Quote:
Originally Posted by Love  So I asked you to prove that this guy has decided to not support a card for no reason other than it eventually being obsolete. I'd say that not supporting it because there's extra work involved, and isn't deemed worth the effort, is quite different than what you said. |
Well, i'd say he doesn't want to support it because of this:
Quote:
|
If I invest resources to supporting an old chip that's being phased out, I get a much lower return on that investment than if I would have put those resources into a chip that's becoming mainstream. The number of installed GeForce 7's in the world is decreasing while the number of GeForce 8's is increasing, and I don't expect GeForce 7's to make a comeback.
|
Note, the chipset being _already_ "beyond obsolete" (earlier in quoted post) and it being phased out are the only reasons
he actually provided. So i'm not going to second-guess if his reasons are maybe something other than what he said.
And incidentally about the extra work argument you provide as alternative explanation -- this extra work is only a factor if one insists on creating separate render paths for 8-series and older hardware. While it's perfectly possible to create robust solutions aimed "just" at older hardware that would also perform just as well on the newer cards, with no additional work. Hence i'd guess you don't actually see him use that as argument in his reasoning.
edit: and to look at it from another angle, this alternative of "maybe they aren't supporting it because they see it as extra work not worth the effort"... the very reason why they 'don't see it as worth the effort' is the chipset being phased out/obsolete. So it still boils down to the same thing, doesn't it..?