Does Geovision have the market on CCTV capture cards?

[videobruce 0]

Are these the Wintel/Motorola/Sony of the CCTV industry?

[CameraGenius 0]

Wintel lol

 

Geovision is good, but there are MANY different DVR Card manufacturers that are very reputable and have good products.

 

No need to get angry

[videobruce 0]

I don't like monoplies hence the references to those manufactures where each one DOES have a monopoly in each field.

 

Why won't these cards work with Via chipsets? It isn't a performance issue.

[CameraGenius 0]

your right it's a compatibility issue

[videobruce 0]

The question is; why aren't they compatable? This isn't rocket science, or shouldn't be.

[phred 0]

The question is; why aren't they compatable? This isn't rocket science, or shouldn't be.

 

 

Google 'Via chipset problem'

 

Creating something as complex as a chipset and bios engineering is probably more difficult than rocket science.

[rory 0]

use the GV250 .. works with Via

 

Also, GeoVision is definitely not the only cards that dont work well with Via.

The others Ive seen and used are the same.

[CameraGenius 0]

Via chipset = large pile of dung

[mcburner 0]

The question is; why aren't they compatable? This isn't rocket science, or shouldn't be.

 

 

Google 'Via chipset problem'

 

Creating something as complex as a chipset and bios engineering is probably more difficult than rocket science.

 

I agree!

[marzsit 0]

via chipsets have always had problems ever since they made the first athlon support chips.. for many common i/o cards there are 3rd party work-arounds out there, but cctv is such a small market compared to gaming and cad that i doubt it's possible to make every dvr card work in a via chipset motherboard. most people in-the-know tend to stick to intel hardware for dvr and security systems.

[videobruce 0]

Via chipset = large pile of dung

Bulls**t! The "pile" is the Wintel monoply in the computer industry with the close relationship M$ has with Intel effectively locking out anyone else. The O/S is designed around the Intel processor and chipsets making it difficult for Via/AMD to compete. For anyone that supports the 'Wintel machine' you only make it worse. Wintel has no reason to change.

 

Best example is Idiot Exploiter. Finally in the past few years people have woke up to the fact IE is not the only browser. They also discovered IE is nothing but bloated, full of sercurity holes and completely overated since it it forced on you from day one. Alternate browsers as Opera and Moxilla/Firefox and taken a large chunk out of Bills' quest for domination of the internet.

 

Google 'Via chipset problem'

I did, now YOU Goggle "Intel chipset problem" and give me a count on how many 'hits' you get.

 

Most/many of the problems with the early Via chipset drivers were the 4in1 driver package from 5 or so years ago.

 

My point is; these companies knew there was a problem with this "HiNT" chip, but they went ahead and used it anyway. Via chipset boards have been very popular in the 'enthuist' community since they always gave the uses options that were unavailable with Wintel boards. Guess they don't get the 'hint'.

 

Oh, as far as the "rocket science" part, I was using it in the extream.

[CollinR 0]

My point is; these companies knew there was a problem with this "HiNT" chip, but they went ahead and used it anyway. Via chipset boards have been very popular in the 'enthuist' community since they always gave the uses options that were unavailable with Wintel boards. Guess they don't get the 'hint'.

 

Oh, as far as the "rocket science" part, I was using it in the extream.

 

I think everyone else's point is this basically only effects Via, why can Sis make compatable chips?

 

Via is cool for tiny embedded systems and thats really about it.

 

 

What is an example of one of these features or functions only available in Via chipsets?

[videobruce 0]

Overclocking the processor (something I didn't subscribe to). Untill recently, Intel didn't support AMD (natually).

[CollinR 0]

The only thing you couldn't do on Intel CPUs was unlock the CPU multiplier factor, you could still overclock them very well. Back in that time the 66 mhz FSB celeron was the one to clock as Abit and Asus had Intel chipset motherboards that would go from 66-200 1mhz at a time.

 

This is almost entirely based on the motherboard and bios design. I had more issues with sound cards, NICs and modems from the modified FSB then the northbridge, Via or Intel.

 

At that time AMD also wasn't actively promoting that you could hack their CPUs by a graphite trace from a pencil either.

 

I can see you wanting an AMD CPU, it's just Via I can't. I have no problems with AMD.

 

I am glad to see AMD take ATI, I hope they clean up ATIs act.

 

-

If you connect all your theater devices to the display and then the digital audio from the display to the reciever your PiP functions will work. Even PiP with secondary audio or mixer if the TV has it. Otherwise if running through the reciever you would need to loop them all out, which I haven't seen a reciever that can at any price.

[phred 0]

Google 'Via chipset problem'

I did, now YOU Goggle "Intel chipset problem" and give me a count on how many 'hits' you get.

 

Most/many of the problems with the early Via chipset drivers were the 4in1 driver package from 5 or so years ago.

 

Oh, as far as the "rocket science" part, I was using it in the extream.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I was not offering an opinion, just pointing you to possible explanations.

 

There is no doubt that Intel wanted to maintain a monopoly on chipsets for the P4 and patented several technologies related to the PCI bus and the way data was handled. This meant that anyone attempting to make a chipset for the P4 had to pay license fees to Intel. Via considered this unfair and produced chipsets for the P4 without paying the license to Intel. Intel sued Via in several countries – Via counter-sued Intel.

 

It is remarkable that Via managed to make a chipset at all for the P4 considering their acrimonious relationship with Intel.

 

My opinion, for what it is worth - Intel may have a legal right to protect their patents but they have an unhealthy appetite for bullying their rivals.

[kensplace 0]

Intel is quite like microsoft in that respect then... Most corporations (large ones) seem pretty much alike in many respects.

[phred 0]

Intel is quite like microsoft in that respect then... Most corporations (large ones) seem pretty much alike in many respects.

 

Sure, put the two together and you have a potent brew.

 

They are not all bad though – Kodak are really nice people.

[kensplace 0]

Apart from the fact they tried to sue the makers of java, and tried to sue sony, over CCD image sensors - if kodak had had their way, the cctv industry would have probably been in deep trouble...

[phred 0]

Apart from the fact they tried to sue the makers of java, and tried to sue sony, over CCD image sensors - if kodak had had their way, the cctv industry would have probably been in deep trouble...

 

I was thinking more of the 'corporate culture'. HP used to be similar years

ago while IBM were a bunch or arrogant *****

 

For such a large company Kodak are pretty far down the lawsuit table

compared with Microsoft and Intel. Surprising when they hold over 1000

patents on camera technology alone. As for the Sony case they obviously

agreed that Kodak had a valid point as they eventually paid up and signed

a licensing agreement without going to court- same agreement was

already in place with Sanyo and Olympus.

Kodak also accepted some of Sony's technology as part payment.

 

Courts also found in favor of Kodak in the Sun Java case.

The same technology has been licensed to many, including Microsoft, for

many years so why should Sun get it for free - Sun were effectively

charging their own clients for technology belonging to Kodak.

 

Many of Intel's lawsuits against Via failed despite their huge legal budget.

 

Just thinking about it, I have lost count of the number of lawsuits Intel filed

against Via and I don't remember too many succeeding.

[videobruce 0]

My opinion, for what it is worth - Intel may have a legal right to protect their patents but they have an unhealthy appetite for bullying their rivals.

We seem to be on the same page now.

Before all of that, my issue has been designing software around hardware and vice-versa. Effectively locking out most compition, hence the "Wintel". I didn't coin the phase.

 

This extends anywhere from software; Office, for example to browsers and all those webmasters that design websites around something that isn't, hasn't and never will be any kind of standard just because they are paid (one way or the other) to do so, or they are just lazy and don't care (or know better).

 

I have lost count of the number of lawsuits Intel filed

against Via and I don't remember too many succeeding.

What a vast waste of money.

Just as with PTZ protocols; why do you need more than one?

[marzsit 0]

Via chipset = large pile of dung

Bulls**t! The "pile" is the Wintel monoply in the computer industry with the close relationship M$ has with Intel effectively locking out anyone else. The O/S is designed around the Intel processor and chipsets making it difficult for Via/AMD to compete. For anyone that supports the 'Wintel machine' you only make it worse. Wintel has no reason to change.

 

 

not totally true, as windows xp was created to take advantage of additional instructions inherent to the amd athlon xp processor, it wasn't written specifically for intel silicon....