Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 168

Thread: Future of my support for ATI

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    833

    Default

    How many(Those who have ATI hardware) Windows users are gamers?
    How I hate this old lame excuse. People "want" to game on Linux but if the AAAs ignore Linux and even throw stones in their way ( like Steam did consider Wine a cheat some time ago before people bashed it enough for this ) then there can be no more games. Keeping something "artificially" low doesn't justify such a comment.

    you can't deny that Windows is wat GREATER OS for gaming
    If you ever did game development you should know that Linux is better suited for gaming since it has a couple of advantages over the windows counterpart. I need to provide more "strange hacks" in windows to get a game working than under Linux. So much for "greater OS" I would say. Or shall we take out the Windows-Version-Nausea problem? Change to Vista and games start breaking left and right and still nowadays games are tagged in small print "Vista SHOULD be supported" or "no 64 bit support". Now that's a great gaming OS right?

    Furthermore ATI and nVidia have this thing called "unified architecture". Furthermore ATI drivers are there... just bugged. And third... video playback is used a big time more than actual gaming on Linux or Windows.

    And finally Linux is no more a great minority. After all even Microsoft recognized it as a force to reckon with and PC vendors consider it as OS to preinstall. I don't think a "great minority" would have achieved this, not?

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,286

    Default

    you can't deny that Windows is wat GREATER OS for gaming
    No. It's not windows, it's something called a game console. And whose chip is in Xbox360/Wii/Gamecube again?

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Maybe most of you will not agree with me but I don't see that big of a fuss over OS drivers vs. proprietary drivers for video cards or anything else.

    I understand that hardware manufacturers cannot release the code for drivers and stuff like that because of IP agreement.

    However, I think that most users just want their hardware to work! Why does it matter if the driver is proprietary or open source as long as it works?

    I have a laptop with Intel GMA 950 using the Open Source driver. I can say am NOT impressed but mostly satisfied.
    My problems with that Card/driver are:

    Compiz: while it runs... I cannot properly run other 3D applications. I get all kinds of tearing. Try Google Earth with Compiz enabled!


    No acceleration on multiple X-sessions: Only the first logged in user can use hardware acceleration and has direct rendering.

    Cannot have a video on 2 workspaces at the same time as in this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6bRpsqr7D0 (2:30 - 2:55)

    Every once in a while acceleration is not available: no Direct rendering (something is "unset")


    For all I know people using nVidia cards and Drivers (proprietary) can have Direct Rendering over multiple X-sessions and can also have the same Video playback on multiple workspaces (as seen in the vide above)

    So even if Intel released all the documents so there is a stable open-source driver, the nVidia Proprietary driver still provides more functionality.

    I don't care which driver I use as long as I have 3D support for all logged in users, and 3D apps run properly with Compiz!


    Edit: For some reason I re-enabled compiz and I can do pretty much everything (except 3D support for all logged in users).
    Last edited by Alecz; 08-08-2008 at 01:16 PM.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    833

    Default

    I personally could also live with prop drivers... if they would work. And this is the problem here. If you can make a working driver, okay, I can live with closed specs but if your drivers are clearly broken meaning you ( the vendor ) is incapable of producing a working driver, then I ought to say you are obligated to open the specs so others who can do a working driver can take a stab at it. That's in a nutshell all I'm getting at... nothing more, nothing less.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alecz View Post
    Maybe most of you will not agree with me but I don't see that big of a fuss over OS drivers vs. proprietary drivers for video cards or anything else.

    I understand that hardware manufacturers cannot release the code for drivers and stuff like that because of IP agreement.

    However, I think that most users just want their hardware to work! Why does it matter if the driver is proprietary or open source as long as it works?

    I have a laptop with Intel GMA 950 using the Open Source driver. I can say am NOT impressed but mostly satisfied.
    My problems with that Card/driver are:

    Compiz: while it runs... I cannot properly run other 3D applications. I get all kinds of tearing. Try Google Earth with Compiz enabled!

    No acceleration on multiple X-sessions: Only the first logged in user can use hardware acceleration and has direct rendering.

    Cannot have a video on 2 workspaces at the same time as in this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6bRpsqr7D0 (2:30 - 2:55)

    Every once in a while acceleration is not available: no Direct rendering (something is "unset")


    For all I know people using nVidia cards and Drivers (proprietary) can have Direct Rendering over multiple X-sessions and can also have the same Video playback on multiple workspaces (as seen in the vide above)

    So even if Intel released all the documents so there is a stable open-source driver, the nVidia Proprietary driver still provides more functionality.

    I don't care which driver I use as long as I have 3D support for all logged in users and 3D apps run properly with Compiz!
    The debate is not so much over driver features and capabilities, but more of system wide stability and integration. Open source drivers are much better at this.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    However, I think that most users just want their hardware to work! Why does it matter if the driver is proprietary or open source as long as it works?
    Imagine nVidia would suddenly decide linux' marketshare doesn't justify continuing their linux-driver anymore. You'd be in deep trouble as the next time the Xorg-api changes you're video card will be nothing more but an expensive paperweight.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    29

    Default

    I see your point... that would make the driver "not work" though.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    But the chance of this to happen is a reason for why it maters right now if the driver is proprietary or FOSS.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    29

    Default

    So if nVidia does not have OSS drivers. Why is everyone bashing ATI and praising nVidia?

    At least ATI helps the community with OSS drivers, while nVidia doesn't (or does it?).

    So all those people that are currently very glad they chose nVidia might soon be left in the dark...

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    67

    Default

    > However, I think that most users just want their hardware
    > to work! Why does it matter if the driver is proprietary
    > or open source as long as it works?

    Because binary drivers don't work. They cause data loss
    and have security holes. Completely unacceptable.

    Why is this thread attacking ATI when they have apparently
    seen the light and are releasing docs?

    Someone mentioned chipsets as being documented. Where are
    the docs on how to implement SATA NCQ on nforce4?

Posting Permissions

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