Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting

shegeek72 wrote:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

.NET hast exactly _zero_ to do with anything on the arrangement of your
desktop. The only thing that .NET 1.1 causes is that you are required to
logon even if you have setup autologon before since it adds an user
entry. Takes 30s at best to deactivate this user...

Then it screwing up my logon and desktop was my imagination? Yeah,
right.

Maybe you should get facts straight before posting because this is
completely BS. .NET is being used in lots of programs, and the number of
programs that use .NET ist increasing...

Not on my system and I have all the programs I want.

Yeah, speaking of security risks and at the same time providing a
tinyurl link where no-one knows what's behind is strange at best...

Try checking it out. Don't worry. Your computer won't be harmed.

I got a certificate mismatch. In any case I can't see how the issuance of a
patch for an obsolete version indicated any kind of unusual security risk.
If you think that that is a problem then you should not be using Windows at
all.

So in short: you have no clue what .NET really is...

I know I don't want it on my system. Do you work for Microsquash?

If you hate them so much then why are you using their software?

SG
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is intelligence has
its limits.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Walter Mitty wrote:

writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

Like the rest of the OS. .net is nothing special in this regard.

2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours customizing
(Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to normal)

Did it? How?

3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received the
widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

Hardly obsolete though.

4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

As can all web services.

5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

There obviously is or you wouldnt need it. The question is more why the
hell it *is* needed? Are you sure its not just needed for the
installation? I dont recall it being needed to ftp the driver down ...

It's not needed to download. It's needed to run the new control panel. The
reason, most likely, is that ATI just upgraded their compilers and took the
defaults without thinking about what they were doing and hasn't seen fit to
configure defaults that don't link the .NET libraries.

My impression is that the inmates are running the asylum.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

EDM wrote:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message
...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message
...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message
...
writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

Like the rest of the OS. .net is nothing special in this regard.

2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours
customizing (Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to
normal)

Did it? How?

3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received
the widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

Hardly obsolete though.

4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

As can all web services.

5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

There obviously is or you wouldnt need it. The question is more why
the hell it *is* needed? Are you sure its not just needed for the
installation? I dont recall it being needed to ftp the driver down
...

In Win2K/XP, .NET is never "needed", except for developers
(e.g. ATI) who're too incompetent, lazy or both to write their
own full drivers.

So its there to facilitate development of drivers? Well, theres the
point. Why is it "lazy" to use the OS services that MS provide? Is it
also lazy to us Direct X API?

That's a ridiculous analogy. Without DX users would lose
the ability to use most any modern sound app, play most
any modern game, and several thousand other applications.
What functionality does .NET provide for a video driver?

Integrataion support. Easy.

Is like asking why people bothered with COM.

I'm still trying to understand what point you're making.
There are very good reasons why no one except MS
bothered with COM, and the same is true for .NET.

Funny, I seem to have quite a lot of software that supports COM that die not
come from Microsoft.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

George Macdonald wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:33:11 -0700, Clay Cahill
wrote:

On 24 Jul 2006 18:27:14 -0700, "GrispernMix"
wrote:

I just want to know, does this mean I will have to go with intel to
keep using nvidia?

--
Actually i think it means you will have to stay with amd to keep ati,
you gotta get amd, and vice versa with intel,

Nope. NOt so far. AMD has made a point to say that they wouldn't do
anything to cause their products problems (like make crossfire not
work on Intel chipsets)

I think its going to be monumental move, if at least intel merges with
nvidia, and then it will be a battle of the titans,

Never happen (IMO). Intel has no need for chipset design & foundry
(which is what AMD's move was partly motivated by) & NVidia now sees a
clear playing field for the super lucrative high end market that they
already excel in.

AMD needs chipset design and foundry... from ATI?? Where did you pull
that
from? First AMD knows how to do chipsets -- uhh, they've done it -- and
Ruiz has already stated "there are no plans in the near future to combine
the manufacturing of AMD and ATI chips into an integrated foundry".

AMD has produced chipsets in the past that were uniformly dogs, which is why
they finally gave up.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

Like the rest of the OS. .net is nothing special in this regard.

2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours customizing
(Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to normal)

Did it? How?

3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received the
widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

Hardly obsolete though.

4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

As can all web services.

5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

There obviously is or you wouldnt need it. The question is more why the
hell it *is* needed? Are you sure its not just needed for the
installation? I dont recall it being needed to ftp the driver down ...

In Win2K/XP, .NET is never "needed", except for developers
(e.g. ATI) who're too incompetent, lazy or both to write their
own full drivers.

So its there to facilitate development of drivers? Well, theres the
point. Why is it "lazy" to use the OS services that MS provide? Is it
also lazy to us Direct X API?

That's a ridiculous analogy. Without DX users would lose
the ability to use most any modern sound app, play most
any modern game, and several thousand other applications.
What functionality does .NET provide for a video driver?

Integrataion support. Easy.

Is like asking why people bothered with COM.

I'm still trying to understand what point you're making.
There are very good reasons why no one except MS
bothered with COM, and the same is true for .NET.

They are/were MS proprietary designed to give them the edge. For some
reason they insisted on reinventing the wheel. Interface layers were
produced for other OSs to talk via COM or even .net.

Thousands of 3 rd party apps use both.

I dont understand your angle here.

ATIs developers made use of the .net framework to simplify their driver
intregration. Its what its for. This idea that they are just "lazy" is
complete bull****. They saved unnecessary time and effort : there is a
HUGE difference.

Now *that* is some serious bull****. You're claiming MS
hasn't spent 10x as much time and money dealing with COM's
problems as they've gained in business because of it? COM

Err no. Where did I claim that? Developing this stuff costs serious money.

was without question the biggest white elephant in MS history.

Active X certainly was.

And you're claiming junking up people's computers with a
bloated, resource sucking piece of garbage for no added
functionality whatsoever qualifies as "necessary" for ATI?
That's nothing short of astonishing.

There is added functionality : it eases integration of other apps. What
point do you refuse to recognise? Why do you think ATI used it?

"J. Clarke" writes:

Walter Mitty wrote:

writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

Like the rest of the OS. .net is nothing special in this regard.

2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours customizing
(Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to normal)

Did it? How?

3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received the
widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

Hardly obsolete though.

4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

As can all web services.

5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

There obviously is or you wouldnt need it. The question is more why the
hell it *is* needed? Are you sure its not just needed for the
installation? I dont recall it being needed to ftp the driver down ...

It's not needed to download. It's needed to run the new control panel. The
reason, most likely, is that ATI just upgraded their compilers and
took the

I know it isnt. It was a rehetorical question to hilite the previous
bull****. And the control panel *isnt* needed.

defaults without thinking about what they were doing and hasn't seen fit to
configure defaults that don't link the .NET libraries.

My impression is that the inmates are running the asylum.

"J. Clarke" writes:

EDM wrote:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message
...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message
...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message
...
writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

Like the rest of the OS. .net is nothing special in this regard.

2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours
customizing (Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to
normal)

Did it? How?

3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received
the widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

Hardly obsolete though.

4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

As can all web services.

5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

There obviously is or you wouldnt need it. The question is more why
the hell it *is* needed? Are you sure its not just needed for the
installation? I dont recall it being needed to ftp the driver down
...

In Win2K/XP, .NET is never "needed", except for developers
(e.g. ATI) who're too incompetent, lazy or both to write their
own full drivers.

So its there to facilitate development of drivers? Well, theres the
point. Why is it "lazy" to use the OS services that MS provide? Is it
also lazy to us Direct X API?

That's a ridiculous analogy. Without DX users would lose
the ability to use most any modern sound app, play most
any modern game, and several thousand other applications.
What functionality does .NET provide for a video driver?

Integrataion support. Easy.

Is like asking why people bothered with COM.

I'm still trying to understand what point you're making.
There are very good reasons why no one except MS
bothered with COM, and the same is true for .NET.

Funny, I seem to have quite a lot of software that supports COM that die not
come from Microsoft.

And loads of the distributed stuff with COM previous known as DCOM. He's
talking though his hole : pure & simple. There even exist COM-CORBA
gateways to interface MS crap with big distributed systems.

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

Like the rest of the OS. .net is nothing special in this regard.

2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours customizing
(Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to normal)

Did it? How?

3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received the
widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

Hardly obsolete though.

4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

As can all web services.

5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

There obviously is or you wouldnt need it. The question is more why the
hell it *is* needed? Are you sure its not just needed for the
installation? I dont recall it being needed to ftp the driver down ...

In Win2K/XP, .NET is never "needed", except for developers
(e.g. ATI) who're too incompetent, lazy or both to write their
own full drivers.

So its there to facilitate development of drivers? Well, theres the
point. Why is it "lazy" to use the OS services that MS provide? Is it
also lazy to us Direct X API?

That's a ridiculous analogy. Without DX users would lose
the ability to use most any modern sound app, play most
any modern game, and several thousand other applications.
What functionality does .NET provide for a video driver?

Integrataion support. Easy.

Is like asking why people bothered with COM.

I'm still trying to understand what point you're making.
There are very good reasons why no one except MS
bothered with COM, and the same is true for .NET.

They are/were MS proprietary designed to give them the edge. For some
reason they insisted on reinventing the wheel. Interface layers were
produced for other OSs to talk via COM or even .net.

Thousands of 3 rd party apps use both.

I dont understand your angle here.

ATIs developers made use of the .net framework to simplify their driver
intregration. Its what its for. This idea that they are just "lazy" is
complete bull****. They saved unnecessary time and effort : there is a
HUGE difference.

Now *that* is some serious bull****. You're claiming MS
hasn't spent 10x as much time and money dealing with COM's
problems as they've gained in business because of it? COM

Err no. Where did I claim that? Developing this stuff costs serious money.

was without question the biggest white elephant in MS history.

Active X certainly was.

ActiveX was not the biggest. Not by a longshot. Do we need
to start talking about MS-Blaster/port 135 exploits etc etc etc?
COM singlehandedly and permanently infected most of the
world's computer networks, including those of most major
ISPs around the globe.

And you're claiming junking up people's computers with a
bloated, resource sucking piece of garbage for no added
functionality whatsoever qualifies as "necessary" for ATI?
That's nothing short of astonishing.

There is added functionality : it eases integration of other apps. What
point do you refuse to recognise? Why do you think ATI used it?

I know ATI's claimed reasoning for using it, and I also know
why they used it. They can't write a decent Windows driver
to save their freaking lives. They haven't been able to for 15+
years. They won't even attempt a *nix driver. And they're
doing everything they can to suck Ballmer's dick as hard as
they can. If that includes trashing their own customers' XP
and 2K installations, tough luck.

"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

Like the rest of the OS. .net is nothing special in this regard.

2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours customizing
(Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to normal)

Did it? How?

3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received the
widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

Hardly obsolete though.

4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

As can all web services.

5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

There obviously is or you wouldnt need it. The question is more why the
hell it *is* needed? Are you sure its not just needed for the
installation? I dont recall it being needed to ftp the driver down ...

In Win2K/XP, .NET is never "needed", except for developers
(e.g. ATI) who're too incompetent, lazy or both to write their
own full drivers.

So its there to facilitate development of drivers? Well, theres the
point. Why is it "lazy" to use the OS services that MS provide? Is it
also lazy to us Direct X API?

That's a ridiculous analogy. Without DX users would lose
the ability to use most any modern sound app, play most
any modern game, and several thousand other applications.
What functionality does .NET provide for a video driver?

Integrataion support. Easy.

Is like asking why people bothered with COM.

I'm still trying to understand what point you're making.
There are very good reasons why no one except MS
bothered with COM, and the same is true for .NET.

They are/were MS proprietary designed to give them the edge. For some
reason they insisted on reinventing the wheel. Interface layers were
produced for other OSs to talk via COM or even .net.

Thousands of 3 rd party apps use both.

I dont understand your angle here.

ATIs developers made use of the .net framework to simplify their driver
intregration. Its what its for. This idea that they are just "lazy" is
complete bull****. They saved unnecessary time and effort : there is a
HUGE difference.

Now *that* is some serious bull****. You're claiming MS
hasn't spent 10x as much time and money dealing with COM's
problems as they've gained in business because of it? COM

Err no. Where did I claim that? Developing this stuff costs serious money.

was without question the biggest white elephant in MS history.

Active X certainly was.

ActiveX was not the biggest. Not by a longshot. Do we need
to start talking about MS-Blaster/port 135 exploits etc etc etc?
COM singlehandedly and permanently infected most of the
world's computer networks, including those of most major
ISPs around the globe.

I must admit that this *is* news to me. I have no doubts as to the
weaknesses of (any) services between networks/peers, but to deny that
COM serves a purpose is plain wrong.


And you're claiming junking up people's computers with a
bloated, resource sucking piece of garbage for no added
functionality whatsoever qualifies as "necessary" for ATI?
That's nothing short of astonishing.

There is added functionality : it eases integration of other apps. What
point do you refuse to recognise? Why do you think ATI used it?

I know ATI's claimed reasoning for using it, and I also know

*claimed* eh? Do tell more.

why they used it. They can't write a decent Windows driver
to save their freaking lives. They haven't been able to for 15+

They never used to be able to : who will ever forget Derek Smart and ATI.

years. They won't even attempt a *nix driver. And they're

They have rapidly improving Linux drivers. Even if I cant get HW
acceleration working. Unix? I dont know about that.

doing everything they can to suck Ballmer's dick as hard as
they can. If that includes trashing their own customers' XP
and 2K installations, tough luck.

I have an ATI card (X800pro) and it works great. What did they do to
make you hate them so? Steal your toys?

Walter Mitty wrote:

"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message
...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message
...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message
...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message
...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message
...
writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

Like the rest of the OS. .net is nothing special in this
regard.

2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours
customizing (Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned
things to normal)

Did it? How?

3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't
received the widespread acceptance and usage that MS
wanted.

Hardly obsolete though.

4. It can be a security risk. See:
http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

As can all web services.

5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

There obviously is or you wouldnt need it. The question is
more why the hell it *is* needed? Are you sure its not just
needed for the installation? I dont recall it being needed
to ftp the driver down ...

In Win2K/XP, .NET is never "needed", except for developers
(e.g. ATI) who're too incompetent, lazy or both to write
their own full drivers.

So its there to facilitate development of drivers? Well, theres
the point. Why is it "lazy" to use the OS services that MS
provide? Is it also lazy to us Direct X API?

That's a ridiculous analogy. Without DX users would lose
the ability to use most any modern sound app, play most
any modern game, and several thousand other applications.
What functionality does .NET provide for a video driver?

Integrataion support. Easy.

Is like asking why people bothered with COM.

I'm still trying to understand what point you're making.
There are very good reasons why no one except MS
bothered with COM, and the same is true for .NET.

They are/were MS proprietary designed to give them the edge. For some
reason they insisted on reinventing the wheel. Interface layers were
produced for other OSs to talk via COM or even .net.

Thousands of 3 rd party apps use both.

I dont understand your angle here.

ATIs developers made use of the .net framework to simplify their
driver intregration. Its what its for. This idea that they are just
"lazy" is complete bull****. They saved unnecessary time and effort :
there is a HUGE difference.

Now *that* is some serious bull****. You're claiming MS
hasn't spent 10x as much time and money dealing with COM's
problems as they've gained in business because of it? COM

Err no. Where did I claim that? Developing this stuff costs serious
money.

was without question the biggest white elephant in MS history.

Active X certainly was.

ActiveX was not the biggest. Not by a longshot. Do we need
to start talking about MS-Blaster/port 135 exploits etc etc etc?
COM singlehandedly and permanently infected most of the
world's computer networks, including those of most major
ISPs around the globe.

I must admit that this *is* news to me. I have no doubts as to the
weaknesses of (any) services between networks/peers, but to deny that
COM serves a purpose is plain wrong.


And you're claiming junking up people's computers with a
bloated, resource sucking piece of garbage for no added
functionality whatsoever qualifies as "necessary" for ATI?
That's nothing short of astonishing.

There is added functionality : it eases integration of other apps. What
point do you refuse to recognise? Why do you think ATI used it?

I know ATI's claimed reasoning for using it, and I also know

*claimed* eh? Do tell more.

why they used it. They can't write a decent Windows driver
to save their freaking lives. They haven't been able to for 15+

They never used to be able to : who will ever forget Derek Smart and ATI.

years. They won't even attempt a *nix driver. And they're

They have rapidly improving Linux drivers. Even if I cant get HW
acceleration working. Unix? I dont know about that.

doing everything they can to suck Ballmer's dick as hard as
they can. If that includes trashing their own customers' XP
and 2K installations, tough luck.

I have an ATI card (X800pro) and it works great. What did they do to
make you hate them so? Steal your toys?

Maybe they fired him for having a bad attitude?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)