Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

S3 Tries to Get Back Into PC Graphics

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the pixels-and-polygons-and-processors-oh-my dept.

mikemuch writes "ExtremeTech has a review of S3's attempt to get some traction in the lower-end graphics card market, the Chrome S27. Though its specs look great--256MB memory, 700MHz core clock rate, 1.4GHz memory clock, and 22.4 GB/sec memory throughput, it still manages to underperform similarly priced video cards from the red and green graphics companies."

10 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Free advice to S3... by Pooh22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Supply full GPL/BSD licensed source code to the X.org and kernel.org for inclusion in mainline. That will trigger a lot of positive support.

    Besides, I don't really see a downside, because who, besides free software lovers, would be motivated to buy something non-nvidia and non-ati at this point?

    Cheers

    Simon

    1. Re:Free advice to S3... by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they made Mac video card drivers, people might be tempted, simply because there are so few Mac video cards out there. But I think the general sentiment has to be not to compete first in the Windows DirectX performance crown arena, but rather solidify niche markets to make money for R&D.

    2. Re:Free advice to S3... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're not going to do that. If for no other reason than their own texture compression technology (S3TC) which they license to other video card makers (namely ATI and Nvidia, as well as MS for DirectX drivers).

      Wouldn't this be an excellent candidate for dual licensing? You know, one GPL'd and one commercial license. Either that, or nVidia/ATI would have to GPL *their* drivers as well, which doesn't seem very likely at this point.

      Even if they were to release the souce you probably couldn't use it unless they granted some kind of license to use the patented algorithms freely. And they haven't done that to date despite lobbying by various people (including Alan Cox).

      Again, could be limited to GPL/GPL-compatible licensed code. I mean, since nVidia/ATI already have the code under license, how many trade secrets could there possibly be left to protect?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Free advice to S3... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They're not going to do that. If for no other reason than their own texture compression technology (S3TC) which they license to other video card makers (namely ATI and Nvidia, as well as MS for DirectX drivers)... Even if they were to release the souce you probably couldn't use it unless they granted some kind of license to use the patented algorithms freely.

      It's entirely possible to grant licenses for patents to some people and not others, for whatever reasons you like. It's not like copyrights or trademarks. IBM and CA are two companies that have granted licenses for open-source programs to use their patented technologies. S3 could hand out GPL code for it and grant a patentl license for use in open-source programs. Nvidia and ATI would still have to pay money to use it with their products and drivers.

      Of course, people who actually know this have been saying it everytime someone says "open up the source!" to video card makers, and most people still don't get it. Sigh.

      Maybe the people who keep bringing it up hope that S3 might have learned their lesson. Not yet, apparently, but it would be nice if they did. Good driver code really helps the hardware shine, and it's nontrivial to develop - as Nvidia and ATI have learned. But there are lots of clever students and other developers who would love to play with, grok, and improve such code.

      Nvidia currently dominates the Linux 3d landscape because they have good drivers. If S3 came out with open ones, and even halfway-competitive hardware, they'd take that market, and get a significant number of people working on their drivers. Some of the improvements therefrom could benefit the Windows side, too. As others have noted, there's the Mac contigent, too, though I'm not sure how much they'd grab there - they don't tend to muck with their hardware so much.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  2. Gimme open drivers!! by Beetjebrak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the advent of xgl, compiz etc. we really NEED a decent 3D card with open drivers on Linux. I couldn't care less about gaming but xgl sure as hell looks awesome! I don't need a full-blown NVIDIA or ATI card for that. Open your drivers S3 and I promise you I'll be buying at least 6 of these cards as they become available.

    --
    Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
    1. Re:Gimme open drivers!! by kebes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're one among many posters to suggest that they open-source their drivers. I franly agree that this is a good idea. It would be good for the Linux community (obviously), and I think it would be good for them, also.

      Obviously this would differentiate their product, and carve out a niche where that "big boys" seem to be ignoring. More importantly, if this product is new, then presumably they are currently in a position where they *can* conceivably open-source their driver. During any debate on open-sourcing video drivers, it is usually pointed out that doing so would be difficult, because sufficient documentation might not exist, or because of licensing issues, etc. However this new product line is at a stage where open-sourcing will yield the maximum return-on-investment. If they do it now, they will start getting 'free' software upgrades, bug fixes, documentation, and so on. This means their product will mature faster and they can close the gap with their competitors more quickly.

      Frankly I think that would be an excellent move on their part. Without such an admittedly drastic move, their product has nothing new to offer and this product line will die off.

      They should be thinking to themselves "imagine if our video card was the *default choice* for anyone selling or building a Linux or BSD system?" That's market differentiation right there.

  3. Here's the thing with open-source drivers... by SlayerDave · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Companies like ATI and NVIDIA (and presumably S3) view their drivers as trade secrets. They contain 3rd-party licensed IP that can't be disclosed and 1st-party IP that they want to keep out of the hands of their competitors. This is especially true at the high-end of the consumer graphics card market, but with the introduction of unified drivers a few years ago, there is no such thing as a low-end driver for an ATI or NVIDIA card. From a business standpoint, it would be foolish for a graphics card manufacturer to open-source its drivers.

    However, I do sympathize with linux users who want quality drivers for all types of graphics hardware. I doubt, though, that NVIDIA or ATI will ever release open-source drivers for linux. I think they can and should take the desktop linux market seriously and release high-quality, closed drivers, even if it affects the OSS purity of the linux operating system.

    For decent article reviewing some of these issues, see this.

  4. No what we need by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is a stable interface in Linux so that the graphics card companies can write closed source drivers that don't need to be updated with every minor kernel revision. The problem is that graphics drivers contain proprietayr, licensed code. There's no real way around it if they want to support all the features. Even OpenGL itself must be licensed. Well, they can't just go and relicense the code and open it up, even if they want to.

    So this is a situation where Linux needs to make a concession, if they want better support. This attitude of "open source always!" needs to give way to an attitude of choice. One where you provide all the tools necessary to do open distribution, and open distribution of your own tools, but the option to use closed source for those that want to.

    If you don't want that, fair enough, but then you can't be too angry when the graphics companies won't accomadate you and your rather small marketshare. If you won't be accomadating to them, don't look at them to be accomidating to you.

    1. Re:No what we need by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with your idea is that the end desire is not to have more closed proprietary crap. The goal is to have everything be open. Everything. As you may have noticed, lately there have even been open hardware platforms, they're not the latest and greatest but it is possible for the highly motivated and funded individual to use open cores and open source (though "sores" rhymes better) and build a 100% open computer. It'd take a lot of hardware design and software port work, but the basic elements are there. This represents a dramatic shift from the way things have traditionally been, and it can be the beginning of something beautiful, if we don't fall on our ass and stop demanding what we actually want.

      People in general are willing to settle for less than what they want, and as a result, they get it. If we continue to demand what we actually desire, eventually someone will step up to the plate and sell it to us.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Why is this modded insightful? by thealsir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mod flamebait, it's obviously designed to provoke controversy. As others have stated, you've gotta start somewhere. With a company that has so little marketshare to begin with, they go with the largest share of the pie first, and that is the Windows market. Course a little nudge nudge wink wink could do wonders with getting them to write Linnox drivers.

    --
    Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.