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
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:04:39 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote: Robert Myers wrote: snip Sunday school teacher morality? Not even close, just enforcement of laws that are already in place, specifically designed to stop this kind of behaviour. A sociopathic behaviour so common that the laws have already been in place for hundreds of years. You don't think use of the loaded term "sociopathic" a little over the top? Psychopathic is little over the top, sociopathic is right in line. Your comments seem uncharacteristically intense. No plausible action against Intel will restore the fortunes of Sun. Sun? What's Sun gotta do with it? Sun...your favorite vendor...AMD...Opteron. I just don't understand the intensity of your animus against Intel. They're a heavy-handed player? Yes, they are. But you really seem fixated on this. I have the kind of resentment for Microsoft that you seem to have for Intel. Gates and Ballmer are...nuts, and their nuttiness hurts the business. Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it. We're stuck with Microsoft, I guess, and the ongoing effects of that (security problems, alienated users) should have everybody angry. AMD can't sell as many of its me-too processors as they otherwise might? Show me where anybody is really harmed. RM |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Myers wrote:
: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:04:39 -0500, Yousuf Khan snip rather interesting exchange : I have the kind of resentment for Microsoft that you seem to have : for Intel. Gates and Ballmer are...nuts, and their nuttiness hurts : the business. Oh, ya think? I present to you sir, exhibit A: http://www.ntk.net/media/dancemonkeyboy.mpg more snip j. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Myers wrote:
Sun? What's Sun gotta do with it? Sun...your favorite vendor...AMD...Opteron. Believe it or not, I work for IBM these days. Sun isn't the only one selling AMD stuff though. Mind you, they are the only major ones I can think of that are 100% AMD -- they've given up their Xeons completely. I just don't understand the intensity of your animus against Intel. They're a heavy-handed player? Yes, they are. But you really seem fixated on this. Not really, I'm just responding to your arguments with equal force. I have the kind of resentment for Microsoft that you seem to have for Intel. Gates and Ballmer are...nuts, and their nuttiness hurts the business. I have that resentment of Microsoft too. I can't wait for the day when Linux becomes as ubiquitous an OS as Windows, such that some games can be developed on it. But that day hasn't arrived yet. There's still something more that needs to be done to finally take Microsoft out. Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it. Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds. Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the computer revolution. But so what? You don't think Intel's monopolistic practices have harmed the market? Okay, then let's talk about a company you do think has harmed the market -- Microsoft. How has Microsoft's practices hurt the market? I was absolutely pleased when Microsoft, Intel, and Compaq finally took IBM out in the late 80's. IBM was an evil company, and now I work for them. So past evil doesn't have any relevance to modern deeds either. We're stuck with Microsoft, I guess, and the ongoing effects of that (security problems, alienated users) should have everybody angry. AMD can't sell as many of its me-too processors as they otherwise might? Show me where anybody is really harmed. AMD hasn't been a me-too processor company in a number of years, if you paid attention you'd have known that. Yousuf Khan |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:28:41 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote: Robert Myers wrote: Sun? What's Sun gotta do with it? Sun...your favorite vendor...AMD...Opteron. Believe it or not, I work for IBM these days. Sun isn't the only one selling AMD stuff though. Mind you, they are the only major ones I can think of that are 100% AMD -- they've given up their Xeons completely. I just don't understand the intensity of your animus against Intel. They're a heavy-handed player? Yes, they are. But you really seem fixated on this. Not really, I'm just responding to your arguments with equal force. Intel might get the equivalent of a parking ticket out of this Yousuf. It is not a big deal. I have the kind of resentment for Microsoft that you seem to have for Intel. Gates and Ballmer are...nuts, and their nuttiness hurts the business. I have that resentment of Microsoft too. I can't wait for the day when Linux becomes as ubiquitous an OS as Windows, such that some games can be developed on it. But that day hasn't arrived yet. There's still something more that needs to be done to finally take Microsoft out. Microsoft isn't going to be taken out in any scenario that will leave other players in any kind of familiar arrangement. Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it. Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds. Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the computer revolution. But so what? I wouldn't call Microsoft an absolutely critical player. Take them out, and we might be using OS/2, or some descendent of Concurrent DOS. Lotus, Corel, and the like would be bigger players, all to the benefit of the industry. You don't think Intel's monopolistic practices have harmed the market? Okay, then let's talk about a company you do think has harmed the market -- Microsoft. How has Microsoft's practices hurt the market? I think I did say how Microsoft has hurt the market: through security problems, which were massively exacerbated by the deliberately predatory design of Internet Explorer, and by customers fed up with buggy software. It's true that Windows XP isn't the disaster that the Windows 95 variants were, but it's still clumsy and ugly and simple maintenance requires frequent rebooting. I don't really think it's possible to overestimate how much badly-designed security has cost the industry in lost progress, bloated software (layers of fixes), lost good will, and actual money. Someone who was bought by Microsoft has described Bill Gates as being in the business of turning other people's good ideas into mediocre products. I think it's pretty accurate. Microsoft can do it because it is a monopoly. I was absolutely pleased when Microsoft, Intel, and Compaq finally took IBM out in the late 80's. IBM was an evil company, and now I work for them. So past evil doesn't have any relevance to modern deeds either. I never thought of IBM as evil (if you except its involvement with the Third Reich, but that was before my time). And, as I said, the market was more effective at dealing with IBM's monopolistic tendencies than the Justice Department. We're stuck with Microsoft, I guess, and the ongoing effects of that (security problems, alienated users) should have everybody angry. AMD can't sell as many of its me-too processors as they otherwise might? Show me where anybody is really harmed. AMD hasn't been a me-too processor company in a number of years, if you paid attention you'd have known that. The real credit, AFAIK, should go to IBM's expertise in process technology. RM |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Myers wrote:
Intel might get the equivalent of a parking ticket out of this Yousuf. It is not a big deal. And the point is? It's already certain that it's not going to get much of a fine. They were talking about 3 million yen, which is about US$29,000 -- if it goes to trial. But it's not the fine that Intel has to worry about, it's the civil lawsuits afterwards. AMD is certain to pounce on this and start asking for compensation for lost sales, and it will use this indictment as evidence in its civil suit. Over several years, that's equal to a few billion greenbacks. Then the very same system manufacturers that turned it in may start asking for compensation from Intel too, if Intel decides to punish them by reducing their discounts. On an outside chance, you might even see various chipset manufacturers, like VIA, SiS, Nvidia, etc. suing citing lost potential sales from AMD-based systems. There's only one course of action and outcome that Intel can afford: fight the charges and win. Accepting the charges without a fight, or fighting the charges and losing will cause it severe long term damage. Both outcomes will label it a monopolist which will open it upto anti-trust lawsuits from that point forward. Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it. Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds. Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the computer revolution. But so what? I wouldn't call Microsoft an absolutely critical player. Take them out, and we might be using OS/2, or some descendent of Concurrent DOS. Lotus, Corel, and the like would be bigger players, all to the benefit of the industry. And so you're saying that if Microsoft hadn't taken all of those companies and products down with its monopolistic policies, the industry would be much better off? More competition, better products, right? Take off your Itanium-colored glasses and see how Intel is doing the exact same thing. There's been a number of x86 makers that are now gone (dead or absorbed): Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, Rise, IBM's x86 business, etc. Then there's the chipset competition that it's trying to kill or has killed: VIA, Chips & Technologies, Serverworks, UMC, ALI, SIS, Nvidia and ATI. Trying to corner the market in WiFi networking too: Broadcom & Atheros. So tell me again how Intel hasn't really harmed competition and consumers? I was absolutely pleased when Microsoft, Intel, and Compaq finally took IBM out in the late 80's. IBM was an evil company, and now I work for them. So past evil doesn't have any relevance to modern deeds either. I never thought of IBM as evil (if you except its involvement with the Third Reich, but that was before my time). And, as I said, the market was more effective at dealing with IBM's monopolistic tendencies than the Justice Department. I did, IBM was in bad need of a take down back then (80's). It's now no longer evil, just binignly self-interested. AMD hasn't been a me-too processor company in a number of years, if you paid attention you'd have known that. The real credit, AFAIK, should go to IBM's expertise in process technology. You mean the credit for AMD64, Hypertransport, and internal memory controller go to IBM? Intel has already given in to AMD64, and it will be copying Hypertransport and memory controller too. By contrast, Intel's most recent attempt at innovation, Itanium, has only one thing new going for it: an instruction set, and that's not likely to have much of a long-term influence on processor design afterwards. Yousuf Khan |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:51:22 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote: Robert Myers wrote: Intel might get the equivalent of a parking ticket out of this Yousuf. It is not a big deal. And the point is? It's already certain that it's not going to get much of a fine. They were talking about 3 million yen, which is about US$29,000 -- if it goes to trial. But it's not the fine that Intel has to worry about, it's the civil lawsuits afterwards. AMD is certain to pounce on this and start asking for compensation for lost sales, and it will use this indictment as evidence in its civil suit. Over several years, that's equal to a few billion greenbacks. Then the very same system manufacturers that turned it in may start asking for compensation from Intel too, if Intel decides to punish them by reducing their discounts. On an outside chance, you might even see various chipset manufacturers, like VIA, SiS, Nvidia, etc. suing citing lost potential sales from AMD-based systems. There's only one course of action and outcome that Intel can afford: fight the charges and win. Accepting the charges without a fight, or fighting the charges and losing will cause it severe long term damage. Both outcomes will label it a monopolist which will open it upto anti-trust lawsuits from that point forward. I'll be fascinated to see this work itself out. Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it. Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds. Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the computer revolution. But so what? I wouldn't call Microsoft an absolutely critical player. Take them out, and we might be using OS/2, or some descendent of Concurrent DOS. Lotus, Corel, and the like would be bigger players, all to the benefit of the industry. And so you're saying that if Microsoft hadn't taken all of those companies and products down with its monopolistic policies, the industry would be much better off? More competition, better products, right? Take off your Itanium-colored glasses and see how Intel is doing the exact same thing. There's been a number of x86 makers that are now gone (dead or absorbed): Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, Rise, IBM's x86 business, etc. Then there's the chipset competition that it's trying to kill or has killed: VIA, Chips & Technologies, Serverworks, UMC, ALI, SIS, Nvidia and ATI. Trying to corner the market in WiFi networking too: Broadcom & Atheros. So tell me again how Intel hasn't really harmed competition and consumers? You'll inevitably accuse me of moral relativism. I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist. The economics of hardware are different from the economics of software. It's amazing that any of those companies have been able to survive, with or without the malign intervention of Intel. The inevitable march of progress in computer hardware, as it was in automobiles, is toward a smaller and smaller number of players. There is no win for consumers in trying to halt that progression. Intel, bye-the-bye, needs a credible competitor, and its credible competitor for x86 is AMD. Intel has no interest in destroying AMD, although Intel surely would like to limit x86 (won't happen, of course--the market always wins). Microsoft, on the other hand, simply buys up and/or annihilates competition. Microsoft's credible competitor now is Linux. It's amazing that Microsoft even got near the SCO, but the fact that they did shows just how nuts they are. snip I did, IBM was in bad need of a take down back then (80's). It's now no longer evil, just binignly self-interested. AMD hasn't been a me-too processor company in a number of years, if you paid attention you'd have known that. The real credit, AFAIK, should go to IBM's expertise in process technology. You mean the credit for AMD64, Hypertransport, and internal memory controller go to IBM? Intel has already given in to AMD64, and it will be copying Hypertransport and memory controller too. AMD invented onboard memory controllers? You're filled with amazing insights. Intel copied AMD64? What choice, exactly, did they have? That's what AMD's monopolist friend Microsoft dictated. What Intel is going to do about interconnect is a little fuzzy to me, but I'll be startled to see hypertransport. By contrast, Intel's most recent attempt at innovation, Itanium, has only one thing new going for it: an instruction set, and that's not likely to have much of a long-term influence on processor design afterwards. Innovation isn't going to come from the register-file and execution unit world of microprocessors. Your comment about my not liking Cell and your apparent belief that I think Itanium is just the most wonderful thing ever shows that you've paid little attention to what I have said already, and I'm not going to repeat myself. I'll be interested to see the Itanium drama play itself out, but the drama of Itanium at this point has to do with business issues, not technology. RM |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Myers wrote:
There's only one course of action and outcome that Intel can afford: fight the charges and win. Accepting the charges without a fight, or fighting the charges and losing will cause it severe long term damage. Both outcomes will label it a monopolist which will open it upto anti-trust lawsuits from that point forward. I'll be fascinated to see this work itself out. This story has already died down. It seems to play itself out in distinct intervals, and then the mainstream press seems to forget about it. It started 11 months ago with the raid, it reawakened last week with the indictment. And likely the next event will be the court trial itself. Then after that, will be all of the civil trials. Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it. Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds. Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the computer revolution. But so what? I wouldn't call Microsoft an absolutely critical player. Take them out, and we might be using OS/2, or some descendent of Concurrent DOS. Lotus, Corel, and the like would be bigger players, all to the benefit of the industry. And so you're saying that if Microsoft hadn't taken all of those companies and products down with its monopolistic policies, the industry would be much better off? More competition, better products, right? Take off your Itanium-colored glasses and see how Intel is doing the exact same thing. There's been a number of x86 makers that are now gone (dead or absorbed): Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, Rise, IBM's x86 business, etc. Then there's the chipset competition that it's trying to kill or has killed: VIA, Chips & Technologies, Serverworks, UMC, ALI, SIS, Nvidia and ATI. Trying to corner the market in WiFi networking too: Broadcom & Atheros. So tell me again how Intel hasn't really harmed competition and consumers? You'll inevitably accuse me of moral relativism. I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist. The economics of hardware are different from the economics of software. It's amazing that any of those companies have been able to survive, with or without the malign intervention of Intel. The inevitable march of progress in computer hardware, as it was in automobiles, is toward a smaller and smaller number of players. There is no win for consumers in trying to halt that progression. If the auto industry is the model for this industry, then your characterization of that industry is inaccurate. Not only is the auto industry not shrinking down to a small number of players, it continuously gets new players. At one time it was believed that the only companies left standing would be the Detroit Big Three, especially GM which had well over 50% of the worldwide marketshare. Now GM is down around 30% worldwide, and some minor players have grown into major world players over the past 30 years -- first the Japanese, and then later the Koreans. Basically the auto industry seems to go in cycles of consolidation followed by reinvigoration. Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM, TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like the truck makers are to the auto industry. Intel, bye-the-bye, needs a credible competitor, and its credible competitor for x86 is AMD. Intel has no interest in destroying AMD, although Intel surely would like to limit x86 (won't happen, of course--the market always wins). Microsoft, on the other hand, simply buys up and/or annihilates competition. Microsoft's credible competitor now is Linux. It's amazing that Microsoft even got near the SCO, but the fact that they did shows just how nuts they are. Don't know if you remember this, but Microsoft has actually invested money into Apple and Corel in the past, after almost killing both of them. It just woke up one day and figured if these guys go down, they'll have no defence against the government calling them a monopoly. I don't think Intel operates any differently, it in no way is helping AMD, and it is usually just trying to pound AMD into the ground most of the time. That's because Intel doesn't need to aid AMD, like Microsoft need to aid Apple and Corel. However, if AMD got so badly pounded one day, then Intel would have to come to the realization that it may need to directly help AMD. But it hasn't come down to that yet. Up until now, AMD has been bravely doing the "up by your own bootstraps" method to compete against Intel. However, that'll only go so far before Intel starts feeling threatened. This anti-trust case may be the final push needed to get AMD on equal footing with Intel. Everything balances out eventually. The real credit, AFAIK, should go to IBM's expertise in process technology. You mean the credit for AMD64, Hypertransport, and internal memory controller go to IBM? Intel has already given in to AMD64, and it will be copying Hypertransport and memory controller too. AMD invented onboard memory controllers? You're filled with amazing insights. Intel copied AMD64? What choice, exactly, did they have? That's what AMD's monopolist friend Microsoft dictated. What Intel is going to do about interconnect is a little fuzzy to me, but I'll be startled to see hypertransport. Who said invented? We were talking about innovation. And an onboard memory controller is certainly an innovation that we have never seen any other PC processor company try before. Of course Intel copied AMD64, doesn't matter what their reason was. Intel is trying to create CSI, which is a Hypertransport work-alike. I'll be interested to see the Itanium drama play itself out, but the drama of Itanium at this point has to do with business issues, not technology. All of their business issues were as a result of a rejection of their technology. Yousuf Khan |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On 12 Mar 2005 11:02:29 -0800, "YKhan" wrote:
Robert Myers wrote: snip And so you're saying that if Microsoft hadn't taken all of those companies and products down with its monopolistic policies, the industry would be much better off? More competition, better products, right? Take off your Itanium-colored glasses and see how Intel is doing the exact same thing. There's been a number of x86 makers that are now gone (dead or absorbed): Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, Rise, IBM's x86 business, etc. Then there's the chipset competition that it's trying to kill or has killed: VIA, Chips & Technologies, Serverworks, UMC, ALI, SIS, Nvidia and ATI. Trying to corner the market in WiFi networking too: Broadcom & Atheros. So tell me again how Intel hasn't really harmed competition and consumers? You'll inevitably accuse me of moral relativism. I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist. The economics of hardware are different from the economics of software. It's amazing that any of those companies have been able to survive, with or without the malign intervention of Intel. The inevitable march of progress in computer hardware, as it was in automobiles, is toward a smaller and smaller number of players. There is no win for consumers in trying to halt that progression. If the auto industry is the model for this industry, then your characterization of that industry is inaccurate. Not only is the auto industry not shrinking down to a small number of players, it continuously gets new players. At one time it was believed that the only companies left standing would be the Detroit Big Three, especially GM which had well over 50% of the worldwide marketshare. Now GM is down around 30% worldwide, and some minor players have grown into major world players over the past 30 years -- first the Japanese, and then later the Koreans. Basically the auto industry seems to go in cycles of consolidation followed by reinvigoration. The appearance of new global players is a completely different phenomenon, IMHO. As an industry matures, it consolidates. In the new world order, as an industry hyper-matures (the auto industry) it goes through a completely new global expansion phase that in some ways recapitulates the original growth phase of the industry. This particular phenomenon (globalization) may never happen again, as larger and larger parts of the world compete on a more level playing field. It doesn't, in any case, have anything to say about the effects of Intel's business practices on markets in industrialized countries. Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM, TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like the truck makers are to the auto industry. It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor" AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history, though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies. Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now. Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now? RM |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:55:49 -0500, Robert Myers
wrote: On 12 Mar 2005 11:02:29 -0800, "YKhan" wrote: Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM, TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like the truck makers are to the auto industry. It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor" AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history, though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies. Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now. Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now? What? You think some Chinese genius is going to stamp his CPU in the memory of Chairman Mao?:-) I thought we'd been over that already a while back. As for Intel/AMD, you have a good point about the symbiotic relationship: Intel is now in the strange, never before seen, situation that they actually, crucially need the cross-license agreement to survive in the new x86 world - absolutely no question of living without it. AMD has, of course, just as much need and I wonder if they would even think about taking civil legal action against Intel for their marketing sins. Who knows what the "hidden" sections of the agreement, http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.c...001.01.01.html might contain about legal actions? -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:36:41 -0500, George Macdonald
wrote: On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:55:49 -0500, Robert Myers wrote: On 12 Mar 2005 11:02:29 -0800, "YKhan" wrote: Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM, TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like the truck makers are to the auto industry. It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor" AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history, though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies. Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now. Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now? What? You think some Chinese genius is going to stamp his CPU in the memory of Chairman Mao?:-) I thought we'd been over that already a while back. Did we completely dispense with China? I don't remember the thread and I can't find it. As for Intel/AMD, you have a good point about the symbiotic relationship: Intel is now in the strange, never before seen, situation that they actually, crucially need the cross-license agreement to survive in the new x86 world - absolutely no question of living without it. AMD has, of course, just as much need and I wonder if they would even think about taking civil legal action against Intel for their marketing sins. Who knows what the "hidden" sections of the agreement, http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.c...001.01.01.html might contain about legal actions? Whatever the contract says, I'd be bug-eyed to see AMD go after Intel in court. It would make as much sense as a New York or Chicago gangland turf war. Why would anybody want to mess with a good deal, especially now that AMD looks much less insecure than it once did? AMD may not really want to mess with Dell, either, since I suspect that the concessions that Intel offers there make it a pretty unattractive customer. But speaking of dividing turf, I see that Via is still at it with Esther, now due out fourth quarter this year, with IBM, apparently, doing the fab. Via has, apparently, been doing well in the chipset business at Intel's expense, and not entirely with AMD processors. That makes it sound a little less crazy that Via would want to stay in the processor business, even though, as far as I can tell, their recent offerings have been uncompetitive for western markets. I mean, _who_ is going to outfit the world with PC's? Not Dell, surely. The margins are going to be miserable, and Intel-style marketing probably won't do it. The only really pressing requirement for performance will be throughput, something that Via has been able to deliever on. In this brave new world, no one will care how fast a processor compiles the linux kernel. We may miss most of this action, because it will be taking place in other markets, but it's hard to believe that the effects won't eventually wash up on the shores of North America and Western Europe. RM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Power supply can zap motherboard? | Eric Popelka | Homebuilt PC's | 8 | June 18th 05 08:54 PM |
intel SE7210TP1-E - eps power supply problem - won't boot | dnt | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | December 2nd 04 07:01 PM |
P4EE will cost $1000 | Yousuf Khan | General | 60 | December 27th 03 02:19 PM |
Happy Birthday America | SST | Nvidia Videocards | 336 | November 27th 03 07:54 PM |
Power Surge | David LeBrun | General | 44 | September 12th 03 02:35 AM |