Drivers for linux are rubbish

[adamk]

Go to any specific distro forum and ask them about ATI cards.

I have gone to OpenSUSE, Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint and Debian forums. The top rated distros including ones that are officially supported.

You can either post in them or just do a search of 'ati', 'fglrx', '4850', '4870' (pick a card model) etc.

If I am mistaken, then someone can prove it. I have gone into the forums for insight on users' experiences and I concluded the dissatisfaction rate is extremely high. Lots of people say 'get a nvidia' when there's a 'which card should I get, ATI or Nvidia?'

Why not prove your own statements rather than asking us to disprove it? Check all the forums for complaints from nvidia users. Based on what I've seen, I can conclude that the dissatisfaction rate is extremely high there, too.

Adam

[Jimbo]

@ panix buy an nvidia no problem. You like their drivers so buy.

But I can't stand this shit:

Around 80% of ATI owners who use Linux complaining about their video drivers that it's all them?!?

?????????????

If the binary blob IS STILL a problem in an older generation card like the HD 4xxx series, don't you think that indicates poor support?!? Like, c'mon, folks! How old are those cards?!?

I am happy with an 4350 so it indicates me good support. What ati card you own and you are not happy?

[pingufunkybeat]

I'd like to point out that Panix has never used fglrx in his life.

[Hans]

I'd like to point out that Panix has never used fglrx in his life.

Thats the whole problem. Many of the users in here bash fglrx without even having tried fglrx. Its like a never ending loop. Panix bashes fglrx and other folks see his posts and think thats how it is, which lead them to bash fglrx in other threads. Now then Panix see theirs threads and think that might be the truth.

Well guys. Fglrx isn't that bad. I think people in here are tired of telling you this. No matter what we say, you will find some issues to complain about. Issues which might even not come from an Ati user.

I actually do have an Ati card and a nvidia card and by then have a reference. Really if I had to buy a card today, I would pick an Ati card again. Why? Because fglrx is improving very fast, and might in few month converge to a rather good blob. But the main reason is their oss driver, which is even improving faster. Hell, I look forward to use the oss drivers, when powermanagement and galium3d has been stabilized (which they might before fall?).

Other issues like wine support with fglrx has also improved a lot since the last wine and fglrx releases. Actually my source games and guildwar works splendid. I can post you a video if you don't believe me ;-)

The issue with poor 2d performance is probably fixed in fglrx 10.6.

Last issue: Stable video decoding. <- Well that isn't that bad.

All in all. I can say I am satisfied with fglrx.

[droidhacker]

Go to any specific distro forum and ask them about ATI cards.

I have gone to OpenSUSE, Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint and Debian forums. The top rated distros including ones that are officially supported.

You can either post in them or just do a search of 'ati', 'fglrx', '4850', '4870' (pick a card model) etc.

If I am mistaken, then someone can prove it. I have gone into the forums for insight on users' experiences and I concluded the dissatisfaction rate is extremely high. Lots of people say 'get a nvidia' when there's a 'which card should I get, ATI or Nvidia?'

That is a terrible question to ask, and it is bound to get some seriously biased answers. If you'd have asked me at least FIVE YEARS AGO, I would have said nvidia as well... since ATI was then a nightmare.

At that time, it was really just COMMON SENSE to use nvidia hardware exclusively -- they were the ONLY reasonably performant card that had ANY kind of drivers in linux AT ALL.

And that's not to say that their drivers were even decent. Because they were then (and continue to be) absolute CRAP. The main thing though is that they *ACTUALLY HAD* drivers, and CRAP drivers are better than NO drivers.

Back then, they also had decent hardware whereas ATI had junk hardware. You could depend on an NVIDIA chip to *keep working*, whereas the ATI chip you could almost predict would murder itself within a fairly short period of time. I've replaced LOTS of ATI graphics cards that were made back in the pre-AMD era. The tables have turned though -- nvidia has now earned a reputation for making bad chips -- the ticking time bombs that fracture as a result of expansion and contraction due to heat/cool cycles. They made just ONE CHIP since the 7xxx line and gave it about 50 different names with no significant difference, and now they come up with a new GPU that *can't* compete with AMD 5000's in any area except being used to cook your breakfast.

It takes a lot for some people to adapt to changes. Most can't. What they think they know at one point in time continues to drive their choices and recommendations despite their knowledge being hopelessly out of date. It is mainly for THIS REASON that when you go to some forum and ask a general question like "what brand of GPU should I buy", the majority of people will respond with nvidia -- because they haven't adapted to the fact that this may not be a very good recommendation.

When asked for a GPU recommendation, my answer, at this time, is most definitely AMD. Why? Their blob drivers are NO WORSE (don't have to believe me if you don't want..) than NVIDIA's, their hardware is STRONGER, and they actually have an open source initiative -- and not just that, but a very successful one that is resulting in some beautiful drivers that actually WORK, hassle-free.

Yes. a minority of people will answer with AMD over NVIDIA. Well guess what? Only a minority of people are capable of being enlightened. When things are changing, the RIGHT answer tends to be the one that is NOT being shouted out by all the noisy morons in denial. The screaming idiots are trying their hardest to convince you of their perceptions because they are AFRAID that what they thought they knew may no longer be valid.

[Panix]

Thats the whole problem. Many of the users in here bash fglrx without even having tried fglrx. Its like a never ending loop. Panix bashes fglrx and other folks see his posts and think thats how it is, which lead them to bash fglrx in other threads. Now then Panix see theirs threads and think that might be the truth.

Well guys. Fglrx isn't that bad. I think people in here are tired of telling you this. No matter what we say, you will find some issues to complain about. Issues which might even not come from an Ati user.

I actually do have an Ati card and a nvidia card and by then have a reference. Really if I had to buy a card today, I would pick an Ati card again. Why? Because fglrx is improving very fast, and might in few month converge to a rather good blob. But the main reason is their oss driver, which is even improving faster. Hell, I look forward to use the oss drivers, when powermanagement and galium3d has been stabilized (which they might before fall?).

Other issues like wine support with fglrx has also improved a lot since the last wine and fglrx releases. Actually my source games and guildwar works splendid. I can post you a video if you don't believe me ;-)

The issue with poor 2d performance is probably fixed in fglrx 10.6.

Last issue: Stable video decoding. <- Well that isn't that bad.

All in all. I can say I am satisfied with fglrx.

I might not have used fglrx but that could be why older ATI cards aren't supported via a blob!

Anyway, saying all these complaints or even the majority of the complaints are by people that don't even own ATI cards is a big bunch of bull!!!

I am not basing my concerns on users who haven't used ATI cards anyway. I never did. My concerns have always been of the perspective, 'well, what about this????" I haven't claimed that ATI can't do this or that but that I have read of users' experiences. I think you know this so you're just manipulating the situation.

The other complaint I have of your responses are what seem to be lies from your end. I never said Nvidia drivers are 'great' or that I prefer closed source drivers. This is lies that I think more than one has said. I don't know why being critical of ATI's work in Linux means the critic automatically prefers binary drivers or that they think they're 'great.' They might prefer them to what they perceive as faulty or problematic ATI ones. But, saying it must be A and is not B whatsoever is lying. Also, if that's not the case, then it must be because you are unable to read!

If I didn't question and speculate, no one would discuss anything or provide info or their perspective. I invite this so I can have a better idea of what to expect whether it's accurate or not, it's up to me to find out, right? So, I take a chance and invest in it or not. I prefer ATI owners to comment and remember, some of them might have Nvidia cards but are ex-ATI owners/users. It goes both ways.

I wanted to set it straight, though:
1) I don't herald Nvidia drivers as being the great choice - merely, I think it seems to work better overall in terms of being able to do basic stuff without as many issues
2) I don't think it's unreasonable to assess based on user experience - yes, many people probably make mistakes or it's user error but if the install/usage experience is so complicated and difficult, that is telling in a way, too.

I know I should probably try it myself but $100 is a lot to risk if I am unsatisfied. However, if I can get a 2nd build established (which I'm working towards for someone), I think I can manage. It would be a Windows machine anyway (relative is used to it despite my coaxing to try Linux!) so an ATI card would be fine for that.

I just ask that you don't accuse me of stuff without knowing the facts and my actual position.

[Hans]

That is a terrible question to ask, and it is bound to get some seriously biased answers. If you'd have asked me at least FIVE YEARS AGO, I would have said nvidia as well... since ATI was then a nightmare.

At that time, it was really just COMMON SENSE to use nvidia hardware exclusively -- they were the ONLY reasonably performant card that had ANY kind of drivers in linux AT ALL.

And that's not to say that their drivers were even decent. Because they were then (and continue to be) absolute CRAP. The main thing though is that they *ACTUALLY HAD* drivers, and CRAP drivers are better than NO drivers.

Back then, they also had decent hardware whereas ATI had junk hardware. You could depend on an NVIDIA chip to *keep working*, whereas the ATI chip you could almost predict would murder itself within a fairly short period of time. I've replaced LOTS of ATI graphics cards that were made back in the pre-AMD era. The tables have turned though -- nvidia has now earned a reputation for making bad chips -- the ticking time bombs that fracture as a result of expansion and contraction due to heat/cool cycles. They made just ONE CHIP since the 7xxx line and gave it about 50 different names with no significant difference, and now they come up with a new GPU that *can't* compete with AMD 5000's in any area except being used to cook your breakfast.

It takes a lot for some people to adapt to changes. Most can't. What they think they know at one point in time continues to drive their choices and recommendations despite their knowledge being hopelessly out of date. It is mainly for THIS REASON that when you go to some forum and ask a general question like "what brand of GPU should I buy", the majority of people will respond with nvidia -- because they haven't adapted to the fact that this may not be a very good recommendation.

When asked for a GPU recommendation, my answer, at this time, is most definitely AMD. Why? Their blob drivers are NO WORSE (don't have to believe me if you don't want..) than NVIDIA's, their hardware is STRONGER, and they actually have an open source initiative -- and not just that, but a very successful one that is resulting in some beautiful drivers that actually WORK, hassle-free.

Yes. a minority of people will answer with AMD over NVIDIA. Well guess what? Only a minority of people are capable of being enlightened. When things are changing, the RIGHT answer tends to be the one that is NOT being shouted out by all the noisy morons in denial. The screaming idiots are trying their hardest to convince you of their perceptions because they are AFRAID that what they thought they knew may no longer be valid.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Panix]

That is a terrible question to ask, and it is bound to get some seriously biased answers. If you'd have asked me at least FIVE YEARS AGO, I would have said nvidia as well... since ATI was then a nightmare.

Yes. a minority of people will answer with AMD over NVIDIA. Well guess what? Only a minority of people are capable of being enlightened. When things are changing, the RIGHT answer tends to be the one that is NOT being shouted out by all the noisy morons in denial. The screaming idiots are trying their hardest to convince you of their perceptions because they are AFRAID that what they thought they knew may no longer be valid.

But, I'm not asking 5 years ago. I am asking now. I know how to search forums as well. I make sure I'm reading UPDATED or RECENT discussions.

I see your point, though. However, it still seems that there's enough Linux users that try an ATI card and have problems. It means A) the process of using them is difficult or problematic or B) the drivers are significantly problematic

[Hans]

I might not have used fglrx but that could be why older ATI cards aren't supported via a blob!

Anyway, saying all these complaints or even the majority of the complaints are by people that don't even own ATI cards is a big bunch of bull!!!

I am not basing my concerns on users who haven't used ATI cards anyway. I never did. My concerns have always been of the perspective, 'well, what about this????" I haven't claimed that ATI can't do this or that but that I have read of users' experiences. I think you know this so you're just manipulating the situation.

The other complaint I have of your responses are what seem to be lies from your end. I never said Nvidia drivers are 'great' or that I prefer closed source drivers. This is lies that I think more than one has said. I don't know why being critical of ATI's work in Linux means the critic automatically prefers binary drivers or that they think they're 'great.' They might prefer them to what they perceive as faulty or problematic ATI ones. But, saying it must be A and is not B whatsoever is lying. Also, if that's not the case, then it must be because you are unable to read!

If I didn't question and speculate, no one would discuss anything or provide info or their perspective. I invite this so I can have a better idea of what to expect whether it's accurate or not, it's up to me to find out, right? So, I take a chance and invest in it or not. I prefer ATI owners to comment and remember, some of them might have Nvidia cards but are ex-ATI owners/users. It goes both ways.

I wanted to set it straight, though:
1) I don't herald Nvidia drivers as being the great choice - merely, I think it seems to work better overall in terms of being able to do basic stuff without as many issues
2) I don't think it's unreasonable to assess based on user experience - yes, many people probably make mistakes or it's user error but if the install/usage experience is so complicated and difficult, that is telling in a way, too.

I know I should probably try it myself but $100 is a lot to risk if I am unsatisfied. However, if I can get a 2nd build established (which I'm working towards for someone), I think I can manage. It would be a Windows machine anyway (relative is used to it despite my coaxing to try Linux!) so an ATI card would be fine for that.

I just ask that you don't accuse me of stuff without knowing the facts and my actual position.

Sorry for using your name in my post, but it was general speaking. I know you are open for buying an AMD card and are just considering the consequenses doing so (I would too). I respect that.

I just tried to make a point, why there might be so many bashing posts about Ati in here.

[adamk]

But, I'm not asking 5 years ago. I am asking now. I know how to search forums as well. I make sure I'm reading UPDATED or RECENT discussions.

I see your point, though. However, it still seems that there's enough Linux users that try an ATI card and have problems. It means A) the process of using them is difficult or problematic or B) the drivers are significantly problematic

And that seems to be the case for nvidia, too, based on the number of problems on their forums.

Why don't you monitor all the linux forums for the next year, do a scientific study of the reports of complaints of nvidia vs. AMD drivers and then report back here in June of 2011.

Adam