Freesync monitors to start releasing in November

[Final8ty]

While it usually is the result of proprietary tech's, it does not have to be. This would fit perfectly into this definition.

Which the quote and none of the links back up your definition or your description.

Its a VESA standard, period.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The definition is called Nvidia does not support that feature and VESA standard, its that simple and the only party who can be blamed for that is Nvidia.

Intel doesnt have it on their roadmaps either. So who is to support this OPTIONAL feature of the VESA specification besides AMD? VIA?

You can try and call it something else, but if nobody else support it then it doesnt matter if its free, part of an optional specification or whatever. Its still a vendor lock from the consumers side because you can only use it with 1 company.

 

[bystander36]

Which the quote and none of the links back up your definition or your description.

Its a VESA standard, period.

Well, let me start by saying, we don't know for sure if Nvidia will support it or not, but it does fit perfectly:

Vendor lock-in is a situation in which a customer using a product or service cannot easily transition to a competitor’s product or service. Vendor lock-in is usually the result of proprietary technologies that are incompatible with those of competitors. However, it can also be caused by inefficient processes or contract constraints, among other things.

How can a consumer easily use A-sync on an Nvidia monitor if Nvidia does not support it? It doesn't matter who is to blame.

 

[Final8ty]

How can a consumer easily use A-sync on an Nvidia monitor if Nvidia does not support it? It doesn't matter who is to blame.

Because you are interpreting a proprietary and inefficient processes or contract constraints, among other things as meaning anything which it does not.

Which means you see doing something out of choice or being forced to do as one in the same because of the end results.

 

[bystander36]

Because you are interpreting a proprietary and inefficient processes or contract constraints, among other things as meaning anything which it does not.

But you are reading that the possible causes is what makes the definition. It is the first sentence that is the definition, followed by possible causes, and is worded as such.

Vendor lock-in is a situation in which a customer using a product or service cannot easily transition to a competitor’s product or service. Vendor lock-in is usually the result...

The definition says it all. If a customer using a product cannot easily transition to a competitor's product or service, it is vendor locked.

They follow it up with, "Vendor lock=in is usually the result..." That part just offers up examples of why it might happen, but that is not the definition.

 

[ocre]

Holy smokes!!!!
forget definitions, they must be ignored.

i mean.....what am i reading here?????
holy smokes....
lolol times a million

Its clear to anyone that is not so emotionally confused that it is inhibiting comprehension.

I cannot believe what is being debated right now

 

[Final8ty]

But you are reading that the possible causes is what makes the definition. It is the first sentence that is the definition, followed by possible causes, and is worded as such.



The definition says it all. If a customer using a product cannot easily transition to a competitor's product or service, it is vendor locked.

They follow it up with, "Vendor lock=in is usually the result..." That part just offers up examples of why it might happen, but that is not the definition.

Hence why VESA standard who is not a vendor.

 

[bystander36]

It's not exactly being debated. It is just a matter of stubborn person A attempting to help stubborn person B to understand a definition.

I guess I should just let him continue to be ignorant, or pretend to be ignorant, but this is a message board after all. We don't do that, or do we?

 

[bystander36]

Hence why VESA standard who is not a vender.

Are you seriously thinking that we are debating if VESA is vendor locked? We clearly have been talking about A-sync monitors being vendor locked to AMD.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Except for the fact that AMD has maintained that we won't see retail products until at least Q1 2015. They were very up front about its development cycle.

people aren't worried about whether or not AMD is going to meet any sort of deadline, they're worried whether or not what AMD is "promising" is worth anything in the first place because we know so little about it. I don't think anyone cares whether or not they have been honest about their development cycle, we're worried about whether or not they've been honest about the actual product

AMD can deliver Freesync on time, but if its not what they "promised", then they never really delivered that product and what they originally "promised" is still effectively vaporware.

"Vaporware", sometimes synonymous with "vaportalk" in the 1980s, has no single definition. It is generally used to describe a hardware or software product that has been announced, but that the developer has no intention on releasing anytime soon, if ever.

The above has been my understanding of the term 'vaporware' since the word came into being.

If AMD had first said FreeSync would be released in Q1 2014, then Q2, then Q3, etc.. then I would agree that it was vaporware. However, from everything I've read, AMD has always maintained that Q1 2015 was the expected date for retail sales of FreeSync capable monitors. Since we have not yet reached that date, FreeSync is not vaporware.

it doesn't matter whether or not Freesync fits your semantic understanding of what "vaporware" means, the truth behind it is still blatantly obvious to any objective viewer

most definitions I've seen and brought forth revolve around a marketing strategy with little if any real substance to be seen. Freesync fits that perfectly. That's not to say such products never come into being, many often do, however a lot of it is hot air "vapor" (to talk or act grandiloquently, pompously, or boastfully; bluster) to buy time until an actual product can be scrambled into existence (e.g. those pathetic closed demos on laptops back in January, several months after we first saw G-Sync in action)

If nVidia told me they had a new product to be released holiday season 2015 that would provide perfect scaling and eliminate microstutter in SLI solutoins, but failed provide any evidence of such a technology other than promises and closed demos, I would be just as skeptical/cynical as I am with AMD and Freesync, I don't take things on faith.

Again, we first heard about G-Sync last October, and we knew more about that technology and how it would work than we now know about Freesync even though AMD has been "blowing the smoke up our butt" for better part of that same year, assuring us that they have something soon and that its going to be as good if not better. I can't help but believe that Freesync was certainly vaporware when it was first announced in retaliation to G-Sync, and while I believe we're going to see Freesync options available eventually, we still don't have any evidence to boost our confidence that what we might get is actually worthwhile.

I certainly hope they have something, because I want G-Sync, but I'm not thrilled at the prospect of paying +$200 for it.

 

[Final8ty]

Are you seriously thinking that we are debating if VESA is vendor locked? We clearly have been talking about A-sync monitors being vendor locked to AMD.

Because A-sync is VESA standard, any GPU vendor can choose to implement A-sync support period.
Any GPU vendor can not choose to implement G-Sync support period.

 

[bystander36]

Any GPU vendor can choose to implement A-sync support period.
Any GPU vendor can not choose to implement G-Sync support period.

Where does it mention the vendor's options in the definition:

Vendor lock-in is a situation in which a customer using a product or service cannot easily transition to a competitor’s product or service.

Note: I have repeatedly mentioned that I am not putting blame on AMD for this. The reason behind this possible problem is not being disputed, but also note, we are talking about possible issues IF Nvidia doesn't support it.

 

[Final8ty]

Where does it mention the vendor's options in the definition:


Note: I have repeatedly mentioned that I am not putting blame on AMD for this. The reason behind this possible problem is not being disputed, but also note, we are talking about possible issues IF Nvidia doesn't support it.

The reason why your not putting the blame on AMD is because you simply cant.

proprietary and inefficient processes or contract constraints, among other things

Which there are none in regards to A-Sync.

If a customer using a product cannot easily transition to a competitor's product or service, it is vendor locked.

I cant easily put my floppy disk into my DVD ROM drive, that's Vendor lock in too, that's the problem with basic example which is being interpreted as an absolute.

 

[bystander36]

The reason why your not putting the blame on AMD is because you simply cant.

True.

Which there are none in regards to A-Sync.

"proprietary and inefficient processes or contract constraints, among other things"
among other things can mean anything, including that no other vendor supports it.

And again, that is just a list of examples. The first part says it all, the customer cannot use it with any other brand. For now at least.

I cant easily put my floppy disk into my DVD ROM drive, that's Vendor lock in too, that's the problem with basic example which is being interpreted as an absolute.

But I bet you can find 3 different brands of DVD's that will fit into your DVD ROM.

 

[piesquared]

Because A-sync is VESA standard, any GPU vendor can choose to implement A-sync support period.
Any GPU vendor can not choose to implement G-Sync support period.

Exactly. Don't worry about what 3 or 4 people on this forum are saying, they're just trying to create a controversy and make it appear that its a widely supported opinion.

A-Sync is a VESA standard that will certainly be widely supported. Of course intel will support it, they'd be stupid not to. Other IHVs will also support it, and it will likely become mandatory in a future update. Nv will have no choice but to follow suit at some point, so consumers can safely buy a V-Sync monitor and have Freesync support with Radeon, then if they choose to purchase hardware from a different IHV in the future they can feel reassured that they wont have to throw their monitor out and buy a new one for variable refresh rate. Not so with Gsync. Buying a Gsync monitor right now is a terrible decision.

 

[Final8ty]

True.


"proprietary and inefficient processes or contract constraints, among other things"
among other things can mean anything, including that no other vendor supports it.

No it does not meany anything, its means among other things, which means there are more possible examples, which does not mean yours counts as one of them, and as i said YOU will put it to mean anything you want it to which you have done.

 

[Final8ty]

Exactly. Don't worry about what 3 or 4 people on this forum are saying, they're just trying to create a controversy and make it appear that its a widely supported opinion.

Indeed, ill leave them to it.

 

[rgallant]

Exactly. Don't worry about what 3 or 4 people on this forum are saying, they're just trying to create a controversy and make it appear that its a widely supported opinion.

A-Sync is a VESA standard that will certainly be widely supported. Of course intel will support it, they'd be stupid not to. Other IHVs will also support it, and it will likely become mandatory in a future update. Nv will have no choice but to follow suit at some point, so consumers can safely buy a V-Sync monitor and have Freesync support with Radeon, then if they choose to purchase hardware from a different IHV in the future they can feel reassured that they wont have to throw their monitor out and buy a new one for variable refresh rate. Not so with Gsync. Buying a Gsync monitor right now is a terrible decision.

this

 

[digitaldurandal]

If NV won't support open standard FreeSync and G-Sunc at the same time, they are effectively making FreeSync artificially vendor locked by stopping their cards from supporting this open standard feature. This is really bad news for consumers since that means even if you get a FreeSync monitor, you essentially become vendor locked to AMD. This is a scary development indeed. At the very least NV should have supported both standards because otherwise this is straight up market segregation forced by NV.

I am interested in this technology and the G-Sync monitors are too much. I have been itching for 1440p for a while already. If Freesync monitors are good and the prices are fair I will likely be jumping to the red team again. I tried to grab some 290s but an error in my transaction made me miss out on a hot deal. Now I am thinking I will stick with the 670s for now and wait for the response from AMD. Honestly I can live with turning a few settings down for the next 6 months and it will give me time to save for monitors and graphics cards.

 

[bystander36]

Exactly. Don't worry about what 3 or 4 people on this forum are saying, they're just trying to create a controversy and make it appear that its a widely supported opinion.

A-Sync is a VESA standard that will certainly be widely supported. Of course intel will support it, they'd be stupid not to. Other IHVs will also support it, and it will likely become mandatory in a future update. Nv will have no choice but to follow suit at some point, so consumers can safely buy a V-Sync monitor and have Freesync support with Radeon, then if they choose to purchase hardware from a different IHV in the future they can feel reassured that they wont have to throw their monitor out and buy a new one for variable refresh rate. Not so with Gsync. Buying a Gsync monitor right now is a terrible decision.

If other vendors support it, it isn't vendor locked.

If others don't, it is.

It's that simple and all I've argued.

Final8ty seems to think that even if no one else supports it, customers are still not vendor locked-in, but by definition, they would be.

If a customer using a product cannot easily transition to a competitor's product or service, it is vendor locked.

If no other vendor supports it, they cannot easily transition to a competitor.

 

[bystander36]

No it does not meany anything, its means among other things, which means there are more possible examples, and as i said YOU will put it to mean anything you want it to which you have done.

Here is the definition, no examples needed:

If a customer using a product cannot easily transition to a competitor's product or service, it is vendor locked.

Where does it say anything about the vendor being able to. It is simply about the customers options.

 

[Final8ty]

Here is the definition, no examples needed:

Where does it say anything about the vendor being able to. It is simply about the customers options.

Vendor lock-in is a situation in which a customer using a product or service cannot easily transition to a competitor’s product or service. Vendor lock-in is usually the result of proprietary technologies that are incompatible with those of competitors. However, it can also be caused by inefficient processes or contract constraints, among other things.

The fear of vendor lock-in is often cited as a major impediment to cloud service adoption. The complexities of cloud service migration mean that many customers stay with a provider that doesn’t meet their needs, just to avoid the cumbersome process. To move data from one provider’s cloud environment to another, for example, it’s often necessary to first move the data back to the customer’s site and then move it to the new provider’s environment. Furthermore, the data may have been altered for compatibility with the original provider’s system so that what is returned to the customer needs to be returned to its former state before it can be moved again.

The best way to avoid vendor lock-in is to choose your service wisely in the first place. Storage expert Arun Taneja offers the following tips for avoiding cloud vendor lock-in:

Now that its put into the context it was intended for proprietary clouds , hence why a standard is needed.
Oh look A-sync is a VESA Standard, no examples of being pedantic with only one adopting an open standard as being nothing more than an artificial agenda.

Bye!

 

[bystander36]

You seem to get hooked on the examples. The examples are just examples. Read the definition.

Bye!

 

[bystander36]

Although, to be honest, neither G-sync or Freesync monitors would be vendor locked, as you can use the monitors on either brand. It's the A-sync feature, and G-sync feature that is locked-in.

 

[Phynaz]

Geez guys, give it a rest already.