Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: 1.0-9XXX Driver Speculations

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niniendowarrior
    Maybe it'll get delayed, and delayed... like the last one.
    Which NVIDIA driver release are you referring to exactly?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3

    Default

    hey, maybe by then they'll have quad SLI working and will have that in there too... anything, else people want to speculate about besides GL_ext for XGL,etc and 7.1 compatablity?

    on the not of the previous messages, I'm very hopeful for the release to be when expect(if not earlier) but alas if it's not, such is life

    -Ryu

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryu_Tenchi
    hey, maybe by then they'll have quad SLI working and will have that in there too... anything, else people want to speculate about besides GL_ext for XGL,etc and 7.1 compatablity?

    on the not of the previous messages, I'm very hopeful for the release to be when expect(if not earlier) but alas if it's not, such is life

    -Ryu
    Oops, yes, the next driver release will also support Quad SLI. I failed to mention that earlier.

    Public statement: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...87&postcount=8

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Given that X.org 7.2 is due out in Oct with improved GLX support it would be nice if nVidia gave this consideration before releasing the 90 drivers.

    Seeing as SUSE 10.2 doesn't enter Beta until November I would be amazed if they did not intend to add X.org 7.2 during the Aplha > Beta changeover phase. If like the X.org 7.1/nVidia 87 series debacle the 90 series drivers don't support X.org 7.2 then it will be a real pain for distros with 7.2 between Q4 2006 and Q2 2007.

    I have no idea if this suggestion is reasonable or feasible, but:
    nVidia tend to do two quick releases followed by a 5 month gap till the next two, so perhaps a Sept release for the initial 90 series, and a late Oct release for the bug-fix 90 series including support for X.org 7.2.............?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    63

    Default

    7.2 will break compatibility then?

    What are the advantages of 7.2 and 7.1 over <=7.0?

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael
    Which NVIDIA driver release are you referring to exactly?
    If I remember correctly, the last driver nVidia released (pre-1.0-9X) was quite delayed and I remember reading on nvnews before about angry users wanting a new driver release. But I may have been assuming things.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James
    7.2 will break compatibility then?

    What are the advantages of 7.2 and 7.1 over <=7.0?
    i don't know that it will, but the last update to X.org was incompatible with the latest nVidia drivers, so maybe this will happen again.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4

    Default Hardware accelerated font AA ?

    Any chance they might support hardware accelerated font antialiasing? They claim support for this feature in some of their marketing materials, it would be nice to see it come to Linux where it would make a big difference. There are some pretty angry threads out there about this too.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpcd
    Any chance they might support hardware accelerated font antialiasing? They claim support for this feature in some of their marketing materials, it would be nice to see it come to Linux where it would make a big difference. There are some pretty angry threads out there about this too.
    Accelerated font-antialising has nothing to do with them. Really. I don't understand why people would even bring such a subject up. Perhaps their understanding of how the drivers are implemented is lacking.

    The nVidia drivers for linux provide mainly two things: a hardware-accelerated implementation of OpenGL using their hardware, GLX implementation and GL headers. As a bonus, they also provide an accelerated version of the XRender X extension, which (as far as I'm aware of) is significantly slower than its software-implemented counterpart.

    In a regular GUI application, all drawing is usually performed by a specific toolkit as the backend (Gtk, Qt), and hence, the acceleration part should be implemented in one of these. I'm aware that the X server probably has some standard font routines that could be accelerated, but I think keeping it in the toolkit would be a much better solution.

    In conclusion: blame your toolkit, not nVidia. Cairo, a GUI backend, accelerates fonts and such, and I believe Qt (version 4, at least) does too.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadewalker
    Accelerated font-antialising has nothing to do with them. Really. I don't understand why people would even bring such a subject up. Perhaps their understanding of how the drivers are implemented is lacking.
    My apologies for misunderstanding. I was reading a thread, (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=72858) to be exact, where this is discussion about a lack of 2d acceleration for certain features. AA was also mentioned. Many people seem to think that cards from two generations prior are faster than even the latest nvidia cards in 2d.

    What you said about how it is toolkit specific makes perfect sense to me, but I guess at the lowest level I thought it all boiled down to driver implementation - as in the way that the toolkit ends up sending information to the driver. It would seem that acceleration of additional features would improve performance in various areas of 2d including fonts.

    Sorry if I derailed the thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •