This news has made AMD'ers happy

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Seems that for one week this past month, there were more AMD-based desktops
sold than Intel-based.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/hardware/33636.html

For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and only
47% were Intel. Minor, temporary victory? Absolutely. Just a victory in one
geographical market, North America? Sure. Just represents retail sales only?
Yup. Achieved in the middle of an overall bad quarter? Possibly.

But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
never seen it, ever.

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just send mail to above address ;-)
51 answers Last reply
More about this news made happy
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
    news:cTVlc.52265$DrD1.17933@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
    > Seems that for one week this past month, there were more AMD-based
    desktops
    > sold than Intel-based.
    >
    > http://www.technewsworld.com/story/hardware/33636.html
    >
    > For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and only
    > 47% were Intel. Minor, temporary victory? Absolutely. Just a victory in
    one
    > geographical market, North America? Sure. Just represents retail sales
    only?
    > Yup. Achieved in the middle of an overall bad quarter? Possibly.
    >
    > But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
    > never seen it, ever.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >

    Yep, at the present time, AMD sports a better CPU at a lower price so it is
    no wonder they are outselling Intel. Good competition between these two will
    only help the consumer.

    Allan
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <cTVlc.52265$DrD1.17933
    @news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, news.20.bbbl67
    @spamgourmet.com says...
    > Seems that for one week this past month, there were more AMD-based desktops
    > sold than Intel-based.
    >
    > http://www.technewsworld.com/story/hardware/33636.html
    >
    > For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and only
    > 47% were Intel. Minor, temporary victory? Absolutely. Just a victory in one
    > geographical market, North America? Sure. Just represents retail sales only?
    > Yup. Achieved in the middle of an overall bad quarter? Possibly.
    >
    > But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
    > never seen it, ever.

    Bums me out. The prices for AMD widgets has gone up, just when
    I'm about to dive in. Bastards! ;-)

    Serioulsy, I've got the guts picked out, simply thinking about a
    case and a graphics card. Suggestions? Note that the case must
    support SuSE and dual monitors. ;-)

    --
    Keith
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Allan Parent wrote:

    >
    > "Yousuf Khan" <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
    >>
    >> But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
    >> never seen it, ever.
    >>
    >> Yousuf Khan
    >>
    >
    > Yep, at the present time, AMD sports a better CPU at a lower price so it
    > is no wonder they are outselling Intel.

    That and prescott appears to be a flop... I'm sure not selling or even
    sugesting anyone buy P4 systems with things the way they are now.

    --

    Stacey
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
    news:cTVlc.52265$DrD1.17933@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
    > For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and only
    > 47% were Intel. Minor, temporary victory? Absolutely. Just a victory in
    one
    > geographical market, North America? Sure. Just represents retail sales
    only?
    > Yup. Achieved in the middle of an overall bad quarter? Possibly.
    >
    > But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
    > never seen it, ever.

    Yes it has... for an entire month even. I don't see why its such a big
    surprise, AMD has always been strong in retail.
    http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m4PRN/1999_Feb_26/53962027/p1/article.jhtml

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

    > Seems that for one week this past month, there were more AMD-based desktops
    >sold than Intel-based.
    >
    >http://www.technewsworld.com/story/hardware/33636.html

    Umm... That's RETAIL, and ignores business sales and such.

    >For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and only
    >47% were Intel. Minor, temporary victory? Absolutely. Just a victory in one
    >geographical market, North America? Sure. Just represents retail sales only?
    >Yup. Achieved in the middle of an overall bad quarter? Possibly.
    >
    >But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
    >never seen it, ever.

    They didn't outsell Intel.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Allan Parent" <allanp@nospamformecharter.net> wrote:

    >Yep, at the present time, AMD sports a better CPU at a lower price so it is
    >no wonder they are outselling Intel.

    But they didn't.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Suen Lee" <sulee@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
    news:2t0mc.2269$uN4.2260@clgrps12...
    > > But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
    > > never seen it, ever.
    >
    > Yes it has... for an entire month even. I don't see why its such a big
    > surprise, AMD has always been strong in retail.
    >
    http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m4PRN/1999_Feb_26/53962027/p1/article.jhtml
    >
    > The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    Ah, good find.

    Yousuf Khan
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:7mnh90l8g3ak7h8to4htu8b7ms1ji5ldl0@4ax.com...
    > "Yousuf Khan" <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Seems that for one week this past month, there were more AMD-based
    desktops
    > >sold than Intel-based.
    > >
    > >http://www.technewsworld.com/story/hardware/33636.html
    >
    > Umm... That's RETAIL, and ignores business sales and such.
    >
    > >For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and only
    > >47% were Intel. Minor, temporary victory? Absolutely. Just a victory in
    one
    > >geographical market, North America? Sure. Just represents retail sales
    only?
    > >Yup. Achieved in the middle of an overall bad quarter? Possibly.
    > >
    > >But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
    > >never seen it, ever.
    >
    > They didn't outsell Intel.
    >

    Intel still sold over 80% of all CPUs (something like 83%). They killed in
    the notebook market and server markets which have the highest margins.
    Thus, Intel likely profited far more than AMD. It is still a great sign for
    AMD. We'll see what happens this next quarter when Intel ups the ante with
    Grantsdale/Alderwood and a 3.6 GHz part along with Dothan.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 4 May 2004 22:56:09 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

    >In article <cTVlc.52265$DrD1.17933
    >@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, news.20.bbbl67
    >@spamgourmet.com says...
    >> Seems that for one week this past month, there were more AMD-based desktops
    >> sold than Intel-based.
    >>
    >> http://www.technewsworld.com/story/hardware/33636.html
    >>
    >> For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and only
    >> 47% were Intel. Minor, temporary victory? Absolutely. Just a victory in one
    >> geographical market, North America? Sure. Just represents retail sales only?
    >> Yup. Achieved in the middle of an overall bad quarter? Possibly.
    >>
    >> But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
    >> never seen it, ever.
    >
    >Bums me out. The prices for AMD widgets has gone up, just when
    >I'm about to dive in. Bastards! ;-)
    >
    >Serioulsy, I've got the guts picked out, simply thinking about a
    >case and a graphics card. Suggestions? Note that the case must
    >support SuSE and dual monitors. ;-)

    Hmmm, I'm nearly ready to take the toe-dip(?) myself.:-) For a graphics
    card, nVidia has come a long way on the 2D and I'm still nervous about
    previous ATI "driver of the week" syndrome results. For a case, I never
    even bother to look beyond Antec now but choose carefully according to the
    power supply if included - the TruePower ones have a thermistor controlled
    fan in the P/S and special connectors for controlling the case fans off the
    same temp measurement. The Plus AMG cases seem to work fine in our office
    and I'm looking at that or the Lifestyle series Sonata for my home system.
    Of course, all their cases satisfy the AMD design criteria for airflow
    though I'd hope that's true of all the other brands.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <5kqi90hmg5e6mufh9k9dbslujscl63cabk@4ax.com>,
    fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
    > On Tue, 4 May 2004 22:56:09 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <cTVlc.52265$DrD1.17933
    > >@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, news.20.bbbl67
    > >@spamgourmet.com says...
    > >> Seems that for one week this past month, there were more AMD-based desktops
    > >> sold than Intel-based.
    > >>
    > >> http://www.technewsworld.com/story/hardware/33636.html
    > >>
    > >> For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and only
    > >> 47% were Intel. Minor, temporary victory? Absolutely. Just a victory in one
    > >> geographical market, North America? Sure. Just represents retail sales only?
    > >> Yup. Achieved in the middle of an overall bad quarter? Possibly.
    > >>
    > >> But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
    > >> never seen it, ever.
    > >
    > >Bums me out. The prices for AMD widgets has gone up, just when
    > >I'm about to dive in. Bastards! ;-)
    > >
    > >Serioulsy, I've got the guts picked out, simply thinking about a
    > >case and a graphics card. Suggestions? Note that the case must
    > >support SuSE and dual monitors. ;-)
    >
    > Hmmm, I'm nearly ready to take the toe-dip(?) myself.:-) For a graphics
    > card, nVidia has come a long way on the 2D and I'm still nervous about
    > previous ATI "driver of the week" syndrome results.

    Well... Graphics cards look like a big bugaboo. Unless anyone
    can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going safe: Matrox G550.
    I'm really a 2D kinda guy anyway (and dual monitors are a must).

    BTW, my board of choice is the Tyan 2875S and a Opteron 144. I'd
    like to go more, but the CFO has already expanded the budget a
    few times. Going back for even more may get expensive. ;-).

    > For a case, I never
    > even bother to look beyond Antec now but choose carefully according to the
    > power supply if included - the TruePower ones have a thermistor controlled
    > fan in the P/S and special connectors for controlling the case fans off the
    > same temp measurement.

    Ok... How about the SX1040BII:
    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=11-129-
    120&depa=0 (sorry for the split)

    > The Plus AMG cases seem to work fine in our office
    > and I'm looking at that or the Lifestyle series Sonata for my home system.

    The Sonata didn't look all that interesting, though I'm willing
    to be convinced otherwise.

    I'm also 99.44% sure I'm going with SuSE (they've even gotten
    smart and are packaging the 64b version along with the 32b
    package).


    --
    Keith
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1b037c1d2e49a951989813@news1.news.adelphia.net...

    > Well... Graphics cards look like a big bugaboo. Unless anyone
    > can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going safe: Matrox G550.
    > I'm really a 2D kinda guy anyway (and dual monitors are a must).
    >
    > BTW, my board of choice is the Tyan 2875S and a Opteron 144. I'd
    > like to go more, but the CFO has already expanded the budget a
    > few times. Going back for even more may get expensive. ;-).

    Any suggestions on what we should put in our next desktop box for our
    top developers? Our current box has dual 2.4Ghz Xeons on a Tyan i7505
    Thunder (S2665), 4 512Mb ECC DIMMs, a 3Ware 7500-4LP with 4 120Gb Maxtor
    drives. The graphics card is a Matrox Parhelia with two 18" LCD monitors
    (Currently NEC LCD1850X).

    Our plan is tentatively a dual Opteron box with 4 SATA RAID drives,
    probably using a 3Ware controller as well. We're hoping for 4Gb of RAM as
    dual 128-bit memory busses. I've looked at many motherboards and they all
    have large numbers of insane drawbacks. (Who thought it was a good idea to
    connect the onboard gigabit LAN to the legacy 32-bit/33Mhz PCI bus?)

    I'd love suggestions on the graphics card and motherboard especially.
    Also SATA RAID recommendations would be appreciated. Anybody have a gut
    reaction of whether a developer would prefer dual xeons or dual opterons,
    assuming they're not religious.

    DS
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote :


    > http://www.technewsworld.com/story/hardware/33636.html
    >
    > For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and
    > only 47% were Intel.

    I guess DELL is not enough retail for them so it was skipped in the
    counts


    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 04 May 2004 23:42:00 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
    <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
    > Seems that for one week this past month, there were more AMD-based desktops
    >sold than Intel-based.
    >
    >http://www.technewsworld.com/story/hardware/33636.html
    >
    >For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and only
    >47% were Intel. Minor, temporary victory? Absolutely. Just a victory in one
    >geographical market, North America? Sure. Just represents retail sales only?
    >Yup. Achieved in the middle of an overall bad quarter? Possibly.
    >
    >But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
    >never seen it, ever.

    Yes it has, at least in the very narrow market that is defined as
    "retail desktops".

    Note that "retail desktops" only includes something like 15% of the
    world market. Dell need not apply at all, they don't sell into retail
    channels, just mail order. Business desktops don't count either, and
    certainly laptops, workstations and servers aren't counted here. Only
    the Compaq Presarios and eMachines of the world sold at CompUSA, Best
    Buy, etc. Ohh, and this is only in North America, so all in all
    you're looking at a very small portion of the world market.

    As mentioned above, this is NOT the first time this has happened
    either. Back in the K6-2 days and early Athlon days there were times
    when AMD was beating Intel in the North American retail desktop market
    as well. I think they got up to about 60% of this market at their
    peak.

    In short, this story is lots of hot air, very little substance.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

    >Well... Graphics cards look like a big bugaboo. Unless anyone
    >can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going safe: Matrox G550.
    >I'm really a 2D kinda guy anyway (and dual monitors are a must).

    That's what I've bought for my last couple office PC's. Just bought
    one a month ago for my latest. They are kind of annoyingly expensive
    for an "old tech" card, though...
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    David Schwartz wrote:

    > Our plan is tentatively a dual Opteron box with 4 SATA RAID drives,
    > probably using a 3Ware controller as well. We're hoping for 4Gb of
    > RAM as dual 128-bit memory busses. I've looked at many motherboards
    > and they all have large numbers of insane drawbacks. (Who thought
    > it was a good idea to connect the onboard gigabit LAN to the legacy
    > 32-bit/33Mhz PCI bus?)

    http://anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=2004&p=6
    nForce3-250Gb: On-Chip Gigabit LAN
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
    > I'd love suggestions on the graphics card and motherboard especially.

    Continue using Matrox cards, their 2D image quality is excellent. For
    motherboards, I've got good experience with Tyan Thunder K8W. If it's
    too expensive, a Tiger K8W would be cheaper (and mostly as good).

    --
    Bjørn-Ove Heimsund
    Centre for Integrated Petroleum Research
    University of Bergen, Norway
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    > Yes it has, at least in the very narrow market that is defined as
    > "retail desktops".
    >
    > Note that "retail desktops" only includes something like 15% of the
    > world market. Dell need not apply at all, they don't sell into retail
    > channels, just mail order. Business desktops don't count either, and
    > certainly laptops, workstations and servers aren't counted here. Only
    > the Compaq Presarios and eMachines of the world sold at CompUSA, Best
    > Buy, etc. Ohh, and this is only in North America, so all in all
    > you're looking at a very small portion of the world market.

    Which was all mentioned in the original posting.

    > As mentioned above, this is NOT the first time this has happened
    > either. Back in the K6-2 days and early Athlon days there were times
    > when AMD was beating Intel in the North American retail desktop market
    > as well. I think they got up to about 60% of this market at their
    > peak.

    Although at that time, the one difference was that Cyrix was still a strong
    contender, having 15% of the retail NA market. Another difference was that
    back then this was all achieved on the back of a scorched-earth price war
    between the manufacturers. Intel had it's high-end and low-end products, it
    let the low-end participate in the muck against the "cloners" at that time,
    while it continued to rake in profits from the high-end. This time, there's
    no scorched-earth competition going on.

    So there are similarities to 99, but then there are also major differences.

    Yousuf Khan
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Judd wrote:
    > Intel still sold over 80% of all CPUs (something like 83%). They
    > killed in the notebook market and server markets which have the
    > highest margins. Thus, Intel likely profited far more than AMD. It
    > is still a great sign for AMD. We'll see what happens this next
    > quarter when Intel ups the ante with Grantsdale/Alderwood and a 3.6
    > GHz part along with Dothan.

    Actually, I think the overall total for that one particular week was Intel
    sold only 61% of all CPUs, and AMD sold between 37-38% of all CPUs.

    Yousuf Khan
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Thu, 06 May 2004 21:49:59 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
    <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
    >Judd wrote:
    >> Intel still sold over 80% of all CPUs (something like 83%). They
    >> killed in the notebook market and server markets which have the
    >> highest margins. Thus, Intel likely profited far more than AMD. It
    >> is still a great sign for AMD. We'll see what happens this next
    >> quarter when Intel ups the ante with Grantsdale/Alderwood and a 3.6
    >> GHz part along with Dothan.
    >
    >Actually, I think the overall total for that one particular week was Intel
    >sold only 61% of all CPUs, and AMD sold between 37-38% of all CPUs.

    If that is indeed accurate, that would be VERY good news for AMD!
    However I'd be extremely skeptical of that number, that would be more
    than double the amount of chips that AMD was selling just a couple of
    months earlier. If AMD managed even 20% of the total CPU market for
    the week they were doing well, but I'd be surprised if the managed
    anything more.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:0tnl909s48uqfb1aiqpn533s2e2s4cc941@4ax.com...
    > >Actually, I think the overall total for that one particular week was
    Intel
    > >sold only 61% of all CPUs, and AMD sold between 37-38% of all CPUs.
    >
    > If that is indeed accurate, that would be VERY good news for AMD!
    > However I'd be extremely skeptical of that number, that would be more
    > than double the amount of chips that AMD was selling just a couple of
    > months earlier. If AMD managed even 20% of the total CPU market for
    > the week they were doing well, but I'd be surprised if the managed
    > anything more.

    Well, let's remember one thing, these are all figures for a single _week_ of
    production, not an entire month, let alone an entire quarter, let alone an
    entire year. I think AMD can handle an extra large order for a single week
    at the very least. Besides, the article never really suggested whether AMD
    took that extra large share of the week due to much greater demand for its
    products or simply because the overall market just shrank, during that week.
    I suspect that it's mostly that it was a slow week, and AMD didn't slow down
    as much as Intel did.

    Yousuf Khan
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 5 May 2004 23:34:56 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

    >In article <5kqi90hmg5e6mufh9k9dbslujscl63cabk@4ax.com>,
    >fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
    >> On Tue, 4 May 2004 22:56:09 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <cTVlc.52265$DrD1.17933
    >> >@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, news.20.bbbl67
    >> >@spamgourmet.com says...
    >> >> Seems that for one week this past month, there were more AMD-based desktops
    >> >> sold than Intel-based.
    >> >>
    >> >> http://www.technewsworld.com/story/hardware/33636.html
    >> >>
    >> >> For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and only
    >> >> 47% were Intel. Minor, temporary victory? Absolutely. Just a victory in one
    >> >> geographical market, North America? Sure. Just represents retail sales only?
    >> >> Yup. Achieved in the middle of an overall bad quarter? Possibly.
    >> >>
    >> >> But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
    >> >> never seen it, ever.
    >> >
    >> >Bums me out. The prices for AMD widgets has gone up, just when
    >> >I'm about to dive in. Bastards! ;-)
    >> >
    >> >Serioulsy, I've got the guts picked out, simply thinking about a
    >> >case and a graphics card. Suggestions? Note that the case must
    >> >support SuSE and dual monitors. ;-)
    >>
    >> Hmmm, I'm nearly ready to take the toe-dip(?) myself.:-) For a graphics
    >> card, nVidia has come a long way on the 2D and I'm still nervous about
    >> previous ATI "driver of the week" syndrome results.
    >
    >Well... Graphics cards look like a big bugaboo. Unless anyone
    >can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going safe: Matrox G550.
    >I'm really a 2D kinda guy anyway (and dual monitors are a must).

    Yeah I *think* Matrox still has the best 2D, though it's been a long while
    since I bought one - G200... probably still better than even current nVidia
    and ATI for 2D.

    >BTW, my board of choice is the Tyan 2875S and a Opteron 144. I'd
    >like to go more, but the CFO has already expanded the budget a
    >few times. Going back for even more may get expensive. ;-).
    >
    >> For a case, I never
    >> even bother to look beyond Antec now but choose carefully according to the
    >> power supply if included - the TruePower ones have a thermistor controlled
    >> fan in the P/S and special connectors for controlling the case fans off the
    >> same temp measurement.
    >
    >Ok... How about the SX1040BII:
    >http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=11-129-
    >120&depa=0 (sorry for the split)

    In the office, I have a SX840 for a user system and SX1240 (6x5.25 external
    bays) for our server. Those are both older models and beige of course but
    I like them - the swing-out side panels are nice and cable routing is neat:
    I tie-wire the mbrd and rear fan wiring into the flanged bar across the
    upper half of the case and it makes for a clean interior.

    I dunno if the black SX models have as good a finish as the beige, which
    still has baked enamel, but I'd hope so. The 660AMGs we have are nice but
    that grey metallic finish is just regular paint and scratches more easily.
    With two standard rear exhaust fans you shouldn't need any extra fans - not
    sure if those case fans have individual thermistor control or not. The
    SmartPower P/S fan is temp controlled so it should not be noisy unless
    maybe you're "pounding" on it.

    On the SX models we have, you don't have to have those feet sticking out -
    if the standing surface is stable, you can swivel the feet in under the
    case.

    >> The Plus AMG cases seem to work fine in our office
    >> and I'm looking at that or the Lifestyle series Sonata for my home system.
    >
    >The Sonata didn't look all that interesting, though I'm willing
    >to be convinced otherwise.

    I haven't tried it myself but others have made favorable comments.

    >I'm also 99.44% sure I'm going with SuSE (they've even gotten
    >smart and are packaging the 64b version along with the 32b
    >package).

    Sounds like you're gonna have a lot of fun.:-)

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    >
    > Serioulsy, I've got the guts picked out, simply thinking about a
    > case and a graphics card. Suggestions? Note that the case must
    > support SuSE and dual monitors. ;-)

    You mean someone not only makes cases that are OS-dependent
    but they also support dual monitor ;-)
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <c7ccuv$eor$1@nntp.webmaster.com>,
    davids@webmaster.com says...
    >
    > "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1b037c1d2e49a951989813@news1.news.adelphia.net...
    >
    > > Well... Graphics cards look like a big bugaboo. Unless anyone
    > > can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going safe: Matrox G550.
    > > I'm really a 2D kinda guy anyway (and dual monitors are a must).
    > >
    > > BTW, my board of choice is the Tyan 2875S and a Opteron 144. I'd
    > > like to go more, but the CFO has already expanded the budget a
    > > few times. Going back for even more may get expensive. ;-).
    >
    > Any suggestions on what we should put in our next desktop box for our
    > top developers? Our current box has dual 2.4Ghz Xeons on a Tyan i7505
    > Thunder (S2665), 4 512Mb ECC DIMMs, a 3Ware 7500-4LP with 4 120Gb Maxtor
    > drives. The graphics card is a Matrox Parhelia with two 18" LCD monitors
    > (Currently NEC LCD1850X).

    Without knowing your build process, this would be an impossible
    task. If they build on their own systems (ick) you may want to
    give them some peachy-keen latest stuff. If you're doing
    software for the general public, you'll likely want a variety of
    hardware to test/develop on. If you're doing large development,
    you really ought to have a background build system that doesn't'
    rely on the developer's desktop much at all.

    In any case, give them at *least* two 20" monitors in a dual-
    screen setup. If you can afford laptops, do the same. Dual
    screen is a huge benefit to anyone doing development. Flat-
    displays are an incremental bonus.
    >
    > Our plan is tentatively a dual Opteron box with 4 SATA RAID drives,
    > probably using a 3Ware controller as well. We're hoping for 4Gb of RAM as
    > dual 128-bit memory busses. I've looked at many motherboards and they all
    > have large numbers of insane drawbacks. (Who thought it was a good idea to
    > connect the onboard gigabit LAN to the legacy 32-bit/33Mhz PCI bus?)

    I'm assuming all of your developers work independently. If so,
    fine. If they're collaborating, you'd better get a little
    stronger. CVS and background builds are in your future.
    Building software (or hardware in my case) just isn't reasonable
    peace-meal.

    > I'd love suggestions on the graphics card

    So far the Matrox G550 is winning my popularity contest. It has
    the reputation (as all Matro cards) of being a business graphics
    card, and isn't really suitable for 3D. As is designed, so be
    it.

    > and motherboard especially.

    That obviously depends on the processor you choose.

    > Also SATA RAID recommendations would be appreciated.

    Why? What are you going to do for backup? Me thinks you have
    the horsed after the cart.

    > Anybody have a gut
    > reaction of whether a developer would prefer dual xeons or dual opterons,
    > assuming they're not religious.

    This "developer" certainly does. Though I don't do that icky
    "software" stuff. ;-). Indeed if I truly had my choice, well
    nevermind , the CFO would never approve.

    --
    Keith
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <c7djte$k3g$1@toralf.uib.no>, Bjorn-
    Ove.Heimsund@uib.no says...
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
    > > I'd love suggestions on the graphics card and motherboard especially.
    >
    > Continue using Matrox cards, their 2D image quality is excellent. For
    > motherboards, I've got good experience with Tyan Thunder K8W. If it's
    > too expensive, a Tiger K8W would be cheaper (and mostly as good).

    Umm, come again? Did you mean K8W and K8WS? Please tell me the
    difference (other than the obvious). I might just pull the
    trigger tomorrow, certainly by Monday.

    --
    Keith
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <q9dk905prhikt8obv9etu19jku9q8e6v0k@4ax.com>,
    chrisv@nospam.invalid says...
    > KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    >
    > >Well... Graphics cards look like a big bugaboo. Unless anyone
    > >can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going safe: Matrox G550.
    > >I'm really a 2D kinda guy anyway (and dual monitors are a must).
    >
    > That's what I've bought for my last couple office PC's. Just bought
    > one a month ago for my latest. They are kind of annoyingly expensive
    > for an "old tech" card, though...

    Boxed at $109 (newegg) is "expensive"? Perhaps, but...

    --
    Keith
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:
    > Ok... How about the SX1040BII:
    > http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=11-129-
    > 120&depa=0 (sorry for the split)
    >
    > > The Plus AMG cases seem to work fine in our office
    > > and I'm looking at that or the Lifestyle series Sonata for my home system.
    >
    > The Sonata didn't look all that interesting, though I'm willing
    > to be convinced otherwise.

    I have both a 1040 and a Sonata sitting beside each other. The Sonata
    is *much* quieter. The rubber-grommet disk mounts are also a nice
    touch for disks that have noisy arms. (The quiet disks with a ramped
    voltage to the disk arm are getting hard to find. It appears that
    some company managed to patent the idea of not whacking the arm
    solenoid with a square wave.)

    (Asus k8v-se-d, 2Ghz Athlon64 3200, Matrox g550, Seagate Barracuda
    80g, Sonata case, Openbsd)

    -wolfgang
    --
    Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes:
    > KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    > >Well... Graphics cards look like a big bugaboo. Unless anyone
    > >can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going safe: Matrox G550.
    > >I'm really a 2D kinda guy anyway (and dual monitors are a must).
    >
    > That's what I've bought for my last couple office PC's. Just bought
    > one a month ago for my latest. They are kind of annoyingly expensive
    > for an "old tech" card, though...

    I'd have loved to have gotten a P650, but Matrox hasn't released the
    programming info for the card. The card worthless for open source
    OS's. For a company on the skids, you'd think Matrox would be doing a
    bit more to develop new markets.

    -wolfgang
    --
    Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    KR Williams wrote:

    > In article <c7djte$k3g$1@toralf.uib.no>, Bjorn-
    > Ove.Heimsund@uib.no says...
    >
    >>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'd love suggestions on the graphics card and motherboard especially.
    >>
    >>Continue using Matrox cards, their 2D image quality is excellent. For
    >>motherboards, I've got good experience with Tyan Thunder K8W. If it's
    >>too expensive, a Tiger K8W would be cheaper (and mostly as good).
    >
    >
    > Umm, come again? Did you mean K8W and K8WS? Please tell me the
    > difference (other than the obvious). I might just pull the
    > trigger tomorrow, certainly by Monday.
    >

    Thunder K8W is the S2885.
    Tiger K8W is the S2875.

    The biggest differences are
    - S2885 has eight DIMM slots - 4 per cpu - while the
    S2875 has four DIMM slots, all on CPU0.
    - S2885 has 4 PCI-X slots, S2875 has none.
    - S2885 has dual Gb Ethernet, S2875 has one.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    KR Williams wrote:
    >
    > Final toy = Tyan 2875, Opteron 144 (1.8GHz), Matrox G550, Antec
    > 1040, SuSE, and a disk drive to be named later (in the mean time
    > an IBM DeskStar, likely the old 37GB, promoted from this system).
    >

    Dang! If I'd known you needed a G550 I could have sent you
    one a couple of weeks ago for $13 (Canadian) - price of a
    couple of 30 oz "schooners" at my favourite pub - which is
    what I got for it last week.

    Not that I'm terribly impressed by my "upgrade" to a P650.
    No noticeable change for the kinds of things I do except on
    those rare occasions when I go above 1280 x 1024. The P650
    *is* much better at 1600 x 1200. But what the heck, the
    price was right: free from someone who wanted to switch to
    a better gaming card.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <qu3m90dsnkmjltqgq3cc6g241sm3l6bjhh@4ax.com>,
    fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
    >
    > Sounds like you're gonna have a lot of fun.:-)

    Yeah, I ordered all the bits yesterday. I have a week off at the
    end of the month. I figured I'd have some fun then, inbetween
    painting (Ugh!).

    --
    Keith
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <109oin3hfi7522@corp.supernews.com>,
    rob.stow@sasktel.net says...
    > KR Williams wrote:
    >
    > > In article <c7djte$k3g$1@toralf.uib.no>, Bjorn-
    > > Ove.Heimsund@uib.no says...
    > >
    > >>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> I'd love suggestions on the graphics card and motherboard especially.
    > >>
    > >>Continue using Matrox cards, their 2D image quality is excellent. For
    > >>motherboards, I've got good experience with Tyan Thunder K8W. If it's
    > >>too expensive, a Tiger K8W would be cheaper (and mostly as good).
    > >
    > >
    > > Umm, come again? Did you mean K8W and K8WS? Please tell me the
    > > difference (other than the obvious). I might just pull the
    > > trigger tomorrow, certainly by Monday.
    > >
    >
    > Thunder K8W is the S2885.
    > Tiger K8W is the S2875.

    Ah, yes. My eyes generally skip right over the "cutesy" names,
    particularly Tyan's since they recycle the names so often. Naming
    two entirely different boards the "K8W was stupid, as well. (I
    know the cutesy names are supposed to reflect/differentiate the
    desktop/workstation/server "markets".)

    > The biggest differences are
    > - S2885 has eight DIMM slots - 4 per cpu - while the
    > S2875 has four DIMM slots, all on CPU0.
    > - S2885 has 4 PCI-X slots, S2875 has none.
    > - S2885 has dual Gb Ethernet, S2875 has one.

    Yes, now that I see the Tiger/Thunder in there I realize the
    difference. The 2885 was *way* out of the range the CFO put on
    this transaction. I ended up going with the 2875S (single
    processor 2875).

    --
    Keith
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <109nnt0khq3dd63@corp.supernews.com>,
    rob.stow@sasktel.net says...
    > >
    > > Serioulsy, I've got the guts picked out, simply thinking about a
    > > case and a graphics card. Suggestions? Note that the case must
    > > support SuSE and dual monitors. ;-)
    >
    > You mean someone not only makes cases that are OS-dependent
    > but they also support dual monitor ;-)

    ....just seeing who's sleeping. ;-)

    --
    Keith
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <109q1lrhbe4hub7@corp.supernews.com>,
    rob.stow@sasktel.net says...
    > KR Williams wrote:
    > >
    > > Final toy = Tyan 2875, Opteron 144 (1.8GHz), Matrox G550, Antec
    > > 1040, SuSE, and a disk drive to be named later (in the mean time
    > > an IBM DeskStar, likely the old 37GB, promoted from this system).
    > >
    >
    > Dang! If I'd known you needed a G550 I could have sent you
    > one a couple of weeks ago for $13 (Canadian) - price of a
    > couple of 30 oz "schooners" at my favourite pub - which is
    > what I got for it last week.

    Oh, well. ...woulda bought the night! ;-)

    > Not that I'm terribly impressed by my "upgrade" to a P650.
    > No noticeable change for the kinds of things I do except on
    > those rare occasions when I go above 1280 x 1024. The P650
    > *is* much better at 1600 x 1200. But what the heck, the
    > price was right: free from someone who wanted to switch to
    > a better gaming card.

    Gee, and to think I run 1600x1200 on an ancient Matrox Mystique
    on my laptop at work. :-| Come to think of it, I think (Start->
    Settings->Control Panel->Display->Settings, yup!) this system has
    a Mystique in it too (at 1280x1024). Perhaps I'll notice the
    difference with the G550? ;-)

    Oh, and I forgot the display on the new toy: ViewSonic P95f-b,
    which I got an *excellent* deal on. My IBM G94 will move over to
    secondary, once I get everything running (and teach the CFO how
    to navigate Linux). I'll likely put a KVM on it so I can keep
    this system for the WinCrap (like the digital camera).

    --
    Keith
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <bpnh90lup1s0ule8ai95qb9kmsoimkq6a8@4ax.com>, chrisv@nospam.invalid
    says...
    > "Allan Parent" <allanp@nospamformecharter.net> wrote:
    >
    > >Yep, at the present time, AMD sports a better CPU at a lower price so it is
    > >no wonder they are outselling Intel.
    >
    > But they didn't.
    >
    >
    Who cares..AMD sports the 64 and intel sports a 32,everything AMD does now will
    be gravy to an already advanced process,that's about as future-proof as you can
    get today IMO..I just wish I could afford the AMD FX.
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1b037c1d2e49a951989813@news1.news.adelphia.net>, krw@att.biz
    says...
    > Well... Graphics cards look like a big bugaboo. Unless anyone
    > can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going safe: Matrox G550.
    > I'm really a 2D kinda guy anyway (and dual monitors are a must).
    >
    >
    >
    For what the Matrox does it is the best and they seem to stay on the same track
    they layed several years ago only refining an already great product with top-notch
    support.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <x74qqs56iv.fsf@bonnet.wsrcc.com>,
    wolfgang+gnus20040507T132039@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com says...
    > I'd have loved to have gotten a P650, but Matrox hasn't released the
    > programming info for the card. The card worthless for open source
    > OS's. For a company on the skids, you'd think Matrox would be doing a
    > bit more to develop new markets.
    >
    >
    They certainly are not on the skids..they have a very solid market base
    with developers and people who want and need high quality 2D with full
    multi-monitor support.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    KR Williams wrote:

    > In article <5kqi90hmg5e6mvfh9k9dbslvjscl63cabk@4ax.com>,
    > fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellvrian.com says...
    >
    >>On Tve, 4 May 2004 22:56:09 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In article <cTVlc.52265$DrD1.17933
    >>>@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, news.20.bbbl67
    >>>@spamgovrmet.com says...
    >>>
    >>>> Seems that for one week this past month, there were more AMD-based desktops
    >>>>sold than Intel-based.
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.technewsworld.com/story/hardware/33636.html
    >>>>
    >>>>For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and only
    >>>>47% were Intel. Minor, temporary victory? Absolvtely. Jvst a victory in one
    >>>>geographical market, North America? Svre. Jvst represents retail sales only?
    >>>>Yvp. Achieved in the middle of an overall bad qvarter? Possibly.
    >>>>
    >>>>Bvt has this sitvation ever arisen before, where AMD ovtsold Intel? I've
    >>>>never seen it, ever.
    >>>
    >>>Bvms me ovt. The prices for AMD widgets has gone vp, jvst when
    >>>I'm abovt to dive in. Bastards! ;-)
    >>>
    >>>Seriovlsy, I've got the gvts picked ovt, simply thinking abovt a
    >>>case and a graphics card. Svggestions? Note that the case mvst
    >>>svpport SvSE and dval monitors. ;-)
    >>
    >>Hmmm, I'm nearly ready to take the toe-dip(?) myself.:-) For a graphics
    >>card, nVidia has come a long way on the 2D and I'm still nervovs abovt
    >>previovs ATI "driver of the week" syndrome resvlts.
    >
    >
    > Well... Graphics cards look like a big bvgaboo. Unless anyone
    > can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going safe: Matrox G550.
    > I'm really a 2D kinda gvy anyway (and dval monitors are a mvst).


    Had a Millinivm yrs ago. good company.

    Have a g-force2mx now - (nvidia) - also good prodvct.


    Yov shovld consider Nvidia - for the reasons the other poster said -
    good drivers for Linvx. ATI neglects Linvx.

    I jvst bovght a Nvidia 5700 LE with 256meg vid ram/TV-ovt/DVI/dval
    monitor svpport.................all for 120 bvcks after rebate. (bvt
    hvrry one of the two rebates end in a few days).

    I plan to vse it in my new PC I'm bvilding vsing a 30-bvck Athlon1800XP,
    and 1-gig ram. Yes I do not bvild arovnd the CPU - I find the CPU is the
    less important things to concider in the real word. MONITOR, then RAM
    and vid card are the most important, followed by Harddrive. IMO.


    I ignore sovnd and vse the on board myself.

    here is the link to the vid card:


    http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=716809&Skv=P450-8511


    > I'm also 99.44% svre I'm going with SvSE (they've even gotten
    > smart and are packaging the 64b version along with the 32b
    > package).
    >
    >

    I like SvSe.


    --
    http://baltimorechronicle.com/041704reTreason.shtml

    http://www.trvthinaction.net/iraq/illegaljayne.htm

    "Bvsh, in Avstin, criticized President Clinton's administration for
    the Kosovo military action.'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important
    for the president to explain to vs what the exit strategy is,' Bvsh said."
    Hovston Chronicle 4/9/99

    "The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem
    of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along vntil there's a major
    incident and then svddenly say, 'Oh my God, shovldn't we be organized
    to deal with this?'"
    - Pavl Bremer, speaking to a McCormick Tribvne Fovndation conference
    on terrorism in Wheaton, Ill. on Feb. 26, 2001.

    "On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to vse
    his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hvssein's regime
    the "aim of American foreign policy" and to vse military action becavse
    "diplomacy is failing." Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they
    wovld "offer ovr fvll svpport in this difficvlt bvt necessary endeavor."
    Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert
    Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Pavl Wolfowitz. Fovr years before
    9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds."
    -philip (vsenet)

    "I had better things to do in the 60s than fight in Vietnam,"
    -Richard Cheney, Kerry critic.

    "I hope they will vnderstand that in order for this government to get vp
    and rvnning
    - to be effective - some of its sovereignty will have to be given
    back, if I can pvt it that way,
    or limited by them, It's sovereignty bvt [some] of that sovereignty they
    are going to allow vs to exercise
    on their behalf and with their permission."
    - Powell 4/27/04

    "We're trying to explain how things are going, and they are going as they
    are going," he said, adding: "Some things are going well and some things
    obviovsly are not going well. Yov're going to have good days and bad days."
    On the road to democracy, this "is one moment, and there will be other
    moments. And there will be good moments and there will be less good
    moments."
    - Rvmsfeld 4/6/04


    RUSSERT: Are yov prepared to lose?

    BUSH: No, I'm not going to lose.

    RUSSERT: If yov did, what wovld yov do?

    BUSH: Well, I don't plan on losing. I've got a vision for what I want to
    do for the covntry.
    See, I know exactly where I want to lead.................And we got
    changing times
    here in America, too., 2/8/04


    "And that's very important for, I think, the people to vnderstand where
    I'm coming from,
    to know that this is a dangerovs world. I wish it wasn't. I'm a war
    president.
    I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with
    war on my mind.
    - pResident of the United State of America, 2/8/04


    "Let's talk abovt the nvclear proposition for a minvte. We know that
    based on intelligence, that he has been very, very good at hiding
    these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know
    he has been absolvtely devoted to trying to acqvire nvclear weapons.
    And we believe he has, in fact, reconstitvted nvclear weapons."
    - Vice President Dick Cheney, on "Meet the Press", 3/16/03


    "I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the
    Iraqis had nvclear weapons."
    - Defense Secretary Donald Rvmsfeld, 6/24/03


    "I think in this case international law
    stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)."
    - Richard Perle


    "He (Saddam Hvssein) has not developed any significant capability with
    respect to weapons of mass destrvction. He is vnable to project
    conventional power against his neighbovrs."
    - Colin Powell Febrvary 24 2001


    "We have been svccessfvl for the last ten years in keeping
    him from developing those weapons and we will continve to be svccessfvl."

    "He threatens not the United States."

    "Bvt I also thovght that we had pretty
    mvch removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."

    'Bvt what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place
    for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of
    keeping him from breaking ovt and svddenly showing vp one day and saying
    "look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.'
    - Colin Powell Febrvary 26 2001
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <CWync.8740$6D.6860@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
    gaffo@usenet.net says...
    > KR Williams wrote:
    >
    > > In article <5kqi90hmg5e6mufh9k9dbslujscl63cabk@4ax.com>,
    > > fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
    > >
    > >>On Tue, 4 May 2004 22:56:09 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>In article <cTVlc.52265$DrD1.17933
    > >>>@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, news.20.bbbl67
    > >>>@spamgourmet.com says...
    > >>>
    > >>>> Seems that for one week this past month, there were more AMD-based desktops
    > >>>>sold than Intel-based.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>http://www.technewsworld.com/story/hardware/33636.html
    > >>>>
    > >>>>For the week ending April 24th, 52% of retail desktops were AMD, and only
    > >>>>47% were Intel. Minor, temporary victory? Absolutely. Just a victory in one
    > >>>>geographical market, North America? Sure. Just represents retail sales only?
    > >>>>Yup. Achieved in the middle of an overall bad quarter? Possibly.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>But has this situation ever arisen before, where AMD outsold Intel? I've
    > >>>>never seen it, ever.
    > >>>
    > >>>Bums me out. The prices for AMD widgets has gone up, just when
    > >>>I'm about to dive in. Bastards! ;-)
    > >>>
    > >>>Serioulsy, I've got the guts picked out, simply thinking about a
    > >>>case and a graphics card. Suggestions? Note that the case must
    > >>>support SuSE and dual monitors. ;-)
    > >>
    > >>Hmmm, I'm nearly ready to take the toe-dip(?) myself.:-) For a graphics
    > >>card, nVidia has come a long way on the 2D and I'm still nervous about
    > >>previous ATI "driver of the week" syndrome results.
    > >
    > >
    > > Well... Graphics cards look like a big bugaboo. Unless anyone
    > > can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going safe: Matrox G550.
    > > I'm really a 2D kinda guy anyway (and dual monitors are a must).
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Had a Millinium yrs ago. good company.

    My Mystiques (cheap Milleniums) have served me fairly well. I'm
    not about to try to bring 'em forward to a new system.
    >
    > Have a g-force2mx now - (nvidia) - also good product.
    >
    >
    > You should consider Nvidia - for the reasons the other poster said -
    > good drivers for Linux. ATI neglects Linux.
    >
    > I just bought a Nvidia 5700 LE with 256meg vid ram/TV-out/DVI/dual
    > monitor support.................all for 120 bucks after rebate. (but
    > hurry one of the two rebates end in a few days).

    The 5700 was interesting, but for a reason I'm really not going
    to go into here. The issue I had was 2D quality and dual analog
    monitor support. I couldn't get a straight answer out of anyone.

    > I plan to use it in my new PC I'm building using a 30-buck Athlon1800XP,
    > and 1-gig ram. Yes I do not build around the CPU - I find the CPU is the
    > less important things to concider in the real word.

    ....depends on intent.

    > MONITOR,

    Sure, but the budget didn't allow a few 22" LCDs. ;-)

    > then RAM

    Perhaps. I did go cheap here (512MB). Memory is expensive these
    days.

    > and vid card are the most important,

    Which is why I went with the known; Matrox.

    > followed by Harddrive. IMO.

    I'd move the hard-drive up on the list. However, I'm going to
    recycle one out of this system for now. I'm sure I'll tear down
    the new system (I've never used Linux, but am no stranger to *IX)
    many times before I settle in. I'll buy a new drive or two
    (RAID-1, perhaps) when I settle in.

    > I ignore sound and use the on board myself.

    My plan.

    > here is the link to the vid card:


    > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=716809&Sku=P450-8511

    Tiger-direct? Gack.
    >
    > > I'm also 99.44% sure I'm going with SuSE (they've even gotten
    > > smart and are packaging the 64b version along with the 32b
    > > package).
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I like SuSe.

    I've been looking around some. Since Novel bought SuSE, I like
    the package *and* the politics. SuSE 9.1 looks like a very nice
    package, and I'm willing to vote with a small amount of change.

    My adoption of Win2K (my only M$ OS) was in interim solution.
    When I picked it up it was only a bridge to Linux. We'll see how
    smoothly it goes (and how the CFO gets along).

    --
    Keith

    --
    Keith
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    justin credible <courtjust@vpn.org> writes:
    > In article <x74qqs56iv.fsf@bonnet.wsrcc.com>,
    > wolfgang+gnus20040507T132039@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com says...
    > > I'd have loved to have gotten a P650, but Matrox hasn't released the
    > > programming info for the card. The card worthless for open source
    > > OS's. For a company on the skids, you'd think Matrox would be doing a
    > > bit more to develop new markets.
    > >
    > >
    > They certainly are not on the skids..they have a very solid market base
    > with developers and people who want and need high quality 2D with full
    > multi-monitor support.

    http://www.hoovers.com/matrox-electronic-systems/--ID__43203--/free-co-fin-factsheet.xhtml
    http://www.hoovers.com/matrox-electronic-systems/--ID__43203--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml

    Matrox Electronic Systems Ltd.
    1055 St. Regis Blvd.
    Dorval, Quebec H9P 2T4, Canada
    Phone: 514-822-6000
    Fax: 514-822-6292

    http://www.matrox.com
    Basic Financial Information
    Company Type Private
    Fiscal Year-End March
    Financial Overview
    2003 2002 2001 2000
    Annual Sales ($ mil.) 89.4 106.2 147.1 500.0 (est.)

    Key Numbers
    Company Type Private


    Fiscal Year-End March
    2003 Sales (mil.) $89.4
    1-Year Sales Growth (15.8%)
    2003 Employees 1,000
    1-Year Employee Growth (31.0%)
    More Financials
    Key People
    Chairman Branko Matic

    Job Openings
    President Lorne Trottier
    Controller Brian Bertram

    Sliding from $500 million to $90 million in 3 years doesn't sound like
    a vibrant company with a growing market share to me. The 1/3
    staff-reduction doesn't look so hot either.

    I don't know any open source developers that are working with the new
    Matrox cards since Matrox isn't releasing any programming information.
    Their choice of course, but it seems strange that they would want to
    pass up a large market like X11 users, which for the most part, are
    only interested in 2D performance.

    -wolfgang
    --
    Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:
    > In article <x78yg456s4.fsf@bonnet.wsrcc.com>,
    > wolfgang+gnus20040507T131207@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com
    > says...
    > > The rubber-grommet disk mounts are also a nice
    > > touch for disks that have noisy arms. (The quiet disks with a ramped
    > > voltage to the disk arm are getting hard to find. It appears that
    > > some company managed to patent the idea of not whacking the arm
    > > solenoid with a square wave.)
    >
    > I didn't think any drives rapped the voice-coil with a square
    > wave. I thought the waveforms were quite complex (initial whack,
    > sustain, tail), with the energy driven in each phase depending on
    > the distance of the move. At least that's sorta the results I
    > got from looking at the performance characteristics of various
    > drives five or six years ago (time flies).

    I was talking more tongue-in-cheek. I was trying to say was that the
    current ATA Seagate Barracudas whack the arm pretty hard and the disk
    voices it's objection rather loudly. The rubber disk mounting
    grommets on the Sonata's drive caddy definitely makes a difference in
    the amount of arm seeking noise that gets coupled to the case. (The
    1-year old Barracudas still had an optional quiet seek mode where the
    firmware was quite a bit nicer to the arm, but alas, that mode no
    longer exists at least on Seagate's due to legal problems.)

    -wolfgang
    --
    Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <x7pt9bdfbp.fsf@bonnet.wsrcc.com>,
    wolfgang+gnus20040510T160404@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com
    says...
    >
    > KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:
    > > In article <x78yg456s4.fsf@bonnet.wsrcc.com>,
    > > wolfgang+gnus20040507T131207@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com
    > > says...
    > > > The rubber-grommet disk mounts are also a nice
    > > > touch for disks that have noisy arms. (The quiet disks with a ramped
    > > > voltage to the disk arm are getting hard to find. It appears that
    > > > some company managed to patent the idea of not whacking the arm
    > > > solenoid with a square wave.)
    > >
    > > I didn't think any drives rapped the voice-coil with a square
    > > wave. I thought the waveforms were quite complex (initial whack,
    > > sustain, tail), with the energy driven in each phase depending on
    > > the distance of the move. At least that's sorta the results I
    > > got from looking at the performance characteristics of various
    > > drives five or six years ago (time flies).
    >
    > I was talking more tongue-in-cheek. I was trying to say was that the
    > current ATA Seagate Barracudas whack the arm pretty hard and the disk
    > voices it's objection rather loudly.

    Ok, I took it literally. Thouhg to get performance out of the
    drive one has to rap the voice-coil rather hard (inertia and all
    that).

    > The rubber disk mounting
    > grommets on the Sonata's drive caddy definitely makes a difference in
    > the amount of arm seeking noise that gets coupled to the case. (The
    > 1-year old Barracudas still had an optional quiet seek mode where the
    > firmware was quite a bit nicer to the arm, but alas, that mode no
    > longer exists at least on Seagate's due to legal problems.)

    Really? Do you have a reference for this? I know many drives,
    from long ago, had performance options built-in, and could be
    selected it one had the right tools. SCSI drives often exposed
    these options to the user.

    --
    Keith
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:
    > Really? Do you have a reference for this? I know many drives,
    > from long ago, had performance options built-in, and could be
    > selected it one had the right tools. SCSI drives often exposed
    > these options to the user.

    Here you go.


    http://www.convolve.com/pr2000-7-12a.html

    BILLER COMMUNICATIONS
    310 West 94th Street
    New York, New York 10025
    E-mail: abiller@BillerPR.com

    *NEWS* NEWS* NEWS* NEWS* NEWS* NEWS* NEWS* NEWS*

    CONTACT: Aaron G. Biller
    212-663-9319

    COMPAQ AND SEAGATE SUED FOR $800 MILLION CHARGED WITH PATENT
    INFRINGEMENT, FRAUD, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

    NEW YORK CITY (July 13, 2000)--- Convolve Inc. announced that it
    and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), as obligated
    through its license agreement with Convolve, filed a lawsuit today
    against Compaq Computer Corp. and Seagate Technology Inc. in the
    U.S. District Court Southern District of New York seeking "to
    prevent Compaq and Seagate from stealing Convolve's proprietary
    computer disk drive technology".

    Convolve is seeking at least $800 million in damages and seeks a
    permanent injunction barring Compaq and Seagate from manufacturing
    or selling disk drives or computers incorporating Seagate's "Sound
    Barrier Technology" (SBT) feature.

    Convolve is the exclusive licensee of patented motion control
    technology called Input Shaping®, originally developed at and
    licensed from MIT. This technology would permit the roughly 200
    million disk drives sold this year in computers to operate more
    quickly and quietly than currently possible. Convolve's core
    vibration reduction technology is used by many large companies for
    making manufacturing machines more productive.

    Input Shaping® is currently used commercially by manufacturers of
    high precision machinery. The technology has also been
    demonstrated on NASA's Space Shuttle robot arm training facility,
    has flown in space on a payload aboard a NASA Space Shuttle, and
    is used on the controls of a nuclear materials handling crane at
    Argonne National Laboratories.

    Input Shaping® technology is a method for commanding equipment to
    move as quickly as possible without excitation of vibrations. In a
    disk drive application, Input Shaping® control of the read/write
    arm permits the fastest and quietest performance by reducing the
    vibrations that are generated at the end of the "seek" or the
    movement of the arm between tracks on the disk. Information can't
    be written or read by the computer until the arm settles (stops
    vibrating). These same vibrations are also responsible for much of
    the noise generated by computers.

    According to the complaint, "For more than a year, beginning in
    October 1998, Convolve held discussions with and gave
    demonstrations for engineers and executives of both Compaq and
    Seagate for the purpose of licensing their technologies to these
    two companies."

    Both Compaq and Seagate had signed non-disclosure agreements (NDA)
    not to use this proprietary technology to develop competing
    products.

    In addition, Convolve also has developed and has both domestic and
    foreign patents pending for an innovative computer control panel
    feature called "Quick and Quiet(tm)" which allows the user of the
    disk drive to select between faster or quieter computer
    performance. The Quick and Quiet(tm) technology is also the
    subject of the complaint against Compaq and Seagate. The action
    filed in Federal court alleges that the computer giant and its
    disk drive supplier misappropriated Convolve's technology.

    In 1989, Neil Singer, PhD, and Ken Pasch, PhD along with MIT
    professor Warren Seering invented the technology under a
    government grant to perfect a vibration control technology in
    computer controlled machines. The results of this research have
    been applied in a number of applications from large gantry cranes
    to microscopic MEMS based devices. In 1989, Dr. Singer formed
    Convolve, a privately-held company based in New York City.

    For more information on Convolve visit www.convolve.com.

    ========

    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=bvtcic%24103h7p%241%40ID-22908.news.uni-berlin.de

    From: DiscSupport@seagate.com
    To: martinkaufmann@yahoo.com
    Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 02:52:09 -0600

    Hello:

    Seagate has decided that we will no longer support AAM. Seagate is in
    the process of removing all product information pertaining to the
    support of AAM.

    Our drives are extremely quiet while operating at the highest
    performance levels, so we believe the ability to switch between Modes is
    unnecessary, though supported by ATA specifications.

    We are also involved in patent litigation with Convolve and MIT.
    Although we believe the lawsuit is without merit, Convolve alleges that
    one of its patents, US Patent No. 6,314,473, covers AAM technology.

    We understand that Convolve told the T-13 standards committee that it
    would license its patents on a reasonable, non-discriminatory basis.

    If you want a utility that will switch AAM modes you must procure it
    from a third party. Seagate cannot make any recommendations as to what
    third party utility you choose to use, nor do we in any way support the
    utilities. However you can perform an Internet search for Automatic
    Acoustic Management and select from the available 3rd party

    If you have further questions, please contact us.

    Regards,

    Jeremy W.
    Seagate Technical Support


    --
    Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 08 May 2004 12:21:51 -0600, Rob Stow wrote:

    > I think I skipped over the Mystiques - I went straight from Millenium I
    > and II to G400, G550, and now P650. IIRC, the Mystique was a low-end
    > G200 series card ?

    The G200 had Millenium and Mystique models - the Mystique being slighter
    slower memory and RAMDAC or something like that.

    Earlier on the Mystique was a cheaper 'gaming' version of the Millenium
    II. Also had lower specced RAMDAC and memory I think.

    Cheers
    Anton
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <pan.2004.05.10.22.32.25.408817@privacy.net>,
    me@privacy.net says...
    > On Sat, 08 May 2004 12:21:51 -0600, Rob Stow wrote:
    >
    > > I think I skipped over the Mystiques - I went straight from Millenium I
    > > and II to G400, G550, and now P650. IIRC, the Mystique was a low-end
    > > G200 series card ?
    >
    > The G200 had Millenium and Mystique models - the Mystique being slighter
    > slower memory and RAMDAC or something like that.
    >
    > Earlier on the Mystique was a cheaper 'gaming' version of the Millenium
    > II. Also had lower specced RAMDAC and memory I think.

    That makes some sense, but I thought the G200 was a follow-on to
    the Millenium. I remember wanting to buy one when they came out,
    but the Mystiqus were doing an adequate job.

    --
    Keith
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Mon, 10 May 2004 22:17:22 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    >In article <pan.2004.05.10.22.32.25.408817@privacy.net>,
    >me@privacy.net says...
    >> On Sat, 08 May 2004 12:21:51 -0600, Rob Stow wrote:
    >> The G200 had Millenium and Mystique models - the Mystique being slighter
    >> slower memory and RAMDAC or something like that.
    >>
    >> Earlier on the Mystique was a cheaper 'gaming' version of the Millenium
    >> II. Also had lower specced RAMDAC and memory I think.
    >
    >That makes some sense, but I thought the G200 was a follow-on to
    >the Millenium. I remember wanting to buy one when they came out,
    >but the Mystiqus were doing an adequate job.

    The G200 was a follow-up to the Millennium, more or less. But like
    with the original Mystique, which was a cheapened version of the old
    Millennium II, there was also a G200 Mystique. Pretty much the same
    idea.

    I actually had one of those G200 Mystique cards a while back. Not a
    bad card, though nothing particularly great. Bought it to replace an
    old Millennium. While the G200 Mystique added a bit of 3D
    capabilities, it certainly didn't impress me much. 2D image quality
    was good, though I was using a cheap 15" monitor back in those days,
    so I didn't benefit from it. I later replaced it with a TNT m64
    (el-cheapo version of the original nVidia TNT chipset), and the 2D was
    slightly worse, even on my 15" monitor, but performance (2D and 3D)
    was MUCH better. I then bought a GeForce2 MX card, and that brought
    the 2D image quality up to a very acceptable level on my monitor
    (decent quality 17" at that point in time) and better 3D performance.
    Now I've got an nForce motherboard with integrated graphics, which is
    basically identical to the GeForce2 MX (so much so that I just yanked
    the old card and gave it to a friend).

    One thing of note: while the chipset does play a role in 2D image
    quality, there are a lot of other features that come into play here.
    It's very possible to get an nVidia video card with good 2D image
    quality and another card from a different company but using the exact
    same nVidia chipset but having poor 2D image quality.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <x7u0yn1l6s.fsf@bonnet.wsrcc.com>,
    wolfgang+gnus20040511T001427@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com
    says...
    >
    > KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:
    > > Really? Do you have a reference for this? I know many drives,
    > > from long ago, had performance options built-in, and could be
    > > selected it one had the right tools. SCSI drives often exposed
    > > these options to the user.
    >
    > Here you go.

    Thanks for the reference. I pulled the patent and read it today
    (53 pages!, which tells one something ;-). The patent, as the
    article suggests, is all about user/machine-interfaces to control
    noise of disk drives. It has *nothing* to do with the way the
    heads are driven to optimize noise or performance! There are
    references on how to calculate head movement, but these aren't
    even claimed!

    Indeed I don't see how this patent will stand because of the
    dates (filed in 1999, issued in 2001). Certainly control of disk
    performance via drive parameters was known *long* before 1999
    (SCSI drives have had many performance selection "pages"
    available for "users" to tune systems). They *may* have
    something to defend (though I doubt it) on a specific user-
    interface, since that's really all they talk about in their
    claims. Note that the claimants are pulling the UI from their
    offering, but not the drives.

    In short, this seems to be much about nothing. ...and certainly
    doesn't support your claim about driving voice-coils with a
    "square-wave". Indeed that's nonsense.

    --
    Keith

    ==========================================

    >
    > http://www.convolve.com/pr2000-7-12a.html
    >
    > BILLER COMMUNICATIONS
    > 310 West 94th Street
    > New York, New York 10025
    > E-mail: abiller@BillerPR.com
    >
    > *NEWS* NEWS* NEWS* NEWS* NEWS* NEWS* NEWS* NEWS*
    >
    > CONTACT: Aaron G. Biller
    > 212-663-9319
    >
    > COMPAQ AND SEAGATE SUED FOR $800 MILLION CHARGED WITH PATENT
    > INFRINGEMENT, FRAUD, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND BREACH OF CONTRACT
    >
    > NEW YORK CITY (July 13, 2000)--- Convolve Inc. announced that it
    > and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), as obligated
    > through its license agreement with Convolve, filed a lawsuit today
    > against Compaq Computer Corp. and Seagate Technology Inc. in the
    > U.S. District Court Southern District of New York seeking "to
    > prevent Compaq and Seagate from stealing Convolve's proprietary
    > computer disk drive technology".
    >
    > Convolve is seeking at least $800 million in damages and seeks a
    > permanent injunction barring Compaq and Seagate from manufacturing
    > or selling disk drives or computers incorporating Seagate's "Sound
    > Barrier Technology" (SBT) feature.
    >
    > Convolve is the exclusive licensee of patented motion control
    > technology called Input Shaping®, originally developed at and
    > licensed from MIT. This technology would permit the roughly 200
    > million disk drives sold this year in computers to operate more
    > quickly and quietly than currently possible. Convolve's core
    > vibration reduction technology is used by many large companies for
    > making manufacturing machines more productive.
    >
    > Input Shaping® is currently used commercially by manufacturers of
    > high precision machinery. The technology has also been
    > demonstrated on NASA's Space Shuttle robot arm training facility,
    > has flown in space on a payload aboard a NASA Space Shuttle, and
    > is used on the controls of a nuclear materials handling crane at
    > Argonne National Laboratories.
    >
    > Input Shaping® technology is a method for commanding equipment to
    > move as quickly as possible without excitation of vibrations. In a
    > disk drive application, Input Shaping® control of the read/write
    > arm permits the fastest and quietest performance by reducing the
    > vibrations that are generated at the end of the "seek" or the
    > movement of the arm between tracks on the disk. Information can't
    > be written or read by the computer until the arm settles (stops
    > vibrating). These same vibrations are also responsible for much of
    > the noise generated by computers.
    >
    > According to the complaint, "For more than a year, beginning in
    > October 1998, Convolve held discussions with and gave
    > demonstrations for engineers and executives of both Compaq and
    > Seagate for the purpose of licensing their technologies to these
    > two companies."
    >
    > Both Compaq and Seagate had signed non-disclosure agreements (NDA)
    > not to use this proprietary technology to develop competing
    > products.
    >
    > In addition, Convolve also has developed and has both domestic and
    > foreign patents pending for an innovative computer control panel
    > feature called "Quick and Quiet(tm)" which allows the user of the
    > disk drive to select between faster or quieter computer
    > performance. The Quick and Quiet(tm) technology is also the
    > subject of the complaint against Compaq and Seagate. The action
    > filed in Federal court alleges that the computer giant and its
    > disk drive supplier misappropriated Convolve's technology.
    >
    > In 1989, Neil Singer, PhD, and Ken Pasch, PhD along with MIT
    > professor Warren Seering invented the technology under a
    > government grant to perfect a vibration control technology in
    > computer controlled machines. The results of this research have
    > been applied in a number of applications from large gantry cranes
    > to microscopic MEMS based devices. In 1989, Dr. Singer formed
    > Convolve, a privately-held company based in New York City.
    >
    > For more information on Convolve visit www.convolve.com.
    >
    > ========
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=bvtcic%24103h7p%241%40ID-22908.news.uni-berlin.de
    >
    > From: DiscSupport@seagate.com
    > To: martinkaufmann@yahoo.com
    > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 02:52:09 -0600
    >
    > Hello:
    >
    > Seagate has decided that we will no longer support AAM. Seagate is in
    > the process of removing all product information pertaining to the
    > support of AAM.
    >
    > Our drives are extremely quiet while operating at the highest
    > performance levels, so we believe the ability to switch between Modes is
    > unnecessary, though supported by ATA specifications.
    >
    > We are also involved in patent litigation with Convolve and MIT.
    > Although we believe the lawsuit is without merit, Convolve alleges that
    > one of its patents, US Patent No. 6,314,473, covers AAM technology.
    >
    > We understand that Convolve told the T-13 standards committee that it
    > would license its patents on a reasonable, non-discriminatory basis.
    >
    > If you want a utility that will switch AAM modes you must procure it
    > from a third party. Seagate cannot make any recommendations as to what
    > third party utility you choose to use, nor do we in any way support the
    > utilities. However you can perform an Internet search for Automatic
    > Acoustic Management and select from the available 3rd party
    >
    > If you have further questions, please contact us.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Jeremy W.
    > Seagate Technical Support
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    > One thing of note: while the chipset does play a role in 2D image
    > quality, there are a lot of other features that come into play here.
    > It's very possible to get an nVidia video card with good 2D image
    > quality and another card from a different company but using the exact
    > same nVidia chipset but having poor 2D image quality.

    Exactly! I believe it has alot to do with the quality of
    the LC filtering installed on the analog RGB lines.
    Sometimes too much in an effort meet emissions specs.
    There are card mods that claim to increase image quality.

    -- Robert
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:
    > In article <x7u0yn1l6s.fsf@bonnet.wsrcc.com>,
    > wolfgang+gnus20040511T001427@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com
    > says...
    > >
    > > KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:
    > > > Really? Do you have a reference for this? I know many drives,
    > > > from long ago, had performance options built-in, and could be
    > > > selected it one had the right tools. SCSI drives often exposed
    > > > these options to the user.
    > >
    > > Here you go.
    >
    > Thanks for the reference. I pulled the patent and read it today
    > (53 pages!, which tells one something ;-). The patent, as the
    > article suggests, is all about user/machine-interfaces to control
    > noise of disk drives. It has *nothing* to do with the way the
    > heads are driven to optimize noise or performance! There are
    > references on how to calculate head movement, but these aren't
    > even claimed!

    I wonder if the Seagate tech support guy mentioned all the patents
    that applied. The Convolve press release sounded like they were more
    concerned about Seagate using specially-shaped drive pulses.

    > > Convolve is the exclusive licensee of patented motion control
    > > technology called Input Shaping®, originally developed at and
    > > licensed from MIT. This technology would permit the roughly 200
    > > million disk drives sold this year in computers to operate more
    > > quickly and quietly than currently possible. Convolve's core
    > > vibration reduction technology is used by many large companies for
    > > making manufacturing machines more productive.
    ...
    > > Input Shaping® technology is a method for commanding equipment to
    > > move as quickly as possible without excitation of vibrations. In a
    > > disk drive application, Input Shaping® control of the read/write
    > > arm permits the fastest and quietest performance by reducing the
    > > vibrations that are generated at the end of the "seek" or the
    > > movement of the arm between tracks on the disk. Information can't
    > > be written or read by the computer until the arm settles (stops
    > > vibrating). These same vibrations are also responsible for much of
    > > the noise generated by computers.

    -wolfgang
    --
    Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <XFpoc.9400$jG2.5481@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
    redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    > > One thing of note: while the chipset does play a role in 2D image
    > > quality, there are a lot of other features that come into play here.
    > > It's very possible to get an nVidia video card with good 2D image
    > > quality and another card from a different company but using the exact
    > > same nVidia chipset but having poor 2D image quality.
    >
    > Exactly! I believe it has alot to do with the quality of
    > the LC filtering installed on the analog RGB lines.
    > Sometimes too much in an effort meet emissions specs.
    > There are card mods that claim to increase image quality.

    I think that's an entirely simplistic view. I'd like to see you
    substantiate this. There's a *lot* more to EMI reduction than
    "LC filters".

    --
    Keith
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs AMD Intel