Official Catalyst 3.10 beta drivers? OPENGL 2.0 SUPPORT!!!

[Fede Pede]

saw this thread over at rage3d.com

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33726574

Edit.
Btw New Driver Cat3.10 Beta

http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wxp-w2k...-96-012324e.exe

[saturnotaku]

Why are they called 3.10 as opposed to 4.0 or 3.95?

[Miksu]

It's still year 2003.

[schuey74]

Originally posted by saturnotaku
Why are they called 3.10 as opposed to 4.0 or 3.95?
4.0 is reserved for next year. The next releases should be 3.10. and 3.11. And yes, it's an antique way of doing things and amazing that a technology company would still use it..............

[saturnotaku]

Originally posted by schuey74
4.0 is reserved for next year. The next releases should be 3.10. and 3.11. And yes, it's an antique way of doing things and amazing that a technology company would still use it..............

The 4.0 monkier makes sense for next year. It bothers me more than they would drop back to 3.10 as opposed to making it 3.91, especially since we're so close to the end of 2003. :lame:

[The Baron]

Except it's not OGL2. It's OGL1.5.

[jAkUp]

hmmm... link doesnt work

[Fede Pede]

Try This one:)

http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4291.html

[Kihon]

The numbering system is quite normal for system builds afaik

you have Major Release.Minor Release.Patch

so 3 is the major release number, 0-11 are the minor release number, and patch numbers are not given.

The '.' is not used as a decimal, rather as a seperator.

[Hellbinder]

Originally posted by saturnotaku
The 4.0 monkier makes sense for next year. It bothers me more than they would drop back to 3.10 as opposed to making it 3.91, especially since we're so close to the end of 2003. :lame:
Sat.. You dont really understand.

The Software package Release is called Catalyst 3.10 wich is newer than the Catalyst 3.9 which is the current Catalyst package release.

The actual Driver build versions within the catalyst package are numbered totally different.

For instance 391, 392, 393, 394, 395 etc...

The next release will be based on 396 Driver Build. The current public release is based on 395 Driver buld.

See the difference?

[saturnotaku]

Originally posted by Hellbinder
Sat.. You dont really understand.

The Software package Release is called Catalyst 3.10 wich is newer than the Catalyst 3.9 which is the current Catalyst package release.

The actual Driver build versions within the catalyst package are numbered totally different.

For instance 391, 392, 393, 394, 395 etc...

The next release will be based on 396 Driver Build. The current public release is based on 395 Driver buld.

See the difference?

No, I do understand. ATI is going from Catalyst 3.9 to 3.10 in the next set. It's not that difficult a concept. However because I understand it doesn't mean I have to agree with it. What's wrong with calling the drivers based on their build like NVIDIA does? It's not a natural progression IMO and I would like ATI to revise their thinking with the 4-series Catalysts, perhaps start with 4.00, then 4.01, etc. If you're going to release driver updates every month, that way makes more sense to me than going from 4.1, 4.2 then "back" to 4.10. Perhaps if there was some other placeholder after the first decimal point it would be better or go to a system like 40.1, 40.1, then 41.1, 41.2 and so on.

Again, I know darn well the methodology behind what ATI is doing. I simply don't like it.

[ChrisW]

http://users.adelphia.net/~webspace/images/glview.jpg

And no, 3.10 does not mathematically make any sense to me either. If they wanted to use 3.10 then the previous drivers should have been 3.01 - 3.09

3.1, 3.10, and 3.10000000000000000 are all mathematically equivalent.

[saturnotaku]

Originally posted by ChrisW
And no, 3.10 does not mathematically make any sense to me either. If they wanted to use 3.10 then the previous drivers should have been 3.01 - 3.09

3.1, 3.10, and 3.10000000000000000 are all mathematically equivalent.

THANK YOU!

At least I know I'm not alone. :alc:

[TheTaz]

Not gonna get into nit-pickyness here.

I'll just say...

I think it's intended to read:

Three DOT Ten

not

Three POINT One Zero

/shrug

Taz

[saturnotaku]

Originally posted by TheTaz
Not gonna get into nit-pickyness here.

I'll just say...

I think it's intended to read:

Three DOT Ten

not

Three POINT One Zero

/shrug

Taz

But how do you think most people are going to read it? When you read pi you don't say:

Three DOT one four one five nine

Nor when you read NVIDIA driver names. I know I sure as heck don't say Forty-five DOT two-three.

[TheTaz]

Originally posted by saturnotaku
But how do you think most people are going to read it?

Well... Programming version numbers and actual math numbers can be read differentley.

Build Generation Three, Version Ten...

The shorthand could be:

Three Dot Ten
Three Dash Ten
Three Underscore Ten
etc.

It's usually not Build 'Three point One Zero' as the "whole version number".

It just depends on how the programmer wants to 'track' their builds. Some programmers use The Hungarian Convention in their C code... others don't. It's whatever style they like / are used to. ;)

Regards,

Taz

[Kihon]

Still if the worst people can find to complain about a driver is its version number, things HAVE to be good :afro2: :p

[goofer456]

Originally posted by saturnotaku
The 4.0 monkier makes sense for next year. It bothers me more than they would drop back to 3.10 as opposed to making it 3.91, especially since we're so close to the end of 2003. :lame:

Originally posted by saturnotaku
Again, I know darn well the methodology behind what ATI is doing. I simply don't like it.

I do not see the big deal with the numbering scheme of Ati. Even less why you would call it lame. :eek:

[saturnotaku]

Originally posted by goofer456
I do not see the big deal with the numbering scheme of Ati. Even less why you would call it lame. :eek:

Are you not keeping up with the conversation here? Read this post:

And no, 3.10 does not mathematically make any sense to me either. If they wanted to use 3.10 then the previous drivers should have been 3.01 - 3.09

3.1, 3.10, and 3.10000000000000000 are all mathematically equivalent

This is precisely why I think the numbering scheme is stupid. Got it?

[T-Spoon]

Hehe, I kinda like the way ATi numbers their drivers. It makes a lot of sense to me. I believe CM explained it once.

The 3 series (3 as in "2003") was the first DX9 supporting catalyst series. It started with an exception, since Cat 3.0 was released at the end of last year. Catalyst 3.1 was the first of this year. And the next release will be the 10th Catalyst release of the year, which logically makes Cat 3.10. And the first release of next year will be Cat 4.1.

Why does it have to be mathematically correct? :confused: At least now we can easily see if they stick to their promise to release 8 to 10 Catalysts a year. :)

And now that they have upped the ante, we will be able to see if they can release a new version every month. Each month will have it's own Catalyst, and that makes more sense to me than weird numbers like 3.01, 3.13, 3.29, 3.31, 3.35, 3.67 etc. :)

[jbirney]

Originally posted by saturnotaku

This is precisely why I think the numbering scheme is stupid. Got it?

Maybe when they started with the 3.Xs the only planned on have lets say 8 out (every other month). If thats the case then it makes sense?? I know some times picking a numbering system takes more thought than most think :)

[saturnotaku]

Originally posted by OWA
It doesn't have to be. I think his point is that it is confusing. When I first saw 3.10 I wondered why they had gone to an earlier version number but then figured it was just a typo. I've now seen the explanation and that's fine but I think it is still going to be confusing to most people. I think it'd be more clear if they did what the other poster said... 3.9 should be 3.09 so then 3.10 isn't as confusing.

What he said. :thumbsup:

Maybe when they started with the 3.Xs the only planned on have lets say 8 out (every other month). If thats the case then it makes sense?? I know some times picking a numbering system takes more thought than most think

That's what I thought originally myself. If that is indeed the case, there's no reason why they couldn't have called this set 3.91 (to avoid any confusion) then issued a notice saying something to the effect of:

OK starting next year, the Catalyst team will be releasing new drivers every month. The numbering scheme will follow this format: 4.xx, where 4 stands for the year (2004), and we'll have .01 for January, .02 for February and so forth.

It seems like a lot more effort is going into thinking of these names than really is necessary. And as a result it's creating some confusion...that is until someone actually comes out and explains it to you, which is something that shouldn't be required. :)

[Sotos]

Well Ati must care first about some serious game fixes and not Opengl 2.0 support that no game exists to use it right now...

example Call of Duty ,Empires Dawn of Modern world etc
These games are having serious problems with latest catalysts

[AngelGraves13]

Doom 3 uses OpenGL 2.0 :rolleyes:

[goofer456]

Originally posted by saturnotaku
Are you not keeping up with the conversation here? Read this post:

[b]

This is precisely why I think the numbering scheme is stupid. Got it?

Yes I read that point, but I still do not understand why you are having such a problem with it. Is ati obligated to follow your prefered numbering scheme? Calling it lame is, well, IMHO lame....:lame: :baaa::