I dont see that nvidia is "finished"...

"Gamer" wrote in message
et
I own an ATI card, but if NVIDIA goes belly up over this it would bad
for consumers and gamers in general. I'm happy that I made the right
choice this time around with my 9700PRO--but we can only hope that
the .50 det drivers for the NVIDIA cards can make up for the
half-life2 performance gap somehow. In a few years or possibly less,
when we are all starting to crave something to replace our current
hardware, ATI's solutions will just be that much better(and cheaper)
if they feel like NVIDIA is right on their heels. So, if you own an
ATI card and are a half-life fan, breathe a sigh of relief but don't
forget that competition in this market is what is best for GAMERS
over the long haul.

-G

Yep! Now you're someone that's talking a little good sense.
Seriously.
I own a couple more ATI vid cards than I do Nvidia. I have one old
Matrox.
I've known for many years that for US to get something really good, the
video card makers have to have some serious competition in the market.
You can't have that if there is only one major maker of 3D video cards.
My first video card, ever, is an ATI. So are my second, third, sixth,
ninth, tenth and fourteenth AND, very likely, the sixteenth
Yeah, I been doing this a long time now.
Let the GAMES makers dictate what we need

--
McGrandpa [AGQx]
-

"methylenedioxy" wrote in
message
"Gamer" wrote in message
et...
I own an ATI card, but if NVIDIA goes belly up over this it would
bad for consumers and gamers in general. I'm happy that I made the
right choice this time around with my 9700PRO--but we can only hope
that the .50 det drivers for the NVIDIA cards can make up for the
half-life2 performance gap somehow. In a few years or possibly less,
when we are all starting to crave something to replace our current
hardware, ATI's solutions will just be that much better(and cheaper)
if they feel like NVIDIA is right on their heels. So, if you own an
ATI card and are a half-life fan, breathe a sigh of relief but don't
forget that competition in this market is what is best for GAMERS
over the long haul.

-G

That argument is ********. If there was only Ati cards then Ati would
be cheaper anyway, more people buying them then.....Supply and demand.

Yep, there is that. However, ATI didn't really step up to the batters
plate in the 3D market until they felt there was a real market there.
ATI has much more going for it than just us gamers. They are now going
after the game players market aggressively. This means not so much
lower prices, but better features and performance. Have no fear, they
have a serious competitor. The majority of THEIR sales IS the gamers
Nvidia will do something. The hardware is better than the scores
indicate. Drivers and BIOS updates can eliminate this snag. The
hardware is there, for both ATI's and Nvidias offerings.
So who's gonna win the game? Well, WE are, actually !!!

--
McGrandpa [AGQx]
-

"jaeger" wrote in message

In article ,
says...

That argument is ********. If there was only Ati cards then Ati
would be cheaper anyway, more people buying them then.....Supply and
demand.

Ah, better go back to Economics 101. If only ATI made cards they
could charge anything they wanted and consumers would have no choice
but to
pay it. The rules of supply and demand don't apply to monopolies.

I've been there and seen that in \real life. With ATI in fact.

With serious competition, the rules are different. We see a pricepoint
that's something we have been known to bear. We are constantly getting
more features and better performance for about the same dollar. For the
last three years. I *like* this! WE benefit. It really is sweet,
isn't it?

--
McGrandpa [AGQx]
-

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 18:57:14 +0100, "methylenedioxy"
wrote:


That argument is ********. If there was only Ati cards then Ati would be
cheaper anyway, more people buying them then.....Supply and demand.

Hruum? Competition good. Some brilliant minds on the hardware
groups. Looks like you skipped too many econ 101 classes while holed
up in your dorm playing Quake.

jw

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:48:49 GMT, "McGrandpa"
wrote:

I've been there and seen that in \real life. With ATI in fact.

With serious competition, the rules are different. We see a pricepoint
that's something we have been known to bear. We are constantly getting
more features and better performance for about the same dollar. For the
last three years. I *like* this! WE benefit. It really is sweet,
isn't it?


Case in point -- Intel is holding back the P5 until AMD gets the
Athlon 64 in gear. AMDs slowness allows Intel to milk the P4 for a
while.

jw

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 18:57:14 +0100, "methylenedioxy"
wrote:
That argument is ********. If there was only Ati cards then Ati
would be cheaper anyway, more people buying them then.....Supply and
demand.

Thats not a good argument.

Competition drives down prices and increases quality.

Your supply and demand argument is only really relevent if everything else
remains constant. Which clearly it wouldn't if you remove the only other
real chip manufacturer.

If monopolies were good, there monopolies and mergers commission would be
actively encouraging them, rather than attempting to make sure that
monopolies and mergers do not adversely affect consumers.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

"ELVIS2000" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:48:49 GMT, "McGrandpa"
wrote:

I've been there and seen that in \real life. With ATI in fact.

With serious competition, the rules are different. We see a
pricepoint that's something we have been known to bear. We are
constantly getting more features and better performance for about
the same dollar. For the last three years. I *like* this! WE
benefit. It really is sweet, isn't it?


Case in point -- Intel is holding back the P5 until AMD gets the
Athlon 64 in gear. AMDs slowness allows Intel to milk the P4 for a
while.

jw

Ah, but that could allow for a few auxillary issues to occur that would
work to all our advantage? Our budgets for instance Two new types
of processors needing new mobos and new ram are going to hit a lot of us
pretty hard. But this isn't the first time that the hardware has run on
ahead of me. It also gives everyone opportunity to check and recheck
their work. Hopefully fewer glitches and bugs in their processes. And
yeah, it allows Intel the ability to eliminate any excess stock of the
P4 and also the more they run any part specific machinery, the more they
spread the operating costs.
Yeah, they're milking the P4 for more money Show me the business
that won't do it if they have any respite in the market?
ATI and Nvidia are a little bit different I think. Still, same rules
apply I guess.
McG.

"Ben Pope" wrote in message

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 18:57:14 +0100, "methylenedioxy"
wrote:
That argument is ********. If there was only Ati cards then Ati
would be cheaper anyway, more people buying them then.....Supply and
demand.

Thats not a good argument.

Competition drives down prices and increases quality.

Your supply and demand argument is only really relevent if everything
else remains constant. Which clearly it wouldn't if you remove the
only other real chip manufacturer.

If monopolies were good, there monopolies and mergers commission
would be actively encouraging them, rather than attempting to make
sure that monopolies and mergers do not adversely affect consumers.

Ben

If monopolies were good, why did AT&T get broken up? Why did M$ spend
years in court fighting anti-trust suits? I don't think it was because
they were being so benevolent to us Just another way to say you're
right Ben.
McG.