This, I think, is the trouble they keep running into. Personally, I want to buy DVDs and rip them. The only drawback is that I'd end up with a bunch of physical media I don't really care about. As a result, I should be thrilled to see digital distribution starting to take off, right? I don't have to go through the time-consuming process of ripping and re-encoding, and I don't have physical copies to keep track of.

Except things aren't so good. If I rip a DVD, I can watch the resulting file on any computer in the house, running any software I feel like. I also have the opportunity to remove all the ads, previews, and warnings. On top of that, if I'm feeling flush on hard drive space, I can keep the full DVD (or even BluRay) size and quality. On the small number of downloadable movies today, I don't have these benefits - there may not always be previews, but the quality is typically well below that of a DVD and I'm limited to using the software linked to the download service. That's not convenience, and it's not better than ripping a DVD. It's worse, in nearly every way - and on top of that, I'd still pay the same for the movie, even though distribution costs are lower.

If some studio would allow me to download a movie for less than the cost of a physical disk, without all the previews and ads, in a high-quality format playable on any platform I like, the number of movies I buy would go through the roof. I'd even pay more for a high-definition copy - I'm still on DVDs because I don't want to shell out for a BluRay drive or player, not because I'm unwilling to pay a bit more for quality in the movies themselves.

The data is taken from http://speedtest.net/global.php, as indicated in C64's original post.

You seem to be still confused. The DRM is already present on the media - the content producers have seen to that. The media is encrypted, and cannot be played without the DRM support in Windows.

What exactly do you think the DRM in Windows is? It's primarily decryption, not restriction. The restrictions are already present in the media. You very proudly don't run Windows. Does this mean you can play all the BluRay discs you want, at full quality, with absolutely no restrictions? No, it means you can't play them at all.

Yes, it's hypothetically possible that Microsoft could write up an OS which allows the media to be decrypted and then used with no restrictions whatsoever. They'd immediately be sued by the content producers under the DMCA for bypassing copyright protection, of course, and would end up in the same situation as Linux and its kin are - no DRM restrictions whatsoever, because it would also have no DRM decryption capabilities whatsoever, and would be utterly incapable of playing anything.

I'm not sure the content producers would even notice. If they did, I'm guessing their reaction would be a huge sigh of relief. Don't get me wrong, I hate DRM as much as anybody. Make sure you're directing your anger in the right place, though - in this case, Microsoft isn't working against you. They're profit-motivated, sure, but they're including DRM to provide more abilities to consumers, not to restrict them at the behest of the producers.

Whenever the subject of DRM in Windows comes up in a discussion, we get to see just how confused some people are - it's nice to see a few people get it right, for a change.

Microsoft includes DRM software in their operating systems to allow consumers to view certain media on their computers. Microsoft didn't put the DRM on the media, the DRM doesn't affect your personal files, and Windows sure as hell isn't enabling anything, unless you're talking about "enabling" a consumer to view something they have legally purchased. The industries creating the content have other outlets - they'd be quite happy to only allow playback on locked consumer electronics like DVD/BluRay and CD players.

Linux and other open-source software aren't an improvement in this regard, they're a dramatic regression. Want to play a BluRay disc on your Win7 computer? Not a problem, thanks to that horrible DRM software. Want to play it on Vista or XP? If you've got the right playback program, go right ahead. Want to play it on Linux? Sorry, you don't have any horrible, crippling, useless, freedom-stealing DRM software. So your computer is less capable.

If you think "High Quality" and "Most Expensive in World" are synonymous, then perhaps it is you who are mistaken.

In all reality, extremely high-quality headphones can be had for a few hundred US dollars. Beyerdynamic DT 880s are very well-regarded, and cost only $275. Perhaps you can construct a better-sounding stereo system for a hundred times as much, and hopefully your $5,000 headphones sound slightly better. However, listening to something on $500 headphones is closer to a perfect listening experience than most people will get in their entire lives.

Double-blind testing is a magnificent thing. A shame so many audio nuts don't quite understand the practice.

Yep, the Pentium M has nothing at all to do with a Pentium 4. Actually, it's based on a Pentium III and most closely related to the Core architecture (Pentium M was the predecessor to Core Solo, and I think the only difference is that Core is 64-bit). For the most part, a 2GHz Pentium M can run with a 3GHz Pentium 4.

To the other person who replied to this, you're thinking of the Mobile Pentium 4.