Hi Steve,
Wow, glad to see that my post was able to de-lurk you for only the second time in history ;-)
You and I are in (violent?) agreement about not wanting TDFX to start spouting out lots of hype about specific future products. The tactics that S3, nVidia and the others have used recently have been annoying to TDFX longs, but ultimately they were harmful to their own causes.
However, there is a big difference between mythical spec sheet FUD and discussing a "vision." Bill Gates, Andy Grove, and others have been giving vision speeches for years without detailing actual product specifications. An example of what TDFX _might_ do in this area is discuss the potential impact of "mega-multitexturing" (c)Chip Anderson, 1998. What might games/titles look like if they were able to have 8, 12, 16 texture passes in one cycle? (Again, this is just a hypothetical example.)
There are two _major_ benefits of these kind of discussions:
1.) It further positions TDFX as an industry leader and innovator in the eyes of developers and investors.
2.) It takes the "high-road" away from the tit-for-tat, "My benchmark is better than your benchmark" arguments and technical minutia that plague this sector right now.
All of this is "IMHO" of course. So are we in agreement?
Chip |
