audio stream error in videostudio 8 on Vista

[sjj1805]

..................If the software has to be modified that heavily to work in VISTA then it is either badly designed or has too much legacy support.

I actually wish Microsoft would just cut the cord on legacy support and move on. Windows needs a clean slate to truly become the operating system it should be and that is very difficult when trying to support old technologies. I'm not an Apple fan but they had the guts to make that decision in OSX. Windows could benefit largely from this. So could other software developers.

Isn't that the reason Microdaft has been dragged through various International Courts over the years - by removing competitors from the Market - or at least attempting to do so thus the Court Suits.

Wouldn't removing legacy support be like stepping back to the pre-Windows days when there were dozens of Computer manufacturers and you were forced to purchase their hard drives, their keyboards and so on and so we ended up with dozens of computer systems unable to 'Talk to each other.'

Apple, Commodore, Spectrum, Dragon, Amstrad, Even the BBC had one.
Perhaps the most famous was that odd little thing by Clive Sinclair with a stick to let you press the little rubber keys.

[htchien]

Whenever I try to play a project file, I now get the error:

"Failed to use DirectShow video engine. Cannot play back the audio stream: no audio hardware is available, or the hardware is not responding."
[13102:2:4]

Of course the hardware is working fine (it's built-in sound on an ECS KN1-Lite, Realtec AC '97 audio). There are no errors in any log files I can find, no other programs have problems with the sound.

Am I just SOL? Or is there a way to fix this?

Hi, Realtek has changed something in the driver for Vista to cause the incompatibility. It should be resolved in the upcoming UVS 10 Vista.

Upon install of UVS 10 Trial version, windows tells me "This program has known compatibility issues". I can't find any details regarding what the issues are or why this message is displayed. The only details are "for more information, Contact Ulead Systems, Inc." (!!)

If I click past all these errors (happens a couple of times), and get to the end of the install, the program will not run at all. I only get "Limit users can not try this product. You can use normally after successful activation."

So it doesn't seem to run at all. Even if I wanted to activate it, I can't get past this message to get to the activation (wherever it may be).

Is this just a Vista issue, or does the "trial" version not do anything?

It's a Vista issue.

UVS now is going through the Vista compatibility process and will release a Vista compatible version after Vista is been released.

For Limited User issue, please go to Control Panel->User Account in Vista, and then uncheck the User Account Control check box. Or, you can right click on the program icon and select Run as Administrator.

If not uncheck the UAC box, Vista will run every program in limited user account type by default.

H.T.

[GuyL]

..................If the software has to be modified that heavily to work in VISTA then it is either badly designed or has too much legacy support.

I actually wish Microsoft would just cut the cord on legacy support and move on. Windows needs a clean slate to truly become the operating system it should be and that is very difficult when trying to support old technologies. I'm not an Apple fan but they had the guts to make that decision in OSX. Windows could benefit largely from this. So could other software developers.

Isn't that the reason Microdaft has been dragged through various International Courts over the years - by removing competitors from the Market - or at least attempting to do so thus the Court Suits.

Wouldn't removing legacy support be like stepping back to the pre-Windows days when there were dozens of Computer manufacturers and you were forced to purchase their hard drives, their keyboards and so on and so we ended up with dozens of computer systems unable to 'Talk to each other.'

Apple, Commodore, Spectrum, Dragon, Amstrad, Even the BBC had one.
Perhaps the most famous was that odd little thing by Clive Sinclair with a stick to let you press the little rubber keys.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. By legacy, I mean support for older technologies just to remain backward compatible. I don't by any means support going back to proprietary systems. At some point, you have to move on or you will never progress. From what I can tell, the 64-bit version of VISTA is on its way to leaving the past behind..... and its about time. The 16-bit application model will finally bite the dust - DOS is finally dead.

[htchien]

Simply put, No VS10, VS10+ and especially VS8 will not function on any beta release of Vista.

VS 8/9 might not work on Vista and is not suggested to run on Vista.

I don't think Vista will run on Vista... I would not look for any of Ulead's applications to run properly on Vista until 2008 and that's questionable..

A compatible version soon which may be working properly in 2008 maybe ?
Martin

That, would be most disappointing. I guess we solved the pronunciation of the name now. They don't lead for sure if they are not preparing for a new operating system now are they?

Not so late I believe. Vista will be released in next Feb on time and I believe UVS Vista will be ready.

If you wish to know, InterVideo WinDVD 8 which released 2 weeks ago is a Vista ready product. So will be UVS Vista.

While this might on the surface appear to be 'exciting news' (to some)
I hope that this does not become the start of the end of support for XP systems.

Steve, I believe Ulead will continue to support XP until Microsoft stop the support for XP, just like the situation for Windows 98/ME.

H.T.

[CycleWriter]

That, would be most disappointing. I guess we solved the pronunciation of the name now. They don't lead for sure if they are not preparing for a new operating system now are they?

How is a company supposed to work with an OS that isn't even in retail distribution channels yet? Should Ulead invest $$$ in making their products work with a beta or release candidate version only to find out that the shipping version is significantly different enough to have made that investment worthless? Come on, people. Use some common sense.

[CycleWriter]

If the software has to be modified that heavily to work in VISTA then it is either badly designed or has too much legacy support.

I actually wish Microsoft would just cut the cord on legacy support and move on. Windows needs a clean slate to truly become the operating system it should be and that is very difficult when trying to support old technologies. I'm not an Apple fan but they had the guts to make that decision in OSX. Windows could benefit largely from this. So could other software developers.

Maybe if Microsoft would focus more on just making its OS work reliably and less on the kitchen-sink approach of trying to incorporate functions better left to 3rd party developers, they might have fewer conflicts. Instead, they have added so many applets to Windows that have nothing to do with the actual OS that they are either unused or they conflict with software that would do a much better job. Every Windows installation is a huge amalgam of technologies that are either licensed by MS or have been "acquired" by MS, mainly as a way for MS to control that portion of the market. THAT, is the MS legacy. Anyone who doesn't see each iteration of a new Windows OS as Microsoft's latest attempt to squeeze out even more 3rd party software development is clueless.

[GuyL]

Then use another o/s. If you don't like the MS way use another product. If you don't like the Wal-Mart way, shop somewhere else. If you don't like a capitalist society, move to a socialistic one and get in line for your share. Life is full of choices.

[Ron P.]

I agree CW, the last actual OS that M$ put out was Win3.1 that sat ontop of MS-DOS. The only other "app" was a simple wordpad, or paint. You had to install Wordperfect for a word-processor, and maybe Lotus or DBase. I'll bet if M$ put out the same idea now, systems would run so fast Ripley wouldn't believe it. But... then came M$ Office, and well you know the rest...

M$ does employ the capitalist way of business, however it boarders on the socialist. In order to be able to use some programs, you are forced by the great one to use their product only. Apple/Mac is a prime example of that. It is difficult to find the numbers of programs that will run on them, without having some type of "plug-in" so it mimics M$.

[CycleWriter]

Then use another o/s. If you don't like the MS way use another product. If you don't like the Wal-Mart way, shop somewhere else. If you don't like a capitalist society, move to a socialistic one and get in line for your share. Life is full of choices.

What MS does is not capitalism, it is anti-competitive. They have made it so expensive for a small software company to compete that the few that do are forced to use unprofitable mechanisms to distribute their product. Once a company comes up with a product that competes or is better than an MS offering, they are either bought up by MS or become a "strategic partner." Sounds good, but the consumer loses out on another innovative company once it gets mired in the MS way of doing things. And MS has a long history of simply appropriating code as their own and waiting to get sued before fessing up. Most of the time these companies simply fold from the burden of litigation or get scooped up by MS in a quiet deal. Saying MS is a capitalist company is like saying Stalin was a libertarian.

[CycleWriter]

I agree CW, the last actual OS that M$ put out was Win3.1 that sat ontop of MS-DOS. The only other "app" was a simple wordpad, or paint. You had to install Wordperfect for a word-processor, and maybe Lotus or DBase. I'll bet if M$ put out the same idea now, systems would run so fast Ripley wouldn't believe it. But... then came M$ Office, and well you know the rest...

MS is so focused on making the PC the center of the computing universe that they have forgotten that there are many of us who don't want it to control our appliances, don't need it to run our lives and simply want to get certain specific tasks done. Windows is so bloated with code to allow things like movie editing, virus protection, firewalls, music encoding, CD burning, web surfing, e-mail and a dozen other applets, almost all of which are better done by third party developers. The problem is that all that code and all those DLL and other bits and pieces are still in the OS. They often end up conflicting with 3rd party software even when not being used. There are so many mysterious things that happen in Windows that have no explanation, and I'm talking about Windows itself. I'm often left scratching my head when Windows does or doesn't do something it is supposed to that has nothing to do with another vendor's program. Missing screen elements, confusing dialog boxes, mystery applet hangs, slow processing of a Windows task...the list goes on. And getting Windows certification for your program is a nightmare. Unless you're a premier software developer like Adobe, you'll never get full access to the Windows code you need to make a program that works seamlessly. I guess MS is concerned about competitors doing to them what they've been doing for years. The anti-trust suit didn't go far enough, if you ask me. Prior to the suit, there were several OS optiona available. Today, there are two, linux and Mac. Linux is hardly a ready-for-prime-time solution and the Mac is an overpriced donkey with its own share of problems. In fact, if not for the iPod I dare say Apple would have ceased to exist years ago.

[sjj1805]

Gents, I think we have aired this one enough now.
Post locked.