--- In [email protected], Andreas Troschka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > jr_dakota wrote: > > > >
> > In any case, what has all this to do with soft_radio? > Alberto (and he's not the sole) has verified the fact Vista doesn't satisfy the prerequisites necessary for efficient DSP and SDR processing. What is wrong with this? > I suspect you have missed the point. :-) > > vy 73s de Andreas - ik2wqi > When my computer crashed because of GRUB I didn't have timne to jack around looking for a fix (kind of hard when you can't boot the computer and get on the internet) and have my computer down while I search through the volumes of message board posts that Linux calls support when it was a lot easier to just let Vista's recovery fix it for me in less than 5 minutes .... I used to run Linux but I got tired of spending more time jacking around with it trying to make it work with my hardware (There was always at least one piece of unsupported or poorly supported hardware to deal with) but now I need productivity and that made it necessary to switch back to Windows And Vista MUST have the prerequisites as my HDTV DSP app is much more processor intensive than any SDR application, in fact it IS a SDR application, the hardware (A USB dongle barely larger than a USB flash drive) only downcoverts the UHF signals to baseband and streams it through the USB port, ALL the decoding is done in software where you need a minimum of a dual core 64 bit chip ... A HDTV stream takes up 8.5 Gb per hour, even my 20 stereo track 24 bit studio recordings don't come close to that ... Yes XP will decode it too but not as efficiently with it's patched dual core support In a couple of years his choice is going to be support Vista or watch his program die along with XP like it would have if he decided to not support XP and stayed with Win98 .... I for one would hate to see that happen for no really good reason other than everyone hates Microsoft and wants to bash Vista Most of the stuff about Vista right now is FUD, granted it's hard to feel sorry for Microsoft when they are guilty of FUD in the past too but let's not let the Politics blind us to the Reality ... And the reality here is I have yet to experience any of the downsides I hear about, no DRM issues, I benchmark faster than XP in every way that matters to me (And Office apps don't matter to me) Whether Vista is any good for Big Business is irrelevent to me but I can guarantee nearly all of them will be running it in a couple of years as they upgrade their computers to 64 bit ... The only problems I have had is a poorly written 3rd party driver, and lack of finished soundcard drivers. The key is turning off the User Account Control which is a good 'mom and pop' app but unnecessary if you already know how to secure XP properly .... no one, even Microsoft wants to recommend that, because it's necessary to idiotproof Vista security for the Masses (A problem Linux has too, as way too many people are cruising the internet using the Root account) but the UAC is a resource hog and probably still buggy ... I find it odd that I seem to be the only one that's noticed that if you turn off the UAC in Vista you no longer need to run a 3rd party app to gain full control of the serial and parallel ports which caused me all kinds of problems in XP as every device (PIC and EPROM programmers, my Velleman scope/spectrum analyzer, etc) had a different hack and they didn't always play well together ... Now there is something to blame Microsoft about, was I really in danger of being hacked through my serial and parallel ports so that taking away control from me in XP was necessary? I don't think so although the few that still use dialup and an external serial port modem might be at risk I think it would be foolish to just dismiss Vista altogether, that is my point and history backs me up
