Re: Vista: One feature I hope the Mac never adopts


Travelinman wrote:
> In article <1125441624.443715.48830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> steve.travis@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > TravelinMan wrote:
> > > In article <1125433133.917067.45350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > steve.travis@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > > TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > > In article <1125422400.238420.317240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > steve.travis@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > <snipped because Joe can't figure out how to do it in his newsreader>
> > > >
> > > > > > I don't think this will be an MS exclusive feature. I think that
> > > > > > Apple
> > > > > > moved to Intel (and it has been talked about here in the past as
> > > > > > well)
> > > > > > because the Intel parts have some inherent DRM functionality built
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > them (name escapes me now).
> > > > >
> > > > > Why bother? They could easily have added DRM firmware to their systems
> > > > > without the expense and time it takes to switch over.
> > > >
> > > > The DRM feature is built into the Intel Processor D...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html
> > > > -----
> > > > But why would Apple do this? Because Apple wants Intel's new Pentium D
> > > > chips.
> > > >
> > > > Released just few days ago, the dual-core chips include a hardware copy
> > > > protection scheme that prevents "unauthorized copying and distribution
> > > > of copyrighted materials from the motherboard," according to PC World.
> > > > -----
> > > >
> > > > And since you have problems following links here's the PC World link
> > > > referenced:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121027,00.asp
> > >
> > > Of course.
> > >
> > > But you said that they chose the Pentium D because of DRM and not vice
> > > versa.
> >
> > Vice versa? As in "they chose DRM because of the Pentium D?".
> > Seriously what are you on brother.
>
> Nothing. You are confused.

This is such a funny comment, that it took me this long to figure out
how to best reply to you. I could have taken the 'in the muck'
approach and tore you a new one, or I could have taken the high
ground... Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Tell you what Joe. I'll do something you've never EVER done here in
CSMA and take the high ground.
>
> 1. You said: "I think that Apple moved to Intel (and it has been talked
> about here in the past as well) because the Intel parts have some
> inherent DRM"
> That is, you thought that Apple chose Intel BECAUSE of DRM.

So far so good.

> 2. I pointed out that that was a silly reason to switch processors
> because they could have added DRM to PPC if they really wanted DRM.

To which I pointed out that adding an external DRM to the PPC is not
the same as getting a Pentium D chip with the DRM already built in.
The latter being inherently more secure because there's no physical way
to get to it and bypass it. Also, all the work has already been done,
so why re-invent the wheel?

> 3. You changed your tune: "Why would Apple do this (adopt DRM)? Because
> Apple wants Intel's new Pentium D.

Actually I never said that, and the stuff in parenthesis is something
you made up.

This is what I originally wrote in my message to you:

<Quote>
The DRM feature is built into the Intel Processor D...

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/ 0,2125,67749,00.html
-----
But why would Apple do this? Because Apple wants Intel's new Pentium D
chips.

Released just few days ago, the dual-core chips include a hardware copy
protection scheme that prevents "unauthorized copying and distribution
of copyrighted materials from the motherboard," according to PC World.
-----
</Quote>

Did you see the link I gave you? Why not click it and read it? If you
had read it you would have noticed that the statements you are
attributing to me (the ones above surrounded by the -----'s) are from
the article. And where you thought it to be "Why would Apple do this
(adopt DRM)?" it is actually "Why would Apple do this (shift from PPC
to x86)?"

BTW, I also gave you a copy of the link to the PC World article, but
obviously you didn't read that either. It was entitled "Intel's New
Pentium D Equipped with DRM Capability", and oddly enough focused on
the DRM capability built into the Pentium D.

> So, in the first case, you said they chose Pentium D because they really
> wanted DRM. Then, you said that they got DRM because they really wanted
> the Pentium D.
>
> Sadly, you're too obtuse to understand that you're contradicting
> yourself.

Now tell us how you feel having thrown out insults (like you always
do), when again, you are the one who is having problems reading and
understanding what people are saying...

> > > If they simply wanted DRM ("I think Apple moved to Intel because the
> > > intel parts have some inherent DRM"), they could have implemented it
> > > without making a major architectural change.
> >
> > I fear you are having problems with English again. The Pentium D
> > incorporates DRM right on the PROCESSOR. You claiming that they could
> > have implemented that type of feature without major architectural
> > changes, shows that you are either incapable of understanding plain
> > english, or that you are some serious meds.
>
> Wrong. They could easily have put DRM into a chip on a PPC motherboard.
> I guess you're not bright enough to understand that.

Putting a chip on a PPC mobo is not the same as having it built right
into the processor. The latter is MUCH harder to defeat. I fail to
see why this eludes you.

> > > NOW, you're trying to say that the chose Pentium D for some other reason
> > > and got DRM in the package.
> >
> > Er...WTF are you on? Where did I claim that they chose it for some
> > other type of reason?
>
> See above.

I did. Not surprisingly, you were wrong in your understanding of my
post.

.

Relevant Pages