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
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On 8/6/2010 3:46 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
On Aug 6, 1:52 pm, wrote: Windows requires a PCI bus so that alone will keep from going anywhere. But not as a x16 slot that nVidia can plug its cards into. Otherwise, why am I paying government lawyers to reserve space on every motherboard I buy for at least six years? Robert. It hasn't said that you need to keep the slots around, just the bus. That means GPUs can be soldiered onto motherboards using PCIe lines directly. Yousuf Khan |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On 8/6/2010 2:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
snip rest of crap Were I Intel, I'd be *much* more worried about ARM than about AMD. That doesn't even account for the fact that China has both the capital and the engineering expertise to do more or less whatever it wants, independent of both Intel *and* ARM. Well, of course, that's because the ARM market is the only market that Intel hasn't been able to bring to brink of near destruction with its anti-competitive actions. Remember it wasn't so long ago that Intel itself was selling ARM processors, in the form of Xscale. Nobody wanted to buy them from Intel, because everybody was afraid of dealing with Intel. Instead they bought their ARM's from anybody else but Intel. It's not that there was anything wrong with the Xscales, in fact they started selling like hotcakes -- once they were produced by Marvell instead. Nobody wants to deal with the mafia if they have a choice. Aside from optical interconnects, this entire thread has been about yesterday's news. What this is supposed to be a form of derision from you? News is always about yesterday's news. Even optical interconnects are yesterday's news. Why not just wait for quantum interconnects? Yousuf Khan |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 6, 6:02*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 8/6/2010 3:46 PM, Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 6, 1:52 pm, *wrote: Windows requires a PCI bus so that alone will keep from going anywhere.. But not as a *x16 slot that nVidia can plug its cards into. Otherwise, why am I paying government lawyers to reserve space on every motherboard I buy for at least six years? It hasn't said that you need to keep the slots around, just the bus. That means GPUs can be soldiered onto motherboards using PCIe lines directly. I *knew* you'd say that. Let's see what happens. Robert. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 6, 6:11*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
What this is supposed to be a form of derision from you? News is always about yesterday's news. Even optical interconnects are yesterday's news. Why not just wait for quantum interconnects? But you were just telling me that optical interconnects wouldn't happen for ten years. How could that be yesterday's news? Let's put it this way. AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours. Robert. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On 8/6/2010 6:14 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
It hasn't said that you need to keep the slots around, just the bus. That means GPUs can be soldiered onto motherboards using PCIe lines directly. I *knew* you'd say that. Let's see what happens. Robert. That's the way discrete graphics in laptops are done anyways. Have you ever seen a video card for laptops, either from ATI or Nvidia? The mobile video "cards" are really just part of the motherboard. Plus Atom systems will still need PCIe lines, because all modern PC-Card (formerly PCMCIA) peripherals are direct extensions of the PCIe interfaces. Yousuf Khan |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On 8/6/2010 6:38 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:11 pm, Yousuf wrote: What this is supposed to be a form of derision from you? News is always about yesterday's news. Even optical interconnects are yesterday's news. Why not just wait for quantum interconnects? But you were just telling me that optical interconnects wouldn't happen for ten years. How could that be yesterday's news? At some point everything is yesterday's news compared to some other news. Let's put it this way. AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours. Speaking of yesterday's news. Yousuf Khan |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 6, 8:44*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 8/6/2010 6:38 PM, Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 6, 6:11 pm, Yousuf *wrote: What this is supposed to be a form of derision from you? News is always about yesterday's news. Even optical interconnects are yesterday's news. Why not just wait for quantum interconnects? But you were just telling me that optical interconnects wouldn't happen for ten years. *How could that be yesterday's news? At some point everything is yesterday's news compared to some other news. Let's put it this way. *AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours. Speaking of yesterday's news. And yesterday's wars. Maginot Line was ineffective because it prepared for a war that was already over. Robert. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On 06/08/2010 11:13 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
Let's put it this way. AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours. Speaking of yesterday's news. And yesterday's wars. Maginot Line was ineffective because it prepared for a war that was already over. I'll agree with part of that historical sentiment. The PCIe ruling was mainly a sop to Nvidia because Intel was crippling the performance of Nvidia GPUs within its latest PCIe chipsets. That's basically just a little skirmish in a long drawn-out, multi-front war. It's a battle that might have already finished, for all we know. However, unlike the case of the WW2-era French Maginot Line, which was a lesson learned from a previous major war, but this lesson made France complacent about its defenses, this thing does the opposite. It takes a lesson from a previous minor skirmish and completely surrounds and shackles Intel. In other words, it's the reverse of the Maginot Line, it is an over-reaction against Intel. As you said, Intel is now obligated to keep carrying PCIe for several more years (which it probably would've done anyways), but now it must clear its changes with its rivals (which it would've never done). Yousuf Khan *** "Section V. is one of the most interesting, it puts some serious handcuffs on Intel. All while forcing them to dig a hole deep enough for light not to reach the bottom. And sit there. Smiling. What V. says is that any time Intel makes a change, basically any change, that degrades the performance of another competitor, Intel has to prove that it was done for technically beneficial reasons. Remember the part about PCIe changes that allegedly hamstrung Nvidia GPUs? Well, if that happens again, the burden of proof is now on Intel to show why they did it. Mother hen is getting jittery from all that Red Bull, and is looking for someone to hit. Hard. Intel has to climb out of the hole, feed the hen Valium, and then dance. Fast. And look pretty while doing it, or WHAM." http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/08/...t-cleaned-ftc/ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 7, 2:14*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 06/08/2010 11:13 PM, Robert Myers wrote: Let's put it this way. *AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours. Speaking of yesterday's news. And yesterday's wars. *Maginot Line was ineffective because it prepared for a war that was already over. I'll agree with part of that historical sentiment. The PCIe ruling was mainly a sop to Nvidia because Intel was crippling the performance of Nvidia GPUs within its latest PCIe chipsets. That's basically just a little skirmish in a long drawn-out, multi-front war. It's a battle that might have already finished, for all we know. However, unlike the case of the WW2-era French Maginot Line, which was a lesson learned from a previous major war, but this lesson made France complacent about its defenses, this thing does the opposite. It takes a lesson from a previous minor skirmish and completely surrounds and shackles Intel. In other words, it's the reverse of the Maginot Line, it is an over-reaction against Intel. As you said, Intel is now obligated to keep carrying PCIe for several more years (which it probably would've done anyways), but now it must clear its changes with its rivals (which it would've never done). * * * * Yousuf Khan *** "Section V. is one of the most interesting, it puts some serious handcuffs on Intel. All while forcing them to dig a hole deep enough for light not to reach the bottom. And sit there. Smiling. What V. says is that any time Intel makes a change, basically any change, that degrades the performance of another competitor, Intel has to prove that it was done for technically beneficial reasons. Remember the part about PCIe changes that allegedly hamstrung Nvidia GPUs? Well, if that happens again, the burden of proof is now on Intel to show why they did it. Mother hen is getting jittery from all that Red Bull, and is looking for someone to hit. Hard. Intel has to climb out of the hole, feed the hen Valium, and then dance. Fast. And look pretty while doing it, or WHAM."http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/08/06/more-intel-dirt-cleaned-ftc/ The irony of all of this, Yousuf, is that you wouldn't even have this playground if it weren't for the aggressive behavior of two upstart monopolists: Microsoft and Intel. IBM, the once-invincible monopolist, never saw it coming. IBM survived, but it almost didn't. If it can happen once, it can and almost certainly will happen again. Maybe the mass market for uber expensive PC's will dry up, and the future is ARM and Ubuntu. Maybe the server space and even HPC will become dominated by specialized CPU's that only do some jobs exceedingly well and others not at all. Right now, the business is sufficiently capital and research intensive that it favors monopolists, but the technology is maturing and on its way to being commoditized. Anyone who has observed all this from beginning to end, watching companies come and go like fireflies flickering in the night, has to realize that everything is temporary. The interesting question for someone with such a perspective isn't what fleas like the FTC will do next, but from which bush the next pit bull will leap out. "I always say," Caligula opines in I, Claudius, "find a dog who'll eat a bigger dog." The bigger dog will come, even if no one knows from where or when. In the meantime, the sob stories of also-rans just aren't that interesting. Robert. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
Yousuf Khan writes:
On 8/6/2010 6:14 PM, Robert Myers wrote: It hasn't said that you need to keep the slots around, just the bus. That means GPUs can be soldiered onto motherboards using PCIe lines directly. I *knew* you'd say that. Let's see what happens. Robert. That's the way discrete graphics in laptops are done anyways. Have you ever seen a video card for laptops, either from ATI or Nvidia? The mobile video "cards" are really just part of the motherboard. Plus Atom systems will still need PCIe lines, because all modern PC-Card (formerly PCMCIA) peripherals are direct extensions of the PCIe interfaces. I thought PC Card was PCI, ExpressCard (which I've never actually seen in real life) was PCIe? -- As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel to pull x86 cross-licensing agreement with AMD in 60 days | Yousuf Khan | General | 0 | March 16th 09 09:11 PM |
Vista license agreement is a joke | Garrot | Homebuilt PC's | 47 | November 22nd 06 10:18 AM |
Vista license agreement is a joke | Garrot | Storage (alternative) | 6 | October 15th 06 05:06 AM |
Vista license agreement is a joke | Garrot | Nvidia Videocards | 0 | October 13th 06 08:07 PM |
Support contract agreement not met; what does Dell do about it? | Clint | Dell Computers | 8 | April 6th 06 09:06 PM |