Hi Tim, I wonder how Apple did the math then, especially considering the fractional OS X market share. It's not like we talk about a ground up development of a whole new class of device - it's just adding support for a 10 year old revision of a 16 year old standard already supported. Why did Microsoft choose to bother with HDAudio support when they already supported AC'97 and I don't recall customers craving for anything more? After all, if anybody wants that fancy HDAudio, they can do their own drivers for it - who's stopping them? If they can't see the business case of their OS not bothering customers with 3rd party driver installs like it's the 90's again, potential driver related crashes and conflicts, while competing platforms 'just work' to a customer's satisfaction, then they need to step back a bit and maybe order a new pair of glasses. The whole reason for unified device class specifications is that it enables Plug'n'Play worry free use by the customer and prevents the need to re-invent the wheel hundred times over and instead work on one robust, well maintained implementation. If a major OS market player fails to ship class driver, the entire device class is effectively toast. It's even more tragic considering Microsoft sat on the board defining the very standard they choose to ignore! For Microsoft, the additional resources required - if any (as they currently maintain UAC1 support and those same people would no doubt watch over UAC2), it's like drop in the bucket. They could even work with/buy out/license an existing implementation a few of which are being offered in the market, then maintain it. If there was a way to sell the driver licenses - however stupid that is - even that would be much preferable to the existing situation. Perhaps a per-device license fee on the order of 10c with a driver delivered through Windows Update and matching device's serial number to the vendor provided and paid for list of serials? I'm going crazy, but at this point any way that gets us closer to in-box UAC2 support is a good one. Regards, Dominik On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Tim Roberts <timr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dominik Peklo wrote: > > > > The question should really be "Why NOT have a native UAC2 support?" > > That question is not hard to answer. Microsoft is driven by dollars. > Every new feature they add represents a testing burden and 10 or 15-year > support burden. It's a big commitment. Such a commitment has to be > justified by a a business case that forecasts a corresponding increase > in sales, and up to this point, no one has been able to present a > convincing business case. Consumers just don't care. > > -- > Tim Roberts, timr@xxxxxxxxx > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. > > ****************** > > WDMAUDIODEV addresses: > Post message: mailto:wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subscribe: mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe > Unsubscribe: mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe > Moderator: mailto:wdmaudiodev-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > URL to WDMAUDIODEV page: > http://www.wdmaudiodev.com/ > >