Topic: 'anti-features'

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

An anti-feature serves the interests of the vendor, he says, not the user. A typical example is the set of limitations placed on the Home Basic version of Microsoft’s Vista operating system; these restricted memory and disk-storage support and limited the user to at most three concurrent applications using the graphical user interface, Hill says.

“The aim was to make it so bad that anyone would pay to upgrade to the next version,” he says.

The Avatar DRM that prevents some (many?) Blu-Ray players from playing it is another such anti-feature. 

A early "anti-feature" came from IBM which used to lease a mainframe where they would charge more for an "upgrade" which constituted removing a circuit board that cut the system performance by 50%.  Remove the circuit board and performance doubled, but if you did it yourself it violated the lease and they could yank the machine. 

CPU "speed locking" to block over clocking is another example.  AMD also used to cut a circuit on the top of their XP chips to stop them performing in multi CPU systems, reconnecting the circuit allowed it to function (as I did with 4 XPs to use between 2 machines).  In the early days of the 486 Intel would disable the math coprocessor and sell it as an SX rather than as a DX. 

[knightstorm]

How often is this an issue of quality control.  You know, downgrading factory rejects, and marketing them at a lower end.

[Rod ONeal]

nVidia has it in their video drivers that if there's a competitors card in the system it disables the nVidia card (or even an Aegia PhysX card) in the same system from performing PhysX functions. It serves no purpose except to not allow you to use an ATI card and have PhysX. Even if you buy an nVidia card as well just to perform that function.

[Nemesis]

How often is this an issue of quality control.  You know, downgrading factory rejects, and marketing them at a lower end.

For the CPUs mentioned some were.  But once they had the bugs out of the system they would cease testing chips for the defective feature once they had enough of the desired grade (486DX or Athlon MP in the examples) then they would just disable the feature in any chips destined to be sold as the lower model without testing it.  My 4 Athlon XPs were fully functional Athlon MPs for years until other system components began to fail. 

They do the same on the MHZ rating where they cease testing to see if it can run at the maximum speed once they have their quota of chips for that speed, then they test to the 2nd highest speed and so forth.  So the chip you buy at the bottom end can most likely run at a higher speed but was never tested for it and is locked to keep you from doing so without hardware hacking.  I ran my old Pentium 90 at 100mhz for some time (I was planning to replace it any how with a K6-2 400 so I didn't care if it failed) just by running the FSB faster, both chips were the same but one was tested for the higher FSB and the other mostly wasn't.

[Pestalence_XC]

nVidia has it in their video drivers that if there's a competitors card in the system it disables the nVidia card (or even an Aegia PhysX card) in the same system from performing PhysX functions. It serves no purpose except to not allow you to use an ATI card and have PhysX. Even if you buy an nVidia card as well just to perform that function.

Well.. NVidia cards have the Physx processor built in on the NVidia GeForce 8600 GT and higher cards (512 MB memory or more), so having an Agia Physx card on the system is kind of redundant.. especially since NVidia owns Agia (as such the Physx on the NVidia cards is Agia tech which has been developed further by NVidia.).

As for ATI, they have Havoc, which is their version of Physx.. You don't see anyone installing Havoc on an NVidia system..

Also the Physx software is a separate download if you go to the NVidia site.. so if people are installing the NVidia drivers to get Physx on an ATI graphics machine.. well idiots are born every minute... They should be installing the Physx software only.. however if they aren't idiots, they would be checking that their Havoc software is up to date instead of using Physx.

Also if someone decides not to use the Havoc and built in Physx processor on the newer ATI cards, they can still use the Agia Physx card, however they need to use the old Agia drivers that go with it (especially since Agia hasn't built a card in 4 years now.. especially since NVidia owns Agia and all the drivers / software is designed for the Grforce 8600 GT 512 MB and newer vid cards only). So the only drivers they can use is the old Agia drivers, then install the newer Physx software.. though that completely kills the reason ATI developed Havoc in the first palce and put a havoc (Physx) processor on the ATI cards (last 2 gen of cards only I think).

I just don't see anyone with a lick of common sense installing Physx with an ATI graphics card when they can install Havoc.. and I can't see someone attempting to use a GeForce driver set when using an Agia card when they should be using the old Agia drivers with the latest Physx software.

and only a complete moron would install 2 competator cards on their system expecting them to work together.. ATI and NVidia are enemy companies.

And finally, I don't see why anyone who mostly uses their system for gaming would install anything other than NVidia, especially since 80% of the gaming market for Windows is developed for NVidia first and ATI as an afterthought.

Now for Movie and Video playback, DVD, Blueray.. ATI currently has the advantage.. that is until the NVidia GTX480 hits mainstream.. then it is a flip of the coin between the 2 comp[anies when comparing their top end cards.. NVidia will still take it with DirectX 11 and their new Open GL engine for gaming (plus built in Physx which most developers are utilizing).. Video quality and rendering will be almost exactly the same between ATI / NVidia with the edge going to NVidia currently with their new GPU architecture.. but hardly enough to make a difference.

as for overall performance.. flip a coin as to which is better .. the only real edge is Physx which is NVidias domain. however ATI is catching up with their Havoc.. slowly but surely.

It basically boils down to which you like better.. but there is absolutely no reason anyone sane would attempt to combine 2 competator cards / softwares on 1 system.. now for ATI cards.. Agia card would work, but you have to use the old Agia drivers and the new Physx stand alone installer for the software.. However I would definately recommend with the last 2 generations of ATI cards, to skip the Agia card and install the Havoc software instead for native Physx rendering (even if it is a little buggy).

[Rod ONeal]

Pestalence, nothing in your response changes, nor justifies, what they did. Are you a member of an nVidia focus group, by some chance? That's the kind of response I'd expect if you were.

[Nemesis]

Pestalence, nothing in your response changes, nor justifies, what they did. Are you a member of an nVidia focus group, by some chance? That's the kind of response I'd expect if you were.

There is no reason to assume it to be anything other than his honest opinion. 

I personally partly agree with him on mixing cards in that I think it a bad idea and doomed to cause you problems. I still think that nVidea taking the extra step to disable physX if it detects a ATi card is wrong as before that it worked.  Popping up a warning ONCE would be the right thing to do as they can't guarantee compatibility. 

Similar to this was the deal between Intel and Skype to keep their (server) software from running on AMD chips.  A hack disabled the check CPU feature and the software works fine.  It was just a way to make people think AMD servers couldn't hack it.

[Pestalence_XC]

Pestalence, nothing in your response changes, nor justifies, what they did. Are you a member of an nVidia focus group, by some chance? That's the kind of response I'd expect if you were.

No, no focus group. I use NVidia since when they come out with a new card, it is usualy 8 months to a year of development ahead of ATI.. that is the only reason I use / recommend NVidia.

I just look at it this way.

If you were a hardware developer and created a piece of hardware.. Why would you develop software specifically designed for your hardware to be utilized by your competator? Why give them an advantage or edge over your company?

Lets take Hauppage for example on TV Tuners...

So being Hauppage, why would they want their WinTV 7 software to work with ATI All-In-Wonder cards that have a TV tuner also? That would be shooting themselves in the foot. As such, Hauppage writes the software to check for the hardware before allowing the program to be accessed.. this is to ensure that their software isn't being pirated for use by their competators.

Hauppage has to pay programmers to create the software, to recoup their programmer expenses, Hauppage has to sell the hardware and software as a bundle package and if sales are good, offer free upgrades to newer software to their old customers to retain customer loyalty.. but it boils down to making sure their products are sold in order to pay their staff. As such, Proprietary software to proprietary hardware.

NVidia is doing the same thing.. why should ATI users be able to utilize NVidia software that NVidia had to pay their developers to create / fix when they are not contributing back to NVidia's financial overhead?

Why can't ATI users use and utilize the software that ATI creates or why can't ATI create software / hardware on their own that NVidia has already developed. Why should ATI users get a free pass to use what NVidia developed without paying for it?

Now arguing about Agia.. Agia no longer exists.. they were about to close the doors like Taldren did when NVidia bought them out.. as such Agia no longer exists.. Agia owners still have access to what Agia put out (old drivers) and NVidia has also made developments to the Physx software available for free as a separate download for Agia users.

There is no reason for someone to be using NVidia video card with ATI video card in order to use Physx, especially since ATI develops Havoc which can be rendered both on the ATI cards that have a Havoc Processor or rendered by the system CPU. ATI has their own solution to Physx, as such NVidia is only protecting their proprietary software from use by their competator. It is just like Havoc Software will not work on NVidia cards. Sauce for the goods.. in other words.. The odds are even.. the situation goes both ways.

Also attempting to set up a machine with 2 competator video cards is proof of fail on the end user. No one in their correct state of mind would install 2 competator cards. To get the most out of your system you would install 2 of the same companies cards and utilize SLI or Crossfire, depending on your company of choice. This is only common sense.

Since they are competator companies, it only makes financial sense to block or disable software that people are trying to use on non proprietary hardware. ATI has their own solutions to this, even if it isn't as effective, efficient, or polished as NVidia, it works. Both companies practice the same things.

[Rod ONeal]

Often when people upgrade from an older nVidia card they use the old one for PhysX processing, using the new card strictly for rendering and relieving it from the PhysX duties. They do this, or did this, whether they were upgrading to a new nVidia or ATI card and it worked fine. They don't do it because they are idiots, insane, don't have a lick of common sense, etc... Nobody benefits from nVidia doing this. It's done purely for anti-competitive reasons. There's no reason for anyone not affiliated with nVidia to defend the practice. That was the reason for my question.

edit: While I was typing this Pestalence responded. Thanks for your answer.

nVidia claims that they don't want to have to support their cards if they are used in situations that they aren't designed for. That's fine, and I understand that. That doesn't justify them disabling the card though. They don't offer support for Geforce cards used with professional 3D apps either. They don't disable the Geforce card though if they detect 3DS Max or Maya on a system. They just don't guarantee it will work properly with it and don't offer you any support if you do use it and have a problem. They'll tell you to buy a workstation card, which is fair enough.

Lets take Hauppage for example on TV Tuners...

So being Hauppage, why would they want their WinTV 7 software to work with ATI All-In-Wonder cards that have a TV tuner also? That would be shooting themselves in the foot. As such, Hauppage writes the software to check for the hardware before allowing the program to be accessed.. this is to ensure that their software isn't being pirated for use by their competators.

Hauppage has to pay programmers to create the software, to recoup their programmer expenses, Hauppage has to sell the hardware and software as a bundle package and if sales are good, offer free upgrades to newer software to their old customers to retain customer loyalty.. but it boils down to making sure their products are sold in order to pay their staff. As such, Proprietary software to proprietary hardware.

People are not trying to make PhysX function on ATI cards, thus using nVidia software on someone elses hardware. They are using nVidia cards, that they bought and paid for in good faith, for PhysX processing. nVidia, in order to stifle competition, are disabling it in their own products that they sold to people simply because these people chose to buy an ATI card as well.

[Nemesis]

I just look at it this way.

If you were a hardware developer and created a piece of hardware.. Why would you develop software specifically designed for your hardware to be utilized by your competator? Why give them an advantage or edge over your company?

Why should I as a customer accept that a hardware manufacturer will cause its hardware to under perform merely because I ALSO use a competitors hardware in the same system?  Regardless of the presence of the ATi card the nVidea software is still only driving the nVidea card. 

The problem here isn't that the hardware is incompatible it is that nVidea tests for ATi then diasbles features that would otherwise work in an attempt to force the customer into replacing the ATi card with an nVidea card when the system is capable of functioning if that test is disabled.