petition to unite RGB

[Bramimond]

I prefer my stuff without RGB. Blinking lights are for Christmas.

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

IMO all the RGB controller programs suck, but by far the most functional is Corsair iCUE. It's not great (mucho confuse) but it's a damn sight better than ASUS Aura (The second best and the only real hope in terms of uniting the standards since it already is supported across manufacturers in a limited fashion) and miles better than Razer Synapse, the worst in my opinion.

 

Relevant XKCD: ( xkcd.com/927 )

[amdorintel]

7 hours ago, Bramimond said:

I prefer my stuff without RGB. Blinking lights are for Christmas.

plus what if they get bored of the same old colors all the time

 

waste of money imho

[SpookyCitrus]

I made sure all of my RGB components were compatible with aura sync before purchase.

[redbread123]

aura sync isn't bad, your fault kinda for buying different parts from different company

[LeeCope3]

On 11/18/2019 at 3:30 AM, Bombastinator said:

A performance disadvantage? No.  But visually It can be a disadvantage.  Shiney blinking lights where you don’t want them are annoying.  Try using an RGB monster case to watch a movie with a video projector ina living room.

The software has been proven to lower fps in gaming. Gamers nexus did it 

[Touch My Hamm]

Most of the RBG software is bloated and is not worth running. I usually build around 1 look and RGB is kinda a gimmick. Much nicer to see a build built around 1-3 colors instead of rainbows and Christmas everywhere all the time. 

[Bombastinator]

56 minutes ago, LeeCope3 said:

The software has been proven to lower fps in gaming. Gamers nexus did it 

Any background process would do that.  They’re background processes. They eat cycles. To do that it would have to be pretty situational.  The CPU would have to be not GPU bound, The game would have to completely saturate the CPU, and the process would have to be inefficient enough to use up a minimum amount of cycles.  Given the way modern OSes work there could be enough overhead just from a process existing to do that.

 

At that point literally ANYTHING running on the machine besides the game would lower frame rates.  A slightly different version of the OS would even do it.  This seems more test bench than real world.

 

UPDATE: had to go back and look at where this even came from.  The original claim came from @dizmo rebutting my statement saying I found no value in RGB personally.  He had a multi quote though and it appears it did not transfer through the quote system so I am taking the heat for something he claimed. 
 

This is how many lies do tend to happen.  Effective zero is not true zero, and when an effective zero is treated as one it can be multiplied until it is significant.  

Edited November 19, 2019 by Bombastinator
Updated and then again to fix the update. Gah

[Lurick]

It's like half the people in this thread thing that RGB is nothing but rainbow puke. RGB is literally there to customize colors to YOUR liking. If someone wants rainbow puke, fine, but I would say probably the remaining 99% of people it allows them to change static or different colors as they get bored with the old colors and want to change up the theme without needing to buy completely new components. There is a CRAP TON more to RGB than just flashing lights.

[straight_stewie]

I think that if the industry would come together and form a central standardizations group who's sole purpose is to maintain a free and open standardization for providing programmable RGBLED animations on equipped computer components then that would be very useful.

Otherwise, I don't see a centralized standard making any useful difference.

I say free and open specifically: While standards that aren't free and open are very useful (PCI-e is one example), ultimately I don't see alot of non proprietary software for working with standards that cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars to even read a current version of. RGBLED components would require easy to access and inexpensive user space control software to be really useful, so the entire point is that the standard is free and easily accessible for any entity to implement. This does not mean that the standard should require software that implements it to be distributed freely. The standard should be licensed such that entities developing conforming software can charge money for said software, or not charge money for said software at their discretion.

[Master Disaster]

5 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

I think that if the industry would come together and form a central standardizations group who's sole purpose is to maintain a free and open standardization for providing programmable RGBLED animations on equipped computer components then that would be very useful.

Otherwise, I don't see a centralized standard making any useful difference.

I say free and open specifically: While standards that aren't free and open are very useful (PCI-e is one example), ultimately I don't see alot of non proprietary software for working with standards that cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars to even read a current version of. RGBLED components would require easy to access and inexpensive user space control software to be really useful.

I'm 99% sure that someone would have created a central control app for everything by now if it was possible and/or easy.

 

I think the issue is that each board manufacturer/component manufacturer handles controlling the LEDs differently. There's no defined standard even for how it works at a component level.

 

This makes controlling them impossible without an API, intimate knowledge of the hardware or hours to reverse engineer the process. Honestly I think that's deliberate and if that's the case then I don't see them being interested in adopting a standard.

 

Think of it this way, if you want to sync up everything then you have to buy everything from one manufacturer.

[straight_stewie]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

I think the issue is that each board manufacturer/component manufacturer handles controlling the LEDs differently. There's no defined standard even for how it works at a component level.

That's exactly the problem that providing a standard is supposed to solve. I thought that was implied by the OP topic.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, straight_stewie said:

That's exactly the problem that providing a standard is supposed to solve. I thought that was implied by the OP topic.

I know but you totally missed the point of my post...   You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.

 

If they don't want to adopt the standard then creating the standard does what exactly?

[straight_stewie]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

If they don't want to adopt the standard then creating the standard does what exactly?

Which is why I said:
 

21 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

I think that if the industry would come together and form a central standardizations group

The proposition by the OP is whether or not it should happen, not whether or not it would happen. Hence why I explained my thoughts on how a useful version of such a standard might be created and managed...

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Which is why I said:
 

The proposition by the OP is whether or not it should happen, not whether or not it would happen. Hence why I explained my thoughts on how a useful version of such a standard might be created and managed...

In the context of this discussion should and would are both moot points.

 

Its not going to happen because it favours them not having a standard and nobody can force them.

 

I totally agree with the sentiment of OP and yourself, it would be great if it happened. Unfortunately for us as consumers it almost certainly never will.

[straight_stewie]

27 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

In the context of this discussion should and would are both moot points.

The entire discussion is the hypothetical "Should this happen"... Forming a petition necessarily implies that that is the topic of discussion...
 

27 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Its not going to happen because it favours them not having a standard and nobody can force them.

Well that's not necessarily true. Try selling an otherwise PC compatible motherboard without support for PCI-e or USB. If you want to make a useful motherboard you must support common peripheral interfaces, of which a standardized RGB control scheme would be, or else no one outside of a niche market will buy your product.

In fact, that's not true from the financial perspective either: Having a standardized way of programming RGDLED components and a standard set of features that those components support would greatly increase the adoption rate of RGBLED components. An increased adoption rate means more people using it, which means more money.

In fact, that trend can be seen in the RGB component manufacturers, who often target all of the big 3 RGBLED programming interfaces. When is the last time you saw a DIMM that didn't support Aurora, Fusion, and Mystic? Most fan manufacturers target all three platforms as well. This is because it's financially beneficial to them if their product works with as many different platforms as possible. Literally the only people who haven't already woken up to this are the motherboard manufacturers... (and of course Corsair. Corsair seems to be the 80's/90's Microsoft of hardware right now).

The motherboard manufacturers could be easily convinced to use a standardized method by having a reference implementation available from the standards body. This would reduce development cost and therefore save them money while still providing fully featured RGBLED programming. What manufacturer would turn down a higher quality product developed at a lower cost?

 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Lurick said:

It's like half the people in this thread thing that RGB is nothing but rainbow puke. RGB is literally there to customize colors to YOUR liking. If someone wants rainbow puke, fine, but I would say probably the remaining 99% of people it allows them to change static or different colors as they get bored with the old colors and want to change up the theme without needing to buy completely new components. There is a CRAP TON more to RGB than just flashing lights.

“It’s like”. Nope.  Not me anyway.  Sure I don’t like rainbow puke but even steady state single color stuff annoys me.  I guess it’s a question of do you consider the machine an appliance for doing things or a showpiece to draw attention.

[Master Disaster]

22 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

The entire discussion is the hypothetical "Should this happen"... Forming a petition necessarily implies that that is the topic of discussion...
 

Well that's not necessarily true. Try selling an otherwise PC compatible motherboard without support for PCI-e or USB. If you want to make a useful motherboard you must support common peripheral interfaces, of which a standardized RGB control scheme would be, or else no one outside of a niche market will buy your product.

In fact, that's not true from the financial perspective either: Having a standardized way of programming RGDLED components and a standard set of features that those components support would greatly increase the adoption rate of RGBLED components. An increased adoption rate means more people using it, which means more money.

In fact, that trend can be seen in the RGB component manufacturers, who often target all of the big 3 RGBLED programming interfaces. When is the last time you saw a DIMM that didn't support Aurora, Fusion, and Mystic? Most fan manufacturers target all three platforms as well. This is because it's financially beneficial to them if their product works with as many different platforms as possible. Literally the only people who haven't already woken up to this are the motherboard manufacturers... (and of course Corsair. Corsair seems to be the 80's/90's Microsoft of hardware right now).

The motherboard manufacturers could be easily convinced to use a standardized method by having a reference implementation available from the standards body. This would reduce development cost and therefore save them money while still providing fully featured RGBLED programming. What manufacturer would turn down a higher quality product developed at a lower cost?

 

You kind of made my point for me...

Quote

In fact, that trend can be seen in the RGB component manufacturers, who often target all of the big 3 RGBLED programming interfaces. When is the last time you saw a DIMM that didn't support Aurora, Fusion, and Mystic? Most fan manufacturers target all three platforms as well.

So what incentive to Asus, Corsair & MSI have to adopt a standard? Its far more beneficial to them to stick to proprietary and that way everyone needs them and their software.

 

If you can't get the big 3 on board then its simply another implementation rather than a standard.

[straight_stewie]

8 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

So what incentive to Asus, Corsair & MSI have

If you can't get the big 3 on board then its simply another implementation rather than a standard.

 

34 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

The motherboard manufacturers could be easily convinced to use a standardized method by having a reference implementation available from the standards body. This would reduce development cost and therefore save them money while still providing fully featured RGBLED programming. What manufacturer would turn down a higher quality product developed at a lower cost?

 

[Drak3]

On 11/17/2019 at 8:05 PM, amdorintel said:

its not a piece of art, its a machine!

Many people say the same thing about cars.

 

 

 

 

 

And they're absolutely wrong as well.

[Master Disaster]

41 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

 

 

One that can force users to buy its products by remaining proprietary.

 

I'll ask you a question. Why hasn't Apple adopted USB charging on its phones yet? USB has been standard on everything for years, everything except iPhones. Why do you think that is? You can't argue the proprietary connector is cheaper or less complex than USB for very obvious reasons. By your logic Apple would save costs by switching to the standard yet even now, after promising literally years ago they still haven't switched yet.

 

Think beyond a product to the ecosystem and future upgrades.

[straight_stewie]

10 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Think beyond a product to the ecosystem and future upgrades.

That type of system only works when you manufacturer, quite literally, every single product related to your own products.

In other words, requiring a specific non standard cable to charge your phone is only beneficial to the company when they also manufacture the cable. (or equally, when they have near total control over who gets to manufacture the cable). (as an aside, this strategy will usually also require that you are first to market in the industry: you must already be popular in order to convince people to go with your proprietary product stack).

This is not the case with most PC component manufacturers. Most manufacturers really only make a relatively small selection of different types of internal devices. They are required to work together to create a useful system. For example, Asus motherboards would be mighty useless without Intel or AMD processors and the various providers of memory chips. Since Asus doesn't totally control final assembly of all machines using their components, they must work together with the manufacturers of those other components in order for their motherboards to have any value at all. Without this cooperation, Asus motherboards would be absolutely valueless.

The way that those businesses achieve that cooperation to create value for their products is, ultimately, industry standardization.

[Master Disaster]

58 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

That type of system only works when you manufacturer, quite literally, every single product related to your own products.

In other words, requiring a specific non standard cable to charge your phone is only beneficial to the company when they also manufacture the cable. (or equally, when they have near total control over who gets to manufacture the cable). (as an aside, this strategy will usually also require that you are first to market in the industry: you must already be popular in order to convince people to go with your proprietary product stack).

This is not the case with most PC component manufacturers. Most manufacturers really only make a relatively small selection of different types of internal devices. They are required to work together to create a useful system. For example, Asus motherboards would be mighty useless without Intel or AMD processors and the various providers of memory chips. Since Asus doesn't totally control final assembly of all machines using their components, they must work together with the manufacturers of those other components in order for their motherboards to have any value at all. Without this cooperation, Asus motherboards would be absolutely valueless.

The way that those businesses achieve that cooperation to create value for their products is, ultimately, industry standardization.

I honestly cannot say I disagree with a single word of anything you said here.

 

Unfortunately the ideal and reality are usually very far removed from each other.

 

Here's an example. Why didn't you include Gigabyte in the list on companies that control RGB? They're just as well known as Asus & MSI when it comes to boards. the answer is greed. When RGB was still fairly new Gigabyte decided to ditch the only standard piece of RGB, the 3 pin connector, and swap it for a 4 pin connector with one pin blanked out. The 3 wires did the exact same thing as the standard 3 pin cables do, you can convert between them easily yet they still decided to change the connector. The reason? They claimed its so users couldn't get the cable reversed but in reality it meant Gigabyte branded accessories could only fit Gigabyte boards without a converter. The result, no one bought any Gigabyte branded RGB stuff. In the end they started supplying converters with some boards. I believe these days they use the standard 3 pin for RGB and 4 pin for ARGB.

 

One correction though, no company is ever required to work with any other company. They do it when its mutually beneficial and will ditch each other so fast as soon as it isn't.

 

I;m actually fairly certain Apple with soon do an AMD Mac Pro. After years of Intel exclusivity, now Intel have lost the workstation crown Apple will jump ship as soon as its possible. Hackers have already done most of the hard work for them.

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

“It’s like”. Nope.  Not me anyway.  Sure I don’t like rainbow puke but even steady state single color stuff annoys me.  I guess it’s a question of do you consider the machine an appliance for doing things or a showpiece to draw attention.

 

Besides, I have lighting in mine for me. If anyone else likes it, that's a bonus.

[straight_stewie]

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Why didn't you include Gigabyte in the list on companies that control RGB

I did. The "Big 3" that I refer to are:

• Asus Aura
• Gigabyte RGB Fusion
• MSI Mystic Light Sync