Vista - "Bend Over"

[ShockG]

Elimination of Unified Drivers

The HFS process has another cost involved with it. Most hardware vendors have (thankfully) moved to unified driver models instead of the plethora of individual drivers that abounded some years ago (in the bad old days it used to be necessary to identify individual device types and download specific drivers for them, something that was more or less impossible for non-geek users). Since HFS requires unique identification and handling of not just each device type (for example each graphics chip) but each variant of each device type (for example each stepping of each graphics chip) to handle the situation where a problem is found with one variation of a device, it's no longer possible to create one-size-fits-all drivers for an entire range of devices like the current Catalyst/Detonator/ForceWare drivers. Every little variation of every device type out there must now be individually accommodated in custom code in order for the HFS process to be fully effective, resulting in a re-balkanisation of drivers that have only just become available in a clean, unified form in the last few years. This is more a concern for device vendors and driver developers than users, since they don't see any of this artifically-created extra complexity. As far as the user is aware it's still a “unified” driver since the internal re-balkanisation isn't visible in the driver bundle (although the “unified” driver suddenly becomes a lot larger). The indirect cost to the user (longer driver development cycles and higher cost) is mostly hidden from them.

From the provided link of the real cost of Vista...
Absolute Rubbish! in nVidia's case there's a fundamental reason why the driver must be separate for GF8 and GF7 and older. The architecture is different. Unified hardware lets go of the traditional OpenGL rendering pipleline hence the GPU is vastly different in many ways. There is no feasible way in Vista to unify a driver that supports a unified GPU with a discreet vertex/pixel block GPU. In a DX10 context there's no need for feature query in the API for hardware features as it's all assumed to be the same. (uniformity of DX10 bring about it's power) In a DX9 context with a DX9 adapter and driver, that hardware information must be made available for the API , in this case Dx9Ex.
The driver (NV4drv.dll for example) must be able to provide all that information per feature. That is why you will not get unification of such a driver, they will forever be different, because the target API is incompatible with the previous API versions.
This is common sense. So be careful of what you read about Vista and who it's coming from, not all is true. This driver issue for one is suspect, so it make me wonder what else is not true about the article.

 

[Xarog]

What's the truth? Microsoft as a company is a winner, FACT! NO other company has made or has more millionaires than Microsoft. How did they get these monies? Through our support and through others inability to act.

Microsoft at some point was a two man job . AT some point when you said computer you said IBM and that was that. At this very time there were other operating systems and other software companies. All with more money, more programmers and basically more resources than Microware. When Microware bumped head with IBM, it was IBM that told them to go jump and it's followers followed suit. Today Microsoft can buy IBM, has the largest install base, the biggest and most commercially successful Operating system to date, and (once again) the most advanced graphics API in the world. Oh they also have currently the number 1 selling Console in the world.

This didn't happen by magic, it didn't happen over night, Microsoft is at least 30 years old. Now since so many hate Microsoft, how did this happen? If Microsoft is so bad, so evil, so useless at any and everything, how di all this happen? The millions they bank daily, is it not your millions that you have given them for years on end?
Sigh... guess it started this size... :/

Easy answer there : superior marketing. When they released win95 they had people who didn't even *have* PCs buying the software.

The most successful companies out there are the ones that have the best marketing divisions. For those of us who actually purchase things on their merits rather than the promotional rhetoric, this outcome is singularly unpleasant.

Absolute Rubbish! in nVidia's case there's a fundamental reason why the driver must be separate for GF8 and GF7 and older. The architecture is different. Unified hardware lets go of the traditional OpenGL rendering pipleline hence the GPU is vastly different in many ways. There is no feasible way in Vista to unify a driver that supports a unified GPU with a discreet vertex/pixel block GPU. In a DX10 context there's no need for feature query in the API for hardware features as it's all assumed to be the same. (uniformity of DX10 bring about it's power) In a DX9 context with a DX9 adapter and driver, that hardware information must be made available for the API , in this case Dx9Ex.
The driver (NV4drv.dll for example) must be able to provide all that information per feature. That is why you will not get unification of such a driver, they will forever be different, because the target API is incompatible with the previous API versions.
This is common sense. So be careful of what you read about Vista and who it's coming from, not all is true. This driver issue for one is suspect, so it make me wonder what else is not true about the article.

Yet you point to one instance as if this refutes everything. You don't explain why this new development will force nvidia to make different drivers for each new card that they bring out. Fact : for each API you can currently create a set of unified drivers. With DRM is this still guaranteed, Yes or No?

 

[killadoob]

what i dont get is microsoft make billlions off their software even with piraters but still want to make more

i mean come on now jeez how much more can they really make

the new office is sucky very hard to do anything


its basically exactly the same as all other offices like 2003 but everything is put a different place to make us think its different

vista is not far off xp again just things are named different and its looks pretty but i still own a copy because its only 900 rand, i spend that in 2 weeks on alcohol

 

[ShockG]

Easy answer there : superior marketing. When they released win95 they had people who didn't even *have* PCs buying the software.

The most successful companies out there are the ones that have the best marketing divisions. For those of us who actually purchase things on their merits rather than the promotional rhetoric, this outcome is singularly unpleasant.

And whose fault is that?
That one fails to market their superior product is nobody's fault but their own.
Also Microsoft existed before Win'95. To market Windows'95 they had to have gotten that money somewhere. It wasn't from fresh air, it was from the people who bought windows before.

 

[ShockG]

Yet you point to one instance as if this refutes everything. You don't explain why this new development will force nvidia to make different drivers for each new card that they bring out. Fact : for each API you can currently create a set of unified drivers. With DRM is this still guaranteed, Yes or No?

I just did. NV need a new and separate drivers because they target different API's within the same OS. What enables GF8 to play DX9 games is DX9Ex which has the necessary emulation layer to translate DX9 API calls into something the DX10 GF8 driver can understand. This very same driver cannot be used for a DX9 card in the DX9 context of Vista.

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

so theres not much of a 'big leap forward' with Vista.. if anything, large parts of the OS and structure seems focused on controlling and cross-checking what people are doing on their pc's.. Even if XP did/does do this - Vista seems to be far more overt about it..
Not that anyone here has ANY illegal software on their machines, or uses their pc's for anything dodgy Still, the serious focus of Vista on controlling content, and snooping through ones files, makes me totally unlikely to ever want to move onto it, until a year or two's time, when the OS has been thoroughly hacked, and crippled in its ability to report and compile info on users behavior..

If you are getting that from this article I don't think its all that true btw. I've been running Vista for a while now and I haven't noticed anything restricting me..

If you are actually going to buy DRM Premium whatever content, well that your problem. The kind of people who are worried about this stuff most likely are never going to buy any DRM protected stuff. And all the normal media usage, like that other article pointed out, it exactly the same.

Windows Defender can simply be turned off if you don't want to use it, nothing they force on you. It works about the same as most anti-spyware products, many people were using it willingly on XP before it come out of beta. It was one of the better solutions I remember, now people have a problem with it..

 

[icyrus]

i have a multitude of printers, tv tuner cards and even satellite cards of which there is no linux support, and never will be. i would love them to work in linux, but they dont. i know most things work in linux, but 90% of a functioning pc is not good enough anymore. one day i dream of just buying any hardware and plugging it in and it works in linux, but for the time being lets not kid ourselves.

The blame for that lies squarely on the device manufacturer's shoulders for not providing linux drivers and support. A lot of companies are providing binary linux drivers but there will always be a fair number of sloppy companies who don't care and other who are just in microsoft's pocket.

Personally, I understand why people wont switch. Linux just isn't there yet as a desktop environment.

 

[icyrus]

Oh and BTW? What DirectX game has JC ever worked on? no what DX game has iD ever worked on? No here's an even better question.. When last did iD have the best visual engine? Ah yes the answers are 1)None, 2)None 3)1999's Q3A. Laughable really

How many other engines are portable across platforms?

 

[Xarog]

And whose fault is that?
That one fails to market their superior product is nobody's fault but their own.
Also Microsoft existed before Win'95. To market Windows'95 they had to have gotten that money somewhere. It wasn't from fresh air, it was from the people who bought windows before.

Define superior.

I just did. NV need a new and separate drivers because they target different API's within the same OS. What enables GF8 to play DX9 games is DX9Ex which has the necessary emulation layer to translate DX9 API calls into something the DX10 GF8 driver can understand. This very same driver cannot be used for a DX9 card in the DX9 context of Vista.

Coding two seperate drivers for two different APIs within the same operating system is not the same thing as coding a seperate set of drivers for each and every card for both APIs within an operating system.

 

[DarkWater]

See use it, not for a week but use it for atleast 3weeks everyday. Then say XP is better. You're little 5minute ot 1 day stint is useless as a form of comparison.

True...but emm...I'm running windows XP....and currently its fast, stable and works

So my point is...if it aint broken don't fix it

 

[ShockG]

Coding two seperate drivers for two different APIs within the same operating system is not the same thing as coding a seperate set of drivers for each and every card for both APIs within an operating system.
Reply With Quote

And so?

That article has it vastly wrong. The GF7 cards all the way down to GF4 (could be GF-FX) are in a unified driver. The driver is the same size in relative terms as it was before. The instaler ini still has all the NV_x cores listed much like XP, 2K and '98 did before.

The difference or divergence is with GF8 under Vista. They have a different user space driver. That guy who wrote that article really needs to check himself. GF8 GTX has 8 clusters and 12 memory chips with 768MB ram, GTS has 6 clusters with 10 memory chips at 640Mb. Yet they share the same driver, gee I wonder how this is possible? :/

If it appears unified to the end user, then it is unified. Is there another nvd3dum.dll or nvwgf2.dll driver hidden somewhere in the driver package that exists for every single device Nvidia has? No there isn't, it's one driver.

 

[chiskop]

My, ShockG, you certainly are thorough in your defence of the teeniest criticism of Vista!

Your handlers must be so proud.

 

[Darth Garth]

You got to smile when clueless people starts playing the computer pundit.

 

[Darth Garth]

What DirectX game has JC ever worked on? no what DX game has iD ever worked on? No here's an even better question.

He recently stated that id's "primary" platform is now the Xbox 360 which afaik only supports DirectX and Quake4 runs on the Xbox 360.

 

[ShockG]

That's a game that works on OpenGL1.5 wrapped around DX9~ hardly effort.

Me, clueless about consumer class 3D graphics? Ha Ha LOL