Microsoft on Monday detailed innovations coming in Windows Vista that the company believes makes the operating system superior in the delivery of multimedia. This would include several enhancements to Windows Media itself as well as expanded functionality within Windows Media Center, now standard in Vista. The company is promoting the new features of its upcoming operating system at the National Association of Broadcasters convention being held this week in Las Vegas. With online multimedia becoming more prevalent, traditional broadcasters are increasingly interesting in utilizing the Internet as a method for delivery.
I don’t get it.
Most programs have volume controls built in.. Why would I want to go to the sound properties and adjust the sound for Media Player, when I can adjust it withing media player itself?
This would allow for applications to route sound through a specific device:; for example, music could play through the computers speakers, while e-mail alert chimes sound in a headset.
Alot of programs could do this now already. Some of the VOIP apps I use allow me to choose which soundcard I want to use. I’m asuming that quoted text above is refering to a USB headset, meaning the PC sees it as a seperate sound device.
Ever have a movie going, and thus, the voulem’s high, and then you go to a web page with a loud flash advertisement? Notice the flash plugin does not have a volume control, nor any browser that I’m aware of. Ads that have their own always start at max.
Ever have a movie going, and thus, the voulem’s high, and then you go to a web page with a loud flash advertisement? Notice the flash plugin does not have a volume control, nor any browser that I’m aware of. Ads that have their own always start at max.
AdBlock.
Substitute *flash advertisement* with *flash whatsoever*. Don’t make us think you thought your answer had a bit of usefulness but that was only bashing. Stop sticking the head into the ground. That per application volume control is like per application always on top, not ever needed, maybe already implemented in some applications, but more flexible and useful.
Edited 2006-04-25 07:52
Ever have a movie going, and thus, the voulem’s high, and then you go to a web page with a loud flash advertisement? Notice the flash plugin does not have a volume control, nor any browser that I’m aware of. Ads that have their own always start at max.
Or a better example (for those of us who haven’t seen a Flash ad in years) is listening to some music on the computer with the volume cranked up, then suddenly you get an IM and your ears are bleeding, as it always seems that the IM sound is twice as loud as the music
Personally, I’m looking forward to this.
As for DRM, the othe posters are right (and just like Linus T. said) – DRM is a content problem, not a software problem. When it comes to consumer DRM, you can bet it’s going to be in OSX as well (it already is with ITMS anyway). The only recourse you have is Linux and its ilk, but then you’re locking yourself out of any chance to use the DRM in the first place, until DVD Jon comes out with a crack, and then it doesn’t really matter anyway.
Edited 2006-04-24 22:00
or just that classical error ding that windows use as default. if you tune the master volume based on that, you can be damned sure that it will be to weak for some music and other sounds.
this is one of the tings they should have fixed for ages.
Whilst this is a nice idea in theory, it has one major problem.
You have to teach your users that if they want to turn down the volume of a particular program they have to open up this particular preference part of the system and set it. And then in the future, they have to remember to reset things.
Whilst not inherently a problem, I bet Microsoft will implement this as part of the Sound area in the Control Panel, and so getting to it will take far too long and frankly be a pain.
A better solution would probably be for developers to offer their own volume controls in their apps.
In the context of OS X, it could be made really smooth. You already have a menu item that allows setting of the system volume. Simply make it a menu item with two sliders in it instead – one for the current application – and it will be simple enough for the average user to get a grasp on. Obviously, you still need to offer somewhere where the settings for every app can be seen.
However, on Windows, I don’t really really see any comparatively simple way of doing things. The system tray would be the logical place, but it has been so abused that the vast majority of users simply ignore it! Maybe Vista will change things, but I doubt it.
How about a hotkey(s) that opens volume dialog, or even slides volume of active application up/down/default?
Dialog could have option to remember setting for that application or not.
If developers are ones to make it available, then it’s possible they will simply omit the control.
It’s actually part of the volume control app itself, which sits in the systray by default.
“Whilst this is a nice idea in theory, it has one major problem.
You have to teach your users that if they want to turn down the volume of a particular program they have to open up this particular preference part of the system and set it. And then in the future, they have to remember to reset things.”
Yes and no. This is a home user feature, since in general you do not find people listening to sounds while at work, and a good chunk of companies have policies against it actually. So as for the user base it is not something a business IT department will have to deal with for the most part. As always there will be some exceptions, but those are few and far between.
Microsoft has spent a LOT of money to be merely competent, haven’t they? They’re really puffing their chest up about features that should have been there from the start, methinks.
Oh, and lest we forget that pesky DRM they are going to force on all Windows users…
Edited 2006-04-24 21:14
“Oh, and lest we forget that pesky DRM they are going to force on all Windows users…”
Microsoft is not forcing DRM. That is coming from the entertainment industry. Microsoft just happens to be the major player supporting it, which will mean that Microsoft Windows will be the only way to use your media if the other OS don’t get on the stick and start implementing it as well.
Microsoft is not forcing DRM. That is coming from the entertainment industry. Microsoft just happens to be the major player supporting it, which will mean that Microsoft Windows will be the only way to use your media if the other OS don’t get on the stick and start implementing it as well.
Every kind of DRM scheme they try to push on the consumer will be broken eventually. DVDs didn’t last very long and HDMI is already broken. “Other” OSes will be fine without implementing DRM.
DRM will fail. The people do not want it. It will be implemented in Vista, but this will loose sales for Microsoft. People will stay in XP to play the content they have, and will still be getting.
Expect some future content will REQUIRE the DRM. It sucks, but it’ll happen.
//Expect some future content will REQUIRE the DRM. It sucks, but it’ll happen.//
Expect the Vista DRM will work at the system level and prohibit some operations on current “suspect” unecrypted (no DRM) media files.
Otherwise, little or no point (from the point of view of big-business copyright holders) to having any DRM in the first place.
Edited 2006-04-26 12:25
Proof or shut up.
//Proof or shut up.//
Oooh, touchy.
How about I ask you to shut up unless you can proove that Windows Vista with gee-wiz DRM won’t in fact manage media companies rights adequately (ie it will allow users to play suspect media files)?
You claim that Windows Vista DRM will be half-baked? OK, then, I would ask of you “proof, or shut up.”
No. The burden of proof is on you actually. All versions of Windows currently let you play media files without DRM. The proof is on you to show that this will change.
If you can’t understand this, it’s not my problem.
I wish this were true, but it’s not. People tolerate DRM, and then find workarounds like DeCSS. DRM *is* the future, and there’s no escaping it.
Microsoft doesn’t force DRM on anyone. The content providers do. Microsoft merely facilitate DRM.
Why are they doing this.
MS has enough money to buy the entire music industry.
Yes, The whole damn thing at once.
Why are they facilitating them. What is the MPAA / RIAA gonna do….nothing in reality
They are facilitating the music industry because if they don’t someone else will. After all, they’re a company and there’s a profit to be had in DRM. It sucks but that’s the way it is. If we as consumers don’t want it, we simply don’t by any content with DRM in it.
They are facilitating the music industry because if they don’t someone else will. After all, they’re a company and there’s a profit to be had in DRM. It sucks but that’s the way it is.
Sorry, but “money above all” behaviour leads to an “evil” behaviour.
So MS is evil, that’s what you imply : they’d better be evil than try to make it right.
If we as consumers don’t want it, we simply don’t by any content with DRM in it
Like I said, DVD situation is the same.
Try telling people that they don’t buy DVD if it does not please them, and see how effective it is.
Without DeCSS workaround, we’d be toast, you know.
If you give up your power now, it’s too late, you can’t take it back afterwards.
With companies, ‘good’ or ‘evil’ isn’t in their vocabulary. They do whatever makes them a profit and also what enables them to make a profit in the future. Sometimes this results in them doing ‘good’ and sometimes it results in them doing ‘evil’.
I don’t think MS should be facilitating DRM. I don’t like DRM. It’s a shitty deal for the consumer. I do understand why MS are doing DRM though. I never have bought any DRM encumbered media (although you make a good point with DVDs) and I never will. If people don’t want DRM, they won’t buy DRM media, there won’t be a demand for DRM media and the record companies etc. won’t provide DRM anymore.
The thing about DRM now is that there are alternatives. We can still buy and rip CDs.
Why have I been modded down?!?!
I must really be missing the point.
The articles main theme is volume controls allowing much more customisation, Rather than one big volume knob. I am already forever tweeking all my volume controls anyway. This is regardless of which Music/Video need adjusting for each video. I’m in love with nomalizing apps so I don’t have to constantly tweek.
The really big news is the stuff thats not included DRM, Windows Vista OS used to push propriaty codecs, Spyware??
What about streaming movies, how it connects to devices such as an ipod, what is happening with Vista sans media player.
It is a bit OT, but I’d like to know, by now who else uses feed readers, and skips all news related to Vista (I’d go as far all MS related, but Vista is enough)?
These people spend all their effort in promoting upcoming software, that’ll be released years from the marketing start, fail to include lots of announced features… what’s the deal with these people?
I’ve only used Linux for more than 5, 6 years, I don’t like the way MS deals with the software world (the article after this one shows what I mean: “Gates Said Microsoft Had to Beat RealNetworks”) so my lack of interest in Vista’s release has some bias.
I can’t take Gates seriously when he talks about future snapshots in time frames orders of magnitude of the revolution that brought us to today, and says he sees by then things that are possible today.
This is just MHO, I respect people who like MS products, Windows, Gates et al, unlike him, I think that we shouldn’t beat (or buy
) the other alternatives of software available, each one fits certain users. Competition is good, adds features, etc. I believe Vista will make some people happy, just let me choose to dist-upgrade to eft, and we’ll all be happy. 
These people spend all their effort in promoting upcoming software, that’ll be released years from the marketing start, fail to include lots of announced features… what’s the deal with these people?
Excerpted from Judge Sporkin’s memorandum denying the anti-trust settlement agreement between the US Gov and Microsoft (Feb 1995):
The Court has been particularly concerned about the accusations of “vaporware.” Microsoft has a dominant position in the operating systems market, from which the Government’s expert concedes it would be very hard to dislodge it. Given this fact, Microsoft could unfairly hold onto this position with aggressive preannouncements of new products in the face of the introduction of possibly superior competitive products. In other words, all participants concede that consumers and OEMs will be reluctant to shift to a new operating system, even a superior one, because it will mean not only giving up on both its old operating systems and applications, but also risking the possibility that there will not be adequate applications to run on the superior product. If this is true, Microsoft can hold onto its market share gained allegedly illegally, even with the introduction of a competitor’s operating system superior to its own. By telling the public, “we have developed a product that we are about to introduce into the market (when such is not the case) that is just as good and is compatible with all your old applications”, Microsoft can discourage consumers and OEMs from considering switching to the new product. It is for this reason that courts may consider practices outside the complaint. See AT&T 552 F. Supp. at 150. FN 31.
(reference http://www.effable.com/Commentary/sporkin_order.html)
Judge Sporkin was implying that vaporware announcements from a clearly dominant vendor amounted to anti-competitive or monopolistic behavior.
Unfortunately, it may be unethical but it’s not necessarily illegal. IIRC MS appealed claiming that Sporkin was biased.
Interestingly, the vaporware allegations played into IBM’s antitrust suit back in the 50’s as well.
Guess some things will never change.
I’ve always pictured the color of OS zealotry as a sort of bright flamingo pinkish hue. Make sense to you?
> Microsoft is not forcing DRM. That is coming from the
> entertainment industry.
That is a half-truth at best. Microsoft is out there selling lock-in DRM to the media giants as hard as they can. Obviously they are open to it.
Suggesting that Microsoft isn’t the one providing the cheese for the mice is disengenuous. You can believe that all concerned are going to make it very hard for anything but a Windows Vista computer system (or more to the point, a system with Windows Media Player installed) running on a “Trusted Computing Platform” hardware platform to play media. That’s a fact. If you don’t think so, you’re either not paying attention to what’s under your nose, or you’re simply kidding yourself. Lock-in and customer demonization are the new playgrounds for digital media.
That is a half-truth at best. Microsoft is out there selling lock-in DRM to the media giants as hard as they can. Obviously they are open to it.
———
If MS doesnt do it then someone else will sell the DRM stuff to the media giants. I suppose if Apple were to do the same things everything would be ok and people would be praising Apple for trying to cut down on piracy.
//If MS doesnt do it then someone else will sell the DRM stuff to the media giants. //
There is a vast difference between a single media player that has some form of DRM, and a DRM system built in to the OS itself.
Microsoft DRM in Vista will be able to make it so that the PC system will no longer play any media file (in any program) that isn’t verified by the DRM system. It is not possible (for example) for RealMedia to make a DRM Real Player that will prevent the system from being able to play random unidentified .mp3 files, but it IS possible for Microsoft to make Vista OS do just exactly that.
Do you actually have some proof that Vista won’t let you play media files without DRM or are you just talking out of your ass?
“Microsoft Details Vista’s Media Features”?
Really? Did I read the wrong article? There are absolutely no details here, only vague statements and marketing hyperbole.
>Oh, and lest we forget that pesky DRM they are going
>to force on all Windows users…
Thanks for the FUD, but you should consider getting educated about Microsoft and Windows Visa.
>DRM will fail. The people do not want it. It will be
>implemented in Vista, but this will loose sales for
>Microsoft. People will stay in XP to play the
>content they have, and will still be getting.
This proves my point that a lot of people on this forum either do not get it or they just don’t want to get it and troll. People are so clueless sometimes.
You still will be able to do what you do today on XP. You will be able to play MP3 files and WMA files without DRM just like you can on XP. You can also watch movies without DRM just like you do now.
Believe or not WMA files do not have to have DRM on them and neither do WMV files.
How do I know? I worked for a company that uses DRM 10 for their movies and you have to DRM or package the WMV files and WMA is the same way. They can have DRM or they don’t have to have it.
If you use the windows Media player to create WMA files, yes it will add DRM protection on the file, but there are other ways including free ways to create WMA files.
Nothing is going to change on Vista, except playing HD-DVD or Blueray movies using the Windows media player.
You still will be able to do what you do today on XP. You will be able to play MP3 files and WMA files without DRM just like you can on XP. You can also watch movies without DRM just like you do now.
The same can be said about living room DVD players with unencrypted DVD.
Believe or not WMA files do not have to have DRM on them and neither do WMV files
The same can be said about DVD which do not require CSS encryption.
If you use the windows Media player to create WMA files, yes it will add DRM protection on the file, but there are other ways including free ways to create WMA file
Ah ! One difference : I’m not sure you can encrypt the DVD you create, as it would require you to own a CSS key.
Nothing is going to change on Vista, except playing HD-DVD or Blueray movies using the Windows media player.
Now I have a problem. You say nothing is going to change, but the DVD situation is very similar, and I will have a hard time finding non encrypted ones.
Because you can do both does not mean the producers will leave you the choice and won’t go for the DRM only solution.
What do you think HDMI is ? It should give you a hint of where big content producers are headed.
Pull your head out of the sand please.
//You still will be able to do what you do today on XP. You will be able to play MP3 files and WMA files without DRM just like you can on XP. You can also watch movies without DRM just like you do now.//
DRM will be an integral feature of Vista. DRM will determine “you can play this, you may not play that”. DRM is a “phone home” technology. DRM is included at the behest of the **AA organisations – representing the large corporate media copyright holders. Current DRM technologies (Sony rootkit, iTunes) are already known to prohibit the ability to play “uncredentialled” media files.
If you believe that Microsoft put in a DRM system in Vista at the request of media corporations which includes “phone home” technology and which also allows a random unidentified .mp3 file to be played on the system – then I think you have an incredibly unrealistic optimism about the level of freedom you think you will have in the future while still using Microsoft software.
Edited 2006-04-25 13:58
Are you suggesting that Vista won’t allow you to play music/video without DRM?
//Are you suggesting that Vista won’t allow you to play music/video without DRM?//
Yes, I am suggesting exactly that. I am not stating it, I am suggesting it. I am indulging in speculation.
//Do you actually have some proof that Vista won’t let you play media files without DRM//
Why do I need proof in order to suggest something? Since when does speculation only come after conclusive evidence?
BTW, do you actually have some proof that Vista WILL let you play unidentified media files without DRM and which seem to match copyrighted titles?
//or are you just talking out of your ass?//
I don’t have a donkey, so I presume you mean “arse”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arse
Consider DRM from the point of view of Microsoft’s customer for DRM functionality. Microsoft’s customer for DRM are the large media corporations … those companies listed as members of **AA type associations. From the point of view of an MPAA or RIAA (or other **AA?) member company, what purpose IS there to DRM other than the “you (end user) may not play that file” functionality?
Now speculate on what files would an MPAA or RIAA member company consider to be in the category of “user may not play”? A likely answer is “any media file that the user cannot prove is legitimately purchased”.
So:
– DRM on the file but no valid key? – no play.
– .mp3 or .wma file with a title and length that looks like a copyrighted song? – no play.
– .mpg or .avi file with a title and length that looks like a copyrighted movie? – no play.
– .iso image that looks like a movie? – no burn.
– CD audio tracks? (to current CD formats) – play, but no rip.
– CD audio tracks on CDR media? – no play.
… and so on. This is the type of functionality that any MPAA or RIAA member company would WANT Microsoft’s DRM to have. And from Microsoft’s point of view, MPAA or RIAA member companies are the customer for DRM.
This is the basis of my suggestion/speculation.
The second element of this speculation derives from the observation that Microsoft seem to be desperately trying to insist to the EU courts that the Media Player and the Internet Explorer are both inseparable parts of the Operating System. This is only true if one has a requirement to implement a DRM system in the OS such that end users cannot work around it and so they cannot play media files other than those sanctioned by the DRM (sanctioned by proxy by the media companies).
If a user had Vista with DRM yet was also still able to install (say) VideoLAN (VLC media player) on their Windows box http://www.videolan.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player with all of its functionality intact (which, BTW, by its very existence eloquently disproves Microsoft’s contention that a media player must be an inseperable part of the OS), then those users could still play ripped and copied/p2p content to their heart’s content and of what use is that outcome to media moguls? Both the media companies and Microsoft would presumably want their end users of Windows Vista to be far more limited and far less free than that.
Edited 2006-04-26 11:59
I speculate that Linux will kill your first born in the next kernel version.
Please. Windows lets you play non-DRM media files now. Unless you have proof that they will change that, shut up. Speculate in private, because you’re saying “Vista WILL this”, “Vista WILL that”, like it is fast. No where did you make it clear that you are speculating.
“Microsoft detailed… innovations”
ROTFL!
(ironical)
You all anti-microsoft zealots, you know deep down that microsoft is the genius of software industry, they brought the lights of computers to the world !!!
They, at microsoft , are really talented person , completely devoted to the mervellous products they sell for a very tiny little price. They invented…. well …. the famous BSOD (blue screen of death)…
(/ironical)
Come on Microsoft zealots, now is the time to think for yourself, microsoft and innovation are words that mean nothing where they’re used together.
Application-specific volume control is hardly innovative. I hope MS implements it as it works on Linux (volume = master volume * channel volume * app volume) — that way things like master mute and capping the volume work properly.
Having different outputs is also old-hat outside of Windows, but it’s rarely used on the application level since it adds the burden of keeping track of what sounds go where.
> DRM *is* the future, and there’s no escaping it.
Wrong. There are ways to escape it. One is to use something other than Vista and/or Microsoft Media Centre.
>Now I have a problem. You say nothing is going to
>change, but the DVD situation is very similar, and I
>will have a hard time finding non encrypted ones.
>Because you can do both does not mean the producers
>will leave you the choice and won’t go for the DRM
>only solution.
Well since you can’t currently play a blu-ray disc or HDDVD in Windows XP yet the point is kind of moot on the software issue.
Microsoft is not the bad guy here. They are just trying to get along in an industry that wants their personal property. I am not saying I agree with them, but it is an industry problem not a Microsoft problem and thus not a software problem.
>What do you think HDMI is ? It should give you a
>hint of where big content producers are headed.
>Pull your head out of the sand please.
Yes, HDMI is protection for the industry who is trying to protect their personal property. See when you buy a CD or a DVD, it’s not actually yours. You are renting it like you rent a cable line or a telephone line (in their eyes not mine).
No, I don’t agree with them. They are going down the wrong path. What they should do instead is have an Internet tax for media and ignore piracy.
Microsoft is big enough that they dont have to get along with those industries.
What is a movie company gonna do, say you cant play the movie on a computer. hahah that is quaint.
Microsoft is just trying to make money at the expense of the average consumer by selling garbage to the movie companies.
In reality their tech will fail as usual, but it will be a pain for legit customers and immaterial to the pirates in reality accomplishing absolutely nothing.
MS is guilty here, they are not trying to make an industry (that is largely unimportant in the scheme of things, the movie and music industries are actually quite small they just pretend to be big so people listen) feel good, they are trying to ripthem off too and ass raping every customer it can.
>Microsoft is not the bad guy here. They are just trying
>to get along in an industry that wants their personal
>property. I am not saying I agree with them, but it is
>an industry problem not a Microsoft problem and thus not
>a software problem.
Utter B.S. Microsoft is doing its level best to promote DRM that will be shared with no other vendor without that vendor paying a use fee to Microsoft (which includes the media companies). It will not be an open standard of any sort, you can flat guarantee that, unless you buy Microsoft’s meaning of the word “open” – which is to say, “pay me dumptrucks full of money and we’ll tell you how to open the file… after an extremely lengthy deliberation, proof of conception, access to your code, exhaustive testing and threats of monopolistic donkey punching.”
Playing dirty with consumer lock-in is the air to this company, don’t kid yourself.
>Yes, HDMI is protection for the industry who is trying
>to protect their personal property. See when you buy a
>CD or a DVD, it’s not actually yours. You are renting
>it like you rent a cable line or a telephone line (in
>their eyes not mine).
Pure tripe. Legally, this has never been upheld that I am aware of. Companies are on extremely thin ice with that premise, and believe me, they are aware of it. Thus, DRM/encryption/etc. As long as the end consumer is not selling copies for profit, companies leave them (and pawn shops, etc.) alone, because they KNOW that the courts will kick their weasely asses all about the room if they try to stop sale of legally purchased media. You may not own the content, but you sure as hell own the media.
>No, I don’t agree with them. They are going down the
>wrong path. What they should do instead is have an
>Internet tax for media and ignore piracy.
Only one problem… ISPs will lose their shirts if the general consumer starts using IPTV or downloading their viewing off the Internet using current pricing. That’s something that many people (a bit too conveniently, methinks) seem to forget.
I don’t think that Microstink will stop you from accessing non-DRM files for the most part. There probably will be the occassional file which it will know is a blatant rip-off and will say so, but for the most part I doubt that they will stop the non-DRM files from playing.
At first.
But, Media Player and its various companion programs will only generate files in the new format, much like WMV, and Microsoft will not share those data formats with any third party. Unless the EU keeps pressure on… go EU!! There will be DRM encryption in those files and they will only be unlockable by a MS system. Likely this scheme will be worked around, but it will cause all sorts of problems and legal gray areas for those people accessing those files with reverse-engineered or emulated codecs.
Then, after the Joe Users, the Ebaums, the YouToobs and the Big Media of this world are using the new formats, during an “update”, Microsoft will start to compromise or remove drivers which don’t suit it. And then, ladies and gentlemen, we will be locked in. Or at least, that will be the plan.
WMV (and to a lesser degree, AVI) and MOV files are perfect examples of this right now and while Mplayer and others have found ways around the lock-in strategies, they tend to do so in ways that Linux distributions and others cannot easily provide legal copies for you to use. You will not find Mplayer/Win32Codecs packages together in most Linux distributions, to demonstrate my point.
So, to Microsoft fanboys who don’t think that the new DRM plans from the convicted corporate felon aren’t intended for lock-in and are not wanted by Microsoft: I again call Bullshit. If anything, Microsoft is the one most vocally behind it all, and they’ve spent $Millions of their own cash to develop these lock-in schemes while simultaneously selling it all as the Next Big Thing which will bring about the holy grail of Media Convergence.
Pure tripe. The *AAs of this world are so paranoid that all it really will do (and is intended to do) is lock uninformed customers into the Next Big Microsoft Era.
//No. The burden of proof is on you actually.//
Pfft. Of what exactly do I stand accused?
//All versions of Windows currently let you play media files without DRM. //
No version of Windows currently available is Vista. DRM and “protected path” and “trusted computing” and all similar euphemisms for curtailing end-users rights at the expense of media company (big-business “rights”) are unique to Windows Vista.
Windows XP and all Windows before it make no claims to being DRM and “protected path” and “trusted computing”.
//The proof is on you to show that this will change. //
Pfft. Utter rubbish. There is no burden of proof for me to make a speculation, and to point out the self-interests of the principal players and make observations on the behaviour of Microsoft and large American media companies.
If you can’t understand this, it’s not my problem.