NVidia's numbering scheme - Linux

This is a discussion on NVidia's numbering scheme - Linux ; What's up with Nvidia's 64-bit driver numbering scheme? I just upgraded to kernel 2.6.24, and the old driver wouldn't let Xinerama kick in. So I go to Nvidia's site and see: Linux x64 (AMD64/EM64T) Display Driver Version: 96.43.05 Operating System: ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: NVidia's numbering scheme

  1. NVidia's numbering scheme

    What's up with Nvidia's 64-bit driver numbering scheme? I just upgraded
    to kernel 2.6.24, and the old driver wouldn't let Xinerama kick in.

    So I go to Nvidia's site and see:

    Linux x64 (AMD64/EM64T) Display Driver
    Version: 96.43.05
    Operating System: Linux x64
    Release Date: January 29, 2008

    Linux x64 (AMD64/EM64T) Display Driver
    Version: 71.86.04
    Operating System: Linux x64
    Release Date: January 29, 2008

    Linux x64 (AMD64/EM64T) Display Driver
    Version: 169.07
    Operating System: Linux x64
    Release Date: December 20, 2007

    Linux x64 (AMD64/EM64T) Display Driver
    Version: 100.14.19
    Operating System: Linux x64
    Release Date: September 18, 2007

    The fourth one is the current version I had installed. The third one is
    close in numbering to the version I'm using on my 32-bit laptop
    installation. But one and two are dated the same.

    Anyway, I used the first one, and it is working fine.

    Ah, looking more carefully, I see that the 32-bit version is also dated
    and numbered similarly to number one above. I'll install that one on
    the 32-bit system.

    Crazy vendors!

    --
    A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise.
    -- Niccolo Machiavelli

  2. Re: NVidia's numbering scheme

    On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:13:23 -0500, Linonut wrote:

    > What's up with Nvidia's 64-bit driver numbering scheme? I just upgraded
    > to kernel 2.6.24, and the old driver wouldn't let Xinerama kick in.
    >
    > So I go to Nvidia's site and see:
    >
    > Linux x64 (AMD64/EM64T) Display Driver
    > Version: 96.43.05
    > Operating System: Linux x64
    > Release Date: January 29, 2008
    >
    > Linux x64 (AMD64/EM64T) Display Driver
    > Version: 71.86.04
    > Operating System: Linux x64
    > Release Date: January 29, 2008
    >
    > Linux x64 (AMD64/EM64T) Display Driver
    > Version: 169.07
    > Operating System: Linux x64
    > Release Date: December 20, 2007
    >
    > Linux x64 (AMD64/EM64T) Display Driver
    > Version: 100.14.19
    > Operating System: Linux x64
    > Release Date: September 18, 2007
    >
    > The fourth one is the current version I had installed. The third one is
    > close in numbering to the version I'm using on my 32-bit laptop
    > installation. But one and two are dated the same.
    >
    > Anyway, I used the first one, and it is working fine.
    >
    > Ah, looking more carefully, I see that the 32-bit version is also dated
    > and numbered similarly to number one above. I'll install that one on
    > the 32-bit system.
    >
    > Crazy vendors!


    No.
    It's fsckd up Linux.

    Last time I tried this I just went to Nvidia's site and it told me what
    card I have, what OS I have and gave me the option to download the correct
    driver.
    I also had the option to override the choices if I wanted to.

    That's the difference between Windows and Linux.

    The common user doesn't stand a chance with Linux.

  3. Re: NVidia's numbering scheme

    [snips]

    On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:41:38 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

    >> The fourth one is the current version I had installed. The third one
    >> is close in numbering to the version I'm using on my 32-bit laptop
    >> installation. But one and two are dated the same.
    >>
    >> Anyway, I used the first one, and it is working fine.
    >>
    >> Ah, looking more carefully, I see that the 32-bit version is also dated
    >> and numbered similarly to number one above. I'll install that one on
    >> the 32-bit system.
    >>
    >> Crazy vendors!

    >
    > No.
    > It's fsckd up Linux.


    I see. A hardware vendor does something confusing, and you're so stupid
    you actually think it's the OS's fault.

    Pretty freakin' clueless.


+ Reply to Thread