Going to War With NVIDIA

[Gstanfor]

I'm running a corporate version of XP

I find that to be very interesting given that most pirated copies of XP are cracked corporate copies...

Corporate licensing isn't available to individuals since it is a form of volume licencing, only available to companies (and you have to apply for said volume licence and satisfy specific criteria whilst doing so), so unless your gaming machine is at work I fail to see how you can claim to be (legally) using a corporate version of XP on your machine (assuming of source you refer to the machine in your signature).

 

[Keysplayr]

Included (sometimes) in the criteria you mentioned, could be a license granted for telecommuting corporate workers. I used to work for a company that allowed 1 copy for office machine, and one copy for home. This was Windows 2000 and XP pro. All licensing matters are highly configurable through MS msdn when speaking with an actual MS emplyee (salesman). So, having a corporate version of XP on a home machine does not automatically make it pirated.

 

[SilentRunning]

Where are my vista drivers?

 

[josh6079]

The card itself meets DX10 specs does it not?

Yes, the card meats the DX10 spec and I have no doubt that it will function fine on Vista when the drivers are released.

I think a lot of you guys are really getting a little too hot under the collar about this. I said this before, but when Vista finally REALLY ACTUALLY RELEASES, then you can all belly ache about no drivers IF nvidia has not released one by then.

What if I'm a person who bought a Vista OS from one of the links I gave and bought a G80 from newegg? Do I have less rights because I made legit purchases before Microsoft wanted me to make legit purchases?

I won't go near Vista with a ten foot cattle prod until at least SP1 is doled out by M$.

QFT. That's why I said I don't exactly feel complete sympathy for current Vista users. But the fact remains that those who decided to buy a Vista and a G80 are wanting the support they were told they'd have and are completely entitled to have it.

By your definition of Vista ready why shouldn't I expect a DX10 driver from Nvidia right now as well?

Won't they be the same thing? I mean, isn't DX10 included with Vista?

 

[BenSkywalker]

How so? You have Vista drivers for your product do you not?

Could you point me to drivers for my TV Wonder please. Since you claim ATi is not doing the exact same thing as nVidia it should be no problem whatsoever. Take off the red tinted glasses my friend

 

[NoStateofMind]

Yeah, i got an e-mail from ZZF about ATI cards being the now dreaded "Vista Ready" sort. The thing is, out of the 5 or so cards they were trying to sell, none of which are Direct X 10 compliant (obviously).

I must have deleted the e-mail cause i cannot find it. Oh well, take my word for it or not, that's what the e-mail stated.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yeah, i got an e-mail from ZZF about ATI cards being the now dreaded "Vista Ready" sort. The thing is, out of the 5 or so cards they were trying to sell, none of which are Direct X 10 compliant (obviously).

I must have deleted the e-mail cause i cannot find it. Oh well, take my word for it or not, that's what the e-mail stated.

ATi cards are "Vista Ready"

there are are Drivers ...
... and Vista desktop runs on DX9 ... oob
:Q

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yeah, i got an e-mail from ZZF about ATI cards being the now dreaded "Vista Ready" sort. The thing is, out of the 5 or so cards they were trying to sell, none of which are Direct X 10 compliant (obviously).

I must have deleted the e-mail cause i cannot find it. Oh well, take my word for it or not, that's what the e-mail stated.

ATi cards are "Vista Ready"

there are are Drivers ...
... and Vista desktop runs on DX9 ... oob
:Q

<crying> "MOMMY!!" </crying>

 

[josh6079]

Could you point me to drivers for my TV Wonder please.

I assume you mean "All-in-Wonder"?

If so, here are the Vista drivers from ATI. They have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions and support Radeon, All-in-Wonder, and FireMV alike.

edit: grammar

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: josh6079
Won't they be the same thing? I mean, isn't DX10 included with Vista?

Yes it is , but isn't it a bit far stretched to have a D3D10 driver now? What's the point? They could have just released a D3D9 driver for Vista and when the actual OS will launch release the normal D3D10 driver..

Originally posted by: SilentRunning
Where are my vista drivers?

Mmm. Interesting.. Cmon where are the cruel criticizers of Nvidia logo now? Why oh why don't they speak? :disgust:

 

[josh6079]

Yes it is , but isn't it a bit far stretched to have a D3D10 driver now? What's the point? They could have just released a D3D9 driver for Vista and when the actual OS will launch release the normal D3D10 driver..

When you say the D3D10 "driver" do you mean D3D10 itself? D3D10 is included in Vista and if there were any drivers for Vista then I would assume a DX10 card such as the G80 would do fine with it. I don't think that you have to have a seperate "driver" for running DX9 on Vista but rather a different version of DX9 itself.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Yes it is , but isn't it a bit far stretched to have a D3D10 driver now? What's the point? They could have just released a D3D9 driver for Vista and when the actual OS will launch release the normal D3D10 driver..

When you say the D3D10 "driver" do you mean D3D10 itself? D3D10 is included in Vista and if there were any drivers for Vista then I would assume a DX10 card such as the G80 would do fine with it. I don't think that you have to have a seperate "driver" for running DX9 on Vista but rather a different version of DX9 itself.

Drivers are guiding the API to follow instructions. That's why I said they could have just released a driver that could make 8800gtx work in d3d9 mode only for their and our comfort.. Of course when things will come to normal conditions they will use the d3d10 driver which of course if backwards compatible with d3d9..

 

[josh6079]

Drivers are guiding the API to follow instructions.

I thought drivers make sure the hardware is following the API?

Will DX10 require a DX10 driver? Because unless I'm mistaken I don't think that DX9 required a DX9 driver.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Drivers are guiding the API to follow instructions.

I thought drivers make sure the hardware is following the API?

It's the same thing.. In both cases the desirable outcome is the "harmonisation" of the card with the API to produce the right result.. But it is more correct to say that drivers are guiding it.. If Nvidia wants to cheat and exclude some dx9 characteristics for instance they can do it through drivers,thus guiding the API to do whatever they tell it to do..

Will DX10 require a DX10 driver? Because unless I'm mistaken I don't think that DX9 required a DX9 driver.

No I'm saying that they could use a "d3d9 only" driver for 8800GTX in Vista for the time being, and when times comes release the D3D10 driver which will be backwards compatible of course..

 

[josh6079]

No I'm saying that they could use a "d3d9 only" driver for 8800GTX in Vista for the time being...

But isn't DX10 backwards compatible with DX9? If DX10 is native in Vista why would they need to use a DX9-only driver?

 

[BFG10K]

If I have a stomach IF IF...

Your stomach has no bearing on my claim that the food is ready.

How is irrelevant?

Because I claimed the food is ready. I didn't claim the food is ready only when you get a stomach. The logo doesn't say "Vista ready but only when Vista is on retail shelves".

If I don't have the stomach to digest the food how am I supposed to function properly? What do I need the food for? To look at it ?

It could be an order for someone else who has a stomach. That person wants to eat the food and to them whether you have a stomach or not (or whether you like the food or not) is irrelevant.

Amen for once you make a valid point and an argument. As you saw I stand corrected because Josh provide me me with a link tha tyou are actually able to buy the OS. See? that wasn't too difficult..

Alright then, so you were wrong. Why haven't you stopped right there?

No my definition of the ordinary "consumer" does not include the minority of those that have access to the system prior to its official release or the professionals..

"Ordinary consumer"...another goal-post shift.

Just because you have some privileges given to you by M$ does not mean that everyone is obliged to satisfy you prior to the official release of the system..

It's nothing to do with my privileges or lack thereof. Furthemore not "everyone" is obliged, just those that claim their product is Vista ready.

But sure. Whatever. I'll just have the drivers sitting right here in order to satisfy your explanation of "Vista Ready"...

If something is claimed to be ready then there shouldn't be a wait to get it. If you're waiting then it's not ready.

By your definition of Vista ready why shouldn't I expect a DX10 driver from Nvidia right now as well?

I suppose so. At the very least we should have a driver of some kind and not be forced to hack the XP driver.

Yeah I know.. Everything that does not include YOUR definition of being correct is nonsense and irrelevant..

If you want to be obtuse about it then that's your issue. The point is your opinion of Vista is irrelevant to the Vista ready claim.

It's not "Vista ready but only when jim1976 accepts it and decides to use Vista".

The term Vista ready doesn't revolve around your schedule, it revolves around those people running legit versions of Vista that purchased G80 because it was claimed to be Vista ready.

Again, had they known many of them would've waited for R600 so I can definitely see where they're coming from.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: josh6079

No I'm saying that they could use a "d3d9 only" driver for 8800GTX in Vista for the time being...

But isn't DX10 backwards compatible with DX9? If DX10 is native in Vista why would they need to use a DX9-only driver?

It would probably be more easy to write a driver solely for d3d9 in Vista, because they have sufficient feedback about D3D9 from XP..Despite that you said it yourself ,the d3d10 drivers will be backwards compatible so it's like they would have released the half part of d3d10 driver (the programming of d3d9 backward compatibility).. And that would have given them more time to prepare the Forceware X DRIVER(d3d10)

The opposite of course is much more difficult(a d3d10 driver in xp) since the differences in APIs are huge and a big part of XP OS should be rewritten in order to be done.. (not my words, developers have mentioned it)

 

[BFG10K]

I find that to be very interesting given that most pirated copies of XP are cracked corporate copies...

Interesting theory but not in this case. I don't pirate software and I also have a legit retail boxed version of XP Pro for my home machine.

I suppose I could game on my work machine but the point here is there are plenty of reasons why someone would be running corporate versions of Windows and gaming on them.

A Cyber Cafe for example; it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to be trying to run G80 along with a business version of Vista.

Also like keysplayr2003 says it's possible to get a legit corporate license onto a home machine.

Could you point me to drivers for my TV Wonder please. Since you claim ATi is not doing the exact same thing as nVidia it should be no problem whatsoever. Take off the red tinted glasses my friend

If ATi claims TV Wonder is Vista ready but there are no Vista drivers then I absolutely agree with you that it's false advertising. So tell me, is ATi claiming it's Vista ready?

Oh, and merry Christmas Ben. :thumbsup:

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
If ATi claims TV Wonder is Vista ready but there are no Vista drivers then I absolutely agree with you that it's false advertising. So tell me, is ATi claiming it's Vista ready?

Oh, and merry Christmas Ben. :thumbsup:

I think the pic that was linked by SilentRunning was a TV Wonder and it said Vista Ready on it.

 

[Gstanfor]

Well, I know a thing or two about cyber-cafe's since (among many other things) I volunteer my time and skills to one. We use Windows Server 2003 on the server, OEM XP Pro SP2 on the PC's and Retail XP Pro SP2 on the imacs that run Virtual PC for training.

There is no reason at all that I can think of that would require someone to have XP corporate on a home machine even if they telecommuted. If it were (for whatever inexplicable reason) necessary I'd expect the business to provide a laptop or workstation for the employee to use at home.

I have friends who work as IT Administrators for companies large and small, and local councils. As such they have need of remote server administration - what they don't need is XP corporate to accomplish this.

 

[thilanliyan]

GSTanfor just because you or some other person cannot come up with a reason to do so doesn't make it impossible. As Kersplayr explained it is POSSIBLE...however improbable it may seem to you. There's no way for you to prove otherwise anyway so why bother arguing about something completely off topic. Just a thought. As a disclaimer, I'm not trying to flame you or anything so don't take it personally.

 

[BFG10K]

Well, I know a thing or two about cyber-cafe's since (among many other things) I volunteer my time and skills to one. We use Windows Server 2003 on the server, OEM XP Pro SP2 on the PC's and Retail XP Pro SP2 on the imacs that run Virtual PC for training.

That's great but is your Cyber-Cafe the only one on the planet? The point it's a business where I can see Vista and G80 being used.

There is no reason at all that I can think of that would require someone to have XP corporate on a home machine even if they telecommuted.

The same reason as company cars, laptops, etc.

If the business requires you to perform work-related tasks off-site then they should give tools to do it. If my work asked me to work at home and I didn't have a copy of XP I certainly wouldn't shell out of my own pocket for it.

Also you might have a home business with the need to license multiple PCs.

Also plenty of Universities buy extra licenses so that students can run software at home.

 

[Gstanfor]

If the business requires you to perform work-related tasks off-site then they should give tools to do it.

Of course. A laptop or workstation if you are an existing employee and don't have a current or capable computer.

New employees wouldn't get the job if they didn't have the tools required to perform the task.

The point is corporate licencing is for use ***within*** corporations.

 

[BFG10K]

New employees wouldn't get the job if they didn't have the tools required to perform the task.

Riiight, which is why we've never heard of anyone getting a new job and receiving work-related items to go with it. :roll:

The point is corporate licencing is for use ***within*** corporations.

What exactly is "within"? Within the building? Within the LAN? What?

If I buy ten licenses under a Volume License Key I can install the software on ten machines.

If I choose to install it on eight work machines and two home machines that's my business and doesn't make me a software pirate.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

If the business requires you to perform work-related tasks off-site then they should give tools to do it.

Of course. A laptop or workstation if you are an existing employee and don't have a current or capable computer.

Does not have to be a laptop. Does not have to be a workstation. OF COURSE it would have to be an existing employee that has a current and capable computer away from the office, but sometimes that doesn't even matter as I have seen companies spend money to actually get employees home computers bumped up to capable.. You should have never opened your mouth about this if you really didn't know about it. Microsoft will work with any company and their particular needs. As long as they sell licenses.

New employees wouldn't get the job if they didn't have the tools required to perform the task.

The tools you speak of are usually the knowledge the would be employee possesses and not what physical belongings he/she had.

The point is corporate licencing is for use ***within*** corporations.

I'm sorry, but licensing of any sort from M$ is not set in stone. If it were, they'd have a lot less sales. You can google all you want, check MS site for licensing packages, so on and so forth, but you would actually need to chat with a sales representative to taylor what you buy from them for particular needs.