Microsoft on Content Protection in Vista
Charlie Demerjian continues to give Microsoft a hard time regarding the new DRM technologies introduced in Windows Vista. It seems Microsoft officially responded on the official Windows Vista Blog to a paper posted by Peter Guttman not too long ago. Read Demerjian’s article before you continue to read this post.
It’ll probably be no surprise to you when I say that I agree with Demerjian. Microsoft has basically confirmed everything Peter Guttman wrote in his paper, but tried to make it either sound like they were doing the consumers a favour or that they had no choice but to go along. In short, they tried to put a positive spin on it, probably hoping to brainwash everyone.
Although their response reads like PR-speak, it is certainly better than that one time when they tried to put a positive spin on WinFS development being halted. It seems they still haven’t learned much from Robert Scoble. I know there are lots of smart people working at Microsoft, but these days they seem to be letting me down a lot more often.
Demerjian already pointed out some issues in Microsoft’s response on their blog, but when you read their response, there are so many more issues I can point out. For example, Microsoft says:
Associating usage policies with commercial content is not new to Windows Vista, or to the industry. In fact, much of the functionality discussed in the paper has been part of previous versions of Windows, and hasn?t resulted in significant consumer problems ? as evidenced by the widespread consumer use of digital media in Windows XP. For example:
- Standard definition DVD playback has required selective use of Macrovision ACP on analog television outputs since it was introduced in the 1990s. DVD playback on and in Windows has always supported this.
- The ability to restrict audio outputs (e.g., S/PDIF) for certain types of content has been available since Windows Millennium Edition (ME) and has been available in all subsequent versions of Windows.
- The Certified Output Protection Protocol (COPP) was released over 2 years ago for Windows XP, and provides applications with the ability to detect output types and enable certain protections on video outputs such as HDCP, CGMS-A, and Macrovision ACP.
Notice the attempt at trying to make people think the DRM technologies in Vista don’t matter much since such technologies have been in Windows ever since Windows Me. It’s the standard “Hey, it’s been in previous versions for over X years and nobody had any issues with it!” argument, which should lead people to have a reaction similar to “Well gee, I guess if it has been in Windows for so long, and I never even noticed it or had issues because of it, it can’t be that bad…” It’s comparable to slowly passing laws without people knowing about much of it, and then enforcing them all much later when it’s too late and pretend like nothing is wrong because they’ve existed all those years and nobody had any issues with them.
They’re only going to be able to fool people with this who don’t bother to think about it long enough. I don’t care if this technology existed and was included ever since MS-DOS 5.0!! It doesn’t matter. What matters is when it’s being used! That’s the issue here. It’s going to be used now, and people are going to start having to deal with it as a result! The fact that it existed for 7 years in Windows is irrelevant! In addition it’s gotten much worse because the technology got more advanced, and it will only get a lot more worse once the Next Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB – formerly Palladium) technology gets ready in the next version of Windows and they start using it for DRM enforcement.
Here’s another blatant lie:
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. Windows Vista’s content protection features were developed to carefully balance the need to provide robust protection from commercial content while still enabling great new experiences such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback.
For those of you running Windows Vista, start Windows Media Player and play a random MP3 audio file. Go into Task Manager and look for a process called “mfpmp.exe” with description “Media Foundation Protected Pipeline EXE.” Notice how much CPU it uses. On my machine it fluctuates between 10% and 20% CPU time. Other users are seeing even larger consumption of CPU resources, just check out this comment.
And now the question for Microsoft: Why exactly is mfpmp.exe needed to play an MP3 file, when you say the content protection technology is there for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray?? What additional functionality am I getting, exactly, from mfpmp.exe when I play an MP3 file? As it is now, the content protection technology just uses more resources while providing no benefits at all to the user, just like Peter Guttman wrote in his paper and we’ve all argued before. No wonder there are sometimes gaps in the audio on my PC, which by the way ran much faster on Windows XP. I thought Vista was about more robust video and audio playback?? Even high end systems have these issues. I find myself using VLC to play video files more often now because Media Player feels so slow and bloated. Even when playing MP3 files, VLC uses much less CPU resources compared to mfpmp.exe and wmplayer.exe combined!
There’s just no way Microsoft can explain away all of this. You had better own up to these issues in an honest way and start satisfying your customers soon because it’s only going to work against you. What happened to all the smart people at Microsoft? Even Bill Gates sounded stupid when he admitted DRM sucked for users, and that he is against DRM that ties content to a single device, but somehow failing to notice that the technology is being included in the latest software and hardware products from Microsoft, for which he is still responsible. What’s going on exactly? Stuff like this makes me feel like I live in Wonderland.
I’m expecting to meet Alice any day now.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, January 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 am by Karel Donk
and is filed under 
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Please test drive a Mac; they really are a pleasure to use.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I think you’re article is great and spot on, there’s just one thing I can say something about
I liked the contradiction of this at the end of your post:
“Even Bill Gates sounded stupid when he admitted DRM sucked for users, and that he is against DRM that ties content to a single device, but somehow failing to notice that the technology is being included in the latest software and hardware products from Microsoft, for which he is still responsible. What?s going on exactly? Stuff like this makes me feel like I live in Wonderland.”
and under “companies i like” it says “MICROSOFT: A clear vision of software”.
Perhaps either I don’t get what you mean, or its a joke or something. I’m not sure.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Wilf:
It’s not a joke. There are many things I like about Microsoft and many things they’re doing well. But all of this DRM stuff in Vista and Windows Vista itself aren’t one of them. That’s why I mentioned they’re letting me down more often these days. Their latest policy and decisions aren’t very good.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I will test drive (reader of this blog post) when you can install OSX legally on any x86 hardware. I want to be in control of my hardware and not have it force feed to me by a greedy company.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Basically, Microsoft’s response seems to be:
“We don’t like it either, but in order for consumers to use Blu-Ray and HD-DVD on our platform we have to provide this functionality to content producers.”
While the example of the MP3 playback seems a legitimate gripe, please explain why Microsoft’s basic position is wrong.
For instance, do you instead believe that they shouldn’t include any of this stuff, even if it means users won’t be able to view Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, or other DRM’ed content?
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
“I want to be in control of my hardware and not have it force feed to me by a greedy company.”
Your choice, but you don’t seem to mind having your SOFTWARE fed to you by a big, greedy company.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Why are we to trust Apple with this kind of thing? They’re the current kings of DRM. No one sells and distributes more DRMed content than Apple.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:46 am
JCool:
That’s not their basic position. If you don’t like something you shouldn’t support it. Let the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD producers create their own players and technology that runs on Windows to enable people to play their content. The main reason why Microsoft is doing this is because of the deals they make with all these content producers and because they fear losing marketshare to others like Apple. They’re selling themselves and their customers to the content producers. While they do this, they want to make it look like they’re doing this for the benefit of customers, when in fact, they’re primarily looking at their own business needs. And that is ofcourse their right, but we don’t have to agree with it.
January 24th, 2007 at 8:40 am
I’m still struggling to understand why I need “robust protection from commercial content”.
It’s crap like this that makes me happy to be a Mac user.
January 24th, 2007 at 9:28 am
afaik any system who gives the users the ability to playback hd-dvds and blu-rays has to fullfill the hollywood-rules – even apple. if not you dont get the full resolution, etc…Im going to use vista but im not going to spend my money f?r hd-videos until the drm-drama is solved.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
[quote]Let the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD producers create their own players and technology that runs on Windows to enable people to play their content.[/quote]
Is that technically possible? Can software package running on Windows create the secure path to and from playback devices that the content producers require from all equipment that can display this content without underlying OS support? I’m not an engineer, so I won’t attempt to answer.
However, if the answer is yes, is it possible that Microsoft felt it was better to do it itself instead of relying on third parties (ala the Sony rookit debacle.)
[quote]The main reason why Microsoft is doing this is because of the deals they make with all these content producers and because they fear losing marketshare to others like Apple.[/quote]
Hmm… The only way they would lose marketshare to Apple or others would be if the others complied with the requests of the content owners as well and were able to enable these media experience while Windows sat on the no-DRM sidelines (assuming no-one else was able to provide compliant media-player software). I don’t think this is a winning solution for Microsoft or it’s users.
The thing that bugs me about your position, and that of the author of the paper, is this implication that Microsoft really wants to force this stuff down everyone’s throats. I just don’t see this as the case (note Bill’s comments about his feelings on DRM, which you drew a ridiculous conclusion from). I think they basically feel they don’t have a choice if they want to insure these experiences on Vista, because their leverage with the media companies is almost nil.
Either way, I’m no fan of DRM, but I don’t expect Microsoft to take on Hollywood for me.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:56 am
i just played an mp3 in winamp and there’s no ?mfpmp.exe��?. it started when playing an mp3 in wmp11, but it used about 2-5% of my cpu. i have to agree that it seems a little stupid to run something like ?Media Foundation Protected Pipeline EXE” just for 1 audio fie.
but verall, my experience with vista has been positive. i have a free legal copy of vista business rtm through a student program. i have to give credit to microsoft for offering 300$ software for free to students
January 25th, 2007 at 6:10 am
JCool:
It would be more difficult perhaps, but they probably could create their own software with secure path. They would require the participation of hardware manufacturers for support with drivers as well.
As you can see, most users don’t like DRM and record companies are now seriously looking at distributing their music without DRM on the internet (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/21/yourmoney/music.php?page=1). And I think the movie industry is going to come to the same conclusion in the future. So I do think it would be a winning solution for MS in the end.
Why is my conclusion ridiculous? Whatever happened to having principles and standards in life and sticking to them? You can’t say you don’t agree with something but be perfectly OK with benefitting from it anyway. What does that say about such a person? If Gates didn’t like the technology, he should have used some very bad language in one of his reviews (like he usually does) and tell the teams responsible to get rid of it asap. But he didn’t. Instead he let them include the technology anyway to satisfy the content industry so they too could get some deals like Apple did and start making serious money.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:07 am
“It would be more difficult perhaps, but they probably could create their own software with secure path. They would require the participation of hardware manufacturers for support with drivers as well.”
This kind of coordination between 3rd party software and 3rd party hardware is a pretty difficult thing, and very likely to create a bad user experience. (what?! My sound card is compliant, but my video card doesn\’t work with PowerDVD 4.3 until I upgrade the bios?! Average user head explosion to follow) If this is the case, it\’s probably why Microsoft chose to do it themselves.
“As you can see, most users don?t like DRM and record companies are now seriously looking at distributing their music without DRM on the internet
” Obviously, Vista\’s support of DRM or lack of didn\’t cause this, the market did. The market doesn\’t like DRM. An example of why we don\’t need Microsoft to fight our battles.
“Why is my conclusion ridiculous? Whatever happened to having principles and standards in life and sticking to them?”
Your sarcastic comment about Bill not being aware that DRM was in Vista was what I\’m referring to. There are plenty of times in life that you do something that you don\’t really want to do, because of economic or social necessity. Bill\’s a smart guy. If he thought he could avoid all the headache involved in the DRM deal and still get the same results (good user experience and access to content, plus the business benefit of whatever deals they have going with content producers), he would have done so.
January 25th, 2007 at 11:07 am
JCool:
It’s true that it would not be easy, but that’s not the reason why MS choose to do it themselves. They have their own reasons. Satisfying the content industry for business reasons, even against their own principles, would be more on target.
Also, I wasn’t saying we need MS to fight the battle against DRM. As you can see, they are on the receiving end of this whole DRM issue as well because they choose to side with the content industry.
I saw the backlash resulting from DRM coming way in advance, so I would assume he probably knew the consequences and still did it. And the likely reason why he still did it would be because of business/economics. And if that’s true, that says a lot about him. He also hasn’t been as smart as in the past recently: http://www.miraesoft.com/karel/2006/07/01/bill-gates-has-failed/
There seem to be many people at MS who also didn’t agree and didn’t like working on implementing all these DRM related things. If I was in their position, I’d have quit my job. But that’s probably just me. They made the decision to work on it and are going to have to deal with all the headache now. This not only includes the public reaction and resistance, but also the complicated task of maintaining this technology and trying to make everything work well. Judging from the issues I’m having sometimes with video/audio playback, and the fact that they are now working in overdrive to get Service Pack 1 for Vista out, they’re still struggling to get things working well.
And regarding this:
Many people think this way, and that’s one of the reasons why the world is a mess today. People can’t stand behind what they believe in. They don’t have principles and are easily manipulated. I would have quit my job if I was part of the team that would have to implement DRM. I still appreciate the fact that many of those people now say they didn’t agree with it and didn’t like it, but they went along with it anyway and had part in it. If they REALLY wanted to stand behind their principles and valued their integrity, they would have quit and have no part in it. Check this out for more: http://www.miraesoft.com/karel/2007/01/15/if-you-have-nothing-to-lose-you-can-only-win/
January 25th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Every day casual use of a computer may not be important to a casual vista user, however, as an audio and video content creator, i see this potentially very bad. Even if the os has \\\”decided\\\” that the content I created, or the input of stereo audio jacks, or the input of a video feed \\\”has met all requirements and therefore there will be no Tiltbits … You may continue…\\\” how will one know for sure? Even if there is one (1) Tiltbit that accidentally didn\\\’t get turned off, and and the quality of an audio recording is 99.9999999999999 percent of what it\\\’s supposed to be, from an audiofile standpoint, that is just not acceptable. AND YES, EVEN IF DIFFERECNE IS IMPERCEPTABLE. There is no way of knowing at any given time, if getting 100% of an input feed (or 100% of an output feed). You have to \\\”trust\\\” the os AND EVERY HARDWARE COMPONENT that comes in contact with your created content, that you are getting 100% and absolutely no Tiltbits have been turned on.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
People don’t see why M$ is doing this DRM crap in Vista. The main reason isn’t premium content protection, the main reason is to shut down competition like Linux. If you obfuscate technical specification of future PCs enough (eg. M$ want video card manufacturers not to publish full tech specs of their cards) then it will be impossible to use it with Open Source system like Linux, because no one (apart from manufacturer) will be able to write necessary drivers.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
“They don?t have principles and are easily manipulated. I would have quit my job if I was part of the team that would have to implement DRM.”
While I believe principles are important, I’d submit that making it inconvenient to make a backup copy of a Futurama DVD is not a principle that I would plunge my family into unemployment over.
“If they REALLY wanted to stand behind their principles and valued their integrity, they would have quit and have no part in it.”
I think it’s a little unfair to paint these people as unprincipled because they chose to keep their jobs and do what they were assigned. Remember, it’s not like they were ordered to poison schoolkids or persecute minorities. This is about making media harder to enjoy on a PC.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
JCool:
That’s my point. It’s always normal people choosing to keep their jobs and doing what they are told. And then years later, we look around us and wonder how humanity got this way. If people can’t stand behind their principles in such small cases, they certainly won’t be able to when there’s even more at stake. Just look around you, it’s happening everywhere. Those guys blowing up children in Iraq? Just following orders.
Anyway, the DRM issue is not so simple as “making it inconvenient to make a backup copy of a Futurama DVD.” There’s much more at stake. But that’s for a future post.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“If people can?t stand behind their principles in such small cases, they certainly won?t be able to when there?s even more at stake.”
Hmm… Perhaps I don’t see what you’re getting at, because the more I think about it, this just doesn’t seem to rise up to a “against my principles” situation. I think it’s annoying and inconvenient, but I guess I see principles as larger things, which is why I don’t get all the consternation about this. If you want to explain why at a later date, that\’s great, but for now it seems like your position is far out of proportion to the actual issue. Perhaps you could just tell me what principle you feel DRM violates?
“Those guys blowing up children in Iraq? Just following orders.”
That’s true. If the Iraqis/radical Islamists would stop randomly murdering people who aren’t shia/shiite/non-muslim simply because the guy in the mosque told them too, Iraq would be a much nicer place right now.
January 25th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
It’s not out of proportion. It has to do with the same basic thing. And that is being true to what you believe. Stand behind what you think is correct.
And doing something even though you don’t agree with it is not being true to yourself. “Doing what you are told to do” is a weak excuse.
So if you think DRM is not good for users, if you are against it, if you don’t like working on it, you should act on it. “Following orders” and later saying you didn’t agree with it anyway doesn’t help anyone.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Quick thought-
Maybe Microsoft is thinking “Well, it took us 7 years to put out this new OS, so I guess we’d better think about what computers might be like 7 years from now.”
Because do you realize in just 4 more years, double-quad cpu’s will be available, running on tetrabytes of RAM, and that HD space won’t even be an issue because most of it will be mainframed anyway. And Video and Sound cards will be…. I’m sure you can imagine.
And it doesn’t take long for these changes to take place according to (What’s his name’s) LAW stating the mathmatical progress of technology.
Anyway, I don’t think Bill’s too worried about how your 2.6 gig Processor and 1.5 gigs of RAM are holding up right now, because you’ll be rid of it and on to something bigger and better within the next 2-3 years the chances are.
I’m only running 2 GB’s of RAM and I’ve noticed the meter go up and the stress from mfpmp.exe however it honestly hasn’t been that much and I actually feel glad to be using the space (because in XP, I really couldn’t utilize all of my RAM without slow-down (pre dual core of couse).
NowI’m piling things on and despite filling up the RAM, things stil are nice a smooth.
Filling the RAM with XP made things real sloppy.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
NOT TRUE
“Standard definition DVD playback has required selective use of Macrovision ACP on analog television outputs since it was introduced in the 1990s. DVD playback on and in Windows has always supported this.”
I build 2 Media Center 2005′s one for Satalite and one for Cable TV. Never had a problem recording my kid’s show’s. Upgraded to Vista MCE/Ultamite and like most people not able to record there “Standard definition” HBO. I cannot record the show Avatar: The last airbender. So abviously the technology existed but now with Vista’s DRM it is now being envorced much more strictly then the previous operating system’s Microsoft has made.
Sorry son. Look’s like Microsoft has implimented some new DRM technoligy in Vista that is much more restrictive then MCE 2005 was which is agreeing with someone else saying we cannot record and watch your favourate show Avatar together with your father.
I’m installing MAC. Aparently there MAC OS now has unsupported ways
so it can be installed on a normal IBM PC.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Lupo: Thanks for posting that.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:54 am
I haven’t installed any MS software since Win2K for two reasons: a) there are no features the new stuff offers that I want, and b) I refuse to have anything onsite that ‘calls home’. oH, BTW, I am a corporate ‘influencer’ and what I say affects , oh, conservatively, 10,000 (that’s right, ten thousand) desktops or seats. While I often encounter blank stares discussing the virtues of Linux, I NEVER get that reaction from people, from desk jockeys right up to C-level execs, when that ‘call home’ issue is raised.
For discussion, a couple of points: Suppose I don’t want to ever install a DVD /BluRay/HD-DVD player (that is, all I want is office-related stuff.) Why can’t MS sell me a non-mfpmp.exe (or whatever they choose to call it next), non-DRM-infested version of Windows? Why can’t they be compelled to do so, under the EU directive, or the last Consent Decree, or under some new class action? Hmm? Hmmm????
And why can’t artists sue MS under the same Woody Allen artistic preservation statutes – when their copyrighted art is degraded without their permission?
February 15th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
JCool – \”This is about making media harder to enjoy on a PC\”. Really??? When a doctor misinterprets a digital image on a Vista PC because of DRM restrictions, would you want to be on the receiving end of his or her care????
Of course the IT staff should have its collective head checked for allowing this kind of technology to be used by doctors in the first place.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Yeah – DRM increases value
I aready voiced my opinion on my blog
Like having a car which only lets you go to work, but nowhere else without extra $$$
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Why would I pay M$ to digitally spy on me and lock me out of my hardware & content I bought & paid for legally??
Laugh at me all ya like for running Linux but with Linux ‘I’ control my puter & content not the greedmongers in Redmond & Hollywood.
If M$ DRM isn’t bad enough how about having to buy a new Vista license just because you swapped a few parts out of your old box???
Frankly Y’all can have life with Uncle Bill & the Redmond Rogues telling what you can & can’t do with your puter & content with Vista because I don’t see a reason to switch to Vista from Linux.
Vista certainly can’t compete with the price of Linux either….
February 27th, 2007 at 2:06 am
quackking:
“I don?t want to ever install a DVD /BluRay/HD-DVD player (that is, all I want is office-related stuff.) Why can?t MS sell me a non-mfpmp.exe (or whatever they choose to call it next), non-DRM-infested version of Windows?”
Office-related stuff? Such as text in all its forms (spreadsheets, simple word processing, E-mail, etcetera)? This is EXACTLY the content that DRM is so useful for. Want to keep your own words from being viewable by anyone other than yourself or the intended recipients? Grandma’s computer gets infected by a trojan, but you didn’t give her permission to expand the copyright on your family photos to anyone else, so she’s still the only one who can view them. Want to forward the press some evidence that your company is involved in illegal dealings? Tough luck, your boss didn’t say that anyone else could read the incriminating documents.
Quoted a CIA file that was publicly available, but which they’re now becoming embarrassed over at all the attention? They contact centralized DRM servers to notify the proper authorities that files recently classified as ‘sensitive’ have been stolen and illegally reproduced without the proper protections. Nervous about the uproar caused by your expose, you’ve tried taking the precaution of disconnecting your computer from the Internet, but this only lasted a few days; then, you found out your computer would automatically downgrade its functionality and restrict access to your files if not allowed to ‘check in’ regularly, so you give it that. But the next time you ‘check in’, the DRM servers force your computer to search for ‘watermarks’ that can uniquely identify stolen content (the CIA was helpful enough to provide more such watermarks, in replacement of the ones that were previously removed to prevent identification of their classified material – unfortunately for you, this watermark happens to coincide with the quotes you were using!)
The central DRM servers revoke ALL your authentication (including those for documents YOU YOURSELF authored/owned), and – promising to launch a full investigation into their suspicions that you are guilty of even MORE piracy – globally revoke authentication for everyone ELSE on every single document that YOU have ever authored. Across the world, E-mail that you sent vanishes from people’s mailboxes. Noone can read your expose, your ten unrelated articles on fishing, or the silly poem you wrote when you were in fourth grade. NONE of it. You effectively vanish from the online world.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:23 am
I think the companies enforcing copy protection are totally missing something.
Even though we might have a world of audiophiles and videophiles wanting to be able to watch a super sharp picture on whatever screen. Most content copied through the internet or on other media is of quite low quality by using heavy compression schemes such as XVID or MP3. And most people don’t care the quality is quite crappy. Since a lot of movies are crap themselves. You are happy to have ploughed through the film wasting some time at an airport, no matter in how great quality you could see some parts of Basic Instinct.
Most films ripped from Blue ray discs will be in a nice low res quality, in an easy do download and distributable format. No matter if you can buy a DVD with Rolling Stones live concert in 6 channel stereo, most of it will be on peoples computers, Ipods and what have you, in a basic 2ch 128kbit MP3. Trying to restrict high quality content will certainly not restrict any distribution of copy protected material. It will only make things harder for people who actually byes the the technology and its DVDs.
I simply cannot see where all these restrictions in playing high quality content will inhibit free distribution over the world. Most people will have a big bunch of low res audio/video content obtained from various sources, and then some bought material where you really want to get the most experience out of it. A sheer selling point today is what you bundle beyond the material itself, rather than the amount of pixels you will get.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Why you have to use Vista (or any other Microsoft product) if you don’t want to. Why curse them and still use their software. They are here to make a profit and many companies are using more gruesome ways for making profit like cigarette companies. Everone is after Microsoft but they don’t forget to use Windows. And companies do sell PCs without Windows or you can choose to make your own.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:15 am
I am wondering how many of you people have actually tried to play an MP3 in Vista. Yes there is a process called ‘mfpmp.exe’, but it ONLY(!) runs when using Windows Media Player, playing a MP3 in e.g. Winamp doesn’t load this process. And another fun thing to note, when playing back stuff in WMP and disabling the visual stuff, WMP no longer uses ANY CPU power on playback, this is all handled by mfpmp.exe. So basically this process is the one doing the actual decoding.
Another thing I have noticed is people claiming it uses a ton of CPU, I dont know what people are playing back but in my testing I havn’t been able to push it above 4% CPU which is incendently the same maximum amount i can push out of Winamp.
testrig: AMD X2 3800+, and Vista Buisness.
Just my 2 cent.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
“The central DRM servers revoke ALL your authentication (including those for documents YOU YOURSELF authored/owned), and – promising to launch a full investigation into their suspicions that you are guilty of even MORE piracy – globally revoke authentication for everyone ELSE on every single document that YOU have ever authored. Across the world, E-mail that you sent vanishes from people?s mailboxes. Noone can read your expose, your ten unrelated articles on fishing, or the silly poem you wrote when you were in fourth grade. NONE of it. You effectively vanish from the online world. ”
This Coupled with the implications that everything about you including banking will be on one chip on one ID Card, And the authorities simply have to deactivate your chip to effectively stop you from doing anything they don’t want you to. hmm. Seems ominous when you think about the fact that you just might be declared a terrorist for supporting piracy which according to the government “supports terrorism”. Off to the US torture prison In the bay. Welcome to The future.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:54 am
Whatever happened to having principles and standards in life and sticking to them? You can?t say you don?t agree with something but be perfectly OK with benefitting from it anyway. What does that say about such a person?
Oh, like George Clooney or Tom Hanks in a war movie?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:41 pm
I can only say one thing. With all of this DRM, what are u ppl waiting for? just ditch Vista and install ubuntu like I did. Last week I got so tired of this. I bought a new laptop and tried to copy a bunch of personal files off my old Win2K desktop to my new Vista box and found that short of emailing it myself I wasn’t gonna be able to copy one of my files (a Julia Ling wallpaper) to my Vista box, after mailing it to myself and downloading it I tried to set it as wallpaper but Vista wouldn’t let me do so and wouldn’t let me install my preferred OSS wallpaper tool and to make it worse, upon rebooting the wallpaper itself was gone (YES, JUST GONE OFF THE HDD, NOT EVEN IN THE RECYCLE BIN), that was when I deicded to just remove Vista and put ubuntu on my PC, and like an earlier poster said.
WITH UBUNTU MY PC IS F*CKIN MINE, NOT M$’S OR HOLYWOOD’S BOX.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:21 am
The problem is not MS. While it’s true DRM is a nightmare in Vista, with all kinds of recipes for disasters preventing people watching their content they paid good money for, the true problem is DRM.
Don’t buy DRM content and you will have no problem with Vista. DRM is a dissinsentive to the average person purchasing content online. You buy a DVD and you own it. You can play it where you like. The same is not true of DRM content. DRM content obliterates your “free use” rights that are supposedly protected under the copyright act. Until DRM is dead there will be a huge restriction on the volume of sales of online content. Everyone with a budget (or any common sense) will buy the cd or dvd instead of risking buying a limited use format available on line.
DRM is an idea desparately clung to by entertainment industry execs who are so scared of losing profits to piracy that they are missing the single biggest distribution opportunity ever created ie: the internet. Once they realise that DRM is what stops billions rather than millions of people purchasing content online they will change their tune. The recording industry has already started to wake up to this, and the movie industry will soon follow. Then MS quietlly drop DRM efforts from windows and DRM will be consigned to the dustbin of history.