why is ati so mean

[HybridSquirrel]

They require you to download .Net frameworking before using drivers and if you dont they will hold your soul for all eternity thats why my comp has been crashing so much!! GRR THIS MAKES ME ANGRY

 

[apoppin]

Blame M$ . . . not ATi

and gates already has your soul.


:Q

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Blame M$ . . . not ATi

and gates already has your soul.


:Q

LOL! Yep, they have your soul and won't let go until all the money is sucked right out of you.

 

[tuteja1986]

i don't get people :! the bitch about .net frame , java :! what is next :! I use alot of program that needs .net frame and i like it :!

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
i don't get people :! the bitch about .net frame , java :! what is next :! I use alot of program that needs .net frame and i like it :!

Exactly. This is almost as retarded as people who complain about having to use an operating system other than Windows95. :laugh:

 

[HybridSquirrel]

I hate windows 95. i dont buy ms products. i get them from work, i guess its a bonus and i register them under fake names

 

[Matt2]

.net should not be required and DOES cause lots of people problems. Just because you guys arent having problems doesnt mean others dont have legitimate gripes about it.

Nvidia doesn't require .net so I dont see why ATI should.

I do however agree that .net is going to become a fact of life even for Nvidia users, but MS should at least iron out the bugs before companies like ATI require its use.

My $0.02

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Matt2
.net should not be required and DOES cause lots of people problems. Just because you guys arent having problems doesnt mean others dont have legitimate gripes about it.

Nvidia doesn't require .net so I dont see why ATI should.

I do however agree that .net is going to become a fact of life even for Nvidia users, but MS should at least iron out the bugs before companies like ATI require its use.

My $0.02

ah but nVidia WILL require .NET . . . if they want to stay compliant with M$.

ATi is just ahead of the performance leader.


and M$ IS letting us iron out their NET bugs . . . as usual
[you don't think ATi just might be working closely with M$] :Q

 

[HybridSquirrel]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Matt2
.net should not be required and DOES cause lots of people problems. Just because you guys arent having problems doesnt mean others dont have legitimate gripes about it.

Nvidia doesn't require .net so I dont see why ATI should.

I do however agree that .net is going to become a fact of life even for Nvidia users, but MS should at least iron out the bugs before companies like ATI require its use.

My $0.02

ah but nVidia WILL require .NET . . . if they want to stay compliant with M$.

ATi is just ahead of the performance leader.


and M$ IS letting US iron out the NET bugs . . . as usual
[you don't think ATi might be working closer with M$] :Q

/agree

 

[beggerking]

agreed...

still, ATI needs to devote more time making the software bug-free..

I think ATI is starting to learn from MS .. using customers as free debuggers/beta testers

 

[Munky]

I dont like .net because I didnt buy a fast cpu with fast mem and a fast HD only to have to put up with crap that takes up 30mb and 10 seconds to load, when the same funtionality could be had in a 3mb app that loads in 1 second. If I had to pick one reason why things are moving to .net, I'd put my money on M$ trying to further expand its monopoly on software and market share. There's no technical reason for this additional layer of bloat.

 

[beggerking]

.net makes it programming language independent..
they had detailed explaination but its basically that some part of app can be programmed using C while other part using Basic etc..(as in packages)

not much candy for the end user though... though I stand corrected..

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Matt2
.net should not be required and DOES cause lots of people problems. Just because you guys arent having problems doesnt mean others dont have legitimate gripes about it.

Nvidia doesn't require .net so I dont see why ATI should.

, but MS should at least iron out the bugs before companies like ATI require its use.

My $0.02

ah but nVidia WILL require .NET . . . if they want to stay compliant with M$.

That's what I said.

I do however agree that .net is going to become a fact of life even for Nvidia users

 

[Unkno]

the drivers do not require .net, only the the CCC

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: munky
I dont like .net because I didnt buy a fast cpu with fast mem and a fast HD only to have to put up with crap that takes up 30mb and 10 seconds to load, when the same funtionality could be had in a 3mb app that loads in 1 second. If I had to pick one reason why things are moving to .net, I'd put my money on M$ trying to further expand its monopoly on software and market share. There's no technical reason for this additional layer of bloat.

Yep. I guess people like us are few and far between. 'There's faster hardware' is no excuse. I bought faster hardware to run software faster, not to run it as fast as it always ran. .NET and Java are slow, by nature. ATI Tray Tools (C++) much faster than ATI CCC (.NET), and µTorrent (C++) is superior to Azureus (Java) for many. I'd rather have software like ATI TT and µTorrent in the future. There's no excuse for using such high-level languages for dwindling tasks like writing some keys to the registry and calling a function in a library. :roll:

Drivers written in .NET? If Microsoft has their way, probably. Let's double the ALUs in our GPU to make up for .NET's lack of speed, right? Shouldn't be much of a problem. :roll:

 

[fierydemise]

I think creating .net drivers right now was a good thing (gives ATI a leg up when Microsoft requires it), but requiring it is a stupid move unless they can make the CCC as efficient with .net as nVidia can without.

 

[Tom]

Most of the time there's no reason to even have a program like CCC loaded, so it's extremeyl stupid to have to install a whole new piece of operating system just to be able to change screen resolutions. I know there's a bunch of other junk in there, but who the heck uses it on a regular basis ?

I mean CCC ought to be a 20k program, and that is if it has beacoup features. What is the 20 mbs of junk, a bunch of pretty screens or something ?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Matt2
.net should not be required and DOES cause lots of people problems. Just because you guys arent having problems doesnt mean others dont have legitimate gripes about it.

Nvidia doesn't require .net so I dont see why ATI should.

, but MS should at least iron out the bugs before companies like ATI require its use.

My $0.02

ah but nVidia WILL require .NET . . . if they want to stay compliant with M$.

That's what I said.

I do however agree that .net is going to become a fact of life even for Nvidia users

believe-it-or-not, i actually noticed it and was simply adding to it

 

[DrZoidberg]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Matt2
.net should not be required and DOES cause lots of people problems. Just because you guys arent having problems doesnt mean others dont have legitimate gripes about it.

Nvidia doesn't require .net so I dont see why ATI should.

I do however agree that .net is going to become a fact of life even for Nvidia users, but MS should at least iron out the bugs before companies like ATI require its use.

My $0.02

ah but nVidia WILL require .NET . . . if they want to stay compliant with M$.

ATi is just ahead of the performance leader.


and M$ IS letting us iron out their NET bugs . . . as usual
[you don't think ATi just might be working closely with M$] :Q

Why would MS require Nvidia to program in .NET for their drivers in the future? Does that mean your printer, scanner, digital camera, soundcard, chipset drivers have to have .NET installed before they can be used in the future as their drivers need .NET?

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: DrZoidberg

Why would MS require Nvidia to program in .NET for their drivers in the future? Does that mean your printer, scanner, digital camera, soundcard, chipset drivers have to have .NET installed before they can be used in the future as their drivers need .NET?

.NET will be part of the OS starting with Vista so it will be a moot point. There's nothing evil about it... it makes programming easier and will lead to more software available to you.

Edit: mute -> moot

 

[ktehmok]

I was just looking around in here for info on Catalyst drivers for my 9800 pro. Looks like I should stick w/ the Omega?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Blame M$ . . . not ATi

and gates already has your soul.


:Q

Nah, we can blame both. They got in bed together, so they can take the ridicule together.

 

[tuteja1986]

so when NVIDIA gets in bed with Asus and Intel we don't blame them :?

Anyways there is to much hatred against ATI no thanks to popular member (R and others). I hope the forum became balance before it becomes an all out ANT-ATI forum which is where it heading.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: DrZoidberg

Why would MS require Nvidia to program in .NET for their drivers in the future? Does that mean your printer, scanner, digital camera, soundcard, chipset drivers have to have .NET installed before they can be used in the future as their drivers need .NET?

.NET will be part of the OS starting with Vista so it will be a moot point. There's nothing evil about it... it makes programming easier and will lead to more software available to you.

Edit: mute -> moot

And Vista comes out when? Late 2007? It might be moot then, but it isn't right now.

 

[sandorski]

People, including mself, used to rail on DirectX in the same way. Software changes, complaints remain constant.