Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Feb 2009 23:28 UTC
Permalink for comment 349751
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
If there is to be polling of "protected paths" when there is DRM'd content present, then there must at least be polling "if there is DRM'd content present" that occurs every 30ms in order to switch it on. No?
Why would I be lying? I have already said that no-one knows how DRM works. I have already said that this is speculation. What we do know is that Vista has lethargic performance on high-end hardware that gets considerably worse for lower-end hardware. I have speculated that the DRM polling is a good candidate for what has caused this lethargy. So far, no one has been able to say that it isn't, despite the desperate attempts to do so.
The question that I always get back to is this ... why can't I get a version of Vista without the DRM? If my machine cannot play HD video content anyway, why do I need to have DRM embedded in my OS? Of what possible use is it in such a machine?
If I want to run Windows then perhaps (more speculation here) I must have DRM because Microsoft doesn't want it to be possible for anyone to benchmark a Vista machine without DRM against a Vista machine with DRM? Just sayin ...
Edited 2009-02-19 02:55 UTC