BRIGHT SIDE OF NEWS About | Advertise | Contact BSN USER Login
| Register 		SUBSCRIBE Newsletter | RSS Feeds
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Email this to a friend.
Your friend's e-mail:
Your Name:
Your e-mail:
Message subject:
Comments
by: Anonymous on 12/3/2009

PhysX mod v1.02
1.02:
- added support for new checks in 195.xx drivers
- added support for XP/2003 drivers
- both x86 and x64 are supported by a single mod now

Notes about the mod:
- Both x86 and x64 are supported by a single file now. If you are using x86 OS, you should just skip patching 64-bit binaries (press No when asked for a search).
- Don't forget that you must be able to access nvidia control panel. For this connect nvidia GPU to the second input port of your monitor - physically or virtually (i don't know if this is possible), or any other way you find. There are community-generated tutorials for this, i can't tell anything because i own only 1 GPU.
- Lite version may come later, if needed. Additionally, i can fix errors if you find them and release it with an update.

Notes about XP/2003 support:
- Only 195.62 drivers are tested for XP/2003 case. I can't say anything about earlier versions, i didn't even try them.
- It should work for XP/2003 x64 editions too, would be great if anyone will confirm.
- It will work for 2000 only if original XP/2003 package supports it.

PhysX System Software 9.09.30 mod v1.0 for Ageia PPU
Follow instructions in readme file, but i ask you to draw attention to the 2nd note about PhysX panel. We ran into many problems while trying to make it to work, and my final guessed solution (which will save your time if it works) is not included in the readme. So i ask anyone interested to test it:
1. Install PhysX SS 8.09.04.
2. Install PhysX SS 9.09.30.
3. Download the included archive (PhysX_9.09.0814_original_AgCP) and extract everything to your System32 (SysWOW64 for x64 users) folder.
(this archive contains only original files from 9.09.0814 installation, which is the latest known version with included PhysX panel for Ageia PPU)

This may work better than other tricks. If not - you (and the community) will have to find a better way.

BTW, FluidMark may not function properly with this 9.09.30 (according to results from the only 1 tester with 2 machines). I wonder if it will ever work on PPU even with nvidia GPU... Everything else seems to be working fine.

http://www.ngohq.com/attachments/graphic-cards/2379d1259440244-nvidia-disables-physx-when-ati-card-is-present-physx-mod-1.02.rar

http://www.ngohq.com/attachments/graphic-cards/2380d1259440244-nvidia-disables-physx-when-ati-card-is-present-physx-mod-ppu-1.0.rar

http://www.ngohq.com/attachments/graphic-cards/2381d1259440244-nvidia-disables-physx-when-ati-card-is-present-physx_9.09.0814_original_agcp.rar
AMD+NVIDIA Physx Working by: Anonymous on 12/3/2009
If nvidia can't do quality checking on systems with amd display card as primary and nvidia for physx processing, a smart guy at www.ngohq.com forum, "GenL" can do it for them.
It is working without any problem for several forum members. Try this if are a NVIDIA customer cheated by artificial limitation imposed on their drivers.

Here is the link to the forum and download the drivers from this page.
Also try to go through the forum pages which will help you to understand any problems and success stories.

http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/16223-nvidia-disables-physx-when-ati-card-is-present-78.html

here is the direct download link

http://www.ngohq.com/attachments/graphic-cards/2379d1259440244-nvidia-disables-physx-when-ati-card-is-present-physx-mod-1.02.rar

for PPU
http://www.ngohq.com/attachments/graphic-cards/2380d1259440244-nvidia-disables-physx-when-ati-card-is-present-physx-mod-ppu-1.0.rar

http://www.ngohq.com/attachments/graphic-cards/2381d1259440244-nvidia-disables-physx-when-ati-card-is-present-physx_9.09.0814_original_agcp.rar
License Part 2 by: Sean Kalinich on 11/16/2009
AMD Licenses Crossfire also. It is not free, and was never allowed on NV chipsets [which is understandable]

SLI was actually developed by 3dfx. NV got it when they bought them [after some serious mismanagement by 3dfx]

However it was not until PCIe came around that it was re-introduced and restricted to NV chipsets. ATi developed their own version that was also chipset restricted [and required a very bulky cable] later they removed the cable and used an internal interconnect [like NV].

ATi penned the first deals with Intel to get Crossfire on their chipsets in an effort to compete with NV [and because they did not have an Intel chipset of their own]. Thankfully that agreement survived the AMD buyout of ATi. Mostly because again AMD does not have a chipset for Intel CPUs and keeping crossfire on AMD CPUs would be a bad business decision as it would limit Crossfire's market penetration drastically.

AMD does have many things that are royalty free that they have created or helped create but to the best of my knowledge Crossfire is not one of them.

Again ATi/AMD made the best decision for their own benefit and in order to increase profit and market share.
I think that hit's by: Anonymous on 11/16/2009
the nail on the head really....the problem is due to Nvidia's insistance on the pursuit of proprietary standards rather than open standards and then using their substantitial resources to promote their use....of course they are doing it for sound buisiness reasons at least in the short term....but in the long term I think they will lose customer support by alienating people and splitting the market and developers.
Open standards may take a little longer but if Nvidia were less concerned about their proprietary approach then perhaps things would progress better.
I hear what you.... by: Anonymous on 11/16/2009
are saying but even though you have identified one area where AMD/ATI have also done wrong I maintain this is comparatively a minor issue....I doubt many HTPC owners have two graphics cards in there systems as one of the primary concerns with HTPC's is keeping power consupmtion and heat production down. But none the less it is still wrong.
I also still maintain that Nvidia is by far the worst offender in this respect....they are just being too aggressive trying to tie everything down to their product or license everything. Take SLI for instance, their insistance on tying that to their chipset and denying Intel a license.....and yet Crossfire is free as I understand it...well that one really came back and bit Nvidia in the ass and rightly so.
Nvidia is trying to do this with so many things and to be honest it is just going against the whole ethos of the PC format where things are meant to be made to a set of standards and work together. Nvidia is destoying that sort of environment and as a consequence ruining the gaming environment.
License by: Sean Kalinich on 11/15/2009
Game developers license the use of the PhysX libraries. This allows them to use that in their games. It is also not right to not make AMD follow the same rules.

As they are rendering the output from the PhysX code owned by NV and which is part of their IP.

QA is still a valid issue [regardless of what others may say] as I highly doubt that all 26,000+ configurations have been tested and with each new AMD and NV driver things would have to be tested all over again.

From what I am understanding [and I am sure I will hear if I am wrong] NV would more than likely not have a problem if AMD licensed the PhysX code [or some sort of license fee for rendering the output on AMD GPUs] and would share the responsibility for QA and end user support. Again this is my understanding of the issue and NV may actually feel different about this [this is just what I gathered from the conversation we had with them.]
Preception is everything by: Sean Kalinich on 11/15/2009
And to many HTPC users PhysX is not important.
However the ability to use those Dual HD Decoders would be.

It is not right to say one company doing a thing is more improper than another.

As they both use the same reasoning for it. Why should they give up their time and effort for a competitor to reap the benefits...
If that... by: Anonymous on 11/15/2009
is the case the AMD/ATi are also wrong in doing so....like I said previously....I'm not a fan boy of either side....but having said that neither am I very informed about HTPC matters but would imagine the number of people even wanting to run a combination of ATi and Nvidia cards in one HTPC system would be very limited and of little importance....but granted it would still not be right....but there is still no doubt which is the greater evil affecting the most people and which company is the main protagonist in respect of this type of activity.
Not quite right by: Sean Kalinich on 11/15/2009
At no time did I ask for any AMD software to be run on an NV GPU
I stated
"AMD has a pair of HD Decoders on their GPU. These would run on the ATi can but allow the NV card to render the image (exactly what you want NV to do with Physx) AMD will not support that and will not add that feature. "

So the hardware and software is running on the ATI(AMD) card. The output is being rendered on the NV GPU

That is exactly what is being done with a PPU. the effects are processed by the PPU and rendered on the GPU. In this case you are asking for the NV product to process the Physx Code and then allow the ATI(AMD) GPU to render them

It is the exact same thing. AMD is not allowing their GPU to be nothing more than a co-processor for an NV GPU just like NV is not allowing their GPU to be nothing more than a co-processor for the ATI GPU.
not missing... by: Anonymous on 11/15/2009
the comment...your comment is again missing the point...you again talk of Ati software not being allowed to run on Nvidia hardware spoiling the HTPC market.

No one is asking for Physx to run on an ATi card...I'm quite happy to buy an Nvidia card to replace my old Ageia PPU and run physx on that as a secondary card...for heaven sake it is not about allowing Nvidia's precious Physx to run on someone elses hardware....the issue is Nvidia blocking Physx because someone elses components are in the system.....I thought you would be able to apprieciate the difference...but apparently not.
Taking it to an extreme Nvidia is struggling if not sinking in the chipset business....it would be no different if they started to disable in game features if non Nvidia chipsets were present to support their product....this is an unfair and anti competetive practise.
MIssing my commnet by: Sean Kalinich on 11/15/2009
AMD has a pair of HD Decoders on their GPU. These would run on the ATi can but allow the NV card to render the image (exactly what you want NV to do with Physx) AMD will not support that and will not add that feature.

So again, I say that AMD is doing the same thing that you are saying NV is. They are hurting HTPC owners by not allowing that card to be used to decode HD video.

As for PhysX it is not the only standard. AMD had the chance to work closely with Ageia when they were still a separate company, instead they decided to play their own game and talk of Physics on the GPU. They openly mocked the use of a PPU. Then they completely dropped the ball on the whole game.

In my world you do not challenge someone and then cry when you drop out and loose.

I would feel differently if AMD had actec in another way, but they did not. This is the same thing with the Netbook (another of their Ideas) As far as the Ageia PPU goes that is has been of very limited use for some time. I know I have two here one fomr Asus (the X-1) and one direct from Ageia. They were not able to (in most cases) properly run the new Physx code anyway. I am not sure how yours is working now.

And even further.... by: Anonymous on 11/15/2009
As is the case in most situations the answer to the problem lies somewhere between the two extremes....Yes Ati should be more proactive in supporting developers....but it must be rembered they do not have the rescources available to Nvidia....but that support should be just that support for your hardware and not implimenting vendor lock out code or code that deliberately slows your competitors hardware....that is what Nvidia is doing and it is a step too far....Ati are working closely with DX11 titles but to impliment Dx11 feature...but they are not locking out nvidia hardware from features they have invested in.
Nvidia has to play fair and stop using their powerful position in a negative way.
Further to that..... by: Anonymous on 11/15/2009
Yes I have made up my mind....not on a whim but on the basis of the evidence that is there for all to see....I'm not a fanboy and have both nvidia and ati systems and will generally go with which ever I perceive to be the best buy...from now on though unless Nvidia offer substantial advantage I will choose ATi....Nvidia have shown themselves to be deceitful and devisive and I for one will not support them.....and for Hydra...time will out the truth and I predict we will see Nvidia increasingly at the sharp end not of technology but of several law suits.
Again... by: Anonymous on 11/14/2009
your reply misses the point, evey instance you mention of one companies software not working on a competitors hardware is a case where it either wont work or has been blocked from running on the competitors "comparable" hardware.

Physx is not running on an Ati card it is running quite separately on an auxilliary Nvidia card....it is being blocked simply because there is an ATi card in the system. Surely you can apreiciate the difference.

As regards damage to the gaming community...Well I'm one of the people that woke up one morning to find that Nvidia had rendered my Ageia PPU useless.
When I bought it the system requirements did not state "Nvidia card required for primary graphics"...thanks to the people at NGOHQ.COM and their hack it is now working again with the titles that Nvidia unecessarily tried to block it from.

The use of proprietary standards that Nvidia is pursuing with its Physx and 3D gaming is not the way forward and is only serving to split the gaming community and developers.

Additonally TWIMTBP is now becoming used as a means to lock out owners of other graphicis hardware from games or at least lessen their experience rather than just enhance the experience on Nvidia card owners as it should be used.

So I maintain that Nvidia are damaging the overall gaming environment in an attempt to make their hardware appear more favourable simply for profit.
But Wait There's more by: Sean Kalinich on 11/14/2009
Can I used the Dual HD Decoders on an AMD GPU to decode my HD and send it out to my nVidia card?

No, AMD wont allow for that, yet we all know it is possible to do this as there have been decoder cards for years. Why wont AMD enable that?

It should be pretty easy to do it at the driver level.

But I guess only nVidia has to do things like that.
Gaming Community by: Sean Kalinich on 11/14/2009
How have they become damaging?

That is an opinion, and one that does not fit the facts at hand. nVidia invest millions of dollars for game development each year.

As far as your other comments they do show that you have your mind made up and no amount of evidence or information to the contrary will affect it.

Try using Avivo through an nVidia GPU when it is doing the output to your TV. It wont work. But Avivo is a better technology. Why wouldn't AMD allow for that? After all Avivo is a software driven function so it rightly should be allowed to be used. I guess AMD is trying to hurt the HTPC community too...

Again, you are convinced nothing anyone says or does will make a difference.

So.... by: Anonymous on 11/14/2009
not being able to answer or defend against my previous comments on Quality Assurance which is the argument which Nvidia is forwarding for not allowing physx in ATi systems you change tack and ask why should they allow it to run in such systems?...

Well firstly let me refer you back to when Nvidia first started pushing it's newley aquired Physx....apparently Nvidia was going to allow everyone even ATi to impliment it....Ati rightly avoided that pit fall as you can bet that if they had supported it and it had become the dominant physics system then nvidia would now be lumping them with heavy licencing fee's.
And now that didn't work what a change around from this free system to deliberately blocking competitors hardware.

That aside your comparison with what other companies are doing is flawed...yes AMD cpu's have software that it will not allow to run on Intel cpu's, yes ATi gpu's have stuff that they don't let run on Nvidia gpu's.....but this is not the same situation at all....no one is suggesting that physx should be allowed to run on ATi's gpu's....there is no need to do that physx can run quite nicely on a secondary nvidia gpu without its code running on ATi's hardware.
It is being block simply because there is an ATI card in the system.

Would AMD's cpu software be blocked if there was an Intel SSD in the system...NO

Would Ati's graphics card stuff be blocked if the card was running on an Nvidia chipset mobo...NO

As in the cases above there is no relationship between Physx run on an auxilliary nvidia gpu and the gpu used for primary graphics....and infact the original Ageia PPU was completely agnostic as to which vendors graphics card was used (incidentally Nvidia have now also prevented the old PPU from working with ATi cards)

There is no reason for Nvidia to block this other than bloody mindedness and simple profiteering.

Of course I understand that companies have to make profit...but Nvidia has become so aggressively cut throat that their actions are actually damaging to the gaming community.
Recurring Theme by: Sean Kalinich on 11/14/2009
Again, you are going to find what you are looking for.

I will say again, before you target a single company look at what others are doing in the name of competition.

How about AMD punishing a company for making a non-reference board ahead of their preferred partners? How about AMD locking out Intel CPUs with their software?

Does this mean that AMD will be giving the software code for Eyefinity to nVidia? Or Hydra? Or Avivo? Or any of their other IP?

No again you see and point to only what you want to see. Why should NV let GPU based PhysX run with an AMD GPU as primary? Can you tell me why they should do that?

It was not even until Windows 7 that you could easily run GPUs from different companies in the same system. Until that point there did not seem to be an issue at all...
Okay Sean... by: Anonymous on 11/14/2009
If Nvidia are so innocent in this Physx debarcle explain to me why there should be any QA problems running a separate Nvidia card for physx on a system using ATi for graphics?
The physx and graphics are operating via separate api's. This question has been posed to Nvidia by those more knowledgeable than I without any satisfactory reply. The fact of the matter is that there is no technological problem whatsoever.

On top of this I suppose the proof of the pudding so to speak is that fact that those that have hacked the Nvidia drivers so as to enable physx on such ATi systems have found that it operates perfectly well on all manner of ATi configuration setups.

So there is no technical reason it should not work and in fact it does work....the quality assurance problem has just been fabricated by Nvidia as an excuse to lock out those using ATi products for graphics.

Oh and look now MSI are using this vague QA excuse for delaying Hydra...do you spot a reoccurring theme here?
Interesting take by: Sean Kalinich on 11/14/2009
And as I have mentioned, what of AMD and their practices? AMD has software that will only work on their CPU and GPUs... They have deliberately blocked Intel CPUs with ID strings in software they have released.

The point here is that you cannot slam one company for doing what all of them do.

If you worked on a project would you be ok with letting your room mate copy without putting in any work? AMD did not work to implement AA in the game. I am not saying that NV was right in blocking it at the driver level but still. Why should AMD get to sit back, not help out and then reap the benefits? You can still enable AA in AMD's CCC so the game is not completely blocking it just the use of the in-game AA code that NV helped to put in place and QA for that particular title.

As has been said in before, it seems that anything that is contrary to the perception that NV is bad and evil (no matter how much proof or how truthful it is) is not going to be accepted.

Sorry but in this case the fact is that NV had nothing to do with it.
@ Sean by: Anonymous on 11/14/2009
If Nvidia produced CPU's I'm sure that they would restrict Physx to only their CPU hardware, but as they don't and therefore can't benefit in relation to sales of cpu's if they were to lock it to their product, then they opt to use the CPU as a medium to further the generalized use of Physx towards their end of establishing Physx as the dominant physics system.
TWIMTBP was the start of a slippery slope, there is a fine line between optomizing games to run well with your hardware and blatently blocking and disabling features should your competitors hardware be detected in a system....Nvidia have crossed that line and the public now recognize that...they are self serving profiteers that have no concern for gamers or furthering the improvement of the general gaming environment...their deceit is there for all to see.
Yeah keep waving your fake Fermi card in the air Nvidia you've been seen and called out for what you are.
@You can't equate by: Sean Kalinich on 11/14/2009
How can you say that? It is exactly the same.

Ok, so lets say Intel decides to prevent overclocking at all. The remove the ability to manually adjust the voltage. They can do this fairly easily in the BIOS and through the use of usage contracts with the VARs and OEMs.

They do not and as such they pay the price in terms of customers not listening to them and blaming them for the issue.

AMD also sponsors titles, so I guess we should say they are also trying to cut out NV right?

nVidia puts a ton of money (in terms of hardware and direct support) into TWIMTBP. They support the developers directly with this program. Just as AMD and Intel do [although AMD to a much more limited scale]

Which company is putting more into gaming? The one that is spending the money on the development or the one that sits back and does very little?

When AMD released their Media Fusion Software, they locked out Intel CPUs, even though they were capable of using the software. We [along with a few other sites] found a way to make it work on Intel CPUs.

AMD also has other code they use that they do not share.

All companies keep their IP close to their chests. If NV was doing what you say then all CPU based PhysX would be disabled and you would only be able to run it on an NV GPU. Yet we do not see that do we?
by: Kyocera on 11/14/2009
Conversation?
A discerned group has elected to provide mob attacks.
The logic of the discussion in this instance goes like this:
1. "Nvidia is guilty of "whatever" till it proves its innocence; everything it says it's non valid ( a lie).

"whatever" is subject to:
- the problem must be correlated to graphics; if you cannot find a direct interest you can stretch.

2. It's enough to accuse The company, to find it guilty.
No proof, not even an INDICATION is necessary; or a general informed idea on the matter.

3. The only requirement is to write a sensationalistic article of accusement in which you point to a conspiracy, a hidden truth.
The wast majority of sites, which live from repeating cheap news, will grab, remodel and re-insert in circulation; everything to attract traffic (that equals advertising value).

The only doubt that remains is why would a group of (average) readers go into a persistent and premeditated libel of an online publication, that has only written what the RESEARCH and TALK with companies turned out.
Three main possibilities:
- a group that needs to vent somewhere their personal frustrations
-intellectually inferior that try to compensate
-(advantage) interest; against Nvidia? or is the BSN the hindrance? (the crusade does not go against a whole inundation of low-quality-content sites).

If we would apply the same logic used by this mob on the last point, we could prove that AMD is trying to avail itself on Nvidia's expenses..... (and after the Intel/AMD story, this should be a fact)...
Just to demonstrate how news is made.

Before you go into a frenzy:
-in one PC I have an ATI in the other Nvidia.
-I'm just one of the readers; you can find my posts here way back, even before the first provider sawed their hosting,...so, to save you the work of finding a conspiracy, that I have something to do with the team making this publication.
Being "caught up" by OS by: Theo Valich on 11/14/2009
Greetings,

On the subject of being unaware of a new operating system requirements, it happens "to the best" as well. People seem to forget that Windows Vista came out and nVidia's own DirectX 10 part didn't had drivers for months. I.e. from RTM in August 2006, through public/OEM launch on the last day of November to the very public availability date at the end of January, nVidia did not had working drivers for GeForce 8800. ATI did not had a working DX10 part [2900XT was 9 months late, came in April], but you could use their DX9 parts with proper drivers. nVidia was caught out and had a DX10 part with no drivers for an DX10 operating environment.

BSN* was not there at the time, but The INQ was with all three journalists mentioned in this discussion. Have we all criticized nVidia for lack of action on their side? Yes we have.

Now, as far as accusations of bias go, regardless of what I or my colleagues write, there is no way to change the hearts and minds other than our work and our persistent attitude. We will not change the course I established and had such luck of having reputable team. Our efforts paid off and we're now growing at a really good rate. According to publicly available information, we have more readers in the US than some have globally [US makes for 40% of our overall readership] and I am personally glad that we managed to justify the faith of well over 200,000 readers that come and visit our site every month. We recently marked our first millionth' visitor according to Google Analytics and we're looking forward to all conversations with our readers.

We do try to reply to majority of posts, but the priority for us is content production. Each story such as this one takes tens of hours by more than one person, couple of dozen e-mails, couple of hourly conference calls - and there is only one reason for that - we are striving to provide complete information, that being Intel's Larrabee, nVidia's Batman AA issue or LucidLogix.

Before you ask, yes, I am proud of BSN* members and the effort these guys and girls put in creating this publication.

Thank you for reading and showing serious consideration of our articles. I am very happy to see different opinions. We don't need to agree on everything, but please keep the discussion constructive. Attacking personalities doesn't help anyone's cause because we simply don't know each other. Would you act differently if any of you knew the full background of BSN* team prior to BSN*? Probably, but just as we don't know any information about you, our respected readers - sans the Browser, Operating System, display resolution and do what version of Flash/Java you are running - you don't know our CV's.

Please, keep the conversation constructive and we look forward to future discussions.

As far as Lucid goes, I hope in 12 months we'll talk about Lucid working on Intel and AMD motherboards with GPUs from AMD, Intel and nVidia - all working properly on all the customers' systems.

It takes a massive effort to create anything, and our hats do go off to Lucid as well. We are only not going to stay silent if we detect something weird is going on, such as was in this case.

Best regards,

Ed.
You can't equate by: Anonymous on 11/14/2009
the two...there is a world of difference between people RMAing hardware they have broken themselves which can't be proven otherwise and people complaining about working hardware that doesn't work in a situation the manufacturer has said isn't supported.
This is not a QA issue at all if so why didn't they announce it rather than just sneaking it into the drivers....no it is just a continuance of Nvidias subversion of the gaming environment in the name of nvidia profit which started with the "TWIMTBP" program and contiunes today in the form of disabling antialiasing on ATi hardware in games nvidia have supported to disabling physx and now the latest opposing lucid logix hydra chip.
From their track record and the distinctly fishy circumstances around this why would anyone think differntly....unless they were paid to do so.
Actually by: Sean Kalinich on 11/14/2009
You have made my point here
on the console there is one hardware configuration. in a PC there are tens of thousands. It makes good business sense because a ton of money does not have to be dumped into QA. It is a singular product. In the PC even when a manufacturer says "this is not supported" how many people do it and then complain?

The number of people that pushed their i7s beyond the 1.55v recommended by Intel and then wanted an RMA later is pretty large. This was done despite being told not to do it and that they risked a chance of killing their CPU.

Same thing with hard-modded consoles. When they break people still try and bring them in for warranty repairs. And get mad at MS, Sony, and Nintendo when they can't get it fixed for free.

Instead NV is supporting PhysX where is makes good business sense in terms of their expenditures this is called ROI [return on investment] you do not get involved in something that has very little ROI or a negative ROI. In the case of mix and match Multi-GPU PhysX on a PC the ROI just isn't there.
You prove my point... by: Anonymous on 11/14/2009
Nvidia supports physx on the console because it makes business sense for them to do so....In the pc environment they are restricting it as a lever to encourage people to by nvidia graphics cards when they up grade or do a new system built...this is obviously not possible with a console so to restrict it would in the console environment not benefit them....on the contrary to promote it in the console environment will be a benefit as they are trying to get Physx used as widley as possible amoungst developers in the hope that it will one day become a universal standard which they can make huge licencing profits from....like I said Nvidia are not being "Gamer" centric only "Nvidia" centric even if that invovles damaging the overall gaming environment.
Both Lucid and MSI by: Sean Kalinich on 11/14/2009
Are saying that Windows 7 Driver issues on the Lucid end are part of the problem.

and I suppose that hurting the consumer is why nVidia has worked with game developers to make sure PhysX works on the Xbox 360 [with an AMD/ATi GPU in it].

If your stance on NV was correct they would not be doing that. They would simply dissable PhysX until the console had an NV GPU inside.



Sorry don't accept this. by: Anonymous on 11/14/2009
Firstly are we really expected to swallow that lucidlogix we caught out by win7? As an everday Joe Soap I've been playing with pre release versions of it 6 months prior to release I'm sure a high tec company had a little more insight than that..this is obviously incorrect and just an excuse.

Secondly just because Nvidia representative say they are not opposing Hydra do we believe them? NO.
Neither do we believe their official statements about Physx restrictions simply being a Quality Assurance issue. If that was the case why not simply issue a statement that "Nvidia do not assure physx in mixed gpu environments" and leave it to the consumer to decide....no instead they they try to block it covertly through their drivers and further more try to block the fix created by forum memebers at NGOHQ.COM.
It is quite apparent that Nvidia does not support "Gamers" only "Nvidia Gamers" and is quite happy to ruin the general gaming environment by the imposition of proprietary standards and deliberately blocking their competitors advancements even if that is to the detriment of the general gaming environment....I have no doubt in my mind where the blame lies.
Actually by: Sean Kalinich on 11/14/2009
Lucid contacted us first. It really sounds more like you take issue with anyone not reporting the "news" you want to hear.

After not hearing from them for a few days their PR Firm sent a message over facebook to me personally.

From there the dialog opened up.
Can't trust any of you by: Anonymous on 11/13/2009
i like how nvidia contacted you guys first. theo keeps saying that bsn is in nvidia's bad books because of nda violations but nvidia contacts you guys first to straighten out an article? bsn and fudzilla do suck nvidia's wang.

charlie has his vendetta so i suppose we have to read his anti-nvidia website and fudo's pro-nvidia news and then make our own judgment.

i also like how charlie says one thing and you guys have the urge to try and prove him wrong. it probably stems from the fact that charlie proved theo was taking other people's news and passing as his own, or the fact that theo just fabricated stories up altogether (fermi taped out with A1 silicon, 512bit mem controller and running at respectable frequencies in May '09?!)

these three websites must be all graduates from journalism clown college. you guys spin more FUD on your own than nvidia and ATI's PR department themselves. maybe nvidia and ATI can fire their PR departments and just use the three of you.
Hi Frantz by: Sean Kalinich on 11/13/2009
Interestingly enough, I am not the only one that cites this as an issue
From The Tech Report

"The Lucid employees we spoke with about this problem attributed it to Windows 7, and indeed, Lucid VP of R&D and Engineering David Belz told us that Windows Vista had been the driver team's primary focus up until the last month. Belz said they had found few differences when moving to Windows 7, but forthrightly admitted the firm might need to look into those differences further. Belz seemed surprised when he asked what percentage of prospective Hydra buyers might wish to run Windows 7 immediately and we answered, "Uhh... 99%." The Hydra comes attached to a new motherboard, though, so one would think that answer would be rather obvious at this point in time, even if our estimate might be overstated by a few percentage points. "

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/17934
Fool me once!!!! by: Frantz on 11/13/2009
Sean,

Both you and Charlie have an agenda. Charlie' s is open and well established. What is yours?

You don't strike me as a fool. So why would you treat your readers as such?

To imply that a company with a 'game changer' first product would not have prepared and tested their brand new baby to operate on Windows 7 is ludicrous at best.

So neither Lucid nor MSI was aware of the lack of Windows 7 compatibility until after the launch of the OS?

What a shocking revelation?

What a crock of bulls!!!

Nvidia should have done the honorable thing and kept their mouth silent.

Their reputation would not be any more tarnished than it is already unlike yours which has taken a willing big hit.
© 2009 - 2011 Bright Side Of News*, All rights reserved.
© 2009 - 2013 Bright Side Of News*, All rights reserved.