The article is informative, it also underlines exactly what my previous post.
I think that article is pretty well written:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Right out of Microsoft’s blog:
"The ability to restrict audio outputs (e.g., S/PDIF) for certain types of
content has been available since Windows Millennium Edition (ME) and has been
available in all subsequent versions of Windows."
In fact we had an ability not to load the driver at all; but if we wanted
audio then we installed and configured it. The problem with vista & protected
path is that you wont be able to hear that sound out of S/PDIF when you play
protected (HD) content; to that end - what exactly is the purpose of S/PDIF
interface? As it stands now, I would be able to listen to 2 channel MP3 over
S/PDIF that has been designed for high resolution/multichannel audio stream
but not the 5.1 / DTS audio that I actually want to hear over it?
"Vista has the necessary infrastructure to support commercial content
scenarios, this infrastructure is designed to minimize impact on other types
of content and other activities on the same PC"
Minimize? Is there a detailed paper as to what sets off DRM triggers; I'll
take a wild guess and say NO as security through obscurity has been always
the case with microsoft.
"The content protection infrastructure in Windows Vista provides a range of
à la carte options that allows applications playing back protected content to
properly enable the protections required by the policies established for such
content by the content owner or service provider"
I'm willing to bet this is 1/2 truth. If an application would be responsible
for DRM's activation - then I would be able to write an application that
plays HDDVD without tripping it - it is not as simple as it seems. It is
definitely possible, but rather painful and quite a few things must be
avoided.
"HDCP protection for DVI/HDMI outputs regardless of the type of device
playing the disc." That’s true, only because Microsoft signed up for this -
if Hollywood would see that software makers don’t follow HDPC lead they would
stop this insanity. I don’t want to buy a new HDTV, I already paid 5K for
mine, I don’t want to replace my LCD panels as I already have those; the new
Video Cards etc... The list is very long.
"Windows Vista's content protection mechanisms are only used when required
by the policy associated with the content being played. For Windows Vista
experiences, if the content does not require a particular protection, then
that protection mechanism is not used."
There is a key component in this phrase. Who defines what Content IS and who
defines what the policy should be? Hollywood for HD/Blu DVDs? How about
software that you can run, how about documents that you could view? The
technology has been built, - today it is being used for HD Movies, what about
tomorrow? This is not about some big conspiracy theory but the reality of
things.
"In the case of HD optical media formats such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the
constraint requirement is 520K pixels per frame (i.e., roughly 960x540),
which is still higher than the native resolution of content distributed in
the DVD-Video format. We feel that this is still yields a great user
experience, even when using a high definition screen."
Wait a minute? Did I just pay for HD/Blu DVD ? If I would want to have a
reduced resolution content, I would get a regular one.
"Image constraints only apply to protected content being played and not to
the desktop as a whole; therefore, the resolution of other non-protected
media, such as medical images, is not affected."
Goes once more to the point of where is the list of things that will trip
DRM? I know voltage variation is one of those things - what else is there?
When writing or using an application how do i know what will qualify as a
"protected media"?
Everything was moving to be integrated on the one chip anyway and this is
independent of content protection recommendations. Given that cost
(particularly chip cost) is most heavily influenced by volume, it is actually
better to avoid making things optional through the use of external chips.
Ok, let me see if get it correctly, - if we force everyone to use the chips
there is going to be so many of those that the prices will drop through the
floor. Give me a break - anyone here took economy 101 class? There is only
one company holding a patent on decryption chip and that’s Intel and that
would result in a monopolistic approach. for me that was a signal to go get
Intel’s shares
"Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource
consumption?
Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC
provides consumers with additional functionality. Windows Vista's content
protection features were developed to carefully balance the need to provide
robust protection from commercial content while still enabling great new
experiences such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback."
Should have stopped after YES as the rest of it is loaded - I The question
was not about whether Microsoft needs to balance the protection of not but if
CPU load goes up. I would also ask about the BUS utilization, it goes up
quite a bit ....
"Will it mean that there will no longer be unified graphics drivers?
The Windows Vista content protection requirements for graphics drivers will
not lead to movement away from unified drivers. In fact, all graphics
drivers shipped with Windows Vista are unified drivers."
Another loaded answer - the question was not about drivers SHIPPED with
windows.
"Renewal and revocation mechanisms are an important part of providing robust
protection for commercial audiovisual content. In the rare event that a
revocation is required, Microsoft will work with the affected IHV to ensure
that a new driver is made available, ideally in advance of the actual
revocation. Revocation only impacts a graphics driver's ability to receive
certain commercial audiovisual content; otherwise, the revoked driver will
continue to function normally."
Yes! Here is the meat of it - the capability to grant and revoke user's
ability to perform an action. Graphics / Audio - keyboard and mouse next....
It is absolutely amazing to me how people don’t see what Microsoft’s trail
points to:
Enable content encryption, signature and licensing, force vendors to provide
hardware layout for it and finally when Hollywood has been used to accomplish
the final goal proceed with "software rental" enforcement.
"It is pure speculation to say that things like voltage fluctuations might
cause a driver to think it is under attack from a hacker. It is up to a
graphics IHV to determine what they regard as an attack. Even if such an
event did cause playback to stop, the user could just press 'play' again and
carry on watching the movie (after the driver has re-initialized, which takes
about a second). Again, it is important to note that this could only occur
in the case of watching the highest-grade premium content, such as HD-DVD or
Blu-Ray. In practice I doubt it would ever actually happen."
Well, I have managed to trip a card on a test PC.... And I'm so sick of
arguments such as - You didn’t have this before so be happy if we don’t give
you everything you pay for but a half.
Think about it this way - if you have a job that pays 50K per year and you
have gotten masters degree being promised that your salary will go up to
100K, you get back to work and discover the final salary is set to 70K with
an argument that you should be happy it was raised at all - to that I can say
only one thing WTF.
Finally on a perosnal note, I'm tired of zealots. if your reply is going to
be unsubstantiated dont waste the bandwidth.
For a record before someone brings it up:
I'm not an open-source advocate - I have had my MCSE+I for the past 10 years.
my primary development environment is .NET (which implies primarily
Microsoft product line), my low level dev environment is C
I'm fluent in linux and windows OS hence no preference other then usability
and I can clearly see the day that I will choose linux for the task if
Microsoft continues to move the same direction
