Not sure if someone posted this before, but....
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/p ... ctionality
Read the whole thing (it's worth it).
See what you think. I'm curious to hear.
Vista and media playback
Moderator: Moderators
-
Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
Gah, it makes me want to kill small fluffy things 
Here's a pair of quotes for those of us less inclined to read the link.
Here's a pair of quotes for those of us less inclined to read the link.
various outputs and output quality will fade in and out, or turn on and off, in sync. Normally this behaviour would be a trigger for reinstalling device drivers or even a warranty return of the affected hardware, but in this case it's just a signal that everything is functioning as intended.
So, how well does spring run under linux?Company shall promptly redesign the affected product [...] if such redesign is not possible or practical, cease manufacturing and selling such product
super easy installation.-
maverick256
- Posts: 115
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 19:41
Also, what's going on with opengl support in vista? I thought they decided to support it natively, but tomshardware's recent review said performance of some games and opengl applications are badly affected due to "lack of opengl support". Anyone knows what the real deal is?
By the way, check Microsoft's response:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windo ... swers.aspx
But more interestingly, check the comments to it, and scroll down to the section "Microsoft's Response" in that cost analysis article (it's near the end) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/%7Epgut001 ... l#response
and see what the author has to say to that. Interesting stuff really. I don't like bashing vista, but the whole business just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
By the way, check Microsoft's response:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windo ... swers.aspx
But more interestingly, check the comments to it, and scroll down to the section "Microsoft's Response" in that cost analysis article (it's near the end) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/%7Epgut001 ... l#response
and see what the author has to say to that. Interesting stuff really. I don't like bashing vista, but the whole business just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
-
Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
To me this sounds like the normal restrictions on HD content. Note that non-DRMed content is not affected, all HD disc formats are DRMed. MS had to add these features in order to get the license for HD media playback. The alternative is not being able to play these discs back at all.
Protected content means DRM. It is illegal in the USA and EU to decrypt DRM without a license and the license for the HD media formats comes with the requirements to disable or degrade playback if the disc is played back on a system without a full HDCP chain. Try attaching a PS3 to a HDTV with no HDCP support (or a Westinghouse HDTV) and play a Blu-Ray disc. The image will disappear and a light start to flash.
The same behaviour will be exhibited by ALL playback devices for HD discs. Linux will obviously not be able to satiate these requirements and therefore cannot play back HD content without illegal hacks. You still have the option of buying content that is not "protected", if that matters to you then use it!
Vista cripples the output but the alternative is "cannot read disc". That's the rule, cripple output or you won't be able to read the discs at all.
HDCP enabled video cards are really HDCP enabled video chips, the board manufacturers don't actually implement the HDCP on the board and the chip alone is not enough to make it work.
Protected content means DRM. It is illegal in the USA and EU to decrypt DRM without a license and the license for the HD media formats comes with the requirements to disable or degrade playback if the disc is played back on a system without a full HDCP chain. Try attaching a PS3 to a HDTV with no HDCP support (or a Westinghouse HDTV) and play a Blu-Ray disc. The image will disappear and a light start to flash.
The same behaviour will be exhibited by ALL playback devices for HD discs. Linux will obviously not be able to satiate these requirements and therefore cannot play back HD content without illegal hacks. You still have the option of buying content that is not "protected", if that matters to you then use it!
Vista cripples the output but the alternative is "cannot read disc". That's the rule, cripple output or you won't be able to read the discs at all.
HDCP enabled video cards are really HDCP enabled video chips, the board manufacturers don't actually implement the HDCP on the board and the chip alone is not enough to make it work.
-
maverick256
- Posts: 115
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 19:41
-
maverick256
- Posts: 115
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 19:41
-
Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
-
Drone_Fragger
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49
They did some tests using Copy protected discs and non-compy protected discs, and found that they are pirated atabout the same level, copy protection or not, showing that Copy protection is useless anyways.
Also, Someone has already made an HD-DVD and Blu-ray decoder, So it's not as though it's going to stop anyone.
Also, I'm pretty sure that under EU and USA laws, you are allowed to make ONE backup of any digital media you own in case the original is damaged beyond repair. some game designers now point this out in the EULA. I know DoW does. Somewhere.
Also, Someone has already made an HD-DVD and Blu-ray decoder, So it's not as though it's going to stop anyone.
Also, I'm pretty sure that under EU and USA laws, you are allowed to make ONE backup of any digital media you own in case the original is damaged beyond repair. some game designers now point this out in the EULA. I know DoW does. Somewhere.
i had once the same problem that i only torrented and drawn and edited stuff so where did i need all that xp crap... now im perfectly happy with mine ubuntu 6.10 (recommend) just little tobe used toDeathblane wrote:Ok, so this has seriously got me thinking about using linux. For example I have an archaic machine (800MHz, 128MB ram) currently running xp and used for torrenting and word processing.
It currently runs like a cripple with two broken legs. Would upgrading it to linux make it run better?
i havent done any comparsion between linux and windows but id say pretty much the same... mm... probably its running better on linux when big booms happen. but really cant say :D
-
maverick256
- Posts: 115
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 19:41
Conclusion of that article:
"The worst thing about all of this is that there's no escape. Hardware manufacturers will have to drink the kool-aid (and the reference to mass suicide here is deliberate [Note L]) in order to work with Vista: ├óÔé¼┼ôThere is no requirement to sign the [content-protection] license; but without a certificate, no premium content will be passed to the driver├óÔé¼┬Ø. Of course as a device manufacturer you can choose to opt out, if you don't mind your device only ever being able to display low-quality, fuzzy, blurry video and audio when premium content is present, while your competitors don't have this (artificially-created) problem.
As a user, there is simply no escape. Whether you use Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows 95, Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, Solaris (on x86), or almost any other OS, Windows content protection will make your hardware more expensive, less reliable, more difficult to program for, more difficult to support, more vulnerable to hostile code, and with more compatibility problems. Because Windows dominates the market and device vendors are unlikely to design and manufacture two different versions of their products, non-Windows users will be paying for Windows Vista content-protection measures in products even if they never run Windows on them."
"The worst thing about all of this is that there's no escape. Hardware manufacturers will have to drink the kool-aid (and the reference to mass suicide here is deliberate [Note L]) in order to work with Vista: ├óÔé¼┼ôThere is no requirement to sign the [content-protection] license; but without a certificate, no premium content will be passed to the driver├óÔé¼┬Ø. Of course as a device manufacturer you can choose to opt out, if you don't mind your device only ever being able to display low-quality, fuzzy, blurry video and audio when premium content is present, while your competitors don't have this (artificially-created) problem.
As a user, there is simply no escape. Whether you use Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows 95, Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, Solaris (on x86), or almost any other OS, Windows content protection will make your hardware more expensive, less reliable, more difficult to program for, more difficult to support, more vulnerable to hostile code, and with more compatibility problems. Because Windows dominates the market and device vendors are unlikely to design and manufacture two different versions of their products, non-Windows users will be paying for Windows Vista content-protection measures in products even if they never run Windows on them."
OGL is supported in some capacity but sub-optimal IIRC, Vista-only games won't happen for years because it unnecessarily limits your userbase.Kixxe wrote:Question:
Is it true about how some games are gonna be Vista only from the realase of it? and OpenGL is going to unsupported?
Yes but under another law (DMCA and EUCD, respectively) you are not allowed to circumvent a copy protection without the consent of the copyright holder, no matter if making the copy itself is your legal right.Drone_Fragger wrote:Also, I'm pretty sure that under EU and USA laws, you are allowed to make ONE backup of any digital media you own in case the original is damaged beyond repair. some game designers now point this out in the EULA. I know DoW does. Somewhere.
Welcome to capitalism where spending money on features of your product is necessary to keep it up to par with the competition that is willing to spend that money.maverick256 wrote:“There is no requirement to sign the [content-protection] license; but without a certificate, no premium content will be passed to the driver”. Of course as a device manufacturer you can choose to opt out, if you don't mind your device only ever being able to display low-quality, fuzzy, blurry video and audio when premium content is present, while your competitors don't have this (artificially-created) problem.
That's a lot of unnecessary negative words there (decreases in stability and increases in driver complexity, for example, will not necessarily happen and that list sounds like a lot of FUD). A lot of hardware already includes features you pay for but may not use. Blaming Microsoft for making hardware support an MPAA mandated DRM standard is idiotic, Microsoft was under the same pressure that is listed for hardware manufacturers there, if they didn't do this HD playback may end up as a Mac-only feature.As a user, there is simply no escape. Whether you use Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows 95, Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, Solaris (on x86), or almost any other OS, Windows content protection will make your hardware more expensive, less reliable, more difficult to program for, more difficult to support, more vulnerable to hostile code, and with more compatibility problems. Because Windows dominates the market and device vendors are unlikely to design and manufacture two different versions of their products, non-Windows users will be paying for Windows Vista content-protection measures in products even if they never run Windows on them."
-
maverick256
- Posts: 115
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 19:41
Dude, please read the article before you decide that it's FUD. Really. Please do. Otherwise it's difficult to consider your judgments anything more than mere words. Oh, and I think it's useful to read on MS's own white paper on the subject: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/st ... otect.mspx
After all, it's one of the sources the paper cites.
The quotes I pulled off from it are just what I thought was interesting. But to get the analysis that leads to these quotes you'll have to actually read the paper. And do look at the cited sources, otherwise it's hard to be sure how valid his points are.
So, read the thing. The discussion will be more meaningful that way.
After all, it's one of the sources the paper cites.
The quotes I pulled off from it are just what I thought was interesting. But to get the analysis that leads to these quotes you'll have to actually read the paper. And do look at the cited sources, otherwise it's hard to be sure how valid his points are.
So, read the thing. The discussion will be more meaningful that way.
This is about DRM and your article talks like MS is forcing huge expenses and difficulties on everyone. It talks long and wide about the effects you see when playing DRM content when you can just avoid DRM content in first place. These restrictions are demanded by those making the DRMed content. Put the blame where blame is due: At the feet of the MPAA.
Take lines like:
Microsoft claim that this hidden image manipulation will only affect the portions of the display that contain the protected content, but since no known devices currently implement this “feature” it's hard to say how it'll work out in practice
First grade FUD. "The manufacturer claims this is limited to specific cases but you never know how it will really turn out". WTF? Until you have evidence that contradicts MS's statement you have no rational reason to doubt it this much. I'd assume MS has a better understanding of how Vista works than some random dude on the internet that hasn't even seen that part in action.
Or this:
An interesting potential security threat, suggested by Karl Siegemund, occurs when Vista is being used to run a security monitoring system such as a video surveillance system. If it's possible to convince Vista that what it's communicating is premium content, the video (and/or audio) surveillance content will become unavailable, since it's unlikely that a surveillance center will be using DRM-enabled recording devices or monitors.
WTF? Hack a surveillance system by making it encrypt everything in a DRM format? How about the simple solution to just CUT THE FREAKING WIRE?
We're talking about DRM here, not just random data. All this crap affects only DRM and if there's enough issues with DRM for the average consumer this WILL make the average consumer demand less DRM and create a reason to offer DRM free content.
If these changes Vista forces are so bad there will be a market for the original versions of everything. If this has no significant effect there will not.
Take lines like:
Microsoft claim that this hidden image manipulation will only affect the portions of the display that contain the protected content, but since no known devices currently implement this “feature” it's hard to say how it'll work out in practice
First grade FUD. "The manufacturer claims this is limited to specific cases but you never know how it will really turn out". WTF? Until you have evidence that contradicts MS's statement you have no rational reason to doubt it this much. I'd assume MS has a better understanding of how Vista works than some random dude on the internet that hasn't even seen that part in action.
Or this:
An interesting potential security threat, suggested by Karl Siegemund, occurs when Vista is being used to run a security monitoring system such as a video surveillance system. If it's possible to convince Vista that what it's communicating is premium content, the video (and/or audio) surveillance content will become unavailable, since it's unlikely that a surveillance center will be using DRM-enabled recording devices or monitors.
WTF? Hack a surveillance system by making it encrypt everything in a DRM format? How about the simple solution to just CUT THE FREAKING WIRE?
We're talking about DRM here, not just random data. All this crap affects only DRM and if there's enough issues with DRM for the average consumer this WILL make the average consumer demand less DRM and create a reason to offer DRM free content.
If these changes Vista forces are so bad there will be a market for the original versions of everything. If this has no significant effect there will not.
-
Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
TBH, not a lot of distros will even install with such a low amount of RAM. Put in another 128 megs and you're ready to go; it won't hurt Windows either.Deathblane wrote:Ok, so this has seriously got me thinking about using linux. For example I have an archaic machine (800MHz, 128MB ram) currently running xp and used for torrenting and word processing.
It currently runs like a cripple with two broken legs. Would upgrading it to linux make it run better?
Anyway, torrenting and word processing and playing music will work fine. I've got a celeron 333 with 256 megs of ram and browsing teh interwebs is sloooow, but with the right environment (XFCE on Xubuntu) it's at least usable. Note that both win98 and winxp failed to install due to hdd being too big for my mobo (32 GB limit, but can be overridden with software.) (note - it's a backup box when my main is being (ab)used.)
EDIT: as for increase in gfx cost, http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/p ... _cost.html
I ran windows XP Pro fine for years on a 386Mhz PC with a geforce 2 MX and 160MB SD RAM and a 4GB hardrive. Infact it ran faster on that PC than on the duron 1.4Ghz PC that replaced it, and was only really usurped by the 2.4Ghz celeron with 256MB DDR at 400Mhz with the FX 5200. And this is with the full blue GUI and not 9x graphics.
Infact my old 386Mhz cpu ran windows faster than my friends hyperthreaded pentium 4 @ 3Ghz.
The point is that windows will run fine on old slow computers. But nobody takes car of them and if you dont take care of a PC it will slow down by as much as 600%. Ther are people who spend thousands on the latest hardware yet get performance that could be gotten on a £400 PC when maintained properly.
Where windows is concerned, maintain it properly, tweak and improve performance, and I'd reccomend a 256MB minimum for XP if you decide to even so much as look at a game nm play it. For spring I'd reccomend at least 512MB, ideally 1GB for any game involving 3D graphics amde within the last 4 years.
As for Vista, that article goes voerboard. The person saying it all is biased and while there is truth in what he says there are moments where he isnt as truthful as we'd like him to be.
Protected media pathways are only running or sued at all for protected media.
But sicne that analysis was first posted ti ahs become totally obsolete.
Bluray and HD-dvd have been cracked, and the protected content pathways themselves have been cracked. Some people have managed to fool Vista into thinking there hardware fits the bill and get full quality despite the fact their hardware isnt right at all. It is possible to play a HD movie on that 5 year old standard HD monitor without all the HDMI or an HDCP chain.
As for increased hardware costs, Blurays DRM has a software component and hardware will need to be more powerful anyway to view full HD media for lengthy periods of time regardless of all this DRM stuff. And we can always bypass the entire vista media chain by using freeware media programs like video lan, free amp, or media player clasic.
What annoys me though si that movie makers will try to modify the standards for their own HD movies, like they did with DVD to make nonportable formats. For example, I cant play Xmen 3 on my PC because it stutters and goes all awry. But it works fine in a DVD player. And theres the rootkits, and theres stuff like the CDs that make disc drives freeze up needing you to manually eject them, which meant Mac users where seriously f*cked.
Infact my old 386Mhz cpu ran windows faster than my friends hyperthreaded pentium 4 @ 3Ghz.
The point is that windows will run fine on old slow computers. But nobody takes car of them and if you dont take care of a PC it will slow down by as much as 600%. Ther are people who spend thousands on the latest hardware yet get performance that could be gotten on a £400 PC when maintained properly.
Where windows is concerned, maintain it properly, tweak and improve performance, and I'd reccomend a 256MB minimum for XP if you decide to even so much as look at a game nm play it. For spring I'd reccomend at least 512MB, ideally 1GB for any game involving 3D graphics amde within the last 4 years.
As for Vista, that article goes voerboard. The person saying it all is biased and while there is truth in what he says there are moments where he isnt as truthful as we'd like him to be.
Protected media pathways are only running or sued at all for protected media.
But sicne that analysis was first posted ti ahs become totally obsolete.
Bluray and HD-dvd have been cracked, and the protected content pathways themselves have been cracked. Some people have managed to fool Vista into thinking there hardware fits the bill and get full quality despite the fact their hardware isnt right at all. It is possible to play a HD movie on that 5 year old standard HD monitor without all the HDMI or an HDCP chain.
As for increased hardware costs, Blurays DRM has a software component and hardware will need to be more powerful anyway to view full HD media for lengthy periods of time regardless of all this DRM stuff. And we can always bypass the entire vista media chain by using freeware media programs like video lan, free amp, or media player clasic.
What annoys me though si that movie makers will try to modify the standards for their own HD movies, like they did with DVD to make nonportable formats. For example, I cant play Xmen 3 on my PC because it stutters and goes all awry. But it works fine in a DVD player. And theres the rootkits, and theres stuff like the CDs that make disc drives freeze up needing you to manually eject them, which meant Mac users where seriously f*cked.