AMD’s Answer To Nvidia’s GameWorks, GPUOpen Announced – Open Source Tools, Graphics Effects, Libraries And SDKs

[SpaceNugget]

OP, you're naive. Most open source projects of this scale get stuck in the mud and innovate more slowly than a proprietary solution with a dedicated team. Nvidia will simply pull in what it may be lacking in from this new library, improve upon it, and stuff it into Gameworks while continuing to have better solutions in their proprietary library. I remain highly skeptical of this project's future prospects until I see engines actually adopting this.

well either way it benefits everyone. Either existing stuff (gameworks) gets better, or it is developed quickly and we get a good open source alternative.

[Samfisher]

And then embedded systems comes along and all of a sudden Windows has like 5% marketshare in total... Point is, you're wrong unless you only count the only market where Windows dominates, but doing that would look silly. Might as well say OS X is the most common OS because you only count laptops over 1500 dollars as "computers".

I don't care about embedded systems.  The whole point of this thread of conversation is that Linux does not dominate in the computer market.  I suggest you read the whole back and forth.

[AlwaysFSX]

I don't care about embedded systems.  The whole point of this thread of conversation is that Linux does not dominate in the computer market.  I suggest you read the whole back and forth.

Thread should be directed at the consumer computer market, because that's what all this discussion is about. Servers mean diddly squat for AMD's new open source stuff.

[Samfisher]

Thread should be directed at the consumer computer market, because that's what all this discussion is about. Servers mean diddly squat for AMD's new open source stuff.

And that would bring my point home even more, desktop market share is overwhelmingly Windows.

[IreMinMon]

I was almost sorry for buying an AMD GPU, but I'm not sorry anymore. I think this kind of an action from AMD is enough to win me over for as long as AMD can stay at least remotely competative.

I've always tried to avoid this "Buy nvidia!!11" or "Buy amd11!!!" thing, but at this point, if you aren't using a G-sync monitor or planning to buy one, go with the AMD card. You're actually doing a favour to the world this way.

[LAwLz]

I don't care about embedded systems.  The whole point of this thread of conversation is that Linux does not dominate in the computer market.  I suggest you read the whole back and forth.

You might not, but the person you responded to does.

 

Him: More computers run Linux than Windows.

You: No they don't.

Him: Desktops aren't the only computers. Mobile and servers are computers too.

You: Linux and Windows has about the same market share and the other computers doesn't count (in my opinion).

 

So you argued against his claim and in order to win the argument you are changing the definition of a computer to "desktop or laptop". You not only failed at basic statistics but also on the definition of a computer. If he had said "more desktops and laptops runs Linux" you would have been right, but he didn't.

 

 

This claim:

And my main point still stands, Linux doesn't have more computer market share than Windows.

Is just flat out wrong.

"Linux doesn't have more desktop and laptop market share than Windows" would have been right, but the person you responded to made it 100% clear that when he said computers he was referring to all computers, not just desktops and laptops.

 

Saying "I don't care about embedded systems" when talking about "computer market" is as silly as saying you don't care about computers under 1500 dollars and will therefore not count them. Oh wow all of a sudden OS X got like 70% of the computer marketshare!

Amazing how you can manipulate statistics if you just exclude huge chunks of the market isn't it?

[Samfisher]

You might not, but the person you responded to does.

 

Him: More computers run Linux than Windows.

You: No they don't.

Him: Desktops aren't the only computers. Mobile and servers are computers too.

You: Linux and Windows has about the same market share and the other computers doesn't count (in my opinion).

 

So you argued against his claim and in order to win the argument you are changing the definition of a computer to "desktop or laptop". You not only failed at basic statistics but also on the definition of a computer. If he had said "more desktops and laptops runs Linux" you would have been right, but he didn't.

 

 

This claim:

Is just flat out wrong.

"Linux doesn't have more desktop and laptop market share than Windows" would have been right, but the person you responded to made it 100% clear that when he said computers he was referring to all computers, not just desktops and laptops.

 

Saying "I don't care about embedded systems" when talking about "computer market" is as silly as saying you don't care about computers under 1500 dollars and will therefore not count them. Oh wow all of a sudden OS X got like 70% of the computer marketshare!

Amazing how you can manipulate statistics if you just exclude huge chunks of the market isn't it?

Except nobody in the common world describes a TV as a computer.  Nor do they call phones a computer, they are VERY commonly called a mini-computer and nothing more.  Computers for the past 20-40 years have always meant desktops/laptops/servers.

[patrickjp93]

Except nobody in the common world describes a TV as a computer.  Nor do they call phones a computer, they are VERY commonly called a mini-computer and nothing more.  Computers for the past 20-40 years have always meant desktops/laptops/servers.

 

Ignorance isn't an excuse. A calculator is a computer.

 

Language, much like technology, evolves.

[Toddwjp]

Ignorance isn't an excuse. A calculator is a computer.

 

Language, much like technology, evolves.

 

your own line at the end fucking invalidates you point, computer in common language has come to mean a desktop, a laptop, and a tablet/slash phone in some cases eg computer in your pocket.

 

we no longer use it to describe calculators because then the word has too broad a definition and is awkward to use.

[LAwLz]

Except nobody in the common world describes a TV as a computer.  Nor do they call phones a computer, they are VERY commonly called a mini-computer and nothing more.  Computers for the past 20-40 years have always meant desktops/laptops/servers.

A lot of people in the "common world" describes their computer case as a "CPU" as well. But that does not mean it is correct to say Cooler Master is one of the biggest CPU manufacturers in the world.

[Samfisher]

A lot of people in the "common world" describes their computer case as a "CPU" as well. But that does not mean it is correct to say Cooler Master is one of the biggest CPU manufacturers in the world.

But CPU is a much more technical term.  Asking someone to turn on their computer is a very simple thing, and nobody will ever turn their phone on when asked to turn their computer on.

[patrickjp93]

your own line at the end fucking invalidates you point, computer in common language has come to mean a desktop, a laptop, and a tablet/slash phone in some cases eg computer in your pocket.

 

we no longer use it to describe calculators because then the word has too broad a definition and is awkward to use.

 

I'm sorry but the entire computing community outweighs the knuckle-dragging apes of the mainstream. What it means to the actual enthusiasts is what matters.

 

Not true. We have calculator as a way to give a specific sub-branch of products which are still computers.

[MageTank]

your own line at the end fucking invalidates you point, computer in common language has come to mean a desktop, a laptop, and a tablet/slash phone in some cases eg computer in your pocket.

 

we no longer use it to describe calculators because then the word has too broad a definition and is awkward to use.

What in the world are you even on about? The word "compute" means "to calculate". Compute-r. Something that calculates. Calculators are computers, and computers are calculators. 

[LAwLz]

But CPU is a much more technical term.  Asking someone to turn on their computer is a very simple thing, and nobody will ever turn their phone on when asked to turn their computer on.

I don't get your point. Are you saying that a "computer" is not a technical term? Ask someone to point at their CPU and people will probably point at the case. They won't open the case and point at the actual CPU. Does that mean that we should call cases "CPUs"? No it doesn't.

 

Who decided that "computer" is not as technical of a term (whatever that means) than "CPU"? Both CPU and computer are well defined words with specific meanings. Even the definition of a computer (according to Dictionary.com) specifically states that a smartphone is a computer.

 

a programmable electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations. Mainframes, desktop and laptop computers, tablets, and smartphones are some of the different types of computers.

 

You have so far been wrong with pretty much everything you have said. Just admit that you didn't think your posts through and assumed that the person you responded to who said "computer" was referring to only desktops and laptops, which he was not.

There are more computers running GNU/Linux than Windows. There is no arguing about it. When you count all computers in the world, there will be more of them running GNU/Linux than Windows. If we ONLY count LAPTOPS and DESKTOPS then yes, most of them will run Windows. Nobody have said the opposite though. This entire discussion is a a perfect example of a straw man argument.

 

 

Can we agree that more desktops and laptops run Windows, but more computers run GNU/Linux? And just to be 100% clear, computers as defined by the actual definition of the word, not some made up one based on what your mom might point at when asked to point at a computer.

[Samfisher]

I don't get your point. Are you saying that a "computer" is not a technical term? Ask someone to point at their CPU and people will probably point at the case. They won't open the case and point at the actual CPU. Does that mean that we should call cases "CPUs"? No it doesn't.

 

Who decided that "computer" is not as technical of a term (whatever that means) than "CPU"? Both CPU and computer are well defined words with specific meanings. Even the definition of a computer (according to Dictionary.com) specifically states that a smartphone is a computer.

 

You have so far been wrong with pretty much everything you have said. Just admit that you didn't think your posts through and assumed that the person you responded to who said "computer" was referring to only desktops and laptops, which he was not.

There are more computers running GNU/Linux than Windows. There is no arguing about it. When you count all computers in the world, there will be more of them running GNU/Linux than Windows. If we ONLY count LAPTOPS and DESKTOPS then yes, most of them will run Windows. Nobody have said the opposite though. This entire discussion is a a perfect example of a straw man argument.

 

 

Can we agree that more desktops and laptops run Windows, but more computers run GNU/Linux? And just to be 100% clear, computers as defined by the actual definition of the word, not some made up one based on what your mom might point at when asked to point at a computer.

If you want to make a definition where a computer is as described, a TV is also a computer which it is by definition but not in practice.  NOBODY turns on their TV when you ask them to turn on their computer.  The accepted norm of a computer is a laptop/desktop/server.  I'm not saying that phones aren't computers, just that 99% of the people who own a smartphone won't call it one and thus to them it isn't one.

[HalGameGuru]

This argument is getting ridiculous, the deeper we get into semantics the more nit picking can be done.

 

Heck if "DISPLAY" is a prerequisite for "computer" many units you might describe as computers could not be counted as such.

 

Then we can take a swing the OTHER way when one more nit picky distinction gets lobbed into the melee. "Personal" Computer, vs server, vs workstation, vs terminal, ad infinitum.

 

It's been torturous to watch but its been an argument about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, it has no bearing on anything, and no value outside further future arguments over the same statistics.

[Toddwjp]

This argument is getting ridiculous, the deeper we get into semantics the more nit picking can be done.

 

Heck if "DISPLAY" is a prerequisite for "computer" many units you might describe as computers could not be counted as such.

 

Then we can take a swing the OTHER way when one more nit picky distinction gets lobbed into the melee. "Personal" Computer, vs server, vs workstation, vs terminal, ad infinitum.

 

It's been torturous to watch but its been an argument about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, it has no bearing on anything, and no value outside further future arguments over the same statistics.

 

I mean its obvious @Samfisher was using the word in the colloquial sense after he clarified but for some reason thats not enough for these people. technical definitions or nothing apparently.

[patrickjp93]

If you want to make a definition where a computer is as described, a TV is also a computer which it is by definition but not in practice.  NOBODY turns on their TV when you ask them to turn on their computer.  The accepted norm of a computer is a laptop/desktop/server.  I'm not saying that phones aren't computers, just that 99% of the people who own a smartphone won't call it one and thus to them it isn't one.

 

Your TV has an OS. It's as much a computer as a cell phone, tablet, 2-in-1, laptop, desktop, or server.

[suicidalfranco]

If you want to make a definition where a computer is as described, a TV is also a computer which it is by definition but not in practice.  NOBODY turns on their TV when you ask them to turn on their computer.  The accepted norm of a computer is a laptop/desktop/server.  I'm not saying that phones aren't computers, just that 99% of the people who own a smartphone won't call it one and thus to them it isn't one.

A smartTV is a computer: They have processors, RAM, Storage and an OS that manages everything and as per definition, it is a programmable electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations. And you can bet that it's powered by GNU/Linux.

[SpaceNugget]

If you want to make a definition where a computer is as described, a TV is also a computer which it is by definition but not in practice.  NOBODY turns on their TV when you ask them to turn on their computer.  The accepted norm of a computer is a laptop/desktop/server.  I'm not saying that phones aren't computers, just that 99% of the people who own a smartphone won't call it one and thus to them it isn't one.

That is broken logic, Just becuase they dont call it a computer does not mean to them it isnt one. There is just a more specific name for that type of computer so they use it. You are saying that people dont think of cars as vehicles because they call them cars instead of vehicles.

[Samfisher]

That is broken logic, Just becuase they dont call it a computer does not mean to them it isnt one. There is just a more specific name for that type of computer so they use it. You are saying that people dont think of cars as vehicles because they call them cars instead of vehicles.

Except if you say get in your vehicle, you get in your car.  You don't turn on your calculator or TV when asked to turn on your computer.  In literal translation of course everything with a processor is a computer, but the vast majority of people do not equate computer = something with a processor, it's their desktop/laptop and some servers.

[LAwLz]

Except if you say get in your vehicle, you get in your car.  You don't turn on your calculator or TV when asked to turn on your computer.  In literal translation of course everything with a processor is a computer, but the vast majority of people do not equate computer = something with a processor, it's their desktop/laptop and some servers.

And by that logic Cooler Master is one of the biggest CPU manufacturers...

Oh and a bike is no longer a vehicle either since most people would think of their car first.

Your logic is incredibly flawed. I hope you get a dictionary for Christmas.

[Samfisher]

And by that logic Cooler Master is one of the biggest CPU manufacturers...

Oh and a bike is no longer a vehicle either since most people would think of their car first.

Your logic is incredibly flawed. I hope you get a dictionary for Christmas.

You don't seem to understand what I am saying.  It has nothing with what the literal meaning of the word means.  If someone had a car that was in the workshop, and the bicycle was the only thing he had to get to work, would he not use it?  It is a vehicle, whether people list it at the top of their list or not.  It goes 1. Car, 2. Bicycle.

 

For computers, people would go 1. Desktop, 2. Laptop, 3. Nothing, 4. Nothing. 5. I guess I can call my smartphone a computer. 

 

People don't think of phones and computers as computers in the same sentence whereas a motorbike is VERY close to the top of the vehicle list.

 

The whole argument is about the colloquial term for Computers, not the literal meaning, which I have repeated over 5 times and which you chose to ignore.  This is a waste of time discussing this so I'm not gonna reply to this any longer.

[Tomsen]

@Samfisher

 

Noone is having issues understanding what you are saying. It is just how you are deliberately turning the discussion onto a subject of what people would call their appliances. Something in which you are still very wrong.

 

Computer: Is by no definition limited to Desktop and laptop. You might call that 'PC' if you wish.

Computer is a bigger and wider 'term' than PC. PC is a sub 'term' of computer. Like how a 'vehicle' is a term covering both autos and bicycles.

 

There is a reason we went on the transformation from mobilephone to smartphone. Tv to smartTV. It is not something coming by chance.

The whole subject of IoT (Internet of Things) is to equip appliances with a computer.

 

You are dragging this discussion out, because you want to use the term 'computer' to a very specific market, and not use it in others. That is not how it works.

[HalGameGuru]

I think the biggest issue here is we are conflating the dictionary definition of computer with the mass market usage of computer, which is most directly derived from "Personal Computer" whose lineage is different and far more focused than the generalized term we fall back to.

 

When the average person says "computer" they are not referring to the dictionary definition, they are referring to the short hand derived from the older specific term "Personal Computer," a product branding, just like people say Kleenex instead of facial tissue, bandaid instead of adhesive bandage, etc.

 

We are arguing about something that if we follow to its conclusion has us tot up printers, hard drives, cameras, and headphones as computers. I think on top of general definitions we also have to take into account application and product. The word as it is used can be different from how it is defined either by those in authority or the masses.

 

EDIT: Not to defend either side but the argument is ended before it starts if instead of arguing semantics the original poster's intended use case was specified, neither semantic argument is wrong, but neither mean anything if the reference in the original post is merely specified directly, even after the fact, rather than argue over semantics outside the confines of the original assertion.