Nvidia for Better Or Worse

[phide]

comic sans

That sounds pretty bad, but not nearly as bad as if it were Papyrus instead

On a side note, I very recently had to design an advertisement in which Comic Sans was the requested font. Suffice to say the whole thing made me feel incredibly sick to my stomach.

 

[Hamish Campbell]

If it can be proven that this is TOTALLY artificial you might have a point. But I really doubt that's the case.

That's the entire point of this thread. Nvidia intentionally disabled the feature then tried to claim it was because they didn't feel like they should have to support a mixed vendor environment. When in fact, all they did was go out of their way to spite people who bought a competitors product.

It's been proven already that the PhysX break was as artificial as they come, from all reports I've seen it works just like it always did once the patch is applied.

 

[Mr. K6]

Nice try
But seriously what happend?:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1450843&highlight=physx&page=2

Change of heart?

Where? Where in any of that did I say PhysX as implemented in Darkest of Days and Batman: AA was decent? Is English not your first language or are you (horribly unsuccessfully) trying to manipulate my words? Like I said, because I don't pray to NVIDIA every morning, I don't get to use their products? I'll choose when and where I want to use a technology, and anti-competitive practices should be punished.

And maybe you should use a game that didn't get an average rating of 5/10 to make your point (not that it'd be any less silly).

 

[tesfaye]

Really? EVERY game that supports PhysX works FLAWLESSLY with this patch? Not saying that it doesn't but without proof I'd be inclined to think that that isn't the case since that's not even true with an nVidia only setup.

I'm playing Batman AA smoothly, with ZERO issues, and no strange hitching or wacky performance. I fired up Cryostasis and played that with hardware physics enabled and that ran without any problems. I haven't had a chance to try Mirror's Edge since I didn't install it when I switched to SSD storage. I'll install Mirror's Edge when I get home and test that one out.

People are getting the correct scores in 3DMark Vantage when they apply the patch. Proof is easy, run the patch and play the games. I haven't seen anyone reporting problems.

I'm not aware of the issues with setups involving an Nvidia card for GFX and one for PhysX. I do know that in the past performance wasn't that great with the effects turned on. Mirror's Edge comes to mind. Regardless of that, I'm not seeing any issue with the games I've been playing thus far with the patch installed.

I honestly expected some wierdness when I ran the patch but was pleasantly surprised. Only time will tell, I have 3/4 more of Batman to play through since my daughter asked me to start from the beginning so she can follow the story, and I just started Cryostasis.

I think any serious problems would have reared their ugly heads by now.

 

[dystopic]

some people have said they're surprised nvidia hasn't been sued over this. these people are quite naive.

this really isn't very different than how nvidia only allowed SLI on nForce motherboards (that is, until intel bullied them into falling in line).

the recent legal battles over intellectual property are somewhat relevant here. the U.S. courts have basically ruled that whether you buy a CD or download music from the itunes store, you're not buying songs; you're buying the right to listen to them, and that right (license) can be changed, revoked or otherwise controlled more or less unilaterally by the seller, without warning.

i'm not saying you physX fans shouldn't be upset; i'm saying there's not much you can do about it, not in a U.S. court of law anyway. you can of course vote with your dollars and stop using nvidia products and/or stop buying physX games. i don't really like it, but the days of caveat venditor are rapidly falling behind us.

 

[Ghettobox]

some people have said they're surprised nvidia hasn't been sued over this. these people are quite naive.

this really isn't very different than how nvidia only allowed SLI on nForce motherboards (that is, until intel bullied them into falling in line).

the recent legal battles over intellectual property are somewhat relevant here. the U.S. courts have basically ruled that whether you buy a CD or download music from the itunes store, you're not buying songs; you're buying the right to listen to them, and that right (license) can be changed, revoked or otherwise controlled more or less unilaterally by the seller, without warning.

i'm not saying you physX fans shouldn't be upset; i'm saying there's not much you can do about it, not in a U.S. court of law anyway. you can of course vote with your dollars and stop using nvidia products and/or stop buying physX games. i don't really like it, but the days of caveat venditor are rapidly falling behind us.

Your post is comprised of at least 50% total horseshit. Try looking up the term "fair use". Then again this case has very little to do with any supposed "IP". This is a hardware issue, where people bought something capable of and advertised as having said benefits. Now Nvidia want's to take it's ball and go home because you had the audacity to buy a competitors product. Your MP3/Music comparison is so far off base I can't even begin to explain it to you. Let alone your "Perry Mason" interpretation of the current legal landscape. Seriously, your out of your league with this argument.

 

[Derfman]

Your post is comprised of at least 50% total horseshit. Try looking up the term "fair use". Then again this case has very little to do with any supposed "IP". This is a hardware issue, where people bought something capable of and advertised as having said benefits. Now Nvidia want's to take it's ball and go home because you had the audacity to buy a competitors product. Your MP3/Music comparison is so far off base I can't even begin to explain it to you. Let alone your "Perry Mason" interpretation of the current legal landscape. Seriously, your out of your league with this argument.

QFT...

It's the same as someone like Apple selling an iPod a well noted and advertised device for playing MP3's. Then deciding that they only want the iPod to work with their own developed headphones and then sent a "patch" to all iPod software and firmware "update" for the iPods to refuse to play MP3's with any other headphones hooked up.

Now if they released a new version of the iPod that did just this and noted it on the box and left the older revisions out of this, then there would be no case.

 

[Hamish Campbell]

this really isn't very different than how nvidia only allowed SLI on nForce motherboards (that is, until intel bullied them into falling in line).

It's very different in that at least with SLI they never just outright disabled that capability of your motherboard permanently with a firmware update just because people dared to use an ATI card in their system.

You can also draw the parallel that even in those days had they been more open with SLI they would have probably sold a ton more graphics cards. I don't think PhysX is nearly enough of a reason for them to sell cards yet on its own but it might one day be if Nvidia weren't so hell bent on locking people out of using it on the hardware they paid for.

 

[Mr. K6]

Your post is comprised of at least 50% total horseshit. Try looking up the term "fair use". Then again this case has very little to do with any supposed "IP". This is a hardware issue, where people bought something capable of and advertised as having said benefits. Now Nvidia want's to take it's ball and go home because you had the audacity to buy a competitors product. Your MP3/Music comparison is so far off base I can't even begin to explain it to you. Let alone your "Perry Mason" interpretation of the current legal landscape. Seriously, your out of your league with this argument.

Exactly.

 

[Ghettobox]

QFT...

It's the same as someone like Apple selling an iPod a well noted and advertised device for playing MP3's. Then deciding that they only want the iPod to work with their own developed headphones and then sent a "patch" to all iPod software and firmware "update" for the iPods to refuse to play MP3's with any other headphones hooked up.

Now if they released a new version of the iPod that did just this and noted it on the box and left the older revisions out of this, then there would be no case.

Just saw your sig. Sorry man, you know about planning to use your Nvidia card as you see fit. Due to IP laws, and Driver law's (no it's never getting old) and your blatant disregard for team green you appear to be SOL.

 

[JayteeBates]

What's really funny is every single discrete Gfx card in my house is an Nvidia product, but that's clearly going to change now. Some may be perfectly willing to bend over and lube up for nvidia, or any company. Then again some of us know not to eat lead paint chips to.

I've owned a TnT, TnT2, GeForce2 Ti, GeForce4 MX440 (god that was bad), GeForce8800, GTX260 and now have a GTX 295 that I got the day it came out. My next card will be Red Team. Nvidia just cut the bullshit seriously.

We get that you do not want to deal with support issues stemming from use of NV cards as PhysX while an ATI card is primary. Make a disclaimer and let it go at that.

Actually allowing it to take place may actually push the adoption of PhysX!!! If ATi owners feel they need a second card to do PhysX (even if it is hand me down) thats going to put some pressure on ATi to support it eventually as their cards are not a "complete solution". However, seems par for the course for NV to pork their existing card owners.

Jen-Hsun Huang better be careful or he may become the next Jerry Yang.

 

[dystopic]

Your post is comprised of at least 50% total horseshit. Try looking up the term "fair use". Then again this case has very little to do with any supposed "IP". This is a hardware issue, where people bought something capable of and advertised as having said benefits. Now Nvidia want's to take it's ball and go home because you had the audacity to buy a competitors product. Your MP3/Music comparison is so far off base I can't even begin to explain it to you. Let alone your "Perry Mason" interpretation of the current legal landscape. Seriously, your out of your league with this argument.

i respectfully disagree, and i don't need to insult you personally to do so. i won't bother to say anything more, however, since you're obviously the supreme expert on the subject as proven by your ability to construct ad hominem fallacies

 

[Mr. K6]

i respectfully disagree, and i don't need to insult you personally to do so. i won't bother to say anything more, however, since you're obviously the supreme expert on the subject as proven by your ability to construct ad hominem fallacies

Then prove your point. Right now it still seems like you don't know what you're talking about (I'm not saying this to be an ass either, I would literally like to see/have a discussion on this).

 

[Ghettobox]

i respectfully disagree, and i don't need to insult you personally to do so. i won't bother to say anything more, however, since you're obviously the supreme expert on the subject as proven by your ability to construct ad hominem fallacies

There were zero personal attacks in that post, just truth. You can disagree all you want, yet that in and of itself changes very little. You have zero precedent on your side of the argument (unless you'd like to cite some verdicts or case law I am not privy to) on simply the IP side of your argument. Let alone the far more arguable side that IP has zero to do with this either legally, or from a technological standpoint. If you wish to withdraw from the conversation feel free, as you have brought little to the conversation other than your rudimentary interpretation of current case law (which by the way is deeply flawed), and your hyperbolic argument that this is some type of "IP" exercise of rights. Clearly this is an anti trust case waiting to happen, the question isn't if it holds up in court. The question is if it needs to be brought that far, and how soon Nvidia either relents or does damage to a substantial percentage of it's customer base. Feel free to disagree though, as I am sure your fed up with my ad hominem fallacies, regardless of how based in fact they are.

 

[dystopic]

Then prove your point. Right now it still seems like you don't know what you're talking about (I'm not saying this to be an ass either, I would literally like to see/have a discussion on this).

Mr. K6, you are typically a civil and intelligent person from what i've observed, so i'd be happy to continue.

first off, i can't prove my point, not without actually suing nvidia anyway, and i have better things to do with my time. my previous post certainly was opinion, but i feel a well informed one.

disclaimer #2: i agree with previous posters that the reason nvidia did this was to punish "defectors" and that it's not a good business practice. neither of those issues bears on whether they have the legal right to do this, however.

moving on, i don't think as Ghettobox implied this has anything to do with fair use. not that anyone need accept this as a credential, but i actually worked very closely with the fair use office at a major university for several years. fair use typically relates to the reproduction of copyrighted material (and not in the sense of downloading drivers). that comment alone removed any incentive i had to reply to him. as for intellectual property, nvidia's rights in this manner come from the concepts surrounding intellectual property, since the drivers and GPU designs are their IP, and it is their right to determine how each is used.

if someone were to sue nvidia for this, the only specific charges i can imagine is false advertising (a U.S. attorney taking nvidia to court over anti-trust violation is another issue i'll return to). a judge would then have to determine whether nvidia ever explicitly or implicitly agreed to provide support for their products in this way (as physics processors used alongside ATI products in windows 7).

i'm looking at an old box for an 8600 GTS, and it says "for SLI configurations please visit: www.slizone.com for requirements." i don't have any packaging that proceeded the launch of CUDA-based physX, but for the sake of argument i'm assuming a similar disclaimer exists on later products. the info about physX on nvidia's product page doesn't explicitly say "only intended for use in a pure-nvidia system," not does it say "not intended for use ATI products." but they also don't say "may not work as intended with Linux," nor does it say "not intended for use as prophylactic."

so as far as i can tell, they never advertised support for use with ATI products, but there is some implication that physX is meant as an extension of nvidia graphics; the title of their chart, NVIDIA® GeForce® configurations for PhysX™ is probably the clearest implication.

and the thing is, they haven't done anything to prevent you from using their card as a physX processor with ATI cards for graphics; they're just not offering support for it with their (free) drivers. nothing prevents you from using older drivers or someone else's drivers. and is a sudden change in support without warning really anything new? ATI temporarily discontinued support for triple crossfire configurations without warning. in a strict legal sense, was that any different?

oh, and as far as my comparison to music, i'm looking back at what i wrote and realize i wasn't exactly clear. i never meant music as a perfect parallel; i was trying to use that as an example of the current legal culture. intellectual property is entirely relevant though, since nvidia drivers are nvidia's intellectual property, and it's their right to determine how they're used and written.

regarding an anti-trust battle, that'd be much more interesting and less clear-cut, but i don't think it'd hold up in the U.S.; nvidia has hardly monopolized physics processing; they're trying to assert control over their proprietary technology, but that technology isn't necessary for any game to function by any means.

feel free to call horseshit if you want; i hold very few people in these forums in any kind of esteem (you're an exception, Mr. K6). but if you're going to throw that accusation at me, i issue this challenge in response: if you're so sure nvidia can be successfully sued over this, then put your money where your mouth is and take them to court.

 

[panhead]

NV seems to have nothing but contempt for their customers,

For some reason the graphics engine deactivates antialiasing when it recognizes a Radeon graphics card installed. Even if you activate antialiasing in the drivers this will reduce performance significantly.
The hardware has no problem with using the antialiasing available in the graphics engine, which AMD proved by editing the device ID of a Radeon card and running the game, whereafter the antialiasing settings were once again available.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,9989.html

 

[kumquatsrus]

NV seems to have nothing but contempt for their customers,




http://www.nordichardware.com/news,9989.html

lol, wouldn't you mean nvidia has nothing but contempt for ati users? and the quote by the representative from the link you posted seems to suggest otherwise.

 

[kumquatsrus]

well despite its recently maligned business practices, one can't question the desire of nvidia's top brass in working to maintain the loyalty of its workers through turbulent times.

http://brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/10/5/jen-hsun-repeats-the-nv30-241-salary-reduction.aspx

 

[Ghettobox]

Mr. K6, you are typically a civil and intelligent person from what i've observed, so i'd be happy to continue.

first off, i can't prove my point, not without actually suing nvidia anyway, and i have better things to do with my time. my previous post certainly was opinion, but i feel a well informed one.

disclaimer #2: i agree with previous posters that the reason nvidia did this was to punish "defectors" and that it's not a good business practice. neither of those issues bears on whether they have the legal right to do this, however.

moving on, i don't think as Ghettobox implied this has anything to do with fair use. not that anyone need accept this as a credential, but i actually worked very closely with the fair use office at a major university for several years. fair use typically relates to the reproduction of copyrighted material (and not in the sense of downloading drivers). that comment alone removed any incentive i had to reply to him. as for intellectual property, nvidia's rights in this manner come from the concepts surrounding intellectual property, since the drivers and GPU designs are their IP, and it is their right to determine how each is used.

if someone were to sue nvidia for this, the only specific charges i can imagine is false advertising (a U.S. attorney taking nvidia to court over anti-trust violation is another issue i'll return to). a judge would then have to determine whether nvidia ever explicitly or implicitly agreed to provide support for their products in this way (as physics processors used alongside ATI products in windows 7).

i'm looking at an old box for an 8600 GTS, and it says "for SLI configurations please visit: www.slizone.com for requirements." i don't have any packaging that proceeded the launch of CUDA-based physX, but for the sake of argument i'm assuming a similar disclaimer exists on later products. the info about physX on nvidia's product page doesn't explicitly say "only intended for use in a pure-nvidia system," not does it say "not intended for use ATI products." but they also don't say "may not work as intended with Linux," nor does it say "not intended for use as prophylactic."

so as far as i can tell, they never advertised support for use with ATI products, but there is some implication that physX is meant as an extension of nvidia graphics; the title of their chart, NVIDIA® GeForce® configurations for PhysX™ is probably the clearest implication.

and the thing is, they haven't done anything to prevent you from using their card as a physX processor with ATI cards for graphics; they're just not offering support for it with their (free) drivers. nothing prevents you from using older drivers or someone else's drivers. and is a sudden change in support without warning really anything new? ATI temporarily discontinued support for triple crossfire configurations without warning. in a strict legal sense, was that any different?

oh, and as far as my comparison to music, i'm looking back at what i wrote and realize i wasn't exactly clear. i never meant music as a perfect parallel; i was trying to use that as an example of the current legal culture. intellectual property is entirely relevant though, since nvidia drivers are nvidia's intellectual property, and it's their right to determine how they're used and written.

regarding an anti-trust battle, that'd be much more interesting and less clear-cut, but i don't think it'd hold up in the U.S.; nvidia has hardly monopolized physics processing; they're trying to assert control over their proprietary technology, but that technology isn't necessary for any game to function by any means.

feel free to call horseshit if you want; i hold very few people in these forums in any kind of esteem (you're an exception, Mr. K6). but if you're going to throw that accusation at me, i issue this challenge in response: if you're so sure nvidia can be successfully sued over this, then put your money where your mouth is and take them to court.

The fair use comment was directed at your theory of music licensing, your wrong about that issue. Their is precedent setting case law against that theory. Once I purchase a piece of music I can use it how I see fit, without profit. I can put it on multiple music sources, regardless of how the music publisher feels as long as I am not breaking copyright law (i.e. file sharing,copying etc.) or deriving a profit from said use (i.e. ASCAP). They can't tell me what hardware I can play it on, or what tracks on a CD I can and can't listen to, or what hours I can listen to it. The MPAA has had similar ruling's against them in the same area of question. I was only using it in that format, clearly there has been some crossed wires on both sides as far as that subject.

The driver issue is something I feel is unrelated to IP. It's quite simple really when you look at it in broad terms. The GFX card is useless without them, and nvidia will tell you this themselves. In fact buying the product comes with the drivers needed to use the product. Saying you can use someone else's driver in theory sounds great, yet is wholly unacceptable. I have no idea the amount of patent laws that would need to be violated to accomplish said task, but that's a legal can of worms in and of itself. While Nvidia is under no obligation to support any specific hardware configuration, that is besides the point. They do have an obligation to support their product and the features they sell you though. This is the deliberate "breaking" of a piece of hardware owned by someone. Hardware that once worked just fine, but now doesn't because they intentionally broke it due to a competitors product being purchased. To say you don't have to use the driver is a ridicules argument. Saying Physx isn't an advertised and promoted feature is equally silly.The linux and prophylactic comments are you grasping at straws to make a point. Common sense is still used in the courtroom(well at least sometimes), regardless of disclaimers and notes. No one is asking for source code or trade secrets, simply the means to make their hardware work as bought, and was working prior to this debacle. Their is a huge difference between a product not working correctly, or as intended and needing driver modifications that disable certain features and one being disabled maliciously. Regardless of the means you use to do something like this, intent is what makes something anti trust or not. Hiding behind the gray area of IP, while convenient gets you nowhere. I don't think your seeing this a hardware issue at all, and would prefer it to be a software/IP issue. This is about hardware, and the disabling of it.

False advertising? Maybe someone would have a case there but it would be weak with the burden of proof. The anti trust case would be much much smoother and easier to prove. It's very simple to prove the driver's worked, and then were deliberately broken due to a competitors product. Then the burden of proof forces Nvidia to answer why they did this. Their rebuttal would likely be shot down quickly by multiple experts, and their own previous drivers working. Nvidia themselves set the precedent of Physx work being done by the secondary GPU regardless of vendor, it's hard to put the cat back in the bag in a courtroom. Protecting your IP is one thing, hamstringing someone's property is an entirely different situation.

Though I feel we'll just have to agree to disagree.


As far as my personal lawsuit with nvidia. It's a clever remark, and at face value looks great. First one must prove harm/damages, as I don't own a discrete ATI card let alone an SLI configuration that in and of itself would be a bit of an issue. I could go on for ages about the legal basis of this type of suit, but it would simply take away from the basis of our disagreement and add little to the conversation. It's not near as black and white as you insinuate, and even a modicum of research would have told you that. Though it sure does look good on the screen.

 

[Hamish Campbell]

lol, wouldn't you mean nvidia has nothing but contempt for ati users? and the quote by the representative from the link you posted seems to suggest otherwise.

They are the same thing. Despite the vocal minority on boards like these, the majority of consumers are absolutely not brand loyal.

 

[Stardusted]

Am I the only one finding it EXTREMELY hillaroius that first the "red team" declares that PhysX is "a useless gimmick"...to suddenly whine and cry over they can't use it...keep 'em comming...this is comedy gold!

Am I the only one finding hillarious the fact that people are so easily manipulated into (thinking) they belong to sides (be it sports, religion, or even graphics cards....) and then start fighting against the "opposite" sides?

Am I the only one finding hillarious the fact that, correcting my first statement, they are not even really manipulated into that ?

They CRAVE for such mindless meaningless purposeless behaviors, even when they gain or win absolutely nothing, even when they think they "belong" to a company's loyal followers team, a company that gains insane amounts of money, and they again gain absolutely NOTHING.

Now, THAT is comedy platinum.

 

[Valset]

Am I the only one finding it EXTREMELY hillaroius that first the "red team" declares that PhysX is "a useless gimmick"...to suddenly whine and cry over they can't use it...keep 'em comming...this is comedy gold!

in a way it is but you should remember two things, first there is now actually a high end game that uses it (and that people care about) that while its easy to hack why should they? there some reason to limit their usage? I would be pissed too (actually it does bug the hell out of me just on GPs)

for myself if I end up getting a 5800 card and find that I can't fold with my old one, I will be pissed. (the ATI folding client still uses Brook+ so it will not run any faster on a 5800 then a 3800 until they redo it in OpenCL)