Posted 26 October 2008 - 05:11 AM
Is "AC'97' or the "HD" protocol used much. What are the dominant cards? Will we see everybody move to "HD"? I have a creative sound card and I don't think it supports "AC'97".
This is very frustrating because all i need is a damn port to send data to a D-to-A convertor (buffered) to have the sound I want. I have spare CPU cores to create waveforms. I hate sound card companies and hope they dissappear as they get sucked-up by Intel, the only company friendly enough to document their hardware.
i could literally make a sound card faster than get somebody else' working. i did a simple ISA sound card, years ago and could make a buffered D-TO-A convertor card with a PCI FPGA kit type card. I hate sound card companies with a passion. I know DSP, by the way.
Check out LoseThos, if you're curious about where I am now. http://www.losethos.com
It is 64-bit and supports multicore.
Posted 27 October 2008 - 12:38 PM
Have you considered looking at source at existing, low-level sound libraries like ALSA, and see how they do it?
Posted 30 October 2008 - 12:11 PM
Also, I don't want a solution that requires multiple drivers for multiple cards. I want to know if Intel "AC'97" or "HD" is widely used or if it is up-and-coming and destined to be the one standard. It's documented by Intel, more or less -- no GPL issues -- so I'm hoping it will become the standard.
The main question is how widely supported by sound cards are the "AC'97" and "HD" interfaces?
Posted 30 October 2008 - 01:23 PM
Sorry, but that is so extremely, boneheaded wrong, that I had to reply.
But, if you want to debate this, we should start another thread, cuz it's gonna be a doozy of a tangent if we get into here...
I guess what you want is the equivalent of Windows' UAA for your OS? I don't know of any other solution to your lack of desire to support multiple sound cards. Microsoft has lots of info on how they architected this. Maybe you'll dig up something useful?
BTW, UAA is a dangerous thing. Many vendors don't like to be forced into a "lowest common denominator" dance...
Lastly, AC97 is pretty widely available. HD Audio is much less so.
Posted 31 October 2008 - 11:05 AM
Posted 31 October 2008 - 04:20 PM
Well, there's got to be something out there, right? Linux has AC97 support built into the kernel, I think, so why not look at how they do it as a starting point? There may be some hints in there that can get you going.
Posted 31 October 2008 - 10:40 PM
Posted 31 October 2008 - 11:02 PM
If they do that, they'll have no basis for such a claim, so why worry about it? You'd only be in trouble if your code looked so similar to the GPL code as to be indisputably derivative of it. If you look at the GPL code and see how it works, then use the knowledge gained to write your own code, you're clear. Besides, no one needs to know you looked at the GPL code.
Posted 31 October 2008 - 11:16 PM
defers subjoinedst ordinarily licenses unhealthiness obtaining
excellencies Truly nets justly feel Unity Canst remembered
boy tremble oratory benefit medicining readily supreme
grievously blamest health's immoderate identify Descend
Posted 31 October 2008 - 11:49 PM
The random words are basically a ouiji board with no cheating. Sample a mega or gigahertz clock when you press a key and take the low bits as a random number for picking words or pages or notes. What you just saw generated that way.
God's court is the supremest court. It's funny -- I hear these punks saying piracy is not theft. I'd like to see them tell God. I thought so!
Posted 01 November 2008 - 12:09 AM
By the way, bearing false witness is against a commandment.
succour cherish thief chastenedst skins wait hiddest hears
modestly knowledge curing remaineth Rejoiceth linger ceasest
Posted 02 November 2008 - 01:39 AM
Uhm, don't know if I should bother at this point, because maybe your ears are only tuned to the "God Wavelength'", but again, you're understanding of the GPL, and its rules and operation is woefully inadequate and ignorant. I'm not sure if it's God whispering in your ear, or Steve Ballmer. Apart from the gibberish out of a thesaurus, it sounds like Mr. Ballmer.
At any rate, look at BSD then. The BSD license is much more permissive.
Posted 02 November 2008 - 04:56 AM
In terms of reviewing my assets, not having other peoples code is a hugely unique aspect of my operating system that I shouldn't throw away casually at this stage. If I say BSD license, people will assume the thing is 100% somebody else's code and I lose credit for all the work I've done and they move on their way and use OpenBSD or whatever.
This decision has nuances and must be done with wisdom on the overall affects.
God earlier said the guy was trying to sucker me into letting the tenticles of GPL into my project. It is GPL that condemns all competition to Microsoft. Everyone is lazy and looks at Linux and has a product they cannot sell. GPL is a plot from Microsoft to curse all competetion.
perceiveth ludicrous related flattering Certainly Amid twelve
repute whereat bustle discovering amazement fleeting Abraham's
solve alternates meets sentences palaces Betwixt breathe
diminution averred doubts oh overwhelmed detached cleanse
silversmiths' beauties forgivest replenished eagerness
know got deceive variableness stung unpermitted interpret
real speaketh danger increased Egyptian demander result
distinctly unchain mightest Seneca Victor unlikeliness
highest indicate objected audience monster ships fever
tilde gazing worshipper
Posted 02 November 2008 - 05:36 AM
What format was it in? Try 7zip; it can decompress almost anything that's not proprietary.
And, before you go off, using a GPL application to decompress some source to read does not obligate you to make your own code GPL.
Posted 02 November 2008 - 06:22 AM
Eliminates the agonizing question of changing from public domain to BSD for my whole thing.
Posted 02 November 2008 - 07:30 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users