The article says to post your location if you felt the quake. Should you post your location if you feel FOR the victims of this horrible light trembling? If so, can the mods change my title to "In my office, on the third floor of my house"? Thanks.
"Has it?? i've been running beta2 for a few weeks and it dual boots Win7 just fine. Did they break something?"
Yes, Win7 still boots for some, and that is an unacceptable security risk. The inbuilt malware is pretty scary, and most antivirus programs will not detect it.
The short story is that I have yet to have any data on it come my way, but I am actively looking. There are several notebooks with Nvidia chipsets and the same material set, so sooner or later, I will hear.
When I get info that verifies or shoots down the status of those PCs, I will post it. It takes about a year for the problems to start happening on a level that warranty claims will be more than noise on the radar, so the data should exist. Getting to it is a slightly harder job.
I am betting that one of the multitude of lawsuits against Nvidia will have that in the documentation. If not, some lawyer will leak it to someone, or Nvidia will leak it to someone if there is not a problem.
Unfortunately, data like this is not as easy to get as a phone call to PR.:(
Speaking as a reporter who deals in such things, it is hard to feel any sympathy for Mr Chen. If the phone was paid for, he broke the law, period. It is one thing for someone to break an NDA and tell you something, show you something, or let you use something that they are entitled to have. It is quite another to know something is stolen, and use it. To know it is stolen, then to PAY for it, nope, no chance that this is right.
Before you say, "You don't know what you are talking about", I can point you to literally dozens of times I have seen info/roadmaps/prototypes/whatever, but not once did I ever pay for the information, or knowingly (even suspecting) break the law to do so. Others may have before they got to me, but when things were obviously not legit, I have politely declined the info.
Once you are 'known' in the industry, and have a good reputation (I think I do), you can ask for almost any info and get it, If you burn bridges, that also gets known, and nothing ever comes your way. After a short while, it is painfully obvious what is legit and what is not. No where, no way, and no how is paying for information, or worse yet prototypes, legit. Period. Hard line.
When I first heard about this, I knew it was only a matter of time before the hammer came down on Gizmodo. It was a stunningly stupid thing to do, and how any editor, much less higher ups if they knew, would have touched this with a 10 foot pole is beyond me. Unless there is something really profound that has not made the media yet, Gizmodo did wrong.
When I have similar offers/gifts/whatever come into my life, I politely decline, and usually call the company involved, tell them in general terms what happened, and tell them directly that it was declined. You usually get profound thanks, and a good deal of karma, and you don't even have to rat out your sources because nothing happened. Win/win/win/win/lose/win/win, or something like that.:)
All this said, of all the companies I have dealt with in this type of situation, the only one that are complete bastards about it are Apple. They won't return phone calls or emails even if you are really trying to help them. Not a chance.
In this case, I can't see how the Gizmodo guys didn't do wrong in the most basic way. I reserve the right to update that opinion if more evidence comes out, but the $5000 pretty much seals it. I would expect Gizmodo to go down. Hard.
I have tried to deal with Apple on a number of occasions, every time it was not something I HAD to do, but something I felt obliged to do. I dutifully called them up, recorded the process, recorded the messages I left (try to get a real person there, I dare you!), and gave them more then enough time to get back to me (several days). I also left the same message on a number of relevant voice mails.
Apple just won't deal with you, they are Apple, and you are beneath them. If you are not a known kiss-up, they won't return your calls, emails, or anything else. Try, don't try, it doesn't matter, they won't get back to you. Insiders have told me that this is policy, not a fluke.
"What possible reason could you have to want to be locked into one GPU vendor?"
Perhaps because you are sick and tired of GPUs that don't die an early death, and love sitting on the phone and being told that it isn't covered by warranty by HP, Dell, Apple, Sony, and the rest.
You obviously don't have much of a clue about security, and didn't RTFP. (S)He said he needed to access what amounts to sensitive financial info over low bandwidth links. This rules out windows for two reasons 1) It is insecurable 2) Patches don't work well over low bandwidth links.
1) Windows does not have bugs, it has design flaws and bugs. The bugs let any little pinhole own a box, and for that reason, it is insecurable. This is not a 'patch' problem, it is a fundamental failure.
2) If the person gets to a high bandwidth link, they will probably not get there every day, and the 0-day exploits will be all over by the time they can download the latest MS uber-patch, much less the megs of anti-virus and anti-malware that comes out daily. Nothing you pointed to protects the OS, and there is no version of windows that is securable, so your 'recomendation' is basically putting them hugely at risk. There is no security in what you recommend, only the inability to patch the few holes MS deems necessary to fix.
So, what would I recommend? Nothing Windows, that is asking for trouble. Linux is the best option, and it can run on much lower spec hardware than any recent windows box.
I would take a live CD of a distro that you are familiar with, Ubuntu is a good choice if the answer is 'none'. Don't take the bleeding edge one, take one that has been out for a while, for Ubuntu, 8.10 is decent, and 8.04 is an 'LTS' or Long Term Support version that might do well if you have to be gone for a long time. One really amazing feature that Ubuntu, and most Linuxes have is that it is free. If you are in the middle of nowhere, and something goes really wrong, you can get a copy, burn it/put it on a flash drive, and re-install. It may take a while, but it does work. (note - you would not believe how slow the network at CES can be at times, it took forever to D/L 9.04 alpha....)
So, grab the distro of choice, patch it fully, and make a live CD, or save the patches. Bring two of the CDs with you, one in the drive, one in your bag, and keep another on a bootable flash stick.
Now, you don't really need a laptop, boot from the CD or stick, and off you go.
Should you want a laptop, you can install the OS, run from the CD, or run from the stick. If you really wanted to be clever, customize the live CD to use the stick to save data, and most malware gets flushed every time you reboot, the OS is 'virgin' with every boot. If you want to encrypt the drive/stick, feel free. I would keep all sensitive data on a small USB stick (Supertalent Pico A is a great one), and put it in my shoe. You may get robbed, but ratty shoes are not high on the list of things to steal.
So, set up a patched live CD, set up data partitions to be encrypted as you want, keep all the data on your stick, and keep it in something that doesn't get stolen.
Naturally this is only being used to break encryption on computers seized with a warrant and suspected of harboring child pornography.
... suuuuuure.
No really, it is true. The guys that don't follow the law get much better funding, and they can afford to make their own custom ASICs to do it much faster. It is only the ones that take the silly 'legal route' that have to scrimp and save like this.
I was initially impressed by the MS 'open' pledges, until I talked to several coder friends. Their take, paraphrased, was that it was window dressing with a lot of traps. Basically, they 'opened' the wrapper, just like they did with their Office formats.
The problem, as it was explained to me, is that if you want to do anything useful, you have to call a bunch of things that are not opened, will not be opened, and MS can still sue your *ss off for using. One person asked how useful it is to 'open' the hypothetical call, Play_video_with_MS_proprietary_closed_codec? I mean, you can copy the functionality, but your software is only cross-platform to the extent that MS proprietary and closed codecs and other things are 'open'.
This is nothing more than a stealth PR attempt, they will use it to say, "We opened everything up, and see, Linux still sux0rz because it can't play movies, sound, DRM, or anything else useful. We opened everything up, but the Linux model is broken, and their lazy codes won't do the right thing. If you want real XYZ, you need Windows".
It is nothing more than opening the most useless bits, and using it as a PR hammer. Yay progress?
How's that hybrid power between the 9400 and 9600 work for ya? BSODs? Distorted video on your machines (http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2377)? Mac Mini first gen with (intended) HD?
Nope not fired. Only one person that I know of was, and it wasn't me. Luckily, it is easy enough to search the posters who say that out should I be bored and want to sue. It is a pretty clear case of libel, eh?
Keeping up a sham for the stock analysts to see while the insiders bleed off shares perhaps? I don't know if this is the case, or have any evidence to back it up, but if I cared enough to look, that is where I would start.
Yes and no. Their excuse is the legal inability, but they have known that for ~2 years. Why it suddenly becomes an issue AFTER they realized they needed to publicly have a scapegoat is something you will have to ask them.
The basic problem is that there will not be any chipsets in about a year, with memory controllers, graphics and PCIe moving on package or on die, depending on the exact chip, but on all on die shortly thereafter. What is a chipset? Sata controller, boot rom and USB ports? And why do I need an NVidia branded one for $50 commodity when everyone else is selling it for $5?
NV is out of the business, and they played a really stupid game with Wall Street. Then Wall Street didn't like the surprise that wouldn't have been there had Nvidia come clean about it a year ago. Now, the analysts based their models on something that not only wasn't true, but NV knew it wasn't.
The analysts look stupid, and NV is to blame. So they are putting out a childish attempt at the blame game. As someone who watches their little shenanigans, it would be entertaining as hell to write about, but since this is time #23 of this same game, it is just tiring.
Basically, NV ended the program(s) over a year ago. They lead the financial guys on to believe it was strong and ongoing, and the finance people took their word for it. When word got out (again, not mine, Ryan/PCPer's above), they had to have an excuse NOW. So Intel! Yeah, they are big and bad, blame them! So they did.
Remember, nothing is Nvidia's fault, EVER. They still have not released a list of the 'Bumpgate' bad chips, or done anything to help the affected people. If you intone something is their fault, you will be blacklisted. Blame something else or else! Been there, seen that, time for a new trick. Maybe if I buy some dog biscuits before CES........
Yup, you are right, but the same thing happened with their chipsets, same problem. Look up the recent Sony admission on the same topic, and Dell, HP along with many others. I won't keep spamming my own links/stories here, you can find them an a lot more with a little searching.
I would not say their chipsets are reliable, nor bug free, but they did have speed at times. This may be OK for a home user, but looking at the data corruption problems for their RAID setups, drive controller issues in general, networking features that never functioned right, and others, for any real use, people avoided them. The only reason they looked good is that up until recently, the competition, ATI, VIA and Broadcom, was far far worse.
Intel was almost always more reliable, more stable, and less bug ridden. ATI cleaned up it's act with the release of the 6xx series chipset, and has been moving steadily upward since. The others went away.
If you want a good example of Nvidia reliability, go get the NUFI lawsuit against them, it details 10 (From memory, I might be off) of the chips that died, the companies affected, and Nvidia's claims (financial) about them. Mike Magee did that one on TGDaily, I went into it a bit more on The Inq, but the lawsuit is well worth reading if you think NV can produce a reliable chip. It isn't fanboi ranting, it is legal filings. If you can't find it, email me at semiaccurate.com and I will send the PDF. Make sure your mail can take a big attachment though, I think it was in the 5-10MB range.
I was trying not to pimp my own stuff, but since you asked.....
Short story #1, the G200b based cards are huge and need expensive PCBs. They cost more to make than the upcoming and likely faster ATI Juniper parts, so NV will have to wrap a $20 bill around each card to make them sell. Not a long term good business plan. I can't say more because I was prebriefed on the ATI cards and agreed not to talk about them. When you read this, keep in mind that I gave Nvidia a very generous benefit of the doubt. You will understand why a lot better next week or so. http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/06/nvidia-will-crater-gtx260-and-gtx275-prices-soon/
If you go back and look, the Nvidia denials and attacks against me are personal and do not address the facts, just attack the messenger. Kyle posted one from Ken Brown at Nvidia here: http://www.hardocp.com/news/2009/10/07/nvidia_abandons_market6363636363/ Note HOW they say it, and what they do NOT say. They did the EXACT same thing a year ago when they were denying the chipset knifings. You could almost take this as desperate spinning because their pants are so firmly around their ankles that they can't run, and they can't refute the facts because I am right.
Then again, what do I know.
-Charlie
Note: Cue the Nvidia fanbois in 3.... 2.... 1.....
Yeah, they made Nvidia look bad by putting out chipset that met spec, survived average use, then had the gall to not hide the fact! (see http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2377) I mean really, how can Intel do business like that? And people wonder why Nvidia is bailing, then trying to hide it before Wall Street notices and downgrades them more.
The story goes like this. 1) Nvidia stops designing future chipsets 2) Nvidia blames Intel for nebulous atrocity 3) Nvidia hides the facts 4) It gets out 5) Nvidia admits it 6) Wall Street notices (several analyst reports out on the subject today) 7) Nvidia realizes that Wall Street noticed 8) Nvidia backpedals, hard, fast, and with all due slime
The 'denial' they are throwing around now states that they are not going to develop AMD chipsets anymore, not going to develop Intel chipsets anymore, and only going to continue selling the ones they have made. Until Intel stops making FSB chips in a few months, then it WILL be Intel's fault somehow.
Back to the original question, can you explain how Nvidia voluntarily stopping design of AMD chipsets is Intel's fault?:)
I saw this a year ago when I saw them stop most if not all future chipset products. I wrote it up. Nvidia denied it. A year later, they announce a stoppage for a few hours until the implications sink in. Then they deny it.
Yup. Intel. Those bastards!
I agree about the competition part, but this isn't sad, it was planned.
So, they are stopping development of AMD chipsets, and stopping development of the Intel chipsets, leaving.... what again?
And their triumphant "no we are not" leaving statement amounts to, "We are going to sell the ones we have designed". Great. As long as Intel makes FSB chips, they can continue to trickle out older chipsets. But no new ones. And they aren't leaving. And there are no American tanks in Baghdad.
Come on, the only reason they are countering this is because the financial community is noticing, and that might downgrade the stock. Even an extremely slow monkey can read what they are saying.
They are doing the same thing about their "not killing" the GTX285/275/260, it is just a temporary shortage or some twaddle. This one won't take a year to admit though.
I forget, is this bow or gun season for Wired writers? The local DNR is waffling, the closest they could come is 'long pork', but that is much too broad for the purposes of this game.
Slashdot Mirror
And you thought it was an off-handed joke... :)
FWIW, it taped out a few weeks before I wrote this unworthy self link.
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/04/21/atis-southern-islands-tapes-out/
That would put hot lots back about, oh, a couple of weeks ago, so yeah, right on track.
-Charlie
What you felt was probably not the quake, just ATI firing up their new silicon for Southern Islands. :)
-Charlie
The article says to post your location if you felt the quake. Should you post your location if you feel FOR the victims of this horrible light trembling? If so, can the mods change my title to "In my office, on the third floor of my house"? Thanks.
-Charlie
"Has it?? i've been running beta2 for a few weeks and it dual boots Win7 just fine. Did they break something?"
Yes, Win7 still boots for some, and that is an unacceptable security risk. The inbuilt malware is pretty scary, and most antivirus programs will not detect it.
-Charlie
The short story is that I have yet to have any data on it come my way, but I am actively looking. There are several notebooks with Nvidia chipsets and the same material set, so sooner or later, I will hear.
When I get info that verifies or shoots down the status of those PCs, I will post it. It takes about a year for the problems to start happening on a level that warranty claims will be more than noise on the radar, so the data should exist. Getting to it is a slightly harder job.
I am betting that one of the multitude of lawsuits against Nvidia will have that in the documentation. If not, some lawyer will leak it to someone, or Nvidia will leak it to someone if there is not a problem.
Unfortunately, data like this is not as easy to get as a phone call to PR. :(
-Charlie
Speaking as a reporter who deals in such things, it is hard to feel any sympathy for Mr Chen. If the phone was paid for, he broke the law, period. It is one thing for someone to break an NDA and tell you something, show you something, or let you use something that they are entitled to have. It is quite another to know something is stolen, and use it. To know it is stolen, then to PAY for it, nope, no chance that this is right.
Before you say, "You don't know what you are talking about", I can point you to literally dozens of times I have seen info/roadmaps/prototypes/whatever, but not once did I ever pay for the information, or knowingly (even suspecting) break the law to do so. Others may have before they got to me, but when things were obviously not legit, I have politely declined the info.
Once you are 'known' in the industry, and have a good reputation (I think I do), you can ask for almost any info and get it, If you burn bridges, that also gets known, and nothing ever comes your way. After a short while, it is painfully obvious what is legit and what is not. No where, no way, and no how is paying for information, or worse yet prototypes, legit. Period. Hard line.
When I first heard about this, I knew it was only a matter of time before the hammer came down on Gizmodo. It was a stunningly stupid thing to do, and how any editor, much less higher ups if they knew, would have touched this with a 10 foot pole is beyond me. Unless there is something really profound that has not made the media yet, Gizmodo did wrong.
When I have similar offers/gifts/whatever come into my life, I politely decline, and usually call the company involved, tell them in general terms what happened, and tell them directly that it was declined. You usually get profound thanks, and a good deal of karma, and you don't even have to rat out your sources because nothing happened. Win/win/win/win/lose/win/win, or something like that. :)
All this said, of all the companies I have dealt with in this type of situation, the only one that are complete bastards about it are Apple. They won't return phone calls or emails even if you are really trying to help them. Not a chance.
In this case, I can't see how the Gizmodo guys didn't do wrong in the most basic way. I reserve the right to update that opinion if more evidence comes out, but the $5000 pretty much seals it. I would expect Gizmodo to go down. Hard.
-Charlie
I have tried to deal with Apple on a number of occasions, every time it was not something I HAD to do, but something I felt obliged to do. I dutifully called them up, recorded the process, recorded the messages I left (try to get a real person there, I dare you!), and gave them more then enough time to get back to me (several days). I also left the same message on a number of relevant voice mails.
Apple just won't deal with you, they are Apple, and you are beneath them. If you are not a known kiss-up, they won't return your calls, emails, or anything else. Try, don't try, it doesn't matter, they won't get back to you. Insiders have told me that this is policy, not a fluke.
What did I contact them about? This:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1049921/inquirer-confirms-apple-macbook-pros-have-nvidia-bad-bump-material
Nope, no calls back. Could have saved them a big black eye though.
-Charlie
"What possible reason could you have to want to be locked into one GPU vendor?"
Perhaps because you are sick and tired of GPUs that don't die an early death, and love sitting on the phone and being told that it isn't covered by warranty by HP, Dell, Apple, Sony, and the rest.
-Charlie
Estoppel. [...] look this one up.
It would probably help even more if you told us what it meant.
Let me Google that for you.
Let me Bing it for you, it says:
"Vista is a much more worthy operating system than Linux, you should upgrade today."
There you have it, the unbiased truth.
-Charlie
You obviously don't have much of a clue about security, and didn't RTFP. (S)He said he needed to access what amounts to sensitive financial info over low bandwidth links. This rules out windows for two reasons 1) It is insecurable 2) Patches don't work well over low bandwidth links.
1) Windows does not have bugs, it has design flaws and bugs. The bugs let any little pinhole own a box, and for that reason, it is insecurable. This is not a 'patch' problem, it is a fundamental failure.
2) If the person gets to a high bandwidth link, they will probably not get there every day, and the 0-day exploits will be all over by the time they can download the latest MS uber-patch, much less the megs of anti-virus and anti-malware that comes out daily. Nothing you pointed to protects the OS, and there is no version of windows that is securable, so your 'recomendation' is basically putting them hugely at risk. There is no security in what you recommend, only the inability to patch the few holes MS deems necessary to fix.
So, what would I recommend? Nothing Windows, that is asking for trouble. Linux is the best option, and it can run on much lower spec hardware than any recent windows box.
I would take a live CD of a distro that you are familiar with, Ubuntu is a good choice if the answer is 'none'. Don't take the bleeding edge one, take one that has been out for a while, for Ubuntu, 8.10 is decent, and 8.04 is an 'LTS' or Long Term Support version that might do well if you have to be gone for a long time. One really amazing feature that Ubuntu, and most Linuxes have is that it is free. If you are in the middle of nowhere, and something goes really wrong, you can get a copy, burn it/put it on a flash drive, and re-install. It may take a while, but it does work. (note - you would not believe how slow the network at CES can be at times, it took forever to D/L 9.04 alpha....)
So, grab the distro of choice, patch it fully, and make a live CD, or save the patches. Bring two of the CDs with you, one in the drive, one in your bag, and keep another on a bootable flash stick.
Now, you don't really need a laptop, boot from the CD or stick, and off you go.
Should you want a laptop, you can install the OS, run from the CD, or run from the stick. If you really wanted to be clever, customize the live CD to use the stick to save data, and most malware gets flushed every time you reboot, the OS is 'virgin' with every boot. If you want to encrypt the drive/stick, feel free. I would keep all sensitive data on a small USB stick (Supertalent Pico A is a great one), and put it in my shoe. You may get robbed, but ratty shoes are not high on the list of things to steal.
So, set up a patched live CD, set up data partitions to be encrypted as you want, keep all the data on your stick, and keep it in something that doesn't get stolen.
-Charlie
Naturally this is only being used to break encryption on computers seized with a warrant and suspected of harboring child pornography.
... suuuuuure.
No really, it is true. The guys that don't follow the law get much better funding, and they can afford to make their own custom ASICs to do it much faster. It is only the ones that take the silly 'legal route' that have to scrimp and save like this.
-Charlie
Not if it uses patented algorithms or whatnot to decode. That is the trap.
-Charlie
I was initially impressed by the MS 'open' pledges, until I talked to several coder friends. Their take, paraphrased, was that it was window dressing with a lot of traps. Basically, they 'opened' the wrapper, just like they did with their Office formats.
The problem, as it was explained to me, is that if you want to do anything useful, you have to call a bunch of things that are not opened, will not be opened, and MS can still sue your *ss off for using. One person asked how useful it is to 'open' the hypothetical call, Play_video_with_MS_proprietary_closed_codec? I mean, you can copy the functionality, but your software is only cross-platform to the extent that MS proprietary and closed codecs and other things are 'open'.
This is nothing more than a stealth PR attempt, they will use it to say, "We opened everything up, and see, Linux still sux0rz because it can't play movies, sound, DRM, or anything else useful. We opened everything up, but the Linux model is broken, and their lazy codes won't do the right thing. If you want real XYZ, you need Windows".
It is nothing more than opening the most useless bits, and using it as a PR hammer. Yay progress?
-Charlie
How's that hybrid power between the 9400 and 9600 work for ya? BSODs? Distorted video on your machines (http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2377)? Mac Mini first gen with (intended) HD?
-Charlie
Nope not fired. Only one person that I know of was, and it wasn't me. Luckily, it is easy enough to search the posters who say that out should I be bored and want to sue. It is a pretty clear case of libel, eh?
-Charlie
Keeping up a sham for the stock analysts to see while the insiders bleed off shares perhaps? I don't know if this is the case, or have any evidence to back it up, but if I cared enough to look, that is where I would start.
-Charlie
If you can't figure that out by my signing my name -Charlie at the bottom of the post, or my email, you are beyond hope.
That said, I will just let you stew in suspense.
-Charlie
Yes and no. Their excuse is the legal inability, but they have known that for ~2 years. Why it suddenly becomes an issue AFTER they realized they needed to publicly have a scapegoat is something you will have to ask them.
The basic problem is that there will not be any chipsets in about a year, with memory controllers, graphics and PCIe moving on package or on die, depending on the exact chip, but on all on die shortly thereafter. What is a chipset? Sata controller, boot rom and USB ports? And why do I need an NVidia branded one for $50 commodity when everyone else is selling it for $5?
NV is out of the business, and they played a really stupid game with Wall Street. Then Wall Street didn't like the surprise that wouldn't have been there had Nvidia come clean about it a year ago. Now, the analysts based their models on something that not only wasn't true, but NV knew it wasn't.
The analysts look stupid, and NV is to blame. So they are putting out a childish attempt at the blame game. As someone who watches their little shenanigans, it would be entertaining as hell to write about, but since this is time #23 of this same game, it is just tiring.
Basically, NV ended the program(s) over a year ago. They lead the financial guys on to believe it was strong and ongoing, and the finance people took their word for it. When word got out (again, not mine, Ryan/PCPer's above), they had to have an excuse NOW. So Intel! Yeah, they are big and bad, blame them! So they did.
Remember, nothing is Nvidia's fault, EVER. They still have not released a list of the 'Bumpgate' bad chips, or done anything to help the affected people. If you intone something is their fault, you will be blacklisted. Blame something else or else! Been there, seen that, time for a new trick. Maybe if I buy some dog biscuits before CES........
-Charlie
Try plugging an SSD into one of those chipsets and see how far you get. Especially an Intel SLC SSD. Then go look for a patch on Nvidia's site.
Intel had to patch around Nvidia's bugs, Nvidia wouldn't. There is a long list of these things.
They may exist, but I wouldn't call them good. They essentially haven't been touched, just renamed, and are seriously showing their age.
-Charlie
Yup, you are right, but the same thing happened with their chipsets, same problem. Look up the recent Sony admission on the same topic, and Dell, HP along with many others. I won't keep spamming my own links/stories here, you can find them an a lot more with a little searching.
I would not say their chipsets are reliable, nor bug free, but they did have speed at times. This may be OK for a home user, but looking at the data corruption problems for their RAID setups, drive controller issues in general, networking features that never functioned right, and others, for any real use, people avoided them. The only reason they looked good is that up until recently, the competition, ATI, VIA and Broadcom, was far far worse.
Intel was almost always more reliable, more stable, and less bug ridden. ATI cleaned up it's act with the release of the 6xx series chipset, and has been moving steadily upward since. The others went away.
If you want a good example of Nvidia reliability, go get the NUFI lawsuit against them, it details 10 (From memory, I might be off) of the chips that died, the companies affected, and Nvidia's claims (financial) about them. Mike Magee did that one on TGDaily, I went into it a bit more on The Inq, but the lawsuit is well worth reading if you think NV can produce a reliable chip. It isn't fanboi ranting, it is legal filings. If you can't find it, email me at semiaccurate.com and I will send the PDF. Make sure your mail can take a big attachment though, I think it was in the 5-10MB range.
-Charlie
I was trying not to pimp my own stuff, but since you asked.....
Short story #1, the G200b based cards are huge and need expensive PCBs. They cost more to make than the upcoming and likely faster ATI Juniper parts, so NV will have to wrap a $20 bill around each card to make them sell. Not a long term good business plan. I can't say more because I was prebriefed on the ATI cards and agreed not to talk about them. When you read this, keep in mind that I gave Nvidia a very generous benefit of the doubt. You will understand why a lot better next week or so.
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/06/nvidia-will-crater-gtx260-and-gtx275-prices-soon/
Short story #2, a short while after I finished the above story, I got a call detailing how the GTX260/275/285 and possibly 295 were being killed. I wrote it up here:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/06/nvidia-kills-gtx285-gtx275-gtx260-abandons-mid-and-high-end-market/
If you go back and look, the Nvidia denials and attacks against me are personal and do not address the facts, just attack the messenger. Kyle posted one from Ken Brown at Nvidia here:
http://www.hardocp.com/news/2009/10/07/nvidia_abandons_market6363636363/
Note HOW they say it, and what they do NOT say. They did the EXACT same thing a year ago when they were denying the chipset knifings. You could almost take this as desperate spinning because their pants are so firmly around their ankles that they can't run, and they can't refute the facts because I am right.
Then again, what do I know.
-Charlie
Note: Cue the Nvidia fanbois in 3.... 2.... 1.....
"Do we get mad at Intel?"
Yeah, they made Nvidia look bad by putting out chipset that met spec, survived average use, then had the gall to not hide the fact! (see http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2377) I mean really, how can Intel do business like that? And people wonder why Nvidia is bailing, then trying to hide it before Wall Street notices and downgrades them more.
The story goes like this.
1) Nvidia stops designing future chipsets
2) Nvidia blames Intel for nebulous atrocity
3) Nvidia hides the facts
4) It gets out
5) Nvidia admits it
6) Wall Street notices (several analyst reports out on the subject today)
7) Nvidia realizes that Wall Street noticed
8) Nvidia backpedals, hard, fast, and with all due slime
The 'denial' they are throwing around now states that they are not going to develop AMD chipsets anymore, not going to develop Intel chipsets anymore, and only going to continue selling the ones they have made. Until Intel stops making FSB chips in a few months, then it WILL be Intel's fault somehow.
Back to the original question, can you explain how Nvidia voluntarily stopping design of AMD chipsets is Intel's fault? :)
I saw this a year ago when I saw them stop most if not all future chipset products. I wrote it up. Nvidia denied it. A year later, they announce a stoppage for a few hours until the implications sink in. Then they deny it.
Yup. Intel. Those bastards!
I agree about the competition part, but this isn't sad, it was planned.
-Charlie
So, they are stopping development of AMD chipsets, and stopping development of the Intel chipsets, leaving.... what again?
And their triumphant "no we are not" leaving statement amounts to, "We are going to sell the ones we have designed". Great. As long as Intel makes FSB chips, they can continue to trickle out older chipsets. But no new ones. And they aren't leaving. And there are no American tanks in Baghdad.
Come on, the only reason they are countering this is because the financial community is noticing, and that might downgrade the stock. Even an extremely slow monkey can read what they are saying.
-Charlie
This isn't new, they knifed it a year+ ago. I wrote it up then:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1021993/nvidia-chipsets-history
and no one believed it. Now that NV has no choice but to admit it, they stopped pretending. Yay?
They are doing the same thing about their "not killing" the GTX285/275/260, it is just a temporary shortage or some twaddle. This one won't take a year to admit though.
-Charlie
I forget, is this bow or gun season for Wired writers? The local DNR is waffling, the closest they could come is 'long pork', but that is much too broad for the purposes of this game.
-Charlie