nvidia card for free??
hi non windows users !!!!
i write this post because i am very angry with NVIDIA, they dont support linux but when i go to a store to buy an nvidia card its free for me?????
the answer is NOT ,its the same price for linux and windows but we are always "praying for drivers support".
we are always praying , they have to listen to linux users, we are paying money for your cards!!!!!! so give service!!!
I want to ask to anybody of NVIDIA corp, my money has the same value of a windows user??????
answer (choose) :
a)YES, -----> then give linux suppport, im paying for that.
b )NOT------>so , i will buy anther card, and you know what you can do whith your cards :mad: :mad: :mad:
look at what the next driver release brings
look at what the next driver release brings and then complain.
and the are doing a better job than any other GFX card manufacters to bring drivers containing propriatory technology to linux.
they are not perfect but they are a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
"I for one welcome our new NVidia overloads, something something, in the silicon mines"
Re: nvidia card for free??
The support is far better than years passed, and has been better than the competition (ATI users struggle with the same issues and shortcomings than nVidia users do). Your vent is misguided, although I agree you should receive support for a product you purchased.. I do NOT believe you deserve support for a product they don't claim to fully support. If your particular issue with the current drivers is a bug in an area they claim to support, you have some reason to complain, but running off to the competition over it?
Your claim however, that your money is just as valuable as a Windows user is, logically flawed. One cannot apply a micro analysis conclusion to a macro analysis and expect the result to be sound. There are far more Windows users, therefore the driver support is, on the surface anyway, far 'better'. If there were equal numbers of users buying the cards for the Linux support as for Windows, I'm sure you'd see an equal share of attention to both driver development projects.
I use the Windows XP drivers, the beta versions and the released versions as well, and they are NOT 'better', even if they do show up more often. They have more frequent updates which bring more change over time by little bits and pieces, but the individual updates and changes are more often flawed than not (hence the need for beta drivers).
Out of curiosity, where do you get these "beta" drivers?
For windows versions: www.guru3d.com
(most of which are 'released' for specific card manufacturers and card gpu applications, but happen to work generically due to the UDA design, simply aren't 'released' from the main nVidia downloads)
Unfortunantly this is the way the computer world works today...
Nobody is aiming for stability, stability isn't important, if you can get a few extra fps at the cost of stability it will be done...
What most people do not really realize is that there are no stable Nvidia drivers for linux, they are all in the development branch, some functions exist in linux drivers before the windows drivers...
Face it, you are all a bunch of beta testers, for free, or even worse, you are paying for it...
The only reason for Nvidia to shape up would be if the voice of the users would be strong enough, sadly, most users are making excuses for Nvidia when they SHOULD be demanding better support "it's better than others" or "be happy that you can get the video card you payed for working, be grateful for that, Nvidia ROCKS"
To me, as a developer, you users are a strange bunch, if it's open, do not complain, you submit your bug reports and we'll fix it as soon as we can, don't like it? Fix it yourself...
The open community is growing BECAUSE of the educated users, the closed community will eventually have to accept that one million programmers are better than 10... or in the case of the Nvidia drivers, one guy making a beta port...
There is order in the chaos, do not demand better drivers, demand open drivers, i swear i will do my very best to make them as good and stable as they can become, so will one million others...
The XP REL branch is not better? BS and you probably know it... Even if you don't, do crappy XP drivers really matter when your Linux driver doesn't work, is a buggy Win driver suddenly a sign of great Linux support? Or does that just tell you that they don't know what they are doing and stumbling over themselves to catch up?
why are you making excuses for Nvidia? Did you not BUY their card? What did you pay for? A card that would work on your setup?
Nice argument. Misguided but nice try. The card works for me, so half your argument is out already. And then...
Actually I purchased the card FOR its utility as a Windows video card (not its linux support), but frankly I don't believe the driver support is better in Windows for the features that I use and have tested. The fact that I do not use, nor intend to use twinview and tv-out functionality obviously does effect my review of the drivers. I have had no significant problems enabling openGL acceleration using the linux drivers, or using framebuffer consoles for many driver revisions now.
I have always experienced better openGL performance and stability in Linux using these drivers than in Windows XP. I more often restart my machine due to / when a game crashes on Windows than I do on Linux, with the one notable exception of AA 2.0 which was just released.
I would very much prefer to have an open source driver, and yes I would endeavor to improve it myself if that was offered. The fact is, that I do not expect it to happen for some time, irregardless of the voice the linux community raises. Explanation, money. The Linux driver releases are probably as you say, a beta program. But not for the windows driver branches, and not for the linux desktop user. I am pretty certain the primary purpose behind the existence of these drivers is hardware support for nvidia cards in production environments, i.e. graphics workstations. The company has always supported gaming, and I'm sure they want to support linux gaming too, but that isn't where the company bottom line falls.
SnapIT, you're not the only one here that wants better driver support. You're also not the only one here willing to put personal effort into open source software or hardware support development. I know you know that. So don't act like it.
I personally prefer the practical view, so I am pleased to have what I'm offered at present (which incidentally does what I need it to do, quite nicely). That in no way indicates that I am completely satisfied with it. (never have I posted anything which resembles an 'excuse' for nvidia)
Really? No, of course not, but you had to say something... The truth is that the stability of the OGL drivers for ANY Nvidia card pretty much sucks compared to the /stable branch... This is not surprising to me, and should not be surprising to anyone, /stable is always more stable than /devel branches... There is no /stable branch for Linux...
I am sorry if i act like i am the only one who would put personal effort and time into programming a new driver, i am sure that i am not the only one, i am part of millions of others who willingly do that every day, so i know that i am not alone... Neither are you...
"never have I posted anything which resembles an 'excuse' for nvidia"
"The support is far better than years passed, and has been better than the competition"
Sounds like an excuse to me... "well, at least they are bettar than xxx" is an excuse...
You argue against my own experience with the drivers as if you've tested the stability of my machine yourself. You should know better.
While arguing that the stable branch is more stable than the devel branch you state clearly that there is no stable branch for linux. Therefore you cannot even compare them. If the branch doesn't exist for linux how do you know it would be stable on linux?
This is pointless in the end, but you beg the question. What DOES make the difference between a /stable branch and a /devel branch? It is not an empirical measurement of quality for all situations on all supported hardware or anything of that sort. The difference between two branches of development is almost always in the intention of the developers not to change what works (whether very stably or barely working) already by adding extensive changes, i.e. new features. A stable branch is a codebase that is not changing, not a compiled product that does not crash.
Simply lacking a branched source does not imply anything, of its own accord, about the stability of the product. Again, this is statement of fact, not an 'excuse' of any kind.
The rest of your post makes me smirk, you have obviously never been involved in anything that has anything to do with programming, or, if you have, i feel sorry for your employers...
"what is the difference between a /stable branch and a /devel branch" well, when it is found tried and true, and believe me, it takes a LOT of time and effort to get htere, we would place it in the /stable, or rather, the admin would, we could argue all we wanted that the newer /devel was better, but until it is proven stable, it does not get into the /stable branch...
"a stable branch is a codebranch that is not changing"????
Excuse me, the stable codebranches tend to change a LOT, not anywhere near as often as /devel, but that is why there are two and not one, /devel is for developers, it is code that is not yet finished, when it is finished we will evealuate it and send our evaluations to the admin, if he sees the code as stable, he will add it to the /stable branch, and thus, the stable branch is updated... or "changed"...
I am the Admin of several programs, let me tell you, you are wrong and i am right, there is no question, you just do not have any idea of what you are talking about, arguing any further will just make you look more stupid...
Lacking a /stable and only producing /archive and /devel is NOT a good practice, i believe that any real programmer would agree on that...
Regarding the excuse that you made, well, it is a kiddies game, one you can try to play, but when you are wrong you will get to sit in the corner, it does not matter if it is the best when it isn't good, it doesn't matter if joe ripped your nose off, you still cannot beat sarah...
Just because ATI's drivers are worse than Nvidias does not mean you should be thankful for Nvidias crappy drivers...
Do you get my point? It doesn't matter if ATI's drivers are worse for Sue, my Nvidia drivers don't work, should i claim that my non-working drivers are okey because more people have problems with the drivers she is using?
You are obviously not a programmer, when it is != it is != and nothing in the world will make it =...
Now go sit in the corner...
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.