I use Microsoft Windows. I have since Windows 3.1. I almost switched to Apple once, but I didn't because I started looking at all of the software I had at the time, and it was going to cost me a fortune. Not only would it have cost more (about 50% more) to buy the Apple machine over the PC, but then I would have to replace all my software.
Okay, gosh, I get to rambling. I was reading an article (Everything you've read about Vista DRM is wrong) over at ZDNet. I am interested me because I currently run Windows Vista Premium. The article deals with the Digital Rights Management (DRM) that Microsoft is using in Vista. It seems that, in order to protect copyrights and what-not, Microsoft wrote some DRM into Vista. Now, I'm no hardware guru, and I don't play one on TV, so some of my things here might be way off base, but I understand the DRM to work as such:
When playing a high definition movie (Blu-Ray or HD DVD), Vista does not allow anything to intercept the video stream from the originating device, to the monitor. This is supposed to help stop people from running out and renting "Pirates of the Caribbean" and making a copy of it using their Vista machine.
There are about 200 comments to that article arguing over whether DRM is legal, whether it is right. How it just screws the end user by not allowing the copying of high definition digital media. Oh, and all the while chastising Microsoft for putting in their software. Most are screaming how everyone should stay away from MS and instead by Apple (at 1.5 times the price) or install Linux (at 1.5 times the average user knowledge). But there is something I believe they are failing to realize.
That is, if the DRM proves to be somewhat successful in combating illegal copying of high definition media, there will come a time in the very near future, where any device which plays this media, and plugs into a computer, will only work if the computer has proper DRM running. That means, to use these devices, Apple and Linux operating systems will also have to run a compatible type of DRM.
It is as inevitable as all color laser printers which embed microdots identifying the make, model and serial number on all pages printed. And as inevitable as commercial photo imaging software like Adobe Photoshop and Corel Draw putting recognition code in their software which prohibits the scanning of currency. Go ahead, try to scan a $20 or $50 bill, see what happens.
At any rate, so many people wasting so much time on an issue that, in a few years will be a non issue. If DRM does not become the norm, someone will crack it and then everyone can patch their Vista machines with the crack and it will not be a bother to anyone any longer.
Oh, and for the record, since February when I installed Vista, I have had nothing but an acceptable experience. I don't find it clunky, I don't find it slow (in fact, it seems faster than XP did) AND it appears to handle sleep and hibernate modes much better than XP ever did.
**(Okay, so this is kind of a bogus post, I mean, it is all true and what-not, but I felt like I should at least put something up).
Okay, gosh, I get to rambling. I was reading an article (Everything you've read about Vista DRM is wrong) over at ZDNet. I am interested me because I currently run Windows Vista Premium. The article deals with the Digital Rights Management (DRM) that Microsoft is using in Vista. It seems that, in order to protect copyrights and what-not, Microsoft wrote some DRM into Vista. Now, I'm no hardware guru, and I don't play one on TV, so some of my things here might be way off base, but I understand the DRM to work as such:
When playing a high definition movie (Blu-Ray or HD DVD), Vista does not allow anything to intercept the video stream from the originating device, to the monitor. This is supposed to help stop people from running out and renting "Pirates of the Caribbean" and making a copy of it using their Vista machine.
There are about 200 comments to that article arguing over whether DRM is legal, whether it is right. How it just screws the end user by not allowing the copying of high definition digital media. Oh, and all the while chastising Microsoft for putting in their software. Most are screaming how everyone should stay away from MS and instead by Apple (at 1.5 times the price) or install Linux (at 1.5 times the average user knowledge). But there is something I believe they are failing to realize.
That is, if the DRM proves to be somewhat successful in combating illegal copying of high definition media, there will come a time in the very near future, where any device which plays this media, and plugs into a computer, will only work if the computer has proper DRM running. That means, to use these devices, Apple and Linux operating systems will also have to run a compatible type of DRM.
It is as inevitable as all color laser printers which embed microdots identifying the make, model and serial number on all pages printed. And as inevitable as commercial photo imaging software like Adobe Photoshop and Corel Draw putting recognition code in their software which prohibits the scanning of currency. Go ahead, try to scan a $20 or $50 bill, see what happens.
At any rate, so many people wasting so much time on an issue that, in a few years will be a non issue. If DRM does not become the norm, someone will crack it and then everyone can patch their Vista machines with the crack and it will not be a bother to anyone any longer.
Oh, and for the record, since February when I installed Vista, I have had nothing but an acceptable experience. I don't find it clunky, I don't find it slow (in fact, it seems faster than XP did) AND it appears to handle sleep and hibernate modes much better than XP ever did.
**(Okay, so this is kind of a bogus post, I mean, it is all true and what-not, but I felt like I should at least put something up).