Intel--Nvidia merger or acqusition. unlikely, but possible ?

"chrisv" wrote in message
...
Barry Watzman wrote:

VERY unlikely that Intel will seek to acquire NVidia.

First, Intel has their own video chip group, which does the video in the
chipsets (the Intel GMA's .... Graphics Media Accelerators). Yes,
that's been low end, but they could do high-end if Intel wanted to.
Intel simply hasn't wanted to.

Sure, they could do so, and get their asses kicked, just like last
time they tried getting into the high-end 3D-graphics business.


they didn't get their asses kicked. They sold it to Microsoft who was
furious that they entered
the market. I remember writing applications to their API. It was solid and
very fast since it
used MMX technology. MS was pushing DirectX/3D hard and bought out Intel's
3D unit or
essentially paid Intel to quit. That was the first sign of their
fragmenting relationship.

"EDM" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Garrot" wrote in message
news:9Pwxg.235772$Mn5.156002@pd7tw3no...
EDM wrote:

And that's not because of Intel/Nvidia merger speculation.
It's because AMD shareholders are about to get soaked,
paying a 25% premium for stock in a crap company who
can't write a decent Windows driver to save their lives.


You actually own an ATI card? I doubt someone who doesn't like their
drivers would be stupid enough to buy an ATI card. Or are you? If you
don't own one then you don't know WTF you are talking about. As an owner
of an ATI X800XL and a Nvidia 7900GT I feel qualified in saying that
ATI's drivers are just as good, if not beter, than Nvidia's.

Garrot, I've owned ~two dozen video cards over the past
20+ years, going back to Paradise/Video7/etc from the
mid-1980's. I'll give credit where it's due: ATI drivers don't
suck as bad now as they did for 15 years. Yet they're still
lacking in a number of regards: no custom resolutions without
.NET or third-party software, no gamma adjustment etc etc.
Their reliance on .NET is what swore me off of them once
and for all. I installed .NET, it junked up my system so bad
and caused so many problems I had to do a full image
restore just to get rid of it completely.

If their drivers work for you, that's great. They don't for me.

Terrible with Linux as well.

"loco" wrote in message ...

"EDM" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Garrot" wrote in message
news:9Pwxg.235772$Mn5.156002@pd7tw3no...
EDM wrote:

And that's not because of Intel/Nvidia merger speculation.
It's because AMD shareholders are about to get soaked,
paying a 25% premium for stock in a crap company who
can't write a decent Windows driver to save their lives.


You actually own an ATI card? I doubt someone who doesn't like their
drivers would be stupid enough to buy an ATI card. Or are you? If you
don't own one then you don't know WTF you are talking about. As an owner
of an ATI X800XL and a Nvidia 7900GT I feel qualified in saying that
ATI's drivers are just as good, if not beter, than Nvidia's.

Garrot, I've owned ~two dozen video cards over the past
20+ years, going back to Paradise/Video7/etc from the
mid-1980's. I'll give credit where it's due: ATI drivers don't
suck as bad now as they did for 15 years. Yet they're still
lacking in a number of regards: no custom resolutions without
.NET or third-party software, no gamma adjustment etc etc.
Their reliance on .NET is what swore me off of them once
and for all. I installed .NET, it junked up my system so bad
and caused so many problems I had to do a full image
restore just to get rid of it completely.

If their drivers work for you, that's great. They don't for me.


On the point of the .NET problems , did you realise that with Vista the
drivers will have to work through .NET , so maybe all the problems ATI has
with .NET now give it a head start in Vista , nVidia will have to release
.NET version of drivers for Vista. I actually read that one of the latest
nVidia Driver releases actually has begun the process..
PS I know Vista isn't going to be the be all and end all of computing but it
will be relevant to many ppl , especially new computer buyers...

We'll see what happens with Vista and .NET. The levels of
ignorance about their roots and purpose are astonishing, but
I think (or at least I hope) once the computing world begins
to understand MS's stated goal -- to chain us to credit cards
and checkbooks just to use a computer -- they'll high tail it
away from both .NET and Vista. I know for myself, Win2K
will likely be my last MS OS. I refuse to "upgrade" even to
XP because of MS's ridiculous activation requirements.
What I do with my own computer hardware is none of MS's
damned business.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:59:46 GMT, "EDM" wrote:

We'll see what happens with Vista and .NET. The levels of
ignorance about their roots and purpose are astonishing, but
I think (or at least I hope) once the computing world begins
to understand MS's stated goal -- to chain us to credit cards
and checkbooks just to use a computer -- they'll high tail it
away from both .NET and Vista. I know for myself, Win2K
will likely be my last MS OS. I refuse to "upgrade" even to
XP because of MS's ridiculous activation requirements.
What I do with my own computer hardware is none of MS's
damned business.

"The levels of ignorance about their roots and purpose are
astonishing" - that sums you up nicely.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

"Andrew" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:59:46 GMT, "EDM" wrote:

We'll see what happens with Vista and .NET. The levels of
ignorance about their roots and purpose are astonishing, but
I think (or at least I hope) once the computing world begins
to understand MS's stated goal -- to chain us to credit cards
and checkbooks just to use a computer -- they'll high tail it
away from both .NET and Vista. I know for myself, Win2K
will likely be my last MS OS. I refuse to "upgrade" even to
XP because of MS's ridiculous activation requirements.
What I do with my own computer hardware is none of MS's
damned business.

"The levels of ignorance about their roots and purpose are
astonishing" - that sums you up nicely.

Ad hominem? Even you should be able to understand
plain English:

On Thursday, June 22, 2000, executives from Microsoft
Corporation finally unveiled the company's plans for the
future, which revolve around a set of technologies called
Microsoft .NET ("Microsoft Dot Net"). And while news
of this magnitude tends to make even the mainstream press,
one thing was probably lost on most people that heard
about the new strategy. Microsoft .NET represents a
complete and utter change in the way that Microsoft does
business, and it will gradually transform the company from
one that supplies shrink-wrapped software to one that
supplies subscription-based services to its customers
over the Internet."
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...ckgrounder.asp

EDM wrote:

On Thursday, June 22, 2000,

blink

And six years later that hasn't hapened, nor will it with Vista. Just
when is this subscription method supposed to happen?

"Garrot" wrote in message news:5nFxg.238058$iF6.109491@pd7tw2no...
EDM wrote:

On Thursday, June 22, 2000,

blink

And six years later that hasn't hapened, nor will it with Vista.

Then you don't understand the first thing about Vista.

Just when is this subscription method supposed to happen?

It's already happening, although in the background and without
the knowledge of most casual computer users. Have you
installed Adobe Photoshop CS/CS2? Or any Symantec
products? Or Intuit? Did you know the Macrovision SafeCast
services installed by this software can enforce any of four
licensing methods that can be changed at the will of the
publisher -- one of which is "forced subscription"? Do you
know why Vista requires .NET for its hardware drivers?

I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea. Since 2000
MS has not wavered on their stated purposes and goals of
..NET. It was just a matter of buttering up the computing
masses enough so they won't care once these hammers
start coming down. But there's absolutely no reason to
believe me, all you have to do is wait and watch.

Judd wrote:

"chrisv" wrote in message

Barry Watzman wrote:

First, Intel has their own video chip group, which does the video in the
chipsets (the Intel GMA's .... Graphics Media Accelerators). Yes,
that's been low end, but they could do high-end if Intel wanted to.
Intel simply hasn't wanted to.

Sure, they could do so, and get their asses kicked, just like last
time they tried getting into the high-end 3D-graphics business.

they didn't get their asses kicked.

Yes they did.

They sold it to Microsoft who was furious that they entered
the market. I remember writing applications to their API. It was solid and
very fast since it used MMX technology.

Whatever. They tried to break into the market, their product was
marginally competitive for a short period of time, but they soon fell
behind, apparently unable to keep up with the competition. They then
exited the market after the one product. I'd call that getting their
asses kicked.

MS was pushing DirectX/3D hard and bought out Intel's 3D unit or
essentially paid Intel to quit. That was the first sign of their
fragmenting relationship.

EDM wrote:

"loco" wrote in message

...

"EDM" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Garrot" wrote in message
news:9Pwxg.235772$Mn5.156002@pd7tw3no...
EDM wrote:

And that's not because of Intel/Nvidia merger speculation.
It's because AMD shareholders are about to get soaked,
paying a 25% premium for stock in a crap company who
can't write a decent Windows driver to save their lives.


You actually own an ATI card? I doubt someone who doesn't like their
drivers would be stupid enough to buy an ATI card. Or are you? If you
don't own one then you don't know WTF you are talking about. As an
owner of an ATI X800XL and a Nvidia 7900GT I feel qualified in saying
that ATI's drivers are just as good, if not beter, than Nvidia's.

Garrot, I've owned ~two dozen video cards over the past
20+ years, going back to Paradise/Video7/etc from the
mid-1980's. I'll give credit where it's due: ATI drivers don't
suck as bad now as they did for 15 years. Yet they're still
lacking in a number of regards: no custom resolutions without
.NET or third-party software, no gamma adjustment etc etc.
Their reliance on .NET is what swore me off of them once
and for all. I installed .NET, it junked up my system so bad
and caused so many problems I had to do a full image
restore just to get rid of it completely.

If their drivers work for you, that's great. They don't for me.


On the point of the .NET problems , did you realise that with Vista the
drivers will have to work through .NET , so maybe all the problems ATI
has with .NET now give it a head start in Vista , nVidia will have to
release .NET version of drivers for Vista. I actually read that one of
the latest nVidia Driver releases actually has begun the process..
PS I know Vista isn't going to be the be all and end all of computing but
it will be relevant to many ppl , especially new computer buyers...

We'll see what happens with Vista and .NET. The levels of
ignorance about their roots and purpose are astonishing, but
I think (or at least I hope) once the computing world begins
to understand MS's stated goal -- to chain us to credit cards
and checkbooks just to use a computer

I should like to see a link to that statement.

-- they'll high tail it
away from both .NET and Vista. I know for myself, Win2K
will likely be my last MS OS. I refuse to "upgrade" even to
XP because of MS's ridiculous activation requirements.
What I do with my own computer hardware is none of MS's
damned business.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

EDM wrote:

"Garrot" wrote in message
news:5nFxg.238058$iF6.109491@pd7tw2no...
EDM wrote:

On Thursday, June 22, 2000,

blink

And six years later that hasn't hapened, nor will it with Vista.

Then you don't understand the first thing about Vista.

What specifically doesn't he understand?

Just when is this subscription method supposed to happen?

It's already happening, although in the background and without
the knowledge of most casual computer users. Have you
installed Adobe Photoshop CS/CS2?

What, exactly, does this have to do with Microsoft or .NET?

Or any Symantec
products? Or Intuit? Did you know the Macrovision SafeCast
services installed by this software can enforce any of four
licensing methods that can be changed at the will of the
publisher -- one of which is "forced subscription"?

Which again has exactly what to do with .NET and Microsoft? Hint--all these
companies were using bizarre copy protection schemes and licensing models
long before .NET.

Do you
know why Vista requires .NET for its hardware drivers?

Perhaps you can tell us?

I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

The idea I get is that you read something in 2000 that scared you and then
quit paying attention to subsequent events.

Since 2000
MS has not wavered on their stated purposes and goals of
.NET.

Find us an "unwavering" statement subsequent to 2000.

It was just a matter of buttering up the computing
masses enough so they won't care once these hammers
start coming down. But there's absolutely no reason to
believe me, all you have to do is wait and watch.

We've been waiting and watching for 6 years now and the only hammers that
have come down came down on Microsoft after the subscribers in their pilot
program found out that their subscriptions had expired.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)