[X4U] XP <> Vista benchmarks [B]

[Stroller]

On 2 Feb 2007, at 19:22, Robert Ameeti wrote:
>
> The problem is the overhead that MS has mandated to ensure copy  
> protection for HD that all hardware mfgs must incur including the  
> graphics cards guys.
>
> See <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html>  
> for why Vista is slower than XP.

I've seen that article lauded a number of times on all the usual blog- 
aggregation sites, but haven't found it terribly useful.

In particular, the Tom's Hardware article (that the OP of this thread  
linked to) benchmarks with standard stuff like 3 year old games  
(Unreal 2004), for which useful comparisons between Vista & XP can be  
made. I haven't read the _entire_ article, but I don't think any of  
the applications benchmarked are “premium content” utilising the DRM  
chain described in the Auckland "cost analysis".

Rather, Tom's Hardware explain Vista's poorer performance as being  
because "[it] runs considerably more services and thus has to spend  
somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and  
usability don't come for free."

The Auckland article reads to me like the author (Peter Gutmann) is  
basically a Microsoft-hater. And, y'know, I can't blame him for that,  
but to me it doesn't help his case that he appears so partisan. In  
the quotes at the bottom of the article Gutman posts that a friend of  
his described the article as "your latest girly moan bitch rant" ;)  
At least he admits it ;). I don't like DRM, I find it creeping and  
insidious, and I have no plans to buy Vista, but basically the people  
who end up with DRM don't care enough to research their purchases  
before buying from the iTunes store (or Amazon downloads, or  
Xbox360's movie service, or the BluRay section at Virgin Records or  
wherever).

It had been documented long before the Auckland article that Vista  
would have a DRM chain, and would do a digital-signing handshake with  
your monitor before allowing hi-def content to be played back. Well,  
duh! it's gonna cost me money to upgrade to a monitor with HDCP!, and  
this'll be especially frustrating if you've recently bought a monitor  
with a DVI interface. This isn't unique to Vista - in the UK plenty  
of consumers have found themselves frustrated because they bought "hi- 
def ready" TV sets from high street stores in the months before the  
standards authority defined that phrase as meaning "this TV includes  
a HDCP interface and a minimum resolution of X pixels". Consequently  
many TVs which cost £2000 or more (convert that to dollars!) two  
years ago cannot play back hi-def and are incompatible with the Blu- 
Ray & HD-DVD players now appearing on the market.

Since the DRM chain is mandated by Hollywood & the Blu-Ray / HD-DVD  
standards bodies I find it hard to believe that Apple will be allowed  
to sell players without the DRM chain described in the Mr Gutmann's  
article. Since it gives no figures of the actual overhead it might as  
well be titled "the hidden cost of playing a Blu-Ray under OS X 10.5  
on your new MacPro". Since iMacs have integrated screens Apple _may_  
have an easier time with Blu-Ray / HD-DVD playback on those, but I  
don't see them ignoring the requirement for HDCP handshaking when  
connecting a MacMini or AppleTV to an external screen (seeing as how  
those requirements apply to standalone players, too).

Basically, the DRM requirements of Blu-Ray / HD-DVD playback are  
nasty, and it's only Microsoft (and not Apple) getting slated for it  
in the Auckland article because they introduced Blu-Ray / HD-DVD  
playback first! Apple currently have no products which allow Blu- 
Ray / HD-DVD playback.

[CONTINUED]