If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
"Allan C Cybulskie" writes:
Walter Mitty wrote: "Allan C Cybulskie" writes: .NET is basically a shared library to facilitate application development. And to suggest that application writers should bypass its features and do it all themsleves is (a) incredibly stupid and (b) leads to *even more* bloatware sicne each app would be re-inventing the wheel. Well, let me challenge (a): it might not be incredibly stupid. Whether it is or not depends on how flexible .NET is (how hard is it to massage .NET to doing something that you want to do that is not necessarily standard) and how good .NET is. If .NET is inflexible and buggy, then it is not stupid to bypass it and is instead SMART to bypass it. It's all in knowing what it can do and what you want to do. All SW is buggy to a degree. True enough. But if someone else's libraries are known to be especially buggy -- and I'm not saying .NET IS, BTW -- it might make sense to create your own because if there are bugs in your own code, it is easy for you to change it. It's not that simple when it's the code of another company, as they fix it when they get around to it, which screws over your customers in the meantime. Bleeding obvious. But it does work. We can all pontificate about things in general. THe OP made an unsubstantiated link between a desktop corruption and .NET. Well, from what he saw -- if accurate -- he has good reason to think that there might be a link there. He could, of course, be wrong but so could those who say that .NET just couldn't possibly do anything in any situation to produce that behaviour. Its not that bit thats the issue its the whole "microshaft" crap, and spouting on about .net & com being "dead" etc and accusing ATI of being "lazy". Yawn. As I said earlier, as a designer I've learned that sometimes side effects of what you intended to do can be really, really odd [grin]. As in all things. Millions of people use .net. It is not obsolete. ATI had a reason to use it. The programmers are not "lazy" to use it. And .NET is there to give flexibility and ease application development. It is part of windows. It is not evil. It is there for a reason. The OP should live with it and shut up spouting nonsense. I never supported any of these claims, so this is all irrelevant to what I, personally, challenged in your posts. And the OP has decided to not use .NET since currently he can avoid programs that use it. So Sure he has. it seems like he's living with it as well as you are, since you seem to constantly want to defend it as being GOOD. I don't think you have any Good? I said shared libraries that make application development are a good thing : and dont mistake it for "unnecessary bloatware". more support for that claim than he does that it's bad (and the number of people using it is not sufficient support; they may simply not have the resources to avoid using it). Or the windows kernel. -- Getting your moral direction from politicians is like getting health tips from Keith Richards. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
"Allan C Cybulskie" writes:
Walter Mitty wrote: "Allan C Cybulskie" writes: Walter Mitty wrote: "Allan C Cybulskie" writes: Walter Mitty wrote: You see, it didnt take long. This is nothing more than yet another rabid anti-ms idiot that hates Bill Gates yet is quite happy to use his OS and play games. Ive never understood this people. Dont like it? Dont use it. Why do people use it? Because they want to play PC games and despite its annoyances it's the easiest and most certain way to guarantee that you can play any PC game. Your comment here is like saying that you don't understand people who claim to hate work and yet are happy to work their 40 hours a week and get their paycheque at the end of the week. If they don't like work, they should just not do it. Unfortunately, the end result -- money, in that case -- outweighs the annoyance of working. But they can still want things to be better. The same thing applies here. It's clear to me that Windows is generally an inferior and annoying OS, but since it's the easiest way to guarantee that I can play all PC games I'm willing to use it. If the other alternatives were so good, how come no one uses them? Personally I do. But you missed my point really. See the other post. No, you missed mine. No, I didnt. Really. You and Ben are implying that gamers could choose not to use Windows if No : that anyone, not just gamers. I'm assuming that you realize that "anyone" includes the subgroup "gamers", right? Thus, that's the claim you guys implicitly make ... we wanted to. My point is that since most games are WRITTEN for Windows that choice is not as practical as you and he imply. No one said it was practical. I never said that you SAID it ... I was VERY careful to use term "imply" [grin]. Your argument is that he should just say "No" to Windows if he doesn't like it. That implies that he could, practically, do so. Well, he Not it doesnt. This is getting boring. Inserting "Imply" doesnt make it ok to misquote. can't; to do so would mean he'd have to give up playing PC games. The fact that he'd like to play PC games does not mean that he has to thus avoid saying anythng bad about Windows or saying that he doesn't like it. He wouldn't use it if not using it was practical, but it isn't. So he has to use it, but that does not mean that he does or has to like it. Why are you defending this fanboyism? "microshaft" etc etc? He has no idea what .net does, told lies about its penetration and accused ATI of being lazy idiots. Is this ok by you? me? Personally I think MS OSs are rather bloated and ugly and have indeed moved to Linux for everything but games. But thats not to say I dont see the advantages of windows in certain cases. There's no real evidence that he doesn't either. He just dislikes some of the bad things about it like .NET -- in his opinion. His opinion does not need to be yours. YOu dont say? But opinions should be based on facts. And he presented untruths and half truths. BTW, I know we are all entitled to our own opinion. We really dont need your winderful insight on that one .... |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
dizzy writes:
Walter Mitty wrote: "Allan C Cybulskie" writes: No, you missed mine. No, I didnt. Really. Yes, you did. Really. You and Ben are implying that gamers could choose not to use Windows if No : that anyone, not just gamers. Idiot. You've got me there. we wanted to. My point is that since most games are WRITTEN for Windows that choice is not as practical as you and he imply. No one said it was practical. I said that if he doesnt want to put with the OS as it is then dont use it. Practical? mabye not. But it is the OS, it is the OS for games so either use it or not. If "microshaft" are such bollexes and .net is "such crap" etc etc etc then make a statement and dont use it. Simple. But yes, if you choose not to use it then you lose your gaming abiity (well, cedega does run dc games on linux). Idiot. I stand corrected. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
Walter Mitty wrote:
dizzy writes: Walter Mitty wrote: "Allan C Cybulskie" writes: No, you missed mine. No, I didnt. Really. Yes, you did. Really. You and Ben are implying that gamers could choose not to use Windows if No : that anyone, not just gamers. Idiot. You've got me there. we wanted to. My point is that since most games are WRITTEN for Windows that choice is not as practical as you and he imply. No one said it was practical. I said that if he doesnt want to put with the OS as it is then dont use it. Practical? mabye not. But it is the OS, it is the OS for games so either use it or not. If "microshaft" are such bollexes and .net is "such crap" etc etc etc then make a statement and dont use it. Simple. But yes, if you choose not to use it then you lose your gaming abiity (well, cedega does run dc games on linux). Idiot. I stand corrected. It's the incisiveness of some folks arguments that make you realise you just can't beat them isn't it? |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
Walter Mitty wrote: "Allan C Cybulskie" writes: Walter Mitty wrote: "Allan C Cybulskie" writes: .NET is basically a shared library to facilitate application development. And to suggest that application writers should bypass its features and do it all themsleves is (a) incredibly stupid and (b) leads to *even more* bloatware sicne each app would be re-inventing the wheel. Well, let me challenge (a): it might not be incredibly stupid. Whether it is or not depends on how flexible .NET is (how hard is it to massage .NET to doing something that you want to do that is not necessarily standard) and how good .NET is. If .NET is inflexible and buggy, then it is not stupid to bypass it and is instead SMART to bypass it. It's all in knowing what it can do and what you want to do. All SW is buggy to a degree. True enough. But if someone else's libraries are known to be especially buggy -- and I'm not saying .NET IS, BTW -- it might make sense to create your own because if there are bugs in your own code, it is easy for you to change it. It's not that simple when it's the code of another company, as they fix it when they get around to it, which screws over your customers in the meantime. Bleeding obvious. But it does work. We can all pontificate about things in general. Well, do you program in it? Do you know all the bugs that might be in it? Do you know how easy is it to use? The more important consideration in whether or not to use .NET as a designer, BTW, is how likely you are to be doing something different from the norm and how easy it is to massage .NET to do what you want it to do. If it's too hard and you do that a lot, then you write your own. THe OP made an unsubstantiated link between a desktop corruption and .NET. Well, from what he saw -- if accurate -- he has good reason to think that there might be a link there. He could, of course, be wrong but so could those who say that .NET just couldn't possibly do anything in any situation to produce that behaviour. Its not that bit thats the issue its the whole "microshaft" crap, and spouting on about .net & com being "dead" etc and accusing ATI of being "lazy". Yawn. Well, both you and Ben have commented repeatedly that his problems weren't/couldn't be caused by .NET, and that assumption is what I'm replying to. Your replies sound more like fanboyism -- it CAN'T be ..NET, even though it really looks like it is -- than his comments were (not that I'm accusing you OF that, BTW). The other comments I have no concern with and care nothing about. it seems like he's living with it as well as you are, since you seem to constantly want to defend it as being GOOD. I don't think you have any Good? I said shared libraries that make application development are a good thing : and dont mistake it for "unnecessary bloatware". Ah, but you are really saying that .NET is a good example of a shared library. Others may not share that opinion. Personally, I have no opinion. But I do think you don't know enough about it to say one way or the other it is a good example or not. You may correct me if I'm wrong. more support for that claim than he does that it's bad (and the number of people using it is not sufficient support; they may simply not have the resources to avoid using it). Or the windows kernel. You've proven my point. The fact that it's used does not make it good .... just that it's a lot harder to do anything if you don't. This doesn't mean, of course, that in certain cases it isn't better to work around it if possible. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
Walter Mitty wrote: "Allan C Cybulskie" writes: we wanted to. My point is that since most games are WRITTEN for Windows that choice is not as practical as you and he imply. No one said it was practical. I never said that you SAID it ... I was VERY careful to use term "imply" [grin]. Your argument is that he should just say "No" to Windows if he doesn't like it. That implies that he could, practically, do so. Well, he Not it doesnt. This is getting boring. Inserting "Imply" doesnt make it ok to misquote. Um, inserting "imply" means that I'm not quoting you or saying that you actually said that, and thus it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to misquote you. The proper reply if I get it wrong is to say that you didn't mean that, and then we go on from there. Not to accuse me of misquoting when I wasn't quoting [grin]. But if you don't imply that it is practical for him or anyone else to not use windows, then your ranting outrage seems utterly unreasonable and misplaced. Surely -- as I showed in my work example -- I can dislike and complain about something that I have no practical way to avoid. The question is if Windows is annoying enough to give up PC games entirely ... but anyone could still complain as vigorously if they decided that their enjoyment of PC games outweighs their annoyance at Windows. It would be more an indication of how much they like PC games than an indication of how annoying or not annoying Windows is. can't; to do so would mean he'd have to give up playing PC games. The fact that he'd like to play PC games does not mean that he has to thus avoid saying anythng bad about Windows or saying that he doesn't like it. He wouldn't use it if not using it was practical, but it isn't. So he has to use it, but that does not mean that he does or has to like it. Why are you defending this fanboyism? But I'm not defending his fanboyism. I'm simply claiming that someone who dislikes Windows as much as he does is not being inconsistent to still use it, since they may have no practical choice not to. And your comment -- and i COULD quote that -- was all about them either not complaining or stop using it. "microshaft" etc etc? He has no idea what .net does, told lies about its penetration and accused ATI of being lazy idiots. Is this ok by you? This reply is like if in a discussion about the Iraq war someone said "All Americans are rednecks", and then if I came in and opposed that comment accusing me of supporting the Iraq war. I'm simply disagreeing with two specific points you and Ben made that I thought were excessive, nothing more. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
"Allan C Cybulskie" writes:
Walter Mitty wrote: "Allan C Cybulskie" writes: Walter Mitty wrote: "Allan C Cybulskie" writes: .NET is basically a shared library to facilitate application development. And to suggest that application writers should bypass its features and do it all themsleves is (a) incredibly stupid and (b) leads to *even more* bloatware sicne each app would be re-inventing the wheel. Well, let me challenge (a): it might not be incredibly stupid. Whether it is or not depends on how flexible .NET is (how hard is it to massage .NET to doing something that you want to do that is not necessarily standard) and how good .NET is. If .NET is inflexible and buggy, then it is not stupid to bypass it and is instead SMART to bypass it. It's all in knowing what it can do and what you want to do. All SW is buggy to a degree. True enough. But if someone else's libraries are known to be especially buggy -- and I'm not saying .NET IS, BTW -- it might make sense to create your own because if there are bugs in your own code, it is easy for you to change it. It's not that simple when it's the code of another company, as they fix it when they get around to it, which screws over your customers in the meantime. Bleeding obvious. But it does work. We can all pontificate about things in general. Well, do you program in it? Do you know all the bugs that might be in it? Do you know how easy is it to use? The more important consideration in whether or not to use .NET as a designer, BTW, is how likely you are to be doing something different from the norm and how easy it is to massage .NET to do what you want it to do. If it's too hard and you do that a lot, then you write your own. As a designer, thats what everyon does. Its called design. But builders dont make their own bricks normally. THe OP made an unsubstantiated link between a desktop corruption and .NET. Well, from what he saw -- if accurate -- he has good reason to think that there might be a link there. He could, of course, be wrong but so could those who say that .NET just couldn't possibly do anything in any situation to produce that behaviour. Its not that bit thats the issue its the whole "microshaft" crap, and spouting on about .net & com being "dead" etc and accusing ATI of being "lazy". Yawn. Well, both you and Ben have commented repeatedly that his problems weren't/couldn't be caused by .NET, and that assumption is what I'm No I didnt : I said he made unsubstantiated claims. But I have .net. So do millions of others. No desktop issues at all. Thats not to say he didnt have a problem because of it - but from that to "it sux" etc is a big leap IMO. replying to. Your replies sound more like fanboyism -- it CAN'T be .NET, even though it really looks like it is -- than his comments were I never said it cant be .net (not that I'm accusing you OF that, BTW). The other comments I have no concern with and care nothing about. it seems like he's living with it as well as you are, since you seem to constantly want to defend it as being GOOD. I don't think you have any Good? I said shared libraries that make application development are a good thing : and dont mistake it for "unnecessary bloatware". Ah, but you are really saying that .NET is a good example of a shared library. Others may not share that opinion. Personally, I have no opinion. But I do think you don't know enough about it to say one way or the other it is a good example or not. You may correct me if I'm wrong. I correct you. Its not perfect but it is there for a reason. And its used a lot. use google. more support for that claim than he does that it's bad (and the number of people using it is not sufficient support; they may simply not have the resources to avoid using it). Or the windows kernel. You've proven my point. The fact that it's used does not make it good ... just that it's a lot harder to do anything if you don't. This exactly : I dont get your point. It eases some development. doesn't mean, of course, that in certain cases it isn't better to work around it if possible. Work around what? |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:36:49 -0400, George Macdonald
wrote: On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:33:11 -0700, Clay Cahill wrote: 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? Um... from ol' Hector himself (and a working knowledge of the industry... WHere did you get your condescension on subjects you are deficient in?). ATI's strong relationships with foudries = AMD getting in on those relationships (rather than the already in a shambles relationships they have) especially for non-proc products. First AMD knows how to do chipsets -- uhh, they've done it -- and Yeah, poorly. THat's why they don't now... and maybe why they picked up someone with a good trackrecord of supporting their own products... 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". WHen has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote. Wow, three on a stick. Clay -- Standard Disclaimer: My Employer gives my internet access, but I don't speak for them... So blame me for saying something dumb, not them. Clay Cahill 2006 Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength. Eric Hoffer |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:02:07 -0700, Clay Cahill
wrote: On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:36:49 -0400, George Macdonald wrote: On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:33:11 -0700, Clay Cahill wrote: 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? Um... from ol' Hector himself (and a working knowledge of the industry... WHere did you get your condescension on subjects you are deficient in?). ATI's strong relationships with foudries = AMD getting in on those relationships (rather than the already in a shambles relationships they have) especially for non-proc products. The only thing "deficient" here is your out of date info... and the notion that AMD needs "relationships" with (more) foundries. You *could* at least try to pay attention. First AMD knows how to do chipsets -- uhh, they've done it -- and Yeah, poorly. THat's why they don't now... and maybe why they picked up someone with a good trackrecord of supporting their own products... Hmmm, somebody else with the voice of inexperience. The part they incorporated into the CPU die certainly spanked you lot anyway. 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". WHen has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote. Wow, three on a stick. Clay -- Standard Disclaimer: My Employer gives my internet access, but I don't speak for them... So blame me for saying something dumb, not them. Oh look - a genuine, authorized Intel troller! -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting | AirRaid | General | 79 | August 3rd 06 02:15 AM |
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting | AirRaid Mach 2.5 | Intel | 0 | July 24th 06 11:55 PM |
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting | AirRaid Mach 2.5 | AMD x86-64 Processors | 0 | July 24th 06 11:55 PM |