From: "Rich Gauszka" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C73CF4.211D17B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Microsoft was part of the committee that established the scheme for =
content protection and thus 'mandated' taking my cpu cycles .

For the record I don't advocate theft/misuse of artistic property. I = just
want fair use of that property after I purchase it ( backup, play = it on
devices of my choosing ).=20

Another nit I have is that for the past few years manufacturers have = lied
and sold equipment as 'HD ready' and now they've changed the rules = with
HDCP et al after people have purchased those not so ready devices.  = The
rules changed because the manufacurers changed the rules. Now we = have
complex connectors ( HDCP ) that enforce copy protection and an = entire
mechanism to enforce it that  looks like it will cost the = consumer more
more than the loss sustained by the content providers=20

http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/faq.asp

The most common compatibility problems have to do with HDCP. Probably = the
most common failure is the lack of an HDCP repeater function or = failure
to perform the authentication reliably in all types of usage = scenarios.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:45b2f6e3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     The extra CPU is to support the protections mandated by the =
content.  The additional functionality is the ability to render that =
content at all.  If you don't want to play protected content such as =
HD-DVD or bluray then you should care that increased CPU is required to =
do so.  If you do want to play such content then you should be pleased =
that it is possible.

  Rich

    "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message =
news:45b2ec71$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    The Vista team is hallucinating equating additional CPU cycles used =
for drm=20
    with additional functionality for consumers.

    from the link
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource =

    consumption?

    Yes.  However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as =
the PC=20
    provides consumers with additional functionality.
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    "John Beamish"  wrote in message=20
    news:op.tmhkksu1m6tn4t{at}dellblack.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
    > In this vein ... there was the story that Vista imposed DRM in =
such a=20
    > manner that if (for example) you were listening to a CD that was =
subject=20
    > to DRM and you were a technician viewing (according to this =
example) a=20
    > digital x-ray that the x-ray would be degraded to the same extent =
that DRM=20
    > required the CD to be degraded.
    >
    > The Windows Vista team replied here:
    > =
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows=
-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx

------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C73CF4.211D17B0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Microsoft was part of the committee =
that=20
established the scheme for content protection and thus 'mandated' taking = my cpu=20
cycles .
 
For the record I don't advocate =
theft/misuse of=20
artistic property. I just want fair use of that property after I = purchase it (=20
backup, play it on devices of my choosing ). 
 
Another nit I have is that for
the past =
few years=20
manufacturers have lied and sold equipment as 'HD ready' and now they've = changed=20
the rules with HDCP et al after people have purchased those not so ready =

devices.  The rules changed because the manufacurers changed the =
rules. Now=20
we have complex connectors ( HDCP ) that enforce copy =
protection and=20
an entire mechanism to enforce it that  looks like it will cost the =

consumer more more than the loss sustained by the content providers=20

 
http://www.hdmi.org/consume" target="new">http://www.hdmi.org/consume=">http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/faq.asp">http://www.hdmi.org/consume=
r/faq.asp
 
The most common compatibility problems have to do with HDCP. =
Probably the=20
most common failure is the lack of an HDCP repeater function or failure = to=20
perform the authentication reliably in all types of usage = scenarios.
 

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:45b2f6e3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     The
extra CPU is to =
support the=20
  protections mandated by the content.  The additional =
functionality is the=20
  ability to render that content at all.  If you don't want to play =

  protected content such as HD-DVD or bluray then you should care that =
increased=20
  CPU is required to do so.  If you do want to play such content =
then you=20
  should be pleased that it is possible.
   
  Rich
   
  
    "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com
A>>=20
    wrote in message news:45b2ec71$1{at}w3.nls.net...The=20
    Vista team is hallucinating equating additional CPU cycles used for =
drm=20
    with additional functionality for
consumers.from the=20
    =
link------------------------------------------------------------W=
ill=20
    Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource=20
    consumption?Yes.  However, the
use of additional =
CPU cycles=20
    is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional=20
    =
functionality.-------------------------------------------------------=
------"John=20
    Beamish" <JLBeamish{at}rogers.com>">mailto:JLBeamish{at}rogers.com">JLBeamish{at}rogers.com>
=
wrote in=20
    message news:op.tmhkksu1m6tn4t{at}dellblack.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com..=
.>=20
    In this vein ... there was the story that Vista imposed DRM in such =
a=20
    > manner that if (for example) you were listening to a CD =
that was=20
    subject > to DRM and you were a technician viewing (according =
to this=20
    example) a > digital x-ray that the x-ray would be degraded =
to the=20
    same extent that DRM > required the CD to be=20
    degraded.>> The Windows Vista team replied =
here:> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20=
/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx">http=
://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vis=
ta-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx

------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C73CF4.211D17B0--

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