ATI dropping support for <R600 - wtf!?

[Mr_Ed]

Here's the google earth bug thing:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474063

[Mr_Ed]

Ok, I guess I have to buy me a new(er) graphic card.

Which card should I buy? Suggestions?

[Mr_Ed]

I remember my firts ATI card was a diamond stealth (VESA local bus), I have been using ATI cards ever since like the All-in-wonder and later the RAdeon-all-in wonder. But my laptop (hp nw9440) has an Nvidia FX1500M which I also like very much in linux. What is the best choice?

[susikala]

What is the best choice?

If you use Linux, AMD/ATI. It's pretty much the _only_ serious choice.

No wait, if you use computers, AMD/ATI. XD

[Saist]

I remember my firts ATI card was a diamond stealth (VESA local bus), I have been using ATI cards ever since like the All-in-wonder and later the RAdeon-all-in wonder. But my laptop (hp nw9440) has an Nvidia FX1500M which I also like very much in linux. What is the best choice?

If you use Linux, AMD/ATI. It's pretty much the _only_ serious choice.

No wait, if you use computers, AMD/ATI. XD

seconding that.

Until Nvidia gets serious about an Open Source strategy, if you really want to support Open Source, AMD is your only graphics choice.

However, if you really don't care about the theology, or voting with your wallet, buy whatever you want.

***

Ed : right now I'd say look around for the HD 3870. Okay, Crossfire support isn't enabled yet, so I personally am a bit of a litter box on that, but they still pack a punch as a single card. They also have a wide driver support range, so if something's screwy on the bleeding edge 9.x set, you can still drop back some drivers.

[DirtyHairy]

So, in this whole discussion, always popping up seems to be the train of thought: "the info is out there, now it is up to the community to pick up the ball and make a good driver". Heck, someone even said "bugger them about it". While I can't possibly know if this is really ATIs strategy or whether they are going to actively put money and workpower into the opensource drivers, this is just plain wrong for me: in my opinion, it is the job of the _hardware vendor_ to provide software support for his products, be it closed- or open source. Providing the necessary specs for programming the thing is the _bare minimum_ of support imaginable for me, and not going further than that means offloading the support to other companies and individuals to save money.

Apart from that, not all is well in the open source ATI world for me; the drivers do work fairly well given the fact that they are based on reverse engineering and/or documentation that has been available for only some 14 months, nothing more. Regarding that EXA hype: I tried XAA versus EXA several times on my X1300 as well as on my 96something R300 based card in my powermac: while EXA _is_ signigicantly faster when I do compositing, the whole desktop feels snappier with XAA when I disable compositing. For example, scrolling down huge (web) pages is noticably smoother on XAA than on EXA.

[susikala]

So, in this whole discussion, always popping up seems to be the train of thought: "the info is out there, now it is up to the community to pick up the ball and make a good driver". Heck, someone even said "bugger them about it". While I can't possibly know if this is really ATIs strategy or whether they are going to actively put money and workpower into the opensource drivers, this is just plain wrong for me: in my opinion, it is the job of the _hardware vendor_ to provide software support for his products, be it closed- or open source. Providing the necessary specs for programming the thing is the _bare minimum_ of support imaginable for me, and not going further than that means offloading the support to other companies and individuals to save money.

The deal is more like: they sell you hardware. It works well, I hear, for the absolute bulk of users (Windows). If you move to alternative/niche OSes, you can reasonably expect a drop in support. By estimation, I'd say the level graphics is supported on Linux is currently much better than games in general are -- which is good, solid ground for more people using Linux. This is all thanks to AMD, though.

Fortunately, it's up to you to improve support if you want. But I don't see how AMD is in any way commited to provide you 100% of their Windows support on Linux -- and they _are_ dropping the drivers on Windows too.

Edit: I also wanted to add that whining about this move also shows many users expect AMD to have a "one OS mentality" (which is blatantly ridiculous; if anything, logic says they should only concentrate on Windows). I mean, users of <R600 on Windows will be able to keep using their cards with no problems -- no new xservers and other new technologies, etc.

[RealNC]

Conclusion: I will not ever going to be able to use the fancy stuff like desktop effects (compiz, AWN, screenlets, blurred window borders, etc.) since this is slow like hell when using the open source driver. Google earth doesn't even work with it.

Uhm, it's the other way around. The open source drivers are much faster with desktop (both 2D and 3D compositing). Catalyst in only faster with pure 3D OpenGL apps (mainly games), but very slow with 2D and desktop effects (Compiz, KDE4, or whatever).

[DirtyHairy]

The deal is more like: they sell you hardware. It works well, I hear, for the absolute bulk of users (Windows). If you move to alternative/niche OSes, you can reasonably expect a drop in support. By estimation, I'd say the level graphics is supported on Linux is currently much better than games in general are -- which is good, solid ground for more people using Linux. This is all thanks to AMD, though.

Fortunately, it's up to you to improve support if you want. But I don't see how AMD is in any way commited to provide you 100% of their Windows support on Linux -- and they _are_ dropping the drivers on Windows too.

I don't care about games, and I don't care whether the feature set is similar to the windows driver; all I am complaining about is the fact that I bought something that hasn't worked as advertised most of the time, and now the company that produced it is dropping support.

Concerning me improving the open source driver: yeah, I can just dig into it in my free time, take the register guide and improve it. Don't get me wrong, I do hack into open source software if I urgently have to get rid of a bug, I do file bug reports, and I have produced my (small) share of patches to open source code over the years. However, just start?ng to hack on a graphics drivers is a little bit above my head. If have choosen this hardware because ATI has advertised linux support (meaning _they_ support it), not because I was longing for the adventures of writing a graphics driver.

[bridgman]

So, in this whole discussion, always popping up seems to be the train of thought: "the info is out there, now it is up to the community to pick up the ball and make a good driver".

That's not what we are saying. See below.

Providing the necessary specs for programming the thing is the _bare minimum_ of support imaginable for me, and not going further than that means offloading the support to other companies and individuals to save money.

That is also what most people were asking for until recently. We provided documentation AND co-funded the initial driver development with Novell AND hired in-house developers and testers to work on the open source drivers. Other than giving everyone a pony, what are we missing ?