Talk:Nvidia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Companies (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Video games (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

First sentence[edit]

On February 6, 2009, a Wikipedian changed the opening sentence from "The multinational corporation Nvidia (NASDAQNVDA, /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/), specializes in the manufacture of ... " to read: "Nvidia (NASDAQNVDA, /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/) is a multinational corporation specializing in the manufacture of ...". The previous version gave context and established notability in accordance with the guideline WP:LEAD. It provided a definition of the subject-matter and made the subject-matter the grammatical subject of the opening sentence -- once again complying with WP:LEAD. Why then abandon this well-structured sentence for a bland and plodding version which has doubled the number of verbs and given undue prominence to Nvidia's corporate identity at the expense of the reason for its notability: its products? -- Can we establish, on good and clear policy grounds, a consensus on an optimal introductory sentence? -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree with the change. The previous construction is too passive, and makes it questionable as to whether the subject is Nvidia or the manufacturing of graphics hardware. Here is the guideline: As a general rule, the first appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence. (WP:BOLDTITLE) Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The version reading: "The multinational corporation Nvidia ... specializes in the manufacture of ... " has nothing passive about it: it expresses the subject and uses that subject actively. No question arises as to whether the the article deals with he subject "Nvidia" or with specialization or even manufacturing -- the heading and the bolding take care of that. We can satisfy the edicts of WP:BOLDTITLE on the positioning of the page-title by using a construction such as "Nvidia, a multinational corporation, specializes in the manufacture of ..." -- Leaving aside all personal opinions, I ask once again: can we establish, firmly based on the grounds of Wikipedia policies, a consensus on an optimal introductory sentence? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Several weeks later ... for want of a response, I propose to enhance the opening sentence to use the "Nvidia, a multinational corporation, specializes in the manufacture of ..." format. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing GeForce FX in chronology[edit]

Though somewhat amusing to see this, I want to raise the issue that between the "Market leadership" section that ends with the GF4 and the "GeForce 6 and later" section, there is no mention whatsoever of the FX (5000) series, which was one of nvidia's low points. Previous discussions above seem to indicate that there was content about the FX at one point, but this may have been removed. Please keep in mind that articles need to be NPOV and you cannot cherry-pick facts to include or exclude. The company's successes and failures both need to appear in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A section was indeed removed:[1]. This has been restored and edited a bit for NPOV. While it does need more sources, so does the rest of the history. Either remove the whole thing or leave this subsection in place. Otherwise, the article is biased because it only includes positive highlights from the company's product history. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Proper pronunciation of NVIDIA??[edit]

I'll ask one more time, very, very seriously: Can anyone cite a reliable written source which definitively says how the NVIDIA muckamucks intend for "NVIDIA" to be pronounced? For some time now, the article said /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/, but someone changed it just now to say /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/.

As I said several months ago (see Talk:Nvidia#The way it's meant to be pronounced? above), I am, personally, absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that NVIDIA's own pronunciation of its name (based on the audio of the animated logo at the start of a recent game) is /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/ ("inn-VID-ee-uh", with the first two vowels being identical). I know some other people seem equally absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that the correct pronunciation is /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/ ("en-VID-ee-uh"), and the only explanation I can come up with for this discrepancy is that those people's speech may have the "pin-pen merger" (please go read that if you aren't familiar with the term) — whereas my own speech does not have the pin-pen merger, and I therefore "hear" the pronunciation differently from some other people. Or, perhaps the person whose voice was recorded for the NVIDIA animated logo happens to speak a regional dialect with the pin-pen merger, and none of the NVIDIA execs have noticed or cared.

My first impulse, just now, was to simply revert the latest edit and put the text back the way it was before (/ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/). My second impulse was to leave it as it now is, but put a {{fact}} tag on the pronunciation until someone can supply a reliable source. But if no one can come up with a source, I believe it's better not to give any pronunciation until/unless it can be reliably sourced. Richwales (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the pronounciation but do wish to give you options on resolving this=

If you dont like editors using what they hear on commercials as a source then I suggest you bring this issue to either Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard and/or Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard as it seems concensus has been reached here and no one feels the need to discuss this anymore. But make sure if you do either one that you announce that you have done so here and to any editor's talk pages that would reasonably be interested in debating this from a viewpoint other than yours, such as those editors who commented in the two previous talk sections when this was brought up. To bring this to those noticeboards without informing the "other side" would not be seen as acting in good faith. It does seem that concensus has been reached that it is acceptable as the "en" at the front. In the case of a lack of sources concensus trumps the idea of removing unsourced material so I suggest that the article remain with the majority opinion and it is not removed nor changed until a further concensus is reached or reliable sources are found, removing or changing concensus approved material (sourced or otherwise) can be seen and labeled as vandalism. As a side note- written sources are not the only acceptable sources in Wikipedia, a commercial, properly cited, is acceptable. If someone emails the company and recieves an email back with the company's pronounciation that too is acceptable as a source. 148.78.249.33 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving Nvidia to NVIDIA[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
NvidiaNVIDIA — Seriously, NVIDIA is the name of this company, not Nvidia --Harbinary (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protection[edit]

Request protection for this page since Baseball Bugs is vandalising it.

If you want a page protected, take it to WP:RFPP. If you want to get blocked for personal attacks, keep calling me a vandal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

American/Taiwanese multinational corporation[edit]

How is nVidia American/Taiwanese?? --Aizuku (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming Conventions[edit]

I've looked through the history of this dispute, and the issue has been decided incorrectly in the past. Reliance on the MOS for trademark purposes is misplaced. As someone previously said, this article is about the company, not the trademark. The company's name, as filed with the Secretary of State, their own press releases and materials, and the overwhelming majority of new articles by professional journalists, is NVIDIA Corporation. It is not Nvidia or nVidia or any other variation. Another voter stated that Wikipedia should not be held to a company's typographical whims. This is also correct. We do not place articles according to the stylings used in the corporate logo (the mark around which a trademark is based)--but we do not alter the case of letters in official company names, either. We do not keep Microsoft at MicroSoft. We do not keep AMD at Amd, or BP at Bp, or WEGA at Wega (the letters don't stand for anything).

Considering the issue as a trademark one is simply incorrect. The matter is of placing the article at the proper place, following the proper spelling of the name. Time Magazine is indeed "Time Magazine"--as the unit of Time, Inc. Initialisms pronounced as a word for companies, where the individual letters no longer mean anything, are still kept in all caps, which is inconsistent with NVIDIA's treatment here. The issue is pretty straightforward: the company's name is fully capitalized, irrespective of trademark (wherein it is actually mixed-case), just like PNY (not Pny) and WESCO (not Wesco). It should be treated as such on Wikipedia. -- Dharadvani (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style defines "tradmarks" as including "words and short phrases used by organizations to identify themselves and their products and services". The usage of the term "trademark" by 'NVIDIA® Corporation ("NVIDIA")' matches this: the company claims a plethora of trademarks, with varying upper and lower case, including: "NVIDIA, the NVIDIA logo, [...] nView" (but not "nVidia" or "nVIDIA") - see the "Trademark Information" legal notice at http://www.nvidia.com/object/legal_info.html retrieved on 2010-05-30. All in all. we can regard "NVIDIA" as a trademark - thus the Wikipedia rules on tradmarks apply, and we should generally use the standard English form "Nvidia" per previous discussion on this talk-page (most recently summarized at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nvidia#Moving_Nvidia_to_NVIDIA ). - Comparisons with initialisms like "IBM" hold less weight when dealing with a semi-initialism: we don't pronounce the name as "en-vee-eye-dee-eye-eh". Compare "pronounced not spelled" initialisms used as brands and as corporate names by (for example) Esso (for SO = Standard Oil), Sun Microsystems (from Stanford University Network), Nabisco (from National Biscuit Company), Sony (branded "SONY"), Fiat (not F.I.A.T.), etc. - Pedant17 (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The name of a company is not a trademark. A trademark is a mark used in identification on stylized marks--the printed images on products, packaging, letterhead and so forth, registered by the USPTO and having nothing to do with the formal name of the corporation. The name of the company is NVIDIA Corporation, as can be verified by filings with the Secretary of State. That has nothing to do with registered trademarks, which are handled by the USPTO. Your examples, including Esso and Nabisco, are not pertinent, because the corporate names were formally changed. Again, see WESCO--an article properly rendering the company name on Wikipedia, and WEGA--another such article, pronounced as a word, and abbreviating nothing. Sony, moreover, is not registered as a corporation under the name SONY, so that example fails as well. The logo typeface is not at issue; the only issue is the company's actual name, and since no one outside of Wikipedia uses "Nvidia", noting that technology journals properly render the name as NVIDIA within their articles, it is inaccurate to do so here.

The page is not located at the company's name, and it is both wrong and confusing. Pronunciation of a name has nothing to do with how it is written, and altering the case of a proper name because of some misguided use on inapplicable trademark styles is indefensible. --Dharadvani (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As a former NVIDIA employee, seeing this page title has always driven me nuts. "NVIDIA" was even used internally, and all internal marketing (and non-marketing) guidance declared it the proper capitalization of the name. --67.185.151.148 (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I would have to oppose renaming at this time, citing MOS:TM#General_rules bullet number 3:
See the older discussion link Pedant17 provided as well as another recent example here. Airplaneman 04:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Except you're applying English text formatting to non-English text. The Realtor, Time, and Kiss examples are all English words outside their trademarked context. Why does every use of NVIDIA then use the all-cap form in the article? Why is EVGA Corporation not "Evga Corporation"? Why does that very page link to the NVIDIA page in all caps? Or why is it ATI Technologies instead of Ati? Why is the iPod article display it's title with a lower 'i'? Why eBay? I can find more places on Wikipedia where the cited rule is broken rather than followed. For the three examples in the MOS you cite, the articles themselves follow a standard-English captalization throughout the article. It seems for this article we're all admitting that NVIDIA is the proper form, except for the title.
I think Dharadvani makes the best point. Nobody uses Nvidia. Not the press, not NVIDIA themselves, nobody. Except for the Wikipedia article's title. (not even the article content!) Why is that so special? To me Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules is a far better policy to be following here. Also, I think there's an interesting argument made earlier in this page questioning whether the trademark rule should even apply since not only is NVIDIA a trademarked form, but it's also the legal form of the name in the view of the California state government, in terms of official filings to the SEC, etc, etc. Would removing the little (R) after the name mean it no longer falls under MOS:TM? --67.185.151.148 (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
A brief Google News search for "nvidia" turns up about 90% of press sources referring to it as "Nvidia". ATI and EVGA are written as a series of capital letters (by Wikipedia and by the press) because they're pronounced as a series of capital letters; Nvidia is not. For iPods and eBay, Wikipedia is just echoing the style guide adopted by the reliable sources it uses; the first-letter-lowercase guideline at WP:MOS overrules the "general rule" about normal English capitalisation.
If you think policy should be changed, I'd suggest raising it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks). --McGeddon (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
On the current Google News page, 14 of 20 articles identify it as 'NVIDIA'--this varies by source, but all finance-related pages stick with the company's name as formally registered. I don't know how to say it more clearly than this: a trademark style guide has zero bearing on an entity's formal name. A trademark is a stylized rendering to identify source--it is often a stylized version of the entity's name, but in no case is that actual name rendered improperly. eBay and iPod are clear violations of the trademark MOS with no rationale. The reality is simple: the company's name is NVIDIA. Trademark MOS is irrelevant (the typical trademark style is nVIDiA anyway). --Dharadvani (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Open up a requested move if you'd like so more people can weigh in on this matter. You could also bring this issue up at Talk:iPod and Talk:eBay. I've given my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Airplaneman 01:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nook Color states  '​[...] (styled "nook color" or "NOOKcolor") [...] '​. Perhaps a similar approach could be used here. --trevj (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation (again)[edit]

See earlier discussions of whether NVIDIA is pronounced /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/ or /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/. Until someone can produce a high-quality, unambiguous source to settle this issue, I believe the pronunciation needs to be marked with a {{fact}} tag. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

www.nvidiasettlement.com[edit]

Apparently there is a multi-million class action settlement, not mentioned on wikipedia. Link:[2]

69.203.111.61 (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


^ If I could bump this somehow I would, I believe this lawsuit is (was) relevant and should be included in this article. Dninyo (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why I am not able to open the Nvidia web site?[edit]

By mistake I bought a Dell Vostro 3500 which it's graphic card is Geforce 310M. I am trying to upgrade my graphic card to open and use Google earth but something don't let me download a driver from Nvidia.com or Dell.com.

What's wrong to using Google Earth? any suggestion?46.100.50.123 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

NVidia Online Store??[edit]

When has the Store been launched? No info! When has NVidia started selling software + games? Add info!! Naki (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation — YouTube video[edit]

Someone added a reference to this YouTube video of the NVidia logo, with a female voice whispering "NVidia", as a source for the claim that it's pronounced /ɛnˈvɪdi.ə/. However, the voice very clearly (to me, at least) says /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ — the vowels in the first two syllables are obviously identical, and it doesn't make any sense at all to me how anyone can possibly hear this sound sample and think it's saying /ɛnˈvɪdi.ə/. I know it would be WP:OR and unusable as a source here, but I'm strongly tempted to run this woman saying "NVidia" through a spectrum analyser program in order to show all of you that I'm not just hallucinating. The material on the pin-pen merger (which, for what it's worth, is not a characteristic of my own speech) may be relevant here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English#Pronunciation of Nvidia, on the theory that the people working there have been dealing with lots of different angles of the dialect-vs.-transcription issue (and, therefore, may hopefully have useful thoughts to offer on this question). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Full-Article Cleanup[edit]

I've skimmed through this talk page, and it seems like the biggest issue here is that there is just too much information for the average user to digest. For this reason, I have decided to embark on a full-blown consolidation edit. It will certainly take multiple edits and revisions, so if anyone is still interested in truly cleaning up this article, I would like to invite you to help me. Alright, time to dive in... Scrat (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Initial restructure and consolidation finished. After getting into the finer points of this article, I've discovered that many of the phrases and wordings used are not fully objective. I have likely removed most of them, but another revision will have to weed the rest out. Also, the long list of dates with very little coherence needs to be rethought. In short, lots of work needs to be done as of yet, but now the article is at least relatively short and easier to digest. Scrat (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have both found myself and been shown that some of my previous revisions were a bit too harsh. I agree completely with this view, and as a result I have added back in what I hope to be the most important information about NVIDIA. We still need to add a certain flow to this article, as the list of dates is still a bit staggering. If you disagree and think that the article was better the way it was or should be longer, please say so; I don't want to be the only one working on an article for a multi-million dollar corporation without some sort of opinion or guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrat9518 (talkcontribs) 10:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed refresh[edit]

I am an NVIDIA employee and would like to propose changes that would correct out-of-date and incorrect information in this entry. I’m familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines, and want to ensure any changes proposed are accepted by the community. Below are a series of suggested updates on which I’d like your feedback and consideration.

I’d like to start with the introduction, which was flagged at the top of the entry as an inadequate summary. Explanations follow in brackets.

NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA); /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ in-VID-ee-ə)(1) is an American global technology company based in Santa Clara, California. [ Shortening for clarity. ]

The company invented the graphics processor unit (GPU) in 1999.(2) [ Highlighting a key milestone in the company’s history. ]

Today, GPUs are used in computers ranging from smartphones to game consoles to engineering workstations. [ Removing redundancy in current entry. Also, NVIDIA is in the process of exiting the chipset business. ]

Researchers and scientists use GPUs for high-performance applications and in supercomputing sites.(3,4) [ Adding key business segments. ]

NVIDIA offers four brands of processors: GeForce®, Quadro®, Tesla™, and Tegra®. [ Summarizing main product brands. ]

Its competitors include Intel, AMD and Qualcomm. [ More accurately describing the competitive landscape. ]

Founded in 1993 by Jen-Hsun Huang, Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem, NVIDIA expanded from its roots in PC graphics into professional graphics and high-performance computing. [ Describing the company’s evolution. ]

Most recently, the company moved into mobile computing, where its system-on-a-chip powers a number of smartphones and tablets.(5,6,7) [ Adding key business segment. ]

Suggested opening without explanations:

NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA); /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ in-VID-ee-ə)(1) is an American global technology company based in Santa Clara, California. The company invented the graphics processor unit (GPU) in 1999.(2) Today, GPUs are used in computers ranging from smartphones to game consoles to engineering workstations. Researchers and scientists use GPUs for high-performance applications and in supercomputing sites.(3,4) NVIDIA offers four brands of processors: GeForce®, Quadro®, Tesla™, and Tegra®. Its competitors include Intel, AMD and Qualcomm.

Founded in 1993 by Jen-Hsun Huang, Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem, NVIDIA expanded from its roots in PC graphics into professional graphics and high-performance computing. Most recently, the company moved into mobile computing, where its system-on-a-chip powers a number of smartphones and tablets.(5,6,7)

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-6EFBlybD8

2. http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_20020111_5424.html

3. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/08/04/j-p-morgan-shows-benefits-from-chip-change/?mod=google_news_blog

4. http://www.top500.org/

5. http://www.slashgear.com/2011-the-year-of-nvidia-dominating-android-superphones-and-tablets-03168784/

6. http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-supertablets.html

7. http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-superphones.html

Nvidiaemployee (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Refresh begun[edit]

A number of the updates in the above "Proposed Refresh" have been made, as well as some additional edits to provide a general overview. I will continue to adjust and expand on this refresh with that goal in mind.

Nvcoms (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Supercomputer resource, with AMD[edit]

U.S. Plans Supercomputer Push by BY Shara Tibken in the WSJ October 12, 2011. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Invented the GPU in 1999?[edit]

That's an extremely misleading statement. And I don't think it's true. Nvidia may have coined the term, or have defined what requirements have to be fulfilled to call a hardware unit a GPU. I don't know. But it is very easy to show that there were graphics processing hardware units before 1999. Citing Nvidia's own press release as the only proof seems odd to me. --84.177.29.249 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

100% agree, and I'm going to remove it. Even if it were true (and I think most people would agree that it requires you be very specific about the definition of GPU), it's not properly sourced. --98.254.202.225 (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Marketing?[edit]

This article sounds like marketing collateral rather than an encyclopedia entry. Am I the only one noticing this? Kortoso (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on the lack of open source drivers[edit]

Speaking as a Linux user myself, I think there's entirely way too much emphasis on Nvidia's lack of support for open source drivers. The vast majority of users simply aren't going to care about this. If the section is supposed to be about the drivers, then the fact that (binary) Linux drivers exist should be pointed out. Optionally, one could point out that community-driven open source drivers also exist. If the section is supposed to be about Nvidia's support of Linux, the controversy can simply be summed up with a single sentence, such as: "Nvidia provides a binary driver for Linux, along with an obfuscated open source driver, which was the basis for the community-driven nouveau driver." If the section is meant to discuss Nvidia's drivers, in general, then I fail to see why it's so obsessed with this minor Linux controversy (except for the fact that most Wikipedians are probably also open source / Linux advocates). Seriously. I don't think we need to spend so much time on this, when it's only of interest to an extremely vocal minority (even if some of us happen to belong to said minority).

I wouldn't care so much, except that I've noticed a *lot* of people using Wikipedia as their soapbox. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. This is why I often try to avoid editing any articles in which I have a strong personal interest; it clouds your objectivity.

If nobody has any objections, I'll probably go ahead and rewrite the section, highlighting the existence of multiplatform, binary drivers, with community-driven open source drivers available for Linux. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if its needed. Fact is, AMD's so-proud opensource driver is very inefficient and AMD stated themself that they are providing inadequate amount of effort basing it on current(but not TARGETED) market value. That is, AMD is NOT interested in good opensource driver. Intel, on the other hand, just misses OpenGL4 support and their opendriver offers enormous performance. However the hardware is seriously lacking. So, currently, you have very famous situation - "Open, efficient, good hardware - pick two of three".77.11.56.164 (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you ever get around to fixing the section? It seems that there are still a lot of meagerly supported ("communities" when the cite is about one---admittedly influential---person) weasel / OR / POV phrases in that section. I don't understand how such bad reference support gets past a B-review. --Nczempin (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
PLEASE, stop using this article as a soap box. Some of the "information' being posted in the damn summary is speculation on the part of a blog. Nvidia has not admitted some of the charges leveled against it, and, even if it had, mentions of its "restrictions" on Linux drivers in a specific x.org driver update do not belong in the main summary. Seriously, how many times do you read an encyclopedia article about Ford and see the first sentence discussing mechanics' opinions regarding the existence of a blinker issue in a 92 Torus? This stuff belongs in a forum flame war, not in a source of general information. --User:69.244.183.29 00:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing RIVA series?[edit]

Is it just me, or should the RIVA series of video cards be included in this article? Most notably, the RIVA 128 (Nvidia's first commercial success) is missing from the "Major releases and acquisitions" section. Similarly, the "Product families" section is missing the RIVA series (I can see the NV1 being omitted, as it was manufactured and released by Thompson; on the other hand, the RIVA series could've broken Nvidia after the NV1's failure if it had been a flop as well). -- Dok Jones 14:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Documentation[edit]

Recently NVIDIA published documentation of Device Control Block (DCB) layout in NVIDIA VBIOS. I cannot update the article due to COI but it might be good to update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.78.148 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

COI doesn't mean that no one who e. g. works at Nvidia can contribute to articles. If all the statements are factual and supported by reliable secondary sources, no one will bat an eyelid if you happen to work in the Nvidia universe.--Nczempin (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability of "Nvidia imposes artificial restrictions" in lead section[edit]

An (alleged; it could also be genuinely different people, with coincidental similar behaviour and insistence on keeping this sentence in the lead) IP-hopping editor keeps adding in this bit to the lead section: Nvidia drivers impose artificial restrictions, like limiting the number of monitors that can be used at the same time.[1]. I've pointed out in my edit summary that since this statement does not appear anywhere in the article, there is no reason to put it in the lead (perhaps other than by someone with an agenda?). I've reverted this and been re-reverted. The IP has not accepted my request to take it to the talk page, so I'm doing it now. Please note the section above, where a related concern has been voiced by an editor. What should be done about this? --Nczempin (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree. I don't know who is making the edit, but it does NOT belong in the lead section. I almost never edit wiki articles, but I moved that sentence to the free and open source software section. I had wanted to look up some quick Nvidia info (mainly where the headquarters is), and I immediately noticed this sentence and how out of place it was. Not only is it out of place, it's not even very credible. It's a blog post and is purely conjectural. Nvidia has not commented on the issue, and there's no solid evidence Nvidia did this for anything other than technical reasons. --User:69.244.183.29 00:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)