Well I for one am glad that we can be civilized about this discourse without being at each others throats.
Anyhow, thank you for pointing out the Monday Inquirer article where they actually refer (or rather mis-refer as Bob Craig is my dad) to me. I had not realized until then that the Inquirer’s previous statement was based purely on an interpretation of the graph contained in the PC Watch article. In retrospect I suppose that would have been the natural assumption knowing now that Mr. Magee does not speak any Japanese. Nonetheless, there is no indication in the original Inquirer article that would lead one think that their statements were based on a graph, and I personally would suggest that the wording of the article would actually infer that the said statement was based also on the article and not purely on the graph. I truly wish Mr. Magee would have cared to clarify the source of his interpretation in the email correspondence that we have shared since then. I do however question whether it was wise for the Inquirer to make the statement that they did based on nothing more than a graph surrounded by characters that they couldn’t read. For all Mr. Magee knew, the title of the graph could have been “Nvidia graph which I pulled out of my ass”. I believe that without knowledge of the context of the graph, statements such as the one the Inquirer made can be described as little more than premature, perhaps even ‘just plain stupid’ if you wish to be critical.
I suppose a discussion of the graph is in order though. Assuming that the only graph in question is the first, I would like to quickly point out that the NV30 box is still placed partially within the year 2002. I appoligize for not translating the graph text in addition to the article, however, I felt it to be outside of the scope of my translation as well as just not relevant to the issue. Plus it’s a bitch to edit graphics in the first place. I will, however, lay down a short translation here.
In my translation I titled the graph as “Nvidia’s Projected Roadmap”, although the title “Projected Nvidia [GPU] Roadmap” may be more accurate, as Nvidia did not create this roadmap in particular. As for the text boxes of the graph, I will translate now going top to bottom, with horizontal position having no relevance.
Box pointing to NV31 – “Die-shrunk derivitive part?”
Box pointing to NV35 – “New generation core”
Box pointing to NV3x – “Even further shrunk die value aimed design?”
Box pointing to NV28/18 – “AGP 8x support”
Box pointing to NV31/31M - “Mainstream and mobile [parts] are the same core”
Box pointing to GeForce4 MX/GO / nForce2 - “Mainstream, mobile, and integrated [parts] are the same core”
Box pointing to NV3x / ?? - “These 2 cores the same?”
The title at the top of the actual graph graphic was of course the same as the text title in the article. I hope that you are able to come to the same conclusion that I have now that you have the same knowledge of the PC Watch article as I do. I suppose that I will leave now with a copy of an email which I just sent the inquirer this morning after reading their most recent article in relation to this issue.
Well, I seem to have at least caught your attention with what I did over the weekend. I would ask that we try to avoid any kind of personal war from this point on, if that is possible. Is it?
At any rate, I would have treated you much differently, and probably think of you differently now, if you would have simply told me that your interpretation of the PC Watch article was based on its graphs. However, even with this insight, it does not change the fact that your interpretation of the article, or rather its graph, was incorrect. If you would look closely at the graph that you based your statement on, you will notice that the box representing the NV30 is placed such that it is still partially inside the year 2002. Likewise, if you have read my translation of the article (http://home.attbi.com/~bobcraig4/kai...ranslation.htm
), I am sure you have been made even more clear that your paraphrasing of the article is not correct.
I can see how someone could take the graph as indicating the presence of 'inside information', however I do not believe that the graph in and of itself is sufficient to say that PC Watch 'claims to have inside information'. That came off on me as being a fabrication when I read it. I can also see how someone, particularly if that someone were to have poor eyesight (not that you do), could misinterpret the said graph as being one that "indicates Nvidia will introduce its next graphics chip technology in the first quarter of new year", however, in light of what I have told you it should be apparent that this interpretation is incorrect.
Lastly, as you seem to have felt it necessary to bring it up in a Monday article, I will admit that perhaps my first email to you was a bit over the top. I suppose the only excuse I can make is that I was prompted by the "flame editor" hyperlink that clicked before sending it. But surely you must be used to things like that by now?
Oh, and just for the record, my name is Nick Craig, not Bob Craig, who happens to be my dad. Hopefully misunderstandings like that won't occur anymore once I'm able to amass enough money to move into an apartment of my own this term, but, as I'm sure you can imagine, college student isn't exactly the most profitable existences to hold on this planet.
And that’s that. I very much so hope that I receive a competent response from Mr. Magee, although to be frank, I’m not expecting all that much.