The REAL Reason ATI WANTED to be acquired by AMD

[redbox]

MMM It looks like the article has been changed.

Update Chris Hook let us know about some issues with this story, and here are his updates. The story should be updated.

We are in the process of updating the DNA article that you linked to on your site today.

My comment at the press event was that Turion and ATI discrete offer a superior Vista experience and that in common usage scenarios some 'Vista Ready' UMA notebooks can cause artifacts, frame dropping, etc, which we stated and demonstrated at each of the Fusion events in Europe. I didn't say that Turion is the 'only' Vista Ready platform.

Secondly, I didn't say that Vista was a significant reason for the merger. I said that next generation 3D operating systems like Vista were a significant reason that initiatives like Fusion make sense - ie, the increasing importance of graphics to the computing experience. I listed Vista as one of many reasons for this.

Not quite the Hurrah! it sounded like before. File this article under "meh"

 

[Creig]

In the end, does it really matter which company worked closer with Microsoft? Only time will tell whose drivers/hardware will work better with Vista.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: redbox
MMM It looks like the article has been changed.

Update Chris Hook let us know about some issues with this story, and here are his updates. The story should be updated.

We are in the process of updating the DNA article that you linked to on your site today.

My comment at the press event was that Turion and ATI discrete offer a superior Vista experience and that in common usage scenarios some 'Vista Ready' UMA notebooks can cause artifacts, frame dropping, etc, which we stated and demonstrated at each of the Fusion events in Europe. I didn't say that Turion is the 'only' Vista Ready platform.

Secondly, I didn't say that Vista was a significant reason for the merger. I said that next generation 3D operating systems like Vista were a significant reason that initiatives like Fusion make sense - ie, the increasing importance of graphics to the computing experience. I listed Vista as one of many reasons for this.

Not quite the Hurrah! it sounded like before. File this article under "meh"

Which article was updated? . . . not the india one

edit: i see, this article

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1060637

and your quote from here:

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=6677

I didn't say that Vista was a significant reason for the merger. I said that next generation 3D operating systems like Vista were a significant reason that initiatives like Fusion make sense - ie, the increasing importance of graphics to the computing experience. I listed Vista as one of many reasons for this.

not too big of a change . . . i can see that someone took his words LITERALLY ...

and what OTHER Next Generation 3D operating systems are like Vista?

Apple's?
:Q

i guess that a good reason for the 'merger'

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Creig
In the end, does it really matter which company worked closer with Microsoft? Only time will tell whose drivers/hardware will work better with Vista.

QFT.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: redbox
No one can draw any conclusions then based on some your logic. For instance The United States have said that Osama Bin Laden was the one behind the Sept 11th attacks. According to the logic you put out because they didn't say that I didn't do the attacks that means that I am guilty of the act. Or am I not understanding it right. I guess that the only thing these comments claim is that ATI had a high level of cooperation with M$ over the DX10 spec. That is fact given the statements. You are also right that Nvidia did have a hand in the DX10 spec, but you can't prove that. It's a possiblity yes, but you can't prove it yet.

No, that's most certainly not right and it's most certainly very illogical. You're actually just proving me and Smilin' right with this comment (as I assume it is directed against me), because what we were trying to show is that you cannot assume a position is correct when there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Apoppin, through his blatant fanaticism toward AMD's subsidiary ATI, would like to denounce nVidia on any occasion possible. Hence, he decided to grasp at straws and pass it off as cold-hard facts. I don't know what nVidia did, I really don't care. What I do care about is the blatant disregard of logic, which either says, "Hey, I went threw the Amerikun Edjumicashun sistum!" or "Hey, I'm Fanboy!!! WOOO!!!! GOOO COMPANY!"

The real point was that the universal quanitifier does not exist in this logical argument. In fact, when it comes to actions that are not predestined (such as life and death), universal quanitifers are not logical to use. Such as the statement "Everyone goes to sleep every day" isn't correct because I could easily stay awake an entire day and be the single negative case to prove that the statement invalid. Which is why I started mentioning the difference between Universal Quantifiers (which when translated to English mean "For every...") and Existential Quanitifers (which when translated to English mean "There exists at least one...") to show that when you apply the arguments that were made in this thread to a logical proof, there's an existential quantifier not a universal quanitifer. Because of this, you cannot just fill the void (Consider that quantifiers work with variables) with anything you want. If something's been stated before, you can't assume it is the possible case where the existential quantifier is true.

If this doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll go into a bit more detail at a more rudementary level.

Originally posted by: apoppin
thanks, i'm alright ... anyway ... without your approval of how my sentences were "worded"

:S

Perhaps you should start caring, so maybe people would take your opinions with a grain of salt instead of making people beg the IEEE to implement a SLAP over TCP/IP into the spec. Oh and I know your wording was intentional and you bring all the crap you get on yourself. Perhaps you're just a masochist and you love the hate. Who knows, I don't even mind reading most fanboy posts, but I'll admit that I cringe whenever I see yours... maybe it's the fact that you tend to write like you think.. very spaced out and your flow is like the Hoover dam.

Also, Smilin doesn't have to represent the company he works for just because he works for them. He's a person too, you know, and you more than anyone should know that people have their own opinions!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
If this doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll go into a bit more detail at a more rudementary level.

Originally posted by: apoppin
thanks, i'm alright ... anyway ... without your approval of how my sentences were "worded"

:S

Perhaps you should start caring, so maybe people would take your opinions with a grain of salt instead of making people beg the IEEE to implement a SLAP over TCP/IP into the spec. Oh and I know your wording was intentional and you bring all the crap you get on yourself. Perhaps you're just a masochist and you love the hate. Who knows, I don't even mind reading most fanboy posts, but I'll admit that I cringe whenever I see yours... maybe it's the fact that you tend to write like you think.. very spaced out and your flow is like the Hoover dam.

Also, Smilin doesn't have to represent the company he works for just because he works for them. He's a person too, you know, and you more than anyone should know that people have their own opinions!

and maybe you're just full of yourself

 

[XNice]

you guys are still flaming each other? you people need jesus....

New NV drivers out!

 

[ronnn]

So does this mark the end of ATI/AMD or will they compete?

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: redbox
No one can draw any conclusions then based on some your logic. For instance The United States have said that Osama Bin Laden was the one behind the Sept 11th attacks. According to the logic you put out because they didn't say that I didn't do the attacks that means that I am guilty of the act. Or am I not understanding it right. I guess that the only thing these comments claim is that ATI had a high level of cooperation with M$ over the DX10 spec. That is fact given the statements. You are also right that Nvidia did have a hand in the DX10 spec, but you can't prove that. It's a possiblity yes, but you can't prove it yet.

No, that's most certainly not right and it's most certainly very illogical. You're actually just proving me and Smilin' right with this comment (as I assume it is directed against me), because what we were trying to show is that you cannot assume a position is correct when there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Apoppin, through his blatant fanaticism toward AMD's subsidiary ATI, would like to denounce nVidia on any occasion possible. Hence, he decided to grasp at straws and pass it off as cold-hard facts. I don't know what nVidia did, I really don't care. What I do care about is the blatant disregard of logic, which either says, "Hey, I went threw the Amerikun Edjumicashun sistum!" or "Hey, I'm Fanboy!!! WOOO!!!! GOOO COMPANY!"

The real point was that the universal quanitifier does not exist in this logical argument. In fact, when it comes to actions that are not predestined (such as life and death), universal quanitifers are not logical to use. Such as the statement "Everyone goes to sleep every day" isn't correct because I could easily stay awake an entire day and be the single negative case to prove that the statement invalid. Which is why I started mentioning the difference between Universal Quantifiers (which when translated to English mean "For every...") and Existential Quanitifers (which when translated to English mean "There exists at least one...") to show that when you apply the arguments that were made in this thread to a logical proof, there's an existential quantifier not a universal quanitifer. Because of this, you cannot just fill the void (Consider that quantifiers work with variables) with anything you want. If something's been stated before, you can't assume it is the possible case where the existential quantifier is true.

If this doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll go into a bit more detail at a more rudementary level.

I don't doubt your reasoning as to apoppin's exclusion of nvidia's involvement with vista. What can be said is that your reasoning is working off of specultion.

We have not been given evidence that Nvidia had anything to do with vista and we have not been given evidence that they did not have anything to do with vista. We have been given evidence that ATI had something to do with vista. So there is a lack of evidence for apoppin to draw the conclusions that he did. There is also a lack of evidence for us to draw any conclusion about what Nvidia did or didn't do. From how I was reading yours and smilins posts it seamed like you where implying that Nvidia did have something to do with dx10. It is perfectly possible that Nvidia did have a hand in it also. Which is why I am not going to say ATI !!!!!!11111++ or NVIDIA IS THE SUXXOR. I kind of have disdain for those kind of comments.

Now if we exchange the circumstances and input my example we would get this.
We have been given evidence that Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind behind Sept 11. We have not been given evidence that anyone besides osama did it. We have not been given evidence that anyone besides osama didn't do it. So again there is a lack of evidence. The only thing needed to prove the stament that Osama is the only mastermind of Sept 11 is for one person to admit to it.

It is alot like your example of the statement "everyone goes to sleep everyday" all it needs is one person to do an action differently and the statement is false.

This raises the question: where is it acceptable to apply logic? In a court room like I just gave an example? If we where to look at every logical angle wouldn't court cases take a long long time?

This is really getting outside of the bounds of this thread though. I suggest moving our discusion to pm's or perhaps a thread in off topic. I really would like to discuss more with you.