LstBrunnenG
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,676
Someone here has been continually claiming that DRM makes Vista slower. This is directed at him, but all are invited to participate.
Let's start with the sources you cited:
20 Questions about DRM on the Vista Blog
A Whitepaper on Vista's Content Protection
The Vista EULA
THG Article on Vista vs XP
EFF Article on Vista DRM
The "Cost of Vista" FUD article that's been bandied about
PolishLinux article
This thread is not about whether Vista will downgrade our output quality when playing protected content. I don't really care about that. If any content provider is dumb enough to require Vista (or our set-top players) to do that, they'll simply lose my business.
This thread's purpose is to, once and for all, dispell the notion that Vista's DRM is slowing down the experience of unsuspecting users. The burden of proof here is on those who insist Vista is slower, and that the reason for that is DRM. This is because there are a lot of people on this forum who are actually running Vista, and find it to be as fast as or faster than XP for everyday tasks.
Actually, the THG article quoted by Kunsmoke shows that unless what you're doing involves OpenGL, you can expect only about a 1% slowdown on things like video and audio encoding. It's only areas affected by OpenGL that Vista falls flat on its face, and this is squarely the fault of the driver manufacturers.
After you've somehow proven that Vista is significantly slower than XP, you'll have to prove one or both of the following:
1. Vista is slower because the DRM is active, regardless of whether you're playing protected content.
2. Vista is slower because the implementation of DRM is what's delaying NVidia and ATi in getting better drivers to us.
As to the sources you cited, Kunsmoke, I read all of them except the whitepaper. The whitepaper I skimmed and it looks like things I already knew, presented in nauseating detail.
Let's tackle them one by one:
1) 20 Questions on the Vista Blog
Everything here seems to tell me that the DRM can only consume resources when you're playing back protected content. Also, there's nothing about DRM slowing the driver development process
2) The whitepaper
Again, I only skimmed this, but there's nothing in there saying NV or ATi were slowed down by implementing this. If you want to prove me wrong, quote a specific passage from here.
3) The Vista EULA
I'm going to repeat myself:
4)THG Article
What this shows me is that Vista performs almost as good as XP, except in situations where OpenGL is used. Then it falls flat on its face because of the immature drivers.
5) PolishLinux article
Nothing in here about the DRM slowing your computer to a crawl. They seem to infer a more far-reaching definition of revocation than Microsoft has officially stated. Also, you asked why cracking HD-DVD and the like would be illegal. It's in one of your own sources:
6) The "Cost of Vista" article
Already read it weeks ago. It's FUD. Disproven by one of your other sources, the 20-questions one.
7) The EFF Article
It's main beef with Vista is that it will cripple your PC if you have something on it content providers don't like. Not true. If you have something on your PC content providers don't like, then the content providers won't let you play their content. It doesn't affect everything else on your computer.
Nothing here either about DRM slowing your computer to a crawl.
Your move. If you do find something you feel proves me wrong, please post not only the link but a quote of the relevant section.
Let's start with the sources you cited:
20 Questions about DRM on the Vista Blog
A Whitepaper on Vista's Content Protection
The Vista EULA
THG Article on Vista vs XP
EFF Article on Vista DRM
The "Cost of Vista" FUD article that's been bandied about
PolishLinux article
This thread is not about whether Vista will downgrade our output quality when playing protected content. I don't really care about that. If any content provider is dumb enough to require Vista (or our set-top players) to do that, they'll simply lose my business.
This thread's purpose is to, once and for all, dispell the notion that Vista's DRM is slowing down the experience of unsuspecting users. The burden of proof here is on those who insist Vista is slower, and that the reason for that is DRM. This is because there are a lot of people on this forum who are actually running Vista, and find it to be as fast as or faster than XP for everyday tasks.
Actually, the THG article quoted by Kunsmoke shows that unless what you're doing involves OpenGL, you can expect only about a 1% slowdown on things like video and audio encoding. It's only areas affected by OpenGL that Vista falls flat on its face, and this is squarely the fault of the driver manufacturers.
After you've somehow proven that Vista is significantly slower than XP, you'll have to prove one or both of the following:
1. Vista is slower because the DRM is active, regardless of whether you're playing protected content.
2. Vista is slower because the implementation of DRM is what's delaying NVidia and ATi in getting better drivers to us.
As to the sources you cited, Kunsmoke, I read all of them except the whitepaper. The whitepaper I skimmed and it looks like things I already knew, presented in nauseating detail.
Let's tackle them one by one:
1) 20 Questions on the Vista Blog
Everything here seems to tell me that the DRM can only consume resources when you're playing back protected content. Also, there's nothing about DRM slowing the driver development process
2) The whitepaper
Again, I only skimmed this, but there's nothing in there saying NV or ATi were slowed down by implementing this. If you want to prove me wrong, quote a specific passage from here.
3) The Vista EULA
I'm going to repeat myself:
Actually, I just did read it. Did we read the same thing? Let me link you to the license I read, just in case. In there is nothing that lets Microsoft revoke your license for no reason at all. It *does* say that if the software isn't properly licensed, it may stop working. This is copy protection, not "detonating of any boxes that use open source software." To be perfectly realistic, Microsoft alone could not possibly hope to provide the entire range of software that the end user could hope to use. Thus, restricting Microsoft operating systems from running non-Microsoft software, open source or otherwise, would only hurt Microsoft, since everyone and his brother would be running to switch to Linux just so they could run whatever sub-par clone of Quickbooks the open source community has seen fit to grace us with.
4)THG Article
What this shows me is that Vista performs almost as good as XP, except in situations where OpenGL is used. Then it falls flat on its face because of the immature drivers.
5) PolishLinux article
Nothing in here about the DRM slowing your computer to a crawl. They seem to infer a more far-reaching definition of revocation than Microsoft has officially stated. Also, you asked why cracking HD-DVD and the like would be illegal. It's in one of your own sources:
We know that we can break almost any DRM restriction using easily available open source software. But what about the legal part? Is it legal to do this at home? Well, this depends… Depends on where you live actually. For instance, if you have the misfortune of being located in the United States or France, you are prohibited by law to play your legally purchased music or films (sic!) that are secured by DRM if you don’t buy an approved operating system (like MS Windows or MacOS) with an approved media player (like PowerDVD or iTunes). In the US this has been enforced by the DMCA act. In France, a similar act called DADVSI.
6) The "Cost of Vista" article
Already read it weeks ago. It's FUD. Disproven by one of your other sources, the 20-questions one.
7) The EFF Article
It's main beef with Vista is that it will cripple your PC if you have something on it content providers don't like. Not true. If you have something on your PC content providers don't like, then the content providers won't let you play their content. It doesn't affect everything else on your computer.
Nothing here either about DRM slowing your computer to a crawl.
Your move. If you do find something you feel proves me wrong, please post not only the link but a quote of the relevant section.