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 |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
George Macdonald wrote:
On 25 Jul 2005 14:36:37 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: George Macdonald wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 07:58:49 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: George Macdonald wrote: On 24 Jul 2005 05:51:21 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: Intel marketing has been a driver for turning computers into commodities. They understand what it takes to get vendors to move merchandise, and they do it. AMD wants to argue that Intel's aggressiveness was aimed at eliminating AMD as a competitor. Intel will argue that its aggressivenss has been aimed at increasing sales and nothing else. Bribing retailers, with whom they have no direct supplier/customer relationship, and "stealing" AMD systems off their promotional floor space is more than aggressive. It's depriving the public of a choice - I don't think most people will be too pleased at those revelation. Hi-jacking industry standards groups and blocking membership is sure to make those admitted wonder when it might be their turn. Intel throws it weight around. The most powerful player always does. France is fond of berating the US for the way it throws its weight around in international forums, but when France was the dominant player in world affairs, it played the game of diplomacy in exactly the same way. sigh For the umpteenth time, the question the court must answer is if it's more than throwing "weight" around. Ford, GM and even Chrysler at one time, throw their weight around. You threw in an issue (participation in industry standards groups) that has nothing to do with the court case. I responded with an observation about the universality of the behavior you are objecting to. Now you say that whether the behavior is universal or not has nothing to do with the court case... but then, neither did the issue you brought up in the first place. It's in the complaint. Obviously you have not read it and *obviously* I reject your claim of universality... can you not read? Run around in circular arguments if you want - it won't help. This is tiresome, especially with your incessant self-righteous hostility and demeaning language, but I'm going to stay at it. *You* made a comment about how players in the industry would react to Intel's behavior in industry standard groups. How industry players will react will not be settled by a judge or a jury, and it doesn't matter whether Intel's behavior is in the complaint or not. One way of predicting how they will react is to look at how human behavior goes in similar situations: Dominant players are always viewed as abusing their dominance, but less dominant members of the group put up with it because they don't have much choice. That's life. No enormous secret is going to be revealed, and behavior won't change. Or maybe an enormous secret will be revealed, but I don't think so. snip In the end, though, none of that will matter to a court case, which will be determined on technical considerations that will probably leave all of us shaking our heads in bewilderment. It's the prospect of such an outcome, hard on the heels of the Microsoft grand waste of taxpayer resources, that leaves me unenthusiastic about seeing more productive resources going into the pockets of lawyers who will settle nothing. Microsoft is more profitable than ever. M$ had *no* real tangible competitor. By the time the court case rolled around it was too late for even the alternate network companies. And why do you imagine the AMD case against Intel will be any more successful? AMD has the clearly better product. Even the companies which have been victims of the rackets have decided to rail against the "cease & desist"... except Intel's retail arm: Dell. That's funny. AMD is going to win a court case because it "clearly has a better product." RM |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
George Macdonald wrote:
On 25 Jul 2005 13:00:56 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: Felger Carbon wrote: "Robert Myers" wrote in message oups.com... large snip ...I don't think I have any chance of getting you or anyone else here even to consider the possibility that you have made an incorrect conclusion about what's happened so far. That sounds an awful lot like "everybody's out of step but me", And what is the significance of a poll of a self-selected group? If it were up to csiphc regulars, there would be no need for AMD to sue Intel. As the sales numbers show, csiphc isn't representative of much of anything, except its own obsessions. People here are mostly technical, who get enthusiastic for the superior technology, performance/$ and performance /watt... apart from apparently you and yet... you claim to value technology. When challenged on this you take a position of ignorance since you have obviously not looked at the details of the AMD CPUs because you choose to ignore them with prejudice. Nope, the only obsession here is yours.. to defend the reputation of a company with inferior product and which has soiled its err, name. At this point, I feel only as if I were defending myself. RM |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
Robert Myers wrote: _What_ is personally sensitive here? Keith has an identifiable bias and I called attention to it. Yes, but mo you accused him of indulging it, of not being able to see past it. In sort, of unprofessionalism. I was not surprised to see him react. My comment on the subject, which I have now posted twice, said (exactly) that his knowledge of monopolies as the employee of a monopolist was not a credential for discussing monopolies. You can easily read into that the further thought that he has an odd point of view, or is biased. Given the opportunity, I stated it as, he had an odd point of view, not that he is biased. Pressed on the subject, I have said that I do not Keith to be the kind of person who can see past his own biases. snip Or did you actually mean to insult and provoke him? When did you stop beating your wife? I will take your response as a strong statement that you do NOT mean to provoke or insult Kieth. No, I did not mean to provoke him. Nor was the purpose of my post to insult him. It is very hard for me to disagree with Keith without his acting insulted. Disagreeable? I don't know. I am annoyed as hell. No one likes to get beaten up in a barroom brawl, and, as to being misperceived, you don't seem to understand that I might see you, at this point, as just another member of the mob. Oh dear. Do you really see yourself under attack? This must feel very uncomfortable, and I assure you I intend no such discomfort. I try to separate discussing ideas and actions from judgements of core personality. You're kidding, right? I'm tempted to turn this into a short story. If I *were* in a bar, I'd have been out the door long ago, looking in the rear view mirror to see if anyone was following me. Trying to dive into how an organization sees itself in a market it dominates seems like an utterly useless exercise, unless you are doing a study in organizational psychology. I mean, how would you react to someone from Microsoft pontificating about monopolies? It might be amusing to listen to, but could you keep from giggling? I assure you, I would be most interested in such a talk, and take it extremely seriously. So would many others. There's quite an industry of MS-entrail readers. Excuses and justifications are often more interesting than a simple repetition of known facts. There are so many different ways to lie that the direction becomes interesting. But would you take the explanations seriously as commentary on the effect of monopolies on markets? Someone who becomes emotional to the point of using unambiguously offensive language in an argument doesn't strike me as someone who can reliably factor out their own bias. I believe that's an unjustifiable correlation [prejudice]. You are entitled to your opinion. You can say: your reasoning is faulty. You can't say: you are inappropriately discussing the qualities of the speaker (ad hominem) because the qualities of the speaker _are_ the subject of the conversation. Only with respect to the verity of facts presented. I did not see you disputing facts, only conclusions. The character of the speaker is irrelevant to the logic of his arguments. The character of the speaker is relevant to deciding whether the speaker can factor out his own biases. You said that some speakers can "transcend." I gave just one characteristic of Keith as evidence as to why I don't expect him to "transcend." I would suggest that attacking character is best done as it is in court -- with questions. Not assertions. Allow the subject to hang himself. Often, they will! _You_ demanded a defense. I am to defend myself by asking questions about Keith? ??? no, I was suggesting that you question Keith while he was still talking with you (in this thread?). The original sentence to which you took offense was phrased as a question. Either you're younger than I thought or you're just not thinking straight. There just were not that many choices. I remember the 1970s quite clearly, and the large schism between scientific and business computing, particularly on the subject of IBM computing. There _were_ choices (even for biz), but they were unpalatable because development costs that had been credited as "saved" would have to be paid. Yup. And businesses do *not* have to use Microsoft now, but it's damned hard not to. Not choosing IBM was like deciding not to use Micrsoft Office would be today. Not hardly. Far fewer users & apps. A DP dept to potentially retrain vs 70+% of many corps. Your engineer's perspective is deceiving you. The dusty decks of technical applications are history. Mainframe apps of decades ago are still in use for fear of bringing down a house of cards. The technical equivalent is NASA in the market for 8086 processors because that's what some test rig for the shuttle uses. Keeping intellectual property in the proprietary format of any vendor (IBM or Microsoft) may seem wildly shortsighted, but deciding to do otherwise may not even be possible in some corporate environments. Agreed. Some jumped at the bait. How could they later complain with any semblence of justice. Many were warned. Should they be protected from their abject stupidity? The issue, I thought, was my characterizing IBM as a monopoly, not whether regulatory action would have been justified or helpful. One of the surprises of this thread for me is to find myself agreeing with the logic of commentators from places like the Cato Institute in that I have a hard time imagining how regulation will help. I see the net effect of regulation as adding uncertainty and cost--not a view that arises from any kind of dogmatic belief in the inherent badness of government. Agreed. I think the biggest effect of the thread Subject: (AMD antitrust suit on Intel) will not be the judgement. It will be Intel customers seeing how other customers got better deals. You really think people don't understand what's going on? I don't know. I presume people read here because they feel that will learn something. I take them at their own judgment. Personally, I don't think I fully know what is going on. I see various actions that have multiple explanations. I don't see everything, nor know all the possible explanations. But in time, more things will happen and "what's going on" may become clearer. I may not know everything that's going on, either, but it will be very hard to surprise me. If Intel really were keeping a stranglehold on a market through marketing tactics, that would be interesting to understand, but it will take decades to sort that out, if it ever is sorted out--and the answer to that question is different from the likelihood of AMD getting anything like what it wants out of its lawsuit against Intel. My opinion is that AMD isn't going to get much out of this action, but my single opinion is at least as useless as any other single opinion in the matter. RM |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Myers wrote:
said (exactly) that his knowledge of monopolies as the employee of a monopolist was not a credential for discussing monopolies. By the same token, nor is it any sort of disqualification. Or perhaps you only wish to hear one side? Pressed on the subject, I have said that I do not [see] Keith to be the kind of person who can see past his own biases. This is apparent. Do you see how that could be considered very insulting? Oh dear. Do you really see yourself under attack? This must feel very uncomfortable, and I assure you I intend no such discomfort. I try to separate discussing ideas and actions from judgements of core personality. You're kidding, right? I'm not kidding. If I were, I'd use a smiley which I've slowly come to regard as just as important as punctuation. I'm tempted to turn this into a short story. If I *were* in a bar, I'd have been out the door long ago, looking in the rear view mirror to see if anyone was following me. Then do the cyberspace equivalent by not responding. But would you take the explanations seriously as commentary on the effect of monopolies on markets? Absolutely. I do not feel comfortable making up my mind until I've heard both sides, and preferably well enough that I'm capable of debating either postion with equal force. Then it boils down to a question of values and preferences. The character of the speaker is relevant to deciding whether the speaker can factor out his own biases. Biases only matter with respect to reporters of facts when those facts cannot otherwise be corroborated. Otherwise, in logical everyone can be biased and it doesn't much matter. You said that some speakers can "transcend." I gave just one characteristic of Keith as evidence as to why I don't expect him to "transcend." I would suggest that attacking character is best done as it is in court -- with questions. Not assertions. Allow the subject to hang himself. Often, they will! _You_ demanded a defense. I am to defend myself by asking questions about Keith? ??? no, I was suggesting that you question Keith while he was still talking with you (in this thread?). The original sentence to which you took offense was phrased as a question. I think you misread. I answered your question. And I haven't taken the slightest offense. I am not so weak as to be easily offended. Yup. And businesses do *not* have to use Microsoft now, but it's damned hard not to. Agreed. Your engineer's perspective is deceiving you. The dusty decks of technical applications are history. Mainframe apps of decades ago are still in use for fear of bringing down a house of cards. The technical equivalent is NASA in the market for 8086 processors because that's what some test rig for the shuttle uses. Yes, I well aware of legacy apps, and how difficult it is to replace a running system. The first automation took most of the benefits. Any upgrade has far fewer to claim. What is often successful at my co is a claim on reliability. The issue, I thought, was my characterizing IBM as a monopoly, not whether regulatory action would have been justified or helpful. Yes, IIRC, this is how the thread started. And it might have proceeded less contentiously had you simply agreed with Keith that IBM was not an adjudged or agreed monopoly, but was still very much viewed as one by many customers and competitors. I very much doubt he could have disputed that. OTOH, contention isn't necessarily bad. I _am_ sorry you feel beat up. One of the surprises of this thread for me is to find myself agreeing with the logic of commentators from places like the Cato Institute in that I have a hard time imagining how regulation will help. I see the net effect of regulation as adding uncertainty and cost--not a view that arises from any kind of dogmatic belief in the inherent badness of government. Yes indeed. A very valuable insight. On closer examination, I find many things to be the exact opposite of first appearances. For instance, this AMD lawsuit might benefit Intel [sic] enormously. A reasonable settlement would be for Intel to post prices and be audited for conformance. That would eliminate the complaints. But it would also help Intel. Their sales[wo]men would have to stand firm against purchasor pressure. All purchasors would know they're getting as good a deal as their competitors. Nice, transparant market. Dell might actually have to build some AMD machines! My opinion is that AMD isn't going to get much out of this action, but my single opinion is at least as useless as any other single opinion in the matter. I haven't formed an opinion yet. I see lots of possibilities on both sides, but frankly I have trouble seeing what AMD could get other than ephemeral cash that would qualify as a win. -- Robert |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
On 27 Jul 2005 03:15:40 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:
George Macdonald wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 13:00:56 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: Felger Carbon wrote: "Robert Myers" wrote in message oups.com... large snip ...I don't think I have any chance of getting you or anyone else here even to consider the possibility that you have made an incorrect conclusion about what's happened so far. That sounds an awful lot like "everybody's out of step but me", And what is the significance of a poll of a self-selected group? If it were up to csiphc regulars, there would be no need for AMD to sue Intel. As the sales numbers show, csiphc isn't representative of much of anything, except its own obsessions. People here are mostly technical, who get enthusiastic for the superior technology, performance/$ and performance /watt... apart from apparently you and yet... you claim to value technology. When challenged on this you take a position of ignorance since you have obviously not looked at the details of the AMD CPUs because you choose to ignore them with prejudice. Nope, the only obsession here is yours.. to defend the reputation of a company with inferior product and which has soiled its err, name. At this point, I feel only as if I were defending myself. .... obsession!:-) -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
On 27 Jul 2005 03:12:01 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:
George Macdonald wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 14:36:37 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: George Macdonald wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 07:58:49 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: George Macdonald wrote: On 24 Jul 2005 05:51:21 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: Intel marketing has been a driver for turning computers into commodities. They understand what it takes to get vendors to move merchandise, and they do it. AMD wants to argue that Intel's aggressiveness was aimed at eliminating AMD as a competitor. Intel will argue that its aggressivenss has been aimed at increasing sales and nothing else. Bribing retailers, with whom they have no direct supplier/customer relationship, and "stealing" AMD systems off their promotional floor space is more than aggressive. It's depriving the public of a choice - I don't think most people will be too pleased at those revelation. Hi-jacking industry standards groups and blocking membership is sure to make those admitted wonder when it might be their turn. Intel throws it weight around. The most powerful player always does. France is fond of berating the US for the way it throws its weight around in international forums, but when France was the dominant player in world affairs, it played the game of diplomacy in exactly the same way. sigh For the umpteenth time, the question the court must answer is if it's more than throwing "weight" around. Ford, GM and even Chrysler at one time, throw their weight around. You threw in an issue (participation in industry standards groups) that has nothing to do with the court case. I responded with an observation about the universality of the behavior you are objecting to. Now you say that whether the behavior is universal or not has nothing to do with the court case... but then, neither did the issue you brought up in the first place. It's in the complaint. Obviously you have not read it and *obviously* I reject your claim of universality... can you not read? Run around in circular arguments if you want - it won't help. This is tiresome, especially with your incessant self-righteous hostility and demeaning language, but I'm going to stay at it. You mean you cannot see how provocative and inflammatory some of your remarks have been? *You* made a comment about how players in the industry would react to Intel's behavior in industry standard groups. How industry players will react will not be settled by a judge or a jury, and it doesn't matter whether Intel's behavior is in the complaint or not. Change your mind... again? In the previous post you seemed to think it important enough to make a point that the issue of industry standard groups had nothing to do with the court case. Anybody, including industry standard group members and you, can read the complaint. If you disagree with that I dont care - just don't try to weave a veil around the facts. One way of predicting how they will react is to look at how human behavior goes in similar situations: Dominant players are always viewed as abusing their dominance, but less dominant members of the group put up with it because they don't have much choice. That's life. No enormous secret is going to be revealed, and behavior won't change. Or maybe an enormous secret will be revealed, but I don't think so. I never liked amateur psychology, corporate or not. This is not about dominance - it's about capricious, arbitrary, selective exclusion. Either it's an "industry standard group" or it's an Intel pals group. In the end, though, none of that will matter to a court case, which will be determined on technical considerations that will probably leave all of us shaking our heads in bewilderment. It's the prospect of such an outcome, hard on the heels of the Microsoft grand waste of taxpayer resources, that leaves me unenthusiastic about seeing more productive resources going into the pockets of lawyers who will settle nothing. Microsoft is more profitable than ever. M$ had *no* real tangible competitor. By the time the court case rolled around it was too late for even the alternate network companies. And why do you imagine the AMD case against Intel will be any more successful? AMD has the clearly better product. Even the companies which have been victims of the rackets have decided to rail against the "cease & desist"... except Intel's retail arm: Dell. That's funny. AMD is going to win a court case because it "clearly has a better product." Relative to the M$ case, where there was no palpable victim left, yes AMD *does* have a viable product which brings some leverage to the proceedings. Had you lost the err track here?... or did you just want to have another dig at AMD? -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
George Macdonald wrote:
On 27 Jul 2005 03:12:01 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: George Macdonald wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 14:36:37 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: George Macdonald wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 07:58:49 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: George Macdonald wrote: On 24 Jul 2005 05:51:21 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: Intel marketing has been a driver for turning computers into commodities. They understand what it takes to get vendors to move merchandise, and they do it. AMD wants to argue that Intel's aggressiveness was aimed at eliminating AMD as a competitor. Intel will argue that its aggressivenss has been aimed at increasing sales and nothing else. Bribing retailers, with whom they have no direct supplier/customer relationship, and "stealing" AMD systems off their promotional floor space is more than aggressive. It's depriving the public of a choice - I don't think most people will be too pleased at those revelation. Hi-jacking industry standards groups and blocking membership is sure to make those admitted wonder when it might be their turn. Intel throws it weight around. The most powerful player always does. France is fond of berating the US for the way it throws its weight around in international forums, but when France was the dominant player in world affairs, it played the game of diplomacy in exactly the same way. sigh For the umpteenth time, the question the court must answer is if it's more than throwing "weight" around. Ford, GM and even Chrysler at one time, throw their weight around. You threw in an issue (participation in industry standards groups) that has nothing to do with the court case. I responded with an observation about the universality of the behavior you are objecting to. Now you say that whether the behavior is universal or not has nothing to do with the court case... but then, neither did the issue you brought up in the first place. It's in the complaint. Obviously you have not read it and *obviously* I reject your claim of universality... can you not read? Run around in circular arguments if you want - it won't help. This is tiresome, especially with your incessant self-righteous hostility and demeaning language, but I'm going to stay at it. You mean you cannot see how provocative and inflammatory some of your remarks have been? And you don't see that anyone who disagrees with you makes you angry? *You* made a comment about how players in the industry would react to Intel's behavior in industry standard groups. How industry players will react will not be settled by a judge or a jury, and it doesn't matter whether Intel's behavior is in the complaint or not. Change your mind... again? In the previous post you seemed to think it important enough to make a point that the issue of industry standard groups had nothing to do with the court case. Anybody, including industry standard group members and you, can read the complaint. If you disagree with that I dont care - just don't try to weave a veil around the facts. Your remark wasn't about the court case, it was about future willingness of industry players to participate. One way of predicting how they will react is to look at how human behavior goes in similar situations: Dominant players are always viewed as abusing their dominance, but less dominant members of the group put up with it because they don't have much choice. That's life. No enormous secret is going to be revealed, and behavior won't change. Or maybe an enormous secret will be revealed, but I don't think so. I never liked amateur psychology, corporate or not. This is not about dominance - it's about capricious, arbitrary, selective exclusion. Either it's an "industry standard group" or it's an Intel pals group. *You* introduced the idea of how other members of the industry would react, presumably to facts that would come out in court--*your* amateur psychology. My amateur psychology disagrees with yours. I'm going to spell this out for you: industry players don't need AMD's court complaint or what comes out in court to explain to them how Intel behaves. They already know. They put up with it because that's the way the world works. It doesn't matter how it sits with your sense of right or wrong, and how industry players react won't be settled in court. They already know, and they've already reacted. They don't like it, but there's not much they can do about it. You can call that analysis whatever you want. In the end, though, none of that will matter to a court case, which will be determined on technical considerations that will probably leave all of us shaking our heads in bewilderment. It's the prospect of such an outcome, hard on the heels of the Microsoft grand waste of taxpayer resources, that leaves me unenthusiastic about seeing more productive resources going into the pockets of lawyers who will settle nothing. Microsoft is more profitable than ever. M$ had *no* real tangible competitor. By the time the court case rolled around it was too late for even the alternate network companies. And why do you imagine the AMD case against Intel will be any more successful? AMD has the clearly better product. Even the companies which have been victims of the rackets have decided to rail against the "cease & desist"... except Intel's retail arm: Dell. That's funny. AMD is going to win a court case because it "clearly has a better product." Relative to the M$ case, where there was no palpable victim left, yes AMD *does* have a viable product which brings some leverage to the proceedings. Had you lost the err track here?... or did you just want to have another dig at AMD? No, George. That was a dig at your bizarre logic. AMD has a better processor. AMD should have better sales. The only explanation for AMD lack of sales is illegal behavior on Intel's part. That's AMD's logic and apparently it's yours. What else does AMD having a better product have to do with it winning a court case? RM |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
On 29 Jul 2005 03:46:22 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:
George Macdonald wrote: On 27 Jul 2005 03:12:01 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: George Macdonald wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 14:36:37 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote: This is tiresome, especially with your incessant self-righteous hostility and demeaning language, but I'm going to stay at it. You mean you cannot see how provocative and inflammatory some of your remarks have been? And you don't see that anyone who disagrees with you makes you angry? Ditto... and I guess you're just as "incessant" as I am. One way of predicting how they will react is to look at how human behavior goes in similar situations: Dominant players are always viewed as abusing their dominance, but less dominant members of the group put up with it because they don't have much choice. That's life. No enormous secret is going to be revealed, and behavior won't change. Or maybe an enormous secret will be revealed, but I don't think so. I never liked amateur psychology, corporate or not. This is not about dominance - it's about capricious, arbitrary, selective exclusion. Either it's an "industry standard group" or it's an Intel pals group. *You* introduced the idea of how other members of the industry would react, presumably to facts that would come out in court--*your* amateur psychology. My amateur psychology disagrees with yours. I'm going to spell this out for you: industry players don't need AMD's court complaint or what comes out in court to explain to them how Intel behaves. They already know. They put up with it because that's the way the world works. It doesn't matter how it sits with your sense of right or wrong, and how industry players react won't be settled in court. They already know, and they've already reacted. They don't like it, but there's not much they can do about it. You can call that analysis whatever you want. Like I've said umpteen times, it's your opinion in your "world"... repeated for the umpteenth time does not make it axiomatic. That's funny. AMD is going to win a court case because it "clearly has a better product." Relative to the M$ case, where there was no palpable victim left, yes AMD *does* have a viable product which brings some leverage to the proceedings. Had you lost the err track here?... or did you just want to have another dig at AMD? No, George. That was a dig at your bizarre logic. AMD has a better processor. AMD should have better sales. The only explanation for AMD lack of sales is illegal behavior on Intel's part. That's AMD's logic and apparently it's yours. What else does AMD having a better product have to do with it winning a court case? Err, if they had an inferior prodcut they would have no case - I dunno how to explain it better to you. To quote Soichiro Honda said "I want to touch and hold a better piston, not watch another concept presentation". and "If you make a better product, people will buy it". Hmm, seems to work, despite your "world". -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Amd-Intel | cathy | General | 1 | June 27th 05 01:44 PM |
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with mobile CPU? | Cuzman | Overclocking | 1 | December 8th 04 09:20 PM |
Intel vs. AMD: Best bang for buck, at the moment | Dave C. | Homebuilt PC's | 40 | September 27th 04 07:19 AM |
Intel: The chipset is the product | Grumble | General | 70 | June 13th 04 07:28 AM |
Intel: The chipset is the product | Robert Myers | Intel | 67 | June 12th 04 07:28 PM |