A cost analysis of Vista content protection
Posted Dec 24, 2006 19:04 UTC (Sun) by grouch
In reply to: A cost analysis of Vista content protection
Parent article: A cost analysis of Vista content protection
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.
to post comments)