radeon driver heading in wrong direction :-(.
vvmarko at gmail.com
Sun Jan 31 16:35:57 UTC 2010
On Sunday 31 January 2010 14:25:39 Gilboa Davara wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 20:30 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > In my case, none of the above...
> Oh, come on!
> I'm using the same binary driver as you are.
> And yes, nVidia binary driver, while -far- better than ATI's driver,
Lesser of two evils, right? ;-)
> had it's share of issues.
> - Initial F12 xorg + nVidia driver combo resulted in unbelievably slow
> performance under KDE.
But this is worked around by now. Unbelievable, given the fact that those are
actually closed source drivers, yes? :-)
> - Legacy driver releases tend to lag the "current" driver badly. In a
> desktop, you could always switch to the latest version, but you laptop
> still carries a GF5600M, you're more or less screwed.
Umm, my initial comment that spawned this part of the thread was about advice
on buying *new* cards, not buying *old* cards. If you want to buy an old card,
feel free to buy a new Intel card instead, you'll get the same level of
> - Xen kernel were never supported by nVidia.
You want 3D graphics in a virtual environment? To what purpose? Playing quake3
on a mail/web/file-server under a virtual machine?
> - Having to compile a kernel without 4K stacks for months, until nVidia
> added support for it.
As compared to ATI not providing support for current version of X for the same
number of months and still counting? Tricky question: what is easier ---
recompiling a kernel, or downgrading X? :-)
> .... Again, nVidia is doing an admirable job at keeping their drivers
> stable and current (compared to say, ATI or Intel Poulsbo), but claiming
> the using them do not come at a price, is ridicules, at best.
Fair enough. But this price is lower then in ATI and Intel case, at any rate.
It's not perfect, but is just the best offer available.
More information about the users