Vista drops support for HDCP Content in 32 bit versions

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

acemcmac

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
13,712
1
0
WTF? What on earth is the reasoning behind that?

My P4 Northwood 2.8 on an 875p and with a radeon x850pro has no problem with HD content on XP. Why do I want this new operating system again?

EDIT: OMGWTFBBQGRASS... it's for DRM :roll:
 
M

mzkhadir

Diamond Member
Mar 6, 2003
9,509
1
76
Originally posted by: acemcmac
WTF? What on earth is the reasoning behind that?

My P4 Northwood 2.8 on an 875p and with a radeon x850pro has no problem with HD content on XP. Why do I want this new operating system again?

EDIT: OMGWTFBBQGRASS... it's for DRM :roll:
Click to expand...

drop support for old hardware
 
Y

Yanagi

Golden Member
Jun 8, 2004
1,678
0
0
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
What 32-bit processor would be able to run Vista anyway?
Click to expand...

Pentium 4, Pentium D, Pentium 3, AMD Athlon, AMD Athlon 64, etc etc
 
I

imported_michaelpatrick33

Platinum Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,364
0
0
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
What 32-bit processor would be able to run Vista anyway?
Click to expand...


As another said pretty much every X86-32 processor over Microsoft's minimum requirement.

The article and Riley's reason for Microsoft's decision are not very clear to me; could someone explain it to me? What in the world does the 64bit Windows have in terms of anything (other than not much market) that the 32bit Windows doesn't (Vista) for playing HDCP content. Many people will have HDCP compliant monitors and tvs. This is pure marketing crap in my opinion as any modern 32bit processor (over 2.6ghrtz or equivalent) can run HD content. What is this code crap he is spouting? How would the code be different in the 64 bit (in terms of protected the kernel or anything else)?
 
I

imported_michaelpatrick33

Platinum Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,364
0
0
Originally posted by: middlehead
Originally posted by: Yanagi
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
What 32-bit processor would be able to run Vista anyway?
Click to expand...

Pentium 4, Pentium D, Pentium 3, AMD Athlon, AMD Athlon 64, etc etc
Click to expand...
:confused:
Click to expand...

AMD Athlon 64 is a full 32bit/64bit processor. AMD named it that to promote the 64bit and 64 sounds better tha 32. So the poster is correct in his naming of that processor. The original Athlon was 32bit only.
 
Born2bwire

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
Originally posted by: middlehead
Originally posted by: Yanagi
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
What 32-bit processor would be able to run Vista anyway?
Click to expand...

Pentium 4, Pentium D, Pentium 3, AMD Athlon, AMD Athlon 64, etc etc
Click to expand...
:confused:
Click to expand...

AMD Athlon 64 is a full 32bit/64bit processor. AMD named it that to promote the 64bit and 64 sounds better tha 32. So the poster is correct in his naming of that processor. The original Athlon was 32bit only.
Click to expand...

What I mean is that by the time Vista comes out, 64 bit capable CPU's would have been out on the market for a good while. Of those that you list, only the old PIII's, older P4's and AMD Athlons are incapable of the 64bit. And on top of this, we're talking about full HD playback of stuff like Blu-ray or HD-DVD. I'm not sure I would plan on using a AMD Athlon XP to playback HD-DVD on Vista. Bottom line is, how many people are going to be using a 32-bit only processor to run Vista and watch 1080p movies?

If you really need to upgrade, you can get an Intel Celeron D 326 for about $45 and a socket 775 ATX motherboard for a little over $50. For AMD, heck newegg only has four processor listings that aren't 64 bit for AMD. You can get a Sempron for $50.

I just don't think that it is going to be too much of a problem for the target audience of the feature, and even then it probably will not be that much money to upgrade to 64 bit in addition to the fact that you already will be spending a hundred or more on the OS.
 
A

acemcmac

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
13,712
1
0
Originally posted by: mzkhadir
Originally posted by: acemcmac
WTF? What on earth is the reasoning behind that?

My P4 Northwood 2.8 on an 875p and with a radeon x850pro has no problem with HD content on XP. Why do I want this new operating system again?

EDIT: OMGWTFBBQGRASS... it's for DRM :roll:
Click to expand...

drop support for old hardware
Click to expand...

If you RTFA

?This is a decision that the Media Player folks made because there are just too many ways right now for unsigned kernel mode code [to compromise content protection]. The media companies asked us to do this and said they don?t want any of their high definition content to play in x32 at all, because of all of the unsigned malware that runs in kernel mode can get around content protection, so we had to do this,?
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with DRM :| :| :| :| :| :|v
 
O

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
exactly, i can't recall the last time i've watched a DVD-movie on my PC or laptop. I have all my DVD's compressed into XVID and stored on my HDD, so this whole issue is a moot point really. The only problems I can forsee is for people who have HTPC's.
 
MrPickins

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,125
792
126
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: mugs
I'm glad I don't watch movies on my PC.
Click to expand...

..same here. Watching flicks on a computer is a novelty.
Click to expand...

What about the people (like me) that have htpc's? I find it far from a novelty. In fact, my standalone dvd player hasn't been hooked up in a year or so.

Edit: Beat to it. :p
 
Born2bwire

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
exactly, i can't recall the last time i've watched a DVD-movie on my PC or laptop. I have all my DVD's compressed into XVID and stored on my HDD, so this whole issue is a moot point really. The only problems I can forsee is for people who have HTPC's.
Click to expand...

Probably will have to rebuild a good portion of their computers anyway. Now that I thought about it more, you'd still have to pay up the money for a HD-DVD drive or Blu-Ray drive and unless you got a new video card recently (at least I thought I heard that they are finally shipping cards with the necessary chips for HDCP), a HDCP video card.
 
B

bersl2

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
you guys bash Microsoft, but in reality it is the movie studios pushing this crap on us.
Click to expand...

MS is damned if they do and damned if they don't; however, this does not at all absolve them of responsibility for continuing to facilitate DRM.
 
Shawn

Shawn

Lifer
Apr 20, 2003
32,236
53
91
Wasn't planning on upgrading to Vista anyway. Now I know that I won't. I have no intention of upgrading my 3.06GHz P4 or mobo anytime soon either.
 
P

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Nothing like having to upgrade perfectly good and capable hardware to something newer simply because the content industry has decided that you might be a criminal.

No thanks, no Vista for me anyway, it's pretty much DRM riddled junk.
 
L

Link19

Senior member
Apr 22, 2003
971
0
0
?This is a decision that the Media Player folks made because there are just too many ways right now for unsigned kernel mode code [to compromise content protection]. The media companies asked us to do this and said they don?t want any of their high definition content to play in x32 at all, because of all of the unsigned malware that runs in kernel mode can get around content protection, so we had to do this,?
Click to expand...

What is it about 32-bit Vista that makes it so much easier to run unsigned kernel mode code that cannot be done in 64-bit Vista?

I thought the only difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is that 64-bit has a much larger addressable memory range and that more data can be processed in the CPU registers at once?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom