ffdshow development

[Andy2222]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito
Shouldn't the P4/A64 version work with Pentium M, too, since it also supports SSE2? But I get a crash on some videos with the optimized ffdshow when denoise3d HQ is turned on. The normal version works well.

mhh does the Pentium M support full SSE2? Those crashes only apeer if u turn on denoise3d and without it dont crash?

PS: can u tell me what is the X/Y resolution on the videos wich crash?

....oki found a little bug in the P4/A64 version if the X resolution is not divisible through 16...(fixing it soon)

[midiboy]

Hi guys !

Maybe Andy or someone else can help me with a couple of questions I am having regarding ffdshow ... would really be nice of you ! Thanks !

I am currently resizing to 1280x720 using bicubic and I am using elecard or intervideo decoder with VMR9 on FX5700, Zoom Player4 RC2.

1. Why is it that when watching DVD´s I have to set aspect ratio to "no aspect ratio correction" to get correct ratio and with media files like xvid etc. I have to set it to "keep original aspect ratio". It is kind of boring to change between those two settings all the time. Without ffdshow, everything works normal ...

2. I heard different opinions about resizing ... one group says to resize to the panel res. in order to avoid any scaling of the videocard, the other group says to resize to double PAL/NTSC and let the videocard downscale to panel resolution. Which is really better now ?

3. Different output color spaces ( YUV2/ YV12 versus RGB32 ) require totally different brightness/contrast settings on my projector when calibrating it with test patterns. For RGB32 I have to increase brightness and decrease contrast quite a bit. Since all videofiles (HDTV, MP4 etc.) seem to default to YUV2 or YV12 I use that for DVD playback also to avoid switching between different brightness and contrast settings all the time.

I was just wondering why there is so much difference between colorspaces. Some people seem to prefer RGB32 to YUV/YV12 but nobody seems to mention that difference in brightness and contrast associated with it.

By the way, whats better: YUV2 or YV12 ?

I know those may be very basic questions for this advanced thread but maybe they can still be answered especially since you guys seem to really know a lot about those things ... :cool:

Thanks,
midiboy

[Vitos]

Originally posted by midiboy

1. Why is it that when watching DVD´s I have to set aspect ratio to "no aspect ratio correction" to get correct ratio and with media files like xvid etc. I have to set it to "keep original aspect ratio". It is kind of boring to change between those two settings all the time. Without ffdshow, everything works normal ...


It's because DVD movies are anamorphic - they have resolution like 720x576 (it's for PAL), but pixel (or should I say - image) proportions like 16:9. Watching that on 4:3 PC screen without proper resizing gives wrong (vertically stretched) video. On the contrary, XviD and other PC formats have standard 4:3 ratio and doesn't need any resizing. So I suppose that "no aspect ratio correction" just parses proper ratio given on DVD, but "keep original.." treats video as 4:3...


2. I heard different opinions about resizing ... one group says to resize to the panel res. in order to avoid any scaling of the videocard, the other group says to resize to double PAL/NTSC and let the videocard downscale to panel resolution. Which is really better now ?


IMHO depends on videocard, so there's no only one answer. I'd like to know others' opinions as well for modern hardware.


3. Different output color spaces ( YUV2/ YV12 versus RGB32 ) require totally different brightness/contrast settings on my projector when calibrating it with test patterns. For RGB32 I have to increase brightness and decrease contrast quite a bit. Since all videofiles (HDTV, MP4 etc.) seem to default to YUV2 or YV12 I use that for DVD playback also to avoid switching between different brightness and contrast settings all the time.

I was just wondering why there is so much difference between colorspaces. Some people seem to prefer RGB32 to YUV/YV12 but nobody seems to mention that difference in brightness and contrast associated with it.


Again - your videocard gives various results for different colorspaces, I noticed it on my Kyro II too, but not on ATI 8500.
When working in YUY2/YV12 video is displayed according to CCIR601 norm, which restricts luminance to 16-240 range (something with analog television compatibility). In opposite, RGB modes give you full 0-255 range video (so generally more contrast).


By the way, whats better: YUV2 or YV12 ?


YV12 has lower vertical color resolution that YUY2, but since MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 are internally handled in YV12 there should be no difference in playback.

[Andy2222]

A1: this is a "bug" in the way ffdshow handels AR values...maybe we get a fix some day for this.

A2: depends on your card, i have a FX5700U too and i avoid to let the card resize since i can see "grid" artefacts if the video card resize. The "perfect" way atm would be to resize using avisynth plugin using lanczos3/4 to 2*resolution and than let ffdshow scale down using bicubic mode.
I can live with the 1 way ffdshow to native output resolution :) (just test what u like more)

A3: hard to explain, for now all u need to know is dont worry about colorspaces just set ffdshow to use yv12/yuv2 modes. There is no "best" mode, but yv12/yuv2 is the fastest mode so use it.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by Andy2222
mhh does the Pentium M support full SSE2? Those crashes only apeer if u turn on denoise3d and without it dont crash?

PS: can u tell me what is the X/Y resolution on the videos wich crash?

....oki found a little bug in the P4/A64 version if the X resolution is not divisible through 16...(fixing it soon)

Yes, crash only with denoise. Pentium M has support for SSE2, don't know if it's "full".

Resolution is 360x288, so it could be the bug you mentioned.

Another problem, but it seems to exist for several versions now:

If I tell ffdshow to resize to 1024x768, the resolution is 2048x1536 in OGM files (have not tested MKV yet). At least Medial Player Classic says so and the video is very slow and CPU eating.

Edit: Without resize it still shows 1280x720 which is 2x2 the original resolution.

Edit 2: Okay, stupid me, the resolution thing is not a ffdshow bug but a DirectVobSub setting, so forget it. :-)

[marcellus]

Hi,
I have a problem with latest Andy's compiles (ffdshow-20040529a and ffdshow-20040607a -regular version, I have an Athlon XP). I use ffdshow mainly for encoding (mpeg2 and mjpeg). I use graphedit to encode avisynth files and with these releases when I hit play the graph bombs and the OS spits an error message involving libavcodec.dll. When I replace libavcodec.dll with the one that came with latest athos's compile (ffdshow-20040520) the problem is gone.

Another problem with the same compiles is one that I thought was gone some time ago - ffdshow doesn't show up in virtualdub encoding codecs list - meaning vfw interface. Is still "spaces in path" related, when I install ffdshow in a path without spaces the problem is gone.

best regards

[Andy2222]

mhh milan updated the libavcodec files to latest release from Athos latest to my releases maybe there is an error now with the updated files

[marcellus]

Sorry, I was wrong. The problem is not solved at all just by replacing libavcodec.dll. Now is not bombing graphedit anymore but mpeg2 files encoded that way are screwed in chroma. I mean chroma is frozen (taken from the first frame or something like that) and the movement is happening only in luma. I guess I have to go back to latest Athos's release.:(

[oddball]

I have an Nvidia GeForce 440 MX. On the TV out if I have a video file with a resolution larger than say 640x (704x for instance) I start getting black bars top and bottom on my widescreen TV. It does not matter that the bars are cropped on the video itself. The only way I have found around it is to resize in ffdshow to 640x anything over that res.

[Vitos]

Originally posted by Andy2222

The "perfect" way atm would be to resize using avisynth plugin using lanczos3/4 to 2*resolution and than let ffdshow scale down using bicubic mode.


What is it supposed to give? I mean - up-resizing, then down-resizing...? Can't figure out that on my own...

[Andy2222]

Resizing first using the a 2* org. resolution gives a perfect scaled image to let the filters work. If we than scale down to our output resolution by software we avoid artefacts wich could be caused by the simpler video hardware resizer.

But this is only for the videophile users with here expansive projector stuff :)

[midiboy]

Andy, Vitos,

thanks for your answers to my question !

Resizing first using the a 2* org. resolution gives a perfect scaled image to let the filters work. If we than scale down to our output resolution by software we avoid artefacts wich could be caused by the simpler video hardware resizer

Why can´t the ffdshow resizer be used twice in a row then ? Would that be possible ??

this is a "bug" in the way ffdshow handels AR values...maybe we get a fix some day for this.

I also hope someone ( you maybe ?:D ) will fix this .... :)

Thanks !
Alex

[Tommy Carrot]

Could someone provide a fresh build, because the last one is almost a month old and plenty stuff has been changed since then.

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by midiboy
Why can´t the ffdshow resizer be used twice in a row then ? Would that be possible ??Why not using any filter multiple times ???

Already requested this multiple times... :D


Bye

[midiboy]

Could someone provide a fresh build, because the last one is almost a month old and plenty stuff has been changed since then.

Andy´s builds are very recent and can be had here (http://mitglied.lycos.de/ieggei2/ffdshow/)

I hope it is ok for him to post the URL. If not, please remove ! :)

Also I want to thank Milan for the "resize by a multiple" addon in the latest SSE2 build.

And I want to thank Milan or Andy or whoever did this for fixing the AR issue I mentioned. I think it is ok now ( gotta test some more, but at first glance it worked right )

midiboy

[pankov]

Guys, are those SSE2 builds compatible with my Athlon XP 1700+?
if they aren't is it possible to make a non SSE2 bild with the latest fixes?

Can someone also explain how to use the Remotecontrol API?
I'm a Girder user and would really like to be able to control FFDShow with the remote - especially changing the image settings presets.

[Tommy Carrot]

Originally posted by pankov
Guys, are those SSE2 builds compatible with my Athlon XP 1700+?


No, it crashes here, so i would repeat my request: Could someone share with us a fresh build?

Thanks.

[esby]

I must be missing something...

@Pankov : http://mitglied.lycos.de/ieggei2/ffdshow/
check all the file, there is a SSE2 one, and another one...

@Tommy carrot: do the same, ...

esby

PS: Of course for the blind people: http://mitglied.lycos.de/ieggei2/ffdshow/ffdshow-20040607a.exe

[arno]

Does somebody here (Andy?) know what the new mplayer "accurate deblocking" does?

[pankov]

Originally posted by esby
I must be missing something...

@Pankov : http://mitglied.lycos.de/ieggei2/ffdshow/
check all the file, there is a SSE2 one, and another one...

@Tommy carrot: do the same, ...

esby

PS: Of course for the blind people: http://mitglied.lycos.de/ieggei2/ffdshow/ffdshow-20040607a.exe
I'm not sure if your intention was to offend us but may be you should read more carefully before make any assumptions.
I saw the file that you are talking about and I can say that I have it since 08.06.2004 but the SSE2 build is 10 days newer and in the history of FFDShow this could make a big difference. If you read the changelog.txt file for the SSE2 build you will see that there are a few important fixes that are after 07.06.2004 and those are fixes that I would like to use on my Athlon XP which doesn't support SSE2.
So I second my request for a non SSE2 build with the latest fixes

[Tommy Carrot]

Originally posted by esby
PS: Of course for the blind people: http://mitglied.lycos.de/ieggei2/ffdshow/ffdshow-20040607a.exe

I forgot to say this is not good for me, the most important changes (to me) were done after this build.

[crlorentzen]

latest version crashes my Media Player Classic 6.4.8.2, http://mitglied.lycos.de/ieggei2/ffdshow/ffdshow-20040616_SSE2.exe

using full deblocking and automatci adjustment, as well as some level adjustments.

[Andy2222]

Originally posted by crlorentzen
latest version crashes my Media Player Classic 6.4.8.2, http://mitglied.lycos.de/ieggei2/ffdshow/ffdshow-20040616_SSE2.exe

using full deblocking and automatci adjustment, as well as some level adjustments.

What cpu u have? Are u sure u have a SSE2 capable cpu? Since for me all works fine in Media Player Classic 6.4.8.2.

@Tommy Carrot sorry but im concentrating on my sse2 version atm, no clue what happend to Athos builds, maybe he is in Holiday or work trouble. If i release my new sse2 version i will compile a new normal version too.

[pankov]

Originally posted by Andy2222
...If i release my new sse2 version i will compile a new normal version too.
Great
:)
Looking forward for a new release

[Tommy Carrot]

Ditto. :)

[crlorentzen]

CPU in sig... Northwood-B P4.

[Defiler]

Even though many of my CPUs are SSE2-capable, I am worried about this semi-fork into SSE2/non-SSE2 versions.
After it's all working, can it just use the CPU feature flags to determine which instructions to issue?

[Andy2222]

Originally posted by Defiler
Even though many of my CPUs are SSE2-capable, I am worried about this semi-fork into SSE2/non-SSE2 versions.
After it's all working, can it just use the CPU feature flags to determine which instructions to issue?

For now the SSE2 version just run on SSE2 CPUs. I was thinking about merging the SSE2 code into the normal version but since im working torward a 64bit AMD64 version based on the SSE2 version it would cause more trouble and debug problems.
I dont think its this hard to choose what version u download... we all do this for drivers and other programms. (the code size is also reduced since the SSE2 version dont need the mmx or mmx2 versions)
The other advantage is that i can compile the normal c++/c code for better sheduling on P4/AMD64 cpus since the normal version is still a i586 compile.

[Defiler]

Think about codec packs, though.. If there are two versions, the installer has to choose which one to install automatically, which isn't simple. Imagine if there were four or five different versions of XviD, each with different supported CPUs..

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Defiler
Think about codec packs, though..

Id rather not. Codec packs are bad and really should be avoided at all costs. It is a crutch that helps perpetuate user ignorance and can by the actions of a few unscrupulous packers cause problems acrost tons of systems. With the advent of FFMPEG/FFdshow which is practically a codec pack in and of itself you don't really need codec packs.

Originally posted by Defiler
If there are two versions, the installer has to choose which one to install automatically, which isn't simple. Imagine if there were four or five different versions of XviD, each with different supported CPUs..

Ffdshow and Xvid are not specifically coded to any cpu. Meaning that anyone could whip up a version that would play on all pentium or better CPUs. So creating CPU specific compiles is not going to hinder the less educated who use codec packs or those that facilitate them. They just will not get the best performance possible. But they make themselves incapable of getting the best performance even from a general compile. So they loose out any way you look at it. But they only have themselves to blame.

And as stated all the optimisations could be worked back into a general compile.

[TripleA]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Id rather not. Codec packs are bad and really should be avoided at all costs. It is a crutch that helps perpetuate user ignorance and can by the actions of a few unscrupulous packers cause problems acrost tons of systems. With the advent of FFMPEG/FFdshow which is practically a codec pack in and of itself you don't really need codec packs.


Yes indeed.

Except that some people don't really care what CPU they have, let alone what instructions it supports. In fact, many of them don't know what an instruction is. They just want videos to work when they double click them. And with so many CODECs out there, CODEC packs are inevitable and, when well done, a godsend. Such as Defiler's pack. Please don't listen to the nay-sayers, Defiler, I await the next version...

But should a computer user know such technical details as what CPU s/he has?

I used to think that they should. In fact, years back I used to say that anyone who doesn't know what CONFIG.SYS is shouldn't own a PC (a Mac, of course, wasn't a PC for me back then). But I'm increasingly of the opinion that a PC is just another thing to use. Like a car. Certainly not all people should be mechanics to drive cars...

Just IMHO...

[Koepi]

Show me the free fuel and oil for your car!

As long as it's free, you've nothing to complain about but should be grateful ;) The free service man at the gas station will ask you "may I give you leaded or unleaded fuel?" and you should know that. Even if you're no mechanic.

SCNR, it always happens if I find these analogies...

Regards
Koepi

[TripleA]

Who's complaining? ;)

I'm just saying that CODEC packs aren't Evil.

Edit: But really, even I, who claims he knows these things and are at home with datasheets, find I sometimes have to pause and think when someone asks me if a specific processor supports a specific instruction set (i.e. "Does the Centrino support SSE2?")... So what chance do "normal people" have?

[Koepi]

Normal people have a (short) manual for their computer as well as for their car, they just have to look that up.
And (the place where you put the fuel in, don't know the word in english) has a sticker close to it telling you that also. (Well, no such stickers on computers, but some system info tool like "start -> settings -> system settings" will bring up a dialog where you can see which processor is in your computer and which extensions it supports. A shortcut would be to right-click on "work place" (is it called like that in english windows?) and select "properties". There you have the same dialog.

Of course, this is only valid for win2k/winxp, but i expect people with minor computer knowledge to use those (more XP than 2k I have to admit ;) ).

Regards
Koepi

[LigH]

At least there are codec packs which change more in the registry than necessary (which may even destroy some playback or conversion ability), and there are people who do not use, but abuse them (by mindlessly installing each and every codec and filter). ;)
__

Right-click on the "My Computer" icon on the desktop, select "Properties".

[jimmy basushi]

Originally posted by TripleA

But should a computer user know such technical details as what CPU s/he has?


If they have a question about something why cant they just look at manuals? It isnt hard for me to read an english manual, and im not even a native english speaker or really smart. You dont have to be, you just have to not be ignorant and take the time to learn more instead of living in your little bubble of "it should just work because i want it to work". Anyone who cant or wont take the time to read a manual, really shouldnt be using whatever that manual is for.

[Coroner]

Originally posted by jimmy basushi
If they have a question about something why cant they just look at manuals? It isnt hard for me to read an english manual, and im not even a native english speaker or really smart. You dont have to be, you just have to not be ignorant and take the time to learn more instead of living in your little bubble of "it should just work because i want it to work". Anyone who cant or wont take the time to read a manual, really shouldnt be using whatever that manual is for.

Exactly. I agree completely.

[TripleA]

Well, obviously I am mistaken then.

Only assembly programmers should be allowed to own PCs.

CODEC packs are of the Devil and all authors of such abominations must be burnt at the stake/stoned to death.

BTW, Windows will tell you what CPU you have, if you're lucky. But it will not tell you what it does(n't) support. And will certainly not tell you if it supports it correctly/fully (i.e. iSSE vs. SSE).

[Koepi]

You're right, win2k doesn't tell you about the extensions supported, then this was only valid in windowsxp (don't have that installed here anywhere so i can't check).

For the rest, where should that sarcasm lead to? Make your point more valid? Certainly not.

It's not too much asked to know/to look up which extensions are supported by your computer's cpu, there are simple tools for that (aida / everest home / 3dmark03 / ... stuff that even people without any knowledge use).

Koepi

[TripleA]

You're wrong.

I have Windows XP here. It tells me that I have an "AMD Athlon(tm)" and nothing more.

Which might be OK, except I have an Athlon XP...

The sarcasm is for entertainment. It should not be required to validate my point.

Edit: As it would happen, my cousin just called me: "We just installed this game and it keeps telling us that our computer doesn't support MMX. What is MMX?". I just told her they need to buy a new PC, of course. But I wonder what I would have done had the game not given an error and exited gracefully.

Edit: And before someone jumps to tell me his/her Athlon XP is recognized fine by Windows XP; the point isn't that Windows will always mis-identify the processor, the point is that it won't always identify it.

Not that identifying the processor is enough: assume you somehow know that you have a Duron, what, exactly, does that tell you about SSE support?

[zwahri]

To comment on the whole 'what users know' thing:

USERS DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
USERS ARE STUPID.
USERS DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHY AND HOW SOMETHING WORKS.

The last year or so should've made this point perfectly clear. Think of any major virus/trojan/worm out there - even the mass media were reporting them and nobody really cared. In fact, of the users I know (which happens to be quite a lot) don't even know about firewalls and virus scanners, at best they've heard the terms before.

Most users want it to simply work. Nobody wants to think anymore. I could tell at least a dozend users who wanted to play movies out of the box but didn't even know what CPU, RAM and GFX-card they owned. The only thing they can tell you is 'I have XP' - and that's only because it's clearly shown at boot time. If I'd change someone's bootlogo and ask him again certainly he'd tell me "OS/2 Warp 4.0".

And we are talking about codecs & filters here - that's software nobody has ever seen or used directly because it's all done inside your favourite video player.... Don't expect the impossible of the typical Windows user, even advanced ones have trouble with that and resort to those ugly codec packs ;)

So, what's my point? I want those optimizations, because they are really useful. I want ffdshow, because it's exactly what those user's want: It plays everything regardless what codec was used right out of the box. But if you're going to release 5 different versions, that'll only confuse users. Make it auto-detect, and that's it.

Sorry, I just couldn't shut up,
Z

[TripleA]

Originally posted by zwahri

USERS DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHY AND HOW SOMETHING WORKS.


Just one simple "correction": "something" -> "anything". ;)

[marcellus]

This is getting OT, but here is my opinion:
But if you're going to release 5 different versions, that'll only confuse users.
Why worry? Well, users got to catch up. I think a clear and visible explanation/help file should be enough. If some user is blind or lazy why everybody else have to suffer? I mean developers are working hard to make a program work better and faster so users should at least read a readme.txt and make some effort on their own.

[Andy2222]

bahhhhh STOP this crazy talk pls.... i will try to implement a CPU detection in the installer, so that ffdshow wont install on wrong systems, maybe i can include both versions in 1 package and the installer check and choose the files automatic :)

[Defiler]

If the people posting in this thread don't need to know the intimate details of fonts and typography in order to write a message, I don't see why the average user needs to know what SIMD method their CPU supports. Thanks for your contributions, Andy2222. I won't say any more on this topic, since I don't want to cause a derailment.

[dimzon]

Originally posted by Defiler
...I don't see why the average user needs to know what SIMD method their CPU supports...
:goodpost:

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by TripleA
Yes indeed.

Except that some people don't really care what CPU they have, let alone what instructions it supports. In fact, many of them don't know what an instruction is.

And those people have always had the general ffdshow versions. These CPU specific versions are rather new and are for those of us that do know and care. There will always be general compiles avalible for those who wish to make codec packs.

Originally posted by TripleA
They just want videos to work when they double click them. And with so many CODECs out there, CODEC packs are inevitable and, when well done, a godsend. Such as Defiler's pack. Please don't listen to the nay-sayers, Defiler, I await the next version...

But my point with ffdshow is it makes most codec packs redundant. What excatly is it that the codec packs provide that ffdshow does not? I can't see much if anything. Outside of perhaps container specific filters like OGG or MKV. 4 years ago it was quite an ordeal to track everything you needed down. For instance no one divx codec would play back all divx content. Now one codec can play back all divx content as well as Xvid, 3ivx, Mpegable, etc. And ffdshow goes further. VP3, Theora, DV, MPEG1 2 &4, Indeo, and many more you likely never heard of.

Originally posted by TripleA
But should a computer user know such technical details as what CPU s/he has?

Hell yes. On top of that they should know what OS and waht version specifically they use. Have you ever asked anyone what OS they use only to have them respond internet explorer 6? This whole dogma that users should not need to know about their systems is the reason so many people have problems with their systems. Knowing processor type and OS version should be basic knowledge. People should not feel intimidated by their computer.

Originally posted by TripleA
I used to think that they should. In fact, years back I used to say that anyone who doesn't know what CONFIG.SYS is shouldn't own a PC (a Mac, of course, wasn't a PC for me back then). But I'm increasingly of the opinion that a PC is just another thing to use. Like a car. Certainly not all people should be mechanics to drive cars...

Should all drivers know traffic laws? Should drivers know about changing the oil to some extent? Airing up tires? What sort of gas to use? We are not talking about putting a system together by hand. We are talking about checking the computers fluids, kicking the tires, and performing basic matinance. And even putting a system together is nowhere near as complex as working on a car. So why is it that we require people to know so much when they drive a car which at worst in generall injures a few. But when it comes to computers we expect them to have to know nothing and it could bring an entire economy and culture to a halt and stand to kill thousands? I'm serious. As computers and the internet prolifferate at some point you are going to need an internet license. The license would require you to obey the rules and regulations of the information super highway. Including things like safe computing procedures, hardware/software matinance, patching, etc. You would not have to have a license to own a computer just as you don't need a license to own a car. But if you are going out into public spaces where you can endanger the public like the internet I think some education is in order. I am all for Internet Highway Patrol who could pull you over and say.

Did you know your port 23 was open? Oh and we caught you littering a way back. About 500 pieces of spam. I'm gonna have to give you a fine. Have a nice day and remember. Keep our Information Superhighways clean and don't spam.

How many people would instantly snap to attention and watch their PC like hawks if they could get fined or even banned from it for bad computing practice! If that bill comes up I am all over it. It would be an excelent thing. ;)

[Hiro2k]

I sure hope they don't require users to have a liscence. Then I'd be out of a job! I fix computers on a daily basis and sometimes it is a serious hardware malfunctions, but most of the time it's spyware/spam/virus problems. All of those could be fixed by simply updating there scanners and not downloading stupid software, but people are ignorant. And they pay me to fix it. I like the system the way it is ;)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by TripleA
Who's complaining? ;)

I'm just saying that CODEC packs aren't Evil.

No one here did. Just that they were bad in general. And that most codec packs have caused bigger problems than they solved. And that most of them have become redundant in recent history. There will always be a niche for codec packs. Just as there will always be a niche for malware. Not that the two are synonimous.

Originally posted by TripleA
Edit: But really, even I, who claims he knows these things and are at home with datasheets, find I sometimes have to pause and think when someone asks me if a specific processor supports a specific instruction set (i.e. "Does the Centrino support SSE2?")... So what chance do "normal people" have?

Centrino has nothing to do with MMX, SSE, or SSE2. Because Centrino is not a processor. It is the greater package. Pentium M is the processor. And if you can type "processor instruction set" in google you will get links to many many programs that will diagnose and tell you exactly what CPU you have and what it can do. So simple my father can do it. Sure users are fairly stupid in general, but only because we allow them to. It's going to have to change. ;)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Hiro2k
I sure hope they don't require users to have a liscence. Then I'd be out of a job! I fix computers on a daily basis and sometimes it is a serious hardware malfunctions, but most of the time it's spyware/spam/virus problems. All of those could be fixed by simply updating there scanners and not downloading stupid software, but people are ignorant. And they pay me to fix it. I like the system the way it is ;)

I doubt you would be out of a job. In fact you might have a much more in demand job. Imagine how many people out there have computers crawling with nasties and are totally unaware? Now imagine if they were required to be aware. Not that they should have to know how to fix it themselves. But know it is there and needs to be fixed. At which point they take it to you. Have mechanics and auto body shops disappeared since people were required to be licensed to run on public roads? An Internet License is quite possibly the single biggest boon the tech support industry may ever see! Beyond increasing the ammount of work for repair people it would create new jobs as well. With the recent attacks on akami I think it is not an unreasonable request.