Intel concedes server business to AMD ;-)

[Robert Myers]

Huh? I thought the discussion was about mainstream x86 CPUs, both Intel
and AMD. You clearly suggested that a reason to stay with Intel CPUs was
to avoid stumbling over some imagined incompatibility... whether with an
Intel or non-Intel compiler. That's FUD!

The closest I came to saying what you claim I said is that "Compatible
is a sucker word," and it is.

If people want to use AMD chips because it offers clear technical
advantages, and in some cases it does, they're going to design and
test for AMD chips, not for some generic x86 chip.

x86 "compatibility" offers access to the world's largest base of
computer software, but it doesn't guarantee that the software will
work or work well. If you want to find out, you have to test. That
seems so obvious to me that I don't even know why I'm arguing about
it.

The more common case gets the attention, the more common case is
Intel, so there is a bias to purchase the actual product that has the
largest sales. What else is there to say? If my describing the way I
think the world actually works makes me a purveyor of FUD, then so be
it. What label you choose to apply to me won't change my opinion of
how the world actually works.

In fact for the x86-64 environment, M$ and ISVs have been compiling and
running using AMD64 for almost 2 years now. Does that mean that end users
should now stay away from EM64T, lest they "stumble" over some glitch in
Intel's x86-64 CPU implementation?

Seems like a fair concern to me.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

The closest I came to saying what you claim I said is that "Compatible
is a sucker word," and it is.

Sorry, you can't back away from what you've said: "actual chip" and
"incompatible" mean what they mean.

If people want to use AMD chips because it offers clear technical
advantages, and in some cases it does, they're going to design and
test for AMD chips, not for some generic x86 chip.

Still you are insisting that AMD's chip is something to be tested - it
simply isn't: it works.

x86 "compatibility" offers access to the world's largest base of
computer software, but it doesn't guarantee that the software will
work or work well. If you want to find out, you have to test. That
seems so obvious to me that I don't even know why I'm arguing about
it.

The empirics are all known and for years now. You think AMD is incompetent
at "compatibility" science? Surely you know the story about the K5: where
AMD had to add a flaw to it so that it would have the same bug, "erratum",
as the P5 - AMD management insisted that this be done so that there would
be no question that it worked better... err, differently?

The more common case gets the attention, the more common case is
Intel, so there is a bias to purchase the actual product that has the
largest sales. What else is there to say? If my describing the way I
think the world actually works makes me a purveyor of FUD, then so be
it. What label you choose to apply to me won't change my opinion of
how the world actually works.

No evidence to back this up. All you're saying is that the buyers are
sheep.

Seems like a fair concern to me.

Well Intel has a license for AMD64 ISA so I'd hope that Intel's
compatibility science is up to the job.

 

[George Macdonald]

That would be true if history decided these things. History doesn't
decide these things.

No, in the context that you have used "actual chip" in this thread, the
AMD64 is the definitive article - the EM64T is the copy.

Who knows? I'll bet AMD is no fun to work for, either. Part of the
reason I made the original post in this thread is that it was striking
that Intel wasn't even really trying to fake it. It's easy to find
statements to the effect that the corporate culture has changed, and
then there are the well-known management memos to employees. I've
made the comparison to the auto industry before, but it seems to fit.
The business has become boring, and the excitement is all artificial.
What will AMD do for excitement if it becomes number 1?

No doubt AMD has the potential to get as ugly. As for Intel I judge them
on their behavior rather than "statements" - if the shoe fits.......

 

[Robert Myers]

Sorry, you can't back away from what you've said: "actual chip" and
"incompatible" mean what they mean.

I feel as if I were stuck on a bad high school debate topic. The only
person to have used "incompatible" in this thread is you. An actual
intel chip is an actual intel chip. An AMD chip is something else.
There's got to be some latin for that.

Still you are insisting that AMD's chip is something to be tested - it
simply isn't: it works.

Oh, George. I guess that depends on who you are and what your mission
is.

The empirics are all known and for years now. You think AMD is incompetent
at "compatibility" science? Surely you know the story about the K5: where
AMD had to add a flaw to it so that it would have the same bug, "erratum",
as the P5 - AMD management insisted that this be done so that there would
be no question that it worked better... err, differently?


No evidence to back this up. All you're saying is that the buyers are
sheep.

No evidence to back up that the more common case gets more attention?
No evidence that buyers are biased toward the product with largest
market share? Or no evidence that applying labels to me won't change
my opinion?

That buyers are biased toward products with more market share seems so
self-evident in this case, that I don't know why we're discussing it.
AMD has the better product. It should sweep the market. It isn't. It
won't. Same could be said for GM cars for decades (although they sure
have taken a beating).

If 80% of the market is Intel and 20% is AMD, then 80% of the real
world experience with Intel. What's arguable about that? Any drug
manufacturer will argue that, if you test a large enough sample,
problems that might show up only with long-term use will show up even
in a short term test. Advantage for the buyer goes to the product
that is used more frequently. I don't even know why I should have to
argue these points.

Well Intel has a license for AMD64 ISA so I'd hope that Intel's
compatibility science is up to the job.

The only thing Intel has to worry about is living up to whatever
licensing agreement it has with AMD and whatever preexisting software
base Microsoft had. If Intel hadn't been testing that long before
Intel caved on 64-bit, it would be simply unbelievable.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

I feel as if I were stuck on a bad high school debate topic.

Never mind - it keeps the gallery amused.

The only
person to have used "incompatible" in this thread is you. An actual
intel chip is an actual intel chip. An AMD chip is something else.
There's got to be some latin for that.

Look back in the thread for *your* use and definition of "incompatible" -
no it wasn't I who started this. Both AMD & Intel sell actual x86 chips
which both run the same code; if a P4 is an "actual Intel chip" an Athlon64
is an "actual AMD chip". No it's not something else and the ownership of
the definition has just formally changed... to shared?

Oh, George. I guess that depends on who you are and what your mission
is.

I've no idea what that is supposed to mean nor what mission you have in
mind. You can't possibly argue with the fact that the Athlon64/Opteron
works... rather well in fact. Whether you've personally tried/tested one
has nothing to do with the facts. Hell even Intel's new CEO has resorted
to the "don't worry chaps, we'll catch them up [... in about 18 months]"...
funny that: AMD is going to stand still to give them a fair whack at
it.:-[]

Oh if you wanted to run SSE2 on an AMD64, you had to wait a few months and
if you want to run SSE3, you'll have to get a new AMD Venice or San Diego
core. Now show me all that SSE2 and SSE3 code in commercial software and
the compilers which generate it; even AMD's ahead of available tools.

No evidence to back up that the more common case gets more attention?
No evidence that buyers are biased toward the product with largest
market share? Or no evidence that applying labels to me won't change
my opinion?

You know damned well that nobody is applying labels here - no need to
address that. What I'm objecting to is your overt, repetitious use of
"actual product" and the suggestion that buyers, the sheep notwithstanding,
perceive the definition of that according to "largest sales".

That buyers are biased toward products with more market share seems so
self-evident in this case, that I don't know why we're discussing it.
AMD has the better product. It should sweep the market. It isn't. It
won't. Same could be said for GM cars for decades (although they sure
have taken a beating).

To say "it won't" (ever) is absurd... though sweep is obviously not
practical given current production. GM is not really a good analogy --
Delphi, Valeo or Nippon-Denso would be better -- but I'm sure you haven't
missed the fact that Toyota & Honda started small and now own the
automobile market - it took a bit of time to ramp to that level... and even
the sheep followed. GM makes trucks for a living.

If 80% of the market is Intel and 20% is AMD, then 80% of the real
world experience with Intel. What's arguable about that? Any drug
manufacturer will argue that, if you test a large enough sample,
problems that might show up only with long-term use will show up even
in a short term test. Advantage for the buyer goes to the product
that is used more frequently. I don't even know why I should have to
argue these points.

You just won't give up with this "advantage" of volume... reminds me of
Lenin's famous quote: "quantity has a quality all of its own". Nope,
the only advantage here is performance/$ and your, again repetitious,
insistence on "problems that might show up" is ludicrous in the face of
proven facts. What problems?... enumerate please... or give it up!... even
better: buy an Athlon64 and tell us what you find wrong with it. Your
misplaced suspicion is ugly, well past due date and not at all creditable.

The only thing Intel has to worry about is living up to whatever
licensing agreement it has with AMD and whatever preexisting software
base Microsoft had. If Intel hadn't been testing that long before
Intel caved on 64-bit, it would be simply unbelievable.

You think M$ was using Intel's prototype chips to develop XP-64 - I don't
think so; in fact M$ has said that XP-64 was developed using AMD64 and
stated quite categorically that they would not adapt to anything
"incompatible". I'm quite sure that Intel was "testing" their
compatibility of course... just an unfamiliar role for them and they do
*not* wear it well.

 

[Rob Stow]

You just won't give up with this "advantage" of volume... reminds me of
Lenin's famous quote: "quantity has a quality all of its own".

Hmmm. I've heard that attribute to both Stalin and Mao, but
never to Lenin.

Earliest reference I've found over the years (not that I did a
thorough search) was in Stalin talking about how the Russian T-34
tank compared to the qualitatively superior German tanks.

 

[Robert Myers]

Never mind - it keeps the gallery amused.


Look back in the thread for *your* use and definition of "incompatible" -
no it wasn't I who started this. Both AMD & Intel sell actual x86 chips
which both run the same code; if a P4 is an "actual Intel chip" an Athlon64
is an "actual AMD chip". No it's not something else and the ownership of
the definition has just formally changed... to shared?

It's your claim, George. You can't demand that I do the work to back
up your claim, can you? In any case, I'm not going to. Google says
that the word "incompatible" belongs to you.

Oh, George. I guess that depends on who you are and what your mission
is.

I've no idea what that is supposed to mean nor what mission you have in
mind. You can't possibly argue with the fact that the Athlon64/Opteron
works... rather well in fact. Whether you've personally tried/tested one
has nothing to do with the facts. Hell even Intel's new CEO has resorted
to the "don't worry chaps, we'll catch them up [... in about 18 months]"...
funny that: AMD is going to stand still to give them a fair whack at
it.:-[]

What has *any* of that got to do with the fact that most people are
going to test for mission-critical applications?

Oh if you wanted to run SSE2 on an AMD64, you had to wait a few months and
if you want to run SSE3, you'll have to get a new AMD Venice or San Diego
core. Now show me all that SSE2 and SSE3 code in commercial software and
the compilers which generate it; even AMD's ahead of available tools.


You know damned well that nobody is applying labels here - no need to
address that. What I'm objecting to is your overt, repetitious use of
"actual product" and the suggestion that buyers, the sheep notwithstanding,
perceive the definition of that according to "largest sales".

'Fraid they do, George.

To say "it won't" (ever) is absurd... though sweep is obviously not
practical given current production. GM is not really a good analogy --
Delphi, Valeo or Nippon-Denso would be better -- but I'm sure you haven't
missed the fact that Toyota & Honda started small and now own the
automobile market - it took a bit of time to ramp to that level... and even
the sheep followed. GM makes trucks for a living.

"It won't" in this instance is ambiguous. Could the entire
infrastructure of the semiconductor industry change? Sure. It's
happened in lots of industries. It takes time. Short of that
happening, there should be a shortage of AMD chips. I don't see that
heppening, either. This really does remind me of sports talk radio.

You just won't give up with this "advantage" of volume... reminds me of
Lenin's famous quote: "quantity has a quality all of its own". Nope,
the only advantage here is performance/$ and your, again repetitious,
insistence on "problems that might show up" is ludicrous in the face of
proven facts. What problems?... enumerate please... or give it up!... even
better: buy an Athlon64 and tell us what you find wrong with it. Your
misplaced suspicion is ugly, well past due date and not at all creditable.

What, now you're smearing me with "commie" labels? Are you _sure_
you've never worked in advertising, marketing, public relations,
fundraising, or some other manipulative business?

You think M$ was using Intel's prototype chips to develop XP-64 - I don't
think so;

*Where* did I ever say *that*? You're seeing things (commies under
the bed, perhaps?). Or are you claiming to be able to be able to read
my mind? Or are you just putting words in my mouth?

in fact M$ has said that XP-64 was developed using AMD64 and
stated quite categorically that they would not adapt to anything
"incompatible".

'Twill be interesting to see who pays the piper for that bit of hubris
on Chairman Bill's part. I wouldn't bet against Intel in the long
run. You're right that Intel didn't like it.

I'm quite sure that Intel was "testing" their
compatibility of course... just an unfamiliar role for them and they do
*not* wear it well.

My exact words: "If *Intel* hadn't been testing that long before
Intel caved on 64-bit, it would be simply unbelievable."

RM

 

[Del Cecchi]

Hmmm. I've heard that attribute to both Stalin and Mao, but never to
Lenin.

Earliest reference I've found over the years (not that I did a thorough
search) was in Stalin talking about how the Russian T-34 tank compared
to the qualitatively superior German tanks.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao. What difference does it make which insane genocidal
murderous dictator said it? It isn't true any more than most of the
things they said.

 

[George Macdonald]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 01:49:25 -0400, George Macdonald

It's your claim, George. You can't demand that I do the work to back
up your claim, can you? In any case, I'm not going to. Google says
that the word "incompatible" belongs to you.

(e-mail address removed) - "An AMD processor is
incompatible with an Intel processor because...." seems to predate anything
I've said.

I've no idea what that is supposed to mean nor what mission you have in
mind. You can't possibly argue with the fact that the Athlon64/Opteron
works... rather well in fact. Whether you've personally tried/tested one
has nothing to do with the facts. Hell even Intel's new CEO has resorted
to the "don't worry chaps, we'll catch them up [... in about 18 months]"...
funny that: AMD is going to stand still to give them a fair whack at
it.:-[]

What has *any* of that got to do with the fact that most people are
going to test for mission-critical applications?

Like I said, the AMD CPU works... at least as well as any Intel version; in
fact an examination of specified operating parameters and current empirical
evidence indicates that the Intel product is subject to higher thermal
stresses... certainly something to be taken into account. Mission
critical, however, would cover many other more likely failure points in a
system infrastructure than the CPU. I'd expect that there are even some
who would rule out any x86 system for that task. You'll have to give
evidence: of actual failure, or why an AMD system would be more
susceptible.

'Fraid they do, George.

We'll just have to disagree here. The fact that Intel dumps millions of
chips at knock-down prices through Dell is irrelevant to the functionality
which defines "actual product".

"It won't" in this instance is ambiguous. Could the entire
infrastructure of the semiconductor industry change? Sure. It's
happened in lots of industries. It takes time. Short of that
happening, there should be a shortage of AMD chips. I don't see that
heppening, either. This really does remind me of sports talk radio.

You obviously haven't tried to buy an AMD CPU recently - "shortage" is only
a relative term here but there is obvious binning which is causing
shortages in some of the more popular mid-priced Athlon64s... probably good
for AMD's ASP.

What, now you're smearing me with "commie" labels? Are you _sure_
you've never worked in advertising, marketing, public relations,
fundraising, or some other manipulative business?

Whoever the quote is due to matters not - would Napoleon make you feel
better? Feigned indignation is no substitute for facts.

*Where* did I ever say *that*? You're seeing things (commies under
the bed, perhaps?). Or are you claiming to be able to be able to read
my mind? Or are you just putting words in my mouth?

Sorry if that came out wrong - should have used a question mark, since it
*was* a question... which I thought relevant in the face of your "actual
product" claims.

 

[George Macdonald]

Hmmm. I've heard that attribute to both Stalin and Mao, but
never to Lenin.

Earliest reference I've found over the years (not that I did a
thorough search) was in Stalin talking about how the Russian T-34
tank compared to the qualitatively superior German tanks.

It's hard to tell - I'd first seen/heard it attributed to Lenin but now I
see even Napolen is given credit. Dunno where to go to get the
authoritative answer.

 

[Robert Myers]

(e-mail address removed) - "An AMD processor is
incompatible with an Intel processor because...." seems to predate anything
I've said.

Sorry, I couldn't find that. As it is, though, anything less than the
full quote is misleading:

"An AMD processor is incompatible with an Intel processor because it
doesn't say Intel on the package and Intel will tell you to pound sand
if you have questions about it."

It's clear that I'm not claiming they are incompatible in any ordinary
sense. Even so, it is just inconceivable to me that you'll never turn
up differences between the two processors that mean that a user
application will work with one and not the other. Badly designed
application? Probably. It's just something that people aren't going
to worry about it if they don't have to.

I've no idea what that is supposed to mean nor what mission you have in
mind. You can't possibly argue with the fact that the Athlon64/Opteron
works... rather well in fact. Whether you've personally tried/tested one
has nothing to do with the facts. Hell even Intel's new CEO has resorted
to the "don't worry chaps, we'll catch them up [... in about 18 months]"...
funny that: AMD is going to stand still to give them a fair whack at
it.:-[]

What has *any* of that got to do with the fact that most people are
going to test for mission-critical applications?

Like I said, the AMD CPU works... at least as well as any Intel version; in
fact an examination of specified operating parameters and current empirical
evidence indicates that the Intel product is subject to higher thermal
stresses... certainly something to be taken into account. Mission
critical, however, would cover many other more likely failure points in a
system infrastructure than the CPU. I'd expect that there are even some
who would rule out any x86 system for that task. You'll have to give
evidence: of actual failure, or why an AMD system would be more
susceptible.

You're implying I'm saying things that I'm not saying. People are
going to test for mission-critical applications for whatever processor
they use, and because it works with one doesn't mean they will forgo
testing with another. As I hear it, more and more mission-critical
stuff goes on x86.

As to vulnerability, I wouldn't know how to judge one over the other,
and I never made any claims (at least for this generation of
processor).

You obviously haven't tried to buy an AMD CPU recently - "shortage" is only
a relative term here but there is obvious binning which is causing
shortages in some of the more popular mid-priced Athlon64s... probably good
for AMD's ASP.

So AMD has got its pricing model wrong becaue they didn't predict
yields correctly.

Whoever the quote is due to matters not - would Napoleon make you feel
better? Feigned indignation is no substitute for facts.

I wouldn't have bristled. As to facts, the use of a quote attached to
a controversial historical figure isn't one. It's a rhetorical tactic
and not an especially attractive one.

You're trying to get me to make claims about the relative quality of
the products. I think I'm just making a statement about how buyers
think and about how markets work. Purchasing from the dominant
supplier is always safer, and the rules of the business more or less
guarantee that Intel is going to be the dominant supplier for the
forseeable future.

As it is, you are trying to make arguments both ways: that AMD has a
chip shortage (indicates that demand exceeds supply) and that AMD is a
safe supplier even though it's number 2. Both can't be true. As it
is, chips can be bought from a safe commodity supplier who can deliver
them in nearly unlimited quantities and doesn't have to worry all that
much about hitting production targets accurately (the worst they have
to worry about is articles in the WSJ about growing inventory). It
isn't just a mattr of buyer irrationality. Buyers want to know that
they can get what they want when they need it. The safest bet to be
able to do that is the biggest supplier. A company like Sun that is
building a future around AMD chips is inevitably adding risk to its
bottom line by doing do. You don't like it, apparently, but that's
the way life goes.

RM

 

[keith]

Sure, 64-bit Osen have been available for a bit. But, how many 64-bit
applications--designed for 64-bit--are you running?

All the applications I run are 64bit. "Designed", well that's a stretch
of an argument.

Yea, then there's the compiler problem...

Problem?

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Lenin, Stalin, Mao. What difference does it make which insane genocidal
murderous dictator said it? It isn't true any more than most of the
things they said.

Just in that you should strive for accuracy, including ascribing the
correct quote to the correct insane genocidal murderous dictator.

 

[George Macdonald]

Sorry, I couldn't find that. As it is, though, anything less than the
full quote is misleading:

"An AMD processor is incompatible with an Intel processor because it
doesn't say Intel on the package and Intel will tell you to pound sand
if you have questions about it."

D'oh! You can't find that then you find it - what the hell are you on
about? What is it that you can't find about a Message ID? If your
newsreader doesn't support it, plug it into the Message ID box at Google
Groups.

It's clear that I'm not claiming they are incompatible in any ordinary
sense.

Just what are we to make of this? You said it... but you didn't
really<gawp> - on top of which you ascribed the use to me. Nobody in their
right mind would expect Intel to help them with an AMD CPU... and yet
that's a reason to mark AMD's product as "incompatible". This is nuts - an
exercise in the absurd.

Even so, it is just inconceivable to me that you'll never turn
up differences between the two processors that mean that a user
application will work with one and not the other. Badly designed
application? Probably. It's just something that people aren't going
to worry about it if they don't have to.

What utter rubbish - there's as much chance of finding an app which works
with only one version of a P4 and not the other versions... or a P-M or
vice versa. Again you have no evidence so you speculate about things which
might be... and with apparently no first-hand knowledge or experience.
Talk about a definition of FFUD [sic]!

I've no idea what that is supposed to mean nor what mission you have in
mind. You can't possibly argue with the fact that the Athlon64/Opteron
works... rather well in fact. Whether you've personally tried/tested one
has nothing to do with the facts. Hell even Intel's new CEO has resorted
to the "don't worry chaps, we'll catch them up [... in about 18 months]"...
funny that: AMD is going to stand still to give them a fair whack at
it.:-[]

What has *any* of that got to do with the fact that most people are
going to test for mission-critical applications?

Like I said, the AMD CPU works... at least as well as any Intel version; in
fact an examination of specified operating parameters and current empirical
evidence indicates that the Intel product is subject to higher thermal
stresses... certainly something to be taken into account. Mission
critical, however, would cover many other more likely failure points in a
system infrastructure than the CPU. I'd expect that there are even some
who would rule out any x86 system for that task. You'll have to give
evidence: of actual failure, or why an AMD system would be more
susceptible.

You're implying I'm saying things that I'm not saying.

Like what? I don't think there's any doubt that you've questioned the
viability of the AMD CPUs vs. Intel's.

People are
going to test for mission-critical applications for whatever processor
they use, and because it works with one doesn't mean they will forgo
testing with another. As I hear it, more and more mission-critical
stuff goes on x86.

As I hear it, "people" in IT rarely do their own testing. All the big OS
vendors and ISVs, SAP, Oracle, IBM, etc. have run their software on both
CPUs. There are thousands of benchmarks published on the Web using
commercial software - differences between PIII, P-M, P4(flavors), AthlonXP,
Athlon64 are well understood. For home-baked stuff you run it just to be
sure it works - "testing" reqts. are minimal for an IT organization.

As to vulnerability, I wouldn't know how to judge one over the other,
and I never made any claims (at least for this generation of
processor).

Your "claims" are well documented.

<snip>
So AMD has got its pricing model wrong becaue they didn't predict
yields correctly.

I dunno how to explain this to you but it's not a static model and demand
is always kinda difficult to predict - ask Intel about that... and their
umm, fairly recent inventory problems. There's also the fact that, as
one would expect, the channel plays games with the prices. Bottom line is
that AMD CPU prices are holding quite well., which some buyers may find
annoying; OTOH it means that they don't feel cheated by precipitous drops
in price a few weeks after purchase.

I wouldn't have bristled. As to facts, the use of a quote attached to
a controversial historical figure isn't one. It's a rhetorical tactic
and not an especially attractive one.

Lenin, Stalin, Napoleon? Since the target was not your idealogical
"appearance", I'm afraid I see no reason for your complaint.

You're trying to get me to make claims about the relative quality of
the products. I think I'm just making a statement about how buyers
think and about how markets work. Purchasing from the dominant
supplier is always safer, and the rules of the business more or less
guarantee that Intel is going to be the dominant supplier for the
forseeable future.

Fer Chrissakes give it up.

As it is, you are trying to make arguments both ways: that AMD has a
chip shortage (indicates that demand exceeds supply) and that AMD is a
safe supplier even though it's number 2. Both can't be true.

There's more than one market to be err, supplied. It gets

As it
is, chips can be bought from a safe commodity supplier who can deliver
them in nearly unlimited quantities and doesn't have to worry all that
much about hitting production targets accurately (the worst they have
to worry about is articles in the WSJ about growing inventory). It
isn't just a mattr of buyer irrationality. Buyers want to know that
they can get what they want when they need it. The safest bet to be
able to do that is the biggest supplier. A company like Sun that is
building a future around AMD chips is inevitably adding risk to its
bottom line by doing do. You don't like it, apparently, but that's
the way life goes.

Over-simplification. Extreme point analysis is not applicable here.

 

[rbmyersusa]

D'oh! You can't find that then you find it - what the hell are you on
about? What is it that you can't find about a Message ID? If your
newsreader doesn't support it, plug it into the Message ID box at Google
Groups.

It isn't absolutely obvious that I found the quote from the message ID
because I quoted said message in my reply?

Just what are we to make of this? You said it... but you didn't
really<gawp> - on top of which you ascribed the use to me. Nobody in their
right mind would expect Intel to help them with an AMD CPU... and yet
that's a reason to mark AMD's product as "incompatible". This is nuts - an
exercise in the absurd.

Are you angling for a position on Firing Line?

Even so, it is just inconceivable to me that you'll never turn
up differences between the two processors that mean that a user
application will work with one and not the other. Badly designed
application? Probably. It's just something that people aren't going
to worry about it if they don't have to.

What utter rubbish - there's as much chance of finding an app which works
with only one version of a P4 and not the other versions... or a P-M or
vice versa. Again you have no evidence so you speculate about things which
might be... and with apparently no first-hand knowledge or experience.
Talk about a definition of FFUD [sic]!

George, this is really very easy. In your view of the world, AMD
processors are going to dominate the market. In my view of the world,
that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Since AMD, at the moment, is
the better deal for almost everyone, there has to be a reason why, in
my view of the world, Intel's dominance will continue. I've stated my
view of the world as clearly as I know how. Buyers favor the dominant
supplier for a whole host of reasons, not all of them peculiar to IT.
The reasons may look irrational, and some of them are irrational, but
the safest bet is to buy from the largest, most stable supplier. The
largest, most stable supplier is Intel. That's true now and far into
the forseeable future. I'm tired of arguing about it.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

It isn't absolutely obvious that I found the quote from the message ID
because I quoted said message in my reply?

Have you been studying law?

Are you angling for a position on Firing Line?

I'm that good?:-[]

Even so, it is just inconceivable to me that you'll never turn
up differences between the two processors that mean that a user
application will work with one and not the other. Badly designed
application? Probably. It's just something that people aren't going
to worry about it if they don't have to.

What utter rubbish - there's as much chance of finding an app which works
with only one version of a P4 and not the other versions... or a P-M or
vice versa. Again you have no evidence so you speculate about things which
might be... and with apparently no first-hand knowledge or experience.
Talk about a definition of FFUD [sic]!

George, this is really very easy. In your view of the world, AMD
processors are going to dominate the market. In my view of the world,
that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Since AMD, at the moment, is
the better deal for almost everyone, there has to be a reason why, in
my view of the world, Intel's dominance will continue. I've stated my
view of the world as clearly as I know how. Buyers favor the dominant
supplier for a whole host of reasons, not all of them peculiar to IT.
The reasons may look irrational, and some of them are irrational, but
the safest bet is to buy from the largest, most stable supplier. The
largest, most stable supplier is Intel. That's true now and far into
the forseeable future. I'm tired of arguing about it.

No - you have it wrong. I do not expect AMD to dominate the market - I
just think they have an even chance of success; ideally from my consumer
POV, there'd be a 50:50 market split just to be sure that neither loses it
completely. Personally I buy the best deal for the $ with possibly a
narrow advantage to the underdog to contribute my bit to the 50:50; others
may see it differently.<shrug>

Apart from the smear aspects of your attacks on AMD, I dispute your
authority to speak for "buyers" in general. There are clearly sectors of
the market, outside the dumping activity, who choose based on performance.
I also am tired of arguing but I will not hesitate to present my view on
the subject again, when provoked.

 

[Robert Myers]

Apart from the smear aspects of your attacks on AMD,

Smear is an ugly word. I just don't have the emotional stake in this
you seem to think I do. Why are you using such emotionally-charged
language?

I dispute your authority to speak for "buyers" in general.

I don't have authority to speak for anyone but myself. All I can do
is to observe. Whether I observe accurately or not has nothing to do
with authority.

There are clearly sectors of
the market, outside the dumping activity, who choose based on performance.

Well, of course there are.

I also am tired of arguing but I will not hesitate to present my view on
the subject again, when provoked.

I certainly hope you will. I've enjoyed most of our exchanges. It's
just that we usually find something more substantive to argue about.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

Smear is an ugly word. I just don't have the emotional stake in this
you seem to think I do. Why are you using such emotionally-charged
language?

You used "smear" for what to me seemed a relatively innocuous

I don't have authority to speak for anyone but myself. All I can do
is to observe. Whether I observe accurately or not has nothing to do
with authority.

OK, so we have agreed to disagree then.

 

[Bill Davidsen]

All the applications I run are 64bit. "Designed", well that's a stretch
of an argument.

More to the point, do any of your applications actually benefit from 64
bit? Outside of the raw performance of the CPU, do you have something
which benefits from the big address space?

Web, news, mail, and DNS servers tend to be many small processes (or
threads) which have a small address space. They run out of i/o before
anything else.

Problem?

Depending on your CPU and o/s, problem. 64 bit compilers are nowhere
near able to extract the best performance from a CPU in many cases.

 

[David Schwartz]

More to the point, do any of your applications actually benefit from 64
bit? Outside of the raw performance of the CPU, do you have something
which benefits from the big address space?

The question is what will people come out with once most of the market
is 64-bit capable? Will they bother to continue to support 32-bits if they
most of the market doesn't need it and there's benefits to using 64-bit
capabilities?

How much 16-bit software is available today? Why? It's not hard to
recompile your code for 16-bits and surely having some more market is better
than not.

A big issue is support and diminishing returns. Why can't you get as
many commercial applications for Irix as for Linux? It's probably just a
little more than a recompile. The point is, another platform means more
testing and more support issues.

DS