OpenGL 4.0

[Richard]

Are you sure that the Windows updates push all the components and not just those that are required for Windows operation? I'm not sure things like (for AMD drivers) CCC is included.

I believe you're right for AMD. My ATI system still has that epic X850XT PE you sent me. I keep it running with the MU drivers because it's too slow for games; or rather, most games now require SM3 - it's still faster than my SM3 NV card I have on my lappy but I digress. On my lappy it installs the NV control panel.

I'll agree with Dave and add that anyone who trusts MS driver updates for their video card is a loon. I've seen there "Recommended" drivers in those updates BSOD machines more than once for Nvidia, ATI and S3/Via based GPUs.

The drivers MS publishes through MU are the same WHQL-verified drivers IHV release on their own. If *those* have problems (and some do) MS should fix their WHQL process rather than the delivery mechanism.

 

[XMAN26]

I believe you're right for AMD. My ATI system still has that epic X850XT PE you sent me. I keep it running with the MU drivers because it's too slow for games; or rather, most games now require SM3 - it's still faster than my SM3 NV card I have on my lappy but I digress. On my lappy it installs the NV control panel.



The drivers MS publishes through MU are the same WHQL-verified drivers IHV release on their own. If *those* have problems (and some do) MS should fix their WHQL process rather than the delivery mechanism.

Its funny you mention that. As I've never had an issue with the same exact driver from the IHV that MS tries to push out. Go figure.

 

[Richard]

Its funny you mention that. As I've never had an issue with the same exact driver from the IHV that MS tries to push out. Go figure.

I'd never take you from someone who installs video drivers from MU. Didn't you call those people loons?

 

[XMAN26]

I'd never take you from someone who installs video drivers from MU. Didn't you call those people loons?

You've never run had windows update set to auto or have MS PUSH a driver on you have you?

 

[Argoon]

You've never run had windows update set to auto or have MS PUSH a driver on you have you?

Afaik drivers are optional so Microsoft can't push them on you.

 

[Albuquerque]

Afaik drivers are optional so Microsoft can't push them on you.

Indeed. They will always show up in the 'optional' category on WinVista and Win7; drivers were not offered via the update mechanism in XP unless you went through device manager and told it to look online.

 

[karlotta]

MS , did push drivers on you about four or more months ago.They where considered 'important" and where automatic if you had it set up that way. FACT. Ran into a few times helping the helpless.

 

[Albuquerque]

<snip> ... and where automatic if you had it set up that way </snip>

If you configure it to automatically install optional updates, yes, it will do this. Otherwise, no, it will not. Some vendor-supplied operating systems may have been configured this way, but OOBE it isn't.

 

[Davros]

Karlotta, we are trying to get xman256 to admit he's a loon. stop helping him to wriggle out of it

 

[karlotta]

If you configure it to automatically install optional updates, yes, it will do this. Otherwise, no, it will not. Some vendor-supplied operating systems may have been configured this way, but OOBE it isn't.

It wasnt "optional" it was "important", It wasnt "Vendor", it was USER and it was pushed, and it was win7, and it has happened a few times on all MS OS's...

 

[AlexV]

Tools belong in the toolbox, not in people's posts. You're not getting what he's saying, try harder, or express yourself better. These PCs you debugged, they had configured Windows update to download updates but ask for user permission for install/check for updates and ask for user interaction for download and install, and yet it went rogue and started installing stuff? Because if that didn't happen, and the user opted to install something you don't have much of a point. If it did, you do. So, which way is it?

 

[Albuquerque]

It wasnt "optional" it was "important", It wasnt "Vendor", it was USER and it was pushed, and it was win7, and it has happened a few times on all MS OS's...

So the user opted to click OK? Because that's not what you were alluding to earlier. And I love your gross overgeneralization of "all MS OS's", especially since Vista was the first MS operating system to directly offer driver updates (as optional, mind you) via the standard Windows Update service. Microsoft could only offer you XP drivers over the internet if you specifically told it to via a forced driver update in device manager, or during a new hardware insertion where the "New Hardware" prompt was displayed and you chose "Automatically download online" or some such...

So by "all MS OS's" you actually meant to say NT6 and later, and by "wasn't optional' you meant to say that the user opted to install it? Because, uh, that's how it works in the real world. So I'm assuming that's what you really meant to say and are just somehow not able to get it completely through your keyboard.

 

[chavvdarrr]

A new version of Heaven benchmark was released http://unigine.com/products/heaven/ yesterday, with support fro OpenGL 4.0, yet in known issues there is:

Crash in wireframe mode on ATI Radeon HD 5xxx

Please don't use wireframe mode on this hardware with tessellation enabled.

Incorrect work of hardware tessellation in OpenGL on ATI cards

 

[Broken Hope]

Would that explain why ATI is so slow in OpenGL 4.0, or is there driver just really slow?

http://www.geeks3d.com/20100527/tes...ion-gtx-480-vs-gtx-470-vs-hd-5870-vs-hd-5770/

 

[rpg.314]

It is a sad to note that ogl 4.1 gets released and no body even posts a thread on it after so much time.

I myself got a shock when I landed on their spec page.

Get it here: http://www.opengl.org/registry/

 

[Dave Baumann]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AMD-Unlocks-3D-Internet-bw-2780949067.html?x=0&.v=1

FYI - We'll soon be supporting OpenGL ES 2.0 on Radeon's.

Edit: Driver available here

 

[Novum]

Isn't GL ES just a defined subset of OpenGL?

 

[arjan de lumens]

Isn't GL ES just a defined subset of OpenGL?

Not quite (unless you count OpenGL 4.1, which was apparently released today); some GLES features that have traditionally not been part of GL include:

• GL_FIXED: a 16:16 fixedpoint datatype for vertex data.
• glShaderBinary(): The ability to get/set shaders in the form of binaries (as opposed to just source code)
• Precision modifiers in the shading language ("lowp", "mediump", "highp", corresponding to FX10, FP16, FP24, respectively)

The biggest new feature of OpenGL 4.1 is that it now includes all of these features into the main OpenGL spec (even though it explicitly ignores the precision modifiers).

 

[rpg.314]

FYI - We'll soon be supporting OpenGL ES 2.0 on Radeon's.

That is good to hear. In principle, availability of OGLES2.0 on Windows should make projects like ANGLE redundant, right?

 

[Novum]

[*]glShaderBinary(): The ability to get/set shaders in the form of binaries (as opposed to just source code)

Is that in GL 4.1? Finally!

That is good to hear. In principle, availability of OGLES2.0 on Windows should make projects like ANGLE redundant, right?

Not quite. Drivers provided with Windows and through Windows update don't include OpenGL at all, and most people don't update them manually.