First of One wrote:

So Dell and HP bitch loudly and pass the buck. The "journalists" at the Inq
then take little bits of information and spin them into FUD. And all of a
sudden it becomes a "persistent state of knowledge"?

All interesting points but I don't think that they apply. I think your
position "here are our chips, we wash our hands of them" is not going to
hold up either in the boardroom or courtroom and based on recent events
it has not. Supplier-Integrator responsibilities go far beyond the
"consumer protections" end-user requirements you think I'm confusing
with the 'fitness of purpose' requirements that are usually negotiated,
I haven't seen the contract so I can't comment on specifics, but I've
seen enough of them to know what is typical and manufacturing defects
such as this are typically covered.

Especially when the problem encompasses many vendors in many different
designs and best practice cooling solutions do not result in other chips
failing. But for the bad chip packaging, there would be no fault. No
problems.

Especially when this was discovered in early 2007, a year and a half ago
and reported in April of 2007. Plenty of time to fix things, but nothing
was fixed. This didn't happen over a week or a day, it took months and
months.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...-g846-problems

Oh, you don't think the Inq can report the truth? why not take it from
nVidia themselves:

NVIDIA president and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang stated:

"Although the failure appears related to the combination of the
interaction between the chip material set and system design, we have a
responsibility to our customers and will take our part in resolving this
problem. The GPU has become an increasingly important part of the
computing experience and we are seeing more interest by PC OEMs to adopt
GPUs in more platforms. Recognizing that the GPU is one of the most
complex processors in the system, it is critical that we now work more
closely with notebook system designers and our chip foundries to ensure
that the GPU and the system are designed collaboratively for the best
performance and robustness."


Again, if nvidia knew about the chip material sets different performance
characteristics and did not tell anyone, that is their fault. If they
did and the makers ignored their warnings, then it's the makers
fault...for building a broken machine and using a broken component.

HP has split the difference in cost with nvidia, but no one else
has...the rest are demanding recall and restitution and are jumping
ship. Hard to say why, but HP can afford the $150 out of $300 liability
each repair is estimated to cost. Are you saying HP knew the chip was
faulty as well and crossed their fingers?

So far it looks like nVidia left everyone swinging in the breeze and
nothing you have said indicates otherwise, are you SURE you don't have
any nvidia stock?!