Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Feb 2009 23:28 UTC
Editorial Does Windows 7 contain more DRM than Windows Vista? Does Windows 7 limit you from running cracked applications, and will it open the firewall specifically for applications that want to check if they're cracked or not? Does it limit the audio recording capabilities? According to a skimp and badly written post on Slashdot, it does. The Slashdot crowd tore the front page item apart - and rightfully so.
Thread beginning with comment 349747
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"Ran out of time? How long exactly was it between the release of XP and the release of Vista?
Abusing me by way of message achieves what? Windows Vista was restarted and based on Windows 2003 SP1 rather than Windows XP. There was a penalty that was paid because of it, but management at that time believed the penalty was worth it. Considering that when the change was made - Netbooks and other resource constrained devices weren't on the radar, they were making decisions based on what one could reasonably expect in the future based on present conditions.
Well, yes, that is the claim, and there is no reason to suspect why it wouldn't be so. In fact, given Vista's poor performance, it is hard to see how Windows 7 could fail to be a significant improvement.
If it were DRM as the primary cause of performance issues, and given that the DRM has been retained, then going by the detractors logic, there should have been no significant improvement.
Criticising Vista's poor performance is relevant to this rant ... how exactly?
Thank you for ignoring the kernel of this post; it was a counter to DRM phobia and the black helicopter nonsense regarding it and the apparent 'performance sucking' of DRM by virtue of it just existing in Windows. The two are interlinked, but hey, you chose to ignore it in favour of attacking me personally.
"

How precious can you get?

Where did I attack you? I simply point out that Microsoft took a great amount of time following the release of XP to try to come up with a new product. The fact that Microsoft squandered it is hardly compensation for those people now suffering the poor performance of Vista.

DRM itself is "black helicopter". No-one is allowed to know how it works. There is something in Vista that sucks performance, and DRM polling is an excellent candidate, given that it is invoked at 30ms intervals.

Being a good candidate for what caused the "performance sucking" in Vista also makes it an excellent candidate for optimisation in Windows 7. With skill and a bit of thought it might even be possible to "pull back" all of the sucked performance ... yet still have the DRM.

Agreed that up until the advent netbooks there was no real incentive to heavily optimise Vista (that is just one of the problems of having a company in a monopoly position). In fact I noted that myself in an earlier post, when I talked about the "performance spiral". This rather supports the idea that Vista is performance sucked, rather than detract from it.

Edited 2009-02-19 02:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

DRM itself is "black helicopter". No-one is allowed to know who it works. There is something in Vista that sucks performance, and DRM is an excellent candidate, given that it is invoked at 30ms intervals.


Stop lying, lemur2. As I've already pointed out to you in a comment you so skillfully ignored: the protected paths (the DRM) and thus the polling are only invoked WHEN YOU USE DRM'd CONTENT. Since practically no media make use of the protected paths, THERE IS NO POLLING.

Got it?

Edited 2009-02-19 02:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"DRM itself is "black helicopter". No-one is allowed to know who it works. There is something in Vista that sucks performance, and DRM is an excellent candidate, given that it is invoked at 30ms intervals.
Stop lying, lemur2. As I've already pointed out to you in a comment you so skillfully ignored: the protected paths (the DRM) and thus the polling are only invoked WHEN YOU USE DRM'd CONTENT. Since practically no media make use of the protected paths, THERE IS NO POLLING. Got it? "

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

Reply Parent Score: 9