red1776
Posts: 5,124 +194
Ole Charlie Thinks Sandy Bridge is a bust...this is weak!
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2011/01/02/sandy-bridge-biggest-disapointment-year/
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2011/01/02/sandy-bridge-biggest-disapointment-year/
That said, what am I talking about? If you try to use Sandy Bridge under Linux, it is simply broken.
Cry about it... Intel doesn't give a damn about alt OS; they shouldn't. Having said that, who is this guy?
[source]The GF104/106/108 chip were never really meant to be what they are now, they are a desperate stopgap that simply won't work...The new dice are 3/4s of a GF100 for the GF104...that would put the GF104 at 210W...around 405mm^2
Clearly, Linux is useless.
Red & DBZ said:@red1776
If the non-support of a Linux distro that was released before Sandy Bridge is disappointment of the year ( three days in!) then the rest of the year is looking very rosy.
aussiebear @ SA said:Folks, please don't fall for an "opinion engineering" article and get roiled up in another pointless Linux vs Windows flame fest.
Support for Sandy Bridge (at this time) requires:
* Linux 2.6.37 kernel
* Mesa 7.10
* xf86-video-intel 2.14 driver
For "out-of-the-box" support, you will have to wait for:
* Ubuntu 11.04
* Fedora 15
etc.
"Sandy Bridge is awesome," Newell said on stage. "We've been using it for a couple of months. Sandy Bridge really does give us the great features and performance that we need to develop great customer experiences for gamers. Sandy Bridge cannot only run today's games, but even the next generation of games. It's a real game changer for us. This allows for a console like experience on the PC."
My guess is that he's had a falling out with Intel (probably didn't get the company Christmas card this past holiday season) and is using this bs rant solely to garner some attention (read site traffic).
Charlie lives for the exposé and basks in his (self-promoted) image as investigative "journalist" (read blogger)- unfortunately since his big coup ( the nvidia eutectic solder underfill story) his supposed "exclusives" have turned out to largely incorrect (or just malicious FUD), or so far off base you'd think his "unnamed sources" are actually double agents! -assuming they aren't just a convenient vehicle to deflect possible law suits and criticism.