Oh oui je l'ai lu, ca a fini de me convaincre que le gars est clairement pas objectif.
This claim is directly contradicted by a document by the same author which states:
Such tests could involve loading a surface with an image, and then getting the chip to apply various visual effects to the image and reporting back the resulting pixels.
and then later on:
The internal workings of the graphics chip must be kept secret, such that a hacker building an emulator could not find out the required information.
Il m'expliquera ou est la contradiction, et moi qui croyait qu'on n'a pas besoin des diagrammes internes du chip pour ecrire un driver.
While it's certainly tempting to quote the Slashdot response “Whose ass was this assertion pulled out of?”, I'll provide a bit more context. This comment, that the overhead of Vista's content protection will lead to cheaper hardware, comes from a Microsoft product manager resposible for the content protection. An ATI product manager responsible for producting the actual hardware says:
Bien sur, et ca citation du gars d'ATI sort d'ou ? Ah oui, de nulle part
Note the careful use of the term “additional functionality” rather than “enhanced functionality”. Vista's content protection actually provides reduced functionality (as the main body of the writeup goes into in great detail), so the comment is pretty much confirming what's in the writeup.
Ce n'est que son opinion, qui n'est pas partagee par tout le monde, pas un fait.
Ensuite paragraphe suivant vis-a-vis des prises S/PDIF et YPbPr, MS dit clairement que c'est le contenu qui decide quelle sortie est permise, pas Vista, mais le gugus s'amuse quand meme a maintenir ce qu'il dit.
Ensuite il s'amuse a dire que le gars de MS soi-disant se contredit en disant une fois que echo cancellation ne marche pas et qu'il marche.
Si tu lis l'ancien article du gars de MS, il dit clairement : The output from the global mix is passed through a licensed constrictor component to dramatically reduce its information content to a level that is not worth stealing, but is just about sufficient for AEC to work.
Bref, le gars de MS n'a _JAMAIS_ dit que echo cancellation ne marcherait pas. Gutman visiblement ne sait pas lire des specs.
[^] # Re: Eh oui !
Posté par pasBill pasGates . En réponse au journal Microsoft promet de ne pas achever les gens malades avec Vista. Évalué à 1.
This claim is directly contradicted by a document by the same author which states:
Such tests could involve loading a surface with an image, and then getting the chip to apply various visual effects to the image and reporting back the resulting pixels.
and then later on:
The internal workings of the graphics chip must be kept secret, such that a hacker building an emulator could not find out the required information.
Il m'expliquera ou est la contradiction, et moi qui croyait qu'on n'a pas besoin des diagrammes internes du chip pour ecrire un driver.
While it's certainly tempting to quote the Slashdot response “Whose ass was this assertion pulled out of?”, I'll provide a bit more context. This comment, that the overhead of Vista's content protection will lead to cheaper hardware, comes from a Microsoft product manager resposible for the content protection. An ATI product manager responsible for producting the actual hardware says:
Bien sur, et ca citation du gars d'ATI sort d'ou ? Ah oui, de nulle part
Note the careful use of the term “additional functionality” rather than “enhanced functionality”. Vista's content protection actually provides reduced functionality (as the main body of the writeup goes into in great detail), so the comment is pretty much confirming what's in the writeup.
Ce n'est que son opinion, qui n'est pas partagee par tout le monde, pas un fait.
Ensuite paragraphe suivant vis-a-vis des prises S/PDIF et YPbPr, MS dit clairement que c'est le contenu qui decide quelle sortie est permise, pas Vista, mais le gugus s'amuse quand meme a maintenir ce qu'il dit.
Ensuite il s'amuse a dire que le gars de MS soi-disant se contredit en disant une fois que echo cancellation ne marche pas et qu'il marche.
Si tu lis l'ancien article du gars de MS, il dit clairement :
The output from the global mix is passed through a licensed constrictor component to dramatically reduce its information content to a level that is not worth stealing, but is just about sufficient for AEC to work.
Bref, le gars de MS n'a _JAMAIS_ dit que echo cancellation ne marcherait pas. Gutman visiblement ne sait pas lire des specs.
etc...