BillW50 said:
Well I am a big believer in newer isn't always better. In many circles
they claim to always update your drivers. Not me, if a newer one is
problematic... go back to the one that work. I dunno, why are you not
using the older drivers for again?
My Alienware machines has surround sound (don't recall if those use
Realtek too). But I never used the surround feature from them. They do
sport outputs for front and read speakers though.
This particular situation is special, because Dolby code is licensed, and
a company bundling the Dolby code, needs a way to track how many copies
are installed. The driver would consist of two portions, RealTek written
code (free), and Dolby code (licensed).
Normally, RealTek would bundle certain Dolby features, with certain
premium CODEC chip SKUs. And that means, in theory, there *should*
be some way for the driver installer to know, that the user has
(indirectly) paid for this feature, and is deserving of the
Dolby effects driver component.
It sounds like the handling of this issue has been botched, and the
only way to get the driver, is to use a synchronized driver bundle
from the manufacturer. It might mean that just one, and only one
driver version, will ever be offered.
If you update to some other Realtek driver, undoubtedly the
basic sound features would work, but the Dolby component could be
lost. It all depends on how well designed the SKU tracking system
is, so a deserving customer continues to receive the Dolby component.
If each chip had a unique ID, then the tracking would be quite
precise. It's when the "Dolby version" SKU is indistinguishable
at the hardware level, from the "non-Dolby version", that the
driver tracking issue arises, and Robin gets screwed out of a
feature. The inability to track SKUs, then means only one
driver is offered, the driver that came in the box with the
product.
The same thing has happened with other licensed software,
where the only copy you get comes on the CD in the box.
Any download versions later, you pay a fee to get them.
And it's all to "protect" the licensing fee issue. No manufacturer
wants to be paying a $10 million bill for licenses, only to
discover no counterbalancing revenue stream to pay for them.
That's the risk they run, by using such licensed features.
Failure to handle the issue properly, could wipe out all
the profits for that particular chip. And the thing is,
the ability to track the issue, costs money too. That's why
in this case, a half-assed job was done, to save money.
Paul