From: "Geo." 

If the content protection in vista goes above and beyond that found on
HDDVD players then can you really claim it was just to support protections
mandated by the content? For example if vista allows downloading content
that expires after a week, you can't possibly be serious that vista isn't
directly responsible for extending the capabilities of HD-DVD content
protection.

Geo.

"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
  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
  provides consumers with additional functionality.
  -------------------------------------------------------------

  "John Beamish"  wrote in message
  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
  > manner that if (for example) you were listening to a CD that was subject
  > to DRM and you were a technician viewing (according to this example) a
  > digital x-ray that the x-ray would be degraded to the same extent that
DRM
  > 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

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