| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
High-quality DVDs will not operate on some Vista PCs | |
|
||
| Time: 00:22 EST/05:22 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft has been forced to acknowledge that a substantial number of PCs running the new version of its Windows operating system will not be able to play high-quality DVDs. The Vista system will be available to consumers at the end of the month. However, in an interview with The Times, one of its chief architects said that because of anti-piracy protection granted to the Hollywood studios, Vista would not play HD-DVD and Blu-ray Discs on certain PCs. Dave Marsh, the lead program manager for video at Microsoft, said that if the PC used a digital connection to link with the monitor or television, then it would require the highest level of content protection, known as HDCP, to play the discs. If it did not have such protection, Vista would shut down the signal, he said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:59:21 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/9/2007 2:04:28 AM |
|
This really is not the issue it is made out to be - http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1071342
The list above is pretty long and each can pass HDCP token constrained content via DVI, or HDMI. Saphire has had a card for months - I use it. http://www.sapphiretech.com/us/products/products_overview.php?gpid=145 the card IS HDCP ready. Count on some very clever pundits playing on this one - ever so gently suggesting that Vista will prevent people from playing high quality content. It is pure nonsense. |
| #2 By 12071 (203.217.94.252) at 1/9/2007 7:44:38 AM |
|
#1 So what you're saying is that this "issue" isn't really an issue at all as it can easily be resolved by purchasing an appropriate video card? That's alright then, I mean, as long as we don't need to buy a special motherboard and special ram and a special sound card and special cables and bend over whilst connecting to Microsoft's servers every 15 minutes then we don't really have anything to complain about right?
The story is correct, a substantial number of PC's won't be able to play the DVD's as they won't have the blessed video card in them. It's a good thing we have a clever pundit such as yourself here to wave your hand at us with your Jedi mind tricks... "there's nothing to see here!". |
| #3 By 46122 (151.202.44.37) at 1/9/2007 8:18:43 AM |
| #2 By chris_kabuki, what are you talking about. I have been able to play HD DVD movies on my PCs 1 is 4 years old and the other is 3 months old. Both or not running anything special except Windows Vista 32bit. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/9/2007 8:20:50 AM |
| #2: LOL, you nailed it. It still amazes me how Mr. Ketchum has used every MS product ever made, loves them all and sees no problems in anything MS has ever done or will do. |
| #5 By 17605 (24.18.169.204) at 1/9/2007 8:49:01 AM |
|
Just curious if all of you anti MS folks think that Apple or some other computer manufacturer will be able to bypass these Hollywood created DRM restrictions when they attempt to enter the high definition home media market?
Seems to me that MS is merely providing an OS that will ALLOW you to use your computer for high definition content by fullfilling the DRM specs of the RIGHTS HOLDERS. All the other's who don't meet the RIGHTS HOLDER'S DRM specs will not. Go buy a standalone HD DVD or Blue Ray player and see how that will connect to your television with a DVI connection and come back and see me. |
| #6 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/9/2007 9:00:01 AM |
|
#4, Latch, it is about building products and environments that I use myself, and for my customers.
About 30 hardware and software vendors' products are used in cases like this. In this case we build highly customized "environments" for our customers that cross over traditional barriers separating home from work. As in all cases, my comments are based upon what we have actually done and used - both for ourselves and for customers. In this case, building custom systems that integrate into homes where business owners and their partners live and work. They all want as much HD as possible. We've completed two such configurations this week alone - both will use custom HDCP compliant systems that will ship the second Vista is released to the general public. Both handle HD DVD and HDMI out to their primary displays. Both builds use both Xbox 360 and other wireless connections to either additional TV's or monitors where BT keyboards and other HIDS and shared devices are used [printers, etc...]. Each of these home environments allows secure connections to the customers' office locations and these of course, use a variety of secure web services to connect these customers, their staffs and "their" customers to applications, messaging and telephony that runs in our centers. We've done the same in restaurants, sports bars, conference rooms and offices as one part of our business. The entire work is built on top of a platform that consists of many components that all leverage Microsoft software as a platform. The customer profile is always very similar - people who have operated businesses for many years that have gradually increased their use of information systems. They are never quite away from work, and never quite away from home and family - same as myself and millions of others that own businesses of all types. Parallel to this work, we are building case studies and "how to" documents and media to help people do the same - regardless of scale. I'll complete the example relevant to this topic and publish it. I'll allow that work and the customer to speak for me. |
| #7 By 61 (72.64.142.151) at 1/9/2007 9:00:44 AM |
|
It is a simple matter of either Microsoft can support HD and BlueRay or they can't.
If they don't implement these things, they won't be aloud to support these technologies. Stop being a complete drone and blameing Microsoft for something they DIDN'T create. |
| #8 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 1/9/2007 9:36:45 AM |
|
The problem is not MS here, Hollywood shortsighted and greedy majors and the best "representatives" their money was able to send to Washington are the ones trying to dictate what is "fair" for me to do.
Well surprise, surprise: my wallet is closed, they can keep HD DVD an Blu Ray players and movies on the shelves. And I am not alone here; these companies have pushed the envelope too far and people are beginning to react: sales of these new formats are way lower than expected. I can happily live for a long time without buying any DVD and or CD; these companies and their executives cannot. This post was edited by Fritzly on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 at 09:37. |
| #9 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/9/2007 10:13:49 AM |
|
#8, If I may add some information - first, I agree with you. Your points are more than valid.
However, so far, neither those publishing for HD DVD, or Blu-Ray have included HDCP Token Constraints on any media sold so far and they have no published plans to do so until 2011. By then it is assumed that most HDTV buyers/users will have at least one HDCP compliant port. For now, players such as Toshiba's HDA1 [a really great player, by the way], will happily send an HD DVD signal over even component [I own one, have sold more and tested them all]. (Quick side note: the scaler in the HD A1 and other players is awesome - it up-converts SD DVD like nothing I have seen). The issue being discussed here is about Microsoft Vista's handling of HD ports. Vista appears to require HDCP compliance - regardless of the presence of the HDCP Token Constraint. Some are saying it's a big deal. I am saying, and based upon using both Vista and HDCP compliant products running on it, that it is a non-issue. I say that because the hardware available that can support an HD signal is already HDCP compliant - as are dirvers/SW and certainly any TV [would have to be (DVI, HDMI, etc...)]. Technically, the article is correct, but in one sense only - that most existing systems can't play HD content. Well... DUH... very few can as very few have an HD DVD, or BD player to begin with. I submit that any person investing in the kind of coin, or effort required to add such a player, would also be adding one of the many HDCP compliant display devices and also compliant playback SW - e.g., WinDVD 8 and the HD add-on. My beef started off simply... the subject and its subtle and not well known details are being used to spread unfounded doubt about Vista. The same could as easily have been said of Apple, or any Linux Distro and an alarming percentage of HD capable TV sets. I maintain that all of that is largely mute, and "Pure D' FUD" Others here have been personally critical of me for saying so. Fine. I'll let my work speak for me. BTW, I am typing this message adjacent to one of the tests systems we used to evolve these capabilities - living and working in the very networks and environments our soluitons are based on - and yes, they all use Microsoft's platform and the ecosystem they built. - BTW, the picture is stunning and WMC as part of Vista, is really nice. Very stable and it goes into and out of sleep faster than the HDTV can warm fully up - via a remote. |
| #10 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 1/9/2007 12:40:14 PM |
|
Microsoft agreed to this crap. They didn't have to. There is NO LAW requiring it. They wanted to get cozy with hollywood, their customers be-damned.
Millions of people are going to pay for this one way or another. TL |
| #11 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 1/9/2007 12:50:55 PM |
|
"Microsoft agreed to this crap."
Think of this as a double edged sword in favor of Microsoft. If no other OS company agrees to the terms of Hollywood, Microsoft will be the only OS provider than can play this material. If its too much of a hassle, it makes HD via XBOX 360 more attractive. This post was edited by NotParker on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 at 12:51. |
| #12 By 61 (72.64.142.151) at 1/9/2007 1:06:51 PM |
|
TL,
Microsoft is supporting a technology that is already in wide deployment. Microsoft had to agree to 'this crap' in order to support a technology that is comeing wether you like it or not. |
| #13 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/9/2007 2:05:09 PM |
|
Lord.... it's not just Microsoft and not just one country, or its laws. It's about property when it comes down to it. I really don't know when people will come back to an understanding that individual liberty really centers on this one key component - the right to own and dispose of property - beginning of course with the right to not be owned by someone else in the first place.
Studios and all their own granularity have to agree and benefit. Hardware manufacturers have to agree and benefit. Software manufacturers have to agree and benefit. Platform manufacturers [Microsoft, Apple, Inc. and anyone else willing to compete] have to agree and benefit. And finally, consumers have to agree and benefit - before our representitive governments will agree and tax the life out of all above. I think that the leadership role Microsoft is fulfilling provides a path whereby all of these parties might find enough common ground to protect our property - e.g., our license to consume the property as owned by not one, but many parties without losing our minds in the process. If any of this breaks and people vote "NO" with their wallets, we'll all wade around in a pool subject to the least common denominator - low and slow DEF - low speed, high drag, which runs contrary to what it is to be human - not that such has not stopped our species from stagnating for centuries in the past... as we waited to rediscover that in order to be free we needed to own stuff and be able to transfer it and benefit from that transaction. What I find amazing is all the racket that presses so hard to flatten what we are - seeking to perpetuate the majority of people in some state of permanent childhood. Seems like a wild stretch when one first looks at it, but it really comes down to that. Like most things, respect for another's property and right to it, supports the same for our own. That's all this is and that's not a bad thing. That really is the only defense we have against tyrants and despots - respect for one another's property. Without it, we ask governments to own it all - did any of you see eastern Europe before the communists fell? With what regularity do global block buster films come out of any place other than Hollywood? Someone please define what exactly is wrong with a property owner from protecting that which is rightfully theirs? Maybe I am missing it all - so, in all sincerity I ask, what do you mean? |
| #14 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 1/9/2007 3:48:35 PM |
|
Iketchum, thanks for your reply; it is very detailed and articulated as usual therefore it is always worth reading your posts.
I found also very interesting the last paragraph of your latest post (13). Honestly it reminded me the good old times when I was in school and studied the Greek Philosophers; you start with a rethoric question and then elaborate on it. Btw note that for me the word "rhetoric"is not something negative, I consider it an extremely difficult art to master and, unfortunately, nowadays basically extinct. Quote "Someone please define what exactly is wrong with a property owner from protecting that which is rightfully theirs?" Unquote In absolute terms there is nothing wrong with it; in the specific case things are a little bit more complicated. Without getting in an endless debate involving legal, economic and social issues let me give you an example of why there is not a single, definitive answer to your question: if I buy a DVD Movie in the US the law denies me the right to make a backup copy of it; yes it does not specifically deny it but practically it does because in order to do it I should circumvent some "protection mechanism" and thus perform an illegal action. On the other hand if my four years old daughter damage the DVD I cannot contact the company that sold me the phisical media and ask for a replacement of it, paying only the cost to produce the disk. In Europe you are allowed to make backup copies of what you bought for your personal use as long as you do not re-destribute it. Does this give customers a better protection? Absolutely yes. What is the difference here? The difference is that in modern societies we have an "entity" that mediate between the needs of different subjects; in this case the companies that produce movies and the customers who buy them. Make no mistakes. history shows us that without regulations companies would exploit any possible option in order to increase their profits. At the beginning of the Industrial Era children were working six days a week, twelve hours per week. Societies evolved and enacted laws to protect individuals from the overwhelming power of stronger entities; regulating both the rights and the obligations that citizens and corporations have to follow in order to have a fair balance. Obviously these institutions are created by us, human beings, and therefore they are not perfect. I still do not understand the big show about MS being a monopoly while, at least as my knowledge goes, nobody is investigatng cable companies which are a real cartel. So you see, the owner of the product has every right to protect its content until its right not undercut my or your rights. Now define what "Fair rights" are is a completely different chapter that would start another endless debate that I will leave for another debate. This post was edited by Fritzly on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 at 15:55. |
| #15 By 72087 (70.16.75.207) at 1/9/2007 4:48:19 PM |
|
Techlarry hit the nail on the head. Microsoft didn't have to bend to this crap. They did so to make MS DRM the standard. MS must think it's customers are the movie studios, because I don't know anyone who thinks it's reasonable to down-rez an HD picture for no technical reason other than the movie studios want it that way. If MS had refused to play ball, what would happen? Maybe the movie studios would refuse to release thier movies? PLEASE...such an idea is silly, they'd make no money at all. Personally, it might be a blessing....They NEED Blu-Ray and HDDVD to keep those profits artificially high. If MS had told them to take a hike, these silly schemes would fail. Instead, Microsoft sold it's customers out for a piece of the Hollywood pie. Pathetic. No Vista in this house, thanks.
And the funny thing is, it won't prevent piracy. What it will prevent is anyone buying a Blu-Ray or HDDVD drive and adding it to their otherwise capable computer, and getting the full resolution they should normally get. That's right, it's going to inconvenience PAYING customers the most. As usual. |
| #16 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 1/9/2007 5:57:31 PM |
|
#14, Good argument - yes, there was a time [even in the US], when rhetoric was a studied practice. It was how gentle people discussed difficult matters - each of course had to begin any discussion with an adherence to one rule - they actually had to place arriving at a solution ahead of being right.
There is a fundamental difference in markets. In the EU and many areas in PAC Asia, an assessment is levied on not just media like DVD's, HD DVD's and BD disks, but the devices that play them. This, like the same levies on tapes is paid to both host governments and content providers. It pre-supposes that some individuals, to the harm of all, will misuse, or even steal, protected content. Some in the US favor this model as a means of securing some relief from content owners - say a 1 dollar per spindle of DVD-R's sold, etc... It is the pre-supposition that I personally can't tolerate. It asks the innocent to pay for what would be the acceptable crimes as committed by others. I know of no society that has ever withstood such thinking. Laws here in the US and elsewhere do provide for replacement media. Where laws do not, good business form, does. I have asked for, and received replacement media on two occasions. Both times, a security TAG with some kind of alien glue, had been affixed to the movies I bought and could not be removed w/o destroying it. It took seconds for the store clerk to apologize and promptly replace it. No such levy is applied in the US, yet. The thinking on one side here is that there is much greater benefit to sustained by general growth in all markets - be they one's own personal market, or that of any larger market, than in any form of levy and the resulting distribution of that diluted value. For example, despite relatively low population numbers, just the growth component in one quarter's GDP in the US in 06 was twice that of the entire national economy of China. Many believe that despite what may appear to be less social national policies, that the overall results inherent to our system, actually benefits a far greater number of people than any government could afford. It is to say simply, that on one hand, one may give a man two cows, from which he will milk and feed as many as possible, and on the other, he would be wiser to choose to sell one of those cows and buy a bull. Cont... This post was edited by lketchum on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 at 17:59. |
| #17 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 1/9/2007 5:58:04 PM |
|
#15 is right - laws do not prevent crimes - in this case, piracy. Laws define how people and their societies conduct themselves. Copy protection, like fences, locks, safes, cryptography, police and aircraft carriers make crimes harder to commit and potentially, very costly.
We do all know that the potential for gross theft does exist in this space. Very powerful and cheap computing systems bolted to equally powerful means of anonymous distribution all but assure that even one machine could be used to support the creation of thousands of perfect, lossless duplicates. Since the distribution means are global and well beyond any practical means to enforce them, what is one left to do other than secure as best they can, the property itself? #15 is also correct, good and decent people do end up paying - just as they have and continue to pay for locks, locksmiths, alarms, CCTV systems, and a very costly judicial and penal system. It isn't right. It isn't fair. It is the price we pay to deal with crime. The answer has to be centered on reducing the pain people sense, while increasing it for those that cause it. This is the ratio that has lost any sense of balance. If the ecosystem created and sustained by Microsoft prepares a means for people to access and use keys for locks that others create, then I see little reason why the provision of such keys warrants animus toward them. Neither the studios or Microsoft is the bad party here – criminals are – thieves are – pirates are. It astonishes me that we direct our spleen at companies and one another and not those who injure all of us. Sorry for the book. |
| #18 By 72087 (70.16.75.207) at 1/9/2007 7:46:15 PM |
|
lketchum:
I certainly agree that content owners should be able to protect their works (providing for my fair use rights, something sorely lacking lately). The thing is, piracy of Blu-ray and HDDVD content is as certain as the start of a new day. AACS is reportedly already broken. I'd guess that the extra Blu-ray protection isn't far behind. And these discs haven't even become widespread yet. So all this inconvenience and expense is for nothing. This method of content protection is over the top, in my opinion. There is no rational, pro-customer reasoning to it. The whole idea is just an expensive headache that isn't going to work. Microsoft saw this as an oppurtunity to drum up OEM sales of Vista. Most 2-3 year old computers could play HD content NOW with Windows XP. So Microsoft needed a way to force folks to replace perfectly good computers with new ones with OEM Vista licences. The content companies, well, after the Sony rootkit fiasco, it's obvious they'll go to any lengths they can get away with. What a marriage of convenience. The point you made about balance was a good one. It's so far out of whack with these 2 disc formats, it's flipped right over. I can hardly wait for standalone players' keys to get revoked. Maybe people will finally see how out of balance it's gotten and stop putting up with it. This decision wasn't made because Microsoft was forced to do it, they did it because it would make them more money. But I think they forgot to ask people if they'd like to have to buy new computers simply to support digital restrictions that are entirely artificial. It seems that Microsoft forgot it had CUSTOMERS, real actual people that USE their product. Crippling it in this way simply to satisfy an unrelated industry was stupid. I really wish they hadn't done it. To me it is indicative they don't care about their customers. I cannot think of a single soul who would be enthusiastic about this "feature" unless they worked for a movie studio. It seems that customers are not people to them, but just a soulless means of revenue generation, to be played with as needed. I think that the focus should be on me, the customer who buys the product, not the content cartel. Vista could have been a good OS, but they blew it for me with this bit. And I know I'm not the only one. If they'd put all that extra work into strengthening the OS more againt malware and bad code, it could have been ironclad. What a waste. This post was edited by Waxly on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 at 19:56. |
| #19 By 821588 (120.32.147.69) at 9/6/2012 9:47:02 PM |
|
http://www.montblancpens-sales.org/ mont blanc pens
http://www.prada-australia.org/ prada australia http://www.lisseurstyler-france.com/ lisseur ghd http://www.drdrebeats-singapore.org/ beats by dr dre http://www.prada-outlet.net/ prada handbags http://www.straightenersaustralia-ivstyler.com/ ghd straighteners australia http://www.ergobabycarrier-australia.com/ ergo baby carriers http://www.chihair.ca/ CHI Hair |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:59:21 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
