Any word on whether Vista's Media Center will support QAM?

[Shawn]

I know vista will support cable cards but I would like to know if it'll support viewing unscrambled digital channels via QAM as well. I just bought an Avermedia A180 HDTV Tuner which supports QAM tuning but the QAM tuning is currently not supported in Windows.

I figured I'd just use the card for OTA but all I've been able to pick up is FOX and PBS. I have a Samsung set top box which supports QAM and that's how I'm currently getting HDTV.

 

[loup garou]

I have always heard that it won't. However, this engadget article mentions manual mapping of unencrypted channels. I wouldn't take their word for it though as the writer seems fairly confused about the subject matter as a whole (with good reason). Charlie Owen from the MC team has a comment in there and dodges commenting on QAM which is surprising...perhaps a last-minute concession to users? Would be nice, even if TWC here encrypts just about every channel...

Of course, with all the people running Vista by now, you'd think we'd have heard someone reporting definitively already!

 

[Markbnj]

This must be pretty hard for the front-end guys, because SnapStream hasn't managed it for BeyondTV yet either. Maybe the demand is too low. I'm ok with my 70 analog channels at the moment, but if someone comes out with a good front end that supports QAM I'd be on it the next day.

 

[Shawn]

Well incase anyone is wondering I installed Vista Home Premium last night and it doesn't seem to work. I don't know if it's because Avermedia's current vista drivers don't support QAM or if the problem is with Media Center itself. But anyway it seems to behave exactly like XP MCE.

I haven't tried mapping QAM channels automatically. Would that work? I already know the major and minor channel numbers because I already have a QAM STB, the only thing I don't know is frequency.

 

[Tom]

I seriously doubt Microsoft wants this to be possible.

At it's heart, Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It's essentially a non-operating system, designed to take control of computers out of consumer's hands.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Tom
I seriously doubt Microsoft wants this to be possible.

At it's heart, Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It's essentially a non-operating system, designed to take control of computers out of consumer's hands.

Not the stupidest thing ever posted here about Vista, but pretty damned close.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: Tom
I seriously doubt Microsoft wants this to be possible.

At it's heart, Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It's essentially a non-operating system, designed to take control of computers out of consumer's hands.

Not the stupidest thing ever posted here about Vista, but pretty damned close.

LOL

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: Tom
I seriously doubt Microsoft wants this to be possible.

At it's heart, Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It's essentially a non-operating system, designed to take control of computers out of consumer's hands.

Not the stupidest thing ever posted here about Vista, but pretty damned close.

I take it you have no actual refutation, just a moronic comment ?

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: Tom
I seriously doubt Microsoft wants this to be possible.

At it's heart, Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It's essentially a non-operating system, designed to take control of computers out of consumer's hands.

Not the stupidest thing ever posted here about Vista, but pretty damned close.

I take it you have no actual refutation, just a moronic comment ?

How does he refute anything when you didn't provide any examples or proof yourself.

So how does he refute something that doesn't exist. Provide specific examples so he can continue to expose your stupidity.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: Tom
I seriously doubt Microsoft wants this to be possible.

At it's heart, Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It's essentially a non-operating system, designed to take control of computers out of consumer's hands.

Not the stupidest thing ever posted here about Vista, but pretty damned close.

I take it you have no actual refutation, just a moronic comment ?

As Codwiz said, refutation of what? That Vista is a "non-operating system?" It's such a ridiculous comment that once it is posted even pointing out that it is stupid is an exercise in redundancy.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: Tom
I seriously doubt Microsoft wants this to be possible.

At it's heart, Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It's essentially a non-operating system, designed to take control of computers out of consumer's hands.

Not the stupidest thing ever posted here about Vista, but pretty damned close.

I take it you have no actual refutation, just a moronic comment ?

your comment was moronic. his was truth.


iv bee running vista and its great. much better than xp was.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: Tom
I seriously doubt Microsoft wants this to be possible.

At it's heart, Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It's essentially a non-operating system, designed to take control of computers out of consumer's hands.

Not the stupidest thing ever posted here about Vista, but pretty damned close.

I take it you have no actual refutation, just a moronic comment ?

your comment was moronic. his was truth.


iv bee running vista and its great. much better than xp was.

Well come now? Lets not go CRAZY here. There are a lot of crazy stupid crap in Vista. I am not a Vista fan by any means after running RC2 for about 2 months.

For one, Microsoft totally missed the boat in terms of security. I can't say they had any other choice but it doesn't change the fact that they placed a big ugly bandaid over the problem of security.

For instance, any secure OS, such as bsd or linux, requires admin rights to make CHANGES. A user can go poking around pretty much anywhere by default but the moment he or she tries to change something, BAM, root access is required.

Windows went the other route. Want to look at device manager, BAM, you need admin rights. Want to look at a device. Bam you need admin rights. Every step of the way, you have to confirm you admin rights. What does this protect? Nothing until a user tries to make a change and guess what, he needs another prompt to confirm admin rights. It is authorization prompts the user should never have to see until they want to change something.

Why was it done this way? The NT architecture was never really designed to have such tight security. So Microsoft had to put a bandaid over the problem.

Is Vista pretty? Heck yeah and they finally added some features that can improve productivity but there are other OSes that beat them to the punch

 

[stash]

Windows went the other route. Want to look at device manager, BAM, you need admin rights. Want to look at a device. Bam you need admin rights. Every step of the way, you have to confirm you admin rights.

Not true at all, you can view device manager, etc without being prompted. You should only get prompted if you are using an account that is already in the admins group. A regular user will not get prompted

The NT architecture was never really designed to have such tight security.

O RLY?

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: stash

Windows went the other route. Want to look at device manager, BAM, you need admin rights. Want to look at a device. Bam you need admin rights. Every step of the way, you have to confirm you admin rights.

Not true at all, you can view device manager, etc without being prompted. You should only get prompted if you are using an account that is already in the admins group. A regular user will not get prompted

The NT architecture was never really designed to have such tight security.

O RLY?

Don't have a Vista machine sitting in front of me anymore but I do remember, every step of the way going through the control panel required "authorization" even when I wasn't changing anything.

As to NT architecture not being designed for tight security, it is absolutely true. The only thing thought about in terms of security was file system security with NTFS. That was it really.

Hence why until Vista, you couldn't really run as a limited user account without real headaches. However, every other modern OS lets you run as a non system account without issue. As a limited account in XP and prior, you could not easily install applications because it did not have process elevation.

So yeah it wasn't designed for it. What Microsoft has done is apply a bandaid to the problem.

 

[stash]

Don't have a Vista machine sitting in front of me anymore but I do remember, every step of the way going through the control panel required "authorization" even when I wasn't changing anything.

First of all, that sounds like beta1 or maybe beta2. Lots of changes there. Second, re-read my first comment...the experience is different depending on what group your account is in.

As to NT architecture not being designed for tight security, it is absolutely true. The only thing thought about in terms of security was file system security with NTFS. That was it really.

Uh huh. I guess that's why both Windows 2000, XP and Server 2003 received a Common Criteria assurance level of EAL4+. This means that if you configure those systems using the CC guidance from Microsoft, you are assured of a very high level of security and flexibility. NT4 was also certified using the precursor to CC.

I've been working with customers that have been following the principles of least-privilege for many years now. It really wasn't that difficult to do before Vista. Most of the problems occur with applications that are poorly written, but secure workarounds are almost always available and generally not too difficult to implement.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: stash

Don't have a Vista machine sitting in front of me anymore but I do remember, every step of the way going through the control panel required "authorization" even when I wasn't changing anything.

First of all, that sounds like beta1 or maybe beta2. Lots of changes there. Second, re-read my first comment...the experience is different depending on what group your account is in.

As to NT architecture not being designed for tight security, it is absolutely true. The only thing thought about in terms of security was file system security with NTFS. That was it really.

Uh huh. I guess that's why both Windows 2000, XP and Server 2003 received a Common Criteria assurance level of EAL4+. This means that if you configure those systems using the CC guidance from Microsoft, you are assured of a very high level of security and flexibility. NT4 was also certified using the precursor to CC.

I've been working with customers that have been following the principles of least-privilege for many years now. It really wasn't that difficult to do before Vista. Most of the problems occur with applications that are poorly written, but secure workarounds are almost always available and generally not too difficult to implement.

RC2 is what I was running....


As for EAL4+, I work for the government in the IT sector. I know all about security levels. You are addressing something totally different than what I am talking about.

Maybe we should define in what sense we are talking about. Windows was designed with file system security in mind and either you have admin rights or not. There was no thought to process escalation. So everyone has to use an administrator account for everyday use. I am sure you understand how insecure that makes NT.

Vista has tried to address this but the whole NT architecture wasn't designed with this in mind from the start. Security is the first thing you address in terms of architecture, not the last thing. That is doing security backwards......

For instance, when I am working on a Services Oriented Architecture, I don't address security last. It is the first thing I address. I address the security standards our services are going to be required to use. Security should not be an afterthought.

 

[mchammer]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: stash

Windows went the other route. Want to look at device manager, BAM, you need admin rights. Want to look at a device. Bam you need admin rights. Every step of the way, you have to confirm you admin rights.

Not true at all, you can view device manager, etc without being prompted. You should only get prompted if you are using an account that is already in the admins group. A regular user will not get prompted

The NT architecture was never really designed to have such tight security.

O RLY?

Don't have a Vista machine sitting in front of me anymore but I do remember, every step of the way going through the control panel required "authorization" even when I wasn't changing anything.

As to NT architecture not being designed for tight security, it is absolutely true. The only thing thought about in terms of security was file system security with NTFS. That was it really.
Hence why until Vista, you couldn't really run as a limited user account without real headaches. However, every other modern OS lets you run as a non system account without issue. As a limited account in XP and prior, you could not easily install applications because it did not have process elevation.

So yeah it wasn't designed for it. What Microsoft has done is apply a bandaid to the problem.

Dude you are completely talking out of your ass here. NT has lots of stuff built into the kernel, like PID, etc. You know it must be good, the guys that did it were from DEC.
Anyway MS made the implementation decisions they did for backwards compatability and ease of use. With Vista that is starting to change a bit.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: mchammer

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: stash

Windows went the other route. Want to look at device manager, BAM, you need admin rights. Want to look at a device. Bam you need admin rights. Every step of the way, you have to confirm you admin rights.

Not true at all, you can view device manager, etc without being prompted. You should only get prompted if you are using an account that is already in the admins group. A regular user will not get prompted

The NT architecture was never really designed to have such tight security.

O RLY?

Don't have a Vista machine sitting in front of me anymore but I do remember, every step of the way going through the control panel required "authorization" even when I wasn't changing anything.

As to NT architecture not being designed for tight security, it is absolutely true. The only thing thought about in terms of security was file system security with NTFS. That was it really.
Hence why until Vista, you couldn't really run as a limited user account without real headaches. However, every other modern OS lets you run as a non system account without issue. As a limited account in XP and prior, you could not easily install applications because it did not have process elevation.

So yeah it wasn't designed for it. What Microsoft has done is apply a bandaid to the problem.

Dude you are completely talking out of your ass here. NT has lots of stuff built into the kernel, like PID, etc. You know it must be good, the guys that did it were from DEC.
Anyway MS made the implementation decisions they did for backwards compatability and ease of use. With Vista that is starting to change a bit.

Oh ok, you said so and provided so many examples....

Oh wait you didn't. You say so many things in the kernel like PID. Just so you know, PID=Process ID. Pretty much required for the OS to run......

That doesn't mean there is anything in place to stop processes from using another processes memory space nor are there capabilities in place for elevation.

How about you provide examples instead of saying, it has stuff in place.

Simple fact. When NT 3.1 was designed security was not high on the board. At the time it was the RIGHT decision. Security wasn't nearly as big a problem as it is today.

You people seem to think I am saying what they did was wrong. It wasn't wrong for when it was done. The issue is that they have been building on the NT architecture for at least 13 years.

Now security is a issue. There are issues that have to be dealt with. Simple concepts that unix has dealt with for YEARS are just now getting addressed in Vista. I think the implmentation sucks and is a bandaid.

That doesn't mean that Microsoft won't get their act together. The first version of IE STUNK. By IE5 it was the browser to use. Then MS let things slip.

It is called being objective about the situation. Vista isn't a crap OS. There are things I really didn't like about it. Just like there are things I don't like about OS X.

 

[drag]

Simple fact. When NT 3.1 was designed security was not high on the board. At the time it was the RIGHT decision. Security wasn't nearly as big a problem as it is today.

haha. It wasn't high on the board for Microsoft, you mean.
But that's neither here nor there.


The issue with being a PITA for limited accounts is just the Win32 legacy. Doesn't realy have anything to do with NT. This stuff goes back to DOS days. This is why you can still make files executable and change other aspects of file management by changing the last 3 letters of a file name.

Application designers for Windows still have the mindset that they are designing applications for single user computers. Even with families were you have 3-4 people with different accounts it's still essentially used as a single user operating system. One user at a time.

With Unix it's always been multiuser. You can still easily find shell account services running FreeBSD or Linux to sign up with that will have hundreds of users on a single system at a time with dozens and dozens running applications and doing their thing at the same time. So having limited accounts was a absolutely nessicary from the get-go. Users, if given a chance, will desperately find ways to piss each other off and do all sorts of bizzare things. So they have to be kept seperate from each other.

So this reflects heavily in the sort of expectations application developers have placed on themselves. In otherwords they don't care to make their stuff work in a limited account because they don't have to, their customers's expectations are not to that level yet.

 

[Shawn]

Uhh... well if anyone was wondering if vista supports QAM, it doesn't. At least not at the present time. I tried. However, Avermedia is developing their own software if anyone is interested.

From their tech support:

Reply:
Windows Vista Media Center does not support QAM tuning. However, we are
working on a standalone application that will allow you to tune to the QAM
stations.

Anyway I went back to XP MCE. I probably won't be buying vista anytime soon unless they include QAM tuning in a software update or something. That's the only thing I want.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Shawn
Uhh... well if anyone was wondering if vista supports QAM, it doesn't. At least not at the present time. I tried. However, Avermedia is developing their own software if anyone is interested.

From their tech support:

Reply:
Windows Vista Media Center does not support QAM tuning. However, we are
working on a standalone application that will allow you to tune to the QAM
stations.

Anyway I went back to XP MCE. I probably won't be buying vista anytime soon unless their include QAM tuning in a software update or something. That's the only thing I want.

Yeah, Snapstream says basically the same thing on their forums: working on it, no date.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: Tom
I seriously doubt Microsoft wants this to be possible.

At it's heart, Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It's essentially a non-operating system, designed to take control of computers out of consumer's hands.

Not the stupidest thing ever posted here about Vista, but pretty damned close.

I take it you have no actual refutation, just a moronic comment ?

How does he refute anything when you didn't provide any examples or proof yourself.

So how does he refute something that doesn't exist. Provide specific examples so he can continue to expose your stupidity.

What I said is clear. I forgot that some people need things explained in detail to understand..

A computer consists of 3 things, hardware, applications, and an operating system. Until Vista, the purpose of an operating system was to provide applications, and the user, with access to the hardware. With Vista, the function of the operating system has changed, instead of enabling the use of hardware, it restricts the use of hardware, at the operating system level. That is what I meant by calling it a non-operating system, because it prevents the full capabilities of hardware from being used. This has been done previously, but not at the operating system level, but with applications.

Most of the hype about Vista revolves around applications. Because they are shipped with Vista, and because Microsoft markets them as part of an operating system, some of you think these applications are part of an operating system, but they aren't.

Aero, Media Center, most security features, search features, are all applications. Vista makes incremental changes in lots of these, note I say changes, not improvements, because the changes aren't universally improvements.

None of these applications are fundamental changes in the operating system, but the shift away from the basic purpose of an operating system to provide access to hardware, to the regulation of access to hardware, is a big change.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: Tom
I seriously doubt Microsoft wants this to be possible.

At it's heart, Vista's real purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer. It's essentially a non-operating system, designed to take control of computers out of consumer's hands.

Not the stupidest thing ever posted here about Vista, but pretty damned close.

I take it you have no actual refutation, just a moronic comment ?

How does he refute anything when you didn't provide any examples or proof yourself.

So how does he refute something that doesn't exist. Provide specific examples so he can continue to expose your stupidity.

What I said is clear. I forgot that some people need things explained in detail to understand..

A computer consists of 3 things, hardware, applications, and an operating system. Until Vista, the purpose of an operating system was to provide applications, and the user, with access to the hardware. With Vista, the function of the operating system has changed, instead of enabling the use of hardware, it restricts the use of hardware, at the operating system level. That is what I meant by calling it a non-operating system, because it prevents the full capabilities of hardware from being used. This has been done previously, but not at the operating system level, but with applications.

Most of the hype about Vista revolves around applications. Because they are shipped with Vista, and because Microsoft markets them as part of an operating system, some of you think these applications are part of an operating system, but they aren't.

Aero, Media Center, most security features, search features, are all applications. Vista makes incremental changes in lots of these, note I say changes, not improvements, because the changes aren't universally improvements.

None of these applications are fundamental changes in the operating system, but the shift away from the basic purpose of an operating system to provide access to hardware, to the regulation of access to hardware, is a big change.

Markbnj's comment was an observation, not a CHALLENGE. You can stop trying to obtain "stupidest thing ever posted" status if you want.

 

[Markbnj]

Most of the hype about Vista revolves around applications. Because they are shipped with Vista, and because Microsoft markets them as part of an operating system, some of you think these applications are part of an operating system, but they aren't.

Aero, Media Center, most security features, search features, are all applications. Vista makes incremental changes in lots of these, note I say changes, not improvements, because the changes aren't universally improvements.

I don't think you have much to teach the community here about what an operating system is, or isn't. In my case, specifically, I had a pretty clear idea what one was when Jimmy Carter was still president.

Media Center is an application. If you can find a note from any of the regular members here suggesting that they think it is part of the O/S go ahead and post it. Aero is a GUI, and regardless of what layer of the system you think it ought to be described as inhabiting, it certainly isn't an application in the usual sense of the word.

Your last comment is an opinion, and you're welcome to it.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Tom
Markbnj's comment was an observation, not a CHALLENGE. You can stop trying to obtain stupidest thing ever posted status if you want.


His observation had nothing to do with the topic. My post did. If he had something to say that was relevant, he should have said it, which is what I said in reply to him.

As far as your or his assessment of the quality of what I said, that is completely irrelevant to the topic, unless you specifically refute some point I made. I'm sure neither you or he are capable of doing so though, which is why instead of making a useful post, you make cute remarks.

Please don't PM me with this crap. Post it out here in the thread where I can ignore it.



What is it we're supposed to be refuting again? Is it the "Vista's purpose is to restrict what is possible with a computer" comment? It's too retarded to get a response. Explain WTF you are saying man.

I'm glad you thought my responses were cute. Thanks