🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 21:12:52 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:57:28 -0500, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:26:26 -0700, "rms" <rsqui...@MOOflashMOO.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>You left out:
>>>http://www.pcper.com/news/Displays/CES-2015-ASUS-MG279Q-27-2560x1440-IPS-120-Hz-Variable-Refresh-Monitor
>>>
>>>Asus is avoiding vendor-specific labelling, a good thing.
>>
>>When I first read your post, I thought you meant vendor-specific as in
>>AMD versus Nvidia, but I see what you mean after reading the article.
>>ASUS doesn't want to call the technology "Freesync", they'd rather
>>just say it supports Display Port Adaptive Sync.  
>>
>>And IMO that's a very wise strategy for a monitor manufacturer,
>>knowing that of course Intel is going to support DPAS at some point,
>>and we will probably even see mobile devices that don't necessarily
>>have anything to do with AMD (iPads, phones, laptops etc... pretty
>>much anything that displays games or video)  also supporting DPAS.  In
>>fact, Nvidia can surely add support with a simple driver update (even
>>though they are saying they won't at this point, who knows).  It would
>>be kind of silly to sell a monitor as a "Freesync" monitor instead of
>>a monitor with DPAS support, because it then would put Asus on the
>>hook for compatibility support.
>>
>>However, that's kind of bad news for AMD, because it means their
>>"brand" name (Freesync) of DPAS is kind of worthless in itself.  I
>>don't mean their actual implementation is worthless, I just mean their
>>own nomenclature that differentiates theirs from anyone elses.
>
>FreeSync is an unfortunate choice by AMD. Brings up visions of a "Free
>Lunch". And given the AMD secrecy over releasing any technical spec or
>the lack of a challenging demo,  I suspect that the comparison with
>the notion of a "free lunch" will be apt. I suppose a great way to
>market a few AMD video cards to techno-morons.

Yes, I do think the name choice was intended to take some of the
thunder out of Nvidia's g-sync announcement, capitalizing on the fact
that they aren't really inventing anything therefore they won't be
charging licensing fees (to monitor manufacturers).  People get
excited by the idea of free stuff, so it's just a marketing gimmick. I
personally would be more impressed if they weren't such a "me too"
company.  Quality products cost money to produce, and if there is less
money coming in to finance that quality, then the quality will suffer.
I don't know why they seem to strive to be Nvidia's cheaper, less
impressive cousin.