A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Video Cards » Nvidia Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old July 29th 06, 05:58 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
Walter Mitty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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  
Old July 29th 06, 06:02 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
Walter Mitty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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  
Old July 29th 06, 06:28 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
Walter Mitty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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  
Old July 29th 06, 06:37 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
Shawk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default 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  
Old July 29th 06, 07:17 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
Allan C Cybulskie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old July 29th 06, 07:32 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
Allan C Cybulskie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old July 29th 06, 07:58 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
Walter Mitty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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  
Old July 31st 06, 11:02 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
Clay Cahill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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  
Old August 3rd 06, 02:15 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
George Macdonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 467
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.