Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (
More info?)
J. wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:cb6ntl02c3k@news3.newsguy.com...
>> J. wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Greg" <gregorysutton@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:s6KdnS8w1_22qkndRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>> >> I don't know what your time is worth but for about $15 you can get a
> new
>> > cd
>> >> from ATI with everything on it. To me that's cheap as opposed to
> spending
>> > an
>> >> hour or 2 looking for a disc.
>> >
>> > This sort of nonsense only confirms what any sane person already knows:
>> > ATI
>> > are a bunch of IDIOTS. First, they include a model of utter absurdity
>> > (Gemstar Plus) as TV schedule software that we're supposed to take
>> > seriously.
>>
>> In case you're not aware of it Gemstar Plus is tied into the TV Guide
>> database and it's the _only_ scheduling software that you can get for a
>> PC
>> that is tied into that database. All the others get their data from
>> secondary sources. Now, one could argue that TV Guide should provide
>> better software but then how would they sell their magazine? Or would
>> you
>> pay an annual fee for access to their database? Didn't think so.
>
> So you think, for example, being able to click on a show (to see the
> description) without having the stupid TV display change to that channel,
> means I'll no longer buy TV Guide? (Not that I do). Huh?
What _I_ think is irrelevant. I don't run TV Guide. What _they_ think is
what matters.
>> > Then they don't even put it on their website. But maybe it's
>> > some issue since ATI didn't author the software? WHO CARES. That just
>> > makes them even bigger idiots then.
>>
>> So what _should_ they do to provide scheduling information direct from
>> the
>> TV Guide database? Maybe they're idiots for not going with a secondary
>> source--that's a judgment call--but if they're going with the "official"
>> database then they're stuck with the software that the provider makes
>> available and the terms and conditions associated with that software.
>>
>> Don't like it, then go with one of the other schedulers.
>
> I'll assume what you say is true. They're both idiots for not
> finding/creating better software. If ATI cared about software quality
> they
> would have done *something* about the Gemstar nonsense by now. But then
> MMC ("Multimedia Center") provides ample proof that that good software
> design means about as much to them as it does to Microsoft.
Blaming ATI for Gemstar is kind of like blaming Dell for Windows. There's
nothing "better" that can access that database because the owners of the
database are keeping it proprietary.
>> > These simpletons then have the ironic stupidity to include an item in
> the
>> > *Start Menu* to update the Gemstar Plus software? There never is any
>> > update in the first place,
>>
>> What are they supposed to do about that?
>>
>> > and secondly did it never occur to them that
>> > maybe they should have the same sort of thing to update their defective
>> > drivers/MMC?
>>
>> Why should they do that? They provide driver downloads, Gemstar doesn't.
>
> Why? Umm, maybe because at minimum it could provide a direct link to the
> correct download page? The website is MUCH better than it used to be, so
> it's easier to find your driver, but still having an update link would be
> useful. On a side note, 15 years from now they'll decide to consolidate
> all
> their files into single-installer options. Like they did with the
> catalyst
> drivers recently. Or wait, maybe an installer that does the driver, and
> then MMC automatically? Oooh, that would be advanced. Morons.
Personally I don't _want_ an "update link". I prefer to download the update
and then install it later. With multiple machines that saves my time and a
bit of bandwidth.
>> > These are only a few of dozens of issues so retarded, so
>> > completely banal,
>> > that they make religion look like a bastion of logic.
>>
>> It _is_ a bastion of logic. Ever read Aquinas? It's the underlying
>> assumptions that are questionable, not the reasoning from them.
>
> So then no, religion isn't a bastion of logic. Or does the term religion
> not include these utterly baseless/meaningless "underlying assumptions"?
> Uhh, yeah they're the only important part. Well, important to this
> discussion; otherwise irrelevant.
The term "logic" does not include the underlying assumptions. If the
process of logic is applied then the conclusion is logical. "Logical" is
not the same as "correct".
>
>> > Does anyone know what's wrong with these morons?
>>
>> Why don't you enlighten us?
>
> This would be my opinion. They're making comfortable livings and the
> company is doing well. There's no real motivation to clean up and revamp
> th e clunky and awkward junksuite that is MMC.
If you don't likle MMC then use something else. There's plenty of
"something else" out there.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram