HD3200 and UVD2 clarification

[Dieter]

> there are really about 5 different revisions of UVD

> the official line between UVD1 and UVD2

Interesting. Obviously we should be using floating point
to describe this. UVD1.998 vs. UVD2.002 :-)

But the real question is when will we be able to decode
video using some variety of UVD and FLOSS-only software
(binary-only blobs are not acceptable)? A solution that
only supports UVD 3.x and newer is probably ok. Mpeg2
is sufficient, I don't need every obscure codec in the book.

The day I read about this working is the day I start
shopping for an ATI GPU.

[yotambien]

But the real question is when will we be able to decode
video using some variety of UVD and FLOSS-only software
(binary-only blobs are not acceptable)? A solution that
only supports UVD 3.x and newer is probably ok. Mpeg2
is sufficient, I don't need every obscure codec in the book.

In principle never, unless somehow somebody manages to decouple the DRM protected bits from the rest--if I'm not mistaken. On top of that, apparently the OSS developers are not particularly interested on this area, be it because there isn't any monetary incentive, because of codec patents (go figure), and because you know, the majority of linux users only watch pirated movies anyway.

[Ragool]

Thank you all for the useful posts esp Bridgman. I will wait for the shady er shader business to complete. When is the ETA for this? Can we expect this in Ubuntu 9.0,4 final?

TIA
Regards