Vista Madness (PMP, DRM, WHQL & More) - Page 2

This is being directed to me??

The last thing that I'd want is for you'd to get in trouble. I'll handle this myself.

I have not been to his blog nor do I really care about it. I'm pretty sure that I mentioned that to the Sick guy. The other guy starting with an Ex something (can't remember) went to his blog. I think he complemented him. You sould go back over the posts (all of them if necessary) before you pass your "Judgments". So then your posting about more stuff that is off topic.... Remember I have a tin hat and there is a conspiracy to make Jaws 6?? Wait thats off topic too. I remember.............................


BILL GATES THE MONOPOLIST AND 60 SERVICES VISTA yea that is the topic baby!

sweet, anyone like pb&j?

he was just joking there, gosh

not by the extremely angry emoticons

OT:
I said you had an interesting blog; you took it negatively instead of the intended compliment.

You even twist your own words around, you people crack me up.

Kinda of like DRM increases value

Microsoft cares only about the money not the consumer or DRM IMO; MS in a position to control and that is not good.

This story may help visualize where DRM is heading.

You brought a point (amongst others even though I think you do rant a little to much)that I have been concerned with and this is file encyrption.

First, it would be of extreme concern to me that microsoft would have a so called "master key" for bit locker. If such a "master key" would exist, it would completely invalivdate its effectiveness. Could you please post a link or something that would prove that such a master key does exist (or would have to exist due to technical nature of it).

My second concern relates to third party encryption. I am not a software expert, but it would seem to me that a third party encryption software such as true crypt would need access to some of the "drm protected hardware" that is further protected by the "drm protected software" of vista" so as to ensure the validity of their encryption method--- however, microsoft will not let third party vendor access to the core operating and hardware system components of a vista computer leaving anything suspect as far as security and file encryption. I guess my question is --- how can a third party ever hope to develop sufficient software to give true security using encryption software given the restrictions imposed by the vista software and hardware requirements.

Microsoft swears that no such key exists. That being said the encryption is the same AACS encryption being used for HDDVDs. Many of my posts here mention AACS and people think that I'm working under the wrong assumption about MSes position.

Bit Locker requires the TPM to work. These chips hold the keys. As it turns out using 128 or 256 bit encryption is not crack able, yet members of Doom9 have found all the keys needed to view and copy HDDVDs encrypted with AACS. So MS may not have a key or may not need one?

My money says that at a minimum the US Government has a path in. I often listen to Steve Gibson's Pod Casts with Leo Lapporte and they were talking about encryption. Steve made it clear that the Government's encryption has to be greater then what the public has at 256. He went deeper and talked about new laws that came to pass after 9-11. Homeland security (NSA, etc.) can apparently bug the entire planet and be in your packets. It turns out that the Fed has the paths that it needs as a matter of national security.

One of my fans here insists that my posts are FUD. In this case the proof is in the pudding and I doubt that people like Steve Gibson (GRC.com for POD Casts) will make up encryption stories. I would imagine that many spooks can look at what we do in all sorts of places. So, make sure you keep clean in your machine. It isn't like MS is going to care about what is on our systems. Matters of national security trump all others regardless of what side you are on.

I just went to look at that site and wow there are so many new casts. HERE IS GRC PODCASTS closer to the bottom there are shows about crypto and even TruCrypt

Who moved my Cheese?

I haven't finished reading the entire thread, got a little bored with the flaming.

M$ worries me. It gives an indication of what would happen if Intel was to ever win the CPU war. I do not buy everything bad that is said about them, but Vista is a nasty pig of an OS that has a lot of potential for abuse.

People who worry too much and conversly do not worry at all are both silly. I am not buying Vista yet because I do not need it nor desire the potential problems with it. I remember far too well, the issues with copy protection stoping legal copies of games working, forcing genuine customers to get their games cracked so they could actually play them. Yes, that was not M$'s fault but their copy protection may one day be the cause of a similar crazy situtation.

Adding to this, the EU is ripping into M$ on a regular basis. They are concerned over M$ not complying with their rules on fair competition. This makes me concerned as I genuinly believe they are looking out for consumers best interests (despite not always getting it right).

Without competition, Vista is only the start of even worse value for money from M$. Let's face it, M$ are doing what any other company would do in their position, abuse their power and get away with making as much money as possible for as long as possible. That is the failing of capitalism. Enough out of me, I have said too much and will get flamed!

Worse than that, I am a lib dem! You know you want to give it a try as well

Burn her you numpty, I'm not a him

What counts as proof? We can go into PM and discuss that further if you feel the need

DOT is rejecting Vista, click here.

"Compatibility with existing applications appears to be the Transportation Department's major concern."

Another lost of use; this is getting way out of hand. I don't see a reason for all these companies running to the government to protect the content. My understanding is that ever time a song or movie is played the content owners get a piece of the pie.

And of course if this bill is passed the content distributors will use it beyond the intended purpose. Abuse...IMO

Thanks for the PERFORM Act link

It appears that I made sport of Zoron and he had someone close the thread.

I have never, nor will I ever, ask for a thread to be locked. Again you assume way too much... which is your problem. You make huge assumptions based on little bits of information and run with it. If you wish to find out why a thread was locked, ask the forum moderator... as you can plainly see, I am not the moderator.

Trust me... you in no way "made a sport out of me".

What need do you have in bringing up my name?

I have a complaint to make to zoron and alpha--

First, I dont appreciate topics that i post to be flamed out of existance because of either of you. With this in my mind, can you refrain in future and stick with point as both of you have good points to offer ---it does no good to rant without reason as your points are lost and so are mine (even if i'm agreeing with you). Can we all be friends --- or atleast seem like friends in these discussions.

For my part I apologize

I has taken me a while to read through all these post, and I felt I should read them before joining the discussion.

The original poster seems to be very intent to putting some points across to 'warn' unsuspecting PC users from the evil that is Vista. He tries to gain sympathy by instilling doubt to readers of this forum, and offends users that don't agree or even come up with valid proof to debunk his claims. He flames people for commenting in 'his' thread without reading his posts, yet he does exactly the same (and apperently is proud of it as well);

I would love to comment but I'm retired! I can mention *inux and I have no issues running it. I'm sorry that you can't get it up ( you're *inux system I mean) but eventually you may. For some reason I completely forgot what you posted, sorry! It must be because I have to grab some lunch? Wait, I only read the first and last scentences, Oh well.

Quoted from another thread were he apperently met too much opposition so he had to flee and create 'his own' thread...

He uses quotes from 'reporters' without specifying a source, and uses that in a way to insult the poster that questioned his claims.

He uses WHQL as an example how MS 'closes down the box' and prevents development of open standards. Now tell me this, WHQL exists for YEARS, and is not exclusive to Vista. WHQL only applies to Windows platforms and device drivers for that platform, and has NO (I Repeat) NO influence whatsoever on development of support for other OS', open source or not.

Hardware designed to protect content (or maintain the so called PMP) has NO (I repeat) NO influence whatsoever on development of device drivers for OS' that decide not to support playback of protected content. The only result is that that OS will have no legal way to support playback of that content (If the OS was never designed to support it, what point would there be in writing drivers for these dedicated chip anyway).

Proof: nVidia has several Videocards that comply with the PMP specification for Vista, yet have working and up to date drivers available for Open Source platforms such as Linux. The vary nature of Linux will probably mean that playback support for protected content will be very unlikely, so these Videocard 'features' simply don't apply to Linux environments.

Another bit of 'proof' is handed in the form of an article concerning your DOT. In don't know what a conspiracy theorist reads into that article, but I read the same as I read when Win95, WinNT, Win2K, WinXP, WinXP64, OSX and OSX for Intel was introduced; lots of PC's concerned, cost of upgrade, new OS means compatibility issues for older software. If you have 1 PC, then these issues are easy to solve, if you 15.000 (or more), then you may want to hold off with your upgrades untill software support has caught up. Here in France many police stations still work with Win2K. Why? because the software they use hasn't changed in years, so there is no reason for them to upgrade. Does that mean that the French police department are officially saying that XP is bad, or evil? No it means just that; no funds, compatibility issues.

Another example; a friend of mine is a veterinarian. The database they use runs on Win98 only. He NEEDS to buy a new PC because this one is running on its last leggs. He has been told that he can get an upgrade to his database program to support XP (or Vista), but it will cost him € 1500. By the OP's logic, this man is refusing to upgrade because of concerns over DRM/monopoly/MS standards etc. I mean, why else would the article about the DOT be made relevant in this discussion? The facts are a lot more simple though; he would like nothing more than to upgrade to a more secure XP or Vista environment, but he refuses to pay an outrageous fee to get his database compatible. I am now helping him set up a Vista environment and we're going to virtualize a Win98 environment for his database. Linux is not the answer to his problem, nor is OSX. Simple economics are dictating his decision. There are MILLIONS of small bussinesses who are constantly weighing their software decisions on simple economics.

Will Vista increase the Cost of PC's? No, not as far as I can see. If I go to Dell, the prices for similar PC are the same, before and after the introduction of Vista. If I look at the prices of XP Professional OEM compared to Vista Professional OEM, I don't see any real difference (deffinatelly not in the order of 100%, as claimed on the boards). OK, if you want the latest of the latest stuff, with HD playback and the whole shebang, you're gonna pay more than just a normal Mid-Range PC, but hasn't it always been like that? My first DVD-rom drive cost something in the order of € 300, and required a dedicated MPEG2 board to playback DVDs (with a VGA loopthrough cable, imagine that). Now a DVD-rom drives can be had for € 20.

An often quoted article on the board is the one found on this link: [url] http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut [...] _cost.html [/url]. This article has made wild accusations about the impact of Vista on our lifes. A lot of the accusations have been proved as nonsense and, without notice (or rectification comment) have been removed or toned down from the article. So, an article that is used by a lot of people as proof of the evils of MS, has been changed on numerous occasions without prior notice (somewhat like a MS EULA, see the parallels?). But again, something a lot of people fail to grasp is that it is not the (monetary) cost of DRM that is the issue here, it is the cost of new technology (as has always been the case). HDTV's now cost only a fraction of what they cost a few years ago. A DVD player now costs a small fraction of what they cost when they were just released. Does anyone remember € 1000 CD-players? I do. Minidisk players? € 700... My first Geforce2 GTS card? € 500...in fact, with inflation correction applied, you will find that EVERY top of the range Geforce graphics card has been introduced at retail for roughly the same price, DRM/AACS/DHCP or not...

Now, about DRM, and the (non-) necessity of it. As I have told before, I am not a big fan of restrictive DRM, but having worked in the content creation bussiness has allowed me to realise things others may not have. With HD content available to the general public for the first time in history, we are in a unique situation that the public has now access to material in almost the same quality as the content creators' source (film) material. With bit for bit digital copies and broadband internet, we are now in a situation where a pirate copy is identical to the legal copy or worse, to the source material. Never, in the history of creative media creation, has it been easier to enjoy a Cinema quality experience in the confort of your own home (Legal or Illegal). In the entire history of content creation, only since the dawn of the CD recorder has it been possible to make 1 on 1 copies (a relatively recent event) of audio content, and even later than that DVD copies.
Now people claiming that 'it has always been possible to make copies, until now, and that is unfair', you are wrong; a compact cassette copy of an LP and the LP are not the same. A VHS copy from TV or DVD is not the same. For decades, if you wanted to see a movie, you had to go to the cinema, and even with VHS there was still a huge quality incentive to go the the cinema. In the digital age, and with the HD revolution in full swing, all that changed. The content environment changed (immensely in our benefit as consumers), but some people insist that even in a changing environment, the rules should stay the same (rules that were never designed to cope with digital copies and mass digital distrubution). Some people even take that to extremes and declare any measure to protect intellectual property as an assault on their freedoms. But is that really the case? I mean, you are still free to choose to buy content or not...You are still free to choose to enjoy content or not...Those freedoms are still protected as they always were. Heck, if you were so inclined, you can still obtain illegal copies of content and enjoy it on your Vista PC. You are still free to NOT support DRM by not buying protected content, and you know what? Vista will NOT report your ass to MS/AACS/RIAA/MPAA for NOT buying protected content.

Now back on point, every OS/Device that will want to offer compatibility for protected content has but one choice and that is comply with the rules set by the provider of said content. Every OS/Device that does not want to offer that compatibility, or wants to protest such rules, is free to do so. Linux (apparently) runs fine fine on all the latest HDCP compatible hardware, but since Open Source is in direct conflict with the wishes of these content providers, some of the 'features' of this hardware will simply not work, and some content will simply not play back on Linux...Now why is that so bad? I mean, if you are against DRM in the first place then why would you have a problem with the fact that certain DRM specific hardware will not work on your Linux PC, not playing back the DRM protected content you weren't going to buy in the first place? I simply don't get it... Why is that a bad thing? And how are the design specs for Vista drivers causing problems for Linux drivers that use entirely different specs?

You assume that one thing has something to do with the other...You assume wrong.

Sorry (again) for the long post, but it needs to be said that the original poster is wrong in most of his points and the 'research' he has done to come to those points and the conclusion he comes to from that research is flawed, based mostly on shady, opinionated hearsay articles... But I suspect the response I will be getting is that I am just a naive 'Spider Monkey' who is marching in step with Bill Gates. Nevermind the nearly 2 decades I've spent using several different OS environments, from DOS/Win to MacOS to SGI IRIX.

dsharp9000,

I think you are confusing a few things. When devices support HDCP and comply with the PMP are used on an OS that does not require these specs and does not support protected playback, that does not mean that these devices will not work on such OS (as suggested by some people here), nor will it complicate driver design for such OS, because these requirements can simply be ignored on that OS.
As for added cost, well, several devices already comply, and they are no more expensive than their comparable previous versions. New standards are introduced in software and hardware constantly, DirectX goes througyh constant revision, so does OpenGL. Programs and hardware that ran fine on MacOS 9, no longer works on OSX, not without some cost involved. The discrete PC graphics market (intergrated graphics solutions are not affected by the PMP requirement) is a market with HUGE profit margins, especially in the Highend segment. Chips are being sold at several times the amount they cost to make and develop. ATI stated that they are going to pass on their cost to consumers, whereas they are not in a position to claim that is necessery. ATI has the choice of offering solutions without support for protected content playback. ATI chooses not to do that. ATI could reduce their profit margin on each chip sold in order to accomodate costs involved with ensuring compatibility with the emerging HD market. ATI chooses not to do that and instead pass that cost on to its clients. ATI chooses to blame MS/Vista for the rising price of their products, forgetting that the windows platform is ATI's main reason of existance.
Innovation in PC component design, Videocards in specific has never been higher that it is currently. nVidia and ATI are on product cycle times almost half the time as any other component. You cannot honnestly be serious that a company that can come up with a completely new chip architecture every 9 months to satisfy a market willing to pay huge amounts of money for their gaming fix, hasn't got the resources and knowhow to implement a 10$ security feature in its 600$ retail design? And that a specification that is all laid out clear, and only needs to be implemented (not reinvented) hurts innovation...?

The PC in its current state is all based on content. The current PC has evolved from a typewriter replacement to a machine that can handle complex 3D tasks, HD video playback, enormous storage needs, world wide connectivity etc. It has done so because of consumer demand. Content isn't only protected HD content, but is everything you read, watch play, use and listen to. Without content, there would be no PC. Content has dictated the development of PC/PC components for many years, for Windows, Apple and Linux alike. Content dictates the specs for your Video out, the requirements of your 3D card, the size of your harddrive, the size of your screen, the cabbles to your amplifier, the functionality of your playback software and ultimately the functionality of your OS. It has done so for many, many years. For many, many years people have used and abused their PCs to enjoy but also copy, share and distribute content. Many people have never bothered to find out who made it possible for them to enjoy that content, and have never had second thoughts about sharing, copying and distributing that content, just because technology made it possible for them to do so, and to do so in relative anonimity. These people are now often mistaken that possibillity they always had for a right they always had. They reason thas as soon as they buy a DVD, they own the movie on that DVD and they should be allowed to do with that whatever they want. But surely if you buy a concert ticket you don't drive home with the band in your trunk, do you? Or if you buy a ticket to the zoo, you don't drive home with an elephant strapped to your roof, do you? You bought the ticket, but you don't expect to have the right to make a photocopy of the ticket 'for safekeeping' and still be allowed into the concert with that photocopy, do you?

What I am trying to say is that some people want it all. They want HD, but they don't want to pay for it. They don't want to accept the consequenses of a decade and a half of free-spirited copying and downloading. They are now offered a simple choice, if you still want to enjoy content, you will have accept the rules. The choice is simple, yet the only thing they can come up with is; I want the content, but I don't want to accept the rules. If DRM is making PC more expensive, then it can also be said that the evolution of the PC has made Content creation more expensive.

On your last comment about two versions of Vista. Can you explain to me exactly what the difference is with the current situation? If your hardware doesn't support protected HD media playback, then there is nothing for the DRM to protect in the first place so it will be a complete non-issue. Why would that require a different version of Vista? I can tell you from my own experience (Vista 32bit Ultimate) that DRM on my PC is a complete non-issue. Since I don't play DRM protected files, I have never seen any proof that it was affecting my PC in any negative way, be it perfomance related or functionality related.