Protip: Most of them are owned by, or subsidiaries of, Level 3. Of those that have failed to adequately obfuscate their phone numbers, every single one I've gotten so far has originated from Level 3 or a company directly related to them.
I do believe the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act has Anti-tying provisions that would explicitly forbid this kinda of fuckery. I might be wrong. A further reading of court interpretations is required, I already know the act itself.
There is no USB 1.1 hub as the device transfers files at USB 2.0 speed. Only when switching to camera mode does the device throw up the "This device can perform faster if you connect it to a USB 2.0 port."
Is entirely Microsoft's issue. UVC is a universal video standard. Or, not-so-universal. Turns out, it breaks somewhere between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows. The hardware works in its entirety in Windows XP, and 32-bit Windows 7. It will not work in 64-bit Windows. It will work in 64-bit OSX and various 64-bit Linux distros.
Were this a hardware issue, it wouldn't work AT ALL. That it worked 100% in XP and only 66% (Microphone and USB Mass storage worked) in 64-bit 7 indicates that it's not the hardware itself.
If you look up "rump" in a dictionary, you'll find a definition which involves the group that is left over after a portion of the contents of a larger group have been removed -- the classic example is a rump parliament. The attribute "rump" therefore establishes the relationship between just a kernel and a rump kernel."
So, you just admitted that you couldn't understand an implied low-level technical question for what is likely involving one of the lower-level Windows subsystems (and not a driver issue) and had to read RP garbage to clean it out?
"Why dont you post your question to/r/techsupport?"
Because Reddit is a circlejerk shithouse reminiscent of most Linux 'help' forums?
Because unlike Reddit, I atually expect/. people of my UID or lower to likely have the obviously low-level knowledge required, whereas the majority of Reddit users regurgitate things without bothering to think critically?
Your suggestion is 100% correct. I installed 32-bit 7 and the camera worked off the bat.
Now, to find out why 64-bit 7 A. throws the "This device will perform faster if you connect it to a USB 2.0 port" error and B. does not get video yet gets audio just fine and then see if C. I can rig a driver hack to fix it and get it past WFP.
User Grog6 noted that it would likely work in 32-bit Windows 7 and fail to work entirely under 64-bit Windows 7.
This ends up being correct. There is something off between the 32-bit and 64-bit usbvideo files that makes this particular set of camera glasses not function 100% under 64-bit Windows.
Now for the fun part: figuring out whether or not the difference is so drastic that I can't hack in the missing code, and whether or not I can fake the Microsoft driver signature so WFP doesn't flip its lid (and I'm not going to turn WFP off, sorry!)
Actually, turning it on and off again because of USB enumeration issues was one method of fixing UVC camera issues that was mentioned in my searches for the cause of the issue.
You never know, such a story might come out of this very conversation IF PEOPLE WOULD STAY ON FUCKING TOPIC (I know, this is/.) and not bitch.
Then Slashdot could possibly start becoming the tech hub it used to be - because people with actual knowledge used to be seen collaborating on this site, fixing weird issues like this, providing answers that are actually useful, discussing the deeper inherent issues of such things, instead of griping. Much like/. used to try to do, in the late 90s after it ceased being primarily some geek's blog, and before it sold out the first time.
Attempting this in a 32-bit Windows 7 environment was not something I had considered. I happen to have a 32-bit machine right here, I'll get 32-bit 7 installed and I will report back.
Also, these glasses were manufactured in 2015. You would expect the opposite - that they'd work with 7, and not XP. That they work with XP hints at UVC 1.0 support being subtly broken somehow between XP and 7, since UVC is a Microsoft thing.
I also think UVC 1.0 support got broken somewhere, as 7 sees the device exactly as it should except for claiming it's not on a USB 2.0 port. USB Mass storage works, and when you switch over to camera mode, it does see the camera and microphone, the microphone works, but the video feed does not.
So that leads me to think that something went wonky in the usbvideo.sys or usbvideo.pnf file, or perhaps both.
Anyways, this is not a driver issue, per se. I believe this is a Windows issue. I have seen reprts of other UVC devices in laptops (their built-in webcams) having the exact same issue.
Turns out, those devices are UVC 1.0, and Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, changed something in their newer USB Video Camera driver that breaks devices following the UVC 1.0 spec, despite Microsoft claiming that Windows 7 has full support for UVC 1.0 devices.
For those people with laptop issues, usually they could fix it by finding the (semi-rare) updated driver from the manufacturer website.
This manufacturer has no driver. It is a claimed plug and play. And funnily enough, it works under Linux and OSX 10.4+ as advertised!
This is what leads me to believe that this is not a driver issue on my end, but a MS driver issue.
And I really, REALLY don't feel like having to constantly run in Test Mode to run a modified driver that's protected by WFP.
Slashdot Mirror
"All power supply input pins should be protected against reverse voltage. It's simple, and comprises a single FET."
Too complex, costly, and unnecessary. A simple diode does the trick.
Put the companies selling these services under.
Protip: Most of them are owned by, or subsidiaries of, Level 3. Of those that have failed to adequately obfuscate their phone numbers, every single one I've gotten so far has originated from Level 3 or a company directly related to them.
I do believe the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act has Anti-tying provisions that would explicitly forbid this kinda of fuckery. I might be wrong. A further reading of court interpretations is required, I already know the act itself.
You failed to read your own link, right at the bottom.
H.264 support - NOT AVAILABLE IN XP/VISTA/7. Midway down the page, bottom of the second chart.
Try again when you can actually read and comprehend the source material you're trying to quote.
Shit, I still run XP as admin, firewall off, older browser.
Still hasn't been infected in over a decade.
XP just fucking works.
There is no USB 1.1 hub as the device transfers files at USB 2.0 speed. Only when switching to camera mode does the device throw up the "This device can perform faster if you connect it to a USB 2.0 port."
"XP camera drivers are typically VFW (Video for Windows) based"
Microsoft has utilized UVC since oh 98/Millennium. Only companies trying proprietary crap tied into their software used VFW.
I love how your username continues to belie your ignorance.
This is a UVC issue, period. Apparently you have no clue what UVC entails (codec support is AUTOMATICALLY BUILT-IN.)
Specifically it's a difference between the UVC files usbvideo.sys/.inf/.pnf between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows 7.
While you shoot off at the mouth, a real person with real knowledge isolated the issue immediately.
Way to be useless, like most Linux support forums.
Guess what?
32-bit Win10, works flawlessly.
64-bit Win10, 66% functional (mass storage and microphone work.)
You don't know the Modem AT commands by heart? Who needs drivers when you can talk directly to the hardware, like one would do in DOS?
Is entirely Microsoft's issue. UVC is a universal video standard. Or, not-so-universal. Turns out, it breaks somewhere between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows. The hardware works in its entirety in Windows XP, and 32-bit Windows 7. It will not work in 64-bit Windows. It will work in 64-bit OSX and various 64-bit Linux distros.
Were this a hardware issue, it wouldn't work AT ALL. That it worked 100% in XP and only 66% (Microphone and USB Mass storage worked) in 64-bit 7 indicates that it's not the hardware itself.
Too lazy to read their FAQ?
" Why the name?
If you look up "rump" in a dictionary, you'll find a definition which involves the group that is left over after a portion of the contents of a larger group have been removed -- the classic example is a rump parliament. The attribute "rump" therefore establishes the relationship between just a kernel and a rump kernel."
So, you just admitted that you couldn't understand an implied low-level technical question for what is likely involving one of the lower-level Windows subsystems (and not a driver issue) and had to read RP garbage to clean it out?
"Why dont you post your question to /r/techsupport?"
Because Reddit is a circlejerk shithouse reminiscent of most Linux 'help' forums?
Because unlike Reddit, I atually expect /. people of my UID or lower to likely have the obviously low-level knowledge required, whereas the majority of Reddit users regurgitate things without bothering to think critically?
Because Reddit is a shithole that went SJW?
Need more reasons?
Your suggestion is 100% correct. I installed 32-bit 7 and the camera worked off the bat.
Now, to find out why 64-bit 7 A. throws the "This device will perform faster if you connect it to a USB 2.0 port" error and B. does not get video yet gets audio just fine and then see if C. I can rig a driver hack to fix it and get it past WFP.
User Grog6 noted that it would likely work in 32-bit Windows 7 and fail to work entirely under 64-bit Windows 7.
This ends up being correct. There is something off between the 32-bit and 64-bit usbvideo files that makes this particular set of camera glasses not function 100% under 64-bit Windows.
Now for the fun part: figuring out whether or not the difference is so drastic that I can't hack in the missing code, and whether or not I can fake the Microsoft driver signature so WFP doesn't flip its lid (and I'm not going to turn WFP off, sorry!)
You actually did a decent job. I hadn't had much coffee when I wrote that.
Actually, turning it on and off again because of USB enumeration issues was one method of fixing UVC camera issues that was mentioned in my searches for the cause of the issue.
Sadly, it did not work.
Manufacture? ExcelVan. Model? No fucking clue.
"This could be something as simple as a codec package to support H.264"
Not being a UVC 1.0 device, no. That's MPEG/MJPEG. UVC 1.0 has no h.264 support.
You never know, such a story might come out of this very conversation IF PEOPLE WOULD STAY ON FUCKING TOPIC (I know, this is /.) and not bitch.
Then Slashdot could possibly start becoming the tech hub it used to be - because people with actual knowledge used to be seen collaborating on this site, fixing weird issues like this, providing answers that are actually useful, discussing the deeper inherent issues of such things, instead of griping. Much like /. used to try to do, in the late 90s after it ceased being primarily some geek's blog, and before it sold out the first time.
Take your 7-digit nonsense outta here, sonny. This is real tech talk, because we're getting into actual subsystems, not simple drivers. Deuces!
Yes, they do claim to support 7.
Attempting this in a 32-bit Windows 7 environment was not something I had considered. I happen to have a 32-bit machine right here, I'll get 32-bit 7 installed and I will report back.
Also, these glasses were manufactured in 2015. You would expect the opposite - that they'd work with 7, and not XP. That they work with XP hints at UVC 1.0 support being subtly broken somehow between XP and 7, since UVC is a Microsoft thing.
I also think UVC 1.0 support got broken somewhere, as 7 sees the device exactly as it should except for claiming it's not on a USB 2.0 port. USB Mass storage works, and when you switch over to camera mode, it does see the camera and microphone, the microphone works, but the video feed does not.
So that leads me to think that something went wonky in the usbvideo.sys or usbvideo.pnf file, or perhaps both.
You must be new here. :)
Anyways, this is not a driver issue, per se. I believe this is a Windows issue. I have seen reprts of other UVC devices in laptops (their built-in webcams) having the exact same issue.
Turns out, those devices are UVC 1.0, and Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, changed something in their newer USB Video Camera driver that breaks devices following the UVC 1.0 spec, despite Microsoft claiming that Windows 7 has full support for UVC 1.0 devices.
For those people with laptop issues, usually they could fix it by finding the (semi-rare) updated driver from the manufacturer website.
This manufacturer has no driver. It is a claimed plug and play. And funnily enough, it works under Linux and OSX 10.4+ as advertised!
This is what leads me to believe that this is not a driver issue on my end, but a MS driver issue.
And I really, REALLY don't feel like having to constantly run in Test Mode to run a modified driver that's protected by WFP.