I once actually learned something from this group

[Robert Myers]

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.

 

[Del Cecchi]

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

 

[eatnofat]

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.

 

[Del Cecchi]

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

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.

 

[Mark Hobley]

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.

This is why you need to drop crappy Microsoft Windows and run a GNU
based system.

I regret selling a DIY computer that
I built using a Cyrix processor during the days of Windows 95-98.

I like Cyrix processors.

It was quite stable on those OS versions.

What do you call "stable"?

After extensive testing I found that a machine running Microsoft Windows
'95 will typically run for about 20 minutes before crashing. The same
machine running Microsoft Windows '98 will crash within 4 days.

http://markhobley.yi.org/mswin/hastalavista/crash.html

Mark.

 

[eatnofat]

Haven't used Win 95 or 98 in many years but from memory, the Win OS
running on Cyrix were more "stable" than on Intel. And that certainly
had something to do with the processor.

I'd like to try Linux but since I stopped hacking around with DOS and
Windows, I found an inexpensive Mac which I don't have to hack. The
Unix-derived OS that Macs run on (similar to Free BSD, I think) is very
stable and easy to use. I'm concerned that I'd have to spend a lot of
time at the command line getting a Linux system to work with various
types of hardware and download missing drivers - at least that's what
I've heard.

 

[eatnofat]

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



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.

Neither accidental nor intentional.
Your comments were already snipped from the post I replied to.
There are many partial threads on my news server - maybe the original
posts are X-No-Archive(d) and deleted.

 

[Mark Hobley]

I'm concerned that I'd have to spend a lot of time at the command line
getting a Linux system to work with various
types of hardware and download missing drivers - at least that's what
I've heard.

Hardware support is getting a lot better. Many systems just work. It
really does depend on your hardware though.

Try a live Ubuntu disk in the machine first, and check that the hardware
works, before migration.

I have always standardized on hardware as much as possible, and I always
check for open source compatibility before purchasing, so that has
helped me greatly.

If I am given a machine with incompatible cards, I tend to just dump
them, give them away, or bounce them off ebay, and buy replacements.

For 3d games, always ensure that your graphics cards or chipsets are
made by ATI or Intel.

Mark.

 

[Mark Hobley]

By "ATI or Intel," you meant "nVidia," right?

No. Nvidia cards do not work properly with open source drivers. I really
do mean ATI or Intel.

Mark.

 

[Mark Hobley]

On substandard hardware, no OS will be stable. Given properly-functioning
hardware, if you could only get Win95 to run right for 20 minutes, you're
doing it wrong.

The hardware is fine. It never used to crash under Microsoft Windows 3.11 and
it now runs fine with Linux. This was definitely a problem with Microsoft
Windows '95.

Mark.

 

[Mark Hobley]

It could be simply the fact Win95 allocates memory from top. It could so
happened that failing memory area or failed functionality is not used
under Linux.

I still have the hardware, and my machines have removable bays, so tests
can be conducted. I know for sure that there are no hardware faults on
these machines.

Mark.

 

[Mark Hobley]

How?

By sticking in a hard drive with Windows '95 installed, and running some
applications, you will see the computer crash within a short space of
time. Do the same thing using Linux, and the computer will not crash.

That Linux boots is not a proof. One need to run proper hardware stress
tester.

Yeah. I have done that too. Some of these machines have been used
in industrial and commercial environments. I know that they are not
faulty. I am a field engineer and I have seen many problems on many
machines. I know for sure that the bugs are in the software.

Mark.