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
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
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... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
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! |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Learned sumthin' new | AJ[_2_] | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | July 3rd 07 07:58 PM |
box killing drives?-What I've learned | Rod Speed | Storage (alternative) | 0 | September 23rd 05 03:22 AM |
Lessons learned: Proliant Memory | VinceV | Compaq Servers | 0 | December 14th 04 05:48 PM |
Learned a hard lesson a few days ago | Fred Smith | Asus Motherboards | 14 | August 2nd 04 04:20 PM |