Windows Vista worth it?

[drag]

I was talking about Mpeg2 which is the standard video compression for HDTV. (such as what you'd pull of your cable line) That is what that Athlon 1600+ was using.

If your using something over the internet it will usually use something else H.264... which many via motherboards have accelerated decoding support also, but I can't speak for performance. Obviously higher compression is going to have higher levels of cpu usage (and lower quality, but that doesnt' realy matter as most hardware nowadays for doing blueray-type stuff stomps all over video quality with various artifically induced analog-digital conversions)


The majority of computers sold in the past 2 years should be capable of most types of HD playback.

 

[masteraleph]

Originally posted by: drag
I was talking about Mpeg2 which is the standard video compression for HDTV. (such as what you'd pull of your cable line) That is what that Athlon 1600+ was using.

I understand that the system you're talking about will run things perfectly well. But the DRM that everyone is worried about has nothing to do with the standard video compression for HDTV (for one thing, broadcast flags aren't legal). Therefore, the only issue is in fact with bluray, etc.

Obviously higher compression is going to have higher levels of cpu usage (and lower quality, but that doesnt' realy matter as most hardware nowadays for doing blueray-type stuff stomps all over video quality with various artifically induced analog-digital conversions)

Prove that. I've linked above to an anandtech review showing that the XMen III Bluray, run with an E6600 and no GPU offloading, or alternatively an E6400 with X1900XTX offloading, is not capable of being played back without stuttering/frameloss. I contend that the OP's machine would not be capable of running any video for which DRM is an issue, regardless of whether or not there is DRM. If you'd like to show why that's false, then please, encode an HD video in H.264 at a similar bitrate to XMen III and show that this is the case with an older system.

 

[mastertech01]

Will Vista and XP drivers be compatible? If you have WinXP64 is it just going to remain trash or can you use driver support for Vista to make XP64 more functional when drivers are avaliable for Vista64?

 

[Markbnj]

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.

You're partially right: there _are_ always unintentional side-effects from implementing big pervasive subsystems in an O/S. The whole notion of security is a good example. But as far as DRM being a massive consumer of CPU cycles, that's a pretty silly issue. Your CPU, and everyone else's, is doing nothing 90+% of the time. If there are "issues" with DRM then this one is pretty low on the list.

As someone else pointed out: if you don't like DRM don't use it. Microsoft doesn't own the content, and they have no interest in protecting it. The content owners do have such an interest. As such Microsoft is trying to take advantage of a market opportunity to bring the two parties - people who want content and those who have it - together in a reliable commercial relationship on their platform. It may go nowhere. Gates himself has sent signals that he is dubious about its future. But it doesn't affect you or your system unless you choose to use it. If you want to "blame" anyone, then blame the unreasonable content providers who for some strange reason don't want to spend millions producing their stuff and then have it beamed out onto the web for everyone to DL. Bastards.

 

[JasonCoder]

Originally posted by: Thalasar
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?

I'll spend some time with that spec right after ten or so monkeys fly out of my ass. I'm just not that masochistic. But I'll give you that the spec is worded strangely if you give me that the guy who wrote that article is less than objective.

 

[Nothinman]

Will Vista and XP drivers be compatible? If you have WinXP64 is it just going to remain trash or can you use driver support for Vista to make XP64 more functional when drivers are avaliable for Vista64?

Probably mostly trash, for example the audio and video drivers will be totally different AFAIK.

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Will Vista and XP drivers be compatible? If you have WinXP64 is it just going to remain trash or can you use driver support for Vista to make XP64 more functional when drivers are avaliable for Vista64?

Probably mostly trash, for example the audio and video drivers will be totally different AFAIK.

Well, sort of. In the case of video anyway, you should be able to install an XP driver with no issues on Vista. But it would be by definition an XDDM driver, meaning you would not get any of the new WDM functionality, the most obvious of which is glass. You need a WDDM driver for that, which are Vista specific.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Will Vista and XP drivers be compatible? If you have WinXP64 is it just going to remain trash or can you use driver support for Vista to make XP64 more functional when drivers are avaliable for Vista64?

Probably mostly trash, for example the audio and video drivers will be totally different AFAIK.

MOTU has published beta drivers for Vista. These drivers for their various PCI, USB, and Firewire audio interfaces claim to support XP and XP x64 as well. While this seems to indicate that there is some compatibility, it could be that they are offering separate Vista and XP drivers in the same package, sharing only things like user-mode control panels between them.

 

[Nothinman]

Well, sort of. In the case of video anyway, you should be able to install an XP driver with no issues on Vista. But it would be by definition an XDDM driver, meaning you would not get any of the new WDM functionality, the most obvious of which is glass. You need a WDDM driver for that, which are Vista specific.

That makes sense, what about sound then, I thought the sound system was redone in Vista as well?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: masteraleph

Originally posted by: drag
I was talking about Mpeg2 which is the standard video compression for HDTV. (such as what you'd pull of your cable line) That is what that Athlon 1600+ was using.

I understand that the system you're talking about will run things perfectly well. But the DRM that everyone is worried about has nothing to do with the standard video compression for HDTV (for one thing, broadcast flags aren't legal). Therefore, the only issue is in fact with bluray, etc.

Obviously higher compression is going to have higher levels of cpu usage (and lower quality, but that doesnt' realy matter as most hardware nowadays for doing blueray-type stuff stomps all over video quality with various artifically induced analog-digital conversions)

Prove that. I've linked above to an anandtech review showing that the XMen III Bluray, run with an E6600 and no GPU offloading, or alternatively an E6400 with X1900XTX offloading, is not capable of being played back without stuttering/frameloss. I contend that the OP's machine would not be capable of running any video for which DRM is an issue, regardless of whether or not there is DRM. If you'd like to show why that's false, then please, encode an HD video in H.264 at a similar bitrate to XMen III and show that this is the case with an older system.

Ya your right. I was suprised on how much Mpeg2 part10 is more cpu intensive then other mpeg2/mpeg4 formats...