-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
SLI bug
- Thread starter fstime
- Start date
EightySix Four
Diamond Member
Calm down rollo, LOTS of people run older OS's especially 2000, as it was a pretty nice and stable operating system without all the bullsh!t.
I like DOS too, but I don't hit AT and post, "Yet another ATI X850XT PE bug- no DOS drivers. Quite disappointing."
If you don't post fairly pointless flamebait, you won't get flamed? (not that I really broke out the napalm over this minutia)
I'm sure most people willing to spend the money for 2005s most advanced gaming hardware can see their way clear to using an OS from this decade?
Matter of opinion. In mine, WIN2K is a dinosaur. Were I using it, I wouldn't expect all the latest and greatest stuff to work on it. It is 2005...not 2000....not 2001.....not 2002...not 2003.....not 2004....2005. Five years old in OS years is not "modern".
For that matter, anything computer related that is five years old is an antique. What do you have in your box that's five years old other than Win2K? If anything, have you been working?
EightySix Four
Diamond Member
What year did windows XP get released? 2002ish, that still makes it like 3 years old, and it'll probably be 4 or 5 years old by the time we see Long(wait)Horn. So this operating system is pretty much a dinasour too, lets all switch to Linux/MacOSX and be happy 😉?
nitromullet
Diamond Member
Even M$ doesn't guarantee mainstream support past 5 years...
http://support.microsoft.com/?LN=en-us&scid=gp%3B%5Bln%5D%3Blifecycle&x=13&y=10
Why should nVidia offer legacy support for its cutting edge hardware configuration? Don't get me wrong, an FX 5200 should work perfectly on Win2k and should be supported by nVidia. However, I don't think it's too much to ask for anyone wanting to run a special configuration like SLI to use the most current version of Windows, especially considering that XP isn't exactly new anymore.
stnicralisk
Golden Member
Rollo you can be a bitch sometimes.. oh wait almost always.
Boze
Senior member
Despite popular belief on these forums, Windows 2000 still has a huge installed userbase, especially amongst those who don't want or need all the bells & whistles of Windows XP; to be perfectly honest, the only reason I use Windows XP is because its more graphically attractive than Windows 2000. From a stability standpoint, I consider Windows 2000 to be Microsoft's crowning achievement.
And while this doesn't apply, over 90% of the all US Government systems still run Windows 2000 (according to survey data across all government departments). The majority of sys/site admins I talk to who manage Naval networks claim they like 2000 because as a general rule, most troublemakers (i.e., virus/worm writers) are targeting Windows XP instead of the older OSes. Personally I consider this a faux pas, but then again, I don't know a whole lot about virus / worm creation... nor do I really want to know either.
And Rollo, just because you're using the latest and greatest doesn't mean everyone else is, or is going to want to. Windows 2000 has been out five(ish) years. Its lifespan is at least another three, and probably close to another five. Change is slow, even when it might actually benefit more people and bring along better technology. Look how long we've been using CDs as a storage medium for music, and honestly, it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon. We're just now on the forefront of seeing new video technologies for playback and its been, what? 9, 10 years since DVDs were commericially available?
And while this doesn't apply, over 90% of the all US Government systems still run Windows 2000 (according to survey data across all government departments). The majority of sys/site admins I talk to who manage Naval networks claim they like 2000 because as a general rule, most troublemakers (i.e., virus/worm writers) are targeting Windows XP instead of the older OSes. Personally I consider this a faux pas, but then again, I don't know a whole lot about virus / worm creation... nor do I really want to know either.
And Rollo, just because you're using the latest and greatest doesn't mean everyone else is, or is going to want to. Windows 2000 has been out five(ish) years. Its lifespan is at least another three, and probably close to another five. Change is slow, even when it might actually benefit more people and bring along better technology. Look how long we've been using CDs as a storage medium for music, and honestly, it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon. We're just now on the forefront of seeing new video technologies for playback and its been, what? 9, 10 years since DVDs were commericially available?
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
So you think the bottom 20% of OS users should get support for the top couple percent of hardware? On an OS that's five years old?
Like I said, "Where's my DOS drivers for ATI?"
I'll concede the point that people using antique operating systems are just plain out of luck with SLI.
So you think the bottom 20% of OS users should get support for the top couple percent of hardware? On an OS that's five years old?
Like I said, "Where's my DOS drivers for ATI?"
I'll concede the point that people using antique operating systems are just plain out of luck with SLI.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
I've had four office jobs in teh last four years (I'm a university student; not a drifter😛):
2001: windows 95
2002: windows 98
2003: windows NT4
2004: windows 2000
I happen to know that the group that was using windows 98 three years ago is STILL using windows 98. So yes, installed bases stick around long after an OS is obsolete.
But this is corporate environements. Most of us who build new systems aren't dealing with network-wide standard installations and the like: we install whatever is newest, as long as it's had SP1 already😉
There might be some SLI users who would like to use w2k, but I don't see the need to support it unless Nvidia feels it's worth doing so as a business decision. I think they would be much more inclined to prepare support for 64-bit windows, to be honest.
2001: windows 95
2002: windows 98
2003: windows NT4
2004: windows 2000
I happen to know that the group that was using windows 98 three years ago is STILL using windows 98. So yes, installed bases stick around long after an OS is obsolete.
But this is corporate environements. Most of us who build new systems aren't dealing with network-wide standard installations and the like: we install whatever is newest, as long as it's had SP1 already😉
There might be some SLI users who would like to use w2k, but I don't see the need to support it unless Nvidia feels it's worth doing so as a business decision. I think they would be much more inclined to prepare support for 64-bit windows, to be honest.
nitromullet
Diamond Member
This may be so, however, the Valve survey shows that almost 90% of 1,430,707 steam users surveyed (gamers) are running Windows XP.
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
stnicralisk
Golden Member
youre right 1 out of every 5 users DOESNT deserve driver support! Make a shop, tell every 5th customer you dont support them.
EDIT: im also curious why Nvidia makes cards for macs. I mean hell its only 3% right rollo?
nitromullet
Diamond Member
You are not getting it... The point is not that users of older OS'es shouldn't get any support, but more is it feasible for nVidia to ensure legacy OS support for its most cutting edge, expensive video solution targetted towards the enthusiast. Serioulsy, how many people that are willing to spend close to $1,000.00 for two video cards and an SLI motherboard are not going to be running Windows XP? Sure, it will happen, but is it cost effective for nVidia to duplicate all testing and debugging on Windows 2000 for a small percentage of an already niche market?
stnicralisk
Golden Member
It will happen because of quadro.. businesses will want quadro in SLi for faster render times. XP and 2k are both built on NT it really would be worth it to support 2k. At least more profit there than on a macintosh. IN any case you can get SLi cards and mobo for 500 to 600 dollars case in point 6600gt.
If nVidia were ever to actually open up the necessary documentation, this kind of discussion would likely be pointless.
If any hardware company is not going to support a certain OS, why should they prevent others from being able to make it work on other systems?
Hardware and chipset makers piss me off by pulling these kind of stunts.
If any hardware company is not going to support a certain OS, why should they prevent others from being able to make it work on other systems?
Hardware and chipset makers piss me off by pulling these kind of stunts.
Seems to me that NVIDIA's target consumer for high-end gaming cards is most likely to be using Windows XP Home which is not comparable to Windows 2000 feature or price-wise. Indeed, I have said it before and will say it again: the primary raison d'etre for XP was the splitting of 2000 into a lower price bracket with some fluff added to appeal to upgraders from DOS based Windows that otherwise would not appreciate the improvement. One of few functional differences betwixt 5.0 and 5.1 is in fact the way multiple displays work so if SLI is dependent upon that and NVIDIA has not made compatability with the former a priority, it ain't exactly a surprise. SLI is doomed anyway.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
