These tables are very often incorrect, and are overridden by the Windows driver shipped by mainboard manufacturer or the chip supplier. Thus with these drivers installed, in Windows this table has no effect. The recommendation to update BIOS and then update the driver is a catch-all. Updating the BIOS will fix audio for people running the generic driver which relies on BIOS tables, and updating the mainboard specific driver will undo the damage that the prior version of the driver might have done.
On Linux in the last 10 years, pretty much all issues with Intel HD Audio compatible sound chip support has been traced back to incorrect verb tables, and the distribution drivers attempt to detect mainboards and soundchips and apply corrected tables themselves.
I'm still using a Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium in my current system. Sounds great, has really good compatibility with both older games and newer ones, and it has solid Windows 10 drivers. I haven't had a single issue with it since I got it back in 2008 and have used it across 3 separate builds. I tried a Z for a couple weeks back in 2012, but quickly switched back. Everything, from the sound to the feature set, felt like a step backwards. Same with every onboard audio solution I've tried. Not bad, just lacking in either features or sound quality.
same here! I know use the Titanium as well but before that I was using the X-Fi Forte 7.1 one until latest win10 killed it's drivers. You would think that since it's a X-Fi card the drivers would work but nope... it is a shame because it's output quality was even better than the creative cards... all my systems since many years use some form of x-fi card , I am very pleased with them
I thought it might be interesting to see EAX in action under Windows XP, I suppose that would require older Creative model, right? It doesn't seem like anyone intends to write a XP compatible wrapper like DSOAL that would work regardless of what sound card or its drivers support. That alone wouldn't be worth it for me, just a nice bonus.
For headphones, I use a Creative X-Fi SB0720 USB thing with a large volume wheel. It sounds really good with my on-ear SONYs and I enjoy it.For speakers, I have a ASUS XONAR AE which sounds really good as well, but the drivers are pile of trash and the built-in headphone amplifier is kind of weak.For cassette/ reel tape recording, I use a Sound Blaster Audigy 2 (Gold), which paired with an EQ sounds incredible (my favorite card to this day, the XONAR AE couldn't match it).
I've thought about getting one of the newer creative SB cards but the ZXr still seem to be supported with working drivers so I'm good for now. Anyone have any experience with EVGAs sound card they released like a year or two ago?
LT: Heh. That's so long ago that I couldn't even begin to summarize things. It's been a decade since 3.0, and we've had a lot of technical changes in that decade. ARM has grown up and ARM64 has become one of our primary architectures. Lots and lots of new drivers, and new core functionality.
All of this has remained fairly unchanged in the last ten years, although we do end up having a lot more automation in place. Kernel testing automation is hard in general - partly because so much of the kernel is drivers which then obviously depends on hardware availability - but there are several farms doing both boot and performance testing, and do various randomized load testing. And that has improved a lot over the years.
It's not the arm64 part that ends up being the problem, but all the drivers for the hardware around it (the SSD and GPU in particular). The early work so far gets some of the really low-level stuff working, but doesn't result in anything useful outside of early hardware enablement. It will take some time for it to be a real option for people to try out.
So there are obviously lots of things that are "not optimal" in the sense that anything can be improved, but the way you phrase the question, I'd have to say that no, there's nothing there that I despise. There's legacy drivers that nobody is ever going to care about enough to clean up, and so they may do ugly things, but a key part of that is "nobody cares enough". It hasn't been a problem, and when it does become a problem we tend to fairly actively remove true legacy support that we can't find anybody that cares about. So we've gotten rid of lots of drivers over the years, and we've gotten rid of whole architecture support when it no longer makes any sense at all to maintain.
LT: We'll see. I don't think Rust will take over the core kernel, but doing individual drivers (and maybe whole driver subsystems) in it doesn't sound entirely unlikely. Maybe filesystems too. So it's not "replace C", but more of "augment our C code where it makes sense".
Of course, drivers in particular is about half of the actual kernel code, so there's a lot of room for that, but I don't think anybody is really expecting to rewrite existing drivers in Rust wholesale, more of a "some people will do new drivers in Rust, and a couple of drivers might be rewritten where it makes sense".
But at the same time, this is very much a function of "what part of the kernel do you care about". The kernel is big enough that different developers (and different users) will simply have different opinions of what matters most. Some people think scheduling is the most exciting part of the kernel. Others like the nitty-gritty of device drivers (and we have a lot of those). I personally tend to be more involved in the VM and VFS areas, so I then naturally point to those.
To obtain BIOS, drivers, BSPs or EVKs for VIA Embedded boards and systems please visit the respective product page you are inquiring about and click on the downloads tab. For older products please search in our EOL section of the site. 2b1af7f3a8