpconverted picture that passes through my non-hdcp compliant video card to my hdcp-compliant hdtv.

With Vista, my video card will have it's function restricted to prevent this, even though I'm watching legally purchased content.

This is incorrect, you can still do all of this with Vista exactly the same as you did with XP. The new stuff that changes is HD-DVD which requires a protected path all the way through.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Tom
"What about them? You have restrictions on what you can do. Before you couldn't do it at all."

Really ? So before Vista, no one could use a dvd drive, sound card, or video card ?

At least you agree with me that they are restrictions, which is my point; that is something new at the operating system level.

As far as Aero, yes, it's true, I don't think displaying video on wallpaper or thumbnails is revolutionary, but if you are correct that Vista can do it without using the cpu, that is something.

Vista places no restrictions on anything you could previously do with your DVD, sound card or Video card. It places restrictions on things you could NOT do before. The *net result* is you can do more, not less. You should read up on this.

Displaying video on the wallpaper is part of that "revolutionary thing". You couldn't do it before...well you could but you would hate life because of the overhead. This is another example against your assertion that Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It clearly allows me to do *more* with my computer than I could in XP.

I don't think you're correct about what is possible. For example, with XP, I can purchase a dvd, and watch an unpconverted picture that passes through my non-hdcp compliant video card to my hdcp-compliant hdtv.

With Vista, my video card will have it's function restricted to prevent this, even though I'm watching legally purchased content.

There are similar restrictions for sound outputs, like s/pdif, that can be used for legal purposes with XP, and will be disabled under Vista, as I understand it.

You probably are correct that overall, we can do more with our computers with Vista, to the extent my comments could be interpreted that way, you've corrected me.

But I think there are going to be areas where what we can do, is going to be decided for us, even if the hardware is capable of more, and I mean legal uses, not illegal uses.

Ok, you're seeing the light a bit so I'll start conceding some stuff... 🙂

Yes, DRM is the suck. It adds restrictions. This is not a "Vista thing" though. That evilness is soley the fault of the content owners. If MS doesn't play ball, then their customers won't be able to view the content they want. However, anything you could do before you can still do now.

The cool thing is once the content owners are happy that things are secure the distribution channels will open full throttle. IP-TV, video on demand, no more trips to the video store, no more trips to the music store all that goodness. We'll have more ways than ever to give Sony our money 😛

 

[Markbnj]

I don't get content for free. I don't object to drm either. You are way out of line making accusations that I steal anything.

I would think it was obvious that the point was rhetorical.

 

[stash]

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read this that you can use this product to receive unencrypted QAM channels. The only thing I'm unsure about is if you can do it directly from Media Center or whether you would have to have it do the recording and direct it to your Recorded TV (or another watched location).

All I know is that you can't use MC to receive or record clear QAM today. I'm not sure what the issue is, but the MC app does not support it (yet).

 

[teriba]

Originally posted by: Tom
I don't think you're correct about what is possible. For example, with XP, I can purchase a dvd, and watch an unpconverted picture that passes through my non-hdcp compliant video card to my hdcp-compliant hdtv.

With Vista, my video card will have it's function restricted to prevent this, even though I'm watching legally purchased content.

There are similar restrictions for sound outputs, like s/pdif, that can be used for legal purposes with XP, and will be disabled under Vista, as I understand it.

You probably are correct that overall, we can do more with our computers with Vista, to the extent my comments could be interpreted that way, you've corrected me.

But I think there are going to be areas where what we can do, is going to be decided for us, even if the hardware is capable of more, and I mean legal uses, not illegal uses.

This is complete crap. Only HD-DVD/BluRay movies which have the HDCP flag set (which no retail product has so far) will force the system to display it at a lower resolution if there is a non-HDCP compatible device in the chain.

Your example is the exact same in Vista as it is on XP. Vista will also play all of the retail HD-DVD and BluRay movies out there at 1080p with a non-HDCP compatible TV and video card!

Also, this has nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with the MPAA restrictions. There is no way that the MPAA would ever allow software to play a DVD if these protections weren't in place. It will be the same way on OS X if they can ever develop an HD-DVD/BluRay player.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: stash

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read this that you can use this product to receive unencrypted QAM channels. The only thing I'm unsure about is if you can do it directly from Media Center or whether you would have to have it do the recording and direct it to your Recorded TV (or another watched location).

All I know is that you can't use MC to receive or record clear QAM today. I'm not sure what the issue is, but the MC app does not support it (yet).

Bloody Hell

And I was considering buying one too...