Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th May 2007 13:19 UTC
Windows Months go, I reviewed Windows Vista, and concluded: "All in all, I am impressed by Windows Vista [...]. Windows Vista is better than XP, and definitely more than just an improved look as many say." After 5 months of usage, it is time to put that statement into perspective.
Thread beginning with comment 238478
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: I agree, fair review
by stare on Tue 8th May 2007 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I agree, fair review"
stare
Member since:
2005-07-06

"What? How exactly DRM is obtrusive in Vista?"

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html


I'll repeat:

How exactly DRM is obtrusive in Vista?
Say, I'm a Joe User. Provide an example of how I'm supposed to feel the obtrusive nature of DRM.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: I agree, fair review
by cyclops on Tue 8th May 2007 17:56 in reply to "RE[4]: I agree, fair review"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

How exactly DRM is obtrusive in Vista?
Say, I'm a Joe User. Provide an example of how I'm supposed to feel the obtrusive nature of DRM.


I got a phone call from a friend recently. He couldn't play his DRM protected (sic) WMA files. It came up with nice message though asking him if he wanted to buy *his* files again. This was on XP.

Now Vista downscales your content switches off drivers...and remember HD content hasn't even hit Vista.

And remember like WGA/Activation etc. etc this can change for the worse at any time.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: I agree, fair review
by stare on Tue 8th May 2007 19:18 in reply to "RE[5]: I agree, fair review"
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

I got a phone call from a friend recently. He couldn't play his DRM protected (sic) WMA files. It came up with nice message though asking him if he wanted to buy *his* files again. This was on XP.

Well, I was talking about Vista's DRM, not DRM in general. Personally I dislike DRM as much as everyone else, however lets put the blame where it belongs.

Now Vista downscales your content switches off drivers...and remember HD content hasn't even hit Vista.

At least you can play HD content on Vista, downscaled or not. You don't have that possibility on other OSes at all.

And remember like WGA/Activation

Some people here love to exaggerate the significance of WGA or activation, when in fact 99.999% of users never experience any problem with it.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: I agree, fair review
by MollyC on Tue 8th May 2007 19:45 in reply to "RE[5]: I agree, fair review"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"I got a phone call from a friend recently. He couldn't play his DRM protected (sic) WMA files. It came up with nice message though asking him if he wanted to buy *his* files again. This was on XP. "


Either there was a bug or your friend maxed out the number of computers that was allowed on the DRM. Normally, you should be able to play the WMA song on a new computer by simply authorizing the new computer to play the song. For example, if you use WMP to play a song, if the computer isn't authorized for that song, WMP connects to the issuer of the DRM license (the place you bought the song from), prompts the user for username/password, retrieves the license and authorizes that computer. But if you've already done this with N computers (where N is the maximum computers that the DRM allows), then you have to deauthorize one of the other computers first.

The example you gave is not particular to Vista, as you even admit that it occurred on XP. And similar also occurs for iTMS songs played on OSX, XP, or Vista.


"Now Vista downscales your content switches off drivers...and remember HD content hasn't even hit Vista."

So Vista is simply implementing the DRM set down by the HD-DVD and BR disc content creators. This allows Vista to legally play protected discs. You'd rather not have that ability? Anyway, the "downscaling" issue isn't relevant right now. HD-DVDs and BR discs do not have the downscaling flag enabled, and won't until at least 2010. By 2010, many will have compliant HDPC (or whatever the acronym is) monitors, so it still won't be relevant even then. Also, OSX Leopard will do the same most likely (Apple is a member of BluRay Disc Association, and as such is even more in bed with the movie creators than is Microsoft).


"And remember like WGA/Activation etc. etc this can change for the worse at any time."

Again, this is not particular to Vista. XP has WGA/Activation.


So, if you would, please answer the GP's question. What is it about Vista's DRM in particular that is obtrusive to Joe User? How will Joe User feel this obtrusiveness in ways that he would not with XP or OSX Leopard?

Reply Parent Score: 5

Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"How exactly DRM is obtrusive in Vista?
Say, I'm a Joe User. Provide an example of how I'm supposed to feel the obtrusive nature of DRM."

From the article:
"Say you've just bought Pink Floyd's ?The Dark Side of the Moon?, released as a Super Audio CD (SACD) in its 30th anniversary edition in 2003, and you want to play it under Vista (I'm just using SACD as a representative example of protected audio content because it's a well-known technology, in practice Sony has refused to license it for playback on PCs). Since the S/PDIF link to your amplifier/speakers is regarded as insecure for playing the SA content, Vista would disable it, and you'd end up hearing a performance by Marcel Marceau instead of Pink Floyd."

I am posting the link again, read it this time:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: I agree, fair review
by stare on Tue 8th May 2007 19:06 in reply to "RE[5]: I agree, fair review"
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

"Say you've just bought Pink Floyd's ?The Dark Side of the Moon?, released as a Super Audio CD (SACD) in its 30th anniversary edition in 2003, and you want to play it under Vista (I'm just using SACD as a representative example of protected audio content because it's a well-known technology, in practice Sony has refused to license it for playback on PCs). Since the S/PDIF link to your amplifier/speakers is regarded as insecure for playing the SA content, Vista would disable it, and you'd end up hearing a performance by Marcel Marceau instead of Pink

Sure, because you can play SACD or other protected audio content on OSX or Linux. Oh, wait, you can't!

http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/12/31/windows_vista_drm_nonsense

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: I agree, fair review
by Gzzy on Fri 11th May 2007 06:01 in reply to "RE[4]: I agree, fair review"
Gzzy Member since:
2005-11-21

That's a horrible example. SACD doesn't play on Linux, XP, or the Mac OS. In the example you quoted, Vista is allowing SACD to play over a secure connection and (presumably) through attached speakers but not over an unsecure connection whereas NO OTHER OS IN THE WORLD LETS YOU PLAY SACD AT ALL.

By definition that is not obtrusive in comparison to anything else currently on the market.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"Vista is allowing SACD to play over a secure connection and (presumably) through attached speakers but not over an unsecure connection whereas"

If Vista regards the speakers as "insecure" for playing the "premium content", Vista would disable it. I guess MS decides what speakers you will use, it is not your computer, it is Microsoft's computer.

"NO OTHER OS IN THE WORLD LETS YOU PLAY SACD AT ALL."

Who cares? Who wants a DRM infected SACD?

"By definition that is not obtrusive in comparison to anything else currently on the market."

Disabling the use of "premium content" because MS does not like your speakers is not obtrusive?

Edited 2007-05-11 15:36

Reply Parent Score: 1