Talk:Realtek

Business
Is this company still in business? The website looks brutally outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Realtek
I decided to write up a more complete article about Realtek. So I pretty much removed the previous texts in my new edit. Any changes, either grammatical or substantial, or discussions are most welcome. And because this is my first time edit in Wikipedia and obviously there must be a lot of rules and customs that I am not familiar with, if I in any way offended anyone, please forgive me and feel free to teach me a lesson.

Weberwang 09:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Just one note: this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine article. Critical analysis is not encouraged here; raw facts are. See WP:NOR --tyomitch 21:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Following Tyomitch's suggestion, I changed the title to "Challenges", though I am also considering whether it is at all appropriate to put this section down. As a matter of fact, I myself am an employee of Realtek, and the information being put down in the "Challenges" section reflects more of the view I gained throughout my own and my colleagues' experiences being part of the industries, rather than that of any specific verifiable sources, though the impression itself without doubt has been added upon us through the general understanding of the community (including press reports, peer discussions, etc). If anyone thinks that it should be removed from the article, then maybe we should go ahead and do so. Apart from that, I am also planning on taking a picture of Realtek's building and put it in the article. Weberwang 06:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A picture would be really nice. And it would be even nicer if you could fill in Template:Infobox_Company and put that into the article. --tyomitch 08:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Another thing is, I feel unconvinced about the resumption of those two comparison tables. Though they are verifiable raw facts which can be traced back in Realtek's website, the content delivered seems of little consequences towards the reader's understanding of the company (for example, certain interfaces supported by a number of Realtek's particular products, or number of channels provided by its codec.) On the contrary, the logo of crab previously presented in the section Trivia, though seems less consequential at the first glance, actually represents a wide recognition of the company by users and consumers, at lesat in the case of Taiwan marketplace. People actually termed a NIC incorporating RTL8139 series chips the "crab card" as a general practice. Weberwang 06:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the trivia because all it had was just verbal description of the logo, which everyone can see with their own eyes. I didn't know about the "crab card" name, and that one is IMO worth mentioning in the article, perhaps better in the NIC section rather than in a section of its own. --tyomitch 08:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm also unconvinced about the tables. I prettied them up because they were ugly and I needed the practice, but I didn't think very much about whether they should stay there. There was not much other content at the time, and if I'd removed them there wouldn't have been much left. If they are to remain, I think they should at least have a sentence to introduce them. But I'm new at this too, so my opinion may not be the best guide. --LesleyW 14:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I added in the company infobox. And again I removed the two comparison tables and substituted them with external links to Realtek website. Hopefully this is an acceptable arrangement for all of us. -- 219.68.68.39 15:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that me up there. Forget to log in. -- Weberwang 15:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good solution, IMHO. I've just moved the links to the bottom of the page. As links, they only need a description. The awards section might be better as a list, too. --LesleyW 03:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There is some potential for making readers confused in the Products section. As I understand, Realtek manufactures the ICs, which are then supplied to manufacturers who produce the network cards. But the link network interface controllers points to network card, which gives the impression that Realtek manufactures the whole network card. We know the difference, but non-technical members of the public will not. I'll give some thought to this problem and come back later. --LesleyW 03:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Today I took some time routed to take the picture. It would have been better if taken in the morning, but this can be fixed later. I also removed the link to NIC, just for now, before one of us can find a better way to address it. --Weberwang 16:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice photo. --LesleyW 21:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I eventually decided to remove the "Challenge" section from the article, largely alerted by the recent John Seigenthaler Sr. event, though I do not consider the information I put down here even remotely resembles the situation there. It is more like that I feel more obliged to keep up with a higher standard of the NPOV and Verifiability policies. --Weberwang 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Security breach
I put back in place the section about the breach of Realtek's digital certificate for Windows in 2011, which allowed attacker to digitally sign malicious drivers, and was exploited to spread Stuxnet virus without users being notified. The information is explicit on the Stuxnet page. In case such sourced information should actually be removed, as [Molo_Kra] considered, one should elaborate arguments on this talk page.

As a side note, contributions of Molo_Kra as a Wikipedia member begins on the 27th of June 2013, goes on the 28th, then vanishes after the 14th of July, 2013. At the time of writing, Molo_Kra did never contribute to any other article on Wikipedia. On the 27th of June, his very first contribution was editing the title [Security breach] to more accurately reflect contents of the paragraph. Three weeks later on the 14th of July his very last contribution was removing the whole section about that breach of Realtek's digital certificate for Windows. In the between, on the 28th of June, he updated the list of awards delivered to Realtek.

Sounds like Realtek's PR department cares about its image on Wikipedia.

--Golffies (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You think too much. Just because someone put speculation into a report, does not make that speculation in any way closer to the factual situation. People like you are the reason that wikipedia is shunned as a serious source for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kra128912312 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

outdated
"Presently the ALC850 and RTL8139 are particular OEM favorites" I thought virtually all PCs now were coming with onboard gigabit controllers..... Plugwash 23:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Replaced by ALC892 and RTL8111. Yes, they have onboard gigabit nowadays but that's still a Realtek chip in many cases. Onboard 8139's however also exist in 90's computers. The OEMs that are still satisfied with 100mbit use RTL8169 or RTL8101E now as those support PCIe. I have also removed "yet-to-be-released" at 802.11n. Albert Pool (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

»Critism«
"Indeed, in the kernel source code for the FreeBSD operating system, one file goes as far as calling the 8139 card 'probably the worst PCI ethernet controller ever made', noting that 'the RealTek 8139 PCI NIC redefines the meaning of 'low end.'" This is no reasonable critism, but pure polemic from Bill Paul, the author of the driver. Although the 8139 is not very advantageous, there a far inferior designs on the market (i. e. VIA Rhine, ULi), that don't received this sort of critism, even in the FreeBSD source.

This paragraph is POV and should be removed. - 92.224.142.142 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Realtek made cheap and really bad onboard sound cards. They have to pay $100 bucks to those chinese worker, to made something such crappy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.105.250 (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Cannot go directly to the website
The website link doesn't work straight away; you have to navigate to it using its DNS record: http://152.104.125.41/default.aspx

Some users from last year tried to connect to the site and were refused, but the alternative approach was proposed to them. My own personal criticism to them is, why is there a newer version of a soundcard driver and their website hasn't updated to reflect that yet?

205.214.249.177 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It appears to be working correctly as of February 2022. It looks as if its been updated and is current with their business news. The website appears to be fully operational, as I haven't found anything that doesn't work, so far... So these comments may have been applicable at the time, but appear to have been resolved by the subject firm. Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)