Originally Posted by
zanzabar
@katanai, its not about hardware or software its about marketing. like u said, why add anything that could help your competion, the only problem with that is that this practice has been illegal to block functionality when other companies hardware is present it happened with intel trying to block HT with via chipsets and it happened with IBM back in the 80's. i can see why they would not want to, but by blocking ati/amd out and to go and only block them and not s3/via or intel they are being ati competative, and they are sacrificing sales and adoption rates as i could see ati users buying phsyX cards. if u look back at agea they had mostly ati users for the PPU and with NV removing support for the PPU on ati cards and bullying devs to not use multithreaded phsyX and to make the lowest physX load to much for a single cpu thread they are focing phsyX to not be used in a meaningful way.
phsyX also runs on cuda so there is no way that the cpu phsyX can be supported but the gpu cannot, the PPU/gpu for phsyX dose no rendering or anything but fractal style int computations so if ati finds a way to break a non graphics api from working the cpu version would also not work, its an all or nothing situation. if there really is a problem with phsyX and ati cards just ban the whole the api for compatibility that way physX can die already this no GPGPU cuda physX for ati users is just uncompetitive and illegal.
that could happen it would only cover people who have older NV gpus with cuda and agea PPUs, the main problem would be that the public is stupid so they wouldent understand anything about the case and then an appellate judge would be worthless as the case would happen in the bay aria and then u have the judge that rules anything apple dose is correct and never rules in favor of any consumer group unless he will be removed if he dose not.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks