Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 6th May 2006 17:01 UTC, submitted by Phoronix
3D News, GL, DirectX "We have been overwhelmed with requests to take a serious look at the frame-rate performance differences between the various open-source and proprietary contenders. Our first article on this topic, which will likely be the first of a series of examinations, is looking at the differences between the X.Org open-source ATI Radeon driver and that of ATI's official but proprietary fglrx display driver."
Thread beginning with comment 123008
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: 2d?
by Wrawrat on Wed 10th May 2006 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 2d?"
Wrawrat
Member since:
2005-06-30

You're right. Yet, do you believe these companies are engaging ignorants? Some could be, but not every one of them.

As for your second point, it's the way drivers were developed when I did a training at Matrox. Still, the driver team had a good communication with the hardware team. This experience doesn't say a word on the quality of the drivers provided by ATI, but it made me familiar with the development process. Proprietary code and copy protection schemes are involved.

It's true that open-source software leads to better software, but I am not sure the companies in the highly-competitive graphics market are ready to forfeit the control of their project and their advantages over their opponents, especially when the opposition doesn't have to do OSS.

Reply Parent Score: 1