Evildeus said:
Really
So each time there's a bug on a application we should see this statement no? I haven't see any till now.
Exactly.
And each time there's a bug in a driver, web sites have have never commented on them without getting the "conclusion" from all sources? Each time a "bug" is found, it shouldn't be reported on?
You are trying to have it both ways. That ET shouldn't have some expose because somehow this is "different", but at the same time, this is the "same" as every other situation, so the IHVs shouldn't do anything different.
Pick a side.
I see, and the evidence is that there's a problem, thet FM and NV doesn't know what it is (or they say so), and that the trial has already been conclude by people, ie GUILTY.
I see you don't understand how a trial works.
The PROSECUTION just presented its case. If folks want to pass final judgement based on the prosecution, they are wrong. It's up to nVidia to now make the case for the defense.
And that special process in this case, saying giving confidential information before any futher investigation contrary to the rules of FM.
What "confidential information" was given?
I didn't say they didn't i said they didn't have time to go far. And see above.
Where is the "rule" that says you decide how far into an investigation is "far enough" before the results are made known?
Really, then there's an issue cos FM/ET said they were aware 1 week before and moreover that NO investigation has been made with NV (oh yes "it's probably a bug" is really some investigation) and no investigation has been conclusive at FM right now.
Um, these sites can't FORCE NV TO DO AN INVESTIGATION. All they can do is make them aware of the problem.
By your logic, any IHV can cheat in a driver, it can be "found out" by someone, they can inform the IHV, and the IHV can say "eh, we'll get back to you on that, maybe".
And that's good enough for you right?
And in that specfic case it's a special treatment, normally it would have been investigate in confidentiality,
Says who?
quote]then when the conclusion comes out there would have been an official statement. [/quote]
ET DID MAKE A CONCLUSION. Their conclusion is THEIR OFFICIAL STATEMENT on what they think is going on. ET is not Futuremark. Don't treat them as one in the same.
Yes, but it's the conclusion that is more important, because it's not able to see it on 3Dmark without beeing a Beta member.
A conclusion that was made by ET.
And the only conclusion i see is: ET saying NV is guilty and FM saying, we don't know look at ET. 8)
And what is the problem with that? ET is a journalist site, they are free to come up with whatever conclusionst they want to. Unless FM tells them
no, we know for sure that your conlcusion is false, ET is free to publish whatever the hell they want.
I don't recall Kyle even ASKING ID SOFTWARE whether or not ATi was cheating or if it was a driver bug....but I guess that's OK?
Since it's being established in the beta program...
Where do you come up with this stuff? WHAT was established in the beta program? That one can't publish results from drivers that don't do what they are suppossed to do?
using confidential information.
What confidential information? Certainly not confidential to nVidia.
THE DRIVERS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
But well it doesn't seems to have been include in your requirements.
Pardon me, but where the hell were you when Kyle was dissing 3DMark03, based on nVidia's accusations, and not even BOTHERED to ask FM about the validity and relevancy of nVidia's claims?
I was not here, so what? And what's the releavance of this? Does that means that what i'm saying is false?
The relevance is the HYPOCRICY of your stance, pending your answer to the question.
Right, because they cannot publish stuff using their developer tool without permission. What's the problem?
Well, if you don't see it, i can't do much for you.
ED,
NOBODY "SEES IT" but you. That should tell you something.
