Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting

[Walter Mitty]

No, I didnt. Really.


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 ...

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?

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 ....

 

[Walter Mitty]

Yes, you did. Really.


Idiot.

You've got me there.

Idiot.

I stand corrected.

 

[Shawk]

You've got me there.


I stand corrected.

It's the incisiveness of some folks arguments that make you realise you
just can't beat them isn't it?

 

[Allan C Cybulskie]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Allan C Cybulskie]

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.

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.

 

[Walter Mitty]

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.

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.


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.

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?

 

[Clay Cahill]

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

 

[John Lewis]

Yeah, and pass up that $US162 000 000 termination fee? Rocks for brains!
--

Nice since I already had ATi stock. Purely speculative of course.
Ati's fiasco with the X1800 series and their cover-up of their design
problems did not exactly convince me of their business honesty. This
deal will NOT be good for AMD (fortunately I sold all my AMD stock a
few months ago). Dilution of focus at a critical time. Note that Intel
is going in the opposite direction - rapidly divesting peripheral
businesses and associated staff to return to their fundamentals,
processors and chipsets.

John Lewis

 

[George Macdonald]

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.

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.

WHen has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.

Wow, three on a stick.

Clay

Oh look - a genuine, authorized Intel troller!