Jump to content


Creative Labs: Vista: Drivers!


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 03 April 2008 - 03:58 PM

I don't remember any of my Creative sound cards saying on the packaging or anywhere else that it would have full only until the next version of Windows, or only until Vista comes out so we can create a new business model.Sure any company has the right to treat their customers like crap. But if they do, they have to also need to acknowledge that they put themselves out of business.
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#27 OFFLINE   Temmu

Temmu

    The Assimilator

  • Forum MVP
  • 12,546 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 11:50 AM

ok, you can make our products work in vista, now!http://techdirt.com/...234719746.shtml
Posted Image

#28 OFFLINE   Urmas

Urmas

    GUI Penguin

  • Forum Moderators
  • 4,060 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 12:06 PM

Priceless.   :)

Posted Image


#29 OFFLINE   crp

crp

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,173 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 12:49 PM

Agreed, the PR mess was avoidable but they are basically saying what others have said in this thread - DRM is the main problem and microsoft should have a special dungeon for those who baked DRM into the VistaOS
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ~C. S. Lewis

#30 OFFLINE   lewmur

lewmur

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 01:24 PM

View Postb2cm, on Apr 3 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

In this case, what those folks bought was a Creative sound card with driver support for full features under Windows XP. And they still have what they paid for. Unless the circumstances and terms of the sale involved assurances from Creative that the card will work in other or future operating systems (say Linux or Vista), those folks really cannot demand that as a matter of right. If support is provided, well and good. If not, and they need the features, they can choose to not OS-migrate, or buy a new card with Vista or Linux support, or experiment with workarounds by hackers.
I don't own a CL card but I'm going to send this guy a donation simply because, even unintentionally, he is aiding in the fight against DRM.  IMO, that deserves a reward.

#31 OFFLINE   lewmur

lewmur

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 01:38 PM

View Postcrp, on Apr 4 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

Agreed, the PR mess was avoidable but they are basically saying what others have said in this thread - DRM is the main problem and microsoft should have a special dungeon for those who baked DRM into the VistaOS
It was the executives at MS who insisted on DRM being "baked in."  They want a monopoly on PC's  that can legally play music and videos.

#32 OFFLINE   crp

crp

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,173 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 01:42 PM

View Postlewmur, on Apr 4 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

It was the executives at MS who insisted on DRM being "baked in."  They want a monopoly on PC's  that can legally play music and videos.
I have no problem sending executives to a dungeon  :)
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ~C. S. Lewis

#33 OFFLINE   b2cm

b2cm

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 02:14 PM

Quote

I don't remember any of my Creative sound cards saying on the packaging or anywhere else that it would have full only until the next version of Windows, or only until Vista comes out so we can create a new business model.
Most, if not all, hardware packaging would indicate what operating systems are supported. If not, the drivers CD would indicate what operating systems are supported.

Quote

I don't own a CL card but I'm going to send this guy a donation simply because, even unintentionally, he is aiding in the fight against DRM. IMO, that deserves a reward.
Good for him. What I have been saying in this thread has nothing to do with DRM but with practices in the manufacture/marketing of computer hardware that might not make business sense to the consumer but is a model that is used by computer hardware manufacturers/vendors because, from their view of things, it is what makes the most sense for their businesses.

#34 OFFLINE   lewmur

lewmur

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 03:06 PM

View Postb2cm, on Apr 4 2008, 03:14 PM, said:

Most, if not all, hardware packaging would indicate what operating systems are supported. If not, the drivers CD would indicate what operating systems are supported. Good for him. What I have been saying in this thread has nothing to do with DRM but with practices in the manufacture/marketing of computer hardware that might not make business sense to the consumer but is a model that is used by computer hardware manufacturers/vendors because, from their view of things, it is what makes the most sense for their businesses.
The problem is that it is only a good business model until the public figures out what you are doing.  Deliberately creating software and/or drivers that disable hardware function is going to alienate the consumer once they know about it.They can't get the cat back in the bag once it has escaped.  To tell customers "those features  will not be supported in Vista with the card you bought simply because we want to force you to spend more money" is not going to generate much repeat business.  Particularly when you lied about it originally by saying the feature could not be supported and someone exposes your lie.

#35 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 04:54 PM

Creative...interesting, they open mouth and insert foot and now try to backpedal as fast as they can.DRM is such crap! Proprietary stuff is such crap too.I get so tired of the banking and oil cartels for trying to run the world and the entertainment cartels for trying to run our individual lives.Pinky and the Brain...but which one is insane? :)
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#36 OFFLINE   b2cm

b2cm

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 04:58 PM

I also think this is a matter of 'repeat business', involving not only direct sales to consumers but also OEMs that feature Creative cards in the 'Vista-ready' PCs they sell. What if OEMs account for much of Creative's sales and were the ones who complained that the hacked drivers was undermining product life cycle management?

Edited by b2cm, 04 April 2008 - 05:01 PM.


#37 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 05:51 PM

OEMs should be thinking of their customers' needs as well. If Vista drivers are crashing or not working as intended when they were purchased by the customer, then the OEM has no room to complain if they get fixed any more than Creative does.And the OEMs will feel the same heat if they are responsible for part of this.
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#38 OFFLINE   b2cm

b2cm

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 06:24 PM

Quote

then the OEM has no room to complain if they get fixed any more than Creative does
What I meant was the OEMs complaining to Creative about the hacked drivers being distributed at Creative's own forums. A gaming desktop OEM, for example, would not be able to sell as much Vista-ready gaming rigs with full-featured Creative sound cards as it wants if those hacked drivers are extending the life of its XP models. Naturally, it will complain to Creative about those hacked drivers being distributed on Creative's forums.

#39 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 06:33 PM

I understand what you are saying. I am saying that what people spend their money on is  up to them not the OEMs.It's a BAD BUSINESS MODEL to cut bite the hand that feeds you.EDIT:  strikeout above: Typed the wrong word - was supposed to be bite not cut.
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#40 OFFLINE   b2cm

b2cm

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 03:14 AM

Quote

I am saying that what people spend their money on is up to them not the OEMs.
Of course. The producer decides product engineering and value, the consumers decide whether or not to buy.

Quote

It's a BAD BUSINESS MODEL to cut the hand that feeds you.
Unfortunately, that is the business model of the Western, mass-manufacturing world since WWII. While consumers think of it as cutting their hands, producers rely on value engineering and planned obsolescence for survival and profitability.

#41 OFFLINE   goretsky

goretsky

    Posting Prodigy

  • Forum Moderators
  • 2,051 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 05:05 AM

Hello,I read some of the message thread on Creative's web forum and other web pages that have shown up elsewhere on the Internet and I think B2CM's comment about how Daniel Kawakami's modified driver installation packages affect sales is very accurate.  Another point which I do not think has received as much attention as it should is an analysis of the underlying IP issues.  As far as I know, no one has done that yet, but Brad Fortner from Ryerson University brings this up here in his blog.  Daniel Kawakami has also been interviewed by Wired Magazine and The Register.All very interesting reading.Regards,Aryeh Goretsky
Dexter is a good dog.

Aryeh Goretsky
Microsoft MVP 2004.1-2018.6 [Cloud and Datacenter Management]

(previously Networking, Windows, Windows for Devices and IT)
FacebookGoogle+ personal blogpersonal websiteTwitter work blog

#42 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 08:05 AM

Yes, all very interesting reading! Thanks Aryeh. And thank you Brad Fortner!Brad Fortner said it very well indeed. Just one quote from his blog posting, but the entire piece is well worth reading:

Quote

The idea of putting slots in a computer traces its roots to the ENIAC computer in the 1940’s. Their purpose was to expand the capability of a computer through a standard interface. They reappeared in personal computers and gainded great popularity in the APPLE II in the late 1970’s and the IBM PC in the 1980’s. They were put into PC’s so purchasers could expand capability and migrate hardware between generations of hardware and software. In fact Creative Labs got their start creating soundcards for the slots in the original generations of IBM PC’s. So if they’ve licensed software that been placed on their cards that’s not migratable and not fully open then they’ve created the problem. It’s hard for me to buy into any of the arguments Creative Labs is putting forward in this matter. I also don’t know that they’ve made their customers fully aware of these kind of limitations at the time of the products purchase. Coming from the “broadcast technology” side of the business, the manufacturers who place similar restrictions on technology usually do so by encasing it in its own “black box” that often includes its own OS. They don’t market them as “mass” consumer items in commodity hardware and then years later try to shut down software advancement.Hence if Daniel_K’s efforts to improve the value of Soundblasters products is seen as a benefit to any of Creative Labs customers then problem is not Daniel_K’s, it is really Creative Labs own fault. First for not licensing the embedded IP appropriately and secondly in forgetting the history of computer hardware and the expectations of those who purchase it. Judging by the response to post on the forum, I’m not the only person to question Creative Labs Inc.’s actions in this case. It’s especially questionable when Mr. O’Shaughnessy’s post contrasts the fact that the companies own drivers and service doesn’t match the solutions that Daniel_K’s drivers do.
bold emphasis mineAnd most importantly to Brad Fortner as a University Director:

Quote

Hence if Daniel_K’s efforts to improve the value of Soundblasters products is seen as a benefit to any of Creative Labs customers then problem is not Daniel_K’s, it is really Creative Labs own fault. First for not licensing the embedded IP appropriately and secondly in forgetting the history of computer hardware and the expectations of those who purchase it. Judging by the response to post on the forum, I’m not the only person to question Creative Labs Inc.’s actions in this case. It’s especially questionable when Mr. O’Shaughnessy’s post contrasts the fact that the companies own drivers and service doesn’t match the solutions that Daniel_K’s drivers do.
Excellent point! And it is also why enthusiasts, hobbyists and tinkerers around the world will also be thinking twice about buying any Creative Labs' products in the future or simply deciding not buying them at all.Thank you Brad Fortner!Must read...so much more in the article! :hysterical:
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#43 OFFLINE   b2cm

b2cm

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 03:33 PM

Quote

the manufacturers who place similar restrictions on technology usually do so by encasing it in its own “black box” that often includes its own OS.
If this 'PCI slot' argument against IP is validated, that will probably spell the end of the PCI slot and other add-on ports,and we will see more of that 'black box'. It is going to move the direction of PC development towards highly integrated, proprietary, closed and more costly systems--- exactly the open computing nightmare.

#44 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 04:24 PM

This is what the TRUSTED COMPUTING GROUP has planned for quite some time. Ever since TCPA was instituted, done away with and then re-constructed, and before they moved from one name to another to obfuscate it's meaning. They plan to control everything in computing; backbones/Internet pathways (in order to charge you for every penny's worth of traveling on the Internet and control what operating systems will allowed to traverse the Internet pathways and backbones), hardware (eventually blackbox computing), software (controlled from afar like many are starting to do but with more control possible through Vista, OS X), operating systems (Vista, OS X) ... and all under the guise of 'security' and 'protection.'Companies/Corporations will want this because they can do push their throw away hardware, software, operating systems, websites like book and periodical publications, etc., movies, music.Governments will want this so they can control dissidents, criminals, terrorists and keep tabs on Citizens.Without understanding the repercussions, and deceived by governments and companies/corporations and entertainment and banking cartels, Consumers and Citizens will want this too -- thinking they will gain more security and protection and privacy. But the opposite will be true.Many of us have seen this coming for years. But, it's getting closer every day now.I do not think this is carved in stone. It can still be averted. But we as consumers and citizens will have to learn from the past. Something that is very hard to do.
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#45 OFFLINE   lewmur

lewmur

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 05:24 PM

View Postb2cm, on Apr 5 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

If this 'PCI slot' argument against IP is validated, that will probably spell the end of the PCI slot and other add-on ports,and we will see more of that 'black box'. It is going to move the direction of PC development towards highly integrated, proprietary, closed and more costly systems--- exactly the open computing nightmare.
This conclusion baffles me.  About the only thing PCI slots are used for now are video and audio cards.  Do you think "Black Boxes" are somehow going to replace those functions?  If so, please tell me how?  Just how is the main CPU going to communicate with these "Black Boxes" if not through a bus? This sounds like pure FUD to me.  It sounds as if you would like to discourage what you term "hackers" and you are willing to resort to scare tactics to do it.  If that is not the case, please explain your position because that is the only conclusion I can draw from your responses in this thread.

#46 OFFLINE   b2cm

b2cm

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 09:19 PM

According to the professor it is the historical principle of the add-on port (not the system bus) that argues against IP protection or restriction. If that is accepted and a technology developer wants to protect its IP, his workaround would be to integrate the device into the system---onboard or, if externally, through a proprietary port that cannot be construed in any way as of the 'open' nature. Another workaround would be to move the technology independent of the PC, that is, in the words of the professor, "encasing it in its own 'black box' that often includes its own OS." I know one company that used to make high-quality capture cards but now sells only 'black box' type DVR systems. The reason for the shift was that clones from China that used their name, drivers and software priced their PCI cards out of the market, and the black box was its solution for protecting its IP and business continuity. Technology developers who live off their labor will always find a way to protect their IP. The more difficult it becomes to protecting their IP, the more expensive and complicated things get for the consumers.

Edited by b2cm, 05 April 2008 - 09:24 PM.


#47 OFFLINE   lewmur

lewmur

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 10:20 AM

View Postb2cm, on Apr 5 2008, 10:19 PM, said:

According to the professor it is the historical principle of the add-on port (not the system bus) that argues against IP protection or restriction. If that is accepted and a technology developer wants to protect its IP, his workaround would be to integrate the device into the system---onboard or, if externally, through a proprietary port that cannot be construed in any way as of the 'open' nature. Another workaround would be to move the technology independent of the PC, that is, in the words of the professor, "encasing it in its own 'black box' that often includes its own OS." I know one company that used to make high-quality capture cards but now sells only 'black box' type DVR systems. The reason for the shift was that clones from China that used their name, drivers and software priced their PCI cards out of the market, and the black box was its solution for protecting its IP and business continuity. Technology developers who live off their labor will always find a way to protect their IP. The more difficult it becomes to protecting their IP, the more expensive and complicated things get for the consumers.
The only thing the above post tells me is that one maker of "capture cards" got out of the business because it couldn't make a profit.  How does that lead us to believe video and audio card makers are about to abandon the PC?  IMO, what you are saying would be the equivalent of Ford saying that it is illegal or immoral for a "hot-rodder" to soup-up a car engine. Ask your "professor" how "integrating the device into the system" helps IP protection.  Integrating audio and video onto the MB is done for the purpose of saving cost.  Not IP protection.  As the quality of these components increases, it might well drive card makers out of business.  But it won't have anything to do with IP protection.  Onboard devices can be "hacked" just as easily as cards.  BTW, "black boxes" are hacked all of the time.  There is a whole industry built around "moding" game consoles to make them do thing the makers don't want them to do.

Edited by lewmur, 06 April 2008 - 10:27 AM.


#48 OFFLINE   b2cm

b2cm

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 02:24 PM

Quote

The only thing the above post tells me is that one maker of "capture cards" got out of the business because it couldn't make a profit. How does that lead us to believe video and audio card makers are about to abandon the PC?
The context of what I am saying is Brad Fortner's piece. His view is that the Creative problem is about IP licensing, and that Creative itself created this problem by selling a product for use on a standard interface without fully licensing the software placed on the card. He argues that the history and nature of the 'open slots' imply that add-on cards should be fully migratable and open, and therefore Creative should fully license the software that goes with the card. He suggested that if Creative wanted to protect/restrict its IP, it could have avoided the problem by following what other manufacturers have done---that is, move its technology to the black box. I provided an example of a company that wanted to protect/restrict its IP to stay in business, moving its technology to a black box.

Quote

IMO, what you are saying would be the equivalent of Ford saying that it is illegal or immoral for a "hot-rodder" to soup-up a car engine.
Creative said that the hacker was stealing its IP and profitting from it. Fortner questions the validity of that charge using that PCI slot argument.

Quote

Ask your "professor" how "integrating the device into the system" helps IP protection. Integrating audio and video onto the MB is done for the purpose of saving cost. Not IP protection.
It is Fortner's view that IP restriction/protection is invalid where standard, open interfaces are concerned. If that becomes the rule, and a technology developer want its IP to matter, naturally it will have to package its technology away from standard, open interfaces. What Fortner mentioned as the usual method was the black box. Integrating devices or using non-standard ports just the same avoids the standard, open interfaces.

Quote

As the quality of these components increases, it might well drive card makers out of business. But it won't have anything to do with IP protection. Onboard devices can be "hacked" just as easily as cards.
As I said, if Fortson's view becomes the rule, the difference would be that manufacturers of cards could not complain that its IP are being violated, while those whose devices are integrated or uses non-standard interfaces or are independent of PCs can.

Edited by b2cm, 06 April 2008 - 02:26 PM.


#49 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 05:30 PM

It is a shame that some people seem to think that if they create something -- something that they expect others to purchase with their hard earned money -- that they have the right to say what the purchaser should be able to do with it.If I buy something, it is now mine. I can use it for the purpose it was created for, or tear it apart and make something entirely new out of the components if I like, or find a way to make better use of that product.That is the right of the person who owns it. That would be the person who purchased it.Why is this so hard to understand? Why do they have to muddy the waters ... if they want people to purchase their products, they will have to accept what people decide to do with that product. If they want to use  the producer's product's drivers, fine. But if they wish to use other's drivers, that would be their right to do.It is not all that hard to understand, like lewmur said, it is very much like a car that someone customizes.Ford, Chevrolet and other car companies have patents and copyrights too but you don't see them dickering over what people do with what they buy.
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#50 OFFLINE   b2cm

b2cm

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 07:26 PM

That's what intellectual property and licensing means. I think the concept is absurd. But that is what Western civilization has accepted, practiced in the last 4 centuries, beginning with publishing and now with technology.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users