Page 4 of 41 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 408

Thread: AMD's opensource lies exposed

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    40

    Default

    I wish that kind of thread would get deleted on sight.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAICS the "3dfx legacy IP lesson" is that it was a lot easier to support open source development before DRM was a big issue.
    really no one care about the DRM(the bad one) stuff and no i don't care about UVD video acceleration because my cpu is fast to decode any video.

    really drm/UVD don't care.

    but the Patent stuff really hurt.

    to not have openGL3/4 support because of Patent stuff (s3tc,floadingpoint) really shots down any hope for an better means opensource world.

    be sure many more people think like this DRM(the bad) and UVD don't care but s3tc and floadingpoint graphics really care

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    55

    Default Patent-Haters Gotta Hate

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    really no one care about the DRM(the bad one) stuff and no i don't care about UVD video acceleration because my cpu is fast to decode any video.

    really drm/UVD don't care.

    but the Patent stuff really hurt.

    to not have openGL3/4 support because of Patent stuff (s3tc,floadingpoint) really shots down any hope for an better means opensource world.

    be sure many more people think like this DRM(the bad) and UVD don't care but s3tc and floadingpoint graphics really care
    And *none* of that is either ATI's fault, or AMD's fault.

    If I recall correctly, that method of texture compression was never owned by ATI Technologies, or AMD (or even Microsoft, which also licensed it). It was, in fact, owned by S3 Technologies (which was in turn acquired by VIA Technologies). It was popular with *all* the major graphics players because it was easy to implement in both software *and* hardware (S3, even though it owned the patent, wasn't even the first to implement it in hardware; that honor went to ATI Technologies with the original 3D Rage graphics accelerator - on the software side, Microsoft licensed it in their DirectX runtimes, where it still appears today). What drives the patent-haters round the twist is that it has held on for so long.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    really no one care about the DRM(the bad one) stuff and no i don't care about UVD video acceleration because my cpu is fast to decode any video.

    really drm/UVD don't care.

    but the Patent stuff really hurt.

    to not have openGL3/4 support because of Patent stuff (s3tc,floadingpoint) really shots down any hope for an better means opensource world.

    be sure many more people think like this DRM(the bad) and UVD don't care but s3tc and floadingpoint graphics really care
    I know your just stating that you don't care about UVD because your cpu might be fast enough, but just putting it out there, there might be other people who care about UVD if their cpu isn't as capable as yours.....

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quaridarium
    really no one care about the DRM(the bad one) stuff and no i don't care about UVD video acceleration because my cpu is fast to decode any video.
    Just what kind of viewpoint is this? What about people with low-end or small scale machines? Then they are forced to use windose to view html5 VP8 HD or HD flash content and its OK with you? So here is your answer to them when they ask for this support:

    "No way pal, you can't accelerate HD video on this OS and AMD/ATI hardware because your system is a low-end piece of shit and my CPU can kick any ass you find on the market, so either upgrade it or get the hell out of my sight and use your windose to play your videos."

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    144

    Default

    "No way pal, you can't accelerate HD video on this OS and AMD/ATI hardware because your system is a low-end piece of shit and my CPU can kick any ass you find on the market, so either upgrade it or get the hell out of my sight and use your windose to play your videos."
    And this is where your opensource driver love FAILS to embrace the linux community.. This is the point where opensource drivers are more proprietary than nvidia's WORKING binary blob...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danny View Post
    I know your just stating that you don't care about UVD because your cpu might be fast enough, but just putting it out there, there might be other people who care about UVD if their cpu isn't as capable as yours.....
    on an long therm the other just buy an faster cpu in the future.

    means no one care about UVD on an long therm of thinking.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glxextxexlg View Post
    Just what kind of viewpoint is this? What about people with low-end or small scale machines? Then they are forced to use windose to view html5 VP8 HD or HD flash content and its OK with you? So here is your answer to them when they ask for this support:

    "No way pal, you can't accelerate HD video on this OS and AMD/ATI hardware because your system is a low-end piece of shit and my CPU can kick any ass you find on the market, so either upgrade it or get the hell out of my sight and use your windose to play your videos."
    this is only right if you have an very low distance view in the future.

    the speed doubles every 2 years and yes also on the lowend systems.

    means your point is NOW right but in 2-4 years you are wrong.

    and hey the UVD unit can not handle VP8/webM means your statement is pointless for HTML5+webM

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    912

    Default

    I think Q what more pointing out what was important for him, and just him, not for everybody in general.
    I personally would rather have the ability for open source driver OpenGL 3/4 before video decode (ok, ideally, both at the same time, but priorities are priorities), but if (read: when) I have an interest in using AMD's APUs in an htpc, then I'd probably want video decode first.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glxextxexlg View Post
    And this is where your opensource driver love FAILS to embrace the linux community.. This is the point where opensource drivers are more proprietary than nvidia's WORKING binary blob...
    The linux community? not the Xorg community? What about the wayland community?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •