Login:
Password:

No HD DVD or Blu-ray in 32-bit Vista

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

August 24, 2006, 4:14 PM

Microsoft disclosed at TechEd 2006 in Sydney Thursday that 32-bit versions of Windows Vista would never support high-definition protected content, including HD DVD and Blu-ray movies. The new formats will require 64-bit systems running the x64 edition of Vista.

The news, first reported by Australian tech publication APC Magazine, may come as a surprise to many Windows users looking to take advantage of the high-definition support with their current hardware. For example, Intel's Core Solo and Core Duo chips -- included in many laptops -- are not 64-bit compatible.

Microsoft attempted to downplay the issue, claiming that by the time HD DVD and Blu-ray had widespread adoption, so would 64-bit systems. The problem, however, is that even with 64-bit processors from Intel and AMD arriving on the market, 64-bit drivers are still few and far between.

x64 editions of Windows require drivers that are signed by Microsoft, which means they have undergone extensive testing. The process is costly for manufacturers, and even common hardware devices such as wireless network cards still lack proper drivers. In turn, few manufacturers ship PCs running the 64-bit operating system.

Microsoft says it had to leave unsigned driver support in 32-bit versions of Vista due to application compatibility problems. Consumers would encounter the same errors and non-working hardware with Vista as they do on x64 editions now if the change was made.

This issue is the core reasoning behind Microsoft disabling the high-definition playback functionality. 32-bit versions of Windows allow unsigned code to be run in kernel mode, which means a piece of software could effectively bypass any copy protection on the discs.

Media companies pushed Microsoft on the matter and asked the Redmond company not to enable playback on 32-bit Windows, said senior program manager Steve Riley during a TechEd session. Riley added that the disc formats themselves would work fine, and only commercially produced movies would fail to play.

Add a Comment (70 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By mesiex

posted Aug 27, 2006 - 6:50 AM

TOO MUCH. LET THEM WORK FOR VIPS. I HOPE SOMEONE WILL WORK IN THE FUTURE FOR US ORDINARY PEOPLE.

Score: 0

By SantaRosa

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 9:16 AM

NO NEW FEATURE CUT (TODAY) FROM VISTA, AFTER ALL
Contrary to earlier reports, Microsoft is not cutting another Vista feature (at least not today. A Microsoft exec at TechEd Australia misspoke. Microsoft will not eliminate the ability to play HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray content on 32-bit Vista machines. "It is up to the ISVs providing playback solutions to determine whether the intended playback environment, including environments with a 32-bit CPU, meets the performance requirements to allow high definition playback while supporting the guidelines set forth by the content owners," Microsoft said via an e-mail statement. "No version of Windows Vista will make a determination as to whether any given piece of content should play back or not. Nothing has changed regarding our policies or development plans, which we addressed at WinHEC this past May, and nothing has been 'cut.'"
________________
By Mary Jo Foley
Microsoft Watch

Score: 0

By tirpider

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 8:43 AM

This is SOOOOO cool!!!
I can't wait for Vista!
I can't WAIT, for HD DVD!
I CAN'T wait for Blu Ray!
I can't......

Man...

This blows.

I'm going back to my old casio.

Score: 0

By deminicus

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 8:08 AM

as stated below this was a mistake and 32bit will work. I wonder about 64bit vista, when will it be an actual benefit to use it? Xp 64bit is basically useless to the end user so what will vista offer to make consumers use it? Be nice to build a 64bit gaming rig, too bad I hear there are too many issues with it.

Score: 0

By crimz

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 5:10 AM

I still can't even get drivers for my HP LaserJet with x64! I've been running it well over a year now and driver support has got better but everyday I wish I had a 32bit copy instead. I only got that HP printer because their web page said they'd have drivers out by the end of last year! Now they've stated out right they are not making drivers for it. Atleast the 2 other printers I was looking at at the time now have x64 support they didn't at the time and didn't say they planned to like HP. :(
Also my dads Sony F828 CyberShot isn't supported last I checked. Now I run a 32bit VMware machine and that works and I also got a card reader. How lame of a work around. Hell I may as well run a base linux os or get an intel mac compared to x64.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 4:31 AM

This is just insane. MPAA,BSA and RIAA together with Microsoft are committing a fraud. There is no technical reason why HDTV can't be played on standard x86 32bit CPUs. Forcing people to buy new hardware like this it's much more than being in a monopoly position to do so, this is realy mafia.
The DoJ should split Microsoft, someone should split Microsoft up and someone should have the courage to ban infamous associations of lawyers like MPAA,BSA and RIAA that do not protect the market and the Companies, they are killing the marketing and frustrating customers.
What do they think, that now everyone will upgrade to a new PC ?
It won't happen and this will simply slow down the adoption HDTV capable discs, very few people will buy new hardware to play the discs on their PCs. The majority of people will either play them with a PS3 when it falls in price or wait 4-5 years and see what happens.
Thanks to Microsoft an MPAA,BSA,RIAA the IT mass market will slow down like never before.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

edited Aug 25, 2006 - 8:37 AM

LOL. "RIAA together with Microsoft are committing a fraud"

does fraud = decision you don't like..

Score: 0

By aredo

edited Aug 26, 2006 - 4:50 AM

Using such a crystal clear trick to force customers to upgrade to 64bit CPUs it's an obvious fraud.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 11:00 AM

"does fraud = decision you don't like.."

Hell Yeah!!! ;o)

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 4:20 AM

Oh yeah news that really makes me want to upgrade to Vista. Just another reason why Vista is a waste of time and money.

Score: 0

By Ramhound

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 12:49 AM

See I am torn between what to think about the x64 issue. On one side, you have a "stable" product because only signed drivers can be used. On the other side, you end up having to wait for somebody to make that signed driver.

They need to make the process easier, perhaps part of a "project:" to bring x64 support to the main stream.

Till that happens I see people, like myself who WOULD LOVE to migrate to x64 arch but can't because the support for it is almost niltch to none

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 1:28 PM

Aha, that's the secret, is it? Silly me, there I was thinking that the code has to actually be completely correct but it only has to be "signed" and then we know it's perfect.

--->On one side, you have a "stable" product because only signed drivers can be used.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 3:09 AM

Then you need to turn the problem around. Everyone wants a stable system, so signed drivers are the way forward.

Everyone needs to convince hardware manufacturers to produce x64 drivers, and have then verified by MS for stability, and signed.

The way to convince hardware manufacturers is simple, do research before jumping in and buying. Only buy hardware with signed x64 drivers, avoid everything else.

I have a fully compatible x64 system running here, and it's rock solid, if I want to buy hardware, the 1st thing I do is check x64 driver availability, if it's not there, I carry on walking.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Aug 27, 2006 - 9:02 PM

And you miss out on the some of the best hardware innovations and products in doing so. It's a stupid theory, and Microsoft need to make the process much less costly so all manufacturers can afford to go through the certification process.

I have no problem with certified drivers - I have a problem with it stifling innovation with excessive costs and red tape.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 10:27 AM

This is wonderful. Until you realize the extra cost of both financially and in effort and time to get a driver signed by MS.

MS just cut out a rather large portion of the market that cannot afford this.

You may call them cheap, but a lot of manufacturers will now be spending less money on the hardware and features so they have enough left to get the driver up to MS standards. (Even though they will work, and likely better without following MS's guidelines)

Look at WHQL, now... You want stability guaranteed? Use WHQL. You want stability *and* performance? Get a non-WHQL certified driver (unsigned) direct from the manufacturer.

MS is forcing out the smaller manufacturers who will not be able to afford this new standard. Regardless of quality.

This goes against everything that the Windows platform once stood for. Broad compatibility with a wide array of hardware.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 4:49 PM

"You want stability guaranteed? Use WHQL. You want stability *and* performance? Get a non-WHQL certified driver"

you got that right!

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 12:20 AM

Thanks for the link, candlebox. Even if it was true, I'd be prepared to dual-boot Linux to not have to deal with this bulls*** copy protection. I'm not interested someone like Warner Bros telling me what, when and how I can watch a damn movie. It's bulls***. :P

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 7:38 PM

"I'm not interested someone like Warner Bros telling me what, when and how I can watch a damn movie."

You and I both.

Score: 0

By candlebox1369

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 11:07 PM

Outdated. Was a mistake. It's supported.
http://news.com.com/2061-10794_3-6109427.html

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 2:22 AM

See, I told you all it would work in 32-bit Vista. ;-)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 10:28 AM

Too bad it isn't possible to write "third party drivers" in this situation.

Yeah ya did. :p

Score: 0

By Noremacam

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 9:42 PM

I'm not too worried about it. DVD Jon will fix it for us.

Score: 0

By kjnangre

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 9:35 PM

Are Core 2 Duo (Conroe) chips 64 bit?

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 3:10 AM

Yes Core 2 Duo are. The previous generation Core Duo and Core Solo are NOT.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 11:20 PM

Yes they are.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 6:34 PM

Windows XP does not support DVD playback, folks.

This is nothing.

Just as with XP, 3rd party developers *will* support it.

The article is a tad misleading in that it fails to mention the fatc that *no* MS OS has *ever* had built-in support for DVD playback.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 6:41 PM

Vista needs the HDCP subsystem, it won't be available in 32bit vista. It's not simply a case of writing a HD compliant media player, and a driver. This is EXACTLY why Microsoft are not allowing 32bit Vista to play HD content, to prevent people doing exactly as you propose.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 8:11 PM

*cough*

Vista needs no such thing.

ICT (Image constraint Token) requires HDCP, which most studios will not be using initially.

Where *do* you get your info?

*yawns*

Care to take another stab, there, bud?

Score: 0

By zridling

edited Aug 24, 2006 - 6:24 PM

And why are upgrading to Vista again? Vista is a shell of what it was going to be two years ago. This could have been SP-3 by now.

(Save your $$ for the 64-bit computer first.)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 6:32 PM

Sp-3 could have involved a complete re-write of the Core OS?

Wow...

That would have been a *huge* download....

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 3:12 AM

"That would have been a *huge* download...."

Not really, SP2 had every single executable re-compiled with different compiler settings to improve memory bounds overflow handling. Even things like notepad.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 11:25 AM

lmao.. Man, you gotta be playin' now. I can't believe you'd actually be that stupid.

Now...

Go into your windows directory from the DOS prompt.

Type in dir *.exe /s > exe.txt

Do the same thing for .com extensions...since they're executable and you *may* have meant to include them in your incorrect assumption above.

Now...

type dir *.* /s >core.txt

Take a look at the file size difference. Hell, even combine the com and exe file sizes.

The executables are *nothing* compared to the *rest* of the core OS.

My point stands. If they re-wrote the core OS components (comprised mostly of DLL files and *not* executables like notepad), the download for that SP would be incredibly huge. We're talking a multitude of Gigs...even compressed.

I still think you're playin' there. You couldn't possibly have been under the impression the core OS resided in EXE/COM files... You may be mistaken on a great many things, but I just gotta believe you're more intelligent than that.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 8:25 PM

no kiddin? :p

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 6:27 PM

(Save your $$ for the 64-bit computer first.)

I already got it, I've been waiting for a year for a 64-bit version of Windows with decent driver support so I can take full advantage of it.

Vista is a shell of what it was going to be two years ago. This could have been SP-3 by now.
Oh how I miss the potential of WinFS.

Score: 0

By WaxlyMolding

edited Aug 24, 2006 - 5:47 PM

The article doesn't express this very well, but this policy was Microsoft's CHOICE. Basically, Microsoft could have told the media companies to go take a long walk off a short pier. Instead, MS chose to give 32 bit users (customers!) the finger and bend over for the media companies' copy protection schemes.

As usual, MS could have supported it's CUSTOMERS, but instead chose to support unrelated businesses. Thanks, MS!!!!!

Score: 0

By elftyrrell

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 5:43 PM

"Media companies pushed Microsoft on the matter and asked the Redmond company not to enable playback on 32-bit Windows."

So is it mainly the MPAA behind this? And with all the driver problems is there really any chance of Vista before March?

Score: 0

By The MAZZTer

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 4:47 PM

What's that I hear? I think it's the construction of third-party drivers!

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 7:35 PM

Too bad it isn't possible to write "third party drivers" in this situation.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 8:17 PM

You guys are really pushing this line.

Too bad it's untrue.

Playback of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD does *not* require HDCP.

The studios can protect the content on the media through via things like ICT, but it is *not* a requirement.

Most studios have already stated they will not be using ICT initially. Thus they should be viewable *without* an HDCP system in place.

XP will still be very popular when Blu-Ray and HD-DVD adoption begin in earnest. Limiting playback only to x64 Vista would be suicide.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 3:03 AM

Do you REALLY believe, that the gentlemans agreement on ICT will still be inforce, as soon as the 1st digital HD pirate movies start appaering?

ICT will be introduced, and XB0360 HD-DVD, and PS3 basic ownener, along with anyone else not running HDMI will be left high and dry.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 9:06 AM

What you describe is market suicide. Toshiba knows better. Sony, I can't really tell. They appear to be doing everything in their power to commit it.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

edited Aug 24, 2006 - 8:55 PM

The whole reason they are doing this is so that people can't copy HD movies. If they allowed 3rd party drivers to work that would sort of defeat the entire purpose. The 32-bit version is not going to allow commercial movies to play period. That includes 3rd party software.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 8:26 PM

I dont know why people try to argue your point.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 5:32 PM

Bring on CyberLink and all the other DVD player makers.

If I remember correctly, Windows has no decoder by default anyway.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 8:53 PM

That was an entirely different situation. It did not have DVD out of the box because of antitrust people breathing down their necks. This is about DRM and copy protection.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 11:10 AM

Actually, it's the same thing. XP didn't include it because of licensing restrictions. It's the same thing here.

3rd party devs will license and provide playback software.

The DRM has nothing to do with it.

That's per studio and has nothing to do with playback functionality on a non-DRM'd disc. If a studio chooses to use ICT, then we'll have playback issues (but most of them will *still* play, just at a lower than HD, likely higher than the current standard resolution.)

Everyone thinks ICT is the end of the friggin world. If included on media, and the system is *not* HDCP compliant, it will simply downsample it to whatever the studio has chosen for it's non HDCP standard.

It does *not* make the video unplayable on non-HDCP hardware unless the studio chooses to disable playback on those devices.

This is *highly* unlikely to happen any time soon as HDCP compliant hardware is *still* very hard to get in an end-to-end system. Doing so would make the content unplayable on 99% of the playback hardware currently on the market. It would be suicide.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 11:23 PM

Indeed, it's all about the blood sucking lawyers.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 5:06 PM

*ding-ding-ding*

We have a winner, folks!

Score: 0

By Ramhound

edited Aug 24, 2006 - 4:38 PM

Why wouldn't Microsoft find another way to add this support, instead of just giving it up. If its a problem with the fact, you can run unsigned code to be run in kernal mode, they need to disable that.

Let me guess this is the same process people use for all these exploits in Windows.

Score: 0

By 11001001

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 5:20 PM

From what it sounds like in the second to last paragraph in the article, Microsoft is enforcing x64 because x86 code would allow for the creation of programs that would be able to bypass the copy protection. I'd like to see how well that works.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 5:04 PM

How would they? The *only* way to do that would be to force driver manufacturers to create signed drivers, which is *exactly* why drivers are such an issue for 64-bit versions of Windows.

So...

If MS doesn't support playback intheir OS...who cares? A 3rd Party Dev *will*. The demand will be great enough. If they do not, the PC-Based player market is toast. (which is probably the plan, anyway. They don't *want* a PC-based player market.)

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 4:43 PM

"Microsoft says it had to leave unsigned driver support in 32-bit versions of Vista due to application compatibility problems."

x64 already needs special 64bit drivers, so it's a good oppertunity to enforce driver signing.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 5:05 PM

Needs and has are two entirely different things. It looks good on paper, great, in fact. But it's not working.

Driver support for x64 Windows is horrifying to put it mildly, and this is *exactly* the reason.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 5:38 PM

Depends. I got a free upgrade to X64 on the TAP program, and it's running fine here, the only thing I cannot get working in x64, is my TV card, but it's no great loss.

It's all about buying decent hardware, if you buy cheap crap, don't be suprised the vendor on has 32bit Xp drivers, no x64, no linux support etc.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 12:17 AM

Actually it's when you buy decent hardware you start getting problems. Take my M-Audio soundcard for instance. I could have bought some Creative crap, but I wanted a decent soundcard: unfortunately it meant I could not adopt x64 when it came along. There are beta drivers now... but I'm really not in the mood to freak around with potentially unstable drivers.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 2:05 AM

Why in the world would you want an inferior host based PCI sound card anyways? Just get a motherboard with on board sound if you want host based sound. The Creative Labs Soundblaster X-Fi is the only sound card that actually puts out decent sound.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 2:28 AM

I'd rather chew my own arm off than buy another Creative product.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 6:31 PM

Funny that.

Most folks think one of the main benefits of the PC platform is the ability to choose from a wide variety of hardware.

No.

Windows on x64 is a miserable failure. It works on limited hardware.

Hopefully this will change as Vista development nears completion, or shortly after it's release, but right now, x64 hardware support for Windows is crap.

Saying it depends on the hardware is a cop-out.
If you want limited hardware support, buy a friggin' Mac.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 6:39 PM

Start looking at what's not supported under x64, you will see the patterns, cheap chipsets, budget scanners and so on...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 8:13 PM

Chipsets for affordable motherboards, scanners not made by HP...

*yawn*

This gets old quick.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 7:37 PM

A logical fallacy, the same could be said for any OS. Just because x64 does not support a lot of budget hardware does not mean it also does not support a lot of very popular, expensive hardware.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 8:14 PM

Hrmmm..

That's the point, isn't it?

If it only supports the expensive hardware what makes it any different than a glorified Mac?

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 8:50 PM

Are you replying to me, because I was agreeing with you. I said it also "doesn't" support a lot of expensive hardware. The driver support for x64 just sucks all around.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 9:09 AM

His point was that it *does* support the most popular *expensive* hardware.

I agree that it does, for the most part. And again, that failure on the part of MS (requiring signing) forces the x64 platform into a Mac wanna-be situation.

The x64 Windows platform is crap, yes. And it *will* be. Until either MS dumps driver signing or 3rd parties find a way around it. (The latter is my prediction.)

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Aug 24, 2006 - 5:52 PM

The driver support on x64 IS horrible, and it's not because people buy "cheap crap".

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 2:16 AM

Let's see, I have 64-bit XP drivers for my nVidia 7600GT graphics card, Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi sound card, nVidia nForce 6150 & nForce 430 chipset, and I even have 64-bit XP drivers for my Epson Stylus R220 photo printer. Heck, I even have 64-bit drivers for my old 3Ware 7500 4 port PCI RAID controller and my Silicon Image 3112 PCI SATA controller (even though I no longer need a separate PCI hard disk controller). It looks like most of the major brands have decent 64-bit driver support.

And you were saying the "horrible" driver support is not because people are buying cheap crap?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 9:12 AM

*yawn*

Yes, thank you. Anecdotal support for a *few* 2nd tier hardware components *obviously* proves that *all* hardware support for the x64 Windows platform is excellent....

shyea...

Good morning. Did ya sleep well?

Time to wake up, man.

X64 on XP is better than it used to be, but it's still crap. It will be *much* worse in Vista due to the requirements forced on manufacturers by MS.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 2:05 PM

I was just saying that cheap bargain hardware is the main hardware without 64-bit support. I wouldn't say that 64-bit driver support is excellent yet but it is true that most of the major hardware companies do have working 64-bit drivers for their hardware.

As for 64-bit Vista's driver signing requirement, this is something Microsoft should have started in Windows 2000 Professional.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 10:42 AM

Nobody (except yourself) has claimed x64 driver support is excellent. You seem to be putting words in people's mouths (as usual).

I would class XP x64 driver support as adequete, buy decent hardware, and it's better than adequete.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 25, 2006 - 11:17 AM

XP x64 driver support as adequete, buy decent hardware, and it's better than adequete.

Aside from your horrid spelling of adequate, you logic confounds.

If you *limit* your choice of hardware, support gets *better*? That makes no sense. They either support n% of hardware or they don't. That's like saying Mac Hardware support is okay...so long as you only buy MAC supported hardware... Um...Duh?

As for putting words in people's mouths? You misunderstood (as usual). I was simply pointing out the fact that a few working devices does not say anything about support in general. Perhaps the blatant sarcasm threw you off?

Oh...and I *never* said it was excellent. In fact, I claim the exact opposite. ....or did you miss that part?

Score: 0