More headaches due to Vista & DRM

http://davisfreeberg.com/2008/01/03/...pp-no-netflix/

This is especially for my friend Husar, who stubbornly, despite all evidence to the contrary, continues to claim that Vista is a good OS.

Unless, you know, you want to transfer more than 16k files (who'd ever want to do that?), or play music and use the network at the same time (gasp!), or a few other highly unorthodox things like that. I guess watching HD content is among one of those things one would never want or need to do. :no:

This exhibit outlines the wonderful design of DRM implementations, as well as the friendliness of a certain OS.

(Note: there's a couple of screenshots at the link, which may give a more complete image of the whole thing).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Even though I’m an HDTV fanatic, it wasn’t until this past weekend, that I finally made the jump to an HD monitor. While I don’t have HDTV tuners on my Media Center, I do have an HD camcorder and it was important for me to be able to edit my high resolution videos.

After doing a little bit of research, I decided to pick up a SyncMasterTM 226BW from Samsung. Between the new monitor and my ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT video card, the resolution looks absolutely stunning. Even my home movies look fantastic in HDTV. I really couldn’t have been happier with the upgrade.

Unfortunately, Hollywood isn’t quite as thrilled about my new HD Media Dream Machine and they’ve decided to punish me by revoking my Watch Now privileges from Netflix.

I first found out about the problem on New Year’s Eve, when I went to log into my account. When I tried to launch a streaming movie, I was greeted with an error message asking me to “reset” my DRM. Luckily, Netflix’s help page on the topic included a link to a DRM reset utility, but when I went to install the program, I stopped dead in my tracks when I saw this warning.

Netflix DRM

The minute I saw“this will potentially remove playback licenses from your computer, including those from companies other than Netflix or Microsoft” I knew better than to hit continue. Before nuking my entire digital library, I decided to call Netflix’s technical support, to see if I could get to the bottom of my C00D11B1 error message.

When I called them they confirmed my worst fears. In order to access the Watch Now service, I had to give Microsoft’s DRM sniffing program access to all of the files on my hard drive. If the software found any non-Netflix video files, it would revoke my rights to the content and invalidate the DRM. This means that I would lose all the movies that I’ve purchased from Amazon’s Unbox, just to troubleshoot the issue.

Technically, there is a way to back up the licenses before doing a DRM reset, but it’s a pretty complex process, even by my standards. When I asked Netflix for more details, they referred me to Amazon for assistance.

Perhaps even worse than having to choose between having access to Netflix or giving up my Unbox movies was the realization that my real problems were actually tied to the shiny new monitor that I’ve already grown fond of.

Netflix’s software allows them to look at the video card, cables and the monitor that you are using and when they checked mine out, it was apparently a little too high def to pass their DRM filters.

Because my computer allows me to send an unrestricted HDTV feed to my monitor, Hollywood has decided to revoke my ability to stream 480 resolution video files from Netflix. In order to fix my problem, Netflix recommended that I downgrade to a lower res VGA setup.

As part of their agreement with Hollywood, Netflix uses a program called COPP (Certified Output Protection Protocal). COPP is made by Microsoft and the protocol restricts how you are able to transfer digital files off of your PC. When I ran COPP to identify the error on my machine, it gave me an ominous warning that “the exclusive semaphere is owned by another process.”

My Netflix technician told me that he had never heard of this particular error and thought that it was unique to my setup. When I consulted Microsoft, they suggested that I consult the creator of the program. Since Microsoft wrote the COPP software, I wasn’t sure who to turn to after that.

The irony in all of this, is that the DRM that Hollywood is so much in love with, is really only harming their paying customers. When you do a DRM reset, it’s not your pirated files that get revoked, it’s the ones that you already paid for that are at risk. I’m not allowed to watch low res Netflix files, even though I have the capability to download high def torrents? How does this even make sense? It’s as if the studios want their digital strategies to fail.

While I understand the need for the studios to protect their content, I believe that these measures go too far. It makes little sense to block my ability to copy low res internet movies, when I can always rip the DVD straight from my Netflix discs instead. By blocking access to my Netflix membership, Hollywood is once again punishing their customers by pushing defective DRM.

I like this even more:
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...d16011033.mspx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Microsoft

How do I back up my media usage rights?

This version of the Player does not permit you to back up your media usage rights. However, depending upon where your protected files came from, you might be able to restore your rights over the Internet. For more information, see the question in this topic about how to restore your media usage rights.

---

And, a personal favourite:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Microsoft

Can I remove DRM from a file?

No. Once DRM has been applied to a file, DRM can't be removed from it.

---

I guess me and a few other million people on the internets must be having a collective hallucination about the existence of certain programs that let you - wait for it! - remove DRM from your media...

Yes, I know it's lame to reply to your own posts...

I just wanted to add that while Sony BMG is dropping DRM, the wise, wise folks in EU want to standardize DRM across the EU... Of course, it's not like there's anything wrong with that idea...:wall:

Interesting read on the network throughput issue, if you like that sort of stuff ~:)

Hearing this from a microsoft employee is a nice change ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

The hard-coded limit was short-sighted with respect to today’s systems that have faster CPUs, multiple cores and Gigabit networks

---

I'm sure there's a similar one on the 16k file copy problem (I remember reading it), but Google Reader won't turn it up in search, so I've probably got the keywords wrong or something.

Oh, and vista is a good OS :yes:

Well, I tried to keep out of Vista discussions but since you mention my name, let me ask a question:
Why do you hate freedom?

Hah hah hah! The bottom line remains: stay the hell away from Vista unless you REALLY need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

Hah hah hah! The bottom line remains: stay the hell away from Vista unless you REALLY need it.

---

...or if you bought a computer recently and don't feel like buying XP... or are too lazy to use university/institute/college rights to download it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

Interesting read on the network throughput issue, if you like that sort of stuff ~:)

Hearing this from a microsoft employee is a nice change ~;)



I'm sure there's a similar one on the 16k file copy problem (I remember reading it), but Google Reader won't turn it up in search, so I've probably got the keywords wrong or something.

Oh, and vista is a good OS :yes:

---

Thanks for the link. I had read a similarly technical one - I first thought it'd be this one, but I don't think so anymore -, but I can't recall what it was...

I'm aware of the cause, but that's no excuse - especially when all the other OSes on the market can handle the problem...

And I'm sure you can't say your last statement with a straight face. ~D

Husar: ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

...or if you bought a computer recently and don't feel like buying XP... or are too lazy to use university/institute/college rights to download it.

---

But of course, heheheh! :laugh4:

But then again don't buy a computer that is preassembled and has Vista on it: not only would you probably save money by assembling it yourself, you choose the OS you need (in this case XP) and the apparatus would be more finetuned and flexible for upgrades and the likes.

Being too lazy to use university/institute/college rights is just a waste. You know that.

Maybe you could find someone who's a teacher, someone at all, who has cheap legal access to OS licenses. I remember I got my legal XP Pro for just about 20 euros or something like that.

By the way, isn't it so that with some companies you can still choose to have XP if you purchase a preassembled machine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

By the way, isn't it so that with some companies you can still choose to have XP if you purchase a preassembled machine?

---

I know it's not a very good standard, but I believe Best Buy had all of its windows display computers running on Vista OS.

I have a friend who bought a Vista laptop similar to mine. In a couple of months, he downloaded (legally) XP and installed it. He taunted me constantly for "not upgrading to XP". Our institute allows CS majors to download XP and Vista along with a bunch of MS office tools and extras. Strangely, they do not appear to have rights to distribute MS Office. :shrug:

Quote:

---

By the way, isn't it so that with some companies you can still choose to have XP if you purchase a preassembled machine?

---

Yep, there was a bit of an OEM revolt last year :grin2:

I think dell even offers linux (ubuntu) on some machines :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Thanks for the link. I had read a similarly technical one - I first thought it'd be this one, but I don't think so anymore -, but I can't recall what it was...

I'm aware of the cause, but that's no excuse - especially when all the other OSes on the market can handle the problem...

---

True, but most other OSs haven't tried to do the media prioritization thing (afaik). Some parts of it can be tweaked on vista, too, but I forget if that includes the network overhead one.

Quote:

---

And I'm sure you can't say your last statement with a straight face.

---

Easily - I much prefer vista to XP ~:)

...I think we've had this discussion before though :grin:

Got Vista on my laptop as well, 2 hours max before it completily dies even when I didn't use it. Going to upgrade it to XP as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Got Vista on my laptop as well, 2 hours max before it completily dies even when I didn't use it. Going to upgrade it to XP as well.

---

Have you turned on power saving (and, more seriously, properly configured it)? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

Have you turned on power saving (and, more seriously, properly configured it)? :laugh4:

---

Mean vista. It runs fine for maybe half an hour, and then it slows down and down and down it's absolutily terrible. Sometimes it takes up to 5 minutes before it reboots, no idea what the hell is going on. Vista sucks jumbojets through a straw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

Y
True, but most other OSs haven't tried to do the media prioritization thing (afaik).

---

Thank goodness for that! ~D

And yes, we've been there before, but you'll kindly note that you and Husar are part of a rather small erm, minority, of people for whom Vista is acceptable. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Thank goodness for that! ~D

And yes, we've been there before, but you'll kindly note that you and Husar are part of a rather small erm, minority, of people for whom Vista is acceptable. :sweatdrop:

---

:laugh4:

I can remember people pointing out all the failings of XP, "stick with 98SE" was the common statement.
I've been very pleased with my Vista desktop, in fact it's the most stable OS I've used. By comparison, my laptop (a company one) is still running 98SE and is a worthless piece of junk.
With every new OS there are always doom mongers

.......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

I can remember people pointing out all the failings of XP, "stick with 98SE" was the common statement.

---

When XP was introduced that was simply true, XP was also a disaster when it was released. Some rave about Vista's stability and it drives other people nuts, and that is pretty random regardless of their hardware, it's simply a buggy product that wasn't fit for release.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

When XP was introduced that was simply true, XP was also a disaster when it was released. Some rave about Vista's stability and it drives other people nuts, and that is pretty random regardless of their hardware, it's simply a buggy product that wasn't fit for release.

---

It's been very, very, stable :grin2:

I had to reinstall 98 and ME pretty much every 6 months or so, XP was the first that seemed stable to me and Vista seems to continue that but then that's my personal impression or maybe my expectations are just lower.
On a sidenote I heard the danes are the happiest people in polls because their expectations are so low. ~D

How much more stable than XP can Vista be, though? XP sorted almost all of the stability issues that the 9X operating systems had. To my mind, although Vista isn't a bad operating system, in the sense that ME was a bad operating system, it is more resource hungry than XP, has serious compatibility issues, has the well documented DRM problems with HD content, etc. In return, it has very little to offer that is new apart from a pretty interface and DX10 support. Considering the amount of time and money spent on it, I think most consumers can justifiably feel disapointed.

It was more so Windows NT that was the first "stable" Windows OS, as this was the first M$ OS that could run a half decent file server and actually had real file permissions and security.

Win2K (NT5.0) was the first stable "home user" OS, WinXP (NT5.1) is the continuation of this and Vista (NT6.0) should also be (once it's been patched a few times it should be ok if a little overweight) because all of these are still Windows NT OS's with the same fundamental code base as the first NT version.

Win9x (95/98/98SE/ME) was not a very stable OS and is completely different to NT based OSes. Win9x is more like Win16 (3.10, 3.11 etc) than NT, in that it share smuch the same code base and also runs on top of MSDOS.

So in essence what is being compared here in terms of "stability" is the difference between "NT" and "9x" and the answer to this is glaringly obvious. If Vista is somehow "more stable" than NT/2K/XP/2K3 then I would like to know exactly how it is more stable?

So moving on from "stability", which all NT OSes have had of late as a "great bonus to the user" (and which UNIX/Linux has had since the beginning as pretty much a necessity) and moving on from DirectX10 and the fancy new theme, what else does Vista have to offer over Win2K/XP?

Quote:

---

It was more so Windows NT that was the first "stable" Windows OS, as this was the first M$ OS that could run a half decent file server and actually had real file permissions and security.

---

Please, don't get me started on Vista file permissions - you have no idea how many machine accounts it wants to have rwx access to iis files :laugh4:

Quote:

---

So in essence what is being compared here in terms of "stability" is the difference between "NT" and "9x" and the answer to this is glaringly obvious. If Vista is somehow "more stable" than NT/2K/XP/2K3 then I would like to know exactly how it is more stable?

---

The defnition; it crashes less and recovers better :grin2:

Quote:

---

So moving on from "stability", which all NT OSes have had of late as a "great bonus to the user" (and which UNIX/Linux has had since the beginning as pretty much a necessity) and moving on from DirectX10 and the fancy new theme, what else does Vista have to offer over Win2K/XP?

---

Automatically indexed instant search :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

The defnition; it crashes less and recovers better :grin2:

---

According to whom, on what platform under what conditions and running/doing what exactly? I've only had NT/2k/XP lock up due to hardware or driver problems and not due to the OS itself. So again, how is Vista judged as "more stable" than other NT OSes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

Automatically indexed instant search :yes:

---

What a great feature... as long as it can be turned off that is. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caravel

What a great feature... as long as it can be turned off that is. :yes:

---

How should Microsoft know what files you have when you turn off the indexed search? :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

Please, don't get me started on Vista file permissions - you have no idea how many machine accounts it wants to have rwx access to iis files :laugh4:

---

*gasps* Sapi ... is ... using ... IIS !! ~:eek:
The horror... the horror... :fainting:

Welcome to the Techroom - 24/7 Windows Vista arguments and Bar & Grill!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

*gasps* Sapi ... is ... using ... IIS !! ~:eek:
The horror... the horror... :fainting:

---

I know, I know :grin2:

I hate the damn thing, but it's there, and, more importantly, my rl friend also uses it and couldn't very well ask me for help if I was using apache :laugh4:

On topic, an interesting quote for you all ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ars

Vista's adoption rate over the past year actually exceeded XP's in 2001, and consumers apparently choose Vista over XP by a 7:1 margin.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ars

In time, Microsoft will release another OS (Windows 7), and the entire cycle will repeat. Vista will go from the heartily-disliked upstart to the "real" OS that end users vow to clutch unto death. It's a process that has repeated itself multiple times in the computer industry, and it speaks more to humanity's dislike of change than it does to the strength or weakness of any Microsoft product. Definitive information won't be available until Microsoft deigns to speak on the matter, but thus far Vista's launch and first year look quite a bit like XP's. Check back a year after Windows 7 is released, and see if you don't see a trend.

---

:yes:
Source

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

I know, I know :grin2:

I hate the damn thing, but it's there, and, more importantly, my rl friend also uses it and couldn't very well ask me for help if I was using apache :laugh4:

On topic, an interesting quote for you all ~:)

:yes:
Source

---

XP was only any good after SP1 and became a decent OS after SP2. It's also only a decent OS if you have XP Pro and have disabled all of the crap in order to get it looking and working much like Win2k. XP has also been heavily patched with SP3 on the way. Back when XP was released you had people hanging on to 98SE, but this was for a very different reason. Yes system specs do come into it, but mainly it was glaring security vulnerabilities, the cartoony appearance and overweight nature of the OS that put people off.

That article does not really address the differences between XP/2K and 98SE/ME. There is no mythical cycle of users clutching onto there old OS's because they're afraid of change - that is quite simply complete rubbish.

Users going from one of the 9x OSes to one of the NT5.x/6.x OSes will see a massive difference in stability, performance, security, functionality etc. Those moving from 2K to XP saw little difference except cosmetics. This is why many users stuck with 2K. Functionally they do the same thing. XP has a built in firewall, a few integrated bits such as CD burning and a zip file handler as well as a few more gimmicks such as DEP then there's the themes service and a few cartoony bits, that's it. There is nothing much else new that is any benefit to the home user/gamer.

The last time home users and gamers stuck with 98SE it was because of the massive security holes found in XP at the time and not because of some "unwillingness to change". In reality many of these holes were also in Win2k but 2k was simply not as widespread as XP is so it took a while for it's defects to be widely noticed and exploited.

This is less an OS issue, and more a software issue in general. No quantity of testing, preparation, and quality assurance is going to produce a product at 1.0 that's as good as a product after 1-2 years of updating and life 'in the wild.' The problems with Vista are similar to the problems XP went through in it's first cycle, and from a certain perspective they're similar to the problems MTWII went through at 1.0.

The lesson is don't buy at 1.0. Let other people pay a premium to be your beta testers and then, once they've shaken out the worst of the nonsense that seemed like a good idea in a development environment, get on the train.

I think Vista will be a good OS in the long run. There are a lot of junk features they still haven't included an option to turn off, and (IMHO) it runs like a pig if you aren't willing to make the x64 jump yet, but there are some advantages over XP that will grow to outweigh it's flaws after the first service pack or two is out.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caravel

The last time home users and gamers stuck with 98SE it was because of the massive security holes found in XP at the time and not because of some "unwillingness to change". In reality many of these holes were also in Win2k but 2k was simply not as widespread as XP is so it took a while for it's defects to be widely noticed and exploited.

---

I'd also reference another OS that no one wanted- WindowsME(Mistake Edition:clown: ). I think we may see a lot of people who similarly skip Vista and wait for the next OS to come around as well. As I've said before, what feature does Vista offer that people actually want that sets it apart from XP? It offers plenty of headaches, but nothing I want.

There's a reason people are referring to Vista as "Windows ME 2."

Pfft, you guys just never used Windows Mail, Windows Calendar or the new contacts Folder where you can also use little pictures for your contacts(yes, it's compatible with vCards). At first I was quite curious but then, since my Outlook 2002 is not my favourite application for such things(well, and it looks ugly with the old design :laugh4: ) I tried them and I find them quite useful, the calendar is quite simple but easy and fast to use and can be shared online(one can have several calendars so you can keep some private and share others) and the Mail thingy is just like Outlook Express, only that it looks nicer, is faster in my experience(well, did I ever even use Express?).
And then of course having contacts saved with pictures is soooo coooool I asked many friends for their pictures. :laugh4:
The weird thing is that when you enter a birthday for a contact it's not automatically in the calendar, you have to enter it manually there(note to self: write a message to Microsoft about that).

Also concerning stability, it's rock stable for me, Instant Messaging, Games and many open browser windows don't bring it to it's knees and incompatible software is purely the fault of the third party developer anyway. :clown:
Those lazy guys should better work on making their programs Vista compatible. :whip:
On the other hand I remember seeing hundreds of Win 2k compatibility patches back when it was released so it wasn't really the most compatible system for gamers either.

My dad does have a driver issue with his 7600GT and the NVidia drivers, on all 2D screens(that means not in 3D AeroGlass) he gets really shabby horizontal black bars everywhere, the M$ driver doesn't do that.
I do however guess that this is due to NVidia always being lazy with their midrange and low-end card drivers, I found I had a lot less driver issues with my new 7950GT than I had with the midrange cards I had before even under XP. :shrug:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Don't search for a point, I may have none. ~D

Husar, everytime you speak in support of Vista, the lynch mob led by blodrast slowly coming to your door gets larger...

lol.