D~ I'd stated that you were allowing your own prejudices to bubble to the surface. I stand by that. You may have misunderstood and assumed that, as the subject in hand was AMD, that I was suggesting you were biased towards Intel: that is not what I was referring to. You have a simple dislike of corporations and the rich. That's what you brought to the party. This has come up in a few threads previously so I don't regard it as a recent phenomenon. With me so far? This thread started out fairly mundane - we're talking about AMD's new EPYC Rome CPU, and the conversation widens to include AMD video drivers. We've all been burned by trying to get the legacy ATi fglrx driver working, and AMD didn't really improve on it with either Catalyst or Adrenalin drivers for Linux, so it's a fair question. I'm OK with the open source drivers, btw, but have some trouble with Vulkan and the occasional sound issue as mesa's support for Raven Ridge still in a bit of flux. Cloasters notes in post #14 that top performance still requires an AMD processor paired with an nVidia gfx card. Your posts starting at #15 were not consistent with the thread, since you took this opportunity (why?) to go on the offensive. I've quoted selectively, as otherwise this would run to pages and we'd all lose the plot. The two companies are very different in philosophy, operating practice and product portfolio. Where did this come from? Being a fan of products from a particular company doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to befriend the company. By that token, you should be nVidia's friend, as you're clearly fond of their graphics cards. People have the right to prefer particular products over others, for whatever reasons matter to them. Why do you care? At this point, your dislike of money comes shining through. Note that in no law does it mandate that a company has to screw its customers. It's not even a legal requirement to actually make money. Can you point to an example of when AMD (specifically) has elected to shaft its customers? It's your turn to post a link. Pro-tip: Linux is a kernel, and does not care about you. AMD may well be no better than MS and Intel in the grand scheme of things, but they appear to be better behaved about it - AMD isn't well known for stifling competition, reneging on agreements or deliberately breaking its designs to inhibit compatibility. The other two are. But how a company behaves isn't important if you dislike all companies, I guess. Maybe, but there's no evidence of them behaving the way Intel does, unless you've got an example to share? Godwin makes an early appearance OK... which company engaged in systematic use of threats, rebates, special discounts and other coercive tactics to lock its competitor out of the market, reneged on licence agreements with said competitor, and generally uses its size and market position to stifle opposition? Google may help you here. Which company could have matched or almost-matched its competitor's pricing to make phenomenal profit, but instead pitched its product relatively affordably, at the expense of profitability? The evidence of AMD's actual behaviour doesn't match your assertion of how they should behave. That should be sufficient... but of course, they're a corporation, and that's bad... I think you'll find I have. You did, and I have some sympathy with that position. But... you were so keen to say how ambivalent you are that you decided to turn a technical conversation into a personal dissection of people who don't hold such neutral views. I have no doubt that you have no great affinity for Intel, even if "The Idea that AMD can compete with Intel in any but a minor way seems...well, unproven.." and "AMD [is] unlikely to surpass Intel even with a better chip." I respect that neutrality, and I respect your right to confront us with it. But I don't have to agree with you. Now here's the bit where I get to be grumpy: Quote, please - at what point did I state that was a possible or desirable outcome? I've showed you mine, you show me yours! And all that follows is why I didn't want to respond. In my posts to you, I've always maintained a level of courtesy and respect. Apparently, that's not mutual: Is D+ more or less than a D~? (At this point, I read up to post #15 and note who started the fight) (At this point I note that there's a difference between refusing to hear, and not agreeing - perhaps it's the not agreeing that rankles?) (I dunno, nobody with a neutral position ever started a fight) At this point, I think you've massively over-reacted. Mostly because I really didn't want to write this sort of post. If there's no fight, why did you pick one. Yes, it was you that started it. Yes, it is you that has chosen to continue it. Don't you think you're being just a little bit childish here? Did it ever occur to you that we thought it better to back down for the sake of friendship? That we're trying to protect what you're saying is jeopardised by not responding to your temper tantrum? Ah, but I see you're not done yet: All I can say is, "wow" ------------------------- Last: This is true. Try to stand in my shoes, and read the quotes I've selected above as if you're me.