Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

3dfx sues Creative Labs over Glide 192

Posted by Hemos from the dumb-dumb-dumb dept.
MztrBlack was the first to write us with the news that 3dfx has officially sued Creative Labs for "breaching a licensing agreement" and infringing on 3dfx copyrights by using 3dfx Glide Source Code into Unified, the techno designed to run Glide-only stuff on Creative TNT and TNT2 based systems. This violates the license because it prohibits the use and modification of any 3dfx source code.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

3dfx sues Creative Labs over Glide More

3dfx sues Creative Labs over Glide

Comments Filter:
  • I don't like the fact that 3dfx is doing this, but I have to say I don't feel bad for Creative Labs because Creative Labs is going to key the wrapper so it will only work with their cards. That makes them no better than 3dfx. At least 3dfx put in the work to make glide in the first place.

    I do hope Creative Labs wins in court though, then maybe other will be able to make wrappers without being threatened by 3dfx.

    nVidia kicks ass for releasing open source drivers! I wish other companies would be that cool!

  • Well let me think.

    NVidia has passed 3dfx as best gaming 3D card creator. NVidia has also released their first 3D drivers for Linux, slow but they are promising that it will be much faster when Xfree 4.0 arrives. 3dfx never released the source for glide.

    I am a non-proud owner of a VooDoo 2 card, and this was the last hardware I *ever* bought from 3dfx. The V2 has brought me many hours of fun fragging in Quake and Quake 2, but now I had it.

    So long and thanks for the fish 3dfx.
  • Look at the original design for the Space Shuttle's zero-G toilet. It uses suction to keep things moving in the appropriate direction, and rotating "slinger blades" to help fling the stuff to the container walls where (hopefully!) it'll stick until they dry it by venting the thing to vacuum.

    Yep, in the Shuttle toilet, the shit is supposed to hit the fan.

  • Most Shrinkwraps DON'T Matter (Score:3)

    by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Friday June 11, 1999 @02:13PM (#1854519) Homepage Journal

    Sorry, but there are some things you can't agree to, even if you actually sign a contract (a crucial step that most shrinkwrap "agreements" conveniently neglect).

    For example: You can't sign yourself into slavery. Slavery is illegal in this country, period. The slaver could wave your signed contract until doomsday; the court would still strike the term as illegal and unenforceable.

    The problem here is that software vendors are trying to invent rights for themselves out of thin air (for no good reason that I can see), and get you to acknowledge and agree to observe those rights through the highly dubious mechanic of a shrinkwrap "agreement". It is therefore left to the courts to decide which invented rights are legitimate, and which are unenforceable under various laws. There's a lot of precedent to suggest that 3Dfx is going to lose.

    As for the GPL, that's rather different. GPLed code is copyrighted. Thus, you don't have the right to make copies. However, if you fulfill the conditions stipulated in the GPL, then the GPL grants you a license, and you may make and distribute copies. If you don't fulfill those conditions (distributing copies without source code), then the GPL does not grant you permission to make copies, and you are therefore guilty of copyright infringement.

    Note the subtle distinction:

    • GPL: "You may receive this software and do anything you want with it. But if you want to make and distribute copies (or derivative works thereof), you must agree to these terms before we'll grant you a license."
    • Typical shrinkwrap: "You must agree to these ridiculous conditions, limitations, and disclaimers, or you can't have this software at all.

    (Which one is the product of the more mature mind is left as an exercise for the reader :-).)

    Schwab

  • It's high time we had more people blindly following rules, and less people judging a situation based on whether it's right or wrong and raising a protest if they don't agree.
  • Apart from the fact that 3dfx has a lousy attitude, UltraTNT2 offers 32 bit and AGP texturing. The only bad thing is you can't play your old glide-only games anymore....
    Creative tried fixing that so people wouldn't have to buy/keep an V2 along with their UltraTNT2 and that is the ONLY reason 3dfx are suing. A reason why a V2 next to your TNT2 is a bad thing you ask ?
    1. Graphic Quality. Even if you don't own a TNT2 or Matrox, the difference between directly on the card or looped through the V2 is clearly visible at 1600x1200.
    2. Heat. Everybody who felt how hot a V2 gets knows this is a real problem.
    3. It's another unavailable PCI slot (or two).
    So you can see, apart from idealogical reasons (API's should be public domain IMHO), unified whould acctually offer better quality over V2.
    BTW the official URL to the article is http://www.3dfx.com/view.asp?IOID=248 [3dfx.com]
  • As an aside, does anyone have any recommendations for TNT or TNT2 based cards they have working under Linux, and if so, what issues (if any) did you have?

    I purchased a Creative Labs TNT a few days after NVIDIA released Mese/GLX drivers for Linux. I picked a TNT over the TNT2 because I have a P2-300, and there isn't that much difference in performance between the two on a "slower" system like mine. If you have a P2-450 or faster, you may want to go with a TNT2 instead.

    I choose Creative labs because they use the NVIDIA reference design (most mfgs do, I think), which I think is important considering the current driver situation. Also, the Creative board is inexpensive, and it didn't come with a bunch of software that I didn't want.

    I was using a RIVA 128 before, so upgrading was as simple as swapping boards and tweaking a few settings in XF86Config. I haven't gotten around to trying the Mesa/GLX drivers yet.

    TedC

  • Both the Asus v3800 Deluxe and TVR have TV-in&out through SVHS and composite.
    Grab the Asus Tv-Box with it (includes remote control) and voila !
  • One of my friends has a Diamond Viper 550 with TNT and is working very well on RedHat 6.0 with the X server from RedHat. Recently he downloaded the latest (and first) drivest from nVidia and the X server runs ok, except it doesn't like 11xx * 864 from some reason.

    Florin Iucha
  • Aside from the legal issues of whether Creative was violating its license agreement for the API, 3dfx's lawsuit can also block further development or releases on the Unified drivers, as long as the case remains tied up in court. 3dfx doesn't need to win, they just need to stall, because by the time this issue is resolved, the next generation of 3D accelerators will be out.

  • Agreed.

    Where I work, we were offered an opportunity to obtain 3Dfx Voodoo3 boards for rock-bottom prices. I abstained from the offer for precisely the resaons you give. I regard 3Dfx's behavior as unacceptable, and I do not want my dollars used to support it.

    I also am planning on getting an NVIDIA TNT2-based card, just as soon as I can find a card that has:

    • The Ultra chipset (highest speed)
    • DVD playback
    • Video out
    • Video in (streaming capture)

    The closest I've found so far is the ASUS V3800-Ultra-Deluxe, but for some reason, ASUS gives you 3D glasses with that board (which I don't need), and sells DVD playback separately.

    Schwab

  • This one [tomshardware.com] is where Tom's Hardware rated the major 3D cards, including a few TNT2 cards, Voodoo3 and ATI
  • It has been my experience that companies who exhibit this kind of litigious behavior and reliance upon proprietary whatzits (technical term) are generally going down.

    Not to mention the negative influence on current and potential customers. If customers become disenchanted with the product, the 3rd party support (game developers) will dry up. Then what is the market value of their proprietary API?

    Must be time to short TDFX.

  • The blades are also designed to break down feces from larger "chunks" so that they will stick easier to the sides of the container wall.

    (This really is disgusting.)

  • Sigh.. (Score:1)

    by Junta ( 36770 )
    I've been reading the thread, and while I am not a fan of 3dfx, and think the proprietary glide API is evil to have around, I think 3dfx is justified this time around... If Creative violated an NDA in the creation of its wrappers, then it is just plain wrong... I do not agree with 3dfx chasing after people who make glide wrappers without any NDA materials, and I think glide should be abolished and prefer nVidia now, but this time around Creative may have done something wrong, and people should not let the fact that glide is bad get in the way of the judgement of whether this is justified.

  • The question isn't whether it is illegal to implement GLide on other chip sets. (That was the question with the glide wrapper). Rather Creative used the glide source that was given to them to build voodoo and voodoo 2 boards. Creative breached the license agreement and developed the unified driver.
  • I got that quote from www.duh-2000.com, which
    claims the original quote came from a Vanity
    Fair interview, so it sounds like a serious
    statement that probably came out wrong in
    the brevity of the interview.
  • > It's high time we had more people blindly
    > following rules, and less people judging a
    > situation based on whether it's right or wrong
    > and raising a protest if they don't agree.

    The difference is, Creative (assumedly) *agreed* to the NDA in the first place. They long ago decided to follow those rules, however faulty anyone may think they are.

    We have yet to see whether there is any proof to 3Dfx's statement; judging by their previous litigation, I'm inclined to believe there isn't. That doesn't change the fact that 3Dfx wants their code proprietary, and Creative agreed with it so they could sell 3Dfx cards.

    I'd been waiting to get the Voodoo 3 3500 (mpeg-2, video in and out), but the more I watch 3Dfx, the more it seems like they're on their way down, as another poster commented. Their reputation will carry them for a while, but if they keep this up, it won't carry them forever.
  • 3DFX has a stick up their bum because they think that if people write wrappers to allow Glide programs to run on other cards, they won't have to buy Voodoo's any more. They are misguided in this analysis. In fact, they should encourage people to write wrappers, even help them. That way, they can claim that the only way to get the best, wrapperless performance, is to run on a genuine Voodoo. But alas, their PHB's have prevailed and they are now well advanced in the process of alientating their former most loyal supporters.

    BUY RIVA (good corporate citizens, and besides, TNT kicks butt)
  • First they take down the little guys trying to make glide wrappers, and now this. I used to like 3dfx, but they need to get their act together. Do we have a link to this story?
  • APIs are not protectible intellectual property ...

    I'm sure that's incorrect. There are lots of folk who protect APIs ... as trade secrets, as copyrighted information, and so on. Even as parts of patents. (Whoops, the gazintas and gazoutas of this code match the description in that patent, it infringes, yowp!)

    Whether 3dfx has a real case here is, as you noted, a different issue.

    - Jojo

  • Here is the URL (Score:3)

    by tamyrlin ( 51 ) on Friday June 11, 1999 @08:38AM (#1854546) Homepage
    (Found this one on bluesnews)
    http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990611/ca_3dfx_fi_1. html

    /Andreas
  • We're talking about 3dfx's revenue here. 3dfx probably makes less than 1% of its profits by selling video cards to CAD users. Almost all of its sales are to gamers.
  • http://www.sharkyextreme.com/news.shtml#2080 [sharkyextreme.com]

    not a very informative one, though..
  • So if nobody uses GLIDE, and everybody uses OpenGL instead, why is Creative spending so much time writing GLIDE wrappers?
  • the only hardware accelerated implementations that depend on glide are the 3dfx implementations. I am very happy with my tnt. no glide for me.

    M$ doesn't control OpenGL. so there is a toolkit away from M$. Writing a diffrent glide implemantation for each card is just as hard as writing register level OpenGL implementations for each card. Besides the windows OpenGL versions of glide are specific to each card.
  • I suppose [3dfx|3Dfx]'s legal dept. has gotten tired of running around threatening high school students with suits for writing Glide wrappers.
    Having warmed up, I suppose they think it's time to graduate to the big leagues and threaten someone who can fight back.

    When was the cool, underdog 3dfx replaced with this corporate nightmare? *sigh*
  • Umn, folks, the Quake GL-miniport, Mesa on Linux, basically _all_ of the hardware-accelerated OpenGL implementations _depend_ on Glide for their 3Dfx support.

    ... the operative word being 3Dfx. OpenGL for other cards does of course not "depend on Glide", which seems to indicate that no proper native OpenGL drivers exist for 3Dfx.

  • Someone already commented that 3DFx is losing, so they're holding onto their closed API as a last resort.

    What I think is they are losing the 3D battle BECAUSE they have a closed API.

    Put simply, they got lazy. They thought no one could touch them and their API. So their hardware development suffered.
  • Thankfully now that nvidia has released the drivers for linux, I dont have to go with a 3dfx product. This was a seriously grating issue at the time for me. I have a TNT card now. My problem was, do I sit with a tnt card and never have OGL or do I go with 3dfx and have good graphics but support a lame proprietary API? Sort of a catch 22 that I don't have to worry about now. Viva nvidia ;)
  • I've been looking at this card too. You might want to take a look at The Viper 770. it has MPEG2 and TV-out.

    I'm Torn between the G400MAx and TNT2 Ultra. Anyone want enlighten me as to which one I should buy? What Matrox doing in light of Nivdia Releasing all of it programing specs??
  • 3dfx just keeps limiting the availability of their own technology. Glide wrappers aren't made to cut into 3dfx's profits, but to enable other users to use the cool stuff glide has to offer, but using their own cards to do so.

    I can understand that they want to push their own hardware, but in consequence, they are limiting the market acceptance of their own technology
  • >As an aside, does anyone have any recommendations for TNT or TNT2 based cards they have working under Linux, and if so, what issues (if any) did you have?

    Sure do! I got a Diamond Viper 770 Ultra (TNT2) a couple weeks ago and it really shines. (running a Creative Labs V2 before and a Riva 128 before that). Linux support still has a way to go, but is shaping up nicely. I did just get the new Mesa/GLX stuff and the 3D is pretty slow (not really playable in q3 but ok for q2) but the 2d is very strong. (I like being able to finally drag and resize windows at 1024x768).

    In windows the card performs exceptionally well in 3D and I hope this is a good indication of how it will fare once Linux support matures.



  • ... news that 3dfx has officially sued Creative Labs for "breaching a licensing greement" and infringing on 3dfx copyrights by using 3dfx Glide Source Code into Unified...

    I'll agree that in the past 3dfx threatening people who dodn't nesscesearily break the rules pissed me off a little, but lacking a link to the story and just going by the /. post, I have to side with them here. Creative Labs apperantly broke the rules. This doesn't mean I like the rules or even agree with them, but a company the size of creative sure as hell had to go into this with their eyes wide open. They broke the rules and got caught. They lose. Game over.

    Again i'm just going by the posted story here, but if it's accurate, I have no argument with 3dfx over this issue.

    /dev

  • Today, the best performing TNT2 card, out of the box, is the Hercules Dynamite TNT2Ultra. It is manufacturer-guaranteed to run at 175MHz core setting. Every other TNT2Ultra being manufactured today is only guaranteed to 150.

    Even the Hercules TNT2 standard is clocked at 143, which is close to the speed everyone else is running ultras.

    Visit some of the gaming sites, including AnandTech [anandtech.com] and Sharky Extreme [sharkyextreme.com], to see reviews of this and other cards.

  • Ummm, up until a few months ago, there WERE a dozen 3dfx card makers. It was another foolish business decision on their part to bring that operation in-house.

    I wonder if anyone at 3dfx reads /.? It would be quite amusing to be a fly on the wall as this thread was presented to the chief executive.




  • I might be mistaken, but I think I saw some I2C stuff going into the BTTV code in 2.3.6, so it may not be too long before it does work...



  • I think you'll find that they're protecting a particular implementation of an API, as opposed to the API itself.



    About the only way I can think of to protect an API is to trademark the function calls...;)






  • Did you never stop to think that with Mesa, the free software community is in a good position to embrace-and-extend OpenGL? ;)

  • A parking lot is a physical object. An API is not. If you want a comparison with "old" technology, the "interface" you use to drive a car would be more appropriate. Sure, the steering wheel and pedals may by patented (specific implementation) but the interface itself is not. That's all an API is, an interface on how two entities communicate.

    Should API's be protectable like this? I don't think so. Should specific implementations? Sure, if you are going to be a closed source company I don't see anything wrong with protecting your specific implementation. If Creative used 3Dfx's source code (specific implimentation) in their drivers and their agreement prohibited them from doing so, then I think they should be prosecuted. However, if they simply looked at the API (header files will do I'm sure) and wrote their own implementation I don't think they should be held liable at all.

    I guess it depends on if you are an open source advocate or not. If you believe that ideas such as API's or algorithms should be "ownable" or if ownership should be limited to physical items and specific implementations of general ideas.

    So, in response to your question "How is it that you can't believe 3dfx is dictating how THEIR api is used." my response is:

    Because I don't believe API's are property that should be protected under the law. If you're question was concerning their specific implementation of the API, then I would probably agree with you.

    Changing my car example above, it's more like the "API" or interface between the wheels and the car. You're saying that the API or interface between those two components is protected. You're saying that someone can not make a new wheel that might perform better simply by putting the appropriate number of holes in the right spots for the lug nuts (following the API specs). That's rediculous.

    API's are nothing like parking lots.
  • I hate Creative Labs.
  • I disremember the link (I think it was on SharkyExtreme), but I read an interesting article recently on the engineering behind the VooDoo series products. How there hasn't been any innovation from 3Dfx since the original VooDoo chipset was introduced, just refinements.

    Me, myself and I are going to stick with nVidia products (well, for the time being at least).
  • The S320 II doesn't have onboard MPEG hardware AFAIK. (Although the Leadtek website seems to suggest it does... odd.) It does come with some sweet DVD software though (CyberLink PowerDVD)-- on my Celery/400 box it plays fullscreen at 1280x1024 flawlessly...
    --

  • I'm sure glad I'm using a card with an
    nVidia chip, that's for sure... I knew
    there as something fishy with 3dfx. It's
    funny how they learned their business
    practices right from M$: Don't worry about
    making better products, just push proprietary
    formats to the users and then whine about
    them.

    I'm glad that nVidia is so gung-ho about
    Linux drivers. That day the drivers were
    released I downloaded the file, linked
    the correct libGL and copied over the
    XF86_SVGA, and in about ten minutes flat
    I had Quake III up and running in 800x600
    with full lighting and texturing.

    Man, I love it.

    -Mike -- OpenGL developer who can finally
    use his home Linux box!
  • The statement "3DFX's cards suck" is absolutely ludicrous. I do not agree with what they are doing here, but I own a Voodoo 3, and it is incredible. I play Tribes, and Quake 3 (beta) at 1024x768 and get a spectular 60 - 80 fps.

    Their technology is good, they just need to make it better, and keep up with the competition. To say they "suck" though is just an ignorant statement (IMHO).

  • Doesnt 3dfx OWN Glide? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Oh please, whats next not being able to have sex with the dead?

    Geeze you guys got spirit, but when it comes down to the rights to company owned technology you guys go nuts. If someone came out with a Quad Twixel Engine, would you slam Nvidia for trying to sue that company? Probably so, cause its the fastest product that gets your respect, anything slower and you sandblast it with Cry Baby rants.

    3dfx is a nice card, not the best one out there, they own the technology and they should have the god given right to sue or slap an injunction anyone to infringes upon it. If there were a dozxen 3dfx card makers out there, this probably wouldnt matter but since STB is the only game in town for these cards, 3dfx has no choice but to protect their technology. To not do so would mean a SEVERE downfall for the company.

    Dont kick the lion in the nuts for eating a antelope, he was only trying to keep his pride alive.

  • actually your wrong, i have a creative tnt2 ultra and its running at 190... came at 182 and can be overclocked over 200..
  • And another on Maximum PC Magazine

    http://www.maximumpcmag.com/inside_sources/99.6/ 99.6.11.phtml#dfxSuesOverUnifiedDriver

    JOhn
  • Glide doesn't matter?
    heh.
    While we may not be the biggest community in the gaming market, the descent community has been virtualy held hostage to 3dfx because the only accelerated version of descent 1 or 2 was for glide. So if you wanted a pretty game, you had to go 3dfx.

    glide and it's future matters to us (though perhaps not for very much longer.. the source for d1 was released and d2 will be soon)
  • 3dfx has a link on their homepage to Linux drivers, which forwards one to Daryll's 3dfx page (Daryll is a volunteer who has made heroic efforts to get 3dfx hardware running under Linux, sometimes with 3dfx's support, sometimes not). 3dfx is clearly representing themselves on their homepage as supporting, at least marginally, Linux, and seem happy to ride on Daryll's coattails and take credit for supporting the Linux community. Buy any reasonable definition this makes them, at least periferally, a member of the community. A member which until fairly recently enjoyed a pretty good reputation and a lot of goodwill. They have squandered this, and are now behaving poorly, and it behooves us to make this point clear to them in the one way they are sure to understand: with our purchasing dollars.

    There's nothing impressive about it. They are, or at least represent themselves as, a member of our community, in the hopes we'll buy their stuff. If this is misrepresentation, shame on them. If not, shame on them for being such poor citizens of the community. Either way, I am not buying any more of their stuff, and I encourage others who feel likewise to do the same.
  • |Please keep this in mind. Windows-only people
    |shouldn't even be here.

    and why shouldnt they? /. is an open forum, anyone running windows has every right to be here as well.. just cuz you might not agree on their os choice doesnt mean they might not like to keep up with whats going on in the 'geek world'.. /. isnt exclusive to linux users, or users of the various unices even. its for anyone who's curious..

    (I know its offtopic, but I tire of how /.ers associate anyone who uses a MS product as 'the enemy)
  • I think that it is safe to assume this is just more evidence that 3dfx tries to be anti-competitive. I hope Creative sues them back, because it seems very unlikely that they violated a liscenseing agreement knowing that the 3dfx lawyers are so damned trigger-happy. This is most likely just another attempt by 3dfx to try and scare other people away from developing glide wrappers.
  • According to 3dfx's own press release, this case revolves around a breach of license, specifically "the use and modification of...3dfx source code to operate with non-3dfx acceleration technology."

    I'm pretty sure the WINE developers haven't seen the Windows source code, but they seem to have done all right. The point being that original source code is not necessary to write your own version of an API.

    So does 3dfx have any proof that Creative abused their access to the Glide code? Or are they just slinging FUD? It seems to me that if 3dfx is going to haul Creative into court, they're gonna need more than accusations... unless they're trying to outdo M$ for Most Inept Performance in a Courtroom. ;)
    --

  • Matrox will be releasing a binary glx driver, based on the work of the people who made the OSS g200 driver. This driver will utilize the "warp engine", so it should be much much faster than the current one. And it will probably support the G400. Note, this is not a liscence violation, since the origional was released under the X liscence, so it could be included in X.

    I heard all of this from the g200-dev mailing list. Things might have changed now.
  • I agree, I think 3dfx could have a chance if they pull there heads out of there asses, but the v3 isn't any more powerfull then the TNT2, and I can only imagen what nVidia's chips will be able to do once the come out with really new ones (actualy, the TNT2 is what the TNT would have been if they wouldn't have had problems with the .25 micron fab process.). and it dosnt' even supprot true color rendering.

    if it hadn't been for Microsoft's Direct X, and later open GL there's a good chance that 3dfx could have become the next intel, in every PC, beacuse the only API that people would use would be Glide... It was pretty slick of them, I think, but I think microsoft saw it comming (and glide worked in dos, and MS wanted to kill dos support)

    well I guess microsoft is good for *somthing* :)
    ---------------
    Chad Okere
  • I don't think of it like that. As an owner of a Voodoo3 card (if I knew 3dfx was going to be like this, I wouldn't have purchased the card), I have a few comments.

    First of all. "Win32 native games" having a majority in Direct3D doesn't constitute winning a market. The 3d acceloration market extends beyond games, and certainly beyond Windows.

    Consider CAD and modelling software. Most CAD software is either in Unix/X or Windows NT, and almost none of it uses Direct3D. The high-end CAD software is fairly consistantly OpenGL-based, Windows CAD software included. Go find a few modellers for ray tracing: OpenGL.

    In short, there's more to life than fun and games, and there is certainly more to life than Windows programs.

  • That's a pretty uninformed statement. the Voodoo 3 is almost on par with the tnt2, it's not as if 3dfx is being blown out of the water.
    Of course 3dfx wants to protect their proprietary api. It is, after all, their property.
  • How about because Glide is an API and its ridiculous to allow copyrights on API's ?
  • You can't own an API. (Otherwise Wine would not exist).

    The issue is whether Creative looked at the Glide code when they wrote their TNT wrapper, or whether they developed the wrapper from scratch using the API docs.

    Either way 3dfx seem to be trying to tie up standards in a manner which has distinct MS overtones. I was intending to get a Banshee for use under Linux, but I wavered because nVidia demonstrated greater sympathy to the OSS community by releasing their source. Now I'll get a TNT for sure.

  • Another good 2-slot combo (since the V2 takes a PCI slot, it's even) is a TNT(2) or G200 with a bt848/878/879 board like a Hauppauge WinTV, which interoperates with any video card you might grab in the future (it uses PCI and DGA to blast the TV onto the video card). That'll give you a video solution that is fully Free Software.

    Thanks to the team working on Video4linux, the bt848 has been well supported for some time (unlike ATI boards), and is in kernel 2.2. And to Matrox for releasing enough of the G200 specs to make a driver, and to Nvidia for making a driver and releasing it with readable source.

  • Someone told me (sorry, but I don't know of any URL to verify this at) that, because of the fact that so many people are buying non-3dfx cards, and that the TNT is such a better chip than the VD series, that they changed their stance on this. I certainly hope so, else I'll have to keep playing the first one over and over and over and over . . . hey wait a minute, I still do, hehe :)
  • Asus has a TNT board with video in/out, but no driver support outside of Win9X. The video decoder chip does have a Linux driver but the connection to the TNT chip is unknown (i.e. the I2C bus...) so it cannot be made to work.
  • The Asustek v3800 [asus.com] and the Elsa Erazor III [elsa.com] both support these(TV in & out). If you don't think that will work for you, grab any TNT2 or TNT2 Ultra board and a Hauppage WinTV 98 [hauppage.com]. The single card or the combo should do everything your old cards did, only faster.

    So there you have it, the NVidia based boards that do everything you want, or a two board solution (like you have now), that does everything you want. But why would you want to watch TV? Don't you know it rots your brain? :)
  • Go to Mesa's [mesa3d.org] site, they have links to the open source 3d drivers. RPMS available, debs probably are to.
  • Could Creative Labs, after going to all the trouble of only letting CL (Creative Labs) video card owners (and only most of them at that) have access to Unified, have been so stupid as to actually use code from the Glide SDK? If so, then they're really dumb, because even _I_ knew that 3dfx would bust their butt for it after what they did to all those other wrappers!

    As for 3dfx, they should quit wasting their money protecting Glide and start making better cards! _NOBODY_ uses Glide in new games anymore because not even a majority of people are buying 3dfx cards these days (meaning that companies who want to make the most money off of a game will want to use OpenGL or Direct3D to support as many people as possible - something Epic learned the hard way with Unreal)

    I can only hope that 3dfx will spread itself so thin financially by slapping stupid lawsuits on everyone that it will go under (and if that doesn't do it, then hopefully they'll get so mired in legal battles that they won't have time to make new, GOOD hardware) The era of being anal about hardware and proprietary software designed for it is OVER, and Linux (or those who use it actually) is one of the main things we have to thank for discouraging such ridiculous practices!

    If you are someone who works for a company that designs computer hardware, PLEASE get the message that these days people are NOT going to use your hardware unless you make a better product! If you're first in a market, use that to your advantage to develop new, improved products before anyone else even makes one to compete with your original - just DON'T try to use proprietary crap and DON'T deny access to important info that software developers need to create software that uses your product! Such practices are just not going to cut it anymore, and I for one am going to do all I can to make sure of that!

    (sorry for all the ranting - I'm just in that kind of a mood today =)

    Later,
    HunterZ
  • my funky new tnt2 arrived friday :)

    decided to get it the day before open source linux drivers were announced.. was just the icing on the cake :)

    smash
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I am probably not up to date in this issue, have no idea about the specifics but from what I can ascertain from here I'd say 3dfx is in the right and Creative Labs is swappin' some source. May they be stabbed many times with pointy sticks.
  • Posted by ^ServO^:

    Yes it works with TNT, but I don't know anything about the Creative Wrapper (is it available to public? I haven't checked). I use the glsetup open available at: http://www.glsetup.com It's beta, but it works great. I've seen Q3test with 15 or so players and it looked/performed beautifully.
  • Posted by ^ServO^:

    I use both regularly. Better keep an eye on me, I might be evil.



  • There's supposedly a version of the S320 II that uses SDRAM instead of SGRAM, though I've never seen it for sale. In any case, my SGRAM version runs fine with the standard nVidia drivers, so no worries there. It's a great card; the only nitpick I have is that it didn't come with any bundled games... :)
    --
  • The courts have upheld the shrinkwrap license agreements before. Let's consider why this is really a Good Thing(tm).
    Compare software to a videotape of a movie. At the beginning of the movie is the infamous "FBI Warning" screen, that states that you are not permitted to show the movie publicly or for profit. This is basically the same as a shrinkwrap license agreement. Mr Lucas invested a lot of time and money into making the film you are watching, and he has a right to say whether or not you are allowed to make a profit off his movie. Shrinkwrap licenses take the same approach to controlling who makes a profit from someone elses code.
    As much as we all like the open source vs evil empire rhetoric, 3DFX has the legal high ground here IMHO. 3Dfx wrote a license agreement, Creative violated it. Simple. As a (moderately famous) law professor said, "If you have the law on your side, pound on the law. If you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts. If you haven't got the law or the facts, pound on the table." Right now, slashdot is pounding on the table, and we sound pretty foolish doing it.
  • > Do we have a link to this story? Check out http://www.3dfx.com [3dfx.com] The announcement is there.
  • The FBI warning on the front of a videocassette is NOT equivalent to a shrinkwrap license. When you buy a videocassette you don't get any license at all. You can only use the videocassette as permitted by fair use. The FBI warning is reminding people that their fair use rights do not include commercial reduplication. The presence or absence of that warning has NO effect on your actual rights.

    In contrast, a shrink wrap license offered as part of a commercial transaction is NOT effective unless the purchaser cannot possibly use the product without being put on notice of the license. This is why they're called "shrink wrap": they force you to open an envelope which is imprinted with a license warning so you can't help but know there's a license. This is because the license seeks to limit your rights and the only way they can do that is to be able to show that you accepted their licensure offer. Completely different situation legally.

  • No, it's more like Ford saying only their cars can have a steering wheel, gas peddle on the right, brake on the left (or center w/ clutch on left). The rest will have to use levers, tillers, etc...

    Or, for example, only AT&T phones can have RJ11 (or similar), get a new phone, put in a new jack, don't like it? Too bad!

    Perhaps you'd like auto manufacturers to use custom bolt heads and only they can make the custom sockets for them (and only their dealers can buy them). Need an oil change? See your dealer and bend over.

    3dfx may or may not be able to pull this off legally, but legal doesn't mean moral and ethical. If more people were concerned about that, and shunned corperates that were not ethical and moral, the world would be a better place to live.

  • Beep, wrong.
    Most (win32 native) games are in Direct3d nowadays.
    How is it that you can't believe 3dfx is dictating how THEIR api is used. It's the same as a parking lot owner. People pay to use the lot, and it can be closed to customers whenever the owner pleases.
  • I don't think the readers of Slashdot are going to jump onto the latest, greatest, fastest, flashiest, etc. If we're rabid about anything, it's openness. If a card is a little slow, but offers full source to their driver and all the specs any developer could want, /. will love them. However, the fastest, greatest, most wonderful card in the world in nothing short of evil to /. if the specs are confidential. Look at the Diamond fiasco from a couple years ago, or the quick reversal of /.'s opinion on Nvidia after they released their sources.

    /. is reacting poorly to 3dfx's lawsuit because they are suing Creative over Intellectual Property. If 3dfx would open up their Glide interface (which would preclude this lawsuit), we'd be much happier.
  • If you're starting work on a new game, you use OpenGL. Period. It's cross-platform, and the performance is good and getting better thanks to everybody fighting over Quake frame rates.

    I hate to say it, but don't forget about DirectX. I dislike MS as much as the next guy, but I'd guess that DirectX's penetration among game developers is much higher than OpenGL's.

    As for competing on the merits of their products... fuhgeddaboudit. While their newest cards carry on their tradition of fast fill rates, visual quality isn't as good as much of the competition, and their "you don't really need 32-bit rendering" is killing them. (In the press, anyway. I haven't seen their sales figures recently.)

  • Nah, they are doing it in OpenGL and Glide. Blizzard isn't stupid enough to go with just glide. Check out the link below for the whole story.
    http://www.blizzard.com/PRESS/990513c.html
  • Just for clarification (no, I'm not trying to be nitpicky), I'd like to point out that it is not up to Nvidia to make a card with all the features you need. Nvidia makes the chips that go on the cards, that the card manufacturers add features and value to. Nvidia has the solutions, it's the card manufacturers that need some help in which direction the consumer wants them to go.
  • Well, if they could back up the talk of having the best chips onthe market, they wouldn't have to hide behind their API and depend on it so damn much. If their chips were so incredibly good, they could care less about who tries to copy their API. Granted, if CL or nVidia did use the Glide SDK improperly, then yes, they're in for a tough time. But if they did their product legally, then 3dfx is just wasting money that could be much better spent on hardware design instead of throwing more shit on their original vd1 chip design (wait a minute, isn't that like Windows98 and DOS? *boggle*)
  • What battle has 3dfx lost to OpenGL? The way I see it, GLide doesn't compete directly with OpenGL. OpenGL is a higher level API, while GLide is intended to be closer to the hardware. Unfortunately, 3dfx hasn't been paying enough attention to OpenGL, and is now lagging behind nVidia, among others.

    But don't loose sight of the issue here: 3dfx alleges that Creative violated the license by using 3dfx code. They aren't suing because they made a GLide wrapper. I don't think all the other 'high school kid' suits were expressly over the existance of GLide wrappers. All of these lawsuits involve license violations. If the defendants didn't want to be sued, they should not have accepted the license agreement.

    3dfx is not dictating how the GLide API may be used.

    Keep up the 3dfx bashing guys. 3dfx is the only company that is either shipping or helping other people ship drivers for their hardware *right now* for DOS/Win/Mac/Linux/BeOS, etc. Hopefully, nVidia's foray into source code releases will push 3dfx to do the same.

    I *still* trust 3dfx, because they actually deliver what they say they will, unlike nVidia's Microsoftian 'hype-and-switch' methods..

    So there.
  • actualy Unreal's software rendering was pretty slick, as I recall. it ran in 640x480 on my p200mmx at abotu 10-15 fps.

    it wasn't beautifull, but it was playable
    ---------------
    Chad Okere
  • I can't believe people are complaining because 3dfx is enforcing its license contracts.

    How would those people feel if some big corporation violated the terms of the GPL for its own profit?

    The reason the rules work is that everyone is bound by them.
  • The "binary-only glx driver" was really just the speculation of some people a little too pro-free-software for their own good. Matrox hasn't said anything to that effect, though they won't give the specs, so it'd have to be binary to use WARP. Seems like binary microcode (not the same as a binary driver) is the most likely release, but that's just me guessing too :)
  • This would not be the case unless they obtain preliminary injunctive relief. Absent an injunction, defendants are free to continue as they choose, albeit perhaps subject to potentially increased liability for willful infringement in some cases.

    This is not to say that I anticipate that plaintiff would not prevail upon seeking preliminary injunctive relief, but its never a lock -- preliminary injunctive relief is an extrarordinary remedy precisely for the reasons anticipated in the note to which I am responding.

  • Ill-mannered, Spoiled Children (Score:3)

    by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Friday June 11, 1999 @08:53AM (#1854649) Homepage Journal

    That's how I see 3Dfx over this issue. I really wish they would pull the broomstick out of their bum and realize that they have already lost the battle with OpenGL.

    Back when 3Dfx was the only 3D accelerator in town, using GLIDE exclusively made sense. Now it's suicidal. If you're starting work on a new game, you use OpenGL. Period. It's cross-platform, and the performance is good and getting better thanks to everybody fighting over Quake frame rates.

    I also believe that 3Dfx has no legitimate right to dictate how the GLIDE API may be used. That's a bit like Dennis Ritchie announcing that the C programming language can only be used on AT&T-built computers.

    3Dfx should just drop this issue and compete on the merits of their products.

    Schwab

  • Er "changing the sdk"...? (Score:3)

    by Masem ( 1171 ) on Friday June 11, 1999 @08:53AM (#1854652)
    From my understanding of what Unified does, it is *NOT* Yet Another Glide Library, but instead merely maps the calls that a game would send to Glide into calls to Direct3d. This type of interface can be derived from the docs of the sdk without having the sdk itself, which implies a cleanroom implementation and absolutely no modification to the Glide SDK itself. (The Unified FAQ is located at http://www.soundblaster.co m/hotgraphics/unified/faq.html [soundblaster.com] for those interested.)
  • So you condone stealing proprietary source code and support those that breach contracts? Wake
    up dude, reverse engineering is one thing, but
    outright STEALING code is just bad news. IF this
    is true about Creative then this'll be a bad scar
    on them for the rest of their lives.

    -Burt
  • I know this is an old thread and you probably won't read this, but I just noticed. That message was old even when I posted last time. Update is that they're working with two non-Matrox (you didn't mean NVidia, did you?) community developers and that nothing has been said yet officially. The two guys seem to be leaning towards microcode (everyone seems to be ignoring that email)
  • Whatever the legal merits of the case, 3dfx is IMHO clearly behaving as a poor citizen of the open source community.

    Ugh. I hate it when people throw out phrases like like this because they sound impressive.

    Look - 3dfx is not a member of the open source community. The hardware is proprietary, the API (GLide) is proprietary, and the SDK is released under a license which does not permit you to modify and redistribute the code under any circumstances.

    If you want to criticize 3dfx, fine, but they've never had any pretentions to open-sourcing their SDK, to my knowledge, and shouldn't be faulted for that.

  • The license on the SDK says you can't use it for that purpose. Also, Creative made 3dfx cards in the past. It's conceivable that they had the source to Glide, which would have made it much easier to make a wrapper (I suppose). I'm sure that would have been under an even more strict license than the SDK. But I doubt Creative was stupid enough to use tainted people to do it. I'm sure it had to be clean room. At least I sure hope so!

  • Careful how you swing those allegations; you could put someone's eye out.

    Creative, being fairly intelligent, probably clean-roomed the API. Further, their lawyers are no doubt confident that they will prevail over 3Dfx's baseless claims that 3Dfx has the right to dictate how the GLIDE API may be used. Otherwise, they would never have signed off on the release of the drivers in the first place.

    Schwab

  • And here's the same info (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990 611/ca_3dfx_fi_1.html) [yahoo.com] on Yahoo! [yahoo.com] if you don't like giving M$ another hit to which they can point and say, "See, people read our site!"

    --j, an admitted anti-Microsoft bigot

  • Re:Bad 3dfx, bad! (Score:3)

    by Jburkholder ( 28127 ) on Friday June 11, 1999 @09:16AM (#1854688)
    Well, I agree that 3dfx looks bad here in the eyes of open-source advocates, but the merit of their lawsuit will be decided by other factors. (std disclaimer, IANAL)

    Like, what exactly is the licensing agreement with creative, what assets did creative allegedly misuse, what evidence is there to support this, and what damages is 3dfx likely to sustain as a result of the breach? (although I'm not sure if proof of damages is needed to prove breach of contract?)

    Since most decent (current) games support either D3D or OGL, it seems safe to assume that only older games are "glide-only", no? Is the fear that little Johnnie will go and buy a Creative TNT2 instead of a Voodoo3 (I mean Banshee2 ;-) ) because of a handful of games he has for his voodoo1 that he doesn't even really play anymore? (oversimplification to make a point)

    But on the other hand, if 3dfx has an iron-clad license and has source listings of Unified with their code in it, then shame on Creative for breaking their contract (and getting caught).

    I may not like the idea of a company defending its proprietary API and closed source by going to court against a company I like that sells (IMO) a superior product, but that doesn't make 3dfx in the wrong. Just not likeable.

    Now another issue entirely is what 3dfx hopes to gain from all this. Many in the gaming world have criticized 3dfx for resting on their laurels and not improving their product to support open standards and high-performance 32-bit rendering like, say... nVidia. Maybe this *is* just sour grapes and defending their turf, in which case, "BAD 3dfx, BAD". (another disclaimer: I own a Voodoo2 and two nVidia cards. The Riva 128 was only so so, but the TNT2 is _by far_ the coolest piece of hardware I have ever owned).

  • Keep up the 3dfx bashing guys. 3dfx is the only company that is either shipping or helping other people ship drivers for their hardware *right now* for DOS/Win/Mac/Linux/BeOS, etc. Hopefully, nVidia's foray into source code releases will push 3dfx to do the same.

    Yup, keep up the bashing, and maybe 3dfx will be forced to compete =)

    NVIDIA released X sources last week for their TNT and TNT2 accelerators for Linux, as well as OS/2 Warp, Win3.1, Win9x, WinNT, BeOS, and Linux drivers.

    And NVIDIA has a better OpenGL driver.

    And NVIDIA has more features on their cards than 3dfx...

    The only reason to buy a 3dfx card is loyalty or price... and a TNT from Creative is only $80 or so anyway =)


    -AS
  • If the defendants didn't want to be sued, they should not have accepted the license agreement.

    Do not get me started about license "agreements." I regard them as an unethical legal fiction with absolutely no validity whatsoever. I have never agreed to the terms of any such contract, and continue to have no trouble obtaining commercial software. If you're bored, you can read my editorial [microtimes.com] on the subject.

    3dfx is not dictating how the GLide API may be used.

    Then why the spate of frivolous lawsuits, always, it seems, over GLIDE?

    Schwab

  • Incorrect.

    APIs are not protectible intellectual property (and probably not "intellectual property" at all). 3Dfx is inventing rights out of thin air through its license "agreement". Sadly, contracts of this nature do not create intellectual property or rights therein. 3Dfx is simply indulging in bullying tactics.

    The specifics of this case may be different, as Creative was obviously a source code licensee (with signed contracts and everything). We shall have to wait for the results of the discovery process to see what really happened. But your fundamental claim is incorrect: Inventors do not enjoy absolute rights over their inventions unless they keep them to themselves. Once you make it generally available to the public, the rules change.

    Schwab

  • Check out Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] and Ace's Hardware [aceshardware.com] for TNT2 reviews. As far as I remember, the Hercules cards were the best performers.

Slashdot Top Deals

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson

Close