An Answer Needed

An Answer Needed

Vista is released in less than 7 days and yet Intel has still not released WDDM drivers for the Intel 915. When will it be released?

By the way, there is a petition on this topic: http://www.petitiononline.com/intel915/petition.html

There are over 1000 signatures and counting. If Intel does not release these drivers, then it can expect to lose thousands of customers--some for good.

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
For more complete information about compiler optimizations, see our Optimization Notice.

Intel isn't going to release WDDM drivers because the GMA900 doesn't have all the features required for that.

What I want to know is when Intel will release XPDM drivers that actually WORK with Vista andnot the current crap that's rife with bugsand poor performance in almost every area - video, 3d, and even basic GDI compositing performanceis awful with the latest drivers.

First of all, GMA900 has all the features that are under the "Windows Vista Premium Ready Specifications":

  • Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
  • (Copied from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx)

    If you read the petition, it states that many regular applications (such as Windows DVD Maker) also refuse to work with the regular XPDM.

    Intel, realize the importance of this driver. Many people who signed the petition will switch to Linux or not upgrade at all to Vista if these WDDM drivers are not released. Also, many will never use an Intel product again.

    No it doesn't. It lacks some kind of hardware task scheduling implementation that's required by the WDDM specification by Microsoft. There's no way these drivers could ever be made. And even if this was implemented and WDDM drivers existed, you'd get utterly horrible performance from Aero with the GMA900 (if that's your reason for wanting these drivers).

    My question still stands. When will Intel release non-buggy, working XPDM drivers for Windows Vista? There's only 2 days until Vista's official consumer release date. Are they really going to have them out by then if they haven't all this time?

    OK, so Aero won't work. Do you think it is worth itto upgrade to Vista even if you have the GMA900? If it is, even I'm not to upgrade if it is true that there aren't good XPDM drivers for Vista!

    TO INTEL

    hi, i also want WDDM drivers for GMA900 graphics card.

    and please dont ever again say this is not possible because of "hardware limitations and specs of areo were not finally announced as the develpoment of GMA900 ended". this is simply a LIE to the custumers. the GMA 900 was designed in 2004! OK!

    BUT WHY can a NVIDIA GEFORCE FX5200 (DESIGNED IN 2002) RUN AERO pretty well? I TESTD THIS ON MY MACHINE ITS TRUE.

    it was nvidia's FIRST directx 9 card and in 2002 nobody could even think about AERO !! AND you want me to believe that GMA900 wich is also DX9 and designed in2004 cant handle AERO?

    DO you want kidding me? you honestly cant believe your own words!

    Hi i got some problem i got toshiba equium intel chip 915 i bought about 6 months ago i did upgrade windows vista per but i can't use earo very bad intel seems they don't want helping us bad tho i will never buy again intel,

    First of all, you will eventually get angry at Intel's X3000 and GMA 3000, it says on my box 965WH, that the X3000 supports pixel shader 3.0, No it doesn't.I am pretty sure it doesn't, it came off the DVD that they included with my mobo. Why do they put their drivers and bonus apps on a DVD, the install takes friggin forever? Anyway, I went out and bought an ATI X1300, I love my graphics now, Intel can have their onboard graphics. Vista Premium won't even support the onboard graphics because it requires the shader model.

    Reasons why you should buy a graphics card:

    1. spare difficulty of Intel's driver install failures 2. You can get Vista 3. If you get Vista now, you're probably getting it because of DirectX 10

    Intel needs to quit watching what AMD is doing and just research and design. By the way, I seriously doubt Intel will release drivers for WDDM drivers for the 915, you would be better off spending $120 on a 256mb graphics card and forget about the drivers.

    i definiteley WOULD simply buy a new graphics card, but im having a LAPTOP/NOTEBOOK with integrated GMA900 in 915GM northbridge chipset.

    thus i cant change the graphics card (only by throwing away the laptop) and that makes me angry.

    microsoft stated there are DX9 and 128MB needed by aero. nothing more. intel's too lazy to release the drivers.

    if this "hardware sheduler" should be the reason for lacking AERO, why cant someone detaild explain what is it all about? and why cant it be emulated through software like intel does with pixel shaders?

    maybe the performance would be questionable, but i dont believe that either, im having another laptop with GMA950 (succedor of GMA900, only having 50mhz higher clock speed) runs AERO pretty well with a score of 3,1 at the vista index. NVIDIA FX 5200 (64MB) even reaches only 2,0 and it is USABLE with aero, even it is slow sometimes.

    sowhy not give it a try? i guess here are many people wich would like to beta test and give feedback (me included)!

    im developer/it-professional and the statemend from intel "doesnt work for GMA900" simply doesnt work for ME!

    Ok, there's a post in Beyond3D forum about my theory regarding the "Hardware Schedulers" go read it up: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38336

    Now in Vista, Microsoft significantly upped the requirements to meet compatibility with DX10 as some may know. If Microsoft doesn't see the 915G as being compatible because of the lack of schedulers, then the chipset won't get certified. It may also have to do with DRM. So its not really Intel's fault.

    at least your explination about this "scheduler'" sounds plausible.

    im wondering why microsoft said DX9 will be required for aero? was this scheduler part of the DX9 specification? even nvidia's FX 5200 (first DX9 in early 2003) doesnt lack in running aero?

    has intel mistreated DX9 specification? i cant believe that it is meant to call hardware DX9 when T&L, pixel and vertex shaders are emulated by the CPU?

    and im wondering why the scheduler cant be emulated through the drivers? the explination doesnt sound very hardware hungry (scheduling display tasks). intel even emulates pixelshaders with software.

    and intel explains her own GMA900 graphics as LACKING EVERYTHING what has to do with vista.

    http://support.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-023606.htm#5

    but in this statement it sounds that aero would run on GMA900, with low performance. i think it's up to the user to decide what low performace is!

    im really wondering why nvidia's FX 5200 isnt lacking, even it was released way before GMA900.

    okatomy:and im wondering why the scheduler cant be emulated through the drivers? the explination doesnt sound very hardware hungry (scheduling display tasks). intel even emulates pixelshaders with software.

    GMA 900/950 has hardware pixel shaders. And btw, geometry/vertex shader/T&L is basically the same thing. GMA 900/950 isn't a fully DX9 compatible part. It isn't even fully DX7 compatible due to lack of hardware T&L capability.

    Far as I know Microsoft has put greater restrictions on graphics companies to have compatibility. There's also things about DRM requirements for Vista that hardware vendors must follow. Intel may see it compatible, MS may not. If it ran Aero on RC1 but not RC2, its likely MS's fault and they don't want GMA 900 running Aero even with software emulation or whatever.

    FX5200 comparisons. FX5200 is a fully featured DX9 part. Nvidia went beyond the basic DX9 requirements on the FX series. Intel did not, they did not even put T&L on hardware which is in the specifications for DX7, which is why someDX9 games don't run, but FX5200 does.Remember they create $7 parts, they do not need to spend more transistors than they see it necessary.

    so the real reason why GMA900 is lacking aero is because it is simply lacking real DX9 and even DX7support?

    so they should never had advertised and sold it as a DX9 card bacause its even not close to DX9 specification! the customers got hocused!

    so could someone in the crazy USA please sue intel for selling DX9 cards which arent?

    because someone will sue nvidia for selling their 8800 cards as vista ready and having only a beta driver for vista till now! intel would deserve it way more for making this crap.

    okatomy:

    so the real reason why GMA900 is lacking aero is because it is simply lacking real DX9 and even DX7support?

    so they should never had advertised and sold it as a DX9 card bacause its even not close to DX9 specification! the customers got hocused!

    so could someone in the crazy USA please sue intel for selling DX9 cards which arent?

    because someone will sue nvidia for selling their 8800 cards as vista ready and having only a beta driver for vista till now! intel would deserve it way more for making this crap.

    LOL. Performance reviews are out there, compatibility reviews are out there, in forums, and by people from computer hardware reviews. They never sold it as Aero-compatible it was sold as Vista-compatible. Marketing talks are more specific than it sounds like :). I've heard of reviews that Vista Aero even refuses to run if you have 512MB of system memory. What was simply a recommended specification, the OS now specifically seems to state you NEED those specifications to run.

    You should complain MS for making a crappy DRM-infected OS that causes unnecessary hardware limitations, rather than blaming hardware vendors like nvidia/intel imo.

    I already switched to Ubuntu Linux and I hope I never have to deal with MS again... This issue with the 915 wddm drivers just pushed me over the edge
    And Intel is just as guilty for advertising their chip as a DX9 one... And this marketing bullshit with "Vista ready" and "Aero ready" is also the hardaware makers fault... They want to sell the hardware even if the consumers will get burnt... Also it's not just the UI, it's also the Movie Maker and another app...

    What if from now on more software developers force me to upgrade my graphic card (and/or laptop) just to run their application? No thanks, I won't be forced to buy new hardware just for the heck of it... Linux all the way

    DavidC1:
    okatomy:

    so the real reason why GMA900 is lacking aero is because it is simply lacking real DX9 and even DX7support?

    so they should never had advertised and sold it as a DX9 card bacause its even not close to DX9 specification! the customers got hocused!

    so could someone in the crazy USA please sue intel for selling DX9 cards which arent?

    because someone will sue nvidia for selling their 8800 cards as vista ready and having only a beta driver for vista till now! intel would deserve it way more for making this crap.

    LOL. Performance reviews are out there, compatibility reviews are out there, in forums, and by people from computer hardware reviews. They never sold it as Aero-compatible it was sold as Vista-compatible. Marketing talks are more specific than it sounds like :). I've heard of reviews that Vista Aero even refuses to run if you have 512MB of system memory. What was simply a recommended specification, the OS now specifically seems to state you NEED those specifications to run.

    You should complain MS for making a crappy DRM-infected OS that causes unnecessary hardware limitations, rather than blaming hardware vendors like nvidia/intel imo.

    Well, the guy didnt say sue them for vista compatibility but said sue them for the GMA900 which doesn't support DX9, and I say you should sue them for the Vertix Shader 3.0 and hardware T&L which they sell without releasing the apropreat driver.

    This company admites that there drivers didn't yet activate the T&L but they never admited there is a problem in the Vertix shader, which when ever I posted them for they replied saying It was supported!!!!!

    yea this is true.intel releases the worst graphic drivers any company has released.even the worst quality graphic cards like sis release drivers which actually actually increase games' performance.look at nvidia's and ati's.i have seen the release notes of these drivers,all of them increase games' performance.intel solves silly problems which are unobservable or dont cause any serious problems.they arent releasing wddm drivers for vista too.plz intel release drivers which actually help.

    Login to leave a comment.