For RM, another fine article you might enjoy

[Yousuf Khan]

From Gundeep Hora, who you've stated in the past to agree with his
point of view, complete with damning praise.

CoolTechZone::Column: Could AMD be the Next Intel?
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1484

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

From Gundeep Hora, who you've stated in the past to agree with his
point of view, complete with damning praise.

CoolTechZone::Column: Could AMD be the Next Intel?
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1484

The article is almost entirely speculation used for rhetorical
purposes. It seems like a complete waste of time and bandwidth, as it
doesn't explore anything the author thinks will happen or even might
happen, but rather events that are invented for the purposes of moral
evaluation, and not very incisive moral evaluation, at that.

RM

 

[YKhan]

The article is almost entirely speculation used for rhetorical
purposes. It seems like a complete waste of time and bandwidth, as it
doesn't explore anything the author thinks will happen or even might
happen, but rather events that are invented for the purposes of moral
evaluation, and not very incisive moral evaluation, at that.

Actually, that's true. What I thought too.

How about this one?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-1678069,00.html

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

Actually, that's true. What I thought too.

How about this one?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-1678069,00.html

"Is competition in your industry conducted in a fair and proper
manner?" Who's kidding who? And what's fair and what's proper?

Let me try to draw a bright line here. Those keeping the books at
Enron were (apparently) committing crimes that harmed a great number of
people. Their actions brought down that business and probably many
others and disrupted the lives of almost all former Enron employees.
Enron deliberately distorted markets in ways that harmed consumers (and
often poor consumers) who needed things so basic as electricity.

We have businesses in the US who use shareholder money to influence
regulatory, tax, industrial, and foreign policy in ways that, in my
estimation, cause much greater harm than anything that I can conceive
that Intel has been or will be accused of.

Does any of that make (say) alleged bribery of customer officials okay?
Of course not. But I assume that businesses will do everything they
think they can get away with to gain competitive advantage, and that
sometimes they will step over the line and do something they can't get
away with. It's going to happen. That's just the way the world goes.

I can't stop you or others from carrying on, gloating, obsessing,
speculating or otherwise satisfying your own emotional needs by
discussing this case. Have at it. It just doesn't interest me that
much, and I don't see that I have any chance of persuading you that you
are looking at the world with a strangely distorted perspective.

RM

 

[YKhan]

I can't stop you or others from carrying on, gloating, obsessing,
speculating or otherwise satisfying your own emotional needs by
discussing this case. Have at it. It just doesn't interest me that
much, and I don't see that I have any chance of persuading you that you
are looking at the world with a strangely distorted perspective.

Here's another one:

AMD to Intel: Fight!
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1833952,00.asp

Yousuf Khan

 

[George Macdonald]

"Is competition in your industry conducted in a fair and proper
manner?" Who's kidding who? And what's fair and what's proper?

Let me try to draw a bright line here. Those keeping the books at
Enron were (apparently) committing crimes that harmed a great number of
people. Their actions brought down that business and probably many
others and disrupted the lives of almost all former Enron employees.
Enron deliberately distorted markets in ways that harmed consumers (and
often poor consumers) who needed things so basic as electricity.

We have businesses in the US who use shareholder money to influence
regulatory, tax, industrial, and foreign policy in ways that, in my
estimation, cause much greater harm than anything that I can conceive
that Intel has been or will be accused of.

Does any of that make (say) alleged bribery of customer officials okay?
Of course not. But I assume that businesses will do everything they
think they can get away with to gain competitive advantage, and that
sometimes they will step over the line and do something they can't get
away with. It's going to happen. That's just the way the world goes.

I can't stop you or others from carrying on, gloating, obsessing,
speculating or otherwise satisfying your own emotional needs by
discussing this case. Have at it. It just doesn't interest me that
much, and I don't see that I have any chance of persuading you that you
are looking at the world with a strangely distorted perspective.

Oh com'n cut it out. It "doesn't interest" you but you'll write 4 paras of
diversionary padding. Are you just trying to disrupt any serious
discussion of the issues?

 

[Robert Myers]

Oh com'n cut it out. It "doesn't interest" you but you'll write 4 paras of
diversionary padding. Are you just trying to disrupt any serious
discussion of the issues?

Not diversionary, George. Prophylactic. Plenty goes on in the world
that I disapprove of. I'd say I disapprove of Intel's marketing
tactics, but saying so would make me sound sanctimonious. In today's
society, it would be like disapproving of divorce. The fact that a
particular business practice is common doesn't make it right, but I
want to keep my sense of perspective, even if no one else does.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

Not diversionary, George. Prophylactic.

Intel needs prophylactic protection?

Plenty goes on in the world
that I disapprove of. I'd say I disapprove of Intel's marketing
tactics, but saying so would make me sound sanctimonious. In today's
society, it would be like disapproving of divorce. The fact that a
particular business practice is common doesn't make it right, but I
want to keep my sense of perspective, even if no one else does.

Your comparisons get weirder and weirder. No I don't think Intel's tactics
are as common in business as you suggest - the Japanese have made their
decision on it.

 

[Robert Myers]

Intel needs prophylactic protection?

No, I do. Intel can clearly shift for itself. Some business methods
are plainly harmful to society and society has to act against them. I
don't see Intel's alleged actions as fitting into the Enron (or even
the Microsoft) category. AMD has a right to sue, the courthouse door,
as my lawyer told me, is always open, and they've sued. I just don't
have to be a part of the cheering section, but neither do I think that
means that anything goes.

Your comparisons get weirder and weirder. No I don't think Intel's tactics
are as common in business as you suggest - the Japanese have made their
decision on it.

Uh-huh. I wouldn't let GWB decide what I think is right or wrong,
worth acting on or not acting on. I don't see why the Japanese should
have any more standing.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

No, I do. Intel can clearly shift for itself. Some business methods
are plainly harmful to society and society has to act against them. I
don't see Intel's alleged actions as fitting into the Enron (or even
the Microsoft) category. AMD has a right to sue, the courthouse door,
as my lawyer told me, is always open, and they've sued. I just don't
have to be a part of the cheering section, but neither do I think that
means that anything goes.

I haven't seen any strong partisan opinions expressed here at all... apart
from your zealous defence. Since you appear not to have digested things
yet, taken at face value the charges are that Intel has indulged in
corporate terrorism, behavior more associated with the likes of organized
crime syndicates. Whether it can be proved is something we'll have to wait
for.

Uh-huh. I wouldn't let GWB decide what I think is right or wrong,
worth acting on or not acting on. I don't see why the Japanese should
have any more standing.

Irrelevant. The fact is that the JP FTC indicted Intel; it would appear
that the U.S. FTC likely declined so AMD took matters into its own hands.
I doubt that your perception of Japanese "standing" matters much in the
grand scheme - we'll also see how much the Japanese courts award AMD in
their civil damages suit... or if Intel will settle out of court. Whatever
the amount, though it may not hurt Intel significantly financially, it will
blacken the corporate image. Somebody in Hillsboro should have thought of
that *before* the fact - talk about reckless endangerment!

Since we live in the most litigious country on Earth, I expect to see a
follow-on to AMD's accusations in the form of class action suits - the very
form of the AMD complaint, as a narrative of specific events, invites it;
Intel's chance of prevailing there is near zero.

 

[nobody]

On 6 Jul 2005 19:01:07 -0700, "Robert Myers" <[email protected]>
wrote:

....snip...

No, I do. Intel can clearly shift for itself. Some business methods
are plainly harmful to society and society has to act against them. I
don't see Intel's alleged actions as fitting into the Enron (or even
the Microsoft) category. AMD has a right to sue, the courthouse door,
as my lawyer told me, is always open, and they've sued. I just don't
have to be a part of the cheering section, but neither do I think that
means that anything goes. ....snip...
RM

Enron? Intel is not accused of cooking the books or otherwise
cheating the investors. MSFT? Quite close, and even worse than that.
You can download and install under Windows your favorite browser,
media player, and office suit from the competitors. You can make your
Windows machine dual-bootable (Linux or whatever else OS you like).
Heck, you can even download your favorite Windows and MS Office
versions, together with keygen, without paying a penny to Bill Gates
(disclaimer - I do not, in any way, shape, or form encourage anyone to
do so). Not exactly what one would call a monopolistic grip on the
market.
What is your chance to get Opteron-based server (that would have
much better chance to eliminate the application bottleneck and fit
within the budget, even with 4 dual cores, unlike Xeon MP) if the
corporation you work for decided to standardize on Dell? If you want
correct comparison for INTC, it would be Standard Oil, A&P of 1930s,
GM of early 1950s, AT&T, or IBM around 1980.

 

[Robert Myers]

On 6 Jul 2005 19:01:07 -0700, "Robert Myers" <[email protected]>
wrote:

...snip...

Enron? Intel is not accused of cooking the books or otherwise
cheating the investors. MSFT? Quite close, and even worse than that.
You can download and install under Windows your favorite browser,
media player, and office suit from the competitors. You can make your
Windows machine dual-bootable (Linux or whatever else OS you like).
Heck, you can even download your favorite Windows and MS Office
versions, together with keygen, without paying a penny to Bill Gates
(disclaimer - I do not, in any way, shape, or form encourage anyone to
do so). Not exactly what one would call a monopolistic grip on the
market.
What is your chance to get Opteron-based server (that would have
much better chance to eliminate the application bottleneck and fit
within the budget, even with 4 dual cores, unlike Xeon MP) if the
corporation you work for decided to standardize on Dell? If you want
correct comparison for INTC, it would be Standard Oil, A&P of 1930s,
GM of early 1950s, AT&T, or IBM around 1980.

The purpose of my post wasn't to propose a general theory of corporate
wrongdoing. The purpose of my post was to state that I have my own
_personal_ notions of what matters and what doesn't and to try to give
some idea of what those notions are. You have posted as
nobody@nowhere. I post under my own name.

As to Intel being worse than Microsoft, that's just bizarre. Microsoft
has nearly single-handedly wrecked software, possibly forever, and
almost certainly for my lifetime. I can't identify any similar impact
of Intel that has any chance of being permanent.

The world needs inexpensive x86 processors, and they will be available.
The world does not _need_ quad core Opterons. They might be better as
servers, assuming that all the appropriate infrastructure went with
them, but there will be no human suffering attributable to AMD's
failure to penetrate the marketplace. I'm just not going to respond to
any more "I want my AMD, and I want it now posts," because that's what
they are.

RM

 

[Del Cecchi]

On 6 Jul 2005 19:01:07 -0700, "Robert Myers" <[email protected]>
wrote:

...snip...



Enron? Intel is not accused of cooking the books or otherwise
cheating the investors. MSFT? Quite close, and even worse than that.
You can download and install under Windows your favorite browser,
media player, and office suit from the competitors. You can make your
Windows machine dual-bootable (Linux or whatever else OS you like).
Heck, you can even download your favorite Windows and MS Office
versions, together with keygen, without paying a penny to Bill Gates
(disclaimer - I do not, in any way, shape, or form encourage anyone to
do so). Not exactly what one would call a monopolistic grip on the
market.
What is your chance to get Opteron-based server (that would have
much better chance to eliminate the application bottleneck and fit
within the budget, even with 4 dual cores, unlike Xeon MP) if the
corporation you work for decided to standardize on Dell? If you want
correct comparison for INTC, it would be Standard Oil, A&P of 1930s,
GM of early 1950s, AT&T, or IBM around 1980.

Make that IBM of around 1953, not 1980. In 1980 IBM's behavior was
legal. They won all the cases, although they settled the CDC case.
And besides those cases were from the 70's, as I recall.

 

[nobody]

Make that IBM of around 1953, not 1980. In 1980 IBM's behavior was
legal. They won all the cases, although they settled the CDC case.
And besides those cases were from the 70's, as I recall.

Admittedly, I may be somewhat off with the dates. Yet you got my
point right.

 

[nobody]

The purpose of my post wasn't to propose a general theory of corporate
wrongdoing. The purpose of my post was to state that I have my own
_personal_ notions of what matters and what doesn't and to try to give
some idea of what those notions are. You have posted as
nobody@nowhere. I post under my own name.

Used to post under my real name and address. Got my email deluged
with crap to the extent that I had to change the provider (former
provider flatly refused to change the address). Learned my lesson.

As to Intel being worse than Microsoft, that's just bizarre. Microsoft
has nearly single-handedly wrecked software,

As much as Microsoft bashing is fashionable, one must admit that there
are times when they come up with a solid piece of software. Besides,
even though Win3.x was crap in terms of stability and performance, if
not for it, computing today still would have been a privilege of the
few in business and academia.

possibly forever, and
almost certainly for my lifetime. I can't identify any similar impact
of Intel that has any chance of being permanent.

How about x86/x87 architecture? I bet most of the folks around here
would agree that it was not the smartest architecture out there even
back then, and given a chance to start anew today, the PC architecture
would have been totally different. It was just sheer luck for Intel
that IBM picked it for its first PC. While there's only anecdotal
evidence, one of the reasons IBM did so was to differenciate
themselves from the likes of Apple and Atari.
Anyway x86 is here, and it is probably going to outlive us, despite
the best effort by Intel to kill its own child with IA64. Nice try,
but Itanic is hopelessly sinking.

The world needs inexpensive x86 processors, and they will be available.
The world does not _need_ quad core Opterons. They might be better as
servers, assuming that all the appropriate infrastructure went with
them, but there will be no human suffering attributable to AMD's
failure to penetrate the marketplace. I'm just not going to respond to
any more "I want my AMD, and I want it now posts," because that's what
they are.

It's your right under 1st Amendment, as well as everyone else's right
to post.

 

[Del Cecchi]

Used to post under my real name and address. Got my email deluged
with crap to the extent that I had to change the provider (former
provider flatly refused to change the address). Learned my lesson.


As much as Microsoft bashing is fashionable, one must admit that there
are times when they come up with a solid piece of software. Besides,
even though Win3.x was crap in terms of stability and performance, if
not for it, computing today still would have been a privilege of the
few in business and academia.

More Historical Revisionism, of which this group seems fond. The IBM PC
and the clones were quite popular with the general public long before
windows came out. Remember DOS? Sure you do. And 123?

Windows 3.1 was Microsoft abandoning the supposedly joint development of
OS/2 for whatever reason and releasing a competitive system that they
controlled. A major factor was that Windows abandoned the 286 base, and
came out as only useful on a 386.

How about x86/x87 architecture? I bet most of the folks around here
would agree that it was not the smartest architecture out there even
back then, and given a chance to start anew today, the PC architecture
would have been totally different. It was just sheer luck for Intel
that IBM picked it for its first PC. While there's only anecdotal
evidence, one of the reasons IBM did so was to differenciate
themselves from the likes of Apple and Atari.
Anyway x86 is here, and it is probably going to outlive us, despite
the best effort by Intel to kill its own child with IA64. Nice try,
but Itanic is hopelessly sinking.

It's your right under 1st Amendment, as well as everyone else's right
to post.

And to all you folks that know what the world needs, let me assure you
that, given a chance the world will communicate what it wants, maybe not
what it needs, through the market's invisible hand.

del

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

As much as Microsoft bashing is fashionable, one must admit
that there are times when they come up with a solid piece
of software.

Yes. Paul Allen's 1981 DEBUG.COM is the last decent peice of
code I remember from Microsoft. GWBASIC wasn't bad either,
but it was earlier and may not have been entirely MS.
ADJUSTING FOR TIME, what would you consider better?

Besides, even though Win3.x was crap in terms of stability
and performance, if not for it, computing today still would
have been a privilege of the few in business and academia.

Hardly. I had bought my third personal PC before MS-Win3.x
ever appeared. IIRC, Worldwide PC sales were around 10M/yr.

How about x86/x87 architecture? I bet most of the folks
around here would agree that it was not the smartest
architecture out there even back then,

x86 architectural bashing is also a fad. There are some
nice things about it, particularly for back then.

-- Robert

the best effort by Intel to kill its own child with IA64.
Nice try, but Itanic is hopelessly sinking.

In the grand Intel tradition of iAPX432 and i860 .

-- Robert

 

[nobody]

Yes. Paul Allen's 1981 DEBUG.COM is the last decent peice of
code I remember from Microsoft. GWBASIC wasn't bad either,
but it was earlier and may not have been entirely MS.
ADJUSTING FOR TIME, what would you consider better?

..NET, for one. And SQL Server, starting from 7.0, is a solid choice
for midrange databases. Admittedly, high end is still ruled by DB2
and Oracle, but SQL Server is getting there.

Hardly. I had bought my third personal PC before MS-Win3.x
ever appeared. IIRC, Worldwide PC sales were around 10M/yr.

Come on, we all around here are more or less geeks, and for that
reason are not representative of the average consumer. The average
Sixpack Joe wouldn't buy anything based on command line interface, and
GUI first came out en masse as Win3.0 (Yes, Apple came up with it
before that, but Mac was and still is a niche product, and X on *nix
never was intended for retail market). 10M/year was more or less
covering business/academic demand, with relatively few retail
customers buying it as a novelty. Could be coincidental, but PCs
started finding their way into dens and living rooms mostly after
1990, just about when Win3.x came out. And without a critical mass of
PCs out there, there would be no Internet as we know it.