On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 19:24 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 18:13 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> It's likely that the disk came with a special driver for Windows,
>>> whereas the Linux version is using a generic driver. I'd guess the
>>> answer is probably in the Windows driver code, but of course it will be
>>> binary and proprietary so it's of no use to anyone.
>> Clearly it's of _some_ use to _someone_. It just isn't of use to _you_.
> No, it's of no use to anyone using a non-Windows system. Isn't that what
> we're talking about on this list?
Actually, my other reply wasn't quite apropos to your question in
this exact context. This particular driver is not especially useful in
this particular context, except as a comparison of what can be
done using the exact same hardware. Also, people who use Fedora
use it on dual boot systems. This echo is "Community support for
Fedora users", some of whom are also Windows (of various versions)
Comparisons and contrasts between the performance of the identical
same hardware using different drivers is of definite benefit for
Of course. That's why I brought it up in the first place.
However, in a broader context, simply because a driver is closed
source and proprietary does not mean that it is of no use to anyone.
AIUI, nVidia provides some Linux drivers which are closed, and used
by people here, as an example.
I made no such generalization. You're taking a far too literal reading
of an off-the-cuff phrase, and missing the point I was trying to make,
to wit, that proprietary (and usually undocumented) drivers can do
anything at all and we aren't going to know about it without enormous
effort. IOW "what can be done with the exact same hardware" in practice
*cannot* be done except via the proprietary driver. The OP's question
about his disk system performance could well be unanswerable.
All this is of course completely hypothetical.