A cost analysis of Vista content protection [LWN.net]

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 24, 2006 17:53 UTC (Sun) by joey (subscriber, #328)
In reply to: A cost analysis of Vista content protection by grouch
Parent article: A cost analysis of Vista content protection

> This is why we have such bizarre things as an 'on-off' switch which does not act like the 'on-off' switch on, for example, a lamp. (How long do you hold a lamp switch in the off position before the light goes off? Is it still drawing power after it's off?)

When was the last time you lost a file on your lamp due to unclean shutdown?

Also, it's not exactly unheard of for other equipment to have complicated on/off behavior. For example, my deisel truck needs to heat its glow plugs so has a two step process to turn it on. The space shuttle needs over an hour after landing to be safed and shut off. Nor is it unheard of for equipment unaffiliated with microsoft to draw power while "off", for example, my cordless phone here does. So do most televisions. Laying computer power switch behavior at the feet of microsoft's monopoly is an interesting assertian, I'd be intruiged to see some quotes justifying it.

(Log in to post comments)

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 24, 2006 19:04 UTC (Sun) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

Laying computer power switch behavior at the feet of microsoft's monopoly is an interesting assertian, I'd be intruiged to see some quotes justifying it.

See the PC97 design guide, or, if you prefer not to access microsoft.com:

"Microsoft proposed that all three platforms have system boards that support as a standard component the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface 1.0 specification or later, which was also put forward at the WinHEC conference.
"The company believes this requirement will ensure that the overall system properly supports the Plug and Play and power management capabilities for laptops as well as desktop systems.
"Microsoft is also pushing for next year's systems on all three platforms to support its OnNow Design Initiative. That initiative would control the on and off state of systems and peripherals, allowing them, for instance, to power up immediately like today's televisions."
-- Microsoft specifying PC designs, FoRK Archive, posted by Rohit Khare, referencing Ed Scannell, InfoWorld Electric

The start procedure you reference for a diesel engine is dictated by the way a diesel engine works. Likewise for the space shuttle. A PC does not require a complex power-off procedure. A power switch shielded from accidental tripping would be sufficient. Uninterruptible power supplies are the best answer to the problem of losing files due to disorderly shutdowns. The "instant on" provision is a convenience for many people. I don't think it adds enough convenience for the aggravation and it is certainly not dictated by the way a PC works. It comes, instead, from Microsoft, just as the extra keys with a MS Windows logo was dictated to the keyboard industry by Microsoft.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 24, 2006 22:46 UTC (Sun) by aya (guest, #19767) [Link]

> A power switch shielded from accidental tripping would be sufficient.

It would also need a big red sign next to it telling users not to press it until they had selected "shut down" from the Start Menu (which, by the way, they wouldn't read); alternatively, it couldn't actually shut the computer down immediately, at which point we're back to today's status quo. What you say is true, *if* all computer users were computer-savvy, which is obviously not the case. Most people won't understand without a lot of explaining that their important document didn't actually go to disk as soon as they hit "save", and most people won't really care, either.

Now, that being said, I do feel a bit skittish about Microsoft's potential control over hardware design, but this particular example isn't terribly insidious.

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 25, 2006 0:57 UTC (Mon) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

It would also need a big red sign next to it telling users not to press it until they had selected "shut down" from the Start Menu

What's a "Start Menu" and what does it have to do with turning a computer off?

(which, by the way, they wouldn't read); alternatively, it couldn't actually shut the computer down immediately, at which point we're back to today's status quo. What you say is true, *if* all computer users were computer-savvy, which is obviously not the case. Most people won't understand without a lot of explaining that their important document didn't actually go to disk as soon as they hit "save", and most people won't really care, either.

There are people who will use a fork to try to remove a screw and end up with a ruined fork and a ruined screw. Maybe there should be some mandated design guide for forks to make them not fit screw heads.

Now, that being said, I do feel a bit skittish about Microsoft's potential control over hardware design, but this particular example isn't terribly insidious.

Where do you get this "potential" qualifier? The potential was fulfilled more than 10 years ago. MS Vista is simply extending the remote control.