"Mr.E Solved!" wrote in message
. ..
Holy cow, you are hell bent on defending nvidia and part of that defense
is your imagination? "Imagining" Dell and HP still design their laptops? I
expect better from you, at least say: "I don't know which engineers are
responsible for which part of the process".

Ultimately Dell or HP's logo appears on the laptop. They are the final
system integrators. They may choose to delegate a portion of the integration
to a third party to cut costs, but they are still liable to ensure the end
product works.

It's probably that type of non-rigorous thinking that caused the release
of the faulty substrate in the wild to begin with. As in: but for the
faulty substrate, the chips, video subsystem and laptop would work
normally with the components that are in them with their existing cooling
solutions.

The truly non-rigorous thinking exists where the system builder no longer
tests its own products in an attempt to rush to market.

Since I did not read the supplied thermal or electrical specifications, I
do not know if the manufacturers were told: "By the way, this stuff has a
worse performance envelope than all the stuff before it" or "No changes
needed."

The latter is a pretty bold statement to make, since nVidia doesn't have
direct control over the cooling solution. Different laptop chassis will have
vents in different places. The heatpipes may run through both the CPU and
GPU plates, etc. In fact, if nVidia were to make a statement like "no
cooling changes needed", it would be poor engineering judgement for system
builder to not validate it for themselves. The system builders are not
innocent victims in this case.

Either way, the supplier is usually contracted in writing to certain
specifications and other implied warranties are in force depending upon
geographic location and mutual agreement.

Specifications won't cover every possible failure mode. And you can be sure
things like thermal fatigue cycles don't make their way into contracts.

As for implied warranties, don't confuse consumer protection laws with
supplier/integrator relationships. In fact, for new products or design
changes, the integrator often defines the [re]qualification tests that the
supplier has to do.

So they (Nvidia) can't take the attitude you are seemingly taking: Haha,
we gave you junk and you didn't test it thoroughly enough to find our
hidden flaws, eat it.

No, it's more like: My GPU technically meets my published specs, but since I
didn't design your laptop, you are responsible for making sure it works in
your particular application.

This is true even in automotive industry, where suppliers handle much of the
design and subsystem testing. Yet the automaker still puts the prototypes in
the desert, in the arctic, on the Nurburgring...

I'm sorry if your nvidia stock is weaker,

Don't assume. I shuffle my money between oil and gold, and leave the tech
stocks alone. As "Mr. Tony" would say, I don't **** where I eat.

but so far all reports point to a persistent state of knowledge of a
faulty product by nvidia. So much so that nvidia partners and
co-dependents are clamoring for a recall by nvidia so they don't go
bankrupt trying to fix the growing problem.

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"?

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."