By that I naturally meant that if Vista is a requirement to get HDCP support and through that the S/PDIF will get disabled (which btw is directly related to the HDCP support as RIAA/MPAA require every non-drm output to be disabled), it's not even an option. But for some reason you seemed to feel the need to try to twist my post for your own need.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Vista vs. OSX
- Thread starter Rich Tate
- Start date
By that I naturally meant that if Vista is a requirement to get HDCP support and through that the S/PDIF will get disabled (which btw is directly related to the HDCP support as RIAA/MPAA require every non-drm output to be disabled), it's not even an option. But for some reason you seemed to feel the need to try to twist my post for your own need.
Have fun trying to do that...
I don't understand why some people oppose HDCP. Sorry, but entertainment companies can't allow the piracy problem to continue just because you want to continue using old technology that doesn't support DRM.
The key is that most of the piracy isn't from casual copying, it's from couterfeiting in asia, and those guys will not be deterred by any of this.
Now I don't quite follow how this is going to work. If it only disables my SPDIF ports when playing hd movies, then I dont really care. I"m not going to watch an HD movie in my PC and do something else at the same time. But if it completely disables them, that's a problem.
As for HDCP getting broken, I'd be shocked if it isn't. I can't remember a single copy protection scheme that has hasn't been broken.
First of all I'm suprised to see this front page article was deemed threadworthy, this being the polite section of the [H] and all. 
The author of the article makes a few points but not very consistently. For example, he/she bashes Vista for 'UI functions aren't obvious' and then follows it up by praising Mac OS because he can 'click Air Port' to get his IP address.
This article reminds me of the old "Macs are faster" arguments. Macs were faster because--well, Photoshop filters ran faster. (Yes, yes, some other video tasks did too. Whatever)
Or Linux people claiming theirs is the best OS because "omfg I can mod teh kerNalZ every1 shud get it"--and then get annoyed when someone installs Linux and doesn't realize that you have to know how to mod the kernal before you can really use the OS as a normal desktop machine. (Yes, yes, I know. It's not nearly as bad now. Except that you may need the Linux C libraries to read this post on your Free BSD box... )
Apple, Windows, *n*x... It's all good. Let this guy give OSX 'the nod' because that's about what it's worth. To each his own.
The author of the article makes a few points but not very consistently. For example, he/she bashes Vista for 'UI functions aren't obvious' and then follows it up by praising Mac OS because he can 'click Air Port' to get his IP address.
This article reminds me of the old "Macs are faster" arguments. Macs were faster because--well, Photoshop filters ran faster. (Yes, yes, some other video tasks did too. Whatever)
Or Linux people claiming theirs is the best OS because "omfg I can mod teh kerNalZ every1 shud get it"--and then get annoyed when someone installs Linux and doesn't realize that you have to know how to mod the kernal before you can really use the OS as a normal desktop machine. (Yes, yes, I know. It's not nearly as bad now. Except that you may need the Linux C libraries to read this post on your Free BSD box...
)Apple, Windows, *n*x... It's all good. Let this guy give OSX 'the nod' because that's about what it's worth. To each his own.
stonedwaldo420
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 505
I have noticed a pretty heavy bias in the mainstream media towards Macintosh. I remember when the WSJ reviewed the macbook and claimed that it was an excellent bargain (they scoured the web and finally found a high end ultra portable Sony for like $2000 to compare it to).
It would appear that informationweek is in the same camp. (maybe they should change their name to informationWEAK LOL).
Anyway, I have a feeling that most of these authors just happened to have written most of their stories on Macs for the last two decades. These were the same people that insisted that the G4 and G5 processors were faster than Athlon 64s and P4s they were full of it then and they are still full of it.
However, being that they are in the publishing industry, I cant fault them for valuing form above function and value. I just wish they wouldnt deceive their readers in an effort to get them to see things from the same perspective.
And yes, I have used Macs for about a year and a half at work now and I have hated every bit of it! I sort of didnt like them when I first started working here and I DESPISE them now. The more I use OSX, the more I wish I was on a Windows box.
It would appear that informationweek is in the same camp. (maybe they should change their name to informationWEAK LOL).
Anyway, I have a feeling that most of these authors just happened to have written most of their stories on Macs for the last two decades. These were the same people that insisted that the G4 and G5 processors were faster than Athlon 64s and P4s they were full of it then and they are still full of it.
However, being that they are in the publishing industry, I cant fault them for valuing form above function and value. I just wish they wouldnt deceive their readers in an effort to get them to see things from the same perspective.
And yes, I have used Macs for about a year and a half at work now and I have hated every bit of it! I sort of didnt like them when I first started working here and I DESPISE them now. The more I use OSX, the more I wish I was on a Windows box.