Talk:ASRock

Copyediting

In some places, there seem to be missing commas; while in other places, there seem to be more commas than required. Therefore, a professional copyeditor is needed — so s/he could take a look and make a few fixes. -Mardus 09:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Incompatability

I removed the listing of the ATI radeon 9550 video card being incompatable. I know it is infact compatable becouse im using a radeon 9550 with an Asrock board right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.205 (talk • contribs)

Which model is your motherboard? That list is specifically for motherboards using the "AGI" technology, not all ASRock motherboards. — Aluvus t/c 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

ASROCK had a few motherboards with AGI slots, which are supposed to be alternatives for chipsets without AGP support, though it isn't fully AGP compliant and many cards have issues working properly in the slot, which is probably why an incompatibility note was made. I suggest that it be mentioned in the article because some people may get confused about what an AGI slot is. 68.33.93.69 (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Significance of incompatibility

I'm not massively knowledgable about this, but isn't PCI-Express overtaking AGP as the standard graphics port now?

Perhaps this should be mentioned as current ASRock motherboards support PCI-E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.91.203 (talk • contribs)

NPOV?

This doesn't seem to be written from a neutral point of view - it is more like a commercial for the company IMO. Molix 12:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks suspiciously like an employee-created page. Leemeng (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a tag before which says "this article reads like an advertisement" rather than the everyday POV tag. That should probably be used instead of what's currently there. mewsterus (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Article has been restored and cleaned up. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is just Ctrl+C Ctrl+V from asrock.com/general/about.asp ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.39.138 (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't and wasn't. If you don't like the content, however, feel free to improve it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed large sections of the article that were uncited and non-NPOV. 71.1.235.109 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's still (or again?) a commercial and needs delousing. 71.162.91.117 (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up some obviously commercial grandstanding in the last section. Wdeviers (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:ASRock Logo.svg, found on ASRock, 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)

Asus/ASrock

After doing a little digging it seems there might be a concentrated campaign by Asus/ASrock to deny to deny any connection with each other and to begin moving away from the Asus name due to recent bad PR. I find it strange that this article makes no mention at all of Asus and has been heavily edited by a number of SPA's. 71.1.235.109 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall this page mentioning their previous affiliation... but it's not there anymore. It's kind of a problem when a company can erase their own history by editing Wikipedia. Can someone fix this? I've never contributed to Wikipedia but I'll try to find some sources and post them here in the talk section. (138.130.245.108 (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC))

Ok, here's what I've found. As close as the 8th of august 2012 Asus is mentioned as "ASRock was originally spun off from Asus in 2002 in order to compete with companies like Foxconn for the commodity OEM market". From there, there seems to be some sort of strange translation thing going on where the history pages show the article as Portuguese and then proceed to translate it all (I'm not familiar with whatever is happening there but I assume it makes sense to a regular). After re-translation back into English, you get (16 aug 2012) "ASRock Asus was originally drawn from the 2002 to compete with some companies like Foxconn OEM market goods". Basically the same thing with bad grammar and different phrasing. Then (20 aug) the word "Asus" gets removed (since it looks like a type-o I assume). From there it changes wording etc and never goes back to talking about Asus or the companies roots. Here is the original source. It's not exactly a history of ASRock but it certainly shows some of their connection. Can I tactfully insert the original line into the history section with that as a source? Slicedtoad (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. --AVRS (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)