I don't suppose there's any chance of getting you to edit that post before it's too late?
- Status
I don't suppose there's any chance of getting you to edit that post before it's too late?
RampantAndroid
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2004
- 6,591
- 3
- 81
I don't suppose there's any chance of getting you to edit that post before it's too late?
Too late. He wants to be shown the door, so I'll help. I'll even ring the bell to get a mod.
I frankly don't see the justification of the complaints on AT. I've been here for a while (and remember the days of Rollo...) - it's always been pretty nasty. How the CPU forum isn't this bad, I don't know. Maybe because that battle is a bit more one sided?
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't want to see anyone get banned, whether I agree with him or not. What you do is on you.
RampantAndroid
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2004
- 6,591
- 3
- 81
I don't advocate a ban. I advocate the mods keeping control of this place. Their action is their choice.
The technical details in this issue is kind of straight forward, and i dont think we disagree:
Without warning, after the products was sold, NV stopped oc capabilities.
Wether that was justified, eg. by blow up dangers, have been argued.
This is a hypothesis. But i think its difficult to find a normal, uninformed user, who would accept what happened (if he actually discovers it) - be it right or wrong - without beeing angry.
On the contrary only informed enthusiast will muster the acception of this.
I think they use their knowledge to hide the obvious. If we take the arguments:
Was it eg. Dell who asked for it?
a) From a segmentation strategy point of view its far out to think Dell can change strategy - When the product is already sold. NV is kind of master of this game, and a huge company with many different customers.
b) From a consumer point of view. Who actually gives a s.... If features is taken, after i buy a product, i dont care who ordered and asked for it.
Were they in danger of blowing up?
- Well
a) voltage was disabled from day one and
b) it was already limited in headroom - especially compared to 970 capabilities
c) The 970/980 chassis is anyway mostly the same
d) there is absolutely no data to backup the claim of blown oc 970m
- the marketed feauture was removed - after - it was sold, so there ought to be some very solid data to back up the claim.
Not in a thousands years is that data going to emerge. Who honestly expect that from NV now?
To me it looks like a spin and construct of complex storries, that only informed enthusiast can make. Its way overdone because the reason is straight forward:
NV does it to sell more 980M
A company trying to sell more and make more profit. Its seen before in history. Why on earth is that so difficult to accept?
- the obvious problem is ofcourse it hurts people who have already bought the product.
We as consumer are going to buy a product next time. Accepting this kind of behaviour is kicking our own butt. The problem beeing here, some beeing soft, gives us all bad conditions in the future.
Without warning, after the products was sold, NV stopped oc capabilities.
Wether that was justified, eg. by blow up dangers, have been argued.
This is a hypothesis. But i think its difficult to find a normal, uninformed user, who would accept what happened (if he actually discovers it) - be it right or wrong - without beeing angry.
On the contrary only informed enthusiast will muster the acception of this.
I think they use their knowledge to hide the obvious. If we take the arguments:
Was it eg. Dell who asked for it?
a) From a segmentation strategy point of view its far out to think Dell can change strategy - When the product is already sold. NV is kind of master of this game, and a huge company with many different customers.
b) From a consumer point of view. Who actually gives a s.... If features is taken, after i buy a product, i dont care who ordered and asked for it.
Were they in danger of blowing up?
- Well
a) voltage was disabled from day one and
b) it was already limited in headroom - especially compared to 970 capabilities
c) The 970/980 chassis is anyway mostly the same
d) there is absolutely no data to backup the claim of blown oc 970m
- the marketed feauture was removed - after - it was sold, so there ought to be some very solid data to back up the claim.
Not in a thousands years is that data going to emerge. Who honestly expect that from NV now?
To me it looks like a spin and construct of complex storries, that only informed enthusiast can make. Its way overdone because the reason is straight forward:
NV does it to sell more 980M
A company trying to sell more and make more profit. Its seen before in history. Why on earth is that so difficult to accept?
- the obvious problem is ofcourse it hurts people who have already bought the product.
We as consumer are going to buy a product next time. Accepting this kind of behaviour is kicking our own butt. The problem beeing here, some beeing soft, gives us all bad conditions in the future.
Agenda or not, this is not the direction we should be going in VC&G. If I see anymore of these types of threads I will consider them as baiting.
This thread is history. Don't even bother me to reopen it as well.
Rvenger
Anandtech Super Moderator
This thread is history. Don't even bother me to reopen it as well.
Rvenger
Anandtech Super Moderator
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter