NVdia, why is it not like others?

NVdia, why is it not like others?

Post by G. Hugh Son » Mon, 21 May 2001 13:46:20



I can't understand why NVdia driver is necessary to be built up
from src all the time.
Is it simply because the software is in beta state?
Or is it because the software is proprietary?

I switched my choice of graphics card from Matrox to Nvidia
after reading that the 2MX card beats any Matrox cards hands down.

The extra job of installing the module whenever a new kernel
is built really bothers me.

Regards,
--
Hugh

 
 
 

NVdia, why is it not like others?

Post by Andy Walke » Tue, 22 May 2001 01:56:13



>I can't understand why NVdia driver is necessary to be built up
>from src all the time.
>Is it simply because the software is in beta state?
>Or is it because the software is proprietary?

>I switched my choice of graphics card from Matrox to Nvidia
>after reading that the 2MX card beats any Matrox cards hands down.

>The extra job of installing the module whenever a new kernel
>is built really bothers me.

>Regards,
>--
>Hugh

Basically NVidia have been working with Microsoft too long and cannot
understand the concept of open source. If they released the software through
the GNU public licence it would be distributed freely and be part of XFree86
then would work out of the box in 2D and 3D accelerated modes. As it is,
unless you buy a boxed version, you have to download and install it
yourself. The worst of it is that due to the nature of its licence, the
driver is appalling unreliable and brings Windows type stability to your
machine (i.e. more flaky than a room full of lepers). My advise is forget
NVidia until they get a grip and buy something that XFree86 supports if it's
not too late, or if not you could by my TNT2 card of me because I've had
enough! Whatever happens, please fire of an e-mail to NVidia and complain as
the more that do, the more likely they are to change their ways.

 
 
 

NVdia, why is it not like others?

Post by Steve Bradle » Tue, 22 May 2001 07:35:35




>>I can't understand why NVdia driver is necessary to be built up
>>from src all the time.
>>Is it simply because the software is in beta state?
>>Or is it because the software is proprietary?

>>I switched my choice of graphics card from Matrox to Nvidia
>>after reading that the 2MX card beats any Matrox cards hands down.

>>The extra job of installing the module whenever a new kernel
>>is built really bothers me.

>>Regards,
>>--
>>Hugh

> Basically NVidia have been working with Microsoft too long and cannot
> understand the concept of open source. If they released the software
> through the GNU public licence it would be distributed freely and be part
> of XFree86 then would work out of the box in 2D and 3D accelerated modes.
> As it is, unless you buy a boxed version, you have to download and install
> it yourself. The worst of it is that due to the nature of its licence, the
> driver is appalling unreliable and brings Windows type stability to your
> machine (i.e. more flaky than a room full of lepers). My advise is forget
> NVidia until they get a grip and buy something that XFree86 supports if
> it's not too late, or if not you could by my TNT2 card of me because I've
> had enough! Whatever happens, please fire of an e-mail to NVidia and
> complain as the more that do, the more likely they are to change their
> ways.

Not to dispute that the closed-source model somewhat sucks. (it does)..or
that I'd rather have the drivers native to Xfree (I would):  but I've had
no problems with my Nvidia drivers pushing my Creative Annihilator card at
1280x1024x24, using Xfree4.03, RH7.1.  The only machine crashes I've had
are occassional lockups when running Quicken 2000 via WINE...most likely
unrelated to the video drivers.

So you gotta build 'em - it takes 10 seconds, tops, on a slow machine. 3 on
a fast one.  

RPMs are available for some distros also, if you don't want to compile.

--
Steve Bradley

 
 
 

NVdia, why is it not like others?

Post by Christian Huebne » Mon, 28 May 2001 13:06:43



> The worst of it is that due to the nature of its licence, the
> driver is appalling unreliable and brings Windows type stability to your
> machine (i.e. more flaky than a room full of lepers).

While I dont approve with the non-Open-Source-concept of nVidia I
had no stability or reliability issues at all.

Chris

 
 
 

NVdia, why is it not like others?

Post by Bernhard Mogens Eg » Mon, 28 May 2001 20:10:42




>> The worst of it is that due to the nature of its licence, the
>> driver is appalling unreliable and brings Windows type stability to your
>> machine (i.e. more flaky than a room full of lepers).
> While I dont approve with the non-Open-Source-concept of nVidia I
> had no stability or reliability issues at all.

I have problems with the Opera web browser and the NVidia 1.0-1251
driver. When scrolling, it is very jumpy (when images are present on
the web-page). When I use the nv driver, it is very smooth. Also,
Visiting one specific page (zdnet, a review of some sort), my PC would
freeze while scrolling this page. Again, the nv driver was/is very
stable. The only change is changing the NVidia driver to the NV driver
(and of course uninstalling NVIDIA_GLX).

I am using a RedHat kernel, 2.4.3-2.14.14 on a MSI 6167 mortherboard
(AMD751/756 chipset).

My NVidia problems could also originate from the fact the AGP
transfers simply causes the PC to freeze (though windows is
stable). The agpgart claims to support the chipset but system freeze
occurs soon after start of X. Nvidia agp is more stable. /proc/nv/card
claims AGP is enabled and the speed is "-" with the possibility of
running 1x or 2x. NvAgp option in XF86Config-4 is set to "0".

I'll continue running with the nv driver until NVidia can provide a
stable driver.

Bernhard

 
 
 

NVdia, why is it not like others?

Post by Paul L » Tue, 29 May 2001 01:55:39





>>> The worst of it is that due to the nature of its licence, the
>>> driver is appalling unreliable and brings Windows type stability to your
>>> machine (i.e. more flaky than a room full of lepers).

>> While I dont approve with the non-Open-Source-concept of nVidia I
>> had no stability or reliability issues at all.

> I have problems with the Opera web browser and the NVidia 1.0-1251
> driver. When scrolling, it is very jumpy (when images are present on
> the web-page). When I use the nv driver, it is very smooth. Also,
> Visiting one specific page (zdnet, a review of some sort), my PC would
> freeze while scrolling this page. Again, the nv driver was/is very
> stable. The only change is changing the NVidia driver to the NV driver
> (and of course uninstalling NVIDIA_GLX).

> I am using a RedHat kernel, 2.4.3-2.14.14 on a MSI 6167 mortherboard
> (AMD751/756 chipset).

> My NVidia problems could also originate from the fact the AGP
> transfers simply causes the PC to freeze (though windows is
> stable). The agpgart claims to support the chipset but system freeze
> occurs soon after start of X. Nvidia agp is more stable. /proc/nv/card
> claims AGP is enabled and the speed is "-" with the possibility of
> running 1x or 2x. NvAgp option in XF86Config-4 is set to "0".

> I'll continue running with the nv driver until NVidia can provide a
> stable driver.

> Bernhard

If you don't have an error/warn msg saying that the nvidia agp couldn't
be loaded, then the xfree agp support would be loaded; I also got the
"-" for speed then.  After setting the NvAgp to 1 so that the linux kernel
agpart get loaded, the speed showed "4".  This is on the msi pro2-a with
2.4.4 and xfree 4.0.3 installed on SuSE 7.1.
 
 
 

NVdia, why is it not like others?

Post by Bernhard Mogens Eg » Tue, 29 May 2001 19:13:12



> If you don't have an error/warn msg saying that the nvidia agp couldn't
> be loaded, then the xfree agp support would be loaded; I also got the
> "-" for speed then.  After setting the NvAgp to 1 so that the linux kernel
> agpart get loaded, the speed showed "4".  This is on the msi pro2-a with
> 2.4.4 and xfree 4.0.3 installed on SuSE 7.1.

So there is no way to disable agp transfers?

Bernhard

 
 
 

NVdia, why is it not like others?

Post by Paul L » Wed, 30 May 2001 00:57:33




>> If you don't have an error/warn msg saying that the nvidia agp couldn't
>> be loaded, then the xfree agp support would be loaded; I also got the
>> "-" for speed then.  After setting the NvAgp to 1 so that the linux kernel
>> agpart get loaded, the speed showed "4".  This is on the msi pro2-a with
>> 2.4.4 and xfree 4.0.3 installed on SuSE 7.1.

> So there is no way to disable agp transfers?

oh, You want to disable it....the doc does say that to disable it, one
use the "0"; in my case, I didn't even specify the NvAgp originally so that
the default is "1" and the the xfree agp got loaded.

The "best" way to avoid agp would be to use a pci board if one can find one
and have a slot for it.

 
 
 

NVdia, why is it not like others?

Post by Lee We » Wed, 30 May 2001 04:17:13




>> If you don't have an error/warn msg saying that the nvidia agp couldn't
>> be loaded, then the xfree agp support would be loaded; I also got the
>> "-" for speed then.  After setting the NvAgp to 1 so that the linux kernel
>> agpart get loaded, the speed showed "4".  This is on the msi pro2-a with
>> 2.4.4 and xfree 4.0.3 installed on SuSE 7.1.

> So there is no way to disable agp transfers?

> Bernhard

Option     "NvAgp" "0"

in your XF86Config will disable AGP for the NVidia driver.

Option     "NvAgp" "1"
will use NVAGP (NVidia's AGP)

Option     "NvAgp" "2
will use AGPPART (Kernel AGP)

Lee.

 
 
 

NVdia, why is it not like others?

Post by Bernhard Mogens Eg » Wed, 30 May 2001 22:05:26



> Option     "NvAgp" "0"
> in your XF86Config will disable AGP for the NVidia driver.
> Option     "NvAgp" "1"
> will use NVAGP (NVidia's AGP)
> Option     "NvAgp" "2
> will use AGPPART (Kernel AGP)

I have the NvAgp 0 in my config file, but I wondered about why the
driver continues to claim (check /proc/nv/card0) that it is enabled
and the speed is "-"? I can change it to use the agpgart module (and
it will) so it does read the option. I am still puzzled (don't believe
it can be disabled)...

Bernhard

 
 
 

NVdia, why is it not like others?

Post by Paul L » Thu, 31 May 2001 01:19:29




>> Option     "NvAgp" "0"

>> in your XF86Config will disable AGP for the NVidia driver.

>> Option     "NvAgp" "1"
>> will use NVAGP (NVidia's AGP)

>> Option     "NvAgp" "2
>> will use AGPPART (Kernel AGP)

> I have the NvAgp 0 in my config file, but I wondered about why the
> driver continues to claim (check /proc/nv/card0) that it is enabled
> and the speed is "-"? I can change it to use the agpgart module (and
> it will) so it does read the option. I am still puzzled (don't believe
> it can be disabled)...

> Bernhard

Perhaps the kernel was compiled with agp support and/or you have an agp
video board?
 
 
 

NVdia, why is it not like others?

Post by Bernhard Mogens Eg » Thu, 31 May 2001 22:09:17





>>> Option     "NvAgp" "0"

>>> in your XF86Config will disable AGP for the NVidia driver.

>>> Option     "NvAgp" "1"
>>> will use NVAGP (NVidia's AGP)

>>> Option     "NvAgp" "2
>>> will use AGPPART (Kernel AGP)

>> I have the NvAgp 0 in my config file, but I wondered about why the
>> driver continues to claim (check /proc/nv/card0) that it is enabled
>> and the speed is "-"? I can change it to use the agpgart module (and
>> it will) so it does read the option. I am still puzzled (don't believe
>> it can be disabled)...

>> Bernhard
> Perhaps the kernel was compiled with agp support and/or you have an agp
> video board?

I go have an AGP card, and have AGP enabled in bios (but only as a
module). Agp should read Disabled when I specifically asked to have it
disabled.

Bernhard

 
 
 

1. Why is xterm setuid root on some OSes but not others?

On FreeBSD and Linux systems with XFree86, xterm is setuid root by
default.  On Solaris 2.5.1 system, xterm is not setuid root.  Why
would xterm need to be setuid root on some, but not other, OSes?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.             netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

2. AIX Communicating With Outer World

3. Why this code works on AIX, NeXT, BUT NOT OTHERS (SunOS, Ultrix) ?

4. Documentation for as86...

5. utmp/wtmp: Why some, not others?

6. Anyone using Sony VAIO PCV-130?

7. Why am I not 'Logged in' ?

8. libssl

9. Why am I not getting the right port number?

10. Why am I not logged in wtmp?

11. Q: Why am I not authorized to use efnet irc servers

12. Why am I not prompted for a password?

13. Q: Why am I getting "Sorry - PPP is not available on this system"?????