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 349758
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

" 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 my machine cannot make use of the bazillion drivers in the generic Linux kernel that comes with Ubuntu, why do I need to have them embedded? Of what possible use are them in such a machine? See how stupid that question sounds? "

Oh come on ... get real. Linux uses loadable modules ... if you don't have the hardware they don't get loaded, they stay on the hard disk. One can SEE the source code to verify that this is so. One can even remove the hardware interroagtion on boot if one wants to (because one has no intention of ever changing hardware, and therefore doesn't require plug-n-play) and one can blacklist whatever drivers one pleases ... and again one can see the code that does all this and can verify that it does what it is supposed to do.

Finally, I can just delete any driver I don't like.

Vista DRM OTOH ... try removing it or disabling it (even if your machine does not have a HD optical drive you can't do it).

Either way, I'm far from being a Microsoft advocate (extremely far, seeing how I run Linux in every machine I own), but the problem with DRM embedded in Vista HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PERFORMANCE. AT ALL.


How do you know? Have you seen the code? What does Vista actually DO with all the CPU time it uses, if not DRM polling?

And I repeat for the slow of uptake ... why can't I have a version of Vista without it, if my system can't process HD content anyway?

The problem with DRM in Vista has to do with giving Hollywood's the unethical claims for intellectual property a free pass. The problem is that whenever a customer buys Vista, he or she is accepting Hollywood's terms without even knowing it. That's the REAL problem.


Well, that is unarguable. This is a problem too. Agreed.

The rest is just bullshit. Pure and simple.


Unsupported assertion. Your statements are as much speculation as mine, despite your apparent vehemence.

Edited 2009-02-19 05:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

wanderingk88 Member since:
2008-06-26

Oh come on ... get real. Linux uses loadable modules ... if you don't have the hardware they don't get loaded, they stay on the hard disk. One can SEE the source code to verify that this is so. One can even remove the hardware interroagtion on boot if one wants to (because one has no intention of ever changing hardware, and therefore doesn't require plug-n-play) and one can blacklist whatever drivers one pleases ... and again one can see the code that does all this and can verify that it does what it is supposed to do.


It was a stretch to show you how ridiculous your assertion about DRM-checking measures being active all the time sounds.




How do you know? Have you seen the code? What does Vista actually DO with all the CPU time it uses, if not DRM polling?


What? Why don't you first PROVE that the CPU Vista is using is for "DRM Polling"? What sense would "DRM Polling" make if you're not running any DRM content at all, huh? I mean, what sort of ridiculous line of thought are you following here?

Last I checked, outrageous assertions needed to have some sort of proof first, not the other way around.

Well, that is unarguable. This is a problem too. Agreed.


Yes, but all the other bullshit about "DRM Polling 100% of the time" is hurting the true message.

Unsupported assertion. Your statements are as much speculation as mine, despite your apparent vehemence.


What? YOUR statements come first. Your FUD comes first. Reasonable people shoot it down, and the people who first made the outrageous claims say "PROVE IT ISN'T SO!!". How does that make sense to you at all?

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Oh come on ... get real. Linux uses loadable modules ... if you don't have the hardware they don't get loaded, they stay on the hard disk. One can SEE the source code to verify that this is so. One can even remove the hardware interroagtion on boot if one wants to (because one has no intention of ever changing hardware, and therefore doesn't require plug-n-play) and one can blacklist whatever drivers one pleases ... and again one can see the code that does all this and can verify that it does what it is supposed to do.


It was a stretch to show you how ridiculous your assertion about DRM-checking measures being active all the time sounds.
"

It was a hell of a stretch all right. That much I'll give you ... no more.


"How do you know? Have you seen the code? What does Vista actually DO with all the CPU time it uses, if not DRM polling?


What? Why don't you first PROVE that the CPU Vista is using is for "DRM Polling"? What sense would "DRM Polling" make if you're not running any DRM content at all, huh? I mean, what sort of ridiculous line of thought are you following here?
"

If you are not running DRM content at any one moment in time ... how would Vista know when you actually began to run DRM content at a later time? It must check at some time, must it not? The only place that Vista can put such a check that CANNOT be worked-around by some maverick application program is by having it run all the time as part of the kernel.

Last I checked, outrageous assertions needed to have some sort of proof first, not the other way around.


Vista is slow. Quite a bit slower than XP, even when Vista is running on more powerful hardware. The only two apparent core features of Vista that could feasibly account for this slowness are Aero bling and continuous checking if protected content is being processed.

OK, Aero bling is handled by the graphics GPU. This is shown experimentally by trying to run Vista on a system with a low end graphics GPU, such as Intel graphics.

That leaves only continuous polling for the presence of protected content by code for handling Vista DRM provisions as the prime suspect for the observed poor performance of Vista on machines with a decent GPU.

That observation in turn leaves the assertion that Vista DRM is NOT the cause of the slowness as the likely-to-be outrageous assertion.

"Well, that is unarguable. This is a problem too. Agreed.


Yes, but all the other bullshit about "DRM Polling 100% of the time" is hurting the true message.
"

Hmmph. How exactly is it hurting the message? Vista is slow. It has DRM. Provisions for DRM are very likely to be embedded in the running kernel, so that third-party userland applications cannot work around it.

What is exactly IS this "true message" that you imagine?

"Unsupported assertion. Your statements are as much speculation as mine, despite your apparent vehemence.


What? YOUR statements come first. Your FUD comes first. Reasonable people shoot it down, and the people who first made the outrageous claims say "PROVE IT ISN'T SO!!". How does that make sense to you at all?
"

From my perspective, yours are the outrageous claims. vista is slow. Vista has DRM. DRM is very likely to be at least a contributor to the slowness. How about some credible argument (and not mere IMPOLITE SHOUTING) why this would NOT be so?

"Because Microsoft says so" is not credible argument.

Edited 2009-02-19 12:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3