A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

[Tyrant]

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

Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.

Hmm.. good read all-around.

 

[Mentalist]

As part of the bus-protection scheme, devices are required to implement
AES-128 encryption in order to receive content from Vista. This has to be
done via a hardware decryption engine on the graphics chip, which would
typically be implemented by throwing away a rendering pipeline or two to make
room for the AES engine.

:roll:

He does make some good points but he also makes some down right retarded ones and a lot of what he is saying is pure conjecture. This article is written with what seems to be an almost inflammatory bias, it does sound that the Vista Content Protection is a move in the wrong direction for the content publishing industry and lawyers rather than the consumers.

DRM won't be that big an issue, and I doubt it will be that prevalant in the industry.

I'm not a fan of this stuff, but keep in mind the premium content that requires all of these HDCP enabled vid cards, audio adapters, LCD displays, etc is practically non-existent. It's akin to the need for HDMI, where you won't be able to view 1080p via component because the content producers might turn on the flag that forces all signals to go through "trusted" hardware connections. Both the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD camps have pretty much agreed that they won't be flipping on the bit-flag to require HDCP compliant connections, at least in this 1st-Gen of hardware, so any content released for the next few years can be viewed on premium levels, even without HDMI, or all these secure devices in the PC hardware chain.

Microsoft is just playing ball to allow consumers the option of viewing such "premium-content", as it's mandated by the entertainment industry. No one is going to force the user to buy such content. It's really the content producers that deserve the slagging off, not MS.

The article while raising some important points really kept making me think of this as I read it: Oh noes

 

[bad dog]

premium content protection and the rest of that shit should be software controled by the content provider, not the OS.

Vista went overboard with the graphics minimum requirements.

Fuck it, I am looking at getting a MAC more and more.

 

[The Question]

^^Best you do, the last thing any of us wants you to be is effective.

 

[bad dog]

Nigger! what the fuck are you talking about?

 

[The Question]

^^Shut the fuck up, Henoch.

 

[Ishcabittle]

Fuck it, I am looking at getting a MAC more and more.

You can run either OS, you can virtualize Linux and the slew of flavors thereof, and you've got plenty of people to help with transition... go for it, dude.

 

[DarthSikle]

I miss my Vic-20