I once actually learned something from this group

aku ankka wrote:

Forgot also that x86 isn't the best selling processor on the market..
just on laptops and desktops, I recall seeing that the ARM and such
sell a lot more units. Could be wrong.. anyone cares to contest that?

Measured in dollars, I'm sure X86 wins...

Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:

I can and will respond in kind. I have apparently accomplished
nothing.

Indeed. Towards me, at least, you have accomplished exactly nothing,
for you have not made it plain what you're trying to say.

He's too smart for you, too, man! Maybe you and I should start a
moron's club. We are not worthy.

Robert Myers wrote:

chrisv wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

You're stuck in a mental rut. *Who cares if PC's go 50% faster? *

It's price/performance that is the "bottom line". *So, "who cares" if
Intel has no serious competition, so are allowed to feed us
overpriced, mediocre products? *

We care. *The world cares. *Sheesh.

In reality it matters to hardly anyone.

You're right. It's OK if Intel monopolizes the market - it matters to
hardly anyone that we all would have to pay more to get less.

At least Intel would then have the resources they need to accomplish
their goals...

On Oct 7, 11:20*am, chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
chrisv wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

You're stuck in a mental rut. *Who cares if PC's go 50% faster? *

It's price/performance that is the "bottom line". *So, "who cares" if
Intel has no serious competition, so are allowed to feed us
overpriced, mediocre products? *

We care. *The world cares. *Sheesh.

In reality it matters to hardly anyone. *

You're right. *It's OK if Intel monopolizes the market - it matters to
hardly anyone that we all would have to pay more to get less. *

At least Intel would then have the resources they need to accomplish
their goals...

First, the productivity of personal computers is set not by hardware,
but by software. Bloatware can and consistently has consumed any
increase in computing capacity. This is an arrangement that suits
both Microsoft and Intel, as people are forced to go out and buy new
computers and Windows licenses. In practice, a 50% increase in
performance accomplishes no perceptible benefit for the end user. A
revolution in software, including perhaps the unseating of Microsoft,
would benefit nearly everyone.

AMD has successfully challenged Intel with the help of a company that
invented most of the concepts that Microsoft uses to keep users
hogtied--IBM. Thus the easily perceived bias among the IBM'ers here.
Having *IBM* as a credible alternative for high-end microprocessors is
important.

What we have here, though, is a battle among monopolists: IBM, Intel,
and Microsoft. AMD hardly matters, except to the extent that it fits
into IBM's ill-concealed strategy to keep Intel in check.

If you wanted to pick a competitor that threatens monopolies, it would
be Apple, not AMD. Apple *did* play a key role in getting us where we
are, as AMD did not. Apple continues to keep a fire lit under an
otherwise complacent Microsoft. I'm not an Apple user.

The kinds of things that matter to you matter mostly to people like
you: hardware geeks who would no more notice incremental performance
improvements in hardware than do most people if they didn't read those
mind-numbing "benchmarks" that highlight marginal gains.

Robert.

On Oct 6, 8:22*pm, "Lee Waun" wrote:
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message

...


aku ankka wrote:
Well, the issue of "how terrible it is that we are locked in to X86"
keeps coming-up.

Forgot also that x86 isn't the best selling processor on the market..
just on laptops and desktops, I recall seeing that the ARM and such
sell a lot more units. Could be wrong.. anyone cares to contest that?

The ARM is the basis of most cellphones, so just by that platform alone it
is the biggest selling chip architecture family. However, that does not
mean that it is the architecture with the most applications. X86
architecture has the most, likely followed by the Sparc architecture. For
that matter most general purpose processor architectures have more
applications than the ARM, because ARM is used with a lot of proprietary
platforms, since every cellphone maker wants to be different than their
competition, so they use customized OS and apps.

Yousuf Khan

ARM is also listed as the processors for all Ipods and most other MP3
players.

Some actual numbers:

http://www.epanorama.net/links/microprocessor.html

quote

The small 8-bit chips (little old 8051s and 6805s) are the best-
selling type of processor. This kind of smallprocessors are found
embedded in a wide varierty of electronics devices, ranging from small
gadgets and home equipment control to car electronics.Those small
controllers areflying off the shelves at the rate of more than 3
billion new chips per year(more than half of the microprocessor sale
per units). But they're not very expensive, so they're less than 15%
of the fiscal tonnage.At the opposite end of the scale are-big
surprise-32-bit microprocessors. This category includes PC processors
like Pentium 4 and Athlon, of course, but also dozens of embedded
processors such as PowerPC, 68k, MIPS, and ARM chips. Most (98% or so)
32-bit processors are used in embedded systems, not PCs. ARM-based
chips alone do about triple the volume that Intel and AMD peddle to PC
makers. PC processors are only 2% of all processors in volume, but PC
processors are 50% of all processor sales in money.

/quote

You just don't see or even know about most of the processors in use.
And the ABI bias (anything but Intel) is painful. Or did someone
really mean to say "32-bit microprocessors" and just forgot to mention
it?

Robert.

Robert Myers wrote:

The kinds of things that matter to you matter mostly to people like
you: hardware geeks who would no more notice incremental performance
improvements in hardware than do most people if they didn't read those
mind-numbing "benchmarks" that highlight marginal gains.

You're right. It's OK if Intel monopolizes the market - it matters to
hardly anyone that we all would have to pay more to get less.

On Oct 7, 4:23*pm, chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
The kinds of things that matter to you matter mostly to people like
you: hardware geeks who would no more notice incremental performance
improvements in hardware than do most people if they didn't read those
mind-numbing "benchmarks" that highlight marginal gains.

You're right. *It's OK if Intel monopolizes the market - it matters to
hardly anyone that we all would have to pay more to get less. *

Not going to play "is so, is not" with you. You give no indication of
having understood or absorbed, much less responded to, what I said.
It's just a needle stuck in one groove. It's really, really, really
old, and you offer no evidence of having anything new to say. Again,
I'd like to suggest sports talk radio as a more appropriate venue for
you to exercise your debating skills.

Robert.

Robert Myers wrote:

On Oct 7, 4:23*pm, chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
The kinds of things that matter to you matter mostly to people like
you: hardware geeks who would no more notice incremental performance
improvements in hardware than do most people if they didn't read those
mind-numbing "benchmarks" that highlight marginal gains.

You're right. *It's OK if Intel monopolizes the market - it matters to
hardly anyone that we all would have to pay more to get less. *

Not going to play "is so, is not" with you. You give no indication of
having understood or absorbed, much less responded to, what I said.

Maybe because it was irrelevant?

It's just a needle stuck in one groove. It's really, really, really
old, and you offer no evidence of having anything new to say. Again,
I'd like to suggest sports talk radio as a more appropriate venue for
you to exercise your debating skills.

Go Intel!

"Robert Myers" wrote in message
...
On Oct 7, 11:20 am, chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
chrisv wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

You're stuck in a mental rut. Who cares if PC's go 50% faster?

It's price/performance that is the "bottom line". So, "who cares"
if
Intel has no serious competition, so are allowed to feed us
overpriced, mediocre products?

We care. The world cares. Sheesh.

In reality it matters to hardly anyone.

You're right. It's OK if Intel monopolizes the market - it matters
to
hardly anyone that we all would have to pay more to get less.

At least Intel would then have the resources they need to accomplish
their goals...

First, the productivity of personal computers is set not by hardware,
but by software. Bloatware can and consistently has consumed any
increase in computing capacity. This is an arrangement that suits
both Microsoft and Intel, as people are forced to go out and buy new
computers and Windows licenses. In practice, a 50% increase in
performance accomplishes no perceptible benefit for the end user. A
revolution in software, including perhaps the unseating of Microsoft,
would benefit nearly everyone.

AMD has successfully challenged Intel with the help of a company that
invented most of the concepts that Microsoft uses to keep users
hogtied--IBM. Thus the easily perceived bias among the IBM'ers here.
Having *IBM* as a credible alternative for high-end microprocessors is
important.

What we have here, though, is a battle among monopolists: IBM, Intel,
and Microsoft. AMD hardly matters, except to the extent that it fits
into IBM's ill-concealed strategy to keep Intel in check.

If you wanted to pick a competitor that threatens monopolies, it would
be Apple, not AMD. Apple *did* play a key role in getting us where we
are, as AMD did not. Apple continues to keep a fire lit under an
otherwise complacent Microsoft. I'm not an Apple user.

The kinds of things that matter to you matter mostly to people like
you: hardware geeks who would no more notice incremental performance
improvements in hardware than do most people if they didn't read those
mind-numbing "benchmarks" that highlight marginal gains.

Robert.

--------------------

So far as I know IBM hasn't got a secret or even a non-secret strategy
to "keep Intel in check". AMD staying alive is to Intel's benefit to
help keep the government off their back.

And IBM is not a monopolist. Hasn't been for many years, since the
50's. And those desktops that you all worry about are now not made by
IBM but lenovo. IBM does make nice x86 servers, some of which
probably use AMD chips.

del

Ahem, I don't think I wrote that which is attributed to me below.
Was this accidental or intentional?

"eatnofat" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Del Cecchi" wrote:

"Robert Myers" wrote in message
...
On Oct 7, 11:20 am, chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
chrisv wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

You're stuck in a mental rut. Who cares if PC's go 50%
faster?

It's price/performance that is the "bottom line". So, "who
cares"
if
Intel has no serious competition, so are allowed to feed us
overpriced, mediocre products?

We care. The world cares. Sheesh.

In reality it matters to hardly anyone.

You're right. It's OK if Intel monopolizes the market - it
matters
to
hardly anyone that we all would have to pay more to get less.

At least Intel would then have the resources they need to
accomplish
their goals...

First, the productivity of personal computers is set not by
hardware,
but by software. Bloatware can and consistently has consumed any
increase in computing capacity. This is an arrangement that suits
both Microsoft and Intel, as people are forced to go out and buy
new
computers and Windows licenses. In practice, a 50% increase in
performance accomplishes no perceptible benefit for the end user.
A
revolution in software, including perhaps the unseating of
Microsoft,
would benefit nearly everyone.

AMD has successfully challenged Intel with the help of a company
that
invented most of the concepts that Microsoft uses to keep users
hogtied--IBM. Thus the easily perceived bias among the IBM'ers
here.
Having *IBM* as a credible alternative for high-end microprocessors
is
important.

What we have here, though, is a battle among monopolists: IBM,
Intel,
and Microsoft. AMD hardly matters, except to the extent that it
fits
into IBM's ill-concealed strategy to keep Intel in check.

If you wanted to pick a competitor that threatens monopolies, it
would
be Apple, not AMD. Apple *did* play a key role in getting us where
we
are, as AMD did not. Apple continues to keep a fire lit under an
otherwise complacent Microsoft. I'm not an Apple user.

The kinds of things that matter to you matter mostly to people like
you: hardware geeks who would no more notice incremental
performance
improvements in hardware than do most people if they didn't read
those
mind-numbing "benchmarks" that highlight marginal gains.


Actually, without any technical data to back it up, I've enjoyed
using
both Intel and AMD chips running XP Pro - both seem to be up to the
task
and I like the idea of competition - monopoly is so boring and the
lack
of choice is the lack of freedom. I regret selling a DIY computer
that
I built using a Cyrix processor during the days of Windows 95-98.
It
was quite stable on those OS versions.

Ahem, I don't think I wrote that which is attributed to me above.
Was this accidental or intentional? You must have snipped
everything I posted.