Hi, I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack! Didya miss me? With every bullet so far? 8O

Sorry I had to take off like that but the life of Capt. April is far from boring. Had to take care of some urgent business in a faraway land. To use the old line: I could tell you what I was doing and where but then I'd have to kill you...

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo...

I'm gone for a little while and in my absence all hell breaks loose. All sorts of news on the CPU front, Penryns a-coming round the mountain when they come, K8Ls "claiming" that they process data faster than Starfleet's main computer core... never a dull moment around here.

However, this brings me to my current set of questions and they all center around what happens to my upcoming PC buy after the nasty little revelation of Vista's totalitarian DRM enabling/disabling/blurring/obfuscating/revoking nonsense.

Whether or not Mr. Guttman's Analysis is 100% accurate, the bottom line is that Vista's DRM policies have me running for the hills.

Therefore, let's wipe the slate clean of my previous assumptions of building a megasystem around Vista 64-bit and let's get to the nitty-gritty:

1) I have to send my current system to that great silicon playground in the sky by this summer and upgrade to a very high-end PC.

2) My job requires me to run a large and ever-changing number of varied apps and the only thing that they have in common is that they run on XP and likely will for the next 3-4 years.

3) I am open to switchbooting but not to Mac OS-X.

4) I am not going to install an OS that sends coded messages 30 times a second to my speakers fuzzing out the sound whenever I'm playing an mp3 version of my grandfather singing opera. So NO DRM-ANYTHING ON THIS ENTIRE SYSTEM!

Therefore...

Let's configure a dream system to fit these parameters. Here are the basics:

1) Double Quad-Core would be nice. I need lots of VROOM and I love the rumble of a V-8(core) under the hood.

2) Price/Performance is the only criterion. I couldn't care less if the CPU is stamped AMD, Intel or K-Tel.

3) I need a minimum of 8GB RAM on Day One and I'd love the option of adding another 8GB later down the road for a total of 16GB RAM. I'm currently running XP Pro 32-bit but am open to switching to XP's 64-bit version.

4) I guess I'm gonna have to live without DX10. No prob. But I want the most capable video card available that will mesh with this system.

5) I'm not into high end gaming at all. The system is primarily for general purpose office app and image/video manipulation/editing and secondarily as a media playback device. I want the killer video card so that I can squeeze the best out of every video pixel. No HDTV necessary.

6) 160GB Raptor for OS, 2x750GB 7200.10s for data. Backup is more complicated and has been the subject of another thread in the HD section in December, so let's leave that out of this equation.

7) This is a long term system so I expect to get at least three good years out of it before I have to rip its guts out and massively upgrade.

EIGHT... avoiding the automatic smiley face) Aircooled. I'm open to TECs. System noise is not a factor as the case is in the next room.

9) Already have a massive full-tower case that I can use to store sides of beef.

10) The rest of the specs are fairly middle of the road average.

Therefore (again)...

The choice of components are firmly intertwined with the choice(s) of OS. I can switchboot between XP Pro and Linux, but do I have to? Does Linux or any of its flavours really give me anything that XP Pro doesn't under this scenario? Should I not stick to just XP alone for the next three years and really the only truly innovative thing I'm giving up to Vista is the Hybrid Drive stuff (which seems to not be as effective as it was first touted to be). As for Aero, I'd like to shoot an Aero through the heart of the moron that sneaked all this DRM nightmare junk into Vista.

BTW, am I correct in the assumption that this DRM draconic brobdingnagian labyrinth was snuck onto Vista release version and was not around the betas? Nice one, Bill. Sneak it in at the last minute so that the word of mouth can't spread before you've suckered in your early adopters. I'm sure that if you shave Bill's head, you'll find 666 etched on his skull.

Therefore (for the third time)... ye assembled masses of Olympian PC configurative wisdom, I beseech thee bestow upon thy humble servant thine insights and Delphic Silicon revelations.

DELETED

Welcome back, I guess.


DRM is only a problem for HD content from BluRay, HDDVD. That means that if you by a PC-based BluRay recorder and use it for data it's just like having a very large backup system.

If you want to put a BD/HDDVD disc in your PC and play to your monitor or a HDMI TV, then DRM is in effect.

I buy my TVs bigger so that I don't need to watch movies on the LCD. Besides you also missed that both schemes have been cracked by the same person.

Um... where can that crack be obtained?

You cannot avoid paying more for your hardware even if you dont run Vista. ALL the hardware manufacturers have signed up with the Vista DRM program and will be passing on the costs of making their hardware DRM friendly on to you. If they dont do this microsoft will just revoke their drivers so their hardware wont run in Vista.

This is just the begining folks. Next up the hardware manufacturers will incorporate TPM modules into all hardware. Once that passes a certain penetration point you wont be able to buy software or premium content WITHOUT having a TPM module in your PC.

Say goodbye to fair use and your privacy no matter what OS you use and hello to more expensive hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module

The era of the general purpose computer is coming to an end.

Will this do

Deleted

@ Baron:

Geez, thanks for the enthusiastic welcome. I was really expecting a ticker tape parade on Broadway followed by a leisurely cruise on the East River on a yacht staffed by nude blondes feeding me grapes and Cristal, but I guess your welcome will have to do!

I, like PC Analyst, am unfamiliar with the "crack" and hope that whoever stated he disabled all the DRM in Vista was programming it and not smoking it.

As I mentioned in my post, I couldn't give the bollocks of a sundried squirrel for HDTV. My concern was in the deliberate degradation of signal of "unapproved" mp3, avi, etc. From Guttman's article:

Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires that any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality that passes through it if premium content is present. This is done through a “constrictor” that downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up- scales it again back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in quality. So if you're using an expensive new LCD display fed from a high- quality DVI signal on your video card and there's protected content present, the picture you're going to see will be, as the spec puts it, “slightly fuzzy”, a bit like a 10-year-old CRT monitor that you picked up for $2 at a yard sale (see the Quotes for real-world examples of this). In fact the specification specifically still allows for old VGA analog outputs, but even that's only because disallowing them would upset too many existing owners of analog monitors. In the future even analog VGA output will probably have to be disabled. The only thing that seems to be explicitly allowed is the extremely low-quality TV-out, provided that Macrovision is applied to it.

The same deliberate degrading of playback quality applies to audio, with the audio being downgraded to sound (from the spec) “fuzzy with less detail” [Note G].

This is what I'm really concerned with. Let's take the specific example I originally posted (and disregard any other allegedly "illegal" content). I managed to dig up some mp3 versions of light opera recordings my grandfather made in the '30s. The record company that issued this 78 rpm has long since turned to dust, thus there is no one to "administer" the rights. Besides, it's my own freakin' grandfather so I would think that gives me some "rights" of my own!!! I managed to "clean up" the pops and crackles on these songs a bit and enjoy them often. Now, if I install Vista, the OS will intervene and degrade the sound quality to the equivalent of a 1962 7-transistor Japanese portable radio? The hell it will. I'll spend the rest of my days using Vista Install DVD's as targets for my Mossberg 935 12 gauge magnum shotgun.

@ Wombat2:

I am not specifically questioning the extra cost of hardware. My basic query is to determine the optimum hardware configuration that will allow me to use an OS that lacks Vista's degradation functions. The purchase will be made in approx. six months and is to last for a minimum of three years. After that time, the PC landscape will likely have changed to such a degree that it will be a whole new ballgame anyway.

It won't, since MP3's don't even have this kind of DRM support. If your making the content and you're not adding protection, then it won't even matter. The degradation protection is also only used for protected video IF you don't fully HDCP supporting hardware. This is better than the other option of not having any video at all, which would be the case for any other OS that has no implemented the same protection as in Vista.

The audio protection is mainly to shutdown (if requested by the media) the sound card's digital output.

Basically the article is complete fud. Here's a list of mistakes from just the first section:

-SACD doesn't play on any PC, not just Vista and doesn't output on SPDIF even with HT equipment
-the Samsung 275T supports HDCP and therefore would support protected media with Vista and the right video card
-the Samsung 460PN also supports HDCP (and it was first released in June, 2005 so it's obsolete )
-ASIO support sound cards in Vista already exist

Personally based on the mistakes in his article, I think he's never used Vista or any recent HT equipment.

If you want to stay with XP,then you will have to use Windows XP PRO 64 Bit edition to be able to use more than 4GB of Ram.The main problem with this is lack of driver support.I don`t know which version of Photoshop you have,but at least up to CS 1,that program would use up to half of the available ram.I had 4GB in my old system,but only 3.37 GB was available.I have read that this varies somewhat,but that is about average.Photoshop CS2,can use up to 3.5 GB of ram,if I remember correctly.I read somewhere that CS2 ran well on XP PRO 64 BIT.I think it might have been on PCWorld`s web site,but I don`t remember for sure.Some applications ran well and others did not.

@accord99:

This looks like a job for... FUDMAN. Faster Than a Speeding Methhead, More Powerful Than a K8L prototype, Able to Leap Tall Benchmarks at a Single Bound!

I'd read a few zillion posts around the net supporting and attacking Guttman, so let's just boil down the essential question to this:

Mr. X has a hard drive packed with mp3 and avi-type content that he downloaded with his friend the blue Dendrobates during a torrent-ial rain. Once Mr. X takes the Vista plunge does he have a hard drive full of playable content or Recycle Bin stuffing?

@HERSHEY:

I'm running PS CS2 and CS3 currently in Beta is supposed to have some ungodly high RAM access limit. The advantage of being a good boy and paying my rightful dues to Adobe is that when CS3 goes to release, I can upgrade immediately. Therefore, once XP 64 is on the PC, I should be able to allocate a whole whack of the minimum 8GB RAM to PS. Correct me if I'm wrong.

DELETED

The former.
Synergy6

Ello!! I Want to make SexyTime with all the Plow Girls in this Thread. Wow wow wee waa!

Quote Me In SexyTime with Plow Girl

Lol, What a Degenetrative Thread.

I use Photoshop CS1.I read about CS2 on Adobe`s site.I`m not sure about CS3.I have the same reservations about Vista.I too think about XP 64 Bit.I take it that CS3 runs on XP PRO 32 Bit?I wish more driver support was available for XP 64 Bit.I would like to have tried it.

The former.
Synergy6

Therefore, are we to assume that accord99 is correct and Mr. Guttman is doing his University of Auckland a great disservice by spreading heaping dollops of FUD instead of Rewena Dough? :?

DELETED

Not quite clear what you mean. I'm using CS2 on XP Pro SP2 32 bit fully updated to the minute off the microsoft.com site. No problemos. Although I try to steer clear of beta sw, I strongly doubt that Adobe would restrict CS3 to only run on XP 64 which is a tiny minority of the XP market. I understand (and again I may be in error) that CS3 or a version thereof can be installed on XP 64 to access a few zillion terabytes of RAM.

Sorry,I must have misread what you said.I thought you were trying CS3 in Beta.I agree with you,I don`t want to deal with Beta software either.I have enough trouble with retail as it is.

On the RAMdisk it depends on what you're using it for and who you talk to. Right on that NewEgg page, one guy says that he gets 20% to 33% faster than a Raptor on writing and nothing on copying. Some other benchmarks claim double or greater speed. The bottom line is this. A 74GB Raptor costs about $25 more than that RAMdisk and it already has 74GB of capacity vs. the RAMdisk's Zero. By the time you fill the RAMdisk up with RAM (each GB of which costs very close to the price of the Raptor), you could have purchased several Raptors, and you'd still have about 1% of total storage capacity. I don't think that 20% to 33% is worth the trouble and the expense.

DELETED

Greets Capt. No 64 bit Photoshop yet.

http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/

Welcome back CaptRobertApril! Any uncanny comments today that I can add to my sig??