So, does the 7950GX2 count as a single card solution?

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
In case you missed it, . . .

Keys"

Your proper response?

keysplayr2003 have you read my post ?
(i think its in 490s, number wise )

care to comment on it ? especially on this part:

Now there is an additional comment to be made here, theoretically, given a big enough PCIe bridge, you can build a single card that have a GPU and DSP designed for audio processing AND a USB and/or a Firewire hub chip AND a network controller and so on and so on?(you get the point).

Let me narrow it down to the following question:
From you'r point of view, do the points of interaction, or more specificlly, their number, of any given device (core or peripheral), is more importent to the end consumer then the way it function ?
(just in case nobody noticed, i choosed the network analogy for this particular reason )

A simple yes or no will do but if you can provide a more detailed answer and/or comment on my original post (it didnt turned out as simple as i wanted it to be) as a whole it would be appreciated.

Koby

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Your proper response?

I looked at your response, and it's simply the same old humdrum of red-herring fallacies. You're deciding you're going to redefine "PCI-E slot," and say "it doesn't matter because it's not on the motherboard."

I've addressed all this "new" crap from you in previous posts, so go back and read them if you want my response as I have wasted enough time on your fanboyism. Learn how to construct an even half-way logical argument, then try again.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Your proper response?

I looked at your response, and it's simply the same old humdrum of red-herring fallacies. You're deciding you're going to redefine "PCI-E slot," and say "it doesn't matter because it's not on the motherboard."

I've addressed all this "new" crap from you in previous posts, so go back and read them if you want my response as I have wasted enough time on your fanboyism. Learn how to construct an even half-way logical argument, then try again.

Will you stop with the red-herring fallacy BS because I'm laughing so hard I can't breathe. It's like you discovered a new term and are trying to use it in everyday conversations. "Hey, did you see that game yesterday? I thought it was riddled with red-herring fallacies."

Your ridiculous dude. The concept is very, VERY simple. If you do not have the ability to follow, then that is your handicap. What really blows me away is the fact you can't HANDLE my opinion. That in itself is your emotional fallacy.

Ulfhednar, is this your owners manual?

I found this bit of it most interesting:

"In your day-to-day life you will encounter many examples of fallacious reasoning. And it's fun - and sometimes even useful - to point to an argument and say, "A ha! That argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma."

It may be fun, but it is not very useful. Nor is it very enlightened.

The names of the fallacies are for identification purposes only. They are not supposed to be flung around like argumentative broadswords. It is not sufficient to state that an opponent has committed such-and-such a fallacy. And it is not very polite."

Bet your teachers didn't mention this to you, did they. To base your whole life in conversation looking for fallacies as you do, would be a very sad thing. This isn't some sort of class project for you is it?

Anyway, like I said a few times already, and for the last time here, I have explained my stance on this subject and gave my reasonings for the stance I take. It is perfectly reasonable to have my own view despite your aggravated opposition towards it. You have no choice but to deal with it, and I'm sure you can't live with that. No choice. None. Zip. Nada. Deal.

Luv ya babe.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: redbox

Just more of your usual changing of the issue. We never made the claim in the first place that software could damage hardware. Besides that article even admits this is spliting hairs. Furthermore that article implys a relationship between hardware and software. For instance when the bios(software) is trashed so is the ability to use the hardware. Now the hardware didn't break persay as in break into pieces but the function for which the user was asking the hardware to do is now gone, and to fix it the user would have to buy another motherboard. The real problem here is that you are thinking in an abstract technical world and I am thinking of the real world applications. Yes the hardware is still there but it is no longer functional so there for can not do work. An object that at one point in time did work but no longer does any work would be called ______. That's right, broken.

Unlike this present topic (which none of your opponents brought up to begin with) you have your self said: "Its not like software won't run correctly without hardware." Do you have a case of software running correctly without hardware? I would be interested in seeing how you would run software without hardware.

If you can't understand abstract technical details, you are only ignorant to be arguing against it.

If you actually read the article, it specifically said the hardware(bios, a flash memory) still works. You can always reflash it to make it work.

If you don't have an ATI card installed yet you installed a ATI driver, most likely a message box will pop up notifying that you don't have the correct hardware. That message box, is the prove that the software is correctly "working".

First off I never said that I can't understand abstract technical details, I said we are talking about two different view points.

Second I read the article and it says this:

although it leaves the machine unusable (and often leaves the mainboard effectively irreparable) this is not an example of software damaging hardware. The hardware is all still fully functional, but just happens to be built into a bad design that prevents the (economical) return of the system to a working state. For the user faced with a mainboard replacement because a virus payload triggered, this may seem like splitting hairs

See the part in the () it says and often leaves the mainboard effectively irreparable. You could flash it if you could get it to post but if the bios is so screwed up then you wont get it to.

posted by Beggerking:

if a monitor was made to function to acquire and display ALL resolution/refresh rates and breaks when it does that (aka monitor resolution example), then its a hardware flaw.

It doesn't matter if it was a design flaw it still broke.

That's like saying the iceberg didn't break the Titantic's hull; the Titantic's hull broke because of a flaw in the steel. It may be completely true that there was a design flaw, but you are ignoring cause and effect. The cause:i.e. the iceberg, caused the effect: breaking the hull. The flaw didn't cause the hull to break. It could be seen as a catylast for the breaking but it did not cause it.

As far as your CS degree. I wonder how you got it or at what school, because I don't know how they could have let you go with things in you head like this: "Its not like software won't run correctly without hardware". That comment makes no sense what so ever. Unless your educated highness can explain to me how exaclty you can do anything with software without using hardware.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: redbox

Just more of your usual changing of the issue. We never made the claim in the first place that software could damage hardware. Besides that article even admits this is spliting hairs. Furthermore that article implys a relationship between hardware and software. For instance when the bios(software) is trashed so is the ability to use the hardware. Now the hardware didn't break persay as in break into pieces but the function for which the user was asking the hardware to do is now gone, and to fix it the user would have to buy another motherboard. The real problem here is that you are thinking in an abstract technical world and I am thinking of the real world applications. Yes the hardware is still there but it is no longer functional so there for can not do work. An object that at one point in time did work but no longer does any work would be called ______. That's right, broken.

Unlike this present topic (which none of your opponents brought up to begin with) you have your self said: "Its not like software won't run correctly without hardware." Do you have a case of software running correctly without hardware? I would be interested in seeing how you would run software without hardware.

If you can't understand abstract technical details, you are only ignorant to be arguing against it.

If you actually read the article, it specifically said the hardware(bios, a flash memory) still works. You can always reflash it to make it work.

If you don't have an ATI card installed yet you installed a ATI driver, most likely a message box will pop up notifying that you don't have the correct hardware. That message box, is the prove that the software is correctly "working".

First off I never said that I can't understand abstract technical details, I said we are talking about two different view points.

bolded, if you actually know how software works, you won't have said that. The error message that pops up to warn you about hardware not present, is an indication that the software is working correctly.

Second I read the article and it says this:

although it leaves the machine unusable (and often leaves the mainboard effectively irreparable) this is not an example of software damaging hardware. The hardware is all still fully functional, but just happens to be built into a bad design that prevents the (economical) return of the system to a working state. For the user faced with a mainboard replacement because a virus payload triggered, this may seem like splitting hairs

See the part in the () it says and often leaves the mainboard effectively irreparable. You could flash it if you could get it to post but if the bios is so screwed up then you wont get it to.

it specifically says "user", such who takes an economical view. are you debating a bios cannot be reflashed?

posted by Beggerking:

if a monitor was made to function to acquire and display ALL resolution/refresh rates and breaks when it does that (aka monitor resolution example), then its a hardware flaw.

It doesn't matter if it was a design flaw it still broke.

That's like saying the iceberg didn't break the Titantic's hull; the Titantic's hull broke because of a flaw in the steel. It may be completely true that there was a design flaw, but you are ignoring cause and effect. The cause:i.e. the iceberg, caused the effect: breaking the hull. The flaw didn't cause the hull to break. It could be seen as a catylast for the breaking but it did not cause it.

its a hardware design flaw.

so what is your point? that reply isn't even directed at you, yet you have to reply with this..what is wrong with you?:

As far as your CS degree. I wonder how you got it or at what school, because I don't know how they could have let you go with things in you head like this: "Its not like software won't run correctly without hardware". That comment makes no sense what so ever. Unless your educated highness can explain to me how exaclty you can do anything with software without using hardware.

[/quote]
mod notified.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: downlow
If you could somehow come up with a definition of "single-card solution" that everyone agreed on (obviously this will never happen), then there would be absolutely no question of whether the 7950GX2 is a single card or not.

How about this:

A video card is only completely a single graphics solution (anyway you spin it) if it appears so through a hardware standpoint AND a software standpoint. Once a company adds "dual" anything, whether it be pcb, GPU, etc. It loses a part of its "single" attribute and thereby cannot be classified as purely a single graphics solution "anyway you spin it".

However, that does not mean that one cannot compare the difference between it and other traditional "single" cards. (When SLI first hit the motherboards, they had to compare it to something didnt' they? Now that SLI has hit the single PCI-E lanes, they have to have something to compare it to, right?)

Originally posted by: beggerking
whatever Josh, I see you just can't get the correct technical definition of a hardware to stick in your head.

I see computer hardware as a computer component that you can physically touch and somthing that stores or allows software traffic to run throughout its design. Since you are arguing so extensively on how the two relate and differ, how do you see hardware? Do you disagree with my definition? How long are you going to go on with this tangent before you come back to the relative material?

if a monitor was made to function to acquire and display ALL resolution/refresh rates and breaks when it does that (aka monitor resolution example), then its a hardware flaw.

Yes, IF a monitor was made that could do any resolution and any refresh rate (that would be a nice monitor) then a failure in displaying those resolutions/refresh rates would be a hardware flaw. Do you know of a monitor that can do that? downlow was talking about "real" moniotrs, meaning those in use today and yesterday. With a real monitor you can cause damage to it if forced to a unsupported resolution/refresh rate through the software simply because any monitor in existence has a limit. But it was a nice attempt for you to get everyone concentrating on unrealistic theories that involved imaginary monitors.

have you seen any hardware literally break w/o drivers or softwares?

That's like asking if hydrogen "broke" without oxygen. No, I've never seen hardware "break" without a driver or software, but I've seen hardware break with software and due to it (overclocking)--implying that there is indeed a relation between them when you think there is not.

If you can't understand abstract technical details, you are only ignorant to be arguing against it.

Ignorant? If you can't adhere to realism and understand the functionality of hardware without software who is being ignorant?

If you don't have an ATI card installed yet you installed a ATI driver, most likely a message box will pop up notifying that you don't have the correct hardware. That message box, is the prove that the software is correctly "working".

If that is true, then why is a pop up presenting itself and notifying one that they "don't have the correct hardware"? If hardware works correctly regardless of the software, and improper software installed is still "correctly working" then why is there any need for a pop up? Why does the computer tell you that something is wrong?

(Because something IS wrong. Software does have somthing to do with hardware. So much to the point that you have to have just the right type of software before hardware can function correctly).

I'm not playing with semantics

??? :roll: I'm sure if we made another thread with a pole asking that question that it wouldn't be as close as the pole to the question in this thread.

Answer these questions:

1) How do I flash a GPU with a NIC BIOS? ("hardware has nothing to do with software").

2) Why the XP installer needs drivers to access SATA drives? ("OS fetches data from the HD").

3) Why I can force AA and AF in OpenGL games that know nothing about said features? ("the OS does it through DirectX").

4) Why Quad SLI isn't working even though the hardware is already present to support it?

5) How to get HT working on an Athlon 64? ("hardware has nothing to do with software").
(Actually answer that one instead of telling me how to go about finding out how to answer it.)

6) What are you still doing here since the 7950GX2 is already compared to the X1900XTX on multiple sites?

7) How this:

Its not like software won't run correctly without hardware.

is even possible? (Give me an example of software doing anything without hardware, existing on anything if not hardware)

Answer those instead of making up imaginary pieces of hardware that actually are independent from software because they're imaginary. Answer them instead of telling us how to go about finding out an answer. Answer them directly rather than replying to one and asking one of your questions. Answer the questions without having to look in Bush's press conferance strategy guide before you supply another semantic. And answer them without having a mod interupt and distract from the discussion for crimes reported by you when they have also been committed by you.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: downlow
If you could somehow come up with a definition of "single-card solution" that everyone agreed on (obviously this will never happen), then there would be absolutely no question of whether the 7950GX2 is a single card or not.

How about this:

A video card is only completely a single graphics solution (anyway you spin it) if it appears so through a hardware standpoint AND a software standpoint. Once a company adds "dual" anything, whether it be pcb, GPU, etc. It loses a part of its "single" attribute and thereby cannot be classified as purely a single graphics solution "anyway you spin it".

However, that does not mean that one cannot compare the difference between it and other traditional "single" cards. (When SLI first hit the motherboards, they had to compare it to something didnt' they? Now that SLI has hit the single PCI-E lanes, they have to have something to compare it to, right?)

Originally posted by: beggerking
whatever Josh, I see you just can't get the correct technical definition of a hardware to stick in your head.

I see computer hardware as a computer component that you can physically touch and somthing that stores or allows software traffic to run throughout its design. Since you are arguing so extensively on how the two relate and differ, how do you see hardware? Do you disagree with my definition? How long are you going to go on with this tangent before you come back to the relative material?

if a monitor was made to function to acquire and display ALL resolution/refresh rates and breaks when it does that (aka monitor resolution example), then its a hardware flaw.

Yes, IF a monitor was made that could do any resolution and any refresh rate (that would be a nice monitor) then a failure in displaying those resolutions/refresh rates would be a hardware flaw. Do you know of a monitor that can do that? downlow was talking about "real" moniotrs, meaning those in use today and yesterday. With a real monitor you can cause damage to it if forced to a unsupported resolution/refresh rate through the software simply because any monitor in existence has a limit. But it was a nice attempt for you to get everyone concentrating on unrealistic theories that involved imaginary monitors.

have you seen any hardware literally break w/o drivers or softwares?

That's like asking if hydrogen "broke" without oxygen. No, I've never seen hardware "break" without a driver or software, but I've seen hardware break with software and due to it (overclocking)--implying that there is indeed a relation between them when you think there is not.

If you can't understand abstract technical details, you are only ignorant to be arguing against it.

Ignorant? If you can't adhere to realism and understand the functionality of hardware without software who is being ignorant?

If you don't have an ATI card installed yet you installed a ATI driver, most likely a message box will pop up notifying that you don't have the correct hardware. That message box, is the prove that the software is correctly "working".

If that is true, then why is a pop up presenting itself and notifying one that they "don't have the correct hardware"? If hardware works correctly regardless of the software, and improper software installed is still "correctly working" then why is there any need for a pop up? Why does the computer tell you that something is wrong?

(Because something IS wrong. Software does have somthing to do with hardware. So much to the point that you have to have just the right type of software before hardware can function correctly).

I'm not playing with semantics

??? :roll: I'm sure if we made another thread with a pole asking that question that it wouldn't be as close as the pole to the question in this thread.

Answer these questions:

1) How do I flash a GPU with a NIC BIOS? ("hardware has nothing to do with software").

2) Why the XP installer needs drivers to access SATA drives? ("OS fetches data from the HD").

3) Why I can force AA and AF in OpenGL games that know nothing about said features? ("the OS does it through DirectX").

4) Why Quad SLI isn't working even though the hardware is already present to support it?

5) How to get HT working on an Athlon 64? ("hardware has nothing to do with software").
(Actually answer that one instead of telling me how to go about finding out how to answer it.)

6) What are you still doing here since the 7950GX2 is already compared to the X1900XTX on multiple sites?

7) How this:

Its not like software won't run correctly without hardware.

is even possible? (Give me an example of software doing anything without hardware, existing on anything if not hardware)

Answer those instead of making up imaginary pieces of hardware that actually are independent from software because they're imaginary. Answer them instead of telling us how to go about finding out an answer. Answer them directly rather than replying to one and asking one of your questions. Answer the questions without having to look in Bush's press conferance strategy guide before you supply another semantic. And answer them without having a mod interupt and distract from the discussion for crimes reported by you when they have also been committed by you.

I was going to respond to beggerking, but Josh6079 said just about everything that I wanted to.

 

[pacho108]

this thread amazes me
good going frackal, see what you did?

 

[OSX]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: munky
Somewhere in the middle. It runs off a single pcie slot, and does not require an SLI board, but in every other respect it's still 2 cards slapped together. But then again, the Asus dual 7800gt card only used one physical board, but it required an SLI mobo, so does that one count as 1 card? And if someone slaps 4 cards together onto a single pcie slot, will that count as a single card too? The line gets blurry...

If somebody can slap 4 PCBs into a single slot, I would give it to them on effort alone

3dfx did it a while ago. Of course, they did go out of business, but the point still stands.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: redbox

Just more of your usual changing of the issue. We never made the claim in the first place that software could damage hardware. Besides that article even admits this is spliting hairs. Furthermore that article implys a relationship between hardware and software. For instance when the bios(software) is trashed so is the ability to use the hardware. Now the hardware didn't break persay as in break into pieces but the function for which the user was asking the hardware to do is now gone, and to fix it the user would have to buy another motherboard. The real problem here is that you are thinking in an abstract technical world and I am thinking of the real world applications. Yes the hardware is still there but it is no longer functional so there for can not do work. An object that at one point in time did work but no longer does any work would be called ______. That's right, broken.

Unlike this present topic (which none of your opponents brought up to begin with) you have your self said: "Its not like software won't run correctly without hardware." Do you have a case of software running correctly without hardware? I would be interested in seeing how you would run software without hardware.

If you can't understand abstract technical details, you are only ignorant to be arguing against it.

If you actually read the article, it specifically said the hardware(bios, a flash memory) still works. You can always reflash it to make it work.

If you don't have an ATI card installed yet you installed a ATI driver, most likely a message box will pop up notifying that you don't have the correct hardware. That message box, is the prove that the software is correctly "working".

First off I never said that I can't understand abstract technical details, I said we are talking about two different view points.

bolded, if you actually know how software works, you won't have said that. The error message that pops up to warn you about hardware not present, is an indication that the software is working correctly.

The error message that pops up to warn you about hardware not present is still being posted on hardware. Furthermore, it's not posted by the software that needs hardware that is missing. To help you out if the error message was a sound that was complicated enough to need a sound card or onboard sound, and you didn't have that hardware how would you get that error message? The answer....you wouldn't. You said it's not like software won't work without hardware, and then you give me this example. The problem is your still using hardware. I want an example of you using software without any hardware at all. Just like what you are impling.

 

[xtknight]

Cliff notes:

The 7950GX2 is what you want it to be.
Software can only be executed in the presence of hardware.
Drivers have low-level access to the hardware with little or no OS kernel intervention depending on the implementation. An unhandled error in a driver can crash the OS.
Drivers for a NIC will not work for a graphics card (wrong device ID, wrong registers, wrong everything).
Baby Jesus is crying.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Cliff notes:

The 7950GX2 is what you want it to be.
Software can only be executed in the presence of hardware.
Drivers have low-level access to the hardware with little or no OS kernel intervention depending on the implementation. An unhandled error in a driver can crash the OS.
Drivers for a NIC will not work for a graphics card (wrong device ID, wrong registers, wrong everything).

There's only one person in this thread that would/has argued what you've just stated...

Baby Jesus is crying.

I'd be crying too if I knew I was responsible for beggerking.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: beggerking
if a monitor was made to function to acquire and display ALL resolution/refresh rates and breaks when it does that (aka monitor resolution example), then its a hardware flaw.

Amazing. You just argued that a Virus is unable to break software.

Good Game.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: redbox

Just more of your usual changing of the issue. We never made the claim in the first place that software could damage hardware. Besides that article even admits this is spliting hairs. Furthermore that article implys a relationship between hardware and software. For instance when the bios(software) is trashed so is the ability to use the hardware. Now the hardware didn't break persay as in break into pieces but the function for which the user was asking the hardware to do is now gone, and to fix it the user would have to buy another motherboard. The real problem here is that you are thinking in an abstract technical world and I am thinking of the real world applications. Yes the hardware is still there but it is no longer functional so there for can not do work. An object that at one point in time did work but no longer does any work would be called ______. That's right, broken.

Unlike this present topic (which none of your opponents brought up to begin with) you have your self said: "Its not like software won't run correctly without hardware." Do you have a case of software running correctly without hardware? I would be interested in seeing how you would run software without hardware.

If you can't understand abstract technical details, you are only ignorant to be arguing against it.

If you actually read the article, it specifically said the hardware(bios, a flash memory) still works. You can always reflash it to make it work.

If you don't have an ATI card installed yet you installed a ATI driver, most likely a message box will pop up notifying that you don't have the correct hardware. That message box, is the prove that the software is correctly "working".

First off I never said that I can't understand abstract technical details, I said we are talking about two different view points.

bolded, if you actually know how software works, you won't have said that. The error message that pops up to warn you about hardware not present, is an indication that the software is working correctly.

The error message that pops up to warn you about hardware not present is still being posted on hardware. Furthermore, it's not posted by the software that needs hardware that is missing. To help you out if the error message was a sound that was complicated enough to need a sound card or onboard sound, and you didn't have that hardware how would you get that error message? The answer....you wouldn't. You said it's not like software won't work without hardware, and then you give me this example. The problem is your still using hardware. I want an example of you using software without any hardware at all. Just like what you are impling.

Incorrect ! the graphic card is not present, how does graphic card post it if its not there? The entire message was posted by software for not receiving a signal back from graphic card within a set amount of time.

If you can't understand abstract technical details, you are only ignorant to be arguing against it.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: beggerking
if a monitor was made to function to acquire and display ALL resolution/refresh rates and breaks when it does that (aka monitor resolution example), then its a hardware flaw.

Amazing. You just argued that a Virus is unable to break software.

Good Game.

care to explain that?

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: redbox


you have your self said: "Its not like software won't run correctly without hardware." Do you have a case of software running correctly without hardware? I would be interested in seeing how you would run software without hardware.

Originally posted by : Beggerking
If you don't have an ATI card installed yet you installed a ATI driver, most likely a message box will pop up notifying that you don't have the correct hardware. That message box, is the prove that the software is correctly "working".

bolded, if you actually know how software works, you won't have said that. The error message that pops up to warn you about hardware not present, is an indication that the software is working correctly.

Originally posted by: redbox
The error message that pops up to warn you about hardware not present is still being posted on hardware. Furthermore, it's not posted by the software that needs hardware that is missing. To help you out if the error message was a sound that was complicated enough to need a sound card or onboard sound, and you didn't have that hardware how would you get that error message? The answer....you wouldn't. You said it's not like software won't work without hardware, and then you give me this example. The problem is your still using hardware. I want an example of you using software without any hardware at all. Just like what you are impling.

Originally posted by: Beggerking
Incorrect ! the graphic card is not present, how does graphic card post it if its not there? The entire message was posted by software for not receiving a signal back from graphic card within a set amount of time.

So you are saying that the graphic card is not present? Then how can you read the error message? How can you get any information to display? What would you hook your monitor into?

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: redbox

So you are saying that the graphic card is not present? Then how can you read the error message? How can you get any information to display? What would you hook your monitor into?

LOL!
you can have a nvidia card present with nv driver for output.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: redbox

So you are saying that the graphic card is not present? Then how can you read the error message? How can you get any information to display? What would you hook your monitor into?

LOL!
you can have a nvidia card present with nv driver for output.

But that would still be hardware. You said that software would run corectly without hardware.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: beggerking
if a monitor was made to function to acquire and display ALL resolution/refresh rates and breaks when it does that (aka monitor resolution example), then its a hardware flaw.

Amazing. You just argued that a Virus is unable to break software.

Good Game.

care to explain that?

The "Bad Resolution Breaks Monitor" happens because the Software uses a design flaw in the hardware.

A virus works by using a design flaw in the software.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: redbox

So you are saying that the graphic card is not present? Then how can you read the error message? How can you get any information to display? What would you hook your monitor into?

LOL!
you can have a nvidia card present with nv driver for output.

But that would still be hardware. You said that software would run corectly without hardware.

Incorrect. your ATI CCC will still pop up a message if it doesn't receive a response back from your ATI hardware. That message, is an indication of your ATI CCC software working "correctly".

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: beggerking
if a monitor was made to function to acquire and display ALL resolution/refresh rates and breaks when it does that (aka monitor resolution example), then its a hardware flaw.

Amazing. You just argued that a Virus is unable to break software.

Good Game.

care to explain that?

The "Bad Resolution Breaks Monitor" happens because the Software uses a design flaw in the hardware.

A virus works by using a design flaw in the software.

exactly, its a flaw in hardware.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: beggerking
if a monitor was made to function to acquire and display ALL resolution/refresh rates and breaks when it does that (aka monitor resolution example), then its a hardware flaw.

Amazing. You just argued that a Virus is unable to break software.

Good Game.

care to explain that?

The "Bad Resolution Breaks Monitor" happens because the Software uses a design flaw in the hardware.

A virus works by using a design flaw in the software.

exactly, its a flaw in hardware.

Exactly, so if you contend that software cannot adversly affect hardware, then neither can a virus.

Oh yeah, can overclocking hurt hardware? Most overclocking is software only (my Mobo is a software OCer).

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: beggerking
if a monitor was made to function to acquire and display ALL resolution/refresh rates and breaks when it does that (aka monitor resolution example), then its a hardware flaw.

Amazing. You just argued that a Virus is unable to break software.

Good Game.

care to explain that?

The "Bad Resolution Breaks Monitor" happens because the Software uses a design flaw in the hardware.

A virus works by using a design flaw in the software.

exactly, its a flaw in hardware.

Exactly, so if you contend that software cannot adversly affect hardware, then neither can a virus.

Oh yeah, can overclocking hurt hardware? Most overclocking is software only (my Mobo is a software OCer).

Your hardware must allow OC for it to be OCed. Your software sends out a signal to bios to adjust OC speed, but it is your bios that actually sets the OC. It is not related to your overclocking software.

btw, "A virus works by using a design flaw in the software." is wrong. I think you are referring to a "hack"...

a virus works by attaching its code to the front or the end of an executable.

 

[BFG10K]

but it is your bios that actually sets the OC

But the BIOS is software.

I'm also still waiting for an answer as to why we need SATA drivers before XP can access such drives ("OS fetches data from the HD").

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: beggerking
Incorrect. your ATI CCC will still pop up a message if it doesn't receive a response back from your ATI hardware.

And what does it pop up a message on? A monitor. What is a monitor? Hardware. (I find myself answering my own questions because you don't have the answers for them or ignore them completely)

If what you say is true:

Its not like software won't run correctly without hardware.

then give me an example of software doing something without any hardware involved. Can you hold software in your hand? Can you do anything with it without a keyboard, mouse, monitor, computer, etc? What can you do with software that does not in some way involve hardware? Just how can it "run" at all without hardware beggerking?