NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"

In article , Charlie Wilkes
says...
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:41:38 -0400, joey wrote:

I was specifically addressing the post by bubaloo or whatever, but to
address the problem you're describing, that same phenomenon has occurred
with every MS OS release since the early days of DOS.

Win 95 didnt have the responsiveness that Win 3.1 had. Win 98 didn't
load apps as fast as 95, and so on and so forth through XP.

The difference is that each of those operating systems brought new
capabilities that users really wanted... win95 brought 32 bit support and
a better GUI; 98 brought support for USB and much larger hdds; 2k/XP
brought support for more RAM and even bigger hdds. What does Vista bring
that anyone really cares about?

Security.


--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

Dr. Pepper wrote:

I'll never buy an Nvidia card again.

So what happens when your ATI experience goes south?

It amazes me the absolute certainty some people have towards their
future hardware purchases.

If I could have perfect foresight like them, I would be deliriously happy.

"Conor" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Charlie Wilkes
says...
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:41:38 -0400, joey wrote:
What does Vista bring
that anyone really cares about?

Security.


--
Conor

According to MS's marketing guys, at least. In practice? I don't know.

RF.

Anssi Saari wrote:

joey writes:

This kind of practice occurs in the Linux world and is one reason
gaming is dead on Linux - there are a gazillion different versions /
distros of the OS out there, and because of all the kernel
*******izations, unless your app is written in Java which is
dog-slow (and not suitable for high performance game development),
you pretty much have to recompile your application for every
stinking *******ization of the OS out there.

This seems very odd to me. I'm not sure if you meant games when you
wrote "app". However, I run commercial software on Linux on a daily
basis. I even maintain a couple of Linux boxes that run commercial
software, for electronics design. Now sure, vendors usually have a
(short) list of Linuxes they support, but that in no way means that
the software wouldn't work on other distributions. I also don't get
what these "kernel *******izations" have to do with application
software? I really thought applications talk to an API usually.

That is correct. Most applications do not give a crap about the Kernel nor
should they. The only apps that care about the kernel are apps such as
VMWare which need kernel level stuff for proper virtualization support.
Very few other apps though fall into this category.

Games for one thing definitely do NOT fall into this category.

It is a major misconception that an application "has" to be compiled to run
under linux. No. It does not. It may be common practice to do so on many
distributions with open souce applications, but that does not mean it has
to be done.

A game only needs to link against OpenGL and OpenAL for graphics and sound.
That will work with any kernel as long as OpenGL and OpenAL is present on
the target system. Not any different than requiring DirectX on a windows
system.

As an added plus, a game using the above libraries will also work under
windows perfectly fine!

If a game also needs networking support then there are also quite a few
cross platform libraries available that can be used with commercial
applications without any issues and allow the game to run under both
operating systems with no additional work for the developer.

I personally write cross platform OpenGL and GUI code that runs on both
Windows and Linux so I personally have experience under the subject. The
only person doing any compiling is me, the developer. Compile once for each
target platform...done! Yes, it is that simple.

Currently the only distribution I officially support is Ubuntu since that is
the one I personally use. I will add testing for some of the other major
distributions in the near future and then that will be it. If someone then
comes across with some *******ized version that only consists of 0.01% of
my user base and things dont work...tough luck. Not my problem as I do need
to draw a line somewhere.

And while we are on the subject of games...Game developers actually are not
embracing DX10 like the users are. Quite the contrary actually. The whole
DX10 and Vista mess actually poses quite a problem for anyone doing DirectX
Development.

Developers Currently have the choice of the following:

- Use DX9 which is supported across the board but no DX10 level features.
Annoys the people with DX10 hardware and Vista who cant get the eye candy
they want. But at least everyone can play the game.

- Use DX10 which is only supported on high-end cards and Vista. Annoys the
people with DX9 hardware or running XP who now cannot run the game at all!
Even if a person who runs XP has DX10 hardware they still cant run the game
because DX10 is vista only. On top of that, DX10 API is so different
fundamentally no existing engine code will work with it and require a
complete rewrite at least in the DirectX portion of things.

- Use OpenGL which can do both DX9 and DX10 level features. It runs on every
operating system. It supports every video card. It is compatible with any
existing OpenGL code in engines supporting OpengGL. Every user can run the
game and eye candy is determined by the users system capabilities. Everyone
pretty much wins.

I just had a talk the other day with a friend of mine who works for one of
the major game studios and I asked him about DX10. His answer? OpenGL.

I personally would not be surprised if we see some more titles released in
the future using OpenGL instead of DirectX.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:23:12 +0300, Anssi Saari wrote:

joey writes:

This kind of practice occurs in the Linux world and is one reason
gaming is dead on Linux - there are a gazillion different versions /
distros of the OS out there, and because of all the kernel
*******izations, unless your app is written in Java which is
dog-slow (and not suitable for high performance game development),
you pretty much have to recompile your application for every
stinking *******ization of the OS out there.

This seems very odd to me. I'm not sure if you meant games when you
wrote "app". However, I run commercial software on Linux on a daily
basis. I even maintain a couple of Linux boxes that run commercial
software, for electronics design. Now sure, vendors usually have a
(short) list of Linuxes they support, but that in no way means that
the software wouldn't work on other distributions. I also don't get
what these "kernel *******izations" have to do with application
software? I really thought applications talk to an API usually.

Most of them do, but the thing to understand is that under Linux, key
parts of the operating system such as the threading model can work
entirely different. Some versions of Linux support true threads, some
spawn an entirely new process for each thread. So regardless of
whether you're writing to an API or not, fundamental changes to the
kernel can affect the timing and thread synchronization of anything
but the most simple applications. I'm not saying this is true of
every application out there, but I've seen Linux / UNIX horror stores
in my multi-decade programming career that I don't even care to go
into at the moment.

joey wrote:

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:23:12 +0300, Anssi Saari wrote:

joey writes:

This kind of practice occurs in the Linux world and is one reason
gaming is dead on Linux - there are a gazillion different versions /
distros of the OS out there, and because of all the kernel
*******izations, unless your app is written in Java which is
dog-slow (and not suitable for high performance game development),
you pretty much have to recompile your application for every
stinking *******ization of the OS out there.

This seems very odd to me. I'm not sure if you meant games when you
wrote "app". However, I run commercial software on Linux on a daily
basis. I even maintain a couple of Linux boxes that run commercial
software, for electronics design. Now sure, vendors usually have a
(short) list of Linuxes they support, but that in no way means that
the software wouldn't work on other distributions. I also don't get
what these "kernel *******izations" have to do with application
software? I really thought applications talk to an API usually.

Most of them do, but the thing to understand is that under Linux, key
parts of the operating system such as the threading model can work
entirely different. Some versions of Linux support true threads, some
spawn an entirely new process for each thread. So regardless of
whether you're writing to an API or not, fundamental changes to the
kernel can affect the timing and thread synchronization of anything
but the most simple applications. I'm not saying this is true of
every application out there, but I've seen Linux / UNIX horror stores
in my multi-decade programming career that I don't even care to go
into at the moment.

Wanna know my solution to that one?

I have my list of distributions I officially support. All others are at the
users own risks. If someone has some oddball distribution that does things
differently...their problem if it is not on my list of supported
distributions. End of story. Have to draw a line somewhere!

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:34:43 +0200, Stephan Rose
wrote:

Anssi Saari wrote:

joey writes:

This kind of practice occurs in the Linux world and is one reason
gaming is dead on Linux - there are a gazillion different versions /
distros of the OS out there, and because of all the kernel
*******izations, unless your app is written in Java which is
dog-slow (and not suitable for high performance game development),
you pretty much have to recompile your application for every
stinking *******ization of the OS out there.

This seems very odd to me. I'm not sure if you meant games when you
wrote "app". However, I run commercial software on Linux on a daily
basis. I even maintain a couple of Linux boxes that run commercial
software, for electronics design. Now sure, vendors usually have a
(short) list of Linuxes they support, but that in no way means that
the software wouldn't work on other distributions. I also don't get
what these "kernel *******izations" have to do with application
software? I really thought applications talk to an API usually.

That is correct. Most applications do not give a crap about the Kernel nor
should they. The only apps that care about the kernel are apps such as
VMWare which need kernel level stuff for proper virtualization support.
Very few other apps though fall into this category.

See my other post about timing and thread synchronization. Most
applications are wrtten on top of some sort of framework, and usually
it is the framework that needs to be modified when some fundamental
aspect of the kernel changes, and in theory if the apps that sit on
top of those frameworks are simple enough and do not rely on thread
synchronization to work properly, the source code should still work.
That's the theory, but the reality is that usually when a new version
of the framework is released, there are breaking changes or if nothing
else features that require the app to be updated.

Games for one thing definitely do NOT fall into this category.

It is a major misconception that an application "has" to be compiled to run
under linux. No. It does not. It may be common practice to do so on many
distributions with open souce applications, but that does not mean it has
to be done.

I agree, but the problem with open source in general is the
*******ization problem. The fact that people can recompile and modify
key aspects of the OS leads many shops (admittedly not all) to do so,
and introduces too many unknowns into the development process, for my
taste. I realize there are folks out there developing some cool stuff
on Linux just as they are Windows, and that's fine, but it does not
change the fact that gaming on Linux as a concept has failed. A few
proved that it could be done but from a game company's profitability
perspective it just doesn't make sense. For 99% of the population,
Linux is irrelevant.

Currently the only distribution I officially support is Ubuntu since that is
the one I personally use. I will add testing for some of the other major
distributions in the near future and then that will be it.

You see? Therein lies the fundamental problem. To run your games,
the user doesn't just have to have Linux, they have to have a
particular distro of Linux. I admire the fact you're tapping into a
niche market, but if your goal is success you'd be much better off
writing for Windows. Or better yet use XNA and write in C# for both
Windows and XBox at the same time.

And while we are on the subject of games...Game developers actually are not
embracing DX10 like the users are. Quite the contrary actually. The whole
DX10 and Vista mess actually poses quite a problem for anyone doing DirectX
Development.

Untrue. DX10 is new, and most of the new games that have come out
recently already have DX10 patches for their games in the oven.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:32:10 -0500, "RF" wrote:


"Conor" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Charlie Wilkes
says...
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:41:38 -0400, joey wrote:
What does Vista bring
that anyone really cares about?

Security.


--
Conor

According to MS's marketing guys, at least. In practice? I don't know.

RF.

No, Vista is definately more secure. The real controversy is that
some users do not like the security, or are not used to it yet, or
don't want to be "saved from themself". What it's really saving them
from is dangerous or carelessly written software, and a lot of people
have carelessly written software that they've grown fond of over time.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:36:48 -0400, "Dr. Pepper"
wrote:

"AirRaid" wrote in message
oups.com...


Nvidia Names Stability as Top Priority for Windows Vista Drivers

[ 04/12/2007 | 10:42 PM ]

An official from Nvidia, a leading designer of system chipsets and
graphics processors, admitted that the company had underestimated
resources it needed to develop proper drivers for Windows Vista, but
said the issues would be shortly resolved. Besides, the company has
outlined its priorities when developing drivers for the new operating
system (OS).

*snip*

I'll never buy an Nvidia card again. I bought a GeForce 6800 GT AGP card 2
years ago. For the first year the driver support was good, but for the last
year is has absolutely stunk. Nvidia has abandoned support of the GeForce 6
series (at least on Windows XP) for the last 6 months while they devote all
their resources to the 8 series cards and Vista. My system (3.4 GHz Socket
478 Prescott Pentium 4, Abit IS7 Motherboard, the 6800 GT, and 2 Gigs of
Corsair XMS PC3200 DDR) would still be plenty capable of running current
games like WoW, Lord of the Rings Online, FEAR, Battlefield 2142, etc.,
except that games (particularly WoW and LotRO) keep crashing every 20
minutes due to the crap 6-month old drivers.


Such is the plight of the PC gamer my friend. If you want the flat
upgrade curve you have to stick with consoles. The PC is an evolving
platform that requires occasional upgrades, and quite frankly your
video card is outdated.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:51:34 +0200, Stephan Rose
wrote:

joey wrote:

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:23:12 +0300, Anssi Saari wrote:

joey writes:

This kind of practice occurs in the Linux world and is one reason
gaming is dead on Linux - there are a gazillion different versions /
distros of the OS out there, and because of all the kernel
*******izations, unless your app is written in Java which is
dog-slow (and not suitable for high performance game development),
you pretty much have to recompile your application for every
stinking *******ization of the OS out there.

This seems very odd to me. I'm not sure if you meant games when you
wrote "app". However, I run commercial software on Linux on a daily
basis. I even maintain a couple of Linux boxes that run commercial
software, for electronics design. Now sure, vendors usually have a
(short) list of Linuxes they support, but that in no way means that
the software wouldn't work on other distributions. I also don't get
what these "kernel *******izations" have to do with application
software? I really thought applications talk to an API usually.

Most of them do, but the thing to understand is that under Linux, key
parts of the operating system such as the threading model can work
entirely different. Some versions of Linux support true threads, some
spawn an entirely new process for each thread. So regardless of
whether you're writing to an API or not, fundamental changes to the
kernel can affect the timing and thread synchronization of anything
but the most simple applications. I'm not saying this is true of
every application out there, but I've seen Linux / UNIX horror stores
in my multi-decade programming career that I don't even care to go
into at the moment.

Wanna know my solution to that one?

I have my list of distributions I officially support. All others are at the
users own risks. If someone has some oddball distribution that does things
differently...their problem if it is not on my list of supported
distributions. End of story. Have to draw a line somewhere!

Yes, but if you're hoping to achieve some level of success beyond a
small niche following, or hoping to make real money, the scenario
you've described becomes a huge problem.