I sent AMD an email today with my questions and concerns. I'll post back if I get a response.

whats the big deal Intel already does that with their Chipset drivers

All your pushing and shoving won't change anything

However IBM will have made AMD very well aware
"AMD if you want us putting AMD Processors and Chipsets into our high quality server, You must provide quality support for a major target audience of Linux Driver Servers

Like Intel did we expect you to release source for hardware you wish to be used in IBM Series Servers"

Awesome, with IBM pushing, AMD might finally make this happen. My pushing and shoving is nothing in comparison to what IBM is capable of, but that's not going to stop me from trying.

Ok - the box I refer to is the laptop itself.

Other than that - what are you talking about?

Are you thinking I am refering to a mobo chipset? I am not.
Video cards also do have chipsets.

I am not angry about anybody and I had the laptop working just fine, thank you very much but that one went back because there was no 64 bit driver from ATI (at the time).
Still did work but the runaround got me.

Now arguing like you guys do:

Go to the manufacturers website - check -> tellls me to go to the laptop manufacturer
Laptop manufacturer tells me that they depend on ATI for a 64 bit driver which should be clear as white liqour to anybody in the first place.

What now?
ATI says the laptop guys have to write the 64 bit driver or what?

Is it understandable that this is a runaround that doesn't make any sense or do I have to make an ASCII drawing?

ATI will be in big trouble if they go on as they do anyway.
AMD is a mess right now and I don't see how that is going to help.

Maybe the Intel graphics are going to be ok if they ever make it to market.

Thats the way i see it too, unless AMD/ATI have an incentive to buy their product i see no reason to build an AMD/ATI system, (such as an AMD/ATI motherboard that has open source graphics drivers optimized to run in Linux if the AMD/ATI developers wanted to make a stong incentive they would collaborate with Xorg and work together to build something that beats the competition (fair and honest competition is good)

and again, an Intel board with a nVidia PCI express card does sound good right now...

The "runaround" is all about marketing contracts between card makers and equipment manufacturers. As an example, Dell (or whoever) agrees to purchase a quantity of (bare bone?) ATI video cards, or graphic chipsets, at discount under a volume purchase agreement. ATI is the OEM'er (Original Equipment Manufacturer) of those components and that's where their stake in it ends, at least legally.

Dell, or whoever, gets a driver and/or a driver development kit and they have the contractual "right" to modify the hardware, write their own drivers, throw in custom software, etc. Along with that, they agree to support the product, since there's no way that ATI can support all the various "customizations" that PC makers might be doing with their components. Imagine if Gateway had a model out with a buggy driver they wrote. Is that ATI's fault?

In order for the PC maker and OEM supplier to keep costs low and both profit from this arrangement, they most likely leave off the high speed static video RAM. Instead, the PC uses the slower shared dynamic RAM on the main system board. As you see, this snowball is picking up speed all in the name of "profits" while you and I go through the "run-around" you described.

As far as Dell and ATI are concerned, they've both lived up to their legal contractual agreements and it's buyer beware for you and I!!

What we buy at the store as a stand-alone video card will most likely have some high speed video RAM and will include software (drivers/applications) that the OEM package never included, cause of the purchasing agreement. Unfortunately, that's just how the hardware business is conducted these days.

It's "good" for consumers (good is relative to the pocketbook here), but lousy for serious users like you and I. Blame it on the marketing folks and the execs!!

I recently had to go to Intel to get PCIe chipset drivers for an Intel mobo in a Dell PC. I needed OpenGL support which is not part of the "signed" XP drivers supplied from Microsoft and Dell used whatever MickeySoft said is the official MS driver for that piece of hardware.

I agree with you that it sucks for us as end-users. That's why I hate the way mobo's are being made now with only a few PCI slots and crappy video and audio built-in and everything they can possibly build-in to cut manufacturing costs and increase profits. At the very least, even if the chips are great, the mobo's don't have the fast static RAM that's on the stand-alone cards, cause the RAM is more expensive than the chip and it's support chips.

Unless we buy commercial grade computers, we're buying a consumable mass market product. Profits come first and technology is second. Just look at all the Celerons being sold with MS Vista; what a joke that is--those machines will perform horribly, and if you're the poor guy that has to support/fix it, that slowpoke will rob you of your time while you wait on it.

A far cry from the way PCs were sold back in the 80s when you had "real" computer stores, not the mass merchandising retail outlets they pass off as computer stores today.

Today, a good SCSI card alone with built-in hardware RAID can cost as much ($695+) as one of those throw-away PCs (i.e. HP Pavillions, proprietary junk in my opinion). For a business or home office (or serious gamers) those expensive components are worth it.

The funny part is, that Linux can run circles around Windows on one of those cheap home computers, but I doubt that had much to do with Dell's decision to sell desktop PCs with Ubuntu on them.

A long explanation to tell you that you're on the mass merchandising wheel. Welcome to the computer biz "run-around." ;-)

JohnE1

I'm real curious to see if you get a response with any real substance in it, or just a form letter reply.

Please let us know. Thanks!

JohnE1

I hope for the first, but I expect the last

To get BACK ON TOPIC: AMD and Linux.......

While the AMD CPU is fully supported in the kernel, as are most of their chipsets, I don't see any issue in the future with the GPU's also being at the same level.

The issue was ATI's almost moronic disregard for the Linux/GNU community, not AMD.

Now that ATI is owned by someone who KNOWS the power of Linux, we might see changs...

And before any comments about NVidia/Intel/ATI GPU "Which is better?", as far as power goes, ATI has it. But their Linux support SUCKS.

Read my DRI thread (link in my sig) about the various GPUs. In ease of use/install/ support for Linux, it's Intel, NVidia,ATI. For real graphics power, its ATI/NVidia/Intel.

Until AMD lights a fire under ATI's driver development, it will STAY in 3rd.

So, WRITE AMD.

Let them know.

Yes the short attention spans of some does not remove the importance of this topic.

I know thread is a couple weeks old but;

Agreed, no harm and no foul in TRYING. Who cares if you get a form based response, a phone call or someone showing up on your doorstep with source code. It is all about effort people, as is everything,including the first step you took putting your first Linux disk in your computer.

This thread should not be about X vs X.

I have sent an email and will continue to do so.

i think so too

Good good you guys. The more that we write to hardware companies, the more exposure Linux will get, and thus the more support.