Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

When will Nvidia have 8800 drivers for Vista available?

Last response: in Windows Vista
Share

Which one

Total: 12 votes

  • 32bit
  • 42 %
  • 64bit
  • 59 %
January 25, 2007 5:18:20 AM

Nvidia claimed they would have a working driver available for download at the launch of Vista however I still do not see a driver available and Vista is shipping as we speak. Although it's not the official launch date they have it available for sale on Newegg.com. I am waiting for a driver to become available before I buy.

Still trying to decide which way to go 32bit or 64bit. I am really hoping that there is better driver and software support for 64bit Vista than there was for XP 64bit.
January 25, 2007 2:07:04 PM

Straight from the mouth of NVIDIA themselves:
Quote:
Because G70 and G80 are radically different architectures, they each require a separate driver. Combine that with the fact that Windows Vista has completely changed the driver interface, similar in magnitude to what happened between Windows 3.1 and 95, and you’ve got a “perfect storm” of conditions for driver development. The end result is that for Windows Vista, two 20M line drivers have to be completely re-written (one for G80 and one from all previous architectures). In other words, this isn’t a simple port, it’s a radical departure from the way things were written before.

There are other elements of Vista driver development that apparently require more work than before. DirectX 9, DX9 SLI, DX10 and DX10 SLI support is provided through four separate binaries, which increases the complexity of testing and the overall driver itself, whereas there was only a single driver in the past.

Interfaces for HD-DVD and Blu-ray video acceleration requires a lot more code than before, thanks to the support for a protected path for HD video under Vista. Supporting this protected path for HD content decode means that you can’t re-use the video part of your driver when developing a Vista version.

The last major difference between Windows XP and Vista driver development is that the display engine connecting monitors to the GPUs has been completely redone.

Initial investment in driver development under Vista takes up quite a bit of time, and now we understand a little more of why. While it would be nice to have one today, there’s always a tradeoff that has to be made especially when driver work this intense has to be done. Couple that with the recent launch of NVIDIA’s G80 GPU and the decision was made to focus on DX9 and XP drivers in order to make the G80’s launch as solid as possible, and commit to delivering an 8800 driver by Vista’s launch.

When the driver is eventually available NVIDIA expects performance to be at par, slightly slower or slightly faster than the XP driver. What we’ve seen thus far from other Vista drivers is that performance is slower almost entirely across the board. As stability is currently the primary goal for both ATI and NVIDIA, many compiler optimizations and performance tweaks aren’t being used in order to get a good driver out in time for Vista’s launch......"

http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=4833

Pretty bullshit if you ask me. But the funny thing is that Forceware 100.30 was shown to work at the Vista 2007 CES:

So please be assured, your hardware still works with Vista, but your drivers just aren't here yet.

Also if you look here:
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?id=32
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?id=2
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?id=28
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?id=10

You'll find earlier versions of Forceware that works well with Vista, both the x86 version and the 64bit version. So you don't have to wait to buy the 8800 series unless you want to wait for the release of the R600 to compare the two DX10 cards.
January 25, 2007 3:42:19 PM

More implications of DRM.

The companies are struggling to make the new drivers compliant with the new "Trusted Computing".

Peter Gutman is being proved to be correct as the launch date nears.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.h...

I thought all you Vista fans said his article was BS.
Related resources
January 25, 2007 4:19:08 PM

Are you referring to me as a Vista fanboy?
January 25, 2007 4:35:26 PM

Quote:
More implications of DRM.
Quote:


I have not seen anything that references that card having issues with DRM for the 8800 drivers on any news/support website. Is there a manufacturer/news/support reference link for that issue?
January 25, 2007 5:58:06 PM

Quote:
More implications of DRM.


I have not seen anything that references that card having issues with DRM for the 8800 drivers on any news/support website. Is there a manufacturer/news/support reference link for that issue?

From the second post's quote
Quote:
Interfaces for HD-DVD and Blu-ray video acceleration requires a lot more code than before, thanks to the support for a protected path for HD video under Vista.
January 25, 2007 6:29:46 PM

Quote:
Quote:
More implications of DRM.
Quote:


I have not seen anything that references that card having issues with DRM for the 8800 drivers on any news/support website. Is there a manufacturer/news/support reference link for that issue?


Taken from NVIDIA statement:
Quote:
Interfaces for HD-DVD and Blu-ray video acceleration requires a lot more code than before, thanks to the support for a protected path for HD video under Vista. Supporting this protected path for HD content decode means that you can’t re-use the video part of your driver when developing a Vista version.


Which is what Peter Gutman was talking about with DRM dictating the drivers that will be acceptable to the Vista Kernel.

DaSickNinja

Relax, did I call you a Vista Fanboy?

I was referring to the people that say Vista is not crippled by DRM. It is interesting that tom shardware just posted the gaming performance under the current drivers is "dismal".
January 28, 2007 3:30:20 AM

Quote:

Still trying to decide which way to go 32bit or 64bit. I am really hoping that there is better driver and software support for 64bit Vista than there was for XP 64bit.


The way I figure it, it the move is made to Vista and your cpu supports 64 bit, then that's the only thing that really makes sense. From what I've seen most of the hardware companies have been working hard to get out 64 bit drivers, so even the previous problems with XP64 Pro are disappearing. Fact is, if there was a way to implement DX10 on XP64, I think I'd rather use that then Vista. And that's given that I was planning to build a Vista machine around June. Now I'm having my doubts about the idea.
January 28, 2007 3:22:03 PM

I agree most people have said I should go with the 32bit, but I look at that as a band-aid operating system. I know some programs will work better with the 32bit version but 64bit is the future. 18 months from now 32bit won't even be a consideration by most people. I am running 2 gigs of ram right now and definitely can see running 4 in a year or so, which the 64bit will be hitting its stride. 32bit will run 4 gigs however it doesn't utilize it near as well as a 64 bit OS. I did run Vista 64bit RC1 version for about 2 months and have say it was pretty nice. I did have to buy a different sound card to get a driver to work but I wanted a new one anyway. Other than that I didn't have any problems finding 64 bit drivers. I really think the support will be much greater for Vista in that regard. I only had one game that wouldn't work, other than that all my apps like Photoshop and Word, etc worked just fine. I won't be updgrading until there are some DX10 games out, by then better video drivers as well as others will be available.
January 29, 2007 8:47:50 AM

I have been running XP64 for over a year now, but have decided to get my Vista in a 32bit flavor again. Even after over a year drivers for 64bit aren't nearly as good as the ones for 32bit (if available at all), and programs are far from being optimised for 64. I am taking the risk now by buying 32bit OEM, and hoping there will be an interesting (read cheap) upgrade to 64bit available when it is really needed (through windows marketplace for example, like a 'Handling and Shipping cost only' upgrade). I loved how stable XP64 was (but saw no performance edge whatsoever), but the support headache just isn't worth it. Anyway, XP64 to me made more sense on AMD64, then it does on EMT64 (Core 2 Duo) which feels more like "yeah we support it as well" rather than "built for 64bit computing". We will see when applications are going to demand more than 3gb of RAM, but I'm not going to play the driver waiting game again, and will upgrade only when absolutely necessery.
January 29, 2007 12:11:41 PM

I think the new DX10 Games and major system builders like DELL will dictate if its 32 or 64bit.

I'm personaly unsure of the best ways to go, with 4Gb ram and a 8800GTX the 64 bit version should be the way to go, but will I be able to run Crysis on it when it comes out? Will masive online games like WoW, EQ2 and eve-online support both 32/64 bit version. Or will they support 64bit in order to get the Microsoft "Games for Windows" badge?
January 29, 2007 3:16:44 PM

I do know that if someone had a Vista driver available it was more than likely a 64 bit driver which was encouraging. I don't know if there will be an upgrade path to 64 bit from 32. I thought I read somewhere on MS Vista page that it cannot upgrade 32 to 64, you had to install the OS entirely but I could be wrong.
January 29, 2007 3:31:13 PM

I have read some notes (nothing official though) that an upgrade solution will be offered for 32bit OEM licenses, possibly through Windows Marketplace. It would obviously require a clean install, but there is no price difference between 32 and 64, so I guess it should only be the cost of the Disk in that case. If not, I may have to fork over another 200 bucks for a 64bit OEM, but then the cost wouldn't be far off a retail version so managable (only 20 bucks difference, or cheaper here in Europe). Truth is, when 64bit becomes mainstream (at least 18 months from now is my guess), I will probably be building a new PC anyway, or do a major upgrade that would invalidate my OEM license anyway... 64 bit has been a bit of a dissapointment for me so far, and we'll see when we get there (the Itanium fiasco is still fresh in my mind...). AMD64 has been out for years, XP64 has been out for a long while now, and still support is seriously lacking. This time I will not be an early adopter and I'll wait this one out...
January 29, 2007 3:33:08 PM

There is no upgrade path between bit versions and there is no patch being considered. That is actually one of the questions to answer on their certification for Vista. It is a stock reformat/reload.
January 29, 2007 3:47:23 PM

One thing I have already noticed is that the only version I have found for sale on the internet has been the 32 bit version which makes me wonder if there is a problem with the 64bit version.
January 29, 2007 3:54:12 PM

We've been testing 64 - no issues, but no performance gain either. Literally, unless if you are currently using 64 bit apps or plan to within 6 months, our MS support has told us do not run 64. Some 32 bit apps are having stability issues on 64 because they were not written to be fully compliant with the standards.
January 29, 2007 4:13:37 PM

One thing I noticed running vista is that it seems to utilize dual core processors better. When I ran 3dMark 2005 the CPU section went from around 5800 under XP to 10,001 under Vista. Went from 2.5fps to 6.7fps, I haven't heard anyone really talking about that but I ran it several times with the same results.
!