Jump to content

leadeater

Moderator
  • Content count

    8,606
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About leadeater

  • Title
    Veteran
  • Birthday 1987-09-23

System

  • CPU
    Intel i7 4930K
  • Motherboard
    Asus Rampage IV Black Edition
  • RAM
    16GB G.Skill TridentX F3-2400C10-4GTX
  • GPU
    Dual Asus R9-290X
  • Case
    LD PC-V8
  • Storage
    4 512GB Samsung 850 Pro & 2 512GB Samsung 840 Pro & 1 256GB Samsung 840 Pro
  • PSU
    EVGA Supernova NEX 1500 Classified
  • Display(s)
    Dell U3014 30"
  • Cooling
    Custom EKWB, 3x 480 RAD everything cooled inc ram (why not?)
  • Keyboard
    Razor Black Window Ultimate BF4
  • Mouse
    Mad Catz R.A.T. 5
  • Sound
    Custom build speakers, home theater sound
  • Operating System
    Windows 10

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Zealand
  • Occupation
    Systems Engineer | IT

Recent Profile Visitors

9,185 profile views
  1. Sorry but AMD not agreeing with it squarely puts in the realm of unethical. Unless you're now implying that Asus naturally decided to go against AMD and their partner status risking losing it and Nvidia/GPP was not a factor at all. Asus's partnership status with AMD wouldn't last very long if that was the case and given all the other AMD products Asus sells outside of the graphics card sector Asus isn't going to simply risk that partnership. So AMD products didn't get re-branded then? Right so making a partner re-brand their competitors products is not abusing their power? Edit: How high is your bar for abuse of power? And it would be rather fruitless to file a lawsuit because of a program that no longer exists, AMD could if they judged it worth their time, money and likelihood to win it which is probably a no to 2 if not all 3.
  2. Forced or not, roses put at the feat of Asus, gold raining from the sky, GPP as is being talked about was the cause of the renaming of AMD based products and that is what I am pointing to as not "happens all the time". Am I supposed to ignore one of the hallmarks of what's happening, the renaming of AMD based produces because of an Nvidia contract, so we can say all contracts with branding requirements are the same and are all adequate examples? Am I also supposed to ignore all the current benefits that Asus was getting with existing contracts with Nvidia that they would no longer get if they do not sign this new contract? The evidence is the renaming of AMD products and not Nvidia products. If this was like any other contract with branding in it that is normal and happens all the time then we would not being seeing a branding change of AMD products. AMD and the AIB would drive that not an Nvidia contract. Forced, an offer you cannot turn down, an offer to good to refuse etc are all just different ways of saying and framing the same thing. When I'm pointing at something and saying that isn't normal framing it in a different way doesn't exactly change it. Asus, an AMD partner, still changed AMD product branding without AMD agreeing with it.
  3. Lets just hope something actually eventuates from this, unlike the mentioned next big things that were never.
  4. Surface Hub 802.1x authentication on wired networks

    Can't just disable 802.1x on the port for the Hub or auth it some other way, like mac address? Now I'm curious how we got ours to work.
  5. Sources for UPS batteries? (Rack Mount UPS)

    There's actually not a big difference between a deep cycle and one that isn't. One has thicker plates and the other has larger surface area plates to give higher peak current output. Usually safe to use either on a small UPS that doesn't actually discharge that often, not so safe when there is 1-3 tons of batteries next to each other waiting to burst in to flames if given the chance . There was a company here locally that replaced their UPS batteries recently and they didn't get the right ones certified for the UPS, it ended up in a fire and trashed everything. Starter batteries have high CCA and low RC, deep cycle have low CCA and high RC (about 3 times more).
  6. Sources for UPS batteries? (Rack Mount UPS)

    Usually they are deep cycle lead acid. Panasonic make a lot of different UPS designed batteries. https://na.industrial.panasonic.com/products/batteries/rechargeable-batteries/lead-acid-vrla
  7. Active Directory Question(s)

    That's more of an access control issue, just don't make every account a domain admin and they won't be getting on your AD servers. In fact it's best to not use any of the default groups in AD and create your own and delegate the required permissions for exactly what the group is for, create groups on singular tasks or roles. You can make groups members of other groups so you can have a finance group for finance users and that finance group is a member of other groups that give access to the finance share, the finance application etc. Basically least privilege model, give as little as possible to any one entity including a group. Minimum would be two physical servers even in the same room. It depends on what you're trying to mitigate, a server failure is easy but something worse like power outage/fire or something that effects the physical location of the servers is harder so would require servers in different locations. How much are you willing to protect against these? I can't tell you that. Two physical servers running VMware Essentials Plus and an external disk array is a good solution that is something we deployed to almost every client we had, more physical servers depending on size but same design concept. We would put a backup NAS in a different building. It's an easy cut and paste design which make it very easy to support when you have lots of clients in different regions and a lot of technical staff, the more that things are the same the easier it is going between clients to do work on them. Clients for us being schools. You can put in to your images local policy to point to a WSUS server, Group Policy isn't actually required to do this. It's ultimately registry values anyway. What I can't remember is if Windows Server will let you install WSUS without AD in your environment, spin up a VM and see if you can. I'd still say implement AD though but don't rush in to it just for WSUS. Does every computer have a local administrator account with the same password? If so you're at more risk due to lack of auditing that AD gives you. Anyone abusing that account could spread everywhere in your network already without AD if that is the case. P.S. I don't work for that support company anymore, haven't since about 2015 (forget exactly when ), so they do it a little different now as would be expected with that amount of time passing.
  8. A retailer is not making the product in question, Asus is using a part supplied by AMD but are making the product and are also putting their branding on it. Is the retailer making the product? Is the retailer branding the product?
  9. Well your points aren't convincing me that those are similar to Asus, ROG, Nvidia, AMD, AIBs and GPP so you can stick to them but it's not convincing me so far. It does relate, if that had been what Intel Ultrabook caused. That's the bit I'm showing you that to me would make it similar enough for me. None of your examples required anything of a current, selling, in manufacture products from a competing product and this is the part I don't see as normal business that happens all the time. Contract example 1: GPP = Arez branding for AMD based products Contract example 2: GPP = Arez branding for Nvidia products See how in example 2 the branding contract would not have effected the current, selling, in manufacture products of AMD? You've given me many cases of example 2 and none of example 1, even if I don't really agree retail contracts are that similar to a contract between an AIB and Nvidia/AMD. If there are retail contracts that introduce new branding or make another product not be sold under it's otherwise normal name then that will also suffice i.e. if you want to sell our premium brand product then all others, not our products, need to be sold as Home Brand/Budget Brand.
  10. Yes exactly, the examples I'm looking for to show that this is normal business that happens all the time. Great now you get it, go forth and find me these.
  11. In bold, there is the problem that I find with your examples.
  12. And if it did then you'd have an example, so if there is something not this that did happen then you can show me that example. Not asking you to prove a negative I'm showing you something that would have been an example I'm looking for. That last bit that didn't cause a re-brand of AMD lapatops is the line where it goes from not similar to Asus and ROG to similar.
  13. Coke never force a brand change either. That's why it not. A change of branding for a product is still a product change, something about the product changed. Show me an example of your Coke contracts doing this or get a better one that actually does have an impact in some way to a competitor before sale. That's all I'm asking for, a better example that is like what I have pointed to that I would see as similar. I do not see how and where Coke is sold as being similar to how a AIB is required to brand a product and that requirement causing a re-brand of competitor products. Intel Ultrabook is brand ioslation, it did not cause a re-brand of competitor products, if it did them boom there is your example I am looking for.
  14. See my last reply, it required Asus to change it's products. Asus and AMD are partners and without some requirement in a contract being signed there is no way Asus would just re-brand their AMD based products, not when AMD is directly objecting to it actually being done.
  15. The differentiator I'm point to is contracts that have visible effect on the competitor, like making their products all change their brand or the shape of the bottle or what ever example there is of this. Asus may of had to make a choice, join GPP or not, but the going discussion is by choosing to it required Asus to re-brand all the competitors products. No Coke example mentioned is like that.
×