Windows 7 Kill Switch For IE Confirmed — For More Apps, Too 208
CWmike writes "Microsoft has confirmed that users will be able to remove its IE8 browser, as well as several other integrated applications, from Windows 7. Jack Mayo, a group program manager on the Windows team, listed in a blog post the applications that can be switched off. They include Internet Explorer 8, Fax and Scan, handwriting recognition, Windows DVD Maker, Windows Gadget Platform, Windows Media Player, Windows Media Center, Windows Search, and XPS Viewer and Services. He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not actually deleted from the hard drive. The public beta of Windows 7 does not include the ability to 'kill' said apps. But a pirated copy of Windows 7 Build 7048 includes the new removal options, and has been leaked on the Internet." (We mentioned the reported ability to turn off IE8 yesterday as well.)
Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
> He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not
> actually deleted from the hard drive.
Why not?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Other stuff depends on them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember XP, where you could "remove" IE in the "add/remove Windows components" menu? Then you click "My computer" and type in a web address in the address bar and BAM! It's launched in IE!
switched off" != uninstalled.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, they renamed the 'uninstall' process to 'kill switch' and repeated the same old tired BS about how this one really does turn it off. Really. Trust us.
Be nice if instead, they actually wrote a real API for these items so you could just drop in your replacement DLLs for the programs you actually wanted to drive the show and let people do things like 'integrate' Gecko into the shell.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Be nice if instead, they...let people do things like 'integrate' Gecko into the shell.
Integration of a browser into their shell is what caused this problem in the first place. I don't understand why that's necessary outside of thin-client and kiosk applications.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not necessary, but since they've already gone through the work of illegally tying their other products into Windows, what would be nice is if they actually stopped trying to force their own engines on everyone and let the user decide which to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft can't uninstall the browser because the shell is the browser. It treats all URLs the same, whether local or internet. It looks prettier than the default explorer browser but they are both the same plate of spaghetti. Now that's code reuse!
And if you've ever tried to "lock down" a Windows system...well, let me give you an example. A co-worker's box was banned from the internet because he looked at too many bullshit sites. IE and firefox(transferred from another box) wouldn't c
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Incorrect. Microsoft can't uninstall the RENDERING engine because they've done their damnest to hook it into everything in the system while obscuring how it's done to ensure no one can come along and rip it out and replace it.
My suggestion was, given they weren't suppose to do that and even got spanked for doing it, maybe they should stop trying to pull this crap and simply publish the API's that their rendering engine implements. And by publish, I don't mean the typical Microsoft BS of dumping out a specification that even they can't implement, but an actual honest to goodness "this does that, that does this" document.
If they did that, then regardless of the 'advisability' of the integration in the first place, you'd at least have the opportunity to replace the rendering engine with your own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The IWebBrowser interface, it's documented in MSDN. All a library has to do is expose that to replace Trident. But like I said before, it's a little unfair to expect that when Apple is perfectly OK to tie WebKit into anything that moves and KDE uses KHTML for a bunch of stuff too. You can't remove (or replace) the rendering engines on those. Well, maybe you can on KDE.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a real API. All you need to do is properly implement the IWebBrowser interface. No one does though. But then again, why should they make it so you can replace Trident? No one is claiming that Apple should let you replace WebKit or that the KDE project should let you replace KHTML.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
Internet Explorer is a web browser. Trident is the layout engine. Other programs can make use of Trident to, in effect, allow for web browsing. Microsoft can use Trident in places other than IE where it makes sense to have a layout engine. Removing IE will not remove Trident.
It's really not that hard, people.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, its also possible the libraries are still being used (and loaded, and still eating up resources) for other things.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Explorer, MMC, Control Panel, just to name a few all use mshtml.dll. In addition, any .NET application that utilizes the WebBroswer class or MFC application that uses the CHtmlView class will need mshtml.dll to be available.
The only alternative here is for Mozilla or another OS browser to reimplement mshtml.dll from scratch - a daunting task of questionable logic.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
The only alternative here is for Mozilla or another OS browser to reimplement mshtml.dll from scratch - a daunting task of questionable logic.
"Daunting" puts it lightly, apparently. WINE, for instance, attempts to reimplement mshtml.dll via the Gecko engine for all the things that use it for HTML rendering. Like, say, Steam. To date, I still don't think it's possible to complete a purchase or demo download from start to finish entirely within the Steam client under WINE/Crossover. You still need to start the purchase externally, enter Steam, and finish it there because they haven't fully reimplemented all the calls properly.
So, yes, it has been tried, and it isn't quite perfect yet.
Re: (Score:2)
> Windows Update, which requires IE's API's to work properly.
Which must be one of the worst software decisions ever. Active X is an incredibly stupid design, and the root cause for many Windows security problems. With Windows Update Microsoft is cementing it in by making it system critical.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it wasn't called Critical Update Notification Tool at first for nothing.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
Best of both worlds in my opinion. I also like that there is one unified interface for managing features. This is just one example, but in vista you could use 'add/remove components' for IIS, but if you wanted to disable Media Center, you had to do it from the group policy editor. Extremely frustrating.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a free program and they already do checks to see if you have a valid installation so why leave it on the system when it can be downloaded? In fact this would be better.
When someone wants to re-enabled IE again they're taken off to the IE site where they have to download the installer and get the latest version rather than some
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a free program and they already do checks to see if you have a valid installation so why leave it on the system when it can be downloaded?
In the case of IE, it would largely be because many users could not figure out how to download something without using IE in the first place.
Although most people would not disable IE unless they had another browser, it could be done in error.
I do think that disabling IE should be something that raises red flags (like UAC), since malware could disable IE and replace it with a thin executable that used mshtml.dll to render pages. It would be the ultimate in malicious Browser Helper Objects [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I always figured it was because so many features of the system libraries were wired into IE. The help system, the active desktop, file thumbnail previews, any HTML display object created by application code -- seems like all of these would be wired into the same dynamic library for optimal support and space/memory efficiency.
Given that the user might still expect all that other stuff to work after "removing" IE, what are you really removing? A windowed presentation with some bookmark functionality?
Perha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Given that the user might still expect all that other stuff to work after "removing" IE, what are you really removing? A windowed presentation with some bookmark functionality?
Well, yes, that, and an address bar. That's also what most people call a "browser". The thing that renders the pages is "rendering engine". IE is the browser, MSHTML/Trident is the rendering engine.
Perhaps someone else can comment on how close Windows is to allowing some other browser vendor to be a plug-in replacement for all that other functionality.
MSHTML is embeddable into applications as an ActiveX control. ActiveX is COM-based, and COM is all about programming against interfaces. In case of MSHTML, that's the IWebBrowser2 [microsoft.com] interface, and everything that it references. Due to the nature of COM, it is, of course, entirely possible to provide your own implem
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is the nightmare called windows side by side install.
So you uncheck the box it is 'uninstalled'.
Later on you decide 'wait a second I did want that' and check it back.
Now instead of popping the disk back in. It is magically there again.
Any application can take advantage/disadvantage of this. Basically you install it into the winsxs dir and it pretty much stays forever.
The only resource that will be consumed is disk space.
For example in vista telnet is not 'on the box by default' you go check the box and
Re: (Score:2)
> He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not > actually deleted from the hard drive.
Why not?
So people who feel bullied in actually buying a license don't have to wait until they can re-install their shame.
Re:Why not?( (Score:2)
Why would you want to have all of IE's files removed? That would break so many applications. Many many applications rely on the IE ActiveX controls, so it would be stupid to remove them. Microsoft could make it easier to plug in different rendering engines, but I wonder if Safari/Mozilla/Opera/etc would be interested in implementing all of the interfaces and objects (you know, like IWebBrowser2).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
These same files are staged so that the features can easily be added back to the running OS without additional media. This staging is important feedback we have received from customers who definitely do not like to dig up the installation DVD.
and
A second decision is that we also continue to support the APIs available for features where these APIs are necessary to the functionality of Windows or where there are APIs that are used by developers that can be viewed as independent of the component. As many of you know these are often referred to as âoedependenciesâ and with Windows the dependencies can run both internal to Windows and external for ISVs.
A single step toward modularity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A single step toward modularity (Score:4, Informative)
It blows my mind that they could be so entrenched that just removing them, or not having them installed to begin with, isn't trivial.
Software engineering 101: what part of the word "dependency" blows your mind? What platform lets you snap out the provided rich text rendering engine for something else? Practically every application on the platform uses it in some way! And why do you trust Joe Sixpack to do this? What will he do when it renders things oh-so-slightly differently? He won't put together that it is because he changed out the HTML renderer.
Everyone here continues to bellyache about things without offering up solutions that actually work outside of their parents basement. This is not a new problem, dependency management sucks, and will always suck because third party apps are built to certain implementations of things and become reliant on undocumented behavior without even realizing it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You stated it yourself, things (and by things I mean built-in windows apps) are built on undocumented behavior making it almost impossible to replicate.
The dependency on a specific library isn't the problem here, its the dependency on apps/libraries that are developed with way too much intimate knowledge of the OS.
Re: (Score:2)
The killer is that these are all just specialized applications that should be easily installed and uninstalled, just like any other application. It blows my mind that they could be so entrenched that just removing them, or not having them installed to begin with, isn't trivial.
Does it blow your mind that other major platforms - OS X, GNOME, KDE, etc - are the same ?
They're not just applications is the fundamental point so many seem unable to grasp. They're shared components that other applications - ei
What is the same thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only that, but having 2 apps to do the same thing is ridiculously wasteful and inefficient
Tell that to anybody who plays two MMORPGs, or anybody who uses two file sharing networks, or anybody who has Nano, vi, Emacs, and gedit all installed, anybody who has both Emacs and Lockjaw installed (they both include a Tetris clone), or anybody who actually puts effort into her MySpace profile (need to test on webkit, gecko, and trident). "The same thing" isn't always as easy to define as you might think.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To the vast majority of Windows users, most or all of the terms I've emphasized above don't apply. T
Re: (Score:2)
To the vast majority of Windows users, "Nano, vi, Emacs, and gedit all installed" don't apply.
Notepad and WordPad then. Or WordPad, Microsoft Word, and the word processor in Microsoft Works Suite.
"OpenOffice? I can already open Office. Why would I need to open it through that other picture?"
Because you don't already have the other picture installed, and it costs money to install.
"I can get geckos and tridents on my MySpace from the picture thingy, but what's a webkit?"
Then perhaps I phrased it wrong. Instead of saying "webkit", call Safari "like a Mac emulator, so that you can see how your page would look on an iMac". Then point Safari at this web site [iphonetester.com] and call it "an iPhone emulator".
Another example: those who play both Mario and Sonic.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an example the average user will get! On the other hand, extending this example to computers would make the average clueless user think they need another computer to install the alternative programs. ;)
Re:A single step toward modularity (Score:5, Funny)
I know. Why only have 2 apps to do the same thing when you can have 5, 6, hell maybe an even dozen?! Go Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
I know. Why only have 2 apps to do the same thing when you can have 5, 6, hell maybe an even dozen?! Go Linux.
aaaa the orgy approach...
an even dozen? (Score:2)
Why do you hate bakers?!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and on Linux i have a *CHOICE* of a dozen or more, i choose one and remove everything else because they're unnecessary and easily removed.
On windows i get the choice of having third party app(s) installed in additional to the ms ones, or just having the ms ones, i can't have third party apps instead of the ms ones.
now this switch should be on by default (Score:2)
and after installation you should be able to selectively enable those bits and pieces that you actually want.
Re:now this switch should be on by default (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I switched to Gentoo a couple years ago, but I'm pretty sure when I was using Ubuntu I could remove just about anything.
Re:now this switch should be on by default (Score:4, Informative)
Full-blown apps are relatively easy to remove, but some of the "desktop environment" stuff - applets, the various managers (volumes, power), libraries - sit at the centre of a web of dependencies and aren't easy to get rid of. Even things that are only "Recommends:"-ed seem to pop back sometimes when I'm not looking :/
Having said that, disk is insanely cheap these days, so that even I, who's pretty obsessive about avoiding 'bloat', have learnt to live with leaving the packages around. Memory's pretty cheap too, and anyway actually stopping unnecessary components from running is a bit easier.
And, of course, no one distro / desktop environment "fits all." Xubuntu is lighter and more "loosely coupled", and there are other Ubuntu variants that are even more hardcore (I keep meaning to give #! [crunchbanglinux.org] a spin ..) That's really where free software trumps commercial: each subculture that feels the need can roll its own.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What "garbage apps" did you want to uninstall?
Ubuntu has a pretty clean installation, there's not much in there - short of maybe a few games that don't take up much space - that any user won't want.
Care to name some? Or are you just trolling?
SB
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> Instant messaging, bittorrent, games.
Those can all be removed (or not installed to begin with).
Deleted or Deactivated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In Windows, certain programs are by default associated with particular file types. For example, by default mp3s are associated with WMP. This turnoff switch will likely do more than simply remove the shortcut, it will also remove the default associations.
Subsequently, if you want to actually reclaim the one-half of one percent of your hard drive being taken up by the unneeded applications, you can just go ahead and delete the files manually. Frankly, I don't think it's worth it, since other programs (even
Re: (Score:2)
But I partially agree with some of the comments here: It would make more sense (IMO) for Windows to greet you with the following choice upon initial configuration:
That would make Windows have the same installation choices that OS/2 had 15 years ago! What progress!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? there is 5GB of unneeded apps that get installed along with Windows? And I thought Ubuntu was getting bloated.
Re: (Score:2)
But I partially agree with some of the comments here: It would make more sense (IMO) for Windows to greet you with the following choice upon initial configuration:
No, it would not. The sensible situation would be that you weren't pestered to make a choice, and could instead just get on with using the computer. This is what happens with other platforms, and it would be the same with Windows if it weren't for intrusive and user-hostile legal requirements that they present some sort of "choice".
If you wan
Stupid... (Score:5, Insightful)
> He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not
> actually deleted from the hard drive.
That is stupid... The idea of removing something, is to reduce clutter on your system and reduce the support burden... If something is installed but not being used it still needs security patches. If it's removed, you no longer have to worry about it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you imagine the outcry from the zombie writing community if they utilized their monopoly power to destroy their business model?
Re: (Score:2)
> He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not
> actually deleted from the hard drive.
That is stupid... The idea of removing something, is to reduce clutter on your system and reduce the support burden... If something is installed but not being used it still needs security patches. If it's removed, you no longer have to worry about it at all.
Well, in the case of IE8, they can't remove the Trident rendering engine (MSHTML.DLL) without breaking gazillions of apps that rely on that library (much like several Mac OS X apps rely on WebKit), but security updates for Trident should be kept separate from security updates for the Internet Explorer application (just like security updates for WebKit are separate from security updates for Safari - at least most of the time). If you disable Internet Explorer, you will still need security updates for Triden
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, that's the whole point. If I want to build a custom system with only the apps and support libraries on it that I need - like in mobile applications - I can with one flavor or another of linux.
With Windows you have to tear stuff out to get there, or buy a custom built proprietary solution. With linux you can build it from the ground up and include what you want to or in-house customize the rest.
That's going to ultimately be the thing that kills Windows - that it can't be cust
Re: (Score:2)
What is they are on your harddrive, but never run? Do they still need updates?
No. Of course the best thing to do would be to remove them all together. Must have been to hard for Microsoft to actually do that (or too difficult, I am now convinced that Microsoft is run by a bunch of incompetents).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It does remove them, but it doesn't nuke them from the installation image. Basically, (bear in mind that "disk is cheap") when you install Windows Vista or later, it dumps a copy of the installation media on your hard drive so that you don't need the DVD to install or remove stuff. When you remove a component, the installed version is deleted and the copy of it in the image is left alone so that you can easily put it back. Think of it as apt-get with a local repository if it helps any. I can't speak for
Two revisions too late? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having installed IE8 just recently, I find it vastly improved (particularly in speed) compared to IE6 and 7. It is slightly amusing that Microsoft gives us the option to remove it now.
Nothing new (Score:2)
This sounds like the ability to "remove" IE from Windows XP: it removes the desktop icon and sets the preferred-application setting to not default to IE, but IE remains completely installed, active and used by certain system components.
Re: (Score:2)
According to TFA, when you deactivate it you can't launch the browser. The files are there because their API is used by other essencial parts of the browser or other third part programs.
To delete mshtml.dll would mean that a huge part of windows (and third-party programs) would simply stop working. Think about it as deleting any critical linux file, example, let's delete man, suddenly a lot of things will stop working. In the case of windows it is more critical because the OS will stop working.
But, what do
Re: (Score:2)
man is probably a poor example.
A much better equivalent would be to replace the Qt libraries with a version where the HTML renderer has been edited out. A lot of programs are not going to run as they use that to draw a lot of stuff.
I believe a lot of bitching is from astroturfers here. They get off on confusing the issue.
What I want to know: is an OEM allowed to sell a Windows machine with Firefox installed and still get normal OEM discounts on the price of Windows? Obfuscating this question with stuff abou
Re: (Score:2)
I believe Mozilla already implements the IBrowser interface. That's the same API that IE was touted as using back when MS introduced the whole idea of a browser component. All Microsoft has to do is follow their own recommended practices for creating and using IBrowser objects to render HTML pages.
Of course, MS is never going to do that because it'd enable exactly what they touted the IBrowser interface as being good for: letting people transparently replace one Web browser with another.
Files not deleted (Score:4, Insightful)
I am fine with this. If I decide I do need the app, it is nice to not have to find the install media or do a download. I am glad they have the ability to some what 'kill' the app. When I go to Windows 7, I will kill everything but IE (I have websites that require it that I need). This is at least a step in the right direction. They also are not installing some applications by default anymore in Windows 7, and you have to get them if you want to from the download site.
Re:Files not deleted (Score:4, Informative)
If you use Firefox, you can probably use the IETab extension to load specific web sites using Internet Explorer's rendering engine (which will NOT be removed when you disable IE), integrated with Firefox's tab management. You can maintain a list of sites that should be loaded with IE's engine, so it's automatic and you don't have to switch browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should install every application ever invented then, becuase if, you know, if you need to install it, you don't want to have to find the media.
I hope you have a big harddrive.
A call for programmers (Score:2)
I'm really looking forward to what that would do to economies and submarines.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Could whoever is writing the Conficker++ 2.0 right now please include an auto-deactivate all important MS apps please? Thanks. I'm really looking forward to what that would do to economies and submarines.
I think you'd see the full force of Microsoft put to squashing the vulnerability all of the sudden.
Let's say though that they didn't.. let's say the bug is not fixable in a reasonable time frame (reasonable being according to the average consumer.... probably less than a week).
I predict the following would occur, in this order:
1) The year of Linux on the Desktop would finally be realized
2) Linux gurus would become Gods among men for a day
3) The following day, "Computer Support" jobs would replace dentists a
Re: (Score:2)
Eu says no. (Score:2, Interesting)
and you will have to stick by it. what you are doing now is like injecting a person with a heroine syringe, then saying that they can turn it off if they want. not that any of your apps are heroine grade addictive, but you get the idea.
push your product through monopoly position first, then give the 'option' to switch them off (no way in hell remove). that's not enough. sell your o/s separately like every other business does in their fields.
Microsoft picking its battles (Score:2, Redundant)
It sounds like Microsoft has decided to go along with the gag. The EU regulators, not one of which can do arithmetic with their hands in their pockets, seem to believe that there can be only one browser, one media player, etc. in Windows, and that having these installed prevents the user from installing anything else and making it the default.
The EU is threatening, as a last resort, to force Microsoft to make it possible for users to uninstall IE so that they can install something else and Microsoft's respo
Microsoft picking its battles (Score:2)
Keeping that thought going...in France, when the PC boots up in Windows 7, the first thing the user will do is uninstall the hated IE. Then, to get Firefox, he'll just browse over to ....
Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's an option that most people won't use, so Microsoft is giving in on something that really doesn't do them any harm.
The smart part is that now that there's an option to uninstall IE8, it's harder to complain about it since the fact that it's still in any given computer is not Microsoft's doing, but the user's lack of desire to uninstall it, so IE8 must be working well enough for the average user. At least that's
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the EU decision is so that OEM's can include Firefox (or maybe another browser) without Microsoft punishing them by changing the terms of their OEM contact for copies of Windows.
Most will probably leave IE on there as well, I think. This whole thing is just a Microsoft attempt to confuse and distract the issue. It is nice that an OEM can completely remove IE, but no big deal.
I would like to see proof that OEM's are now allowed to sell a machine where Firefox is the default browser.
nLite/vLite (Score:2)
You guys want to remove IE *COMPLETELY* from the system? Use nlite/vlite and rip it out before it's even installed. Problem solved. Good luck with Windows Updates or anything that needs IE libraries to display any content though (Windows Help CHM files for instance).
Hollow Victory (Score:2)
Several third party Windows applications make use of common Microsoft APIs to display HTML content. Therefore, the HTML/Javascript/ActiveX/etc. code will always be on the system, along with the associated security problems.
The most that would ever be removed is the IE application, which just wraps a front end over the Windows libraries which do the heavy lifting. What is even gained by allowing this to be removed? Even those people who use other browsers exclusively will probably keep IE installed, just in
or you could, oh I don't know... (Score:2)
1. Drag to Trash
2. Empty Trash
Why does MS have to make everything more complicated than it should be?
If it doesn't remove the HTML control... (Score:2)
If it doesn't remove the HTML control with its inherently insecure and unfixable API then it doesn't matter what UI changes it makes.
The anti-competitive arguments about IE are important, no doubt, but the security nightmare that Microsoft created in 1997 with "Active Desktop" is what the government should be looking at. Criminal negligence is not to strong a term for it.
huh? (Score:2)
Two points (Score:2)
Just to set it straight as early as possible, a brief summary of criticism of IE bundling from what I've seen on /. so far. In practice, there are two distinct angles: legal, and technical.
1. Technical. "Windows depends on IE, and that sucks because it should be more modular".
This isn't entirely factually correct, as Windows does not depend on IE - it depends on Trident, the rendering engine that IE uses. This isn't without precedent, too - modern OS X versions similarly depend on WebKit (so you can remove
Re:Shortcuts (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shortcuts (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a vital point. IE's underlying APIs are published and available to developers. There is no way to know how many applications (in addition to Update) would be broken by completely removing IE.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Malware developers?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, disk is incredibly cheap. And it (hopefully) has the advantage of uncluttering the UI. Every time I have to use a Windows box, I'm amazed at the number of options there seem to be for opening image files with, none of which usually does what I want ..
Re:Kill switch for DRM (Score:5, Informative)
I plan to buy a new LCD and I will choose something with DVI instead of HDMI just because DRM. As I don't have HDMI capable hardware I would like to kill DRM on my machine (don't watch TV so I don't have an HD TV either), If Win7 allow me that and after all the kids in their basements test the OS for hidden nasties and middle fingers from MS, I'll switch for Win7. I need 64bit addressable memory.
Besides some extra pins for audio, HDMI and DVI differ only in pinout. Electrically they're the same, and you can go from one to the other with just a simple converter. A monitor and computer with plain DVI can still use DRM if both support HDCP (and in the same light, HDMI can be transmitted unencrypted just like DVI is).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can implement HDCP (DRM used with HDMI) on DVI, and most new monitors with DVI do implement HDCP.
It's also possible to implement HDMI without HDCP, but it's exceedingly rare.
FYI, the DRM features of Vista/7 only seem to come into play when:
- Playing back DVDs with a "legit" DVD player (e.g. PowerDVD). VLC doesn't care about the DRM.
- Playing back Blu-ray discs (without a program such as AnyDVD HD)
- Playing back
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, the DRM features of Vista/7 only seem to come into play when:
The _only_ time DRM in Windows "comes into play" is when:
* You have DRM-encumbered media (so not regular DVDs)
* You are using a DRM-capable player (so not VLC, etc)
Neither Vista, nor Windows 7, sit there looking for "HD video" or "mp3s", or anything else. They simple activate the Protected Path when an application asks for it, which should only happen if that application is playing back DRM-encumbered media.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's a violation of the HDMI specification to not implement HDCP.
Re: (Score:2)
Dell monitors (Model 1907 and up) have HDCP over DVI, just FYI. This is a personal anecdote in response to your statement.
Re:Kill switch for DRM (Score:4, Informative)
I plan to buy a new LCD and I will choose something with DVI instead of HDMI just because DRM.
Do you know what you are talking about?
The DRM is HDCP, not HDMI. DVI is compatible with HDCP, and most new DVI panels support HDCP over DVI.
If you go out of your way to find one that doesn't, you are just being a twit. Not having HDCP support just means you can't play HDCP content; it doesn't strip HDCP protection from a signal or anything like that.
If you don't play and don't intend to ever play HDCP content, then it doesn't matter in the least whether or not your panel supports it or not, because its not going to affect you in the slightest. Having HDCP support doesn't automatically encrypt not HDCP content.
I'm curious what monitors are currently on your short list of possible buys?
The only monitors at newegg that I can find that don't support HDCP are the lowest end consumer junk TN panels that only have 1 VGA input. And no digital inputs at all.
The year of ubuntu on the designer workstation?? *ubuntu 9.04 beta 4 64bit It's pretty pretty fast and stable.
Your going to look pretty silling sitting there with your no-name brand 17" VGA monitor with a cheap 6-bit TN panel trying to convince people you are a "professional graphics designer".
Re:A contradiction? You tell me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, it's a step in the right direction and you're irritated at them for it?
People have been screaming about this for literally YEARS and when something positive is initiated, they still get blasted for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Appeasement is not positive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the rendering engine is seperate from anything related to the network, saving/loading files/etc it is fine. However I have a hunch that the browser and the engine are tightly coupled.
Time zones (Score:2)
today is Friday and the "yesterday" in question was Wednesday.
In what country?