Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
Can you Crossfire 2 or 3 of them?
That would be completely Redonkulous!
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
So two boards would bring you up to the limit of Crossfire 4x #atiradeonhd5970
11/01/09
11/01/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/16/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
09/25/09
XFX has their own channel the videos are posted on:
[www.youtube.com]
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/11/09
They've lost a good 8 to 9 years to a PC Windows faithfull crowd that would have set a consumer base, boosterrevenue and development.
And when they finaly realize their mistake... Full HD Internet TV is almost around the corner to bury the hatchet once and for all....
What a bunch!
09/11/09
09/03/09
I think there is A LOT of confusion due to the complexity of the issues.
First, there is some confusion between "open standard" and "proprietary" - the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, but are often used interchangeably carelessly. In many cases, that is ok, but in other cases, it just adds to misunderstanding.
Proprietary simply refers to who owns it - and most standards are owned by somebody - a company, an alliance, a non-profit group. For example, "Microsoft proprietary standard" simply means Microsoft owns it. It could still be an open standard.
An open standard is one that is accessible by a other entities, usually for little or no fee, but usually still requires some license agreement to acknowledge ownership, define "compliance" with the standard, and how licensees can claim support of the standard.
The structure of fees is usually hidden from consumers - the manufacturers pay - whether a flat fee or a per unit fee - so just because it's open doesn't mean that its free.
For many standards "developed" by non-profit organizations (Bluetooth, for example) - there are actually companies who participate in supporting the non-profit, both by contributing funds as well as engineering resources. (Standards don't just write themselves) Sometimes, companies license or transfer their technology (patents) to the non-profits as part of their contribution and to help speed along development. (After all, why keep reinventing the wheel?) But sometimes, committees staffed with people from competing companies have conflicts and need to work through them - sometimes resulting in compromises that no one is happy with.
Obviously, the companies that are interested in helping develop a standard have something to gain by it - by selling chips or connectors, or by being able to plan for incorporation of new standards into their products.
For companies like Apple, there are many factors to consider in whether to go proprietary or to adopt an open standard. Is the open standard a quicker way to market? (maybe, maybe not - some committees take a very long time to get consensus to ratify a new standard) Open standards may mean greater choice of suppliers - there are many USB controller chip suppliers, for example. Open standard components may cost less due to more competition among suppliers. An open standard may mean more potential partners. On the other hand, proprietary standard may mean more control, quicker to market and better fit for the company's goals, as well as competitive advantage.
There are strategic reasons to consider on top of all that. Microsoft didn't sell more Windows OS by developing IE - but it didn't want to be left behind and let potential competitors develop substantial revenue sources. Microsoft's consistent strategy has been to develop their own standards and products to compete with any market leader - witness IE, MSN, WMV, Zune, Bing. Apple, on the other hand, adopts open standards when it makes sense, and develops proprietary when available open standards don't exist or aren't a good fit with it's (Steve's) vision for new products.
Basically, my point is that, as much as we all want to distill complex situations down to the simplest terms - good/bad - the reality is almost never that simple. Life would be boring if it were, no?