bofors Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 He said that recording the video slowed it down tremendously so we can expect it to be faster then that anyway Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Just to say all, that the TPM chips aren't being produced, that the photos that appeared of the Dev's Kit saying it is a TPM chip are hoax (that chip is present even on Pentium II boards), and that the TPM/TCPA specification says that the crypto coprocessor must be inside the cpu. Apart from that, in Spain the law says that you are allowed to reverse engineer any computer product to make interoperatibility, and I think that law expands to all the european union as well as USA. Great, perhaps now you would like to reproduce blex0r's results for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
computertrendy Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 DeathChill wrote: He said that recording the video slowed it down tremendously so we can expect it to be faster then that anyway That and the framerate of the encoded video. I would expect, by default, its not very high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwyllion Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Just to say all, that the TPM chips aren't being produced, that the photos that appeared of the Dev's Kit saying it is a TPM chip are hoax (that chip is present even on Pentium II boards), and that the TPM/TCPA specification says that the crypto coprocessor must be inside the cpu. Complete BS :roll: The chip on the Mactel motherboard is clearly a Infineon TPM. Look at http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tpm2nj.jpg. The first word under Infineon is "SLD 9630 TT 1.1". This is Infineon v1.1 TPM And where in the TPM spec is it mentioned that the crypto coprocessor must be inside the CPU? I read all of the specs and did not came across this requirement. Look at the TPM that are out there: all (Atmel, Infineon, ST Microelectronics) are externally, except National Semiconductor (integrated in Super I/O chip) and Broadcom (integrated in Gigabit Ethernet controller). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btt Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 I have patched CoreGraphics so it's using FISTP (SSE2) instead of FISTTP (SSE3). Those instructions are not actually equivalent but it seems to be working. I think this can help people with non SSE3 enabled CPUs to work on the stuff. It's slightly more involved, but on an intel.com page, they give you the proper x87 replacement (note FISTP is a standard x87 instruction, not SSE2). Most likely it would be necessary to add a jump to an emulating code stub somewhere in memory, as the footprint of this code is somewhat larger than a single FISTTP instruction. I'm afraid I don't know enough about Mac OS and patching to do this myself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Patching the ISO to skip the SSE3 check in a hex editor was easy, but I'm not having any luck patching Coregraphics. Is there an easy way to patch Coregraphics? I've read through the instructions at http://www.research.gwgaming.net/wiki/inde...x.php?title=GUI but I have no experience in running scripts. Is there a dummies guide anywhere? Has anyone written a tool for that which can be run in windows? Is the patched file available for download anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niteice Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Does CoreGraphics need to be patched on the installer CD too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alberta Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 This server needs to be in Canada. Or anywhere except for USA. Then everything wont be edited for "violation of DCMA", as only the US seems to be fascist enough for that piece of {censored} legislation. I mean why even bother hosting this in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnniecarcinogen Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 a good historical read! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts