• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Windows Vista worth it?

frostedflakes

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Worth it or not? I would not be able to take advantage of 64-bit and the Aero interface. Are there other features that would justify the upgrade, or should I just stick w/XP Home until they stop releasing security updates (or I get a better system).

Or better yet, if the beta or release candidate is still available, where can I download it? I just recently got broadband, so haven't really been able to download until now.
 
It wouldn't cost much to get a video card that meets the minimum requirements for aero. I added a radeon 9600XTPro to an agp machine. The card was only $38 and runs aero fine.

64bit Vista isn't mature enough to even consider yet. I'm waiting until 64bit has rich driver support, if that ever happens. I think I'll always need the capability to run device drivers that MS and the content industry haven't blessed, so I doubt I'll ever run 64bit vista.

64bit Vista is the suck... install it only if you can deal with the driver limitations, and if you like lots of DRM bogging down your CPU .

 
You can run Vista just fine, there's basic theme for non-SX9 graphics, that doesn't look too bad, it has some resemblance to Aero.
 
Originally posted by: blimey
It wouldn't cost much to get a video card that meets the minimum requirements for aero. I added a radeon 9600XTPro to an agp machine. The card was only $38 and runs aero fine.
Click to expand...

His machine is a laptop.

64bit Vista isn't mature enough to even consider yet. I'm waiting until 64bit has rich driver support, if that ever happens. I think I'll always need the capability to run device drivers that MS and the content industry haven't blessed, so I doubt I'll ever run 64bit vista. 64bit Vista is the suck... install it only if you can deal with the driver limitations, and if you like lots of DRM bogging down your CPU .
Click to expand...

We'll see driver parity pretty quick, to get 32 bit drivers signed you now need to submit 64 bit ones as well. As for 64/DRM, thats just FUD.
 
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Worth it or not? I would not be able to take advantage of 64-bit and the Aero interface. Are there other features that would justify the upgrade, or should I just stick w/XP Home until they stop releasing security updates (or I get a better system).

Or better yet, if the beta or release candidate is still available, where can I download it? I just recently got broadband, so haven't really been able to download until now.
Click to expand...

Just depends on how much RAM and hard-disk space you have. I have vista running on a laptop which is Pentium 4 2.53, 512MB RAM, Geforce4 go (dx7) and a slow hard drive. It works fine and not too slow considering I only have 512MB RAM (the minimum), and even then don't forget you've got Readyboost which really does help.
 
Originally posted by: Markbnj
Originally posted by: blimey
Originally posted by: bsobel
As for 64/DRM, thats just FUD.
Click to expand...

Vista's DRM is far from "just FUD".
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but your claim that it is somehow clogging up the CPU in 64-bit Vista certainly is.
Click to expand...

What he said. Plus, I have some problems with that article... it just drips with anti msft rhetoric. It doesn't seem that impartial - I get the feeling I'm being preached to by a hard core anti-DRM/anit-msft zealot. Where's the mention of the attempts to provide a secure path for protected, licensed content or the issues faced in trying to do that? I'm sure msft didn't get anything right at all and completely buggered the whole OS, yeah, that sounds like a successful venture. Anyone who really thinks that msft would cripple their OS to that extent just for DRM is IMO in a delusional state.

Remember people... read as much as you can about an issue... don't take one person's view as gospel.
 
Actually the article draws almost entirely from the specification which is a very very scary document indeed. I suggest you spend some time actually reading the specs which often have really strange language in them like this

""It is recommended that a graphics manufacturer go beyond the strict letter
of the specification and provide additional content-protection features,
because this demonstrates their strong intent to protect premium content".

Why is that in a technical specification?
 
If there were a version of Vista that could not play DRM-protected content, would you prefer that version?

As for the main topic:

1) WinXP Home support ends two years from the release of its successor, which means about two years from now

2) Vista might be a lot more secure, if you compare it to a default install of WinXP Home where you're using a Computer Administrator account instead of a Limited account

3) can your lappie handle Vista ok? You might run their Upgrade Advisor and see what it says.
 
Your laptop can't play premium content in all liklihood, so there isn't anything to worry about with the ZOMG DRM!?!!!

If you don't like the rules, don't use DRM'ed content. It's pretty simple, and it has nothing to do with Microsoft. Some people have a desire to use this content, so Microsoft has put that functionality in the OS if the user opts to take advantage of it.
 
How exactly does it have "nothing" to do with Microsoft? Microsoft wrote the specification. MS is the one that is deliberately handicapping the OS's ability to handle this content. Additionally if it were only limited to DRMed content it would be fine - however the paper demonstrates a number of ways it impacts the non drm'ed content. Did you actually read the article and the footnoted specifications from MS?
 
If there were a version of Vista that could not play DRM-protected content, would you prefer that version?

This point in debate is called the dichotomy of false choices. It's not a simple either A or B. The design choice to integrate DRM at the OS level is going to have serious consequences on the usability of the system. When MS insisted that IE be integrated into the OS, it naturally became a vector for attack. Doing the same thing for DRM will have some serious consequences. Exactly why must DRM be built into the operating system? What customer need is being met?
 
Exactly why must DRM be built into the operating system? What customer need is being met?
Click to expand...

Users want to be able to play content on their PC's, much like they do with their cable and satellite boxes (which also have DRM). However, in a fully open system there is no way to provide a trusted path for DRM content. So MS is building Vista to allow that trusted path to meet the needs of content producers and consumers.

If you don't like it, don't play trusted content. But don't sit here and act like 'oh ms is evil for doing this' unless you have a better way of protecting said content. From your posts, I don't think you understand the fundemental security or implicaiton aspects required to do so.

 
Exactly why must DRM be built into the operating system?
Click to expand...
How would you do it instead, considering that the idea is for DRM to not be trivially easy for noObs to circumvent? How would your way be better?

What customer need is being met?
Click to expand...
The customer's desire to play their properly-licensed DRM-protected content at full quality on their PC. If I buy a DRM-protected DVD and have a system capable of running it in full glory on a nice monitor or home-theater system, then I want it to do so, not sit there in some self-righteous refusenik attitude while watching my movie in 1/4 resolution.
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
Exactly why must DRM be built into the operating system? What customer need is being met?
Click to expand...

Users want to be able to play content on their PC's, much like they do with their cable and satellite boxes (which also have DRM). However, in a fully open system there is no way to provide a trusted path for DRM content. So MS is building Vista to allow that trusted path to meet the needs of content producers and consumers.

If you don't like it, don't play trusted content. But don't sit here and act like 'oh ms is evil for doing this' unless you have a better way of protecting said content. From your posts, I don't think you understand the fundemental security or implicaiton aspects required to do so.
Click to expand...

There is more to this stuff then just content.

In order for hardware makers to be compatable with Vista's DRM requirements they are required to keep the specifications of their hardware a secret.

(edit: This is suppose to be done to prevent people from writing emulated hardware to use signed binary drivers to circumvent the 'trusted path'... which is nonsense as TPM is designed specificly to allow a system to know weither or not it's running in a VM)

This makes it very difficult for a open systems to support the hardware. Effectively what is happenning is that Microsoft is telling people they have to be closed in order to support Vista 64bit with the DRM-enabled drivers.

This whole thing is a push to cater to people that want to sell people new hardware and it is trying to entice media folks to want to use Vista as a base for delivering content. As far as I can tell there is no real demand for it from anybody. Media makers just have cable companies produce things like propetory DVR boxes which so far they very much prefer to support over something like MCE.
 
Couple of quick notes

"have a better way of protecting said content" Why does content need to be protected? Current copyright law is incredibly strong. What problem is being solved? This a solution in search of a problem.

"From your posts, I don't think you understand the fundemental security or implicaiton aspects required to do so. "

First off it's "fundamental" and it's "implication." BTW what is a "implicaiton aspects"? Just asking. I can assure I am fully capable of reading MS 's specifications and I usually go to WinHEC so my technical chops exceed that of Joe user. Besides it gets me back to LA this year.

"The customer's desire to play their properly-licensed DRM-protected content at full quality on their PC"

Actually I would love you to point out a single customer on the planet who is asking for DRMed content. They are asking for it to play on the devices they own. No one buys content because it's DRM'ed.

I am not being a refusenik. The commentary piece points out the many problems with Vista's DRM implementation - the most obvious of which is that it's a MASSIVE cpu cycle sink. There are always massive unintentional effects when something like this is implemented at the OS level. The commentary points out some of the more obvious examples. But clearly since you didn't read the commentary or Microsoft's specifications it's hard to discuss the issue with you.
 
Actually I would love you to point out a single customer on the planet who is asking for DRMed content. They are asking for it to play on the devices they own. No one buys content because it's DRM'ed.
Click to expand...
They are asking for it to play on the devices they own, at full quality. And that is what Microsoft is making possible. Whether Microsoft did or not, that content is still going to be out there. What would you have done if you were them?

the most obvious of which is that it's a MASSIVE cpu cycle sink.
Click to expand...
Encode some of your own HD audio/video content at the bitrate you find on typical DRM-protected HD content. Play your non-DRM-protected content, and see if the lack of DRM makes it an easy task for your CPU. I'm guessing "no."

Bigger picture: your ranting is pointless here. A guy is asking whether Vista would benefit him and he said he doesn't care about your "enforced-DRM-is-teh-debbil" thing, which as stash pointed out is a non-issue anyway on hardware that old. So how about contribute something useful to the discussion, on the topics of security, functionality, performance, etc.
 
Originally posted by: mechBgon
Actually I would love you to point out a single customer on the planet who is asking for DRMed content. They are asking for it to play on the devices they own. No one buys content because it's DRM'ed.
Click to expand...
They are asking for it to play on the devices they own, at full quality. And that is what Microsoft is making possible. Whether Microsoft did or not, that content is still going to be out there. What would you have done if you were them?
Click to expand...

The producer of content is the servent of their customers, not the other way around. If there is demand for content it's going to happen one way or another, weither DRM is involved or not.

Bigger picture: your ranting is pointless here. A guy is asking whether Vista would benefit him and he said he doesn't care about your "enforced-DRM-is-teh-debbil" thing, which as stash pointed out is a non-issue anyway on hardware that old. So how about contribute something useful to the discussion, on the topics of security, functionality, performance, etc.
Click to expand...

The machine the original poster has is probably capable of playing back HD content, although I don't know for sure about performance. Those onboard via's, even though they lack in performance usually, actually have pretty good hardware motion composation which is used as hardware acceleration for mpeg2 playback. I would expect that a reasonably fast cpu (say around any modern AMD64 cpu or legacy Althon of about 2ghz) should be able to easily do HD playback.

For older machines with nvidia graphics I know for a fact that HD plays back well. For example a Althon 1600+ is perfectly capable of playback in Mythtv with 1080i resolution with propriatory nvidia drivers with a Geforce 5200 drivers and xvmc enabled.

(on a side note, free software intel drivers don't support xvmc right now although the hardware is capable of it.)
 
Originally posted by: drag
Those onboard via's, even though they lack in performance usually, actually have pretty good hardware motion composation which is used as hardware acceleration for mpeg2 playback.
Click to expand...


Except that it's not mpeg2 playback we're talking about. H.264 is not mpeg2, and since V1 and H.264 are the two primary HD codecs used on commercial discs, they're what's significant. Not mpeg 2.

For example a Althon 1600+ is perfectly capable of playback in Mythtv with 1080i resolution with propriatory nvidia drivers with a Geforce 5200 drivers and xvmc enabled.
Click to expand...

Once again, how is this relevant? The fact that it's 1080i tells you NOTHING about the level of compression. Mpeg2, H.264, and V1 are all lossy codecs, and the bitrate is quite significant to that. Saying "it's capable of playing back 1080i" is equivalent to saying "my computer can play mp3s with sounds of wavelength 20hz to 20khz." OK, that's wonderful, but if the song is encoded at 96kbps, it's still going to sound terrible. The same goes for 1080i- what's the bitrate and encryption?

If you really need further evidence, go to, say, this anandtech article on bluray. Notice anything on the X-Men III playback chart at the bottom (sans gpu acceleration)? That's right, the E6600 unaccelerated can't play it back on its own. The E6300 barely can, even with an 8800GTX doing the acceleration. If you're using an X1950XTX, then we're talking an E6600 as necessary. And all of this is being done in Windows XP.

Face it. The DRM is not the problem. The issue is simply that at the bitrates that HDDVD and BluRay are being encoded at, using the compression schemes that they're using, either a very top of the line CPU is required, or else a near-top of the line CPU and top of the line GPU is required. It's really that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top