Topic: advertising first, product second

[karx-elf-erx]

The AMD CPU is a crippled one, with less CPU cache. A 955 BE would be a good choice - you can insanely overclock these. One of my systems uses such a CPU @ 3.6 GHz w/o overvolting.

Excellent sounding machine. Bravo to you for staying clear of the Intel/Nvidia monopolising crooks. With those two it's always advertising first, product second.

You may (probably rightfully) dislike the behavior of these companies, but their products (currently) are very good. Your initial comment was very condensed and may therefore have been appearing too provocative. I am just learning myself though that comments made by IHateHackers shouldn't be taken too seriously.

[Matthew]

I am just learning myself though that comments made by IHateHackers shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I'm sorry for hurting your sensitive feelings, but can you keep it where it belongs?

[karx-elf-erx]

Are you trying to destroy this thread? Seriously?

[Matthew]

... I'm not even going to touch the irony of that.

I've made as good a point in this thread as anybody, I did it without a wall of text. Problem?

[karx-elf-erx]

I'm sorry for hurting your sensitive feelings, but can you keep it where it belongs?

[Crash]

Karx has summarised my stance perfectly. Now that may not have been clear from the start because it was only a passing comment and very brief. But I think that stance has become clear since then by what I subsequently said.

QUOTE::
---------
I have read all your posts and you have not presented a fact, it is your opinion that Intel is corrupt. It may or may not be a fact that Intel was sued by AMD. However, being sued does not make a company corrupt. Neither of which has anything to do with your original claim, which was that Intel and Nvidia are 'monopolizing crooks'.

Oh this is just pathetic. ... "It may or may not be a fact"? Really? ... and I don't think that denying an obvious causal link is really going to save the day for Intel either.

Perhaps then, you should go and take a look at what the case was about. The evidence that came out in court that Intel had engaged in ... yes! ... anti-competitive practices ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/05/breakfast-briefing
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2009/tc20091112_354928.htm

... and Intel are being investigated in the US for ... yes! ... anti-competitive practices by an independent body.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10416443-92.html
The fact is so well-known that I find your effective denial of it gobsmacking. It simply equates to burying one's head in the sand and going "Nah nah nah, I can't hear you!"

Anti-competitive operations on this scale and of the nature described are unethical, dirty, outrageous and more-to-the-point, illegal, so ..., all the things I said about Intel from the start.
So, you're right, it is my opinion, backed up by overwhelming legal and industry evidence that Intel is unscrupulous. It has nothing to do with the quality of many of their products as you seemed to originally interpret somehow although when Intel retards its own products to operate more slowly in conjunction with products of competitors, that certainly affects the quality of the product in the described situation.

That you fail to accept other common knowledge about Intel's dishonest attempts to squeeze competitors out of the market place by bullying its OEM 'customers' given your persistence in this discussion despite overwhelming evidence is, I find, remarkable.

Now, I'm not posting another thing on this issue until you come up with some counter-evidence or evidence of equivalent moral wrongdoing at either AMD or ATI. I'm not going to lose sleep over that happening because I know how unlikely it is.

At IHateHackers - I hate to inform you but at least one of those points was incorrect in the details. I'm not really sure how I see that as being as valuable a contribution as you might think.

[Matthew]

I'm sorry for hurting your sensitive feelings, but can you keep it where it belongs?

I can. Can you?

[Crash]

Lord, give me strength.

Yea though I walk through the childrens' play area of the shadow of death ...

[-<WillyP>-]

lol, you still don't get it, whatever.

[Scyphi]

Oh, for the love of...

C'mon, you four, must we really act like we're all five years old? None of you are making this forum very pleasant to visit at the moment.

Karx, IHateHackers, can't you two just move on from that? Stop trying to provoke each other into a fight, and even when one does, however intentionally or not, be man enough to LET IT SLIDE. Obviously, trying to continue that fight hasn't been getting either of you very far. At the very least agree that you hate each other and leave it at that. The rest of us don't need constant reminders.

WillyP, Crash, there's a lot I could say about this that I won't, but what I will say is that you've both made your points, you both made it clear you don't agree with each other, so let's just leave it at that, and get back to the original topic.

Which was Canceler's new computer.

[Matthew]

Wait, canceller is getting a new computer?

[karx-elf-erx]

Scyphi,

what would you do if nobody gave you an opportunity here to show how mature you are?


WillyP,

it has become very clear over the years that Intel is using illegal practices in a broad manner to damage their competition. I cannot understand your point either (unless you are working for Intel  ). If you'd dig into NVidia's history, you'd also understand that it was NVidia's marketing that e.g. ruined 3dfx years ago (I am not give proof or links here, you can easily find them if you want to).

I am still using Intel and NVidia products though, because right now they are faster than their AMD counterparts and I can afford them. I am also using AMD hardware in my Linux box though.

[Crash]

I think Scyphi is right though. I think the discussion has run its course and Karx makes his point to WillyP as well, calmly and succinctly as could be.

Just as an aside, though, I found an amazing thing out last night, where if you purchase an Nvidia discrete PhysX card and it detects an ATI graphics system ... The Nvidia PhysX refuses to work. It's not that the ATI and Nvidia systems are truly incompatible in any way because if you hack the PhysX drivers, they perform better with ATI cards than with Nvidia by all accounts. So the device has been purposefully made to coerce people into buying an Nvidia GPU once they've already purchased a PhysX card from them.

If found that remarkable and that situation is marked nowhere on the packaging. You just expect in this day and age for an ATI GPU to play ball with an Intel CPU, Nvidia with AMD etc etc. And that principle should extend to Nvidia and ATI cards of various types.

Having said that, anyone who buys a separate PhysX card has to be slightly deranged anyway because although you get better PhysX that way than with PhysX chips built onto the graphics cards (because of how the graphics cards are controlled by the processor) the list of PhysX-compatible titles is pretty short and actual GPU-based physics processing is not far around the corner, I don't think. For example, cancer research folding has been done in the GPU for years and years.

[Kaiaatzl]

Don't take this post the wrong way.  It's all constructive.

Anything from IHateHackers.

Could you please keep your thoughts to yourself?  You don't *need* to post every insulting comment that comes to mind.  You may think you have a right to defend yourself from Karx but you are always the one who starts attacking him without any provocation.  If one thing happened in one thread that made you angry, just let it go.  Trust me, that's more satisfying than attacking him -- because it's the one of thing that angry trolls the world over don't understand.  If you want to be better than them that's all you need to do.

You may not intend it, but trust me that the majority of us see you as an angry troll.  If you don't want to be seen that way it's *you* who has to change, not us.  And in the meantime you're ruining this board for the rest of us.

I am not attacking you, only informing you that whatever it is you think you're doing, you're only succeeding in showing yourself in a bad light to the rest of us.  I don't think this is your intent, and if it is... then you seriously need some psychological help.

[-<WillyP>-]

Ok, one more time.

My point had nothing to do with Intel or Nvidia or any other company, it was more directed to Crashes comment on IHateHackers comment.

Crash expressed his opinion on Intel and Nvidea:

...the Intel/Nvidia monopolising crooks. With those two it's always advertising first, product second.

Fine. Opinions are good, everybody should have one. At that point in time this is presented with no reference, or corroborating facts, therefore it is Crash's opinion.
IHateHackers presented two examples which he felt illustrated the opinion that other companies engage in 'advertising first, product second' tactics.

Excellent sounding machine. Bravo to you for staying clear of the Intel/Nvidia monopolising crooks. With those two it's always advertising first, product second.

Because buzzwords like "Eyefinity" and selling cards in a gun case is totally not advertising first...

At this point this is just casual conversation. Crash's next post went a little deeper, still, no problem but at the end of his post is this line:

Your examples seem a little ill-informed (or distorted) and ... perfunctory in comparison.

Which may be true, but so what?
'a little ill-informed (or distorted)' Are you saying there was not a such thing as Eyefinity or a card in a gun case?
'perfunctory in comparison' In comparison to what? I can only think, your comment. Your prior comment was so well thought out that no one should question it's veracity? At the point in time where IHateHackers made his comment, you presented no verifiable facts, no references or even a hint as to what would make 'Intel/Nvidia monopolising crooks'. Yes you have added some explanation and even some links which if I cared I suppose would support your claims. Whatever. My point really had nothing to do with that. My point is that you accused someone else of doing exactly the same as what you did.

Let's not blow this out of proportion, ok? It is not a life or death situation, we are all just expressing our opinions, which is good, but lets keep the tone light, and civil. If you want a fight, take it to the mines.

edit: split from the pc build thread.