High-Quality HD Content Can't Easily Be Played by Vista 434
DaMan1970 writes "Content protection features in Windows Vista from Microsoft are preventing customers from playing high-quality HD audio/video & harming system performance. Vista requires premium content like HD movies to be degraded in quality when it is sent to high-quality outputs, like DVI. Users will see status codes that say 'graphics OPM resolution too high'. There are ways to bypass the Windows Vista protection by encoding the movies using alternative codecs like X264, or DiVX, which are in fact more effective sometimes then Windows own WMV codec. These codecs are quite common on HD video Bittorrent sites, or Newsgroups."
Eh (Score:2, Insightful)
XP vs Vista (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that Vista is out I'm hearing things like "yes, Vista sucks, but XP is really not too bad."
Now, windows 2K was the last version I used much (praise the Lord), but from what I've seen of XP and Vista, Windows, while maybe becoming prettier (and having a better UI) now treats the user with absolute contempt.
Why do people (especially Slashdotters) put up with it, when there are other options that are so much better?
Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Short summary: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:XP vs Vista (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sad lot.
Destruction of creativity (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the real damage that DRM is doing - it's creating a huge DIS-incentive for being creative. Everything from GPS software that's crippled so they can sell you more maps (that you can't afford or refuse to fork out for) to printers with extortionately priced consumables, to camera software that changes with each couple of models, to music players that suddenly stop file sharing (legal or not! think about free postcasts).
I use to love buying gadgets but now every time I buy one I wince because I know I'm going to spend more time with the product working around limitations that have been added, or general poor quality. The most idiotic thing is that what this ultimately means is that after a few sales to desperate consumers, many decide they don't have the time, or money or that its just not worth the grey hairs to get into a hobby, especially in a world where you're expected to work half your life or more away.
is this story just flamebait? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did we honestly expect the largest OS vendor to create their OS to ignore the built in controls with the HD disk formats?
Get a proper hdmi supporting card and a proper hdmi monitor and you won't get down sampled output.
I think the whole thing is stupid as well, but this is an integral part of the hd formats. Reporting that Vista respects what is required to play these DRM laden formats "legally" is just pointless. What did you think they would do? Can you imagine the lawsuits? If your DRM'ed HD content is sent through a non-encrypted channel it gets downsampled. Gee whiz, who would have thought that... It's not like this has been common knowledge for years. Oh wait... Yes it has.
It's not like it will downsample non-drm'ed HD content.
(I have taken the slashdot approach and repeated the same thing many times in this post)
Re:XP vs Vista (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, unfortunately, the newest software is written for the newest versions of Windows. And, as much as I would love to never touch Windows Vista, I know that, eventually, some piece of software I need to run for work will only run on Windows Vista.
It used to be that a lot of software ran on Win9x/Win2k. Then, it was Win9x/Win2k/WinXP. Now, I frequently see either Win2k/WinXP/Vista or WinXP/Vista. It won't be long until the software I need for work only runs on Vista. And, then I have no choice but to upgrade to Vista.
And, as much as I love open source, I don't always have the option of switching to OSS (i.e., there's no viable OSS alternative). Or, sometimes switching to OSS isn't worth the hassle, compared to the time I save by just giving in to Microsoft and buying the newest version of Office (instead of dealing with the minor, but often horrifically irritating incompatibilities with OO.org). And no: this is not a critique of OSS, nor is it something that I ever think will change. It is simply a fact of using a computer that I require to be easily compatible with the setups used by other people in my field. It's easier to spend to money on commercial software (that is, the monetary abuse I take from commerical vendors) than it is to piss away hours of my time trying to work around incompatibilities (that is, the kind of abuse I take when using some OSS). Sometimes, OSS works beautifully for what I need, and I love saving the money. Othertimes, I just have to pay up.
You don't have to imagine (Score:3, Insightful)
HDCP (Score:2, Insightful)
Because we work for a living... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I like Linux for a lot of things. I've used it for maybe 8 or 9 years now? I'm a senior systems administrator and run deployments mainly focused on Linux based operating systems. That's not to say when I go to my office I fire up Ubuntu. Or when our CEO has laptop problems I curse Microsoft and implore him to adopt OS du jour.
Frankly XP was simply a better version of 2000. Yes, prettier. More user friendly. I won't say the same for Vista. At least in it's current incarnation it is not a slightly improved/prettier version of XP. It's sluggish and annoying. It's one step forward and 2 steps back. More like an improved 3.1. Maybe after SP1 comes out we will see something shine. I wouldn't give up. I just wouldn't recommend businesses upgrade right now.
Anyway, harping on Microsoft always seems a little silly. As a corporation they do some annoying things. Lots of corporations do. But they also hire some talented programmers and have actually helped do some good (you do like the PC platform, right?). Even helped set some high-water marks (not that I'm a fan of the most recent version of Office, but you get my meaning).
In the end using the wrong OS for the wrong task sucks. That's not being an apologist, that my friend, is being a realist. Something I think we can forget to do in all the mellow-dramatic politicking.
Personally (sorry I'm being a bit long-winded) my biggest disappointment with Vista is that it doesn't feel like an incremental upgrade to XP. I think XP was some of their best work to date. Aside from a few quirks I really enjoy using it. As I enjoy using Ubuntu on my laptop sitting in my bedroom and I enjoy the mindless reliability of the MythTV server I have sitting quietly and quite functionally in the closet to the left of me.
Their tools. Not personal credos.
Not this again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista does NOT downrez or restrict HD content that is not protected! I can record and play 720p/1080i HD digital cable (clear-QAM via HDHomeRun) on a 1920x1200 DVI monitor that is NOT HDCP-CAPABLE and see every pixel. Now, if it was HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, protected WMV, from a CableCARD system, etc... it would downrez or refuse to play.
I personally couldn't give a flying frog about that part. Guess what? DRM sucks in every way. The answer is not "don't use Vista", the answer is "don't bother with DRM"
Rip the DRM support out of Vista, (It can be done, just kill the right
The point is, and what Gutmann fails to grok, is that Vista doesn't LACK the capability to play HD video at full rez, rather it HAS the capability to play protected HD at full rez on a compliant system. No other OS is going even play that content, even downrezzed, unless you break the DRM.
Re:Destruction of creativity (Score:4, Insightful)
That, or its general contempt of the public.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
They are still selling their mono/stereo 50 year old music albums for $20+, why would they care to put any work into promoting any higher quality?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Features (Score:2, Insightful)
Who wants to spend a few hundred dollars on both lawer and technical consultant fees just to know whether to click "accept" when they first boot up their computer. That's just stupid, really stupid. The funny thing is that in an M$ EULA, most of the DRM & the likes is just eluded to. There's no straight up "If you attempt to watch a video over an insecure interface you will get shit quality" in it, it's more like "measures have been put into place to stop copywright infringement... blah... blah... blah."
Anyone who says that home users are just "consumers" and not customers of M$ is talk bullshit. If M$ is so not worried about what consumers want then why make a resource hungry eye-candy OS? Oh wait, HP, Dell, Toshiba, Fujitsu, etc, all requested M$ do that... I forgot, PC makers have ultimate control over M$, and not the other way around.
To be honest, users for years have been crying out for a sexy OSX rip-off... they have it now, and all they do is complain that it runs shit, etc. Meanwhile they could have told M$ where to go by buying an Apple, rather than demanding a poorly done clone. (and no, I don't own an Apple, I'm a Linux person myself. I just don't see Linux distros as mature enough to take on Bill and Steve... too many flying chairs and all).
Well that summary is bollocks. (Score:2, Insightful)
Vista supports HDCP over DVI - I should know, I'm using it. The claims of HD content degredation on DVI are bullshit; it works so long as your graphics card and monitor support HDCP over DVI.
It would be nice if submitters (and editors!) took the time to check facts before posting incorrect scaremongering to the front page.
Re:XP vs Vista (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Features (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I feel about as sorry for these people as I do for people who complain that their Hummers get shitty gas mileage. All it would take is a few minutes research, and they couldn't even be bothered to do that.
I'm not a baby sitter. In any case, what exactly do you want people to do? I know! Maybe the geeks of the world can start going house to house, knocking on people's doors and telling them about the evils of DRM?
Seriously, the information was out there, all they had to do was spend 30 seconds on a search engine. There's really not much more anyone can do for these people.
The whole "Oh gee! Computers and technology are so complicated! LOLZ!!1! I'm such an idiot about computers!" thing is getting old. You're technologically incompetent. Wonderful. Either start learning, or stop complaining when it bites you in the ass.
The 'getamac' tag is invalid (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way this can be stopped is for consumers to NEVER buy HD content. That said, I find DVD to be high quality enough. I can still enjoy a movie even if it's being played from a crappy VHS recorder.
Wow Typewriters Don't Make Good Video Players? (Score:2, Insightful)
AppleTV is $300 and HD DVD is $500, and you can get a PS3 if you want Blu-Ray for not much more than that. A year from now the comparison will be even more ridiculous. Microsoft has nothing to offer you in consumer video, they don't know what it is, they don't know how to build it, and finally, they will always fuck it up intentionally to be more MS-centric, as well as unintentionally with their legendary lack of quality.
Honestly, this article would be more newsworthy if it turned out Vista really was a good movie player. That would be surprising. As it is, this is just more dog bites man. Yawn.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
So is this saying that pirating the movie will yield a higher quality then buying it?
No, it's saying that if you buy DRM-encumbered media, it's likely that it won't deliver as good an "experience" as media without DRM.
This being Slashdot, there will undoubtedly be dozens of posts blaming Vista and Microsoft, despite the article summary itself demonstrating that not to be the case.
DRM is an attribute of the media. The solution is simple - if you don't want DRM to impact your life, don't buy DRM-encumbered media.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it. The entire point about DRM is to prevent you from doing certain things.
The pirated version is the same, except it *doesn't* try to prevent you from doing things.
It follows that from a practical point of view, the pirated copy is superior. It can do anything the original can, plus the things which the original prevents you from doing.
Re:XP vs Vista (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do people (especially Slashdotters) put up with it, when there are other options that are so much better?
Because some of us don't think the options *are* "so much better" (if they are better at all).
Re:Features (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not that.
My friend's old XP laptop died. His 1.5yr old angel of a daughter spilled her milk on it. He used to use it for his research (working on his PhD on effects of commerce on city planning) while his wife and 5yr old son used it for everything that comes to mind.
He did a lot of research on hardware and bought an affordable (for a student) PC off ebay that came with no OS. Since XP is old and every reasonable non-IT professional would expect Vista to be better he decided on Vista. Looking at Vista's 9999 editions he couldn't make much sense. He picked Ultimate based merely on the word "Ultimate" and fearing that the other editions might not allow him to run his software, his son to play games or his wife to browse the net.
The only thing that stopped him was the price. He was lucky to have a friend who knows these things. He asked me first. He could have asked me to do everything and get him a working PC but he did not want to waste my time (knowing that I am doing my PhD too).
So, moral of the story (apart from praising myself):
People are not stupid. They try to research things before spending their hard earned money. You can't AND SHOULDN'T expect them to know everything or find everything. They are trying to get along with their lives not become certified IT professionals. Afterall, nobody expects you to know how a Toyota's engine works before you buy one, and everyone will be on your side if you later find out that it won't go over 30mph unless you buy fuel only from Shell.
Re:Wow (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, and fuck off with your holier-than-thou attitude.
Say what? FUD FUD FUD. (Score:2, Insightful)
Say what? DivX isn't effective at anything. WMV9/VC-1 is a state-of-art video codec and easily beats DivX and XviD (which is a hell of a lot better than DivX). It can be directly compared to H.264. As much as I hate DRM, posting FUD and lies doesn't help anything.