Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gamble

GTX 970 Lawsuit

Recommended Posts

At the moment it is only the US as they are the only ones that filed a lawsuit against them. If the rest of the world get it we will have to wait and see.

 

Also it really was a who ha over nothing. I bought a 970 just after release and have never had a single performance problem with it. It is a bloody good perfroming card.

 

It has 4GB of memory whether or not it is partitioned and whether some of it runs at a slower speed or not. It is still 4GB in total which was what was advertised.

 

Funny how there are not massed lawsuits against hard drive manufacturers in the US over the advertised size on all HDD's and the actual size once installed. Food for thought!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they lied about the cards specs

3.5g ram isnt a huge drop from 4g but it does make a difference when you find a game that needs it

this is something that wouldnt show up in early release reviews as games were using under 2g but something that will become a bigger problem in the future

 

they also said it has 64 rop and 2m l2 cache when it only has 56 rop and 1.75m l2 cache

this wont change the performance it has in reviews

now some nvidia fans may still argue that there still there since its a gtx980 just disabled... so i guess it depends on the color of your glasses

 

its a good card but they should still get stung for what they did

 

hdd size is annoying especially with larger drives but i guess its accepted as its the way its always been and its less of a lie than nvidia did with the 970

more of a different method of calculation

although when i look into it more it turns out they were sued for this in the past

 

Hard drive manufacturers are using the accurate description of the terms–the prefix giga, for instance, means a power of 1000, whereas the correct term for powers of 1024 is gibibyte, though it isn’t often used. Unfortunately, Windows has always calculated hard drives as powers of 1024 while hard drive manufacturers use powers of 1000.

so basically windows needs a update to be more compatible with metric measurements?

Edited by Dasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they lied about the cards specs

3.5g ram isnt a huge drop from 4g but it does make a difference when you find a game that needs it

this is something that wouldnt show up in early release reviews as games were using under 2g but something that will become a bigger problem in the future

 

they also said it has 64 rop and 2m l2 cache when it only has 56 rop and 1.75m l2 cache

this wont change the performance it has in reviews

now some nvidia fans may still argue that there still there since its a gtx980 just disabled... so i guess it depends on the color of your glasses

 

its a good card but they should still get stung for what they did

 

hdd size is annoying especially with larger drives but i guess its accepted as its the way its always been and its less of a lie than nvidia did with the 970

more of a different method of calculation

although when i look into it more it turns out they were sued for this in the past

 

Hard drive manufacturers are using the accurate description of the terms–the prefix giga, for instance, means a power of 1000, whereas the correct term for powers of 1024 is gibibyte, though it isn’t often used. Unfortunately, Windows has always calculated hard drives as powers of 1024 while hard drive manufacturers use powers of 1000.

so basically windows needs a update to be more compatible with metric measurements?

 

Nvidia did not lie about how much ram was on the card at all.

 

It has 4GB of physical ram on board the card simple as that however, they did not initially explain how it actually worked and that is were the confusion lies.

 

As to the other specs, the majority of people did not even notice that at all as they were so focused on the amount of ram that it pretty much got left to the wayside.

 

As to the HDD size issue, I'm sorry but if RAM manufacturers can build their products using the binary definition of Gigabytes then so should HDD manufacturers too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

they lied about the cards specs

 

 

Nvidia did not lie about how much ram was on the card at all.

 

i never said they did i said they lied about the specs and they did

but it was the first card ever released that only really had less useful\usable ram than advertised which is what made everyone so angry while that part wasnt a straight out lie it is very misleading

Edited by Dasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

they lied about the cards specs

 

 

Nvidia did not lie about how much ram was on the card at all.

 

i never said they did i said they lied about the specs and they did

but it was the first card ever released that only really had less useful\usable ram than advertised which is what made everyone so angry while that part wasnt a straight out lie it is very misleading

 

 

I was going to write a big reply but then realised that it doesn't matter and I would just be wasting my time and energy on something that I believe was a non-issue since I have been living with a GTX 970 just after release and have never had a single problem with it in any repects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never said there was anything wrong with it ether it was a good value efficient card even without the extra vram its still a good 1080p card

just shoddy marketing

 

even 2g cards like the gtx960 dont suffer much of performance hit in most current games at 1080p due to a lack of vram

 

its those that purchased two cards for 2560x1600-4k that were getting trouble in a few current games due to a lack of vram where 4g would have been borderline

people who keep there 970 for a while will need to turn down texture detail sooner as new games come out than they would have if they really had full use of the 4g vram

Edited by Dasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea in Division, once I hit over 3.6g it was stuttering with my 970. That seems to be the only game I saw issue with it. All in all though was a good card and ran cool. But, wouldnt mind some extra $ from nvidia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

they lied about the cards specs

 

 

Nvidia did not lie about how much ram was on the card at all.

 

i never said they did i said they lied about the specs and they did

but it was the first card ever released that only really had less useful\usable ram than advertised which is what made everyone so angry while that part wasnt a straight out lie it is very misleading

 

 

The ram wasnt onw of those lies though AFAIK.

 

All 4 GB was addressable, just the last 0.5GB was incredibly slow. IIRC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

current spec says 4GB 224GB/sec but the last 500m is ~1/7th of the speed you dont find that misleading? as the last 500m is virtually useless at that speed its not much different to making use of system ram over the pci-e interface

 

say for example a new 8g card (gtx1070) only really had 4g of fast ram and 4g of really slow ram but the spec didnt mention this

it would also perform fine in all current 1080p benchmarks as most current games dont need 4gb even at 4k

would you consider this to be ok?

Edited by Dasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

current spec says 4GB 224GB/sec but the last 500m is ~1/7th of the speed you dont find that misleading? as the last 500m is virtually useless at that speed its not much different to making use of system ram over the pci-e interface

 

say for example a new 8g card (gtx1070) only really had 4g of fast ram and 4g of really slow ram but the spec didnt mention this

it would also perform fine in all current 1080p benchmarks as most current games dont need 4gb even at 4k

would you consider this to be ok?

 

Would I be annoyed about it if I purchased one SPECIFICALLY for that reason? Probably.

Would I consider it a lie? Most likely not. Because it exists.

It'd be like me being pissed off that 16GB tablets only have about 6GB of usable space (OS, apps, etc).

 

I'm one of those minds who would like to know the EXACT specifications, regardless.

 

For example, I was annoyed my KOBO e-book was labeled as a "1GB" model, with a 4GB SD card on the mainboard.

a quick resize in gParted, and it was suddenly a 4GB storage. Just fucking tell me "4GB storage, 1GB accessible" so I know what i've got to tweak with.

 

So, annoyed? Sure.

Angry? Probably not. The ram exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it says the amount of ram and it says the speed of the ram if only some of the ram is that speed i consider that a lie

it doesnt say max speed or mention the lower speed

say they take it further only 512m of high speed ram and 7500m of slow at what point does it become a lie

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it says the amount of ram and it says the speed of the ram if only some of the ram is that speed i consider that a lie

it doesnt say max speed or mention the lower speed

say they take it further only 512m of high speed ram and 7500m of slow at what point does it become a lie

 

Ah right. I was under the impression the ram speed was a rating of the IC, not the throughput.

 

If its labeling real world throughput, not technical specs of the IC used, then ok, yes, I'd be annoyed, because its inaccurate then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, I was annoyed my KOBO e-book was labeled as a "1GB" model, with a 4GB SD card on the mainboard.

a quick resize in gParted, and it was suddenly a 4GB storage. Just fucking tell me "4GB storage, 1GB accessible" so I know what i've got to tweak with.

Errrrrr.... think about that for a nanosecond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For example, I was annoyed my KOBO e-book was labeled as a "1GB" model, with a 4GB SD card on the mainboard.

a quick resize in gParted, and it was suddenly a 4GB storage. Just fucking tell me "4GB storage, 1GB accessible" so I know what i've got to tweak with.

Errrrrr.... think about that for a nanosecond.

 

 

I understand in this instance i got MORE than I paid for, but the point remains.

 

"1GB accessible memory (storage)" would have been my preferred advertisement, with the technical whitesheet showing a 4GB MicroSD glued to the mainboard.

But it took us users to pop the bastards open to realize that's how it is.

 

TECHNICAL specifications are meant to be correct (technically!) lol

unless that's not your point....

 

 

in the case of this GPU, it TECHNICALLY has 4GB of ram, and you can use it all too! it's just slow.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand in this instance i got MORE than I paid for, but the point remains.

 

"1GB accessible memory (storage)" would have been my preferred advertisement, with the technical whitesheet showing a 4GB MicroSD glued to the mainboard.

But it took us users to pop the bastards open to realize that's how it is.

 

TECHNICAL specifications are meant to be correct (technically!) lol

unless that's not your point....

 

It's a question of what the vendor is offering. Kobo is offering a device that can store 1GB. They don't say "contains a 1GB flash RAM chip".

 

They'll have their reasons for using a 4GB chip, it most likely relates to supply availability, but in the configuration the device is offered in, out of the box, it holds 1GB of data.

 

Release the mentality that Kobo is selling you "a device with some software on it", they're selling you a whole product. That product's specification is that it holds 1GB. That's really all there is to it.

 

Heck, for all you know, there may be batches sold with faulty 4GB cards, which have a working lower 1GB, like Sinclair did back in the day with the DRAM chips.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I understand in this instance i got MORE than I paid for, but the point remains.

 

"1GB accessible memory (storage)" would have been my preferred advertisement, with the technical whitesheet showing a 4GB MicroSD glued to the mainboard.

But it took us users to pop the bastards open to realize that's how it is.

 

TECHNICAL specifications are meant to be correct (technically!) lol

unless that's not your point....

 

It's a question of what the vendor is offering. Kobo is offering a device that can store 1GB. They don't say "contains a 1GB flash RAM chip".

 

They'll have their reasons for using a 4GB chip, it most likely relates to supply availability, but in the configuration the device is offered in, out of the box, it holds 1GB of data.

 

Release the mentality that Kobo is selling you "a device with some software on it", they're selling you a whole product. That product's specification is that it holds 1GB. That's really all there is to it.

 

Heck, for all you know, there may be batches sold with faulty 4GB cards, which have a working lower 1GB, like Sinclair did back in the day with the DRAM chips.

 

 

Correct. I'd still like to see it on the TECH SPECS, they're for the nerds who ant to know whats in it; but regardless.

I agree with the mixed feelings a lot of reporters are showing.

 

They advertised the card had 4GB of ram. It does. Its usable. They physically soldered it on. I can go and pull 4GB of ram off those cards.

I'm also under the impression the ratings are for the speed of the IC's, a theoretical max, not a guarantee of what speed it will run at. (am I wrong?)

 

Don't misunderstand, I know if you bought it BECAUSE "It has 4GB of ram the runs at speed XYZ" you'd be irked, because the last .5GB is slow.

 

Its purely the technical side that stops me backing 'the people'.

We don't go suing every motherboard manufacturer when we find their chipset is slower than the next brand. That's what benchmarking is for.

We don't sue every HDD manufacturer when we find out their drives have 'quirks' (GREEN drives and RAID anyone?) that's what independent testing was for.

We even have times when you see "CL9" rated ram, only to find out it only runs that fast at 2T, but we don't sue them. We just buy another brand.

 

There's a billion and one IT components that are "bad at what they do" but still technically exactly what they advertise.

Hell, you're into RETRO gear even more so than I am; having quirks or workarounds for bad hardware is the norm, not the exception :P

 

We don't go suing every product manufacturer, we test them, find whats good and bad, and buy (or don't) accordingly.

 

Just this time the early adopters got stung before there was decent "4gb testing" complete..

at least that's how I see it.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. I'd still like to see it on the TECH SPECS, they're for the nerds who ant to know whats in it; but regardless.

 

As I said, they're not selling you a tablet device, they're selling you a book reader product.

 

The "tech specs" of the book reader product, as delivered, is 1GB.

 

If you want to tear the product down to its parts, and concern yourself with the tablet device that makes part of the e-reader product, then you've gone beyond what the vendor sold you, and that's really none of their concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Correct. I'd still like to see it on the TECH SPECS, they're for the nerds who ant to know whats in it; but regardless.

 

As I said, they're not selling you a tablet device, they're selling you a book reader product.

 

The "tech specs" of the book reader product, as delivered, is 1GB.

 

If you want to tear the product down to its parts, and concern yourself with the tablet device that makes part of the e-reader product, then you've gone beyond what the vendor sold you, and that's really none of their concern.

 

 

We just disagree on the meaning of "technical".

 

Take the usual car analogy;

I'd be much more accepting of "Technically, this engine can handle 250KW, but the turbo is too small"

Rather than "Technically this engine can handle 150KW, because the turbo limits it"

 

I can dig deeper into the second comment and still get my information sure, but I prefer it to be presented in black and white.

Call and apple and apple. Not "fruit".

While both technically correct, it's just how we interpret 'technical' that we're caught on.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just disagree on the meaning of "technical".

I don't think so. I just think you're yearning for an unreasonable degree of candour.

 

Take the usual car analogy;

I'd be much more accepting of "Technically, this engine can handle 250KW, but the turbo is too small"

Rather than "Technically this engine can handle 150KW, because the turbo limits it"

 

Here again you're conflating the specifications of a part with the specifications of the product. The product of engine+turbo can deliver 150KW. Period. If you change the turbo, then it's no longer that product, and all bets are off.

 

You may know, through your "car knowledge lens", that the engine and the turbo are separate, and can be swapped/changed for performance benefits, but that's irrelevant if the engine+turbo are being sold to you as a unit. For anything sold as a unit, the technical specs given are those of the unit, not of the parts that make it up.

 

You don't buy a fridge and expect the make/model/configuration of the compressor to be spelled out.

 

Could you imagine the can of worms if suddenly vendors were able to mince "as-configured" specifications with what the end user could potentially modify it to do?

 

If you want to dig deeper and find out what some subset of your widget is "truly" capable of, that's your prerogative. But when you start asking vendors to disclose what their products (or parts of their products) "may/should be capable of with modification", you're opening a major can of worms. How deep do you go?

 

 

Edit: What we disagree on, it appears, is in what context it's appropriate to consider a product as merely a collection of parts.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with where we disagree :P

 

To me, and using common online terms, I've always seen FEATURES as a list of 'what the product is' and TECH SPECS as what the product contains.

 

for example, lets take, say, a mobile phone:

Features: Hex-Core 1.8ghz Processor, 3GB of RAM, 32GB Storage!

Tech Specs: Qualcomm Snapdragon 616, 3GB DDR3L Memory, 32GB eMMC (28GB Available)

 

For me, tech specs has always been about listing what collection of parts go into making up a device.

 

I dont want to be told:

Features: 100KW car!

Tech Specs: Engine!

that's not a tech spec to me.

 

You don't buy a fridge and expect the make/model/configuration of the compressor to be spelled out.

 

Well, yes, I do. I honestly don't think I'd buy any goods that didn't tell me.

And they usually do. If you look at the back it'll say "220v~240v AC 500W 50Hz" or such. Not just "Fridge Motor, makes shit cold yo".

OK sure, I dont know where the caps are made, or if the bulb is a japanese globe or a chinese globe; but there is a point of ' being sensible' to consider here; and cooling my food is the key function I care about.

 

 

Jumping back to the car analogy,

if I asked what an engine can handle, Id want to be told.

I wouldn't be OK with "Well the CAR makes 100kw".... I didn't ask what "the car" makes.... I asked what the engine is built to.

 

 

In the same sense, the graphics card manufacturer didn't promise, and the gamers didn't ask; "Can this Card render a 4GB texture at speed XYZ?"

They promised "This GPU has 4GB of addressable memory on it". And it does.

I know your hobbies :P Unsolder the chip and tell me it doesn't.

There are 4GB worth of IC's on there. All active. All work.

 

As I said, if we attacked every manufacturer just because their product wasn't as fast as competitor X when built around the same specs, we'd be out of companies really quick. lol.

 

By settling, they've made a lot of people happy, which is good. It ensures a product will be sold to them in the future.

If however, you think we're naive enough not to expect the next generations to go up in price by $25USD to compensate....

It might be as simple as no longer including a half height bracket; they'll cut costs somewhere to compensate (or raise the price).

 

As I said, I get it, people were Irked because they feel they were promised something they didn't get.

 

I just find it odd that we accepted the hissy fit, based around what, IMO, we can only call sub-par benchmarking. Because the parts they listed, were all there.

 

I've never seen such a stink kicked up over a bottleneck.

Look out Motherboard manufacturers, you're all guilty somewhere in that data stream of being a bottleneck!

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for example, lets take, say, a mobile phone:

Features: Hex-Core 1.8ghz Processor, 3GB of RAM, 32GB Storage!

Tech Specs: Qualcomm Snapdragon 616, 3GB DDR3L Memory, 32GB eMMC (28GB Available)

 

For me, tech specs has always been about listing what collection of parts go into making up a device.

I think that's splitting hairs. What does the former tell you that the latter doesn't, which is of any importance to the usage of the product for reading e-books?

 

For your Kobo, if the box said "4GB SD storage, 1GB available". What's the use of that to a non-nerd?

 

Do you really think the box should say "4GB SD storage, but only 1GB is available because when you manufacture products at large volumes like we do, sometimes suppliers BLA BLA BLA BLA but you can try your luck expanding it by booting a Linux box BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA".

 

(I mean, I know YOU think that'd be fine, but remember that these things are sold to normies.)

 

I dont want to be told:

Features: 100KW car!

Tech Specs: Engine!

that's not a tech spec to me.

That's not what I'm suggesting. In your example, you suggested that the vendor should spell out how the engine /could/ perform if you modified it away from the delivered configuration.

 

The vendor has no impetus, legal, ethical, or for the sake of your own curiosity as a car-person, to wax about what the product could be, they're concerned with what it is as it stands. If you want to know more, or do your own research, that's your prerogative.

 

Well, yes, I do. I honestly don't think I'd buy any goods that didn't tell me.

And they usually do. If you look at the back it'll say "220v~240v AC 500W 50Hz" or such. Not just "Fridge Motor, makes shit cold yo".

Again, not what I'm suggesting.

 

"220v~240v AC 500W 50Hz" is the specification for the product, "the refrigerator", of which the compressor is a component. The amount of current the compressor uses is a useless figure to the consumer, because they don't just plug in the compressor, they also plug in the light, ice/water dispenser, etc. (I know those are minor in the scheme of things, just trying to illustrate the importance of 'the product' versus its parts).

 

What they won't tell you (nor should they need to tell you) is stuff like "Actually this fridge's compressor could cool a much bigger volume of air, but it's limited by the chassis we've built it in to." as per your car motor+turbo example.

 

OK sure, I dont know where the caps are made, or if the bulb is a japanese globe or a chinese globe; but there is a point of ' being sensible' to consider here; and cooling my food is the key function I care about.

Likewise, for that e-Reader, reading books is the key function that consumers will care about, that the manufacturer uses a 4GB part for whatever reason is of zero consequence for that purpose.

 

Jumping back to the car analogy,

if I asked what an engine can handle, Id want to be told.

I wouldn't be OK with "Well the CAR makes 100kw".... I didn't ask what "the car" makes.... I asked what the engine is built to.

And it's your prerogative to ask, but the vendor only *has* to guarantee what it will do in their delivered configuration.

 

A particular person at a particular dealership might talk to you motorhead-to-motorhead about "what this baby could do with a few tweaks", but officially, the product, the motor vehicle, as they deliver it, does X.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And it's your prerogative to ask, but the vendor only *has* to guarantee what it will do in their delivered configuration.

 

My point EXACTLY!

The consumer got the exact card they paid for.

The card had 4GB of memory, and can handle 4GB textures.

 

If the consumer didn't ask "Can I fill the buffer to the max with 4K textures and expect the RAM to operate at its maximum data rate?"

Then oh well, so sad.

You got what you paid for.

Didn't ask enough questions? SUFFER.

 

 

As for my Kobo,

The core purpose of my e-book (besides displaying the book) is to STORE the book.

So YES I, and I'd imagine a lot of consumers, would like to know they have 4X the storage available if they so choose.

I imagine the size limit is partly because it was already marketed as 1GB, before 1GB cards were obsolete\more expensive.

 

 

That's not what I'm suggesting. In your example, you suggested that the vendor should spell out how the engine /could/ perform if you modified it away from the delivered configuration.

Not necessarily. (though I can see how it came out that way).

I just want to be told the part, in lay, consumer, terms.

 

eg:

Features: 100KW

Tech Specs: Engine

Tech Specs: EJ20 Engine

 

or

 

Features: 1GB storage for your books!

Tech Specs: 1GB storage <- how is that ANY more technical?

Tech Specs: Internal 4GB flash memory

 

 

You keep suggesting I want to know how the PRODUCT can be modified or tweaked; No.

I don't even want to know how the individual parts can be modified; No.

I just want to know what the parts ARE.

 

I don't want to walk into a shop and be another one of those fuckheads who "Needs a part for my nans car, its silver and its going WHIRRR when we accelerate"

And while those people are many, and widespread, the average person would prefer not to look like such a prat either, assuming the knowledge is there.

 

 

In this day and age, if you didnt tell the people WTF is in, say, their phone, its the difference between ending up with a nice big Lithium fireball on my bedside table, and successfully charging my phone.

"What, I can't put my mobile phone battery into my RC car charger? Why? They both say 'Battery'?"

 

I've had a customer charge a phone battery with their car charger. Luckily it just swelled, and didn't go boom when he tried to flatten it back out.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So YES I, and I'd imagine a lot of consumers, would like to know they have 4X the storage available if they so choose.

There is probably a reason why they partition off 1GB. I've listed the possible reasons.

 

What Kobo wouldn't want is people "unlocking hidden storage" then wondering why some of their books are corrupt. They protect themselves from that by stating it's 1GB. That's what they've tested the product at, that's how the underwriter tested it.

 

Besides, disclosing "bonus extra storage, just use gParted!" would just land them with a pile of shagged tablets because of idiots. I know I'd keep it quiet.

 

I imagine the size limit is partly because it was already marketed as 1GB, before 1GB cards were obsolete\more expensive.

Could be. Could be the using-cards-with-faults-over-1GB thing. Only Kobo knows for sure.

 

I just want to know what the parts ARE.

And you found that by opening the product up. Problem solved.

 

For day-to-day use, it's really really not important.

 

In this day and age, if you didnt tell the people WTF is in, say, their phone, its the difference between ending up with a nice big Lithium fireball on my bedside table, and successfully charging my phone.

"What, I can't put my mobile phone battery into my RC car charger? Why? They both say 'Battery'?"

Hence "Only charge your phone with 'Made for (brand)' certified chargers and cables."

 

Ignore it at your peril.

 

I've had a customer charge a phone battery with their car charger. Luckily it just swelled, and didn't go boom when he tried to flatten it back out.

People that do these things deserve everything they get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So YES I, and I'd imagine a lot of consumers, would like to know they have 4X the storage available if they so choose.

There is probably a reason why they partition off 1GB. I've listed the possible reasons.

 

What Kobo wouldn't want is people "unlocking hidden storage" then wondering why some of their books are corrupt. They protect themselves from that by stating it's 1GB. That's what they've tested the product at, that's how the underwriter tested it.

 

Besides, disclosing "bonus extra storage, just use gParted!" would just land them with a pile of shagged tablets because of idiots. I know I'd keep it quiet.

 

I imagine the size limit is partly because it was already marketed as 1GB, before 1GB cards were obsolete\more expensive.

Could be. Could be the using-cards-with-faults-over-1GB thing. Only Kobo knows for sure.

 

I just want to know what the parts ARE.

And you found that by opening the product up. Problem solved.

 

For day-to-day use, it's really really not important.

 

In this day and age, if you didnt tell the people WTF is in, say, their phone, its the difference between ending up with a nice big Lithium fireball on my bedside table, and successfully charging my phone.

"What, I can't put my mobile phone battery into my RC car charger? Why? They both say 'Battery'?"

Hence "Only charge your phone with 'Made for (brand)' certified chargers and cables."

 

Ignore it at your peril.

 

I've had a customer charge a phone battery with their car charger. Luckily it just swelled, and didn't go boom when he tried to flatten it back out.

People that do these things deserve everything they get.

 

 

Just like people who bought GTX970's before sufficient testing was complete for their specialist use.

 

Still has all the hardware they were advertised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×