why i hate...

M

mattsprattuk

New Member
i hate AMD, intel, nvidia, ATI, all motherboard and ram makers and MICROSOFT!!!

because...

ive seen loads and loads of posts about people massively overclocking processors, this means that the companies can easily make amazingly powerful machines, they just dont want to. why? MONEY!
they only bring out the 'most powerful processor' every month, and up it by a few hundred megahertz and the public goes mad and buys it, meaning the next one comes out, and eventually you have to upgrade because software catches up.
hence the microsoft hate.

they should...

release the most powerful hardware they can produce, and then the software companies can get better and computers will be generally better...

rant over...
 
Well

these companies invest billions into new research so they cannot introduce a product that will not generate the required cash. Through continuous investment and introduction of "new" products, you can grow your market and you can ensure that the growth is in-line with what people are expecting. Sure they could introduce a new CPU which would easily beat any existing CPU but it would not be economically sane for them to do that. When you understand how the business world works, you will see it's very logical and in fact the best way to improve the lives of a greater amount of people than the other option you suggested. Just my opinion.

JAN :D
 
what im trying to say is that the companies compete. nvidia and AMD, if they combined as one, then there would be no incompatibility issues, and it would progress twice as fast, you just seem quick to try and tell me im stupid.
i just want there to be one computer manufacturer per component sort of thing. theres no way for it not to make sense.
 
first off overclocking is a bad thing. It puts wear and tear on your processor/hardware. They don't put items out that are overclocked because they are designed to last longer than their warranty period. Also, releasing 10ghz processors would saturate the market, and drive the profits down of technology. It has to balance inbetween cost and profit otherwise no company would survive the long haul.

Their product is designed to perform in optimal settings, not in an over clocking environment, and that why over clocking voids warranty.
 
The increased performance of cpu that are over clocked are not just attributed to manufacturers not wanted to provide a better profit margin but it is a testament to the degree computer enthusiasts will go to in order to save money and increase performance. It is more a matter level of knowledge the average consumer has and the need for them to have the extra performance.

If over clocking is performed correctly and safely it will cause little if no 'wear and tear', most of the people hear who over clock have cooler cpu temps and barely raise the voltages if at all.
 
Last edited:
plus, just because a system seems to be running alright when it's overclocked does not mean that the onset of failure hasn't already begun

i've heard numerous people say that under an electron microscope, you can see damage caused by overclocking after not much time at all

processors are designed to run optimally at a given speed, anyone who thinks raising the speed has NO concequence is just being hopeful
 
mattsprattuk said:
what im trying to say is that the companies compete. nvidia and AMD, if they combined as one, then there would be no incompatibility issues, and it would progress twice as fast, you just seem quick to try and tell me im stupid.
i just want there to be one computer manufacturer per component sort of thing. theres no way for it not to make sense.
Click to expand...
This is economically a ridiculous idea... believe it or not these companies aren't investing billions jsut so they can supply you with the next gen processor, they are investing billions in order to make a next gen processor in order to beat competing companies, they are after-all a "BUSINESS".... with a top long term objective of making profit.

Also, if we take you philosophy, does that also mean that McDonalds, KFC and BurgerKing should merge because they are all vaguely in the same market, no of course it doesn't, each will research and create whichever product they want to beat competitors and gain more customers to increase profit.

To put it bluntly, these companies want your money and they dont really care very much to be honest. They do not exist simply to help you out or to help you get the latest thign at the lowest costs, despite what they may say on the mission statements

dragon
 
the difference between kfc burger king and mcd;s is they serve different food.
computer companies all serve the same food, just with different flavors.

that last paragraph from dragon is the reason i hate them

but i calmed down about an hour ago :D
 
don't forget that while they are continuing to release new things, theres millions of older products still in warehouses that manufactures and vendors have in storage waiting to be sold. if you owned a large pc store or chain of pc stores, would you want the newest thing to suddenly make your stock of motherboards, ram, etc suddenly be obselete and worthless causing you to loose tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars as people buy the faster things? then to have it happen all over again when they put out the fastest thing again?
lets look at it another way and pretend your a manufacturer, would you want to spend billions of dollars making millions of something new and fancy so you can release enough at once only to have it go obsolete 2, maybe 3 weeks later resaulting in the loss of half your warehouse of stock and milllions of dollars?

its called trying to make back the money from the older stuff before releaseing something new that will stop people from buying the older things.

don't blame it on microsoft, that little comment of yours makes me sick.
every manufacturing business in the entire world does it.
 
as for the merging all the companies into one big business thing, heck, that could be said about nearly every business in the world, and while i do agree it would be nice (imagine every car part working with every car), it isn't realistic.

just like how theres multiple companies making similer things now, new ones would open up. thats part of an economy. if somebody sees somebody making lots of money off something, they will try to jump in the market to make money aswell. why do you think there are so many manufacturers today? or did you actually think that every existing manufacturer existed from the birth of the pc? :P
 
overclocking kills your hardware and it doesn't save money it actually costs more. If you want to effectively over clock you will need to purchase higher end over clocking hardware. This drives the initial cost of your hardware up. It does create jobs/products/comapnies/business for the PC hobbyist who wants to over clock their rig.

Pumping more voltage at higher amperage on your electronics puts more wear and tear on the componets, no matter how good of a cooling system you have. capacitors, transistors, resisters, etc are all designed with the specifications of the hardware's stock abilities. Now some manufacturers market their products with built in over clocking features.

Not to mention, the processors are already over clocked as is from the factory. They are designed this way to run at optimal settings and actually last a while. When over clocking you run a higher margin of hardware failure, because if one minor thing goes wrong you run higher risk of damaging all your hardware.
 
mattsprattuk said:
what im trying to say is that the companies compete. nvidia and AMD, if they combined as one, then there would be no incompatibility issues, and it would progress twice as fast, you just seem quick to try and tell me im stupid.
i just want there to be one computer manufacturer per component sort of thing. theres no way for it not to make sense.
Click to expand...


Hi, i can see where you are coming from in a way. However if all the companies for each component joined together it would be a disadvantage for us the consumers as then there would be no competition and they could raise their prices as high as they would like.
 
"as for the merging all the companies into one big business thing, heck, that could be said about nearly every business in the world"

That is a very liberal notion, maybe even a little hmmmm ,Marxist?
 
ETSA said:
"as for the merging all the companies into one big business thing, heck, that could be said about nearly every business in the world"

That is a very liberal notion, maybe even a little hmmmm ,Marxist?
Click to expand...

It's called a monopoly and is illegal in capitalist nations.
 
Plus if there was just Intel or AMD and no competition why would they even make new stuff. We would still be using P-3 ghz. that run 1000 bucks. Same goes for everything else. Companys compete with other companys to sell there stuff not because there your friend:cool: .
 
we dont really need shops anymore with computers now, so they could all be ditched, then the ordered stuff could be made for that person! so they could lower costs without losing profit. they would operate from factories and simply deliver everything for the customers needs. like the dell advert with the dude on the phone and the computer on the production line.

im going to invent a friendly shop, itll be the best :D
 
StrangleHold said:
Plus if there was just Intel or AMD and no competition why would they even make new stuff. We would still be using P-3 ghz. that run 1000 bucks. Same goes for everything else. Companys compete with other companys to sell there stuff not because there your friend:cool: .
Click to expand...

This is what makes capitalism great, competition in the market place. Also, keeping company profits in line with market fluctuations and salary scales is how Teddy Rooseveltand unions(they didn't work together) were able to bring down the huge corporations in the early 1900's without destroying them. It also helped create the middle class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top