Windows Vista Offers Crippled HD Support

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.jakeludington.com/digital_lifestyle_report/20061023_windows_vista_offers_crippled_hd_support.html' target='_blank'>http://www.jakeludington.com/digital_lifestyle_report/20061023_windows_vista_offers_crippled_hd_support.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Windows Vista is already behind in its support of digital video cameras and the product hasn't shipped yet. Sean Alexander and Furrygoat, two Microsoft employees, are both drooling over the new Sony HDR-SR1 which records 1080i HD direct to a hard drive on the camcorder. I don't blame them - it's a hot looking camera with great features. The camera won't work with the Vista version of Windows Movie Maker. One of the key features of the Vista version of Windows Movie Maker is supposed to be HD support. The supported HD in Sony HDR-SR1 is AVCHD, which uses H.264 MPEG-4 compression to keep file sizes down, giving you 2 hours of recording on the 30GB hard drive. AVCHD is not compatible with Windows Movie Maker because Microsoft is electing not to support AVC out-of-the-box. If this were limited to one camcorder, I'd say no big deal. But it's not one camcorder; it's many camcorders from many manufacturers. Sony, Hitachi and Panasonic are all planning to offer camcorders with the AVCHD format. My Sanyo Xacti uses a different kind of MPEG-4 compression to offer 720p HD, also incompatible with Windows Movie Maker."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/vista_noavchd.jpg" /><br /><br />This was news to me - I don't have an HD camera yet, so this hasn't been on my radar, but Jake raises some very interesting points. He's absolutely right that if Microsoft wants to sell the Ultimate version of Windows Vista with a version of Windows Movie Maker that support HD cameras, they need to figure out a way to support all HD cameras. What surprises me most though is that these camera manufacturers don't include a driver CD with the appropriate codec on it - when you buy a DVD player, it invariably comes with DVD playback software (which has an MPEG2 codec) because the core use of the product requires it. The scenario is a very broken one with HD camera manufacturers selling a product that won't function properly on a Windows box. Then again, is someone buying an expensive HD camera really going to use Windows Media Player to edit the video footage? Weigh in - what are your thoughts on this issue?

[Tim Williamson]

Why aren't they supporting the latest greatest hardware? Vista is sounding less and less appealing every day and I just don't see any advantage to upgrading... :?

[Timothy Huber]

It's the bleeding edge and support for bleeding edge is always a bit spotty. Brand new codec in brand new camera not supported on brand new operating system's bundled editor (an OS that isn't released yet)? Not really a surprise.

Also, if I'm planning to drop $1200+ on a new HD camcorder, I'm not going to be using WMM. I'll be using Vegas or Adobe Premiere.

[Felix Torres]

Deja vu all over again.

Nothing too surprising about this, really.
When MS released WMP 7(6?) a while back they took a lot of flack because it ripped CDs to WMA but not to MP3, even though it played them just fine. All sorts of nefarious scenarios were floated. The answer? Beancounting. MS loves to collect royalties but they hate to pay them, especially to competitors. (They are hardly alone in this, just ask Apple or Sony or...)

So their solution was to provide the hooks for MP3 ripping but let people choose which of many plug-in MP3 rippers to *buy*. It worked as a negotiating tactic and eventually they got good enough terms on the licensing that they added it to WMP.

XP was the same with DVD-playback, the computer OEM got to choose which player software and codecs to load. If you bought the OEM, you had to provide your own DVD player and codec.

Vista is just more of the same; the core OS, which is what is in Beta, has no support for HD-DVD or BD-ROM. Those are extra. Which isn't to say Dell and HP and eMachines, et al, won't be providing the player software and codecs on their end or that some of the currently-unspecified extra "goodies" that will come with Vista Ultimate won't include the codecs.

When the dust settles, consumers will get the required codecs (H.264 is a part of both blue laser formats, after all) and the LA group will get their royalties; just not from MS. If MS included the codec, they'd just be acting as a sales agent for a competitor (with legal liabilities attached) and they would have to either eat the cost of the license or pass on the cost. This way the PC OEMs get to negotiate their own deals and nobody can accuse MS of acting as a "gatekeeper" controlling a competitor's access to the platform.

Isn't life in the antitrust era fun?

PS Apple has a different equation to work with because they are both the OS vendor and the OEM, plus they don't have an HD codec to call their own; they have to pay the LA group no matter what. So they turn necessity into a virtue.

[jay0427]

I see your point thuber but Sony Vegas and Adobe Premiere don't support the Sony HDR-SR1 either! I'm sure it's on their roadmap for future releases but it blows my mind that Sony's own software doesn't work with the new AVCHD units! :roll: