Crossfire PDF

[PaulS]

Let's hope not, because if the comments are from ATi, they look just as childish (if not more so) than NVIDIA.

I don't know who's worse, but the notes at least I don't THINK were ever meant to be presented as such...more like reminders for when you're presenting your own presentation about their leaked one. (If that makes any sense, I'm kind of getting confused me ownself. :? )

Possibly, but then you could say the same thing about the NVIDIA bullet points - as someone else has suggested, this seems like an internal PR roundup document, rather than something they'd want everyone to see. Not that they wouldn't stoop to this, of course, but they'd have tidied it up a little more. Looks fairly rough and unfinished right now.

 

[Demirug]

Maybe this is a devils advocat paper.

If you don't now this "game" here a short description.

A marketing team is split in two groups. Group one are the good guy and group two the bad ones (the devils advocats). After group one have build the offical presentation for a product the second one have the order to thing like a competitor and build a presentation that put the new product in a bad light. This is called the devils advocat paper. After this both teams together try to find points againts the the devils advocat paper.

You may ask why you don't change the offical presentation after you know the weak points? If you do this your competitor may find new weak points and than you don't have prepared yourself with arguments. We all know who laughs last, laughs best. Don't let your competitor the last laugh. It's all like playing chess and thing as much steps in advance as possible.

 

[wireframe]

Is using a text/hex editor the only way of reading these additional notes? Can't even be read with Acrobat (full, not reader)? Or are they password protected or something like that (sounds unlikely that a simple text editor should be able to circumvent this)?

It just seems a bit absurd that these notes should be embedded in such a fashion from either side. What's the point? Whoever made those comments must have meant them to be read, so why would they be completely hidden? Maybe I am not understanding how/why they were hidden.


Demirug,

How did you come upon these annotations by "accident"? We are talking about over 3000 lines of "garbage" with no logical reason to search for any particular string of text in that "garbage". Is there something you are not telling us? It just seems completely weird that you would look through something with a hex editor after Acrobat Reader states there are no comments in the document. I am very curious how you happened upon these notes.

EDIT:

Ok, I now saw "pmikula" as the 'author' of those notes in the document. That would make a good search string...but why? How would you even guess this? Do tell!

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Ok, I now saw "pmikula" as the 'author' of those notes in the document. That would make a good search string...but why? How would you even guess this? Do tell!

Patricia Mikula is a spokeswoman at ATI. However, that doesn't tell us if she wrote the original document, or was the person who edited the ATI response notes onto it. It's possible that ATI have prepared a response document for when people ask them about all these points that have been raised about Crossfire.

It's also worth noting that there are no company logos on it at all. It's not usual for any kind of presentation (even internal ones) to be without company logos. It's one of the ways companies claim ownership and copyright over their internal/external documents.

Edit: I take it back - there is one logo: the ATI Crossfire logo at the beginning.

 

[Jawed]

But the red, white and black colouring of the slides, to me, indicates it's more of an ATI-internal document than anything else (wholly internal).

I like Demirug's theory that it's a devil's advocat paper.

Jawed

 

[2senile]

Ok, I now saw "pmikula" as the 'author' of those notes in the document. That would make a good search string...but why? How would you even guess this? Do tell!

Patricia Mikula is a spokeswoman at ATI. However, that doesn't tell us if she wrote the original document, or was the person who edited the ATI response notes onto it. It's possible that ATI have prepared a response document for when people ask them about all these points that have been raised about Crossfire.

It's also worth noting that there are no company logos on it at all. It's not usual for any kind of presentation (even internal ones) to be without company logos. It's one of the ways companies claim ownership and copyright over their internal/external documents.

Edit: I take it back - there is one logo: the ATI Crossfire logo at the beginning.

Patricia Mikula was UK PR last time I met her but I've been "out of the loop" for a long time. Perhaps somebody else could clarify her present position?

 

[weeds]

Ok, I now saw "pmikula" as the 'author' of those notes in the document. That would make a good search string...but why? How would you even guess this? Do tell!

Patricia Mikula is a spokeswoman at ATI. However, that doesn't tell us if she wrote the original document, or was the person who edited the ATI response notes onto it. It's possible that ATI have prepared a response document for when people ask them about all these points that have been raised about Crossfire.

It's also worth noting that there are no company logos on it at all. It's not usual for any kind of presentation (even internal ones) to be without company logos. It's one of the ways companies claim ownership and copyright over their internal/external documents.

Patricia Mikula is the Public Relations Manager for Desktop Products at ATI

This pdf was made by ati, they cant place nvidia logo in it because of legal ramifications. and they arent gonna place theres on it. Ati looks petty
and childish by makeing up a response from nvidia. I dont think nvidia needs to responed right now as there really isnt anything to responed to
(no crossfire hardware in hands of reviewers etc.) And so many here believe this came from nvidia, and not ati, no way ati would do this. BullShit! Come on ati let your hardware speak, release it we will judge on that.


Also.
Quote from hothardware.

**UPDATE:June 3, 2005
We tried to duplicate the screen shots that ATI supplied to us, and found that ATI seems to have misrepresented the micro-geometry detail of NVIDIA's 8X anti-aliasing method. The screen shots we took on our own with a GeForce 6800 GT, clearly show more detail than the screen shots distributed by ATI in their CrossFire presentation. Take a look for yourself...

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?articleid=689&page=3#update

 

[Geeforcer]

If this was made by ATI it's quite...something.

 

[Dave Baumann]

According to Patti they recieved it from an AIB.

 

[Jawed]

Ooh, juicy.

Jawed

 

[2senile]

Ooh, juicy.

Jawed

Nar, not really, but it is fun.

According to Patti they recieved it from an AIB.

Soooo? Are you saying that "somebody" who supplies cards from both Companies can't be trusted to maintain "confidentiality"?

Uhmnn, I'm not really being serious as I can understand why PR for any Company would add such comments for internal use but I'd be interested in finding out how this particular thing "leaked" from ATi as I always thought nVidia was more "leaky".

Just for my own amusement.

 

[Dave Baumann]

LOL. She's reading this thread:

Here’s what happened. We received the PDF in question from a “sourceâ€. As I understand it they forwarded it to us because they thought we should see what is being said about us. I made “comments†in the document which, in Acrobat show up as yellow thought-bubble type thingies. I sent the document back to others within ATI and actually referred to the saved document as “with Patti’s angry commentsâ€. (How could I not be angry – have you read the document??) Anyway, I digress…

Someone deleted the comments and forwarded the document on. No one realized that the comments were embedded in the file still. I can assure you that we did not create the document.

 

[wireframe]

Here’s what happened. We received the PDF in question from a “sourceâ€. As I understand it they forwarded it to us because they thought we should see what is being said about us. I made “comments†in the document which, in Acrobat show up as yellow thought-bubble type thingies. I sent the document back to others within ATI and actually referred to the saved document as “with Patti’s angry commentsâ€. (How could I not be angry – have you read the document??) Anyway, I digress…

Someone deleted the comments and forwarded the document on. No one realized that the comments were embedded in the file still. I can assure you that we did not create the document.

My bold.

I have reason to believe that the PDF came out of ATI, so I take the bolded part to mean that the underlying "Nvidia presentation" is what is being referred to. Just in case someone else notices this little discrepancy.

PS. This makes me really curious how Demirug found these comments. If my theory is correct, ATI never received a PDF like this. It was created at ATI with added comments that were later scratched, leaving the embedded text.

 

[ERK]

How can you just accuse her of lying like that?

I can't imagine that this Patti has a history of blatant lies in email to Dave B, for anyone to base such an accusation on.

 

[wireframe]

How can you just accuse her of lying like that?

I can't imagine that this Patti has a history of blatant lies in email to Dave B, for anyone to base such an accusation on.

I am not accusing her of lying. I am trying to clarify something so people don't get carried away. Well, I guess I could be accusing her, but then she is lying. I believe what she wrote, but I think she forgot to mention that what they received was a Power Point presentation and not an Acrobat PDF file. So, ATI did create the PDF (hence italicized in my post), but she is saying they did not create the underlying Nvidia presentation, which is a PPT.

In other words, it went something like this:

1. AIB sends PPT file with a presentation puportedly from Nvidia downplaying CrossFire to ATI.

2. ATI (Patricia Mikula, in this case, I think it's safe to assume) then made it a PDF to insert comments.

3. Comments are deleted by someone after internal distribution.

4. Document escapes ATI, but Patricia Mikula's comments are still embedded.

-----------------------------------

So, the important distinction I wanted to make was that if anyone else snoops around a bit more, they will probably come the the same conclusion and then it might look like Patricia is lying...unless we clear this up now.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Here’s what happened. We received the PDF in question from a “sourceâ€. As I understand it they forwarded it to us because they thought we should see what is being said about us. I made “comments†in the document which, in Acrobat show up as yellow thought-bubble type thingies. I sent the document back to others within ATI and actually referred to the saved document as “with Patti’s angry commentsâ€. (How could I not be angry – have you read the document??) Anyway, I digress…

Someone deleted the comments and forwarded the document on. No one realized that the comments were embedded in the file still. I can assure you that we did not create the document.

My bold.

I have reason to believe that the PDF came out of ATI, so I take the bolded part to mean that the underlying "Nvidia presentation" is what is being referred to. Just in case someone else notices this little discrepancy.

PS. This makes me really curious how Demirug found these comments. If my theory is correct, ATI never received a PDF like this. It was created at ATI with added comments that were later scratched, leaving the embedded text.

My bold

Patti clearly states she got the document as a PDF from a outside source, (implication is it came from originally from Nvidia). She then added her rebuttle comments and circulated it to others in ATI for comments. This would explain the different creation and change dates in the document. Someone then (unsuccessfully) removed the comments, and passed the PDF on where it eventually surfaced on the internet.

 

[ERK]

Yes. I agree with how you put it. I just understood that when she wrote "we did not create the document," she was referring to the .ppt, not the .pdf. I don't think she was trying to mislead.

 

[Jawed]

Like I said, "Juicy".

Jawed

 

[wireframe]

Here’s what happened. We received the PDF in question from a “sourceâ€. As I understand it they forwarded it to us because they thought we should see what is being said about us. I made “comments†in the document which, in Acrobat show up as yellow thought-bubble type thingies. I sent the document back to others within ATI and actually referred to the saved document as “with Patti’s angry commentsâ€. (How could I not be angry – have you read the document??) Anyway, I digress…

Someone deleted the comments and forwarded the document on. No one realized that the comments were embedded in the file still. I can assure you that we did not create the document.

My bold.

I have reason to believe that the PDF came out of ATI, so I take the bolded part to mean that the underlying "Nvidia presentation" is what is being referred to. Just in case someone else notices this little discrepancy.

PS. This makes me really curious how Demirug found these comments. If my theory is correct, ATI never received a PDF like this. It was created at ATI with added comments that were later scratched, leaving the embedded text.

My bold

Patti clearly states she got the document as a PDF from a outside source, (implication is it came from originally from Nvidia). She then added her rebuttle comments and circulated it to others in ATI for comments. This would explain the different creation and change dates in the document. Someone then (unsuccessfully) removed the comments, and passed the PDF on where it eventually surfaced on the internet.

Yes, you are right. I somehow forgot that part. Weird. Ok, so then the AIB made the PDF and sent that to ATI...but why? Maybe more comments?

The reason I say this is because it is clear from the PDF we have downloaded and are discussing originated as a PPT that went through Acrobat Distiller.

Ok, so it definitely didn't have to happen like I said, but that seemed the most likely. My initial post on it was a sort of pre-emptive "wait now, even if they made the PDF it may not be what Mikula meant in here mail." With Demirug seeming to magically having found these comments (heh), I am sure others will be digging as well and when they see it is not a PDF from the start, there will be questions. I thought the most sensible scenario was the one I outlined. That's what I would have done if I wanted to add "my angry comments" hehe.

Sorry if it came out sounding like an accusation. But the situation is really weird. If I was the AIB and had the PPT I would just send that because I know ATI would like the original. But, then again, maybe the AIB doesn't even have the original PPT and this is some PDF that has been circulating free from PPT for a while.

What had me stumped was why someone would convert it to PDF without a need (assuming comments were only added once it hit ATI offices). I also tend to think of PDFs as somewhat secure and organized so that groups can see comments etc. So, it made little sense to me why an AIB would send an unlocked PDF to ATI, but I guess that is cloudier than I first thought.

 

[weeds]

According to Patti they recieved it from an AIB.

You didnt by chance notify Patti as to what was happening here about this document?? I think yes and I giggle like a school boy as Dave rushes to put out ati's fire, typical and predictable.