If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's
On Dec 19, 7:42*pm, krw wrote:
You deserve every bit of grief you get, troll. Bullies always say that: he/she asked for it. The purely unself- conscious state of your nastiness and self-righteousness is a wonder to behold. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers wrote in part:
On Dec 19, 2:58| pm, Robert Redelmeier wrote: as above, this makes Sebastians intercission entirely appropriate. | As was mine when you mocked him. As I said some time ago, I really have no use for you. Then why bother replying to me? Go pick a fight with someone else. I do not consider this a fight. Revealing that you do. I shall continue to mock AMD boosterism until AMD finally becomes a subsidiary of IBM. While being an Intel booster of equal if not greater partisanship? Your bias staggers the imagination. Should this also be considered a promise to stop if and when they merge? I see Intel, AMD, IBM, Microsoft and other players each as helping net progress. Not without serious faults in all. Glass half empty? Or half full? Or twice as big as required! -- Robert R |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's
On Dec 19, 2:58*pm, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers wrote in part: On Dec 19, 10:17*am, Sebastian Kaliszewski Oh, so I undestand, you lack your own will. You're predetermined, you're not guilty, you're just pushed to trolling by evil Us. You made one of the more memorably preposterous claims in my memory of reading Usenet. *Subsequent events have made the preposterousness of your claim even more obvious. *If you're going to spend the rest of your time on Usenet trying to repair your damaged ego, there's no real reason for me to respond to you. Such ad-hominem is exactly what obliges me (and perhaps others) to intercede. Nothing obliges you to do anything. What's happening here is so unimportant that I can't find words for it. If you think otherwise, you need professional help. Irrespective of their own skills and right to respond, no-one can defend themselves on equal terms against ad-hominem. However correct, their arguments can be seen as self-serving. I have even defended you when I didn't see you as the aggressor. Don't worry about me. If anyone should be barking, it would be the OP, because it was his post that I mocked. *You're not properly involved at all. as above, this makes Sebastians intercission entirely appropriate. *As was mine when you mocked him. I'm tired from shoveling. You really are just too much. I have explained this before and do not expect you to understand this time either. Listen, asshole. What you don't understand would fill the Library of Congress several times over. You don't know what you're talking about. If I really DON'T understand something about interactions with you, maybe there's a reason? In your neatly closed moral universe, everyone is just as you imagine them to be. In this case, you've got it so wrong that it's beyond imagining that you would ever understand just how wrong you are and why. Who knows? I may be making the exact same mistake with you. *However, you are not the only reader on USENET. You may correctly infer that I value the opinion of an unknown anonymous lurker well above yours. *Your reasoning has given me no reason to value it. *My choice. *But does not free me from the moral obligation to defend others against ad-hominem. A self-righteous vigilante is hardly better than a bully. I don't have a problem with Yousuf. I do have a problem with you. To say that I have a problem with Sebastian would imply that we have any kind of relationship at all, and we don't. Robert. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's
On Dec 19, 8:22*pm, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers wrote in part: On Dec 19, 2:58| pm, Robert Redelmeier wrote: as above, this makes Sebastians intercission entirely appropriate. | As was mine when you mocked him. As I said some time ago, I really have no use for you. Then why bother replying to me? * I don't have to explain myself to you, and I don't propose to. Go pick a fight with someone else. I do not consider this a fight. *Revealing that you do. *Rolls eyes* And...? I shall continue to mock AMD boosterism until AMD finally becomes a subsidiary of IBM. While being an Intel booster of equal if not greater partisanship? *Your bias staggers the imagination. What staggers the imagination is the way that you take yourself seriously. Yousuf's scrambling to find positive things to say about AMD and negative things to say about Intel is just funny. The IBM connection is somewhat less amusing. In all seriousness, I don't think that AMD can be a subsidiary of IBM, otherwise I think it already would have happened. Should this also be considered a promise to stop if and when they merge? That was not a serious comment. I think the AMD thing is over. I see Intel, AMD, IBM, Microsoft and other players each as helping net progress. *Not without serious faults in all. Glass half empty? *Or half full? *Or twice as big as required! I don't admire AMD and Microsoft and I've said why over and over and over again. Intel would be a case study in just how many things you can do wrong and still stay on top of the heap. IBM is IBM. Without IBM, Linux would have no credible future. Robert. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's
In article 876d2377-1a5a-401d-ab92-acdd9950dfe5
@e3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com, says... On Dec 19, 7:42*pm, krw wrote: You deserve every bit of grief you get, troll. Bullies always say that: he/she asked for it. The purely unself- conscious state of your nastiness and self-righteousness is a wonder to behold. [I R O N Y] / / / O -- Keith |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's
Robert Myers wrote:
I don't admire AMD and Microsoft and I've said why over and over and over again. Intel would be a case study in just how many things you can do wrong and still stay on top of the heap. IBM is IBM. Without IBM, Linux would have no credible future. If one of the Intel cases studies of what you can do wrong is about how to use your ill-gotten monopoly powers to bully customers and competitors, then I agree. Yousuf Khan |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's
On Dec 19, 11:15*pm, krw wrote:
In article 876d2377-1a5a-401d-ab92-acdd9950dfe5 @e3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com, says... On Dec 19, 7:42*pm, krw wrote: You deserve every bit of grief you get, troll. Bullies always say that: he/she asked for it. *The purely unself- conscious state of your nastiness and self-righteousness is a wonder to behold. [I R O N Y] * * * * */ * * * * / * * * */ * * * O Irony can be like (-1)**n. In fact, it almost always is. Robert. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's
On Dec 20, 12:04*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Robert Myers wrote: I don't admire AMD and Microsoft and I've said why over and over and over again. *Intel would be a case study in just how many things you can do wrong and still stay on top of the heap. *IBM is IBM. *Without IBM, Linux would have no credible future. If one of the Intel cases studies of what you can do wrong is about how to use your ill-gotten monopoly powers to bully customers and competitors, then I agree. Read the thread in comp.arch about garbage in, garbage out, especially what Lynn Wheeler has posted. There aren't many saints in business or politics. I'm sure that if I *worked* for Intel, I would loathe it. Robert. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan wrote in part:
If one of the Intel cases studies of what you can do wrong is about how to use your ill-gotten monopoly powers to bully customers and competitors, then I agree. Although I like AMD, that doesn't make me hate Intel. They've just done some stupid things that their large size enables them to survive. I do not think Intel's misbehaviour has approached that of IBM, let alone Microsoft. Respectfully, I do not believe that Intel acquired its' monopoly by illegal means. At critical junctures, they just out-competed. Monopolies themselves are _not_ illegal, but finding yourself with one (and AMD may also qualify) does mean certain behaviours are prohibited under US law. Sure, some Intel offices did some illegal things, but I believe this is a local matter and not a matter of corporate policy. Certainly Intel HQ was quite contrite towards the US DoJ when challenged. Contrast MS (take us to court) or IBM (we'll talk but lawyer you to death). What specific actions do you consider Intel "bullying"? A certain amount of pressure is normal in business. The most persistant oddity has been the Dell sole-source, but I'm confident the DoJ has been all over those agreements. -- Robert R |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's
I did not start this thread to discuss Intel's legal issues or business
practices, it was supposed to be about Intel's manufacturing technology, but as usual it's gone off-kilter. So anyways, let me get my two cents in about the original technological argument before we send it back to legal and business issues. As you'll recall, Intel announced its 45nm process with HKMG (High-K, Metal Gates) to great fanfare. Various websites and forums proclaimed it an amazing achievement. Well, the standard AMD 45nm SOI without HKMG process seems to be superior to Intel's, as they are seeing lower power and thermal requirements at the low-end, and higher overclockability at the high-end. AMD will be adding HKMG later on in the 45nm process too, but so far it looks unnecessary. Robert Redelmeier wrote: Although I like AMD, that doesn't make me hate Intel. They've just done some stupid things that their large size enables them to survive. I do not think Intel's misbehaviour has approached that of IBM, let alone Microsoft. That belief is not supported by the facts. Intel has already been tried and convicted by two countries, Japan and South Korea. Now they're in the fight of their lives in the entire EU, affecting dozens of countries of course. There is no such thing as lesser misbehaviour when it comes to anti-trust, you either committed the acts or you didn't. Respectfully, I do not believe that Intel acquired its' monopoly by illegal means. At critical junctures, they just out-competed. Monopolies themselves are _not_ illegal, but finding yourself with one (and AMD may also qualify) does mean certain behaviours are prohibited under US law. Intel was kicked out of the memory market quite some years ago, because it couldn't compete. One can only assume that they took that exit personally and decided that the processor market was their line in the sand, the one that no one else shall be allowed to pass. Let's not forget that at one time there must have been nearly a dozen companies that produced x86 processors, now they are down to the final two. It seems like they have outcompeted them, but dead men can't tell their tales. Sure, some Intel offices did some illegal things, but I believe this is a local matter and not a matter of corporate policy. Certainly Intel HQ was quite contrite towards the US DoJ when challenged. Contrast MS (take us to court) or IBM (we'll talk but lawyer you to death). It was hardly just a local matter, it's endemic to its entire corporate culture, worldwide. It's not even beneath them to try to crush a charity, if they perceive it to be not using their parts. This should not be a surprise, once monopoly mentality hits, it hits the entire corporation, like at IBM and Microsoft previously. BTW, just because the American government hasn't held Intel accountable, that's just a false sense of security: no one should expect either the US DoJ or FTC (or any other federal agency, for that matter) were at all doing their jobs properly during the entire George W. Bush administration. In Europe, it looks like Intel has already seen the hand-writing on the wall, even before the EU's competition commission has issued its ruling. It's now suing the EU for unfairness. I guess it realized the EU was unfair, when they raided Intel's offices *twice*!! Intel Calls EU Antitrust Probe 'Discriminatory and Partial' - CIO.com - Business Technology Leadership "The European Union's antitrust investigation of Intel is "discriminatory and partial," the chip maker complained in an action that's detailed in a recent edition of the EU's official journal, saying it's not being permitted to properly defend itself against the charges." http://www.cio.com/article/466613/In...and_ Partial_ It's also decided to retroactively sue the South Korean FTC, just to show it's being besieged unfairly by everybody. EETimes.com - Intel seeks to overturn Korean FTC ruling "In response to a ruling, Intel has filed a complaint with the Seoul High Court seeking to overturn the KFTC's final written decision that was served on Intel on Nov. 7. The filing asserts that ''the KFTC has made substantial factual and legal errors in formulating its final written opinion,'' but Intel did not disclose the details." http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=212400117 What specific actions do you consider Intel "bullying"? A certain amount of pressure is normal in business. The most persistant oddity has been the Dell sole-source, but I'm confident the DoJ has been all over those agreements. The Dell issue all of those years ago is just one of the points of contention. One can even argue that Dell has tumbled from the top spot in the US market, as a result of Intel pulling all of its subsidies from them ($1bn/year). The fact that Intel pulled its subsidies could also be seen as a result of AMD's lawsuit making things too hot for them. But Dell isn't the only example. In Europe, a major computer store chain, Media Markt, has been accused of taking Intel money in return for refusing to accept computer models with AMD processors in them. Intel also gives illegal discounts which are not based on sales volume, but on market share percentages (e.g. bigger discounts if 80% of your processors are Intel rather than just 70%, or 90% over 80%, etc.). Discounts based on volume are perfectly legal, discounts based on sales proportion are not. It does not even see a problem with competing against its own partners, even if that partner is a charitable organization. A few years ago, the OLPC effort invited Intel to sit in on its board meetings as one of its partners, hoping that Intel would stop trying to sell its own notebook against them. Intel used to opportunity tell potential customers that it sits on the board of OLPC and that it knows for sure that OLPC is crap, and they should buy from Intel instead. Various world governments sent the transcripts of Intel's backstabbing sales efforts to OLPC. OLPC then kicked Intel out again. Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPU Computing: Intel's Larrabee - AMD's Fusion - NVIDIA's Tesla + CUDA | NV55 | Intel | 0 | October 31st 07 12:21 AM |
GPU Computing: Intel's Larrabee - AMD's Fusion - NVIDIA's Tesla + CUDA | NV55 | AMD x86-64 Processors | 0 | October 31st 07 12:21 AM |
GPU Computing: Intel's Larrabee - AMD's Fusion - NVIDIA's Tesla + CUDA | NV55 | Nvidia Videocards | 0 | October 31st 07 12:21 AM |
GPU Computing: Intel's Larrabee - AMD's Fusion - NVIDIA's Tesla + CUDA | NV55 | Ati Videocards | 0 | October 31st 07 12:21 AM |
AMD's Athlon64 or Intel's P4? | [email protected] | General | 38 | February 8th 05 04:59 AM |