Mouldy Punk Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 It annoys me about the hdcp content protection milarky. It's not Microsofts fault, they are actually doing consumers a favour by providing a way to watch hdcp content on our computers. It's the movie industry that is to blame for hdcp, and it won't make a blind bit of difference to piracy. More people will actually download movies instead of buy them because if they download them, they can play them, if they buy them, then they can't. With me, I'm the sort of person who just upgrades the box when I get a new computer. I've had the same 17" CRT monitor for generations of computers. (Tell a lie, my old 17" died on me so I picked up a 2nd hand one that was exactly the same for a bargain :p) I don't particularly feel like having to shell out for a new monitor when there is absolutely nothing wrong with the one I have now. I'll buy a HDCP monitor when this one dies and not a moment before - so I'll have to resort to alternate methods for watching protected content. It's kinda odd how some of you are saying that the requirements for Vista are too steep. Well, if you think about it, they aren't really. Memory wise, it actually says 512mb is the minimum. I assume you would be able to run Vista on that the same way you'd run XP on 64mb (XPs minimum). So those of you saying "OMG I GOTZ 2 UPGRADE" - no you don't. Seriously, if you don't have 512mb of RAM now, you are way behind the times. 1GB is the norm for computers nowadays - which is Vista's recommended - just like 128mb was the norm in XPs day, which was also XPs recommended. But seeing as no requirements are actually set in stone - there's no point complaining about fictional figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneKnee Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Like its been said, these are not requirements, more recommendations. Look at it this way, Windows Vista might take 100-200MB more RAM, but lets think about stuff like games. Battlefield 2 needs 2GB to run High settings without any stuttering. Its the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Cl Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 besides... memory IS cheap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Its a next gen game with a built in os ;) 586493874[/snapback] Then I think I'll pass :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy2004 Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 There is nothing amazing about vista to be honest. Windows xp still has 2/3 years in it before i even consider vista. :sleep: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddcrap Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 besides... memory IS cheap 586495263[/snapback] There's a chance we might actually see a demand for memory, which would bring the prices up a bit. :cry:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iOsiris Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 If that's the requirements for the OS, how much extra would we need for games? :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borbus Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 If Vista runs well on 2GB of ram, does that mean you would need loads more than 2GB to actually run a game like BF2, since the os will still be using the 2gig of ram? edit: lol, we posted exactly the same question :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Indeed I think it means were all going to be playing our games on medium unless you have a "HDCP" monitor due to the rendering nonsense. :cry: 586492661[/snapback] Probably someone already replied to this but, no it doesn't HDCP is for HD movies and HD television shows. No one is going to want to digitally save what they are viewing on their screens when playing games (other then making game videos, which have no value to the game makers if its in HD quality or not) So games on the PC/Vista i highly doubt with ever require a HDCP compliant monitor, and/or play at lower video quality settings because its not HDCP compliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 "McDonald revealed that copies of Beta 2 would be released at the Professional Developer's Conference in September,"That can't be right can it? I thought Beta 2 was the end of 2005, and there was going to be a Beta1 refresh at the PDC? 586494496[/snapback] Beta 2 will be free to the public in December or so but for PDC they will hand copies out to Devlopers. but iam sure as always it will get sqeezed beyond the hands of MS and devlopers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexcyn Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I think I'll just stick to Windows XP x64. :pinch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfish Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 i dont think its true microsoft is doing us a favor by providing a way of viewing hdcp content. if microsoft didn't provide a way for us to view it on our computers, the movie industry would be less likely to adopt the restrictions, i doubt they would be as eager for restrictions if it couldn't be viewed on old monitors in any form. if nobody went along with the movie industry, they would have a much harder time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eli Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I need to buy a new Desktop. This could be my excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Behelit Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Am I the only person who doesn't believe a new OS warrants new hardware? This is ridiculous. One of the reasons Microsoft is disliked (among the many others) is that there software forces uneeded hardware upgrades on people. I know my 5 yr old computer still works just fine with a Linux installed on it... however if I were to try and install XP I would be told to get newer hardware :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mando Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Another thing I hate about Media Center is that a friend of mine bought a Sony VIAO Media Center Edition that costs $2400.00 and he didn't like the on-board sound card. So he bought a $200.00 creative card and when he called in a few months later to warranty a part that went bad, they said he broke the warranty opening the case and adding a sound card and now he's screwed. I can't beleive Sony screwed him over after he paid $2400.00 for the PC. 586492891[/snapback] I can mate its Sony after all :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamNeeds Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Sounds good. Thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 You know why they're pushing for such high specs? It's because they know their next OS will end up being delayed for years like Vista was and they don't want to be caught out... it's 5yrs between XP and Vista, so it will probably be a couple of decades until Blackcomb or whatever the success to Vista is released. Windows XP was a good OS for the life it was meant to live... however the delays with Vista have meant it has become so heavily exploited that it is a nightmare. As much as people criticise Apple for their regular releases that is preferable to the situation with Microsoft - at least with Apple you can choose to skip an upgrade or two... with Microsoft you can't choose to have an upgrade sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahmi_r Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 i think vista is hot. i cant wait. but need to save money from now :happy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 You know why they're pushing for such high specs? It's because they know their next OS will end up being delayed for years like Vista was and they don't want to be caught out... it's 5yrs between XP and Vista, so it will probably be a couple of decades until Blackcomb or whatever the success to Vista is released.Windows XP was a good OS for the life it was meant to live... however the delays with Vista have meant it has become so heavily exploited that it is a nightmare. As much as people criticise Apple for their regular releases that is preferable to the situation with Microsoft - at least with Apple you can choose to skip an upgrade or two... with Microsoft you can't choose to have an upgrade sooner. 586495823[/snapback] Look at it this way windows XP was delayed a small tad bit. Anyways XP was built in 1 year and half it was a quick job they started work on XP right as windows 2000 was being built and at the Time Windows Me was a breif relase refresh of 98 to tie us over untill ther next OS witch was XP now it may been 5 years so far but i think when vista is out next year and it will be out it will be gladdly excepted as a great Refreshed OS and not another 98se vs Me thing XP was a rushed Os i think not that it isant great Os it just wasa Quick release compared to say windows 95 witch took almost 5 years to build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightmarE D Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I know my 5 yr old computer still works just fine with a Linux installed on it... however if I were to try and install XP I would be told to get newer hardware not really true...i got it running on 3 older computers i got in 1997 and it runs fine for what they are used for. the main one of those 3 i still use from time to time is 333mhz pentium 2, 96mb ram, 10 gig hard drive, stb velocity 128 (riva128). only problem is that xp doesn't support direct3d on the card in xp. so i don't use it for games that use it. other than that it works great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy1 Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Amusingly, Page admits that there are no monitors out there that will do HDCP586492621[/snapback] Well Page is an idiot then. I'm staring at a monitor right now that does HDCP, and I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world who has one. This whole thing is just a bunch of sensationalist garbage. Worthless. :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGeorge Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I don't agree with the opinion that MS has their hands tied in regards to the Entertainment industry. Microsoft could've simply said "no" they will not deploy HDCP because it isn't in the interest of the consumer, not to mention rendering every monitor in existence obselete. The reason they agreed to HDCP inclusion is that its one more tool available to them to control content at a future date if they so choose to use it. Microsoft is a company with shareholders just like all those in the movie industry and they sympathize with them on every level. Does anyone really think the Movie industry wouldn't offer HD content at some poiint whether HDCP is implemented or not? Face it, we're screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MulletRobZ Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 HDCP? Soulds like BS to me! Vista will definitely not run on either computer I got (see sig) and besides, I'll have them replaced with a new Mac iBook long before Vista is released! Just hope it can handle Leopard (OS X 10.5) when it comes out! :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginos Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Testing this thing now.. but very happy I have linux to fall back on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XIII Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 No, I don't want a windows that is only good about appearance. I want improvements in functionality. Improving searching, 3D graphics are not solid reason to upgrade. 3rd party XP visual styles are good enough for me and I can always download Google search to search my desktop. Another reason is that I dont' want to buy a new desktop until it dies on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts