From: "Geo." 

Ok let me rephrase, it is possible to make vista think it's secure end to
end.. Oh and as to the threat of piracy, that's exactly what I meant when I
said it's their definition of not secure..

Geo.

"Robert Comer"  wrote in
message news:45e2e50f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Vista requires a secure video path for any HD video, if you virtualize
>> the machine, vista thinks it's got a secure end to end path but it's
>> talking to a virtualized end so it's really not secure.
>
> Not correct with regards to current VM software, the secure path is at the
> hardware/ HW driver level and the VM doesn't have access to the hardware
> layer of the host at all, it only has emulated devices (S3 Trio and SB16
> sound), so it's not DRM capably.  If Vista is in the VM, it knows it has
> no secure path and wouldn't play HD.
>
>> As for not allowing any form in a VM, they don't allow watching HD video
>> from vista if it's running in a VM (per the license agreement text that
>> was posted in the thread).
>
> That's an interesting concept, the VM doesn't have to be Vista even if the
> host might be.  If the HD content can be played on the emulated minimal
> hardware, it would play, but the performance would be hit or miss.
>
>>They claimed it wasn't secure to do so, what kind of security do you think
>>they were talking about?
>
> I don't believe security has anything to do with it, otherwise the whole
> VM scenario is not secure for anything.  I've read some interesting
> discussions as to what it might really be, and the most plausable is just
> the threat of piracy or money.
>
> --
> Bob Comer

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5