Intel top 10 list

[dmcmahon]

1. Force everyone to use inferior and overpriced RDRAM because we invested in this dog.
2. Limit the 815 chipset to only 512M to create an artificial barrier between consumer and server systems.
3. Delay introduction of DDR for Pentiums till 2002, a full year after the rest of the industry adopts it big-time.
4. Blow four unplanned-for years coming out with a 64-bit architecture, allowing Sun Micro to own the server market during the hump of the web infrastructure build-out.
5. Over-charge for high-speed CPUS, each 100 MHz doubles the price beyond an inflection point; knuckle under only when it becomes obvious we're losing market share to AMD.
6. Conspire with recording industry, IBM, and others to push copy-protection into the ATA standard so you won't be able to back up your DVDs; back off when caught by press and watchdog groups.
7. Add processor ID feature to help big brother spy on your computer; back off when caught out by press and watchdog groups.
8. Spend time putting unnecessary features like cheaop graphics into our chipsets instead of supporting DDR or improving system throughput.
9. Spend time managing "investments" in web companies and things like Rambus to hide our flattening earnings during the internet bubble economy.
10. Loose 75% of our stock value in 6 months.

OK, so that was a bit rude and tounge-in-cheek. I'm an Intel stockholder and I love this company, but that doesn't mean I'm blind. Come on, get it together, guys!

 

[kavbear]

I hate intel as much as anyone. I'd say that's a pretty damn good list. You forgot multi-million dollar ad campaign to fool poor schmucks that don't know any better.

Are we there yet?

 

[NickM]

1. I think it's not a bad idea to introduce something new on memory market, like RDRAM. And it's natural when INTEL forces, but not everyone. Not me. It's up to customers to buy or not. I don't see any memory faster then RDRAM in memory benchmarks. And I haven't seen any computer motherboard/system reviews making me to rush for that DDR SDRAM. Whether it matches P-III processor performance is another question. As for DDR, for me it looks like it doesn't show that double-data-rate yet. OK with that. And it's normal in our life to have some alternatives and competition.

2. I found that "only 512M" is more than enough for majority of home and business computer systems. Some tell that they "feel" improvement with more than 256 MB memory installed. But they can't see from Task Manager Performance that their NT4 or Win2K machines are able to utilize that amount of memory even when they open and run simultaneously several graphic, sound transforming, video programs. You can try to run that also, and tell us what you see as the limitation for contemporary hardware and software in this case.
That barrier between consumer and server systems comes out by itself. Do you really believe that it is possible and economically reasonable to manufacture that consumer and server systems on the same base? For example, to have for a home computer up to, say, 24 GB of memory support,with expansion memory boards, dual, four or more channel processor support, etc.?

3. Is DDR SDRAM already an industry standard? Approved for everybody to follow?

4. Sun Micro System doesn't do as good as previously in comparison with Intel.

5. AMD is still far behind. And when you begin to deal with AMD products you begin to see their own weakneses and problems.

6. That's right, I hope there'll be winners with better products that better fit customers' requirements.

7. I can disable this feature, can't I? But I don't care, what I have on my wired PC harddrive isn't interesting even for me. But I think it's good as theft prevention.

8. For thousands (millions around the world) of home, office, governmental, educational PCs that onboard graphics is a very good thing. You can buy a mobo without on-board video. Or disable that feature just by inserting an AGP card. I used to do upgrade for different Intel (and not only) machines back to my former work in a computer depot. Intel-based (CPU & chipset) computers always were and still are good reliable machines. Never got a problem with them. Never faced a message that I got one day on my AMD machine when tried to install one of 1999 software, something like: "Cannot install. Cause: AMD processor."

Good luck with your shares.