Baderyp
You've been around for a while and probably know your way around, but I hate to see good contributors go unwelcomed. Have the usual welcome message spam.
Welcome!
Hello, Baderyp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- GraemeL (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Intel GMA
editI like the edit. I feel lazy though, I was going to do this a couple of weeks ago, and then forgot about it over the holidays. And hey, welcome to the wiki!
I'm wondering if we shouldn't make some mention of the unified pipelines though, because in modern terms the GMA is somewhat "advanced". It is arguably the first unified system out there (I think, the dates are hazy to me), which (if true) seems to be an important historical point. I also seem to recall that when the new generation GMA parts were being introduced there was some discussion that this was in fact a way for Intel to "cheap out", because architectures of the era (two years or so ago) used custom pipelines. Funny how that looks in retrospect.
(BTW, reply here. I'll see it on my watchlist, and keeping the thread on one page makes it easier for other readers to follow)
Maury 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this subject, so I only corrected an outdated paragraph. I cannot write with authority about much else (for example, I didn't know about the alleged Intel "cheap out", nor that it was way ahead of nVidia and ATI's decision to use unified shaders). Therefore, I cannot decide whether the X3000 heralded a fundamental shift in graphics development (I doubt it was) and deserves an expanded explanation, or it should be left as it because meaningful development in graphics will likely come from the other two companies (and that it simply was a way for Intel to "cheap out"). If you can rewrite the article and add links that prove X3000 is a historically significant development in graphics, however, please do. Baderyp 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)