Talk:Asus/Archives/2012

"Joseph Uzelac"
According to the article http://big5.huaxia.com/sw/qycf/2007/00563271.html there was no one named "Joseph Uzelac" working at ASUS at the time. This name was added without credible references, and therefore it is removed. (One of the previous article it was vandalized to "Ronald McDonald".) Rgl168 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"most motherboards in the world"
The "most motherboards in the world" bit started off as a POV spiel. I need to see evidence before I will believe it. -- Grunt (talk) 22:33, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Please check digitimes.com for more info about this.
 * I am sure, that Asus has the biggest Market share of all motherboard makers. But "most motherboards means imho, that they ship over 50% and I think that is not the case. --MrBurns (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One should write "the worst motherboards in the world". One of them killed 2 of my hard disks in a half year. By chance? Certainly not, I think they produce it to destroy your computer bottom up after your 1-year gurantee expired, so you have to buy a new computer. A Taiwan company... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.234.57.38 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You must be the most uninformed person in the IT world (if you are in IT). I work for HP and before I worked for IBM and EDS (using Dell HW). Guest what was the motherboard used in ALL the high-end line desktops and laptops, and on the server rooms? ASUS. Saying that is "the worst motherboards in the world" is just wrong... Your HDD fried? What about checking your power supply? I work with IT for more than 20 years and I had my share of burning CPUs due to a faulty motherbords, never with an ASUS. As I wrote, I work for HP and ASUS IS the best motherboard available right now. Do you think that INTEL would trust ASUS to be the tester of their new CPUs if they where the worst? By the way, ASUS motherboard are the most reliable, as you can check on: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/rescuecom-computer-reliability-applecare-support,11198.html
 * I think that my point is made... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.7.209 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

External link
Linux on Asus boards is entirely uneeded, and should be removed. I could probably run any number of OSes on the thing. Removed.

Linux on Asus laptops link is needed. (It is not Asus boards!).

Also, something needs to be done with the table (with patents). somehow the external links are showing up as part of the table.

Cleanup Request
This article is in pretty bad shape, so I've tagged it for different cleanup issues. I've edited out some NPOV stuff, but the article isn't encyclopedic. There's no company history, and little in the way of company data (employees, leaders, location, and so on).


 * cleanup-ipa, as the pronunciation should be in IPA. The pronunciation looks wrong to me, anyway; everyone I know says "ay-soos", not "uh-SOOS".


 * I agree. "uh-SOOS" is rather strange and I have never heard it, besides, the origin from the word "pegasus" suggests the stress would be on the first syllable. I corrected the transcription and rewrote it in IPA. --Anthony Ivanoff 05:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strange as it is, I remember calling their tech support for help with my mobo and hearing 'ah-SOOSE' over and over. I'd fix the pronounciation, but I don't know how to do the IPA stuff. Anyone want to check and fix it? --Calamari 07:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * verifiy, for assertions like "sells more motherboards than any other company" and "


 * I found a link which claims it is so, but also found another, where MSI sales person says they sell more.  --Anthony Ivanoff 05:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * weasel words abound, as in "various parts" and "been known to" and "and others" are still there, though I tried to clean them up. This is a symptom of original research.

I'd like to see more about innovations in the company's history, hard information about its business practices, and notes about its other lines of business (like graphics cards and notebooks). -- Mikeblas 15:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fixes, Anthony! -- Mikeblas 12:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the phrase "was powered by an ASUS". That's advertisement. Replaced it with "was using an ASUS". Mainboards aren't "powering" in the first place; that's the job of the power supply unit. Nikos (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Two questions: origin of the name and pronunciation
Hi everybody,

can anyone give a reference for "the name derives from 'Pegasus'"? Furthermore, should we consider the Taiwanese or American pronunciation (just guessing that they are different...)? --Gennaro Prota 19:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is something I found, not sure how reliable it is: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/eee-pc/how-to-pronounce-eee-pc-320007.php 66.27.121.188 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Time?
This has been added to the article:


 * Advansus Computer, the recently established joint venture between Asustek Computer and industrial PC (IPC) specialist Advantech Computer

but encyclopedias should be timeless: when is recent, exactly? The article should specify the date as exactly as possible. -- Mikeblas 20:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, an anonymous contributor is adding lot of info without citing sources and without writing edit summaries for his modifications. The info could basically be right so I don't feel like removing them immediately, but if we don't find appropriate sources we have to remove them anyway. --Gennaro Prota 21:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, a quick search on the Internet revealed that all additions by 67.161.9.23 are a mere copy-&-paste of the following two articles:


 * http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20060120A7032.html
 * http://www.crn.com.au/story.aspx?CIID=28574


 * NB: the first of them seems sometimes inaccessible directly; in these cases going to http://www.feedsfarm.com/s/asustek/ and then clicking on "Asustek-Advantech joint venture to enhance ASUS brand value" on the bottom of the page has worked for me. --Gennaro Prota 00:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Help with financial info
Hi guys,

any finance expert to help me with this?
 * Is Asus, technically speaking, a public company? (I've read somewhere that is is a privately owned company listed on Taiwan Stock Exchange; but I don't know if that information are up-to-date or not, and frankly I don't even know whether "privately owned" is in contradiction with "public". Intuitively speaking I guess not.)


 * In all official references I have found I only see TSE:2357 (see for instance this page ). I don't see either NASDAQ or LSE. And the NASDAQ link we have here doesn't seem to work. BTW, what's the correct meaning of "TSE"? "Tokyo Stock Exchange" or "Taiwan Stock Exchange"?

Thank you very much, Gennaro Prota 11:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No we are still a private company, however there are talks about the company going public in the near future.

The company is not listed under NASDAQ. It also does not file financial reports with the SEC. Asustek can't be a private company if its stock is traded publicly on a stock exchange.

Someone should post or write about this
Taiwan-based motherboard maker Asustek recently announced plans to reorganize into 15 business units with the reorganization to become effective on March 1, according to the company as cited in today's Economic Daily News (EDN).

After reorganizing, each business will have its own R&D, marketing and sales team, the paper added.

Sited from Digitimes

With this news, Asus is planning to become the next Intel or AMD of this business.

Quite sad
Quite sad to come back here and notice someone removed most of the table


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ASUS&diff=60573953&oldid=59014642

without even adding an edit summary (except for the text inserted automatically with 'section editing'). An unnoticed vandalism which should induce some thinking about Wikipedia tools. I have to unwillingly concede a point to Pavel, in this respect. &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 00:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

AsusReviews
The link www.asusreviews.com still needs to be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.74.105.30 (talk • contribs).
 * No. Please see WP:EL.  Also, WP:SPAM as the person who runs the website has been repeatedly trying to add the link.  The site is clearly not appropriate at this time.  --Yamla 14:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Luchu &rarr; Lujhu
I changed spelling of the manufacuring facility location from Luchu to Lujhu, because I couldn't find much on Wikipedia with Luchu. Hope this is correct. —Tokek 10:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Year of Introduction
I'm kinda thinking that the "Year of Introduction" column in the table of ASUS's orginal features should be removed, all of the years are unknown. Thoughts? (Cooldude7273 11:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC))


 * Yes and no :-) My secret hope was that it would be filled some day, but no dice so far. Feel free to do what you think is the best. BTW, this article has undergone a lot of unnoticed vandalism; the table was much larger a while ago (IIRC I filled-in most of it, except… er… the years of introduction :-)) &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 11:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Features
Please Discuss Original Features ASUS may have introuduced here


 * I believe it was ASUS that first introduced the jumperless bios or jumperless FSB/CPU Multiplier. ASUS was also the first to do away with the SLI jumper block and flip card. There are a lot of other features that are missing from the article's table that are ASUS original introductinos.--Root Beers 02:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See also the section titled "Quite sad", above. Once upon a time the table was much bigger (though I don't remember having added anything concerning jumper-less features). If you look for my user name in the edit history you can find many entries which you might want to restore. But be prepared to waste your time, as I did :-( &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Asus splits into 3 companies

 * Hi everyone, can anyone tell me why my comments go deleted? Its a fact that Asus is splitting into 3 companies. Please let me know, thanks--Nvasi 14:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like its back.. am new.. sorry --Nvasi 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dated figures
Somebody should update the motherboard figures. 2005 figures are two years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymous editor (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Employees number figure
Obviously the number of employees (8,000) working @ Asus is wrong!!! Some where else I read that they have now more than 100,000. The number should be updated.

An image on this page may be deleted
This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:ASUS.svg, found on Asus, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section
There a seems to be a strong sense of anger in that section, and it's hard to believe that the people who contributed to that section were trying to be very unbiased. --72.205.207.196 (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Wikipedia in the truth business? Or is it in the publicity business? Is it Wikipedia's purpose to recite the bad along with the good? Or should articles be edited or censored to make sure the subject of the article has their warts and wrinkles airbrushed out?


 * An opinion about the tone of an article ("angry," "sad," "happy") --- especially where the opinion lacks illustrative particulars to explain its position --- is itself a subjective value-judgement, and thus not an impartial basis for determining the validity of the encyclopedic entry. The question that really needs to be asked: Are these entries factually *truthful* and accurate. Doubtless, representatives (or supporters) of ASUS who are unhappy that the truth about their company's misconduct is being publicly documented, will wish to see the facts of that behaviour watered down through the use of emasculated prose. They might allege that the article is not impartial, because accuracy is not in their best interests, and because a dilution of that accuracy advances their interests.


 * One example, among several: Changing the phrase "ASUS quietly released a BIOS update" into "ASUS released a BIOS update" is a suppression of the truth, and a hiding of material facts that actually happened. If the former phrase is false, then by all means, let the quote read "ASUS contacted all the affected users of their product and assisted them with the repair of the defect." But, if the former phrase is true, then the word "quietly" is an essential term that establishes ASUS's failure to serve its clientele by warning them of a fix to the problem. This is especially significant given the numerous preceding months during which the company refused to provide support (or state that a fix was in the works). If editors suppress usage of the word "quietly," the net effect is to imply an enhanced meaning to the word "released": E.g. when a magazine issue or software product is "released," it is accompanied by publicity and fanfare (and notice to registered users). Such was not the case in this article, and to suppress the word "quietly" is to suppress the truth through ommission.


 * This is just one example of how ASUS supporters wish to suppress the truth. In fact, in the many months since a description of this controversy was first inserted into the ASUS article, ASUS supporters (or operatives?) have vandalized the entry, sometimes by deleting it outright, sometimes by castrating the verbiage (including, but not limited to the "quietly" issue described above) to such a degree that it reduced the content to nothing more than a press-release about a minor glitch, rather than the factual recount of corporate misconduct that it was. Now, members of the same camp are seeking to accomplish the same thing, this time by questioning the neutrality of the article. Bottom line: If the entry is factually accurate, if it is supported by references, the public is entitled to know about it and make up their own minds. The article should not be censored to allow ASUS to turn Wikipedia into its publicity vehicle, and the truth should not be suppressed. The neutrality challenge should be removed.


 * I was the one who entered the beta bios information. While the original wording/formatting has since been edited. I do see the "citations needed" marks throughout the article. I do not own the board and thus don't have any real ties to the issue, I was just reading forums about the complaints and figured I take a look at the ASUS website to see if anything has changed. The information I gathered are more or less from random web forums and looking at the download list on Asus's website. Thus, there is no reliable source to cite. Much of the information I supplied I believed to be neutral however the article is no longer my wording. Unfortunately, even ASUS's website can't really a good source as it changes and what's marked Beta today may be official tomorrow. I stumbled onto this wiki page while browsing the various forums posting this beta solution to affected users during hours of boredom.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.97.22 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There's far too many citation marks in the section about the incompaitibility. some of the stuff is needed, but a 'citation needed' mark for windows Xp? that's being ridiculous.Floorhugger (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the new Asus Eee Reader?
What about the upcoming Asus Eee Reader. Into which article space should info about this product go? This looks like it may be a competitor to the Amazon Kindle.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/171539/asus_eee_reader_to_join_ereader_fray_says_report.html?tk=rel_news


 * Asus' top of the line Eee Reader would be a dual screen, full-color device with both screens connected by a hinge to emulate the look and feel of a traditional book. Asus showed off a concept version of this device earlier this year.


 * it will reportedly be able to simultaneously read text on one screen and view a Web page on the other. Dual Web/reading access could be a handy feature for students who want to have an online reading guide open while they study, and every day readers could enhance their understanding of a book by referring to online sources relating to their text.


 * One of the screens may also have the capability to convert into a touch-based keypad, turning the device into some sort of netbook for easy Web access. Other features include Wi-Fi, speakers, Webcam, and microphone....

Also, we should look for info on what type of screen it will have: Color LCD? (Hope not!) Or color digital paper, like the Kindle? (much better for reading books!) RK (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Timeline Section
The August 2008 and December 2008 entries appear to be influenced more by consumer anger at the company than providing any real information about major events in company history, which is presumably the reason for this section's existence. There's no dispute about the equipment bugs here; only about the tone and specific placement of these particular entries. In fact, there have almost certainly been other equipment bugs produced by this company, but none are included in the timeline. Either include them all or drop these.

The May 2008, August 2008, and December 2008 entries should probably be moved to the Controversy section, provided they are rewritten without such emotion-inducing phrases as "quietly, and without apology." Go2dell (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see any reason for POV mark in the timeline section. Maybe this is resolved now? Audriusa (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Asus's relationship with Intel....
The article subcategory begins with "In the early 2000s...." and goes on to talk about Intel's 486 which was introduced to the market in 1989. Is there something I'm missing or should that actually be "In the late 1980s...."?

Lord Destros (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ASUS or Asus?
Is the title of this article not incorrect? ASUS refer to themselves consistently as ASUS (not Asus), and so does the body of the article. Or is there a policy which says the title should be Asus regardless? Captain Chaos (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think ASUS is the correct name, and there is an article on wikipedia ASUS_Eee_PC there its called as ASUS. Darshana Jayasinghe : U graduate,University Of Peradeniya,Sri Lanka (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is MOS:TM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"." --McGeddon (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Should all instances of ASUS be replaced with Asus, then? Or is it only the title that should be Asus? --Mortense (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quoting MOS:TM: "Avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS. Instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss." --Mortense --Mortense (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Relationship With Intel
This section seems like it is written by a whistful and sentimental employee after too much rice wine. Needs a rewrite. Also, how long has the blatant error of 486 processors apparently entering the market in the "early 2000's" stood?

New controversy section
An IP just introduced a whole lot of new info into a newly-created "Controversy" section with a single subheader for "Corporate Policy to Abandon Registered Users". The inserted material reads very much like an opinion column (many POV and unverifiable statements), and all sources used are dead links. At best this seems like a temporary BIOS issue and not really worthy of a whole header section. If someone wants to clean it up, go for it. But until then, I'm reverting the edit; -Multivariable (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

English names for company people
Regarding English names for company personnel, while they may have Chinese names (and thus romanizations), many of them have chosen and use a different English name. As such, there is no reason to include a Chinese romanization next to each and every one of their English names because it serves no purpose and crowds up the page. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Practical Pronunciation
Would it be unreasonable to suggest that, whilst the company would no doubt love everyone to use its chosen pronunciation of "eɪsʊs", it is very often pronounced "eɪsʌs" (Ay-sus rather than ay-sooss) by English speakers. In the UK at least, retailers, technology programmes and review sites like cnet, techradar and v3 have always, in my experience, used "eɪsʌs", and if you went into a shop asking for an "ay-sooss netbook" they would mostly treat you as they would a confused grandmother shopping for a "loggy-tec" keyboard.

I guess the question I'm asking is that, given that this is a matter of real world usage, how would one go about referencing this short of a list of all the recorded instances where it is pronounced this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pier pressure (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

i experienced several hacking attempts by their cusomer service website
they restarted my browser just for entering their website so this is bad.