Quote - The content providers wants DRM be implemented in home computers, but the Microsoft doesn't implement their DRM in the Windows, Microsoft implements his own DRM in the Windows that is not the same.
What has to win Microsoft is very much,  if Microsoft has success with his DRM he can tell the content providers, "Windows is now protected, if you want that your content be protected you must license our DRM and pay for our service", no money no protection.

The problem with that reasoning is that the DRM already exists for the most part.  The content providers are leaning on Microsoft to provide enforcement for the policies at the kernel and driver level.  (They also did not go to the effort of creating DRM for various platforms and technologies only to abandon it and pay to license whatever Microsoft has to offer.)

Microsoft already makes money from device driver signing (as I would assume that they do not do this for free).  Though with Vista apparently instead of Microsoft certifying to the consumer that they have thoroughly tested the driver and found it causes no problems for one's system they're certifying to the RIAA and MPAA that the driver has been tested and found to adequately enforce their content protection and not leak premium content.  (And with banning unsigned drivers, saying to the consumer that you're not allowed to supply your own driver even).  Though with only signed drivers allowed for the 64 bit versions they could probably charge higher fees for this as the hardware manufacturers would be forced to consent if they wanted their hardware to work with Vista at all.

Vista essentially does not do anything to protect the content, per se, only the interfaces that the content must pass through - from the Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc to the media player to the video and sound cards and finally to the screen and speakers; requiring every device that handles protected content to assert that it can and will properly protect the content (i.e., the video card may not send protected HD content down the DVI interface unencrypted at full resolution, and Vista establishes a chain of trust to ensure that the video card and other devices are what they claim to be, and that the driver can have its certificate revoked if it is found to compromise the system).  And a device that can't establish that it will properly protect the content, will not receive it.

Nothing for the content providers to license.  Though the hardware manufacturers are going to have to play along (and likely be paying money to have their stuff certified) and probably aren't going to be liking it that much.

Quote - Success?, activation-free XP appeared before the official release of XP!

Success is relative.  If their goal had been to completely stop all piracy of Windows, then clearly they failed miserably.  But instead they had much more attainable goals, which was to eliminate casual copying which made up a large percentage of the unlicensed Windows installations around.  Where as pre-XP you could borrow a Windows installation CD from a friend or coworker and install it, now if you want to get Windows for free you need to apply a crack that has necessarily come from a dubious source (and if I remember correctly SP1 and SP2 undid the work of the cracks that had been available at the time.  To say nothing of the possibility of something detecting the cracked state of your system and notifying Microsoft so they can press charges if they choose.)