NEWS: Vista's video requirements may be too much

[oldandinthe way]

Does anyone see a reason that someone with a stable running system would upgrade to Vista?

I spent a bit of time at the Microsoft get ready site and cannot see any reason to upgrade my existing systems and frankly if I buy a new system I would probably downgrade to XP.

Is there some killer ap I don't know about that requires Vista?

[waheed]

Is there some killer ap I don't know about that requires Vista?

Next generation High Definition DVD playback (HD-DVD and Blu Ray). If you dont need HD-DVD/Blu Ray then you dont need to worry.

[oldandinthe way]

Hardly a killer ap. And I have no doubt I will be able to utilize them (in the unlikely case the neeed arises) without Vista

Thanks for the response.

[whitejremiah]

HD-DVD and blu-ray...i really hope that they both fail anyhow, so there's no reason that i gotta upgrade...and im sure eventually someone will find/make a way around it for xp....people did it for stuff that only ran in xp to make it run in 98/2k/older than that....

[ROF]

Does anyone see a reason that someone with a stable running system would upgrade to Vista?

You are asking the same question people ask when any new Operating System is released. Do I really need it? Do you? Only you can answer that question, but one thing is certain if you don't upgrade. Given a year or two after release most people in the world will have upgraded and your answer to this question and point of view will have changed radically.

Do you need Vista today? It depends on your point of view. No killer apps will be Vista only. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are both supported in Windows XP. Check you latest version of Nero (Nero7) for confirmation.

[waheed]

Hardly a killer ap. And I have no doubt I will be able to utilize them (in the unlikely case the neeed arises) without Vista

Highly unlikely. Currently at the moment, HD-DVD/Blu Ray requires a copy protection scheme known as HDCP for High Definiton Playback. Win XP does not support HDCP, hence the need for Vista (which will support HDCP).

Otherwise, without HDCP, the resolution is reduced to a quarter (from 1920 x 1080 pixels to 960 x 540 pixels), which defeats the object of HD playback.

Unless theres a crack. Do a google search, you can learn more about HDCP.

I personally hate it, but thats what the movie studios have decided

BTW, your graphics card and monitor would also need to be HDCP compliant.

[ROF]

Hardly a killer ap. And I have no doubt I will be able to utilize them (in the unlikely case the neeed arises) without Vista

Highly unlikely. Currently at the moment, HD-DVD/Blu Ray requires a copy protection scheme known as HDCP for High Definiton Playback. Win XP does not support HDCP, hence the need for Vista (which will support HDCP).

Why would you want to watch a DVD on your computer? That's almost as bad as wanting to surf the web on your Xbox. In any case, the HDCP requirement has been dropped by them now. You can watch blu-ray or HD DVD without purchasing new equipment.

[jayl]

Otherwise, without HDCP, the resolution is reduced to a quarter (from 1920 x 1080 pixels to 960 x 540 pixels), which defeats the object of HD playback.

Not necessarily. There is a non-confirmed report that Microsoft, Sony, and many Hollywood studios have agreed not to use the Image Constraint Token until 2010 or possibly 2012. The ICT is what downgrades the signal to 960 x 540 on non-HDCP playback. So if that report is true, you've got a few years before you'd actually need to upgrade to an HDCP operating system (like Vista) to enjoy high definition DVDs on your computer.

[Cobra]

Why would you want to watch a DVD on your computer? That's almost as bad as wanting to surf the web on your Xbox.

I actually depend on my PC for that sort of thing - to play DVDs, music etc. because I do not have anything else when I'm here at university.

[waheed]

The whole issue with HDCP keeps changing. First, it was no HD at all if you dont have HDCP, then it was resolution degrade for non HDCP playback and so on. Guess its good to know you can play at full resolution without HDCP.

At ROF

I use my PC for everything, from music, to web browsing to watching DVDs as the PC is located in my bedroom. Im soon to upgrade to a 24" BenQ FP241W (or a Dell 2407FPW) monitor which will be the only full 1080P support display in my home.

[jayl]

The whole issue with HDCP keeps changing. First, it was no HD at all if you dont have HDCP, then it was resolution degrade for non HDCP playback and so on. Guess its good to know you can play at full resolution without HDCP.

Yeah, though you've gotta be careful since the consumers are basically at the mercy of the technology companies and the studios here. Even if that report turns out to be true, it's only an agreement between the studios. There's really nothing preventing the studios from changing their mind in 2008 and saying "oops, now you need HDMI/HDCP in order to playback HD movies at full resolution!"

Still, I'm not about to upgrade my OS based upon the threat that I might not be able to do something. I'll just wait until I really have a solid need to upgrade.

[adam]

Well those are only the min specs to run the Aero feature. The bare min specs are only 800Mhz and 512 Gigs of ram which is really nothing these days. I imagine alot of people would just turn off the Aero feature anyway since its really just eye candy, but then these people probably won't be upgrading to Vista anyway.

Even if you did need Vista in order to playback HD, the min specs would be determined by the resources necessary to playback HD in smooth quality, not the os.

[whitejremiah]

yea, last i heard, although it's part of the standards, no one is really using the whole HDCP resolution dropping thing...i get a gut feeling though, that it will eventually be implemented into dvd's even by compaines that say right now that they arent using em...in a way to basically force people to upgrade their equipement....

edit: to adam- the minimum requirements to play back HD video increases rather significantly when your OS is chewing up even 500mb of ram just idleing and your vid card specs increase as well...i can play HD video just fine under xp, but i dont think i'd be able to TOUCH an HD video under vista (right now ive got 768mb ram and a 128mb vid card)

also to adam- 512 GIGS OF RAM???!!!

[DereX888]

all bullocks.
I remember when WinME (or was it 2000) was about to be released, and one of the ad lines was "best for DVD", like Win98 couldn't play it or something?
Same shit here with HD-DVD. I bet even Win2000 will play HD-DVD when it is out in some sort of standardized form.

Vista... except for even more eye candy (an eye-candiness-big-step-up from XP) underneath it all its still the same NT core. Those millions of 'new' lines are just for eye-candiness, same as it was with XP (search on google how many lines of code was written on that idiotic animated dog in XP's Help, and I guarantee your jaw will drop lol - at least mine did).
Turn off all the eye-candy in XP and what you get? Old plain Win2000 + System Restore LOL... in Win2000 remove IE5/6 and 'Active Desktop enhancement' and what you get? - plain old WinNT... Its all microsoft scam, as usual
As with all Microsoft's 'new' operating systems: each next one is the same as previous one plus all the patches and fixes released in the time between, plus occasionally some new major gadget most of us don't need or shouldn't need (ever heard of System Restore in unix, linux, etc? ofcourse you didn't - being stable as rock they simply don't need it; does anyone need that clunky WMP interwoven into OS when there are tons of better media players out there? Ofcourse we don't, but then Big Brother wouldn't shove Digital Restrictions Management on most of us who are less knowledgeable...). Microsoft had only TWO operating systems: DOS and its own version of IBM's OS/2 (rebadged as NT). Thankfully they killed DOS with better GUIs (aka 95/98/ME) after milking it for some 20+ years, and now they just milk NT core with ever-better eye-candy GUIs in each 'newer' version, throwing-in some apps down the road (IE, SR, etc etc).


Help Bill spend more on 'helping others' - buy Vista!
hahahahaha

[CrayonEater]

though you've gotta be careful since the consumers are basically at the mercy of the technology companies and the studios here

Although there is unfortunately some truth to this, they are also at our mercy - we just don't have to buy this crap!

I've just spent converting 20 year's worth of VHS to DVD, not to mention buying movies. I'm not going to go through that again, at least for another 20 years.

Besides, if DVD is turning out to be an interim format, what's to say the new HD formats also aren't stopgap formats - especially when there is a format war going on?

HD/Blu-Ray? Forget it.

[ROF]

I've just spent converting 20 year's worth of VHS to DVD, not to mention buying movies. I'm not going to go through that again, at least for another 20 years.

HD/Blu-Ray? Forget it.

I said the same thing about 8 track, vinyl, audio cassettes, and CDs, but you know what? I wasn't alone in saying that and I also wasn't alone in purchasing the same media over and over again. I don't see any difference here. But in any case, Vista will not have any special requirements to play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. You can buy a blu-ray burner today and use it in a Win98 machine.

[jayl]

It's not quite the same as the VHS->DVD transition, since the high definition DVD players will still play regular DVDs.

What they seem to be hoping for is that people with high definition viewing (HD televisions, HD monitors, etc.) buy up the high definition DVDs for the better picture and such. The delayed enforcement of ICT/HDCP is meant to further encourage this, so people aren't immediately worried about hardware compatibility. Then a few years down the road, when there are plenty of high definition DVDs in people's homes, they quietly put the ICT/HDCP in so that you need modern technology to play them at full quality (though, by then, many people will probably already have HDCP televisions or Windows Vista).

But I agree on the HD-DVD/Blu-ray format war. I plan to stay out of it until I can clearly see which way the wind is blowing. I don't need high-definition DVDs that badly. I still own a Betamax VCR that serves to remind me about adopting new formats too quickly.

[CrayonEater]

I said the same thing about 8 track, vinyl, audio cassettes, and CDs, but you know what? I wasn't alone in saying that and I also wasn't alone in purchasing the same media over and over again.

Many people will be willing to, many will not. Ultimately, it may depend on whether consumers figure out that they will have to re-purchase media to go to HD and how many are willing to do so.

[TheFamilyMan]

The marketing division at Microsoft are not a bunch of idiots, and they don't expect everyone to spontaneously "upgrade" to Vista. There are still LOTS of PCs running Windows 98 out there, not to mention all the other favors of windows that have been released in the last decade. Vista is catering to the (perceived) cutting edge, as are lots of other new software titles (though an OS is hardly a title). Something gotta give if you want those bleeding features, and unfortunately it's computer resources. Don't want to use Vista, don't buy it...I won't for probably a few years.

As to vinyl and audio cassettes, hell I love vinyl and cassettes. My turntable and Nakamichi cassette deck sound as good as any CD player if the recording is in good condition. I can't stand MP3 or any other compressed format, all of them sound like crap to me.

[CrayonEater]

Love my turntables too. Still have lots of LPs, mainly for DJing. CD or PC isn't the same.

Ah, Nakamichi ... that brings back memories!

[ROF]

Love my turntables too. Still have lots of LPs, mainly for DJing. CD or PC isn't the same.

Love my turntable too. Wouldn't sell it for the anything? It doesn't get much use but every so often I'll pull out a 45 to spin. No DJing here unless you count reminesing with friends and some jammin tunes.

[Doramius]

People worry about the change over to the new OS, but as stated earlier nothing new will happen. Many businesses still run on WinNT or even Win98 (not SE). Many advanced Windows Users I know use Win98SE and Win2K. Any advanced users I know that have WinXP, usually disable or uninstall the resource & space taking hogs. Vista, IMO, will be alittle overrated, but it will definitely have it's good points.

Will I get it? Probably not for another 3-5 years, just the same way I did with XP.

[Dv8ted2]

Many advanced Windows Users I know use Win98SE and Win2K. Any advanced users I know that have WinXP, usually disable or uninstall the resource & space taking hogs.

Yep, I disable all the eye-candy stuff and my computer runs very well.

[Doramius]

I will say I have come to notice that WinXP is a very big step and improvment in OSs. However, I was hoping too that the new OS would be built with less frills and more towards stability and workability. If I wanted AOL, I would grab 7 or 8 discs on my way out of Wal-Mart or Target; Or just wait a week for my mail. There was a time when a browser was required, but don't force us to have one and have resources taken up when it's not in use. Now there are more options out there. I'd like to install my own and not have one I'm not using ghosting around in my machine causing conflicts.

Again, XP has a lot of potential and I think M$ should have put more thought into working on the base working of it, rather than make a resource costly program (AERO) that people have to buy a brand new computer for exhorbadent prices just to carry the minimum requirements. Throw the frils in on an extra CD. Don't make it part of the system.

[DereX888]

I've just spent converting 20 year's worth of VHS to DVD, not to mention buying movies. I'm not going to go through that again, at least for another 20 years.

HD/Blu-Ray? Forget it.

I said the same thing about 8 track, vinyl, audio cassettes, and CDs, but you know what? I wasn't alone in saying that and I also wasn't alone in purchasing the same media over and over again. I don't see any difference here. But in any case, Vista will not have any special requirements to play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. You can buy a blu-ray burner today and use it in a Win98 machine.

vinyl to CD or 8track to audio cassette or VHS to DVD etc format changes were actual improvements on previous formats, giving you something better (better quality sound or picture).
There is no improvement in change from Windows 2000/XP/2003 to Windows Vista, except for nicer eye-candiness.
The sound or picture of any existing formats will be still the same.
And you will NOT need Vista to play HD-DVD, thats for sure, so any pairing of Vista with HD-DVD is just another marketing bullshit from Microsoft (as it was with DVD playback, that supposed to play 'better' on Windows ME when it came out).

I will say I have come to notice that WinXP is a very big step and improvment in OSs. However, I was hoping too that the new OS would be built with less frills and more towards stability and workability. If I wanted AOL, I would grab 7 or 8 discs on my way out of Wal-Mart or Target; Or just wait a week for my mail. There was a time when a browser was required, but don't force us to have one and have resources taken up when it's not in use. Now there are more options out there. I'd like to install my own and not have one I'm not using ghosting around in my machine causing conflicts.

Again, XP has a lot of potential and I think M$ should have put more thought into working on the base working of it, rather than make a resource costly program (AERO) that people have to buy a brand new computer for exhorbadent prices just to carry the minimum requirements. Throw the frils in on an extra CD. Don't make it part of the system.

I must say that I didnt notice ANY improvements in WinXP. Actually it works worse than its predecessor - Windows 2000. Install both on very same computer and test them. Everything will actually run faster or smoother on Win2K.
Vista bring more clutter and more eye-candy to the user, thats basically all what Microsoft has been improving on WinNT code in past 10 years.
They are unable to write any new operating system's code, same as they were unable to do so since their begining.
They bought QDOS from a guy (Tim Patterson) who had no clue what to do with it, renamed it to DOS, and for over 20 years they were improving it with nicer GUI - nicer eyecandiness (initially stealing GUI from Apple, which Apple itself stole from Xerox...), until after few renamings and GUI improvements it finally died known under the Windows ME name (not because they couldn't improve its GUI anymore, but simply because it was so outdated that it couldn't compete anymore with anything else available back then on the market).
The other operating system they ever had - the OS/2 - was written and given to them by IBM during their short cooperation. They 'improved' it with (again) nicer GUI and began selling it under the Windows NT name. Then they improved its GUI slightly better and renamed it to Windows 2000. Another GUI improvement to the very same NT core was named Windows XP. Guess what is the latest GUI improvement to NT code called?
Yet it is still the same OS/2 - aka NT - core, most likely still with "Copyright IBM (c) 1986" all over it (if we will ever have chance to disassemble it or they let us see the code thats what we probably will find)

We have to wait until Microsoft buys or steals some another breakthru operating system from some another stupid company or person to see some real new OS from Microsoft... but for now "long live NT6!" (oops, i meant "long live Vista!" ) Cranky old DOS could have lived thru 7 major GUI changes, so I'd think Microsoft can squeeze out at least as many GUI improvements out of better OS/2's core...

[disturbed1]

The 7 step method Vista takes to delete a shortcut

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=151250154&size=o

[ROF]

It's a similiar procedure when you want to delete the shortcut to microsoft outlook and you do not administrator permission to do so in windows XP. I'd imagine this isn't the procedure for deleting all shortcuts in vista.

[oldandinthe way]

Well it appears that no one here has a reason to offer as to why I should care about Vista.

The corporate world often delays upgrading to a new OS for up to 2 years. I am capable of delaying longer. Currently running at my place: Windows for Workgroups, NT Workstation 4.0 and Windows XP. Hosting my webserver - Windows2000. If the OS can effectively do the job, why risk a new OS and the almost endless application upgrades which result.

Power DVD 7 claims to play BD and HD-DVD disks. I am sure it will need further upgrade but I have never watched a movie to completion on my PC.

I was slow to make the move from LP to CD, and still had a reel to reel tape a couple of years ago. Always knew that CD was overated in both reliability and fidelity, but adopted it for space reasons. Never used 8 track or cassette - I hate tape media.

Portability of music is not a great desire so I don't record in MP3 or use an IPOD. Why should I decrease the sound quality available to me while sitting in my chair.

Technology is not an end in itself. I adopt it when it serves a need. I use a cell phone, but under an hour a month - why? Because no cell phone offers the quality of connection that POTS - "plain old telephone service" does. The acceptance of the cell phone as a primary connection by many people has encouraged lower quality phone service like VIOP. My early adoptor friends who switched to Vonage are scrambling to get their numbers switched back to a real phone carrier. Only the cheapest of my acquantances perservere. Yet i have little doubt that VIOP will become the standard for phone service - quality be damned.

Sure in a couple of years we will have had a couple of years of oem installed Vista on new machines. When I buy one I'll get Vista and unless it upsets me with crashes and instability, I will not downgrade.

By the time that happens, Wall Street will have pressured microsoft to buy a company with a product that actually has demand.

[Sam Ontario]

I resisted CDs when they 1st came out, poor sound quality. I resisted MP3 players when they 1st came out, poor sound quality. Then new improvements sound quality became amazingly improved that I ditched all my LPs and now I have at least 3 MP3 players.

I resisted Windows 3.1 when I was using DOS, it took me over 2 years to switch to Windows 3.1. I resisted Windows 95 in prefer of Windows 3.1 and it took me over 2 years to use Windows 95. The same pattern happened again with Windows XP, I was only upgraded to Windows XP less than 2 years ago.

I think Vista will follow the same pattern for me, i.e. when I find that I need the real benefit of it, I will upgrade.

[oldandinthe way]

I skipped Windows 95, 98,ME IMHO all CRAP. Used Windows NT3 with great success. Only went to NT4.0 when I need the Windows95 style GUI to run. Still maintain pieces of NT3 on my systems like the filemanager. It is far superior to Windows Explorer.

MP3 has poor sound quality intrinscally, never mind the crummy players. Still have a CD walkman for the rare occasions when I need music outside the home or car.