If only MS could have as much respect for the personal 'content' of users (MS customers) as commercial content of it's business partners.
I can understand and even support the need to provide better protection for 'premium' content, but does anybody believe that once you have invested the extra time and/or money to enable viewing of protected content and paid the appropriate fee to legally obtain the desired premium content, you will still find that your extra money and effort has gotten you:
- Less ability to watch selected portions of the content. Try figuring out a way to skip that first 5 minutes of commercials in front of a movie. They will probably even replay if you pause for more than say half-an-hour. A couple of years from now it may not even sound surprising that your HDMI (or whatever then) monitor will know if you sneak out of the room without pausing and still play the commericals for you when you get back.
- Involuntary participation in demographics. If you read the EULA on these new systems when you start them up, you will undoubtedly find that information about what you are watching and when and various other things (but nothing about you personally, perish the thought) will be sent to the content provider, the software manufacturer, the equipment supplier, etc to be used, shared and sold as they see fit. I don't really give a carp (a slimy fish, not a typo) if 'they' know what I am watching, but why do I have to have more expensive hardware and less flexible software so 'they' can better profit from it.
- The ability to remotely shut down whole segments of users without due process based on things like business disputes with the manufacturer. Say you get a 'TIVO' with embedded Longhorn DRM because it is an easy, approved way of building HD-capable media appliance. One day (hypothetically, of course), NBC decides TIVO users aren't watching enough commercials and tells TIVO to restrict the ratio of (not-specifically commercial) / (specifically commercial) media output. TIVO disagrees, saying it needs to let it's customers watch at least 3 minutes of uninterrupted primary content at a time (OK at present that's quite an exaggeration, but it emphasizes the point) and refuses to change its restriction. NBC sends a quick e-mail to buds at MS and suddenly all users of such TIVO systems find they have a non-compliant 'protected video path' now only good as an expensive boat anchor.
- Other restrictions of legal activity excused as an ubsubstantiated means of restricting illegal activity
Well, sure it sounds like paranoid conspiracy theories, which is the same thing I told someone a few years back when he told me someday there would be no option to disable on your own computer the ability for processes to silently send messages (i.e. emails) out through the network.
nBd
I can understand and even support the need to provide better protection for 'premium' content, but does anybody believe that once you have invested the extra time and/or money to enable viewing of protected content and paid the appropriate fee to legally obtain the desired premium content, you will still find that your extra money and effort has gotten you:
- Less ability to watch selected portions of the content. Try figuring out a way to skip that first 5 minutes of commercials in front of a movie. They will probably even replay if you pause for more than say half-an-hour. A couple of years from now it may not even sound surprising that your HDMI (or whatever then) monitor will know if you sneak out of the room without pausing and still play the commericals for you when you get back.
- Involuntary participation in demographics. If you read the EULA on these new systems when you start them up, you will undoubtedly find that information about what you are watching and when and various other things (but nothing about you personally, perish the thought) will be sent to the content provider, the software manufacturer, the equipment supplier, etc to be used, shared and sold as they see fit. I don't really give a carp (a slimy fish, not a typo) if 'they' know what I am watching, but why do I have to have more expensive hardware and less flexible software so 'they' can better profit from it.
- The ability to remotely shut down whole segments of users without due process based on things like business disputes with the manufacturer. Say you get a 'TIVO' with embedded Longhorn DRM because it is an easy, approved way of building HD-capable media appliance. One day (hypothetically, of course), NBC decides TIVO users aren't watching enough commercials and tells TIVO to restrict the ratio of (not-specifically commercial) / (specifically commercial) media output. TIVO disagrees, saying it needs to let it's customers watch at least 3 minutes of uninterrupted primary content at a time (OK at present that's quite an exaggeration, but it emphasizes the point) and refuses to change its restriction. NBC sends a quick e-mail to buds at MS and suddenly all users of such TIVO systems find they have a non-compliant 'protected video path' now only good as an expensive boat anchor.
- Other restrictions of legal activity excused as an ubsubstantiated means of restricting illegal activity
Well, sure it sounds like paranoid conspiracy theories, which is the same thing I told someone a few years back when he told me someday there would be no option to disable on your own computer the ability for processes to silently send messages (i.e. emails) out through the network.
nBd
I think that MS will be into a rude awakening with this OS. They make the largest part of their money with large corporate licensing. Especially in that area there is no incentive at all for going with Longhorn... hell a large number of corps still run Win2000 very happily and are reluctant to switch to XP. When Longhorn does come out it will mostly be on Dell consumer boxes, larger corps will only change very very slowly. The Admins and CTOs aren't dumb, if longhorn is just a rehash of WinXP with a secure part of the kernel for Media and a pretty GUI with vector based 3D accelerated rendering (losing WinFS makes it look just like that - it was practically the selling feature and without it it becomes pretty pointless) then chances are they won't spend money on it unless a particular department needs some software that will only run on Longhorn... and even then only that department will get the new OS, everyone else that works on Word, Excel and Outlook will be just fine as they are now.
I am not going to use it... I used Win2K until just over a year ago and only went to XP because a piece of software I have needs it for hyperthreading support. I am going to wait this out. Oh yeah: I only just bought 2 flatscreens, the CRT they replaced lasted 5 years and I will not be buying replacements for a similar timeframe. If the MPAA want to force me to upgrade they just lost whatever money I was going to spend on HD-DVDs. I will settle for ready cracked pirate copys from SE Asia - at least I can probably watch them on my 2005FPW on a insecure WinXP machine.
I am not going to use it... I used Win2K until just over a year ago and only went to XP because a piece of software I have needs it for hyperthreading support. I am going to wait this out. Oh yeah: I only just bought 2 flatscreens, the CRT they replaced lasted 5 years and I will not be buying replacements for a similar timeframe. If the MPAA want to force me to upgrade they just lost whatever money I was going to spend on HD-DVDs. I will settle for ready cracked pirate copys from SE Asia - at least I can probably watch them on my 2005FPW on a insecure WinXP machine.
The lack of features and increased security that benefits us in no way will only increase piracy.
And I encourage software piracy against MS, if you have a product that just "does the job" and doesnt really stand out besides the fact they created the PC market with IBM (thats really the only "innovation" they can be credited for)..
we can thank them for taking good ideas and marketing them well.. remember they didnt even create DOS.
So thanks for marketing the PC market to where it is.. but I seriously hope anyone who uses Longhorn pirates it and does not encourage this lack of features/innovation with more money.
We need Apple to get OSX for all PCs. While they might have to do the same things on copy protection at least we'd get some healthy competition in the consumer OS market.
Get some real new features other than graphics.. whoo whoo what a waste of my time and effort.
THE DAMN THING IS UGLY AS CRAP.. just give me the 2000 interface please.. or Luna whatever is fine.
I dont think Linux (that is not in Apple's OSX form) will ever take over the desktop.
hmmm....well in that case i will wait until
1.Longhorn becomes free(hacked) such as i did with XP
2.the monitor hack is available(shouldnt take long...the people working ta microsoft arent the smartest....if someone makes a law or rule it was always be broken....they are meant to be broken
)
3.hackers start to provide premium content on low end content server
but personally i know they say that...but when they see that noone likes it i am sure it wont pull through fully...thi is just there way of gathering feedback from users of there or other operating systems
just my 46 cents
THNX
Duggy
1.Longhorn becomes free(hacked) such as i did with XP
2.the monitor hack is available(shouldnt take long...the people working ta microsoft arent the smartest....if someone makes a law or rule it was always be broken....they are meant to be broken
)3.hackers start to provide premium content on low end content server
but personally i know they say that...but when they see that noone likes it i am sure it wont pull through fully...thi is just there way of gathering feedback from users of there or other operating systems
just my 46 cents
THNX
Duggy
If I weren't a poor student and could afford to give money to political causes I would happily donate to the EFF. For what it's worth (not a whole lot) I do sign their petitions and have used their website to send mail to my representatives. I also don't "feed the monster" which I assume to mean support the RIAA/MPAA with my wallet. I even believe that the RIAA represents a hopelessly outmoded business model that will have to reinvent itself or die. The cost of music production and distribution is coming down, but that's not true for movies, television and games. Those types of media require a large investment which is going to entail a corporate interest in most cases. BitTorrent over cable/dsl is already an issue for these corporations, what's going to happen when it's a more advanced protocol over fiber in 5-10 years?
The next generation of DRM includes things like the ability to update and thus make obselete hardware for which work arounds exist. This is outragous, but the direction things are going in. At some point they will really screw up and piss off some wider portion of the population, but until then I am pretty fatalistic about the whole thing.
My undestanding was that Longhorn would finally provide a 64 bit supported OS that would finally allow true 64 bit gaming rather than this fudged together version that we currently have. Are you saying that it will not, or maybe you're saying that even with the 64 bit OS support there will be no performance gain? Do you have any links on this because this is the first I'm hearing on the topic.
I've read through the topic and I'm slightly confused. What exactly is the Monitor DRM being applied to exactly? Does this mean once hd-dvd drives are made for the pc, the hd-dvd will be downgraded to lower resolution without a DRM Monitor? Or does it mean that without the actual dvd it will be downgraded with a DRM Monitor? Which, if the latter is correct, is the reason people are peeved.
Or is it more of a matter of what this type of "security" could brach off to?
I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify if my assumption is correct.
Or is it more of a matter of what this type of "security" could brach off to?
I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify if my assumption is correct.
XP64 is a true 64bit OS with true 64bit gaming with a 64bit game. Its not fudged. It just plain sucks.
I'm saying that a 64bit processor, operating at 64bit does not offer performance increases in gaming due to simply chomping 64bits instead of 32.
The gains we see from the Athlon64 in 64bit (as small as they might be) are from the added registers that are put into use when the A64 is used in 64bit mode.
You COULD use these extra registers without having 64bit processing running. But they dont use them. Without this benefit, you would prob see even smaller gains in 64bit gaming than we even have displayed on Farcry64.
It has been a long, long time since I've researched this 64bit thing because its been around for a bit.. but I might be able to dig up some links.. I believe alot of my reading on it was done at ArsTechnica. I'd check there if you are serious about the CPU architechures.
Besides the 4GB limit, I'm not too excited about 64bit.. all you have to do is look at XP64's performance to see why.. those who assume theres some massive performance boost with a more optimized OS or applications will be sorely disappointed.
What you see there, is what you are getting. People will ramble about how it makes a game easier to be programmed ect.. but in the end, thats your performance increases and anything that can be done in 64bit can be done in 32bit.
It is truley not the holy grail. A nice step? Yes. Its something at least for CPU advances..
but truley a drop in the bucket on improvement compared to the video card market.
Bottom line? You wont be seeing massive (not even close to 20%) performance increases from a 64bit Longhorn.
Probably wont see a 20% or anywhere near from XP for ANY reasons. The OS is a flop and its not even out of the gates. Too many major features cut.
Its sad, but most that upgrade will be doing so because MS forces gamers to by keeping the latest DX version on Longhorn exclusively.
I encourage all who do so, to pirate it.
I would like to add my comment from my news story comment on Longhorn being "faster".
So if Microsofts OS's keep getting more and more efficient with the same hardware, why are the minimum hardware requirements increasing and not decreasing?
Oh, I'll answer that. Because its not more efficient. Compare how well Win95 runs on a machine with 16MB of RAM and how Longhorn runs on 16MB of RAM.
........Yes, you arent THAT smart.. Longhorn wont even run on 16MB of RAM.
But why won't it? W95 did?
Longhorn must be pretty damn efficient!
At this massive rate of efficiency increasement from 95-95SE-98-98 Gold-ME-2000-XP, you'd think we'd be having at least Win95 quality levels of OS running on 4MB of RAM.
Yes, theres added bloat, but that bloat can be disabled right? Yeah. It still doesnt do it.
If your monitor doesn't support the new DRM (as most monitors today do not), you will either 1) see a blurry crapified version of the DVD or 2) not see anything at all, depending on the whim of the content provider.
Some of us are also concerned about the direction that this will head in the future, as things don't look like they'll be getting any better.
Some of us are also concerned about the direction that this will head in the future, as things don't look like they'll be getting any better.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,170
- 11,349
- 136
I'm not sure I understand this.
Is it this.
Content providers of HD video will incript their media so that it can only be played back if you have the correct monitor.
Longhorn will check to see if this monitor is there.
This would suggest that this media will not play back if you use any OS other than Longhorn, so not upgrading is not an option. And using any other OS not supporting monitor based DRM also would not play back the media.
This really would make sense (from microsofts point of view) as it forces everyone to use longhorn (given that its other selling points seem to be falling away).
The thing I dont get is how many people would down load a dodgy HD movie, the file size would be huge. I mean torrented movies are about 700megs and the quality is pretty bad (so I've been told ), so how big would an hour and a half move at 1080 that alone should be pretty good copy protection!
Also if everone upgrades to these new monitors then cant everyone then play then back and so whats the point of the DRM?
Is it this.
Content providers of HD video will incript their media so that it can only be played back if you have the correct monitor.
Longhorn will check to see if this monitor is there.
This would suggest that this media will not play back if you use any OS other than Longhorn, so not upgrading is not an option. And using any other OS not supporting monitor based DRM also would not play back the media.
This really would make sense (from microsofts point of view) as it forces everyone to use longhorn (given that its other selling points seem to be falling away).
The thing I dont get is how many people would down load a dodgy HD movie, the file size would be huge. I mean torrented movies are about 700megs and the quality is pretty bad (so I've been told
), so how big would an hour and a half move at 1080 that alone should be pretty good copy protection!Also if everone upgrades to these new monitors then cant everyone then play then back and so whats the point of the DRM?
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
I'm not sure I understand this.
Is it this.
Content providers of HD video will incript their media so that it can only be played back if you have the correct monitor.
Longhorn will check to see if this monitor is there.
This would suggest that this media will not play back if you use any OS other than Longhorn, so not upgrading is not an option. And using any other OS not supporting monitor based DRM also would not play back the media.
This really would make sense (from microsofts point of view) as it forces everyone to use longhorn (given that its other selling points seem to be falling away).
The thing I dont get is how many people would down load a dodgy HD movie, the file size would be huge. I mean torrented movies are about 700megs and the quality is pretty bad (so I've been told
Also if everone upgrades to these new monitors then cant everyone then play then back and so whats the point of the DRM?
This is only one component. The entire DRM system extends end-to-end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing_Platform_Alliance
I think the official site has white papers you can read if you don't believe the opposition.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,170
- 11,349
- 136
Originally posted by: bersl2
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
I'm not sure I understand this.
Is it this.
Content providers of HD video will incript their media so that it can only be played back if you have the correct monitor.
Longhorn will check to see if this monitor is there.
This would suggest that this media will not play back if you use any OS other than Longhorn, so not upgrading is not an option. And using any other OS not supporting monitor based DRM also would not play back the media.
This really would make sense (from microsofts point of view) as it forces everyone to use longhorn (given that its other selling points seem to be falling away).
The thing I dont get is how many people would down load a dodgy HD movie, the file size would be huge. I mean torrented movies are about 700megs and the quality is pretty bad (so I've been told
Also if everone upgrades to these new monitors then cant everyone then play then back and so whats the point of the DRM?
This is only one component. The entire DRM system extends end-to-end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing_Platform_Alliance
I think the official site has white papers you can read if you don't believe the opposition.
The point I was trying to make (unsuccessfully) is that if it is tied into the hardware then the only way to play it is with a compliant OS. So people saying they will stay with XP or OSX are going to be out of luck. Sure there probably will be hacks and workarounds but I cant see apple sending out its boxes with them in it!
Personally I cant see it working with HD video. Average Joe is already happy with present DVD standards and hes not going to get into HD if its not going to work on the kit he's already got.
If this does get implemented then HD is going to have a really short life.
(this post was made under the influence of the flu so sorry for the ramble)
Personally when I say I'll stick with XP I am not saying I'll use a hack, I'm saying I won't bother with HD. Those with Longhorn insight into how good 64 bit processing will speed up PCs are saying the extra speed will be negligable. Without facts I can't say this is true, but if it is then I for one have no interest in Longhorn anyway. Sounds like they could have another MS ME on their hands.
Looks like its time to start learning how to use Linux.
Edit: oops, I didnt' see how old this thread is. A friend gave it to me
Edit: oops, I didnt' see how old this thread is. A friend gave it to me
Ricemarine
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2004
- 10,507
- 0
- 0
That is the gayest thing i have ever heard of. A dell 2405 is not going to work properly? then why should i get it? its one or the other, and i think XP is just fine.
Micro-assholes
Micro-assholes
The limit is 2GB. Not 4! Each process only has 2GB worth of virtual address space. The rest is reserved for the OS. (granted, you can of course run several processes, but as far as games go, that's not practical)
And the /3GB hack is just that: A hack. It (among other things) limits the amount of memory the video driver can map, so it isn't practical as far as games are concerned. (Hence the 2GB per process limit stays 2GB unless you run a proper 64-bit OS where it'll grow to 4GB for 32-bit processes)
This leaves us a bit exposed when it comes to next generation games. BF2 easily eats up 1.5GB -- and next year's blockbuster may very well hit the 2GB mark; Memory is cheap -- the memory bottleneck now is the 32-bit OS.
Win9x/ME is a completely different OS family compared to NT/2000/XP/2003/Longhorn. The increase in efficiency came as a result of ditching Win9x and upgrading to a NT class OS. WinXP integrated more of Direct-X into the kernel and thus squeezed out a little more performance compared to Win2k, and Longhorn offers a reworked driver model for video drivers (unless they ditched that too) and will gain some fps that way, but these are incremental gains, not massive leaps like Win9x -> 2000/XP.
As for the MS bashing in this thread... Well, I helped my sister install SP2 the other day and asked her if she played any DVDs on the computer. Turns out Media Player requires the user to install a third-party DVD decoder. That's what happens when MS stands up to the content providers: No play.
IMO we should track down the person(s) whoose brainchild DRM is, pile together a bundle of cash and hire ourselves a hitman to take care of the problem. Forget about congress, the content providers own them. I think it is bad enough that I can't buy a DVD, legally rip its contents and put on my laptop. I can't travel to a different continent, buy a DVD and play on my laptop either (because of the zone thing). The only options left to me are not buying any content at all, or simply pirate the thing. It is as if an evil villain from a James Bond movie is trying to piss everyone off. And unlike in the James Bond movies, this one is winning.
I guess I'll have to think twice before buying that expensive Apple monitor that I wanted.
this is pretty fvcked!!!, I reckon this will change in the near future to allow support for CRT types...Microsoft wouldn't ignore such a large user base...or it will have to live with an extremely poor selling OS for the first few years of Windows Vista's life
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter