but deleted them from the HDD thinking they will be always available for download

This case shows once again, that you should never rely on some websites which might change, become temporarily unavailable or even disappear from the web, better archive everything as far as possible yourself. I store all downloaded installers on my USB-HDD, usually I never need them and just have some additional work replacing the older versions with new ones, but in situation like this one it can really help. Also very usefull for hardware drivers, the manufacturers sometimes remove those for older hardware from their webside and think that people will buy something new because of that.

Very true... Now for example I can't download nVidia driver worked well w/o writing special letter to them... And all later drivers have bug that seems never be solved...
Fortunately I found required installer binaries on one of HDDs...

Isn't your needed version somewhere here?:

NVIDIA Forceware:

http://www.filehippo.com/download_nvidia_forceware_vista/
http://www.filehippo.com/download_nvidia_forceware_vista_64/

http://www.filehippo.com/download_nvidia_forceware_xp/
http://www.filehippo.com/download_nvidia_forceware_xp_64/


AMD Catalyst Drivers:

http://www.filehippo.com/download_ati_catalyst_xp/
http://www.filehippo.com/download_ati_catalyst_xp_64/

...

---

 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)
 

but deleted them from the HDD thinking they will be always available for download

This case shows once again, that you should never rely on some websites which might change, become temporarily unavailable or even disappear from the web, better archive everything as far as possible yourself. I store all downloaded installers on my USB-HDD, usually I never need them and just have some additional work replacing the older versions with new ones, but in situation like this one it can really help. Also very usefull for hardware drivers, the manufacturers sometimes remove those for older hardware from their webside and think that people will buy something new because of that.

Very true... Now for example I can't download nVidia driver worked well w/o writing special letter to them... And all later drivers have bug that seems never be solved...
Fortunately I found required installer binaries on one of HDDs...

I'm currently coming towards the end of an exhaustive test of the new SaH v7 Beta cuda applications with the following WHQL drivers (for Windows XP):

185.85
190.38
197.45
258.96
260.99
266.58
270.61
275.33
280.26
285.58
296.10
301.42
306.23

No nVidia bug found yet, one bug found and eliminated in the cuda22 version of the application.

What is this alleged bug that affects "all later drivers" - later than which?

Can we read somewhere what is the exact problem that Intel 'found'?

(I think this Intel act will turn against themselves the way Rambus/RDRAM affair did (when you try to push something by force people may just step away).
Intel compilers are optimized for Intel CPUs which make the builds ('non-intentionally') run faster on Intel than on AMD.
Now it appears that other 'general' free compilers/libraries will be used which may make the apps be more AMD friendly (or just not fast enough on Intel).
)

The question arose because Lunatics GPU builds are to become stock releases, and are being tested at SETI Beta now. Intel did not find a problem, the question is whether compiling with the Intel compiler and some Intel libraries violates the GPL2+ licensing provisions. The extra_note.txt file is what raised the concern, and has to be considered in relation to provisions in Intel's EULA as it applies to developers using Intel tools and libraries.

If the situation becomes clear, we'll be able to move to resolve it. Until then, extended discussion is probably counterproductive.

                                                                  Joe

Will anyone be angry if I (or anybody) upload the Lunatics v0.40 Installers to a free hosting site
and give the link?

Please don't do this.

---

Executive Director GPU Users Group Inc. -
brad@gpuug.org

The question arose because Lunatics GPU builds are to become stock releases, and are being tested at SETI Beta now.

Joe/Raistmer, does this mean the end of the Lunatics, or will they continue to push the bounds of performance beyond stock?

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

The question arose because Lunatics GPU builds are to become stock releases, and are being tested at SETI Beta now.

Joe/Raistmer, does this mean the end of the Lunatics, or will they continue to push the bounds of performance beyond stock?

Jason is already planning on x42 and the v7 build of AK, he just has to change to a different compiler for the AK builds.

---

Until then, extended discussion is probably counterproductive.

Knowing this group, saying that is like pouring hydrogen on a fire.

The question arose because Lunatics GPU builds are to become stock releases, and are being tested at SETI Beta now.

Joe/Raistmer, does this mean the end of the Lunatics, or will they continue to push the bounds of performance beyond stock?

There is always something to optimize.
Evenso stock will always use lowest params to make sure it works on most different hardware.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

What is this alleged bug that affects "all later drivers" - later than which?

Later than 26x.xx, 100% CPU busy-wait for OpenCL. Not new.

The question arose because Lunatics GPU builds are to become stock releases, and are being tested at SETI Beta now.

Joe/Raistmer, does this mean the end of the Lunatics, or will they continue to push the bounds of performance beyond stock?

"They will continue, LoL" :D

Old drivers (at least WHQL ones) are still on the nvidia website, but you have to go through Google to find them. Those stupid drop-down menus NVIDIA have on their website only go down to, what, 280?

Examples:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=258.96
http://www.bing.com/search?q=197.45
http://www.bing.com/search?q=190.38
http://www.bing.com/search?q=185.85

Notice 3 out of 4 come up on top without even using "nvidia" as a keyword:) Just don't forget to make sure you have the right Windows version and be careful to note if they are laptop or desktop drivers.

Old drivers (at least WHQL ones) are still on the nvidia website, but you have to go through Google to find them. Those stupid drop-down menus NVIDIA have on their website only go down to, what, 280?

Actually, as Claggy was kind enough to point out to me, the nVidia archive search pages return a maximum of 20 results. That can get you quite far back...

For example, the WindowsXP search page for my 9800GT gets back to 190.38 if you restrict the search to Certified (i.e. WHQL) drivers only. Restricting the search to Beta only gets you back to 195.39

But, for my combo (9800GT/WinXP), and testing the new Beta builds for SaH v7, I actually found that 301.42 was the fastest. I only discovered that this morning - I'll try and write it up somewhere when I've found a way of boiling down the morass of figures.

Heh! Hardly anything anything gets by Claggy:)

Geforce.com is a bit different... It only goes back 10 WHQL versions.

And if you do the "WHQL only" selection it goes back to the 260 drivers, which isn't too bad. Anyway, I just wanted to throw the "search engine" option out there because, even though I agree with Bil.bg about FileHippo, I know a lot of people want to dowload their drivers from nVidia only.