Brian Evans van 3DGPU heeft een open brief (jaja, die dingen worden populair...) geschreven waarin hij zijn licht laat schijnen op de zaak nVidia - Riva3D. Volgens hem zijn Riva3D en 3dfx de foute partijen geweest: Riva3D, omdat ze beschuldigen hebben geuit die alleen maar gebaseerd zijn op een gevoel en 3dfx, omdat die als enige doel had het manipuleren van de online media:
Now this is where the stories diverge. In Ross' letter (found here), he says "There was never any spoken threat of them pulling support from RIVA 3D if I chose to leave the article up, but I think anybody in my position would sense what wasn't being said." He has also stated other places that he was asked to pull the review. I have been assured that there was never an intent to imply that.
[...] These are people's lives and livelihoods we are talking about. Besmirching someone's professional reputation and calling for their firing is not a joke. It is not something you should say because of a "feeling" or an "inference". I think that 3dfx's manipulated the online media to get a quote for a press review. Why else would they send an NVIDIA fan site a preview card unless they planned to make a press release using it like they did.[break]Hieronder een quote uit de press release van 3dfx waarover wordt gesproken in de open brief:[/break]``The GeForce 2 maximum FSAA is comparable to the quality of the V5 2x FSAA shot, but without a doubt, the V5 4x FSAA is simply fantastic,'' said Ross Voorhess, editor in chief of Riva3d, a fan site named after an NVIDIA graphics chip. ``It's obvious that the V5's 2x anti-aliasing is comparable to the GeForce 2's Maximum D3D anti-aliasing, and painfully obvious that the 4x FSAA of the V5 smokes everything else.''
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/1740/shark.jpg?f=community){kind=small}
.
/u/1889/mousecat.png?f=community){kind=small}
).
