linux drivers: Nvidia vs ATI

[Kurt Granroth]

Josh Coffman wrote:
> Ok, before anyone says something.. I know these are closed source. I'm
> fine with that although I realize some people aren't for
> understandable reasons.  When the open source versions support the
> same features and performance with stability, I'll use it.
> 
> I need to buy a new laptop and I'm going to dual boot it.  Which has
> better linux drivers: ATI or NVidia?
 >
> I assume both support compiz-fusion with recent cards, right?

If you don't need the absolute bleeding edge performance, then go for 
Intel chips.  They have nearly perfect support under Linux.  It's close 
to an OS X level of "just works".

If that's not an option and you must choose between ATI and NVidia... 
<sigh>, it pains me to say it, but the NVidia drivers are *much* more 
stable than the ATI drivers.  I've setup a number of systems with compiz 
using ATI chips and using NVidia chips and there is just no comparison. 
  The ATI 'fglrx' driver is buggy as hell and each release is hit or 
miss.   NVidia work just fine, most of the time.

All that said, the ATI drivers are getting *better* as they go and now 
that they are releasing their specs, I would expect that it would get 
better yet.  One could make the argument pretty easily that we should 
buy ATI to encourage them and others to be even more open.  Money talks.

> As an Aside, I wouldn't mind votes on my top 3 laptop vendors to choose from:
> HP
> Dell
> Lenovo

The ThinkPad series has a great reputation but I'll have to say that I 
am grown to thoroughly detest the T42, T43, and T60 models.  Based on 
those, I'm not so sure I can recommend the brand anymore...

Kurt

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20080812/d1a30264/attachment.pgp