[TETENAL]

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...vista_cost.txt

A very interesting article. If all is true what is stated here, then Windows Vista's tamper resistance could threaten the health and life of people when it changes medical images or remotely turns off components of computers.

[Blasphemy]

Beyond the obvious playback-quality implications of deliberately degraded
output, this measure can have serious repercussions in applications where
high-quality reproduction of content is vital. For example the field of
medical imaging either bans outright or strongly frowns on any form of lossy
compression because artifacts introduced by the compression process can cause
mis-diagnoses and in extreme cases even become life-threatening. Consider a
medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to
audio/video played back by the computer (the CDROM drives installed in
workplace PCs inevitably spend most of their working lives playing music or
MP3 CDs to drown out workplace noise). If there's any premium content present
in there, the image will be subtly altered by Vista's content protection,
potentially creating exactly the life-threatening situation that the medical
industry has worked so hard to avoid. The scary thing is that there's no easy
way around this - Vista will silently modify displayed content under certain
(almost impossible-to-predict in advance) situations discernable only to
Vista's built-in content-protection subsystem [Note H].

Note H: Philip Dorrell has a neat cartoon that illustrates this problem at
Looking for a Win/Win Solution to the War Between "Premium Content" and Digital Freedom

For those not wanting to read the longest article in the world.

[Eug Wanker]

Meh. This sounds like a sky-is-falling argument.

[analogika]

It's a potential implication of a content "protection" system that deserves to have its instigators subjected to lengthy lock-ups and regular beatings with a heavy, blunt object.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by analogika 

It's a potential implication of a content "protection" system that deserves to have its instigators subjected to lengthy lock-ups and regular beatings with a heavy, blunt object.

The flogging will continue until morale improves.

[Blasphemy]

what?

[Ghoser777]

What a way to break in 10,000... by the way, does anyone know where that pirate quote comes from?

[CharlesS]

This part of the article seems kind of scary as well:

Elimination of Open-source Hardware Support
-------------------------------------------

In order to prevent the creation of hardware emulators of protected output
devices, Vista requires a Hardware Functionality Scan (HFS) that can be used
to uniquely fingerprint a hardware device to ensure that it's (probably)
genuine. In order to do this, the driver on the host PC performs an operation
in the hardware (for example rendering 3D content in a graphics card) that
produces a result that's unique to that device type.

In order for this to work, the spec requires that the operational details of
the device be kept confidential. Obviously anyone who knows enough about the
workings of a device to operate it and to write a third-party driver for it
(for example one for an open-source OS, or in general just any non-Windows OS)
will also know enough to fake the HFS process. The only way to protect the
HFS process therefore is to not release any technical details on the device
beyond a minimum required for web site reviews and comparison with other
products.

This potential "closing" of the PC's historically open platform is an
extremely worrying trend. A quarter of a century ago, IBM made the momentous
decision to make their PC an open platform by publishing complete hardware
details and allowing anyone to compete on the open market. Many small
companies, the traditional garage startup, got their start through this. This
openness is what created the PC industry, and the reason why most homes
(rather than just a few offices, as had been the case until then) have one or
more PCs sitting in a corner somewhere. This seems to be a return to the bad
old days of 25 years ago when only privileged insiders were able to
participate.

[mitchell_pgh]

While the imaging note seems like it's a stretch.... a long one in my opinion... the concept that everything will need to either be "genuine" or may be degraded by the OS is ridiculous.

I pray that Apple doesn't go down the same road.

But with Microsoft paving the way for greedy corporations... I foresee a dim future.

[jpfieber]

Their's been a lot of talk about this, but it's really only interesting if you view 'protected' content. This type of protection is useful for movies and the like to prevent piracy. I'm not a bit fan of this, I'm personally getting a bit tired of the whole DRM thing and the RIAA and MPAA screaming how they'll be buried due to computers, yet they profit more each year. Why would medical images have this type of content protection? I don't believe a hospital, producing imaging that they need to view, would then apply protection that could potentially prevent other computers in their facility from being able to properly view the images. I smell someone sceaming "The sky is falling" for no good reason...

[analogika]

The point is that it's VISTA that's applying this "protection", and the hospital has absolutely no way of telling it NOT to.

Nobody would have a problem with your scenario. But the reality is that MICROSOFT gets to decide what content is protected and what isn't, and you, the owner, have no way to influence whatever the hell Vista might decide.

[jpfieber]

True, Microsoft built the protection scheme into Vista, but it's the owner of the content that decides if they want it protected or not. As the article suggests, "premium content" will trigger the protection, and it's the owner/distributor of the content that decides if it is premium, not Microsoft. I doubt the medical field would mark their content as 'premium', and if for some reason they did, of course they'd have to be sure that all of their equipment was connected via HDMI to avoid the problem you've mentioned.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by jpfieber 

As the article suggests, "premium content" will trigger the protection, and it's the owner/distributor of the content that decides if it is premium, not Microsoft. I doubt the medical field would mark their content as 'premium.

The article suggest that other content is downgraded in quality during the presence of 'premium' content as well, and that it is not always foreseeable when premium content is being played on a computer. I don't know whether that is true.

A more serious problem, again if true, would be remote driver revocation. This could disable computers that have never been intended to display premium content, such as in hospitals. I must admit that I somewhat doubt that remote driver revocation is in Vista, since it would be clearly criminal (§303b 1.2 StGB in Germany).

[jpfieber]

You're certainly right about the driver thing. I can't imagine they'd be foolish enough to try something like that. Many/most enterprises wouldn't deploy an OS that could be rendered useless by someone else. If the 'feature' truely does exist, their has to be an 'off switch' to disable it, or it simply won't be an option for those environments where human health and safety are in question.

[gradient]

If things play out the way that article suggests, he's right to consider it a suicide note. I would imagine that a significant percentage of current windows users would chose adopting a new OS in lieu of upgrading to Vista.

[Blasphemy]

they would choose not to upgrade, rather than adopt a new OS

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Blasphemy 

they would choose not to upgrade, rather than adopt a new OS

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

I was thinking more down the line when people are deciding to buy new machines. If I've got, for example, a windows box that is near the end of its life, it's just one more reason to consider other choices.

[imitchellg5]

I imagine this could rally a few people to Apple.

[analogika]

It has been for months.

I'm seeing "political refugees" in the store every single day.

[©öñFü$íóÑ]

Windows Vista could kill....... it's own customer base.

Instead of focusing on restricting the content (images, music, movies) that most of today's average home consumers purchase computers for, MS should rather focus more on computer security and fix all of those nasty Windows vulnerabilities.............. i mean, what's Microsoft's way of thinking? Add more features even if the core of the product is half broken? Well, as much as I hate Windows, I do rely on it.

[mitchell_pgh]

It's stuff like this that makes me think that Linux is the way to go. While I would love to say "Oh, Apple will never do this" I think they will be forced to if they want the same treatment from 3rd parties as Microsoft receives.

[nonhuman]

The idea that poorly coded, thought-out, or just buggy software could result in deaths is neither far-fetched nor fear-mongering. It's happened before in the past and is a serious issue that must be considered and addressed when dealing with medical equipment.

The Therac-25 incidents were required reading when I was getting my degree in CS. Basically, poorly coded software that controlled a machine designed to fire radiation into a patients body in controlled doses resulting in several massive overdoses and deaths.

This is something that needs to be taken seriously regardless of whose software we're talking about.