The REAL Reason ATI WANTED to be acquired by AMD

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: apoppin
. . . ATi - not nvidia - designed and validated the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista

Apoppin, as an MS guy myself I'm very curious to know where you found this. I had not heard that ATI had designed our driver model.



Others appear to be (somewhat impolitely) asking the same so I have read some of your responses already. The reason I'm asking is the explanation given thusfar:

Originally posted by: apoppin
According to Chris Jones, corporate vice president - Windows Core OS Division, Microsoft, "Microsoft will deliver a series of graphics innovations with Windows Vista that provide a customer experience that is second to none. We could not have achieved this without our partnership with ATI. From day one, ATI has played a key role in helping us design and validate the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista, and ATI has since developed robust and performant drivers that highlight the capabilities of our new operating system."

microsoft didn't partner with nvidia
:thumbsdown:

...contains a logical fallacy.

The statements:
ATI partnered with MS
ATI played a key role
MS could not have achieved without ATI

Do not logically imply any of these statements:
nVidia did not partner with MS
nVidia did not play a key role
MS could have achieved without nVidia.


So, is there a different or more accurate source to support your statement?



(info on logical fallacies: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ )

a Source more accurate than your Employer?
:Q

i saw this as i was heading out the door ... i have little time

... i quoted your boss - Chris Jones, corporate vice president - Windows Core OS Division, Microsoft. ... he said "We could not have achieved this without our partnership with ATI."

my ONE conclusion is my own

i.e. nvidia didn't partner with Microsoft in the way Chris Jones of MS describes

Yes, that's the quote and conclussion I was most concerned with. I am not questioning the source. It's just that the source doesn't say what you conclude. It is a logical fallacy:
"partnership with ATI" does not logically imply "nvidia didn't partner with Microsoft".

So I would like a source (MS or otherwise) that DOES support your conclussion.

the other 2 "conclusions" are made up by YOU and falsely attributed to me

On the contrary I said they can NOT be concluded and I made no implication that you said them. They are merely further examples of logical fallacy. If I had attributed the additional statements to you I would have used the plural in this sentence: "So, is there a different or more accurate source to support your statement?"

and Smilin

Please IDENTIFY that you are an EMPLOYEE of Microsoft when you post about MS
it should be in your sig

c-ya!

You and I have been through this before. You do not show your employer in your Sig do you? I've been here since before I worked at MS and you never asked for my employer then did you? I can only conclude that it is something about MS that makes you wrongly feel that I am obliged to comply. Since I am not here in any official capacity as I have told you before, there is no reason for me to state such. Furthermore stating I am an employee of some company in my signature could be misinterpreted as giving some sort of warranty, rights, or official company statement. Just because my (or anyone else) profession causes a personal curiosity that I post about does not mean my post is anything other than my own personal comment.

Despite the fact that you happen to know who I work for doesn't really make this or other any personal information about me any of your business. So in response to your request: NO.

EDIT:

Originally posted by: apoppin
. . . ATi - not nvidia - designed and validated the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista

look again at the links at the first page

i gotta run

last edit:

here:http://www.techtree.com/India/News/AMD_...I_Vista_Ready_Chips/551-76790-581.html

[ATI has played a key role in helping us design and validate the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista

Yes, yes. You said this before but you are reaching an incorrect conclussion from it.

"ATI has played a key role" does NOT logically imply that "ATi - not nvidia - designed and validated the new driver model"

Nor does it logically exclude statements such as: "nvidia also played a key role" or "nvidia validated the new driver model" or "MS couldn't have done it without nVidia" (no one said these last three quoted statements...but the quote you used from Chris Jones does not logically imply they cannot be true...They may very well be true! but I don't know)



So back to it:
So, is there a different or more accurate source to support your statement?

let me try ONCE again

ATI has played a key role in helping us design and validate the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista

is a Quote taken from here:
http://www.techtree.com/India/News/AMD_...I_Vista_Ready_Chips/551-76790-581.html


my statement indicated there was nothing equivalent that MS said about nvidia

or DO you have something to indicate that your employer - Microsoft - also used nvidia in designing the driver model at the heart of Vista?

and here is not the place. Forum Issues is. i will post there about your not identifying yourself properly on these forums. you are a walking advertisement for ms ... otoh, my company is UNrelated to computer SW or HW.


btw, here's the whole quote ... again:

According to Chris Jones, corporate vice president - Windows Core OS Division, Microsoft, "Microsoft will deliver a series of graphics innovations with Windows Vista that provide a customer experience that is second to none. We could not have achieved this without our partnership with ATI. From day one, ATI has played a key role in helping us design and validate the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista, and ATI has since developed robust and performant drivers that highlight the capabilities of our new operating system."

 

[A5]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Oh, and to discuss drivers...

After having an ATi TV Wonder Pro Remote Control Edition for a good 4 years or so, I have to say that I've grown to have an extreme dislike for ATi's software division. It's because of how bad the support was for the card (trust me, I didn't enjoy having the program lock up and being unable to close it without restarting my computer) that shows why I will not buy another ATi product. I simply do not trust their software support whether it be in the CCC or their drivers. Call me an "nVidiot" because of it, but they're my only other choice and I've had fairly good experiences with them. Although, I think I need to RMA my BFG card, I've been ignoring the graphical anomolies for too long.

I will partially agree with this. The TV Wonder series (and the software) are complete trash. The drivers for the video cards aren't nearly as bad.

 

[Nelsieus]

Thought this was an interesting tidbit for the conversation:

Nvidia Corp.'s stock jumped after Mercury Research released data indicating the company had taken market share from ATI Technologies, a competing graphics chip maker acquired by Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

JPMorgan analyst Shawn Webster said he expects Nvidia to gain further ground in coming quarters, thanks to the ATI-AMD merger.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061031/sector_snap_semiconductors.html?.v=1

Nelsieus

 

[Matt2]

This is the first time I've looked at the thread, but the situation is not even close to being as dire for Nvidia as you make it out to be apoppin.

How long do you honestly think that it will take for any company to produce a GPU/CPU hybrid? How do you know it wont be marginally better than current IGPs? How many generations will it take for a CPU/GPU hybrid to perform on par to a G70? G80?

 

[Cookie Monster]

Some people are taking Chris Jones word's WAY to literally.

According to Chris Jones, corporate vice president - Windows Core OS Division, Microsoft, "Microsoft will deliver a series of graphics innovations with Windows Vista that provide a customer experience that is second to none. We could not have achieved this without our partnership with ATI. From day one, ATI has played a key role in helping us design and validate the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista, and ATI has since developed robust and performant drivers that highlight the capabilities of our new operating system."

All this means is that the relationships between ATi and MS are good enough for MS to compliment and back ATi. It makes both ATi(hence AMD) and MS look good while there are no mention of Intel or nVIDIA. Its as simple as that.

 

[josh6079]

How long do you honestly think that it will take for any company to produce a GPU/CPU hybrid?

~ 2 years

With the completion of AMD?s acquisition of ATI, AMD has announced its working on new CPU/GPU silicon that integrates the CPU and graphics processor into a single unit. The upcoming silicon is currently codenamed Fusion and is expected in the late 2008 or early 2009 time frame.

How do you know it wont be marginally better than current IGPs?

No one knows if it will, but a good amount of logic suggests that it won't be just like any other IGP.

For instance, AMD discusses the possibility for a shared GPU / CPU cache which would greatly reduce latency and improve GPU / CPU communication.

Even if they don't fabricate a means to communicate through a shared cache, they could use Torrenza:

Because of its flexibility, the HyperTransport protocol allows a multitude of co-processor designs that are already compatible with systems on other platforms. For example, with Torrenza, specialized co-processors are able to sit directly into an Opteron socket, and communicate directly with the entire system...Although AMD acknowledges many of these applications can run off PCIe and other connection technologies, Torrenza emphasizes HT-3 and HTX in particular....AMD representatives said that because of the archicture, Torrenza allows very low latency communication between chipset, main processor and co-processors.

If not a unified method, HTX may replace the PCI-E slot, though I think they'll go unified and leave the HTX technology for physics and possibly audio, but that's just a guess.

With AMD opening up their HT architecture, quick communication between their processors and a HTX card or socket could allow for media encoder co-processors that can accelerate media encoding by up to 10-100 times...Eitherway, using HT links that allow for lower latency and high bandwidth access directly to the CPU look like it could bring some exciting developments to PC platform processing power.

How many generations will it take for a CPU/GPU hybrid to perform on par to a G70? G80?

Who knows? It may take 4 generations, it may only take the first. It depends on what kind of shape the technology is in close to 2 years time and what the market is doing. The way I see it is that the computer is going to be getting a face lift, and who knows if in 2 years time if we won't be using DDR3 for system memory and quad-cores will be the norm. Just from having the newer tech alone coupled with some of these progressive ideas regarding the computer's anatomy, we'll most definitely see some performance improvements. We just have to wait and see instead of predict what's going to happen to the market everyday for 2 years.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nelsieus
Thought this was an interesting tidbit for the conversation:

Nvidia Corp.'s stock jumped after Mercury Research released data indicating the company had taken market share from ATI Technologies, a competing graphics chip maker acquired by Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

JPMorgan analyst Shawn Webster said he expects Nvidia to gain further ground in coming quarters, thanks to the ATI-AMD merger.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061031/sector_snap_semiconductors.html?.v=1

Nelsieus

actually that IS interesting . . . unfortunately Mr Webster gives no reason for his prognosis ... [other than "thanks to the merger" . . . THEY said merger . . . not acquisition.] ]

and how are we supposed to take Chris Jones' words that ATi helped design Vista's gfx driver? Figuratively?

strangely . . . i can find nothing on nvidia's site that mentions that MS complemented them on desigining the gfx driver . . . i think that kind of compliment would be worth mentioning. Maybe i am searching in the wrong place.

 

[schtuga]

People are still upgrading to newer agp cards.There will be a market for discreet cards for 3-5 years after this happens.Which puts AMD in a tough R&D/fab postion,to change over while continuing with what they have going.

Do they continue High end R&D on discreet graphics knowing they want to eliminate it,or if they continue,where does all this extra cash come from,for these new techs?

If Intel still has the lions share of platforms,how many mobo makers are going to leap into this new tech,like they did with the RD600?

And a couple more marginal quarters from AMD combined with great ones from Nvidia could be interesting.So far this merger has only hindered AMD shares.
People make way to many assumptions with their heart and not from a straight business view.

Yesterdays market caps at closing according to yahoo finance.

AMD-10.3 bil
Nvidia- 12.3 bil.

 

[XNice]

NVIDIA: 12.3bil?? Wow and all those people talking about how nvidia is just a small company all alone... lol

I think apoppin is a guerrilla marketer....

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: apoppin
actually that IS interesting . . . unfortunately Mr Webster gives no reason for his prognosis ... [other than "thanks to the merger" . . . THEY said merger . . . not acquisition.] ]

It is a merger because it involves the trade of stocks. If it was purely cash/debt, then it'd be an acquisition. Although, it does not resemble a merger as much, because ATi is only becoming a division of AMD instead of more of an equal setting.

Originally posted by: apoppin
and how are we supposed to take Chris Jones' words that ATi helped design Vista's gfx driver? Figuratively?

No, you should take it logically.

Originally posted by: apoppin
strangely . . . i can find nothing on nvidia's site that mentions that MS complemented them on desigining the gfx driver . . . i think that kind of compliment would be worth mentioning. Maybe i am searching in the wrong place.

No, you're trying to be too literal, and in turn, it looks extremely bad on you. Microsoft does not have to brown-nose nVidia to prove that they worked with them. They would have to announce that they did not work with them to say that they didn't. In this case, the absence of the fact does not prove it false.

I don't know why I'd even reply to you. All I'm going to get is an inane response that essentially dissolves into "NUH-UH! "

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: apoppin
actually that IS interesting . . . unfortunately Mr Webster gives no reason for his prognosis ... [other than "thanks to the merger" . . . THEY said merger . . . not acquisition.] ]

It is a merger because it involves the trade of stocks. If it was purely cash/debt, then it'd be an acquisition. Although, it does not resemble a merger as much, because ATi is only becoming a division of AMD instead of more of an equal setting.

Originally posted by: apoppin
and how are we supposed to take Chris Jones' words that ATi helped design Vista's gfx driver? Figuratively?

No, you should take it logically.

Originally posted by: apoppin
strangely . . . i can find nothing on nvidia's site that mentions that MS complemented them on desigining the gfx driver . . . i think that kind of compliment would be worth mentioning. Maybe i am searching in the wrong place.

No, you're trying to be too literal, and in turn, it looks extremely bad on you. Microsoft does not have to brown-nose nVidia to prove that they worked with them. They would have to announce that they did not work with them to say that they didn't. In this case, the absence of the fact does not prove it false.

I don't know why I'd even reply to you. All I'm going to get is an inane response that essentially dissolves into "NUH-UH! "

then don't bother to reply

you mentioned "logical" . . . why not demonstrate it?

instead of a lot of 'maybes'


look at it again . . . it's clear . . . it's all ATi:

We could not have achieved this without our partnership with ATI. From day one, ATI has played a key role in helping us design and validate the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista

i don't see any mention of nvidia ALSO working - from DAY One - to DESIGN the new driver model

Maybe Smilin can tell us if there were TWO teams working to design the Vista driver - ATi and nvidia
:Q

 

[Gstanfor]

Whatever you want to believe apoppin... People forget that with DX9 ATi claimed it was all their work but nvidia designed HLSL (the language that makes shaders work) for microsoft based on nvidia's own cg work.

nvidia has gone from being a $10 billion company at the beginning of 2006 to a $12+ billion company at the end of 2006. Not bad for a "doomed" company - we'll see if AMD can perform as well (lets just say that plummeting market share and financial shares aren't the way one would ordinarily approach such growth)...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Whatever you want to believe apoppin... People forget that with DX9 ATi claimed it was all their work but nvidia designed HLSL (the language that makes shaders work) for microsoft based on nvidia's own cg work.

nvidia has gone from being a $10 billion company at the beginning of 2006 to a $12+ billion company at the end of 2006. Not bad for a "doomed" company - we'll see if AMD can perform as well...

it's always that way, Gstanfor ... you too; each of us does this . . . i am only going by what i read . . . in B&W from 'official' sources. You could certainly be right . . . i just don't find any confirmation for nvidia's contribution. ...

... and Vista Gfx played a significant role in AMD's acquiring ATi.

i said it before and i will say it again.... i wish nvidia well ... it is in my interest to have TWO strong and competing graphics companys that always push each other to develop better and cheaper products

now . . . i will make you a deal
:evil:

if you can find a definitive 'yes' for me, i will log out immediately [well, after the patch d/ls] and install NWN2
:gift:

Does the damn thing run ok on Win2K? . . . the box says 'xp' and i can find Zero about it [for sure]

as an incentive, if the game is like Oblivion, you may not hear from me for a few weeks
:Q

 

[Gstanfor]

Quick, someone find something about nvidia & dx10 on m$ site!

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Smilin

So back to it:
So, is there a different or more accurate source to support your statement?

let me try ONCE again

ATI has played a key role in helping us design and validate the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista

is a Quote taken from here:
http://www.techtree.com/India/News/AMD_...I_Vista_Ready_Chips/551-76790-581.html


my statement indicated there was nothing equivalent that MS said about nvidia

or DO you have something to indicate that your employer - Microsoft - also used nvidia in designing the driver model at the heart of Vista?

and here is not the place. Forum Issues is. i will post there about your not identifying yourself properly on these forums. you are a walking advertisement for ms ... otoh, my company is UNrelated to computer SW or HW.


btw, here's the whole quote ... again:

According to Chris Jones, corporate vice president - Windows Core OS Division, Microsoft, "Microsoft will deliver a series of graphics innovations with Windows Vista that provide a customer experience that is second to none. We could not have achieved this without our partnership with ATI. From day one, ATI has played a key role in helping us design and validate the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista, and ATI has since developed robust and performant drivers that highlight the capabilities of our new operating system."

Your incorrect statement:
"my statement indicated there was nothing equivalent that MS said about nvidia"

The sources you have provided simply mention ATI. They do not say anything in favor or against nVidia. Lack of evidence for something is not the same as evidence against it. This is the logical fallacy I keep explaining to you.

The bold section of your repeated quote from Chris Jones does not logically imply that nVidia did not play a key role. It simply states that ATI did.

Get it yet?

If I was professionally privy to some sort of internal information at MS I could not and would not share it. I think this is common sense. It is also irrelevant. I'm here as 'smilin' not an MS representative.

PERSONALLY I do not have evidence one way or the other what roles ATI and nVidia played. This is why your post made me very curious. The quote you provided from Chris Jones was news to me. You appeared to have rounded up some info on the topic so I've been trying to hit you up since my first post for some more. Unfortunately I can only get you to restate an unsupported conclusssion derived from some likely correct information rather than provide information that supports the very interesting conclussion.

If you want to take up some issue with me in Forum Issues that is your perogative. I would consider it yet another example of your personal harrasment of me which I'm getting pretty fed up with.

Since you will not be contributing the information I was curious about I'm going to leave this thread now. I'm sorry you got jumped by a bunch of people just itching to flame you but I'm not one of them. Take a close look at my very first post. I came here for clarification and information, not an argument.

bye.

 

[josh6079]

The bold section of your repeated quote from Chris Jones does not logically imply that nVidia did not play a key role. It simply states that ATI did.

Of course it implies it because they said that ATi played a major role and made no mention of Nvidia.

Does this mean that Nvidia didn't help or contribute either? No. Does it imply that ATi had more to do with it's development? Yes.

Unfortunately I can only get you to restate an unsupported conclusssion derived from some likely correct information rather than provide information that supports the very interesting conclussion.

Stating what he thinks was a valid implication sounds like a supported conclusion to me, and he's has done the steps in giving links to show why he thinks so.

While I think he does need to calm down with your relation to MS, his opinion is completely relevant given the information. Common sense tells us that Nividia has had a part in DX10. However, taking the supportive claim that MS has given ATi and seeing no similar compliments to Nvidia creates a legit assumption that ATi was more involved.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: josh6079
Of course it implies it because they said that ATi played a major role and made no mention of Nvidia.

Does this mean that Nvidia didn't help or contribute either? No. Does it imply that ATi had more to do with it's development? Yes.

*Sigh*

You simply cannot prove it because you lack the evidence. I'm not trying to argue this from the standpoint of a person who uses an nVidia product, I'm arguing this from a logic standpoint. I could care less if nVidia worked on some dumb driver project. If they did, cool for them, if not, who cares. But the fact that this horrid logic is constantly referenced to bothered me.

Here's an example to help you out. Let's say I make a statement, "Josh6079 played a major role in this thread." Does this mean Apoppin did not play a major role in this thread simply because I did not mention him? No, there's no evidence other than the actions itself to prove roles. In this case, we can easily view the actions, but in the case of graphic driver model design, I don't think any of us know exactly what happened.

Originally posted by: josh6079
Stating what he thinks was a valid implication sounds like a supported conclusion to me, and he's has done the steps in giving links to show why he thinks so.

While I think he does need to calm down with your relation to MS, his opinion is completely relevant given the information. Common sense tells us that Nividia has had a part in DX10. However, taking the supportive claim that MS has given ATi and seeing no similar compliments to Nvidia creates a legit assumption that ATi was more involved.

No, wrong wrong wrong! His "steps" to prove his "valid implication" are nothing more than guesses. There is no coherence between the steps! This is not a coherent argument: "well, Microsoft said ATi played a major role and no one said nVidia did, therefore nVidia didn't!" The only way that could ever be true is if Microsoft always admitted who played major roles on any project that they ever work on. Then, the lack of information would prove the status.

To show that logically, here's the statement you'd need to prove it:

VxVy(xMy -> ySx) : x Major Role with y -> y Says x had a major role

Because then you would say (mSn)' as a premise since Microsoft said nothing and quantify the statement (note, you can only quantify the statement in this way if they're Universal Quantifiers, since n, m and a already exist as variables. Existential quanitifers need indiscrete variables.) to get nMm -> mSn then use contraposition word to get (mSn)' -> (nMm)' and then you use modus ponens to get (nMm)'

Do you understand where I'm coming from (and I presume Smilin' would agree)? That statement that I said your argument needs simply isn't fact and cannot be an assumption .

 

[josh6079]

You simply cannot prove it because you lack the evidence.

I'm not saying anyone "proved" anything. They simply implied something.

Here's an example to help you out. Let's say I make a statement, "Josh6079 played a major role in this thread." Does this mean Apoppin did not play a major role in this thread simply because I did not mention him? No, there's no evidence other than the actions itself to prove roles. In this case, we can easily view the actions, but in the case of graphic driver model design, I don't think any of us know exactly what happened.

It doesn't mean that apoppin didn't play a role at all, but it implies that my role was more noteworthy to comment on than apoppin's. That's what I'm saying, the fact apoppin, concluded that ATi had more to do with Vista than nVidia was completely valid based on what we have as sources. However, if one were to logically think about it, we would quickly determine that all the source was, was an implication leading readers to quick assumptions that may or may not be true.

No, wrong wrong wrong! His "steps" to prove his "valid implication" are nothing more than guesses. There is no coherence between the steps! This is not a coherent argument: "well, Microsoft said ATi played a major role and no one said nVidia did, therefore nVidia didn't!"

He's no saying that nVidia didn't, just that no one has said they did, therefore, giving the assumption that they didn't. We all know that they had their part though.

VxVy(xMy -> ySx) : x Major Role with y -> y Says x had a major role

Because then you would say (mSn)' as a premise since Microsoft said nothing and quantify the statement (note, you can only quantify the statement in this way if they're Universal Quantifiers, since n, m and a already exist as variables. Existential quanitifers need indiscrete variables.) to get nMm -> mSn then use contraposition word to get (mSn)' -> (nMm)' and then you use modus ponens to get (nMm)'

Okay, you stumped me. You win....

There's no way I can comment on that... In addition, out of respect, I think that will go in my sig since I have never seen that kind of sentence structure or path of logic. Hats off to you for being able to think so dynamically because...ouch...that just gave me a headache.

Do you understand where I'm coming from...

No, but it doesn't matter as I've already said, "Okay...you win." I'm just going to try and reverse that aneurysm I just had from reading that linguistic math...

 

[Aikouka]

Haha, sorry, if you want me to explain the logic better, I will. I tried to have some brevity in the post as it was getting a bit long, but I think it didn't help much.

The reason I'm up in arms is because of how the sentences from apoppin were worded. It's just that simple. He tried to make it sound like nVidia had no place because of this and there's no evidence to support that they did or didn't. If you say that it implies that they may not have (using words such as "may" to show possible doubt), then you would be alright.

Also, I don't think noteworthiness has much bearing in this.

Oh well, time to go play some WoW or Lumines or ... both .

 

[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.

 

[Gstanfor]

Perhaps M$ hasn't praised nvidia publically because they don't feel its necessary?

Franly apoppins quotes look like a primary school teacher praising up the classes slow learner to me.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

The reason I'm up in arms is because of how the sentences from apoppin were worded. It's just that simple. He tried to make it sound like nVidia had no place because of this and there's no evidence to support that they did or didn't. If you say that it implies that they may not have (using words such as "may" to show possible doubt), then you would be alright.

thanks, i'm alright ... anyway ... without your approval of how my sentences were "worded"
:roll:


And Smilin, you're the one that jumped over me for a usage of a dollar sign in the microsoft abbreviation . . . you ARE here as a representative of your company - when it suits you. i'd say you are the harrasser far more than harrassed.

to clarify ... again . . . no ... i have nothing further than the official microsoft statement about ATi and Vista

You can "point out" whatever you like . . . the fact remains . . . microsoft publically praised ATi - rather enthusiastically, i might add. There is nothing anyone can find that shows microsoft made any awknowledgement of nvidia's having made a similar contribution to Vista.

 

[Keysplayr]

Everybody is right.......... in their own minds. /thread.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin


You can "point out" whatever you like . . . the fact remains . . . microsoft publically praised ATi - rather enthusiastically, i might add. There is nothing anyone can find that shows microsoft made any awknowledgement of nvidia's having made a similar contribution to Vista.

Can you link to where they say all this praise on the Microsoft site?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin


You can "point out" whatever you like . . . the fact remains . . . microsoft publically praised ATi - rather enthusiastically, i might add. There is nothing anyone can find that shows microsoft made any awknowledgement of nvidia's having made a similar contribution to Vista.

Can you link to where they say all this praise on the Microsoft site?

no ... the only link i have is what i posted.

http://www.techtree.com/India/News/AMD_...I_Vista_Ready_Chips/551-76790-581.html

According to Chris Jones, corporate vice president - Windows Core OS Division, Microsoft, "Microsoft will deliver a series of graphics innovations with Windows Vista that provide a customer experience that is second to none. We could not have achieved this without our partnership with ATI. From day one, ATI has played a key role in helping us design and validate the new driver model at the heart of Windows Vista, and ATI has since developed robust and performant drivers that highlight the capabilities of our new operating system."