Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3 Review

70 Comments

View All Comments

• Meghan54 - Monday, July 11, 2011 - link

  I have checked several publications, such as the MLA and APA manuals, and both are quite consistent with giving the recommendation that corp/company names be treated as singular entities, and has been this way for decades upon decades. Even going back to the grammar texts from the early 1950's shows this.....just happen to have some around from when my Mother taught school.
  
  Maybe you should check out some writing guides instead of depending upon "popular" and colloquial writing in magazines.

• Exodus220 - Monday, July 11, 2011 - link

  The Gregg Reference Manual, Ninth Edition, by William Sabin says that when using organizational names, treat them as either singular or plural (but not both). Ordinarily, it suggests you treat the name as singular unless you wish to emphasize the individuals who make up the organization. In that case, use the plural.
  
  Gregg uses these examples to make sure there’s subject-verb agreement:
  
  Brooks & Rice has lost its lease. It is not looking for a new location. OR Brooks & Rice have lost their lease. They are now looking for…But NOT Brooks & Rice has lost its lease. They are now looking…
  
  If the organization is referred to as “they” or “who,” use a plural verb with the company name. If the organization is referred to as “it” or “which,” use a singular verb.
  
  Professor Charles Darling says, “The names of companies and other organizations are usually regarded as singular, regardless of their ending: ‘General Motors has announced its fall lineup of new vehicles.’ Try to avoid the inconsistency that is almost inevitable when you think of corporate entities as a group of individuals: ‘General Motors has announced their fall lineup of new vehicles.’”

• Meghan54 - Monday, July 11, 2011 - link

  No they're not. Corps. are treated as singular entities. Substitute for any corp's name, be it Intel, Gigabyte, Apple, et al, the word company, and you have your answer. You wouldn't say "The company have good products", would you?
  
  No, just like it's incorrect to say Intel have or Gigabyte have. A company, corporation, or any group is treated as a single entity. like Congress, Parliament, or any other cohesive group.
  
  Learn English grammar.

• mickyfinn - Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - link

  I don't think so. Apparently, In the US and in England, Corporations apparently are treated as single nouns. This is correct as Corporations are viewed legally as single entities.
  
  I cite the following:
  The Associated Press (ap.org) about us page http://www.ap.org/company/about-us: "The AP is one of the largest ... AP is neither privately held... AP employs the lastest..."
  
  IBM press release http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/379... entitled "IBM Completes Acquisition of Tealeaf Technology", first sentence: "ARMONK, N.Y. - 13 Jun 2012: IBM (NYSE:IBM) today announced IT (emphasis mine) has completed its acquisition of Tealeaf Technology, Inc., ..."
  
  Financial Times website "about us": http://aboutus.ft.com/corporate-information/#axzz1... : "The FT IS... (emphasis mine)" and feel free to peruse any of their articles refering to corporations (or countries). All singular.
  
  Oxford University Press release, http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120614... entitled "Oxford Tops Times Good University Guide for 11th Year"
  
  While the US and UK are not technically "most English-speaking countries", the English ostensibly invented the language and the US one the IP rights to it from them in a war in the 18th century.

• mickyfinn - Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - link

  oy... I mean "won". :(

• IanCutress - Monday, July 11, 2011 - link

  I edited this article for Brendan - there's a UK/US split on whether a company should be singular or plural (I would cite web sources and style guides on this, but they are easy to find). I understand AT is a mainly US based web-site, and when concentrating to write in a US style it's frustrating to find that what both Brendan and I know is emphatically correct, others consider it totally wrong, and it sometimes creeps through unnoticed as a result. Our apologies.

• awaken688 - Monday, July 11, 2011 - link

  Don't worry about it man. I personally prefer it be treated as a singular, especially when we are treating it as a single entity. But, I understand there are always going to be differences among English speaking countries. Just as someone was so sure of the horrible use of "an SSD" when in fact it is the correct use, people need to relax a little.

• MilwaukeeMike - Monday, July 11, 2011 - link

  Everyone has their preferences...some we can argue over, some are just annoyances.. I personally hate the phrase 'that being said' (and its derivatives) because it's ambiguous and pointless, but I must be in the minority because of how often it's used.

• irreverence - Monday, July 11, 2011 - link

  I'd not usually be bothered by something like this, and would generally find it to be fairly trivial, but upon reading the rest of this article it becomes incredibly clear that it is not fit for publishing and is in dire need of a proofreader. I do not know if Brendan's 1st language is English or not, but as his 1st article on the site this should really have been scrutinised by an editor before signing off on it.
  
  Aside from the issue with treating Gigabyte as a plural entity, here are just a few other issues with the writing that were immediately apparent upon reading:
  
  - using the phrase "in my eyes" instead of "to my eyes"
  - "with regards to" instead of "with regard to"
  - "after comparing to" instead of "after comparing with"
  - "one port which points out" instead of "one port that points out"
  - "Gigabyte have put all of the features in their relative submenus that makes them easy to find." instead of "Gigabyte have put all of the features in their relative submenus which makes them easy to find."
  - "it's in the center board" - "it's in the center of the board"
  - "CPU, memory, graphics card(s) as well as..." instead of "CPU, memory and graphics card(s), as well as..."
  
  Then there is the confusing inconsistency between the uses of "display port" and "DisplayPort".
  
  Apart from all this, the whole article is littered with clumsy sentences. There are too many to quote directly, but by way of example:
  
  "Unfortunately, the CPU core voltage isn’t displayed correctly by CPUZ which means you have to use the EasyTune6 software, which seems to do a better job although I wouldn’t rely on it entirely."
  
  I'm sorry, but I expect higher standards of writing from this site. I don't blame the author directly, but the fact that this clearly hasn't been proofread is pretty bad.

• The0ne - Monday, July 11, 2011 - link

  People see it as a "trifle" but it really is annoying if used very often. It's breaks your train of reading/thought and eventually invokes the Hulk in anyone who cares :D But I've long trained myself to ignore such trifles as blogs, reviews and even news on the Internet are horrible to begin with. Now books are another matter :D