To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It's hardly a double-standard!
The situation as I see it, is that Nvidia have developed and sold a product with working software.
A third party company (MS) with enough market clout to be able to just ignore any complaints/boycotts from the industry arbitrarily turn around and tell them to develop new software because they have decided to change the interfaces that their product should use.
NVidia have no incentive to spend lots of money developing drivers for older hardware OR developing dual drivers for newer hardware.
Failing to do so will drive H/W sales in new products anyway.
The situation is much simpler and bi-polar in Linux. Linux have provided a system and the commercial vendors have refused to support it. There's not much that Linux has done wrong in this situation.
"From day one, ATI played a key role in helping us design and validate the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista and ATI has since developed extremely robust and performant drivers that highlight the capabilities of our new operating system.”
http://ati.amd.com/technology/windowsvista/index.html






Member since:
2005-07-06
I blame Nvidia in both cases! when there are problems with Linux, I don't blame Linux because of the lack of graphics support, I blame Nvidia and their lack of drive to provide a decent quality driver.
I blame Nvidia for not properly taking advantage of DRM and other modules, but instead creating their own frankenstein monstrocity simply to get around licencing requirements.
With that being said, when I blame Linux vendors for the lack of commercial software like Adobe Creative Suite on Linux, I get blamed for blaming the wrong party - interesting double standards we have here.