Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

More legal affairs: All Computer vs. Intel

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Performance
  • Computers
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 20, 2004 9:28:04 PM

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

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/335673...

According to its patent, "Apparatus and Methods for Enhancing the
Performance of Personal Computers", which All Computers has held since 1996,
Intel owes it some big money ($500 mln, probably in US $ too).

Now I didn't realize it till now, Intel only started enhancing the
performance of its computers since 1996. Until that point, computers had
remained at exactly the same performance level for decades. The transition
from 8088 to 286 -- imaginary. The introduction of of the 32-bit 386 in
1986 -- happened completely inside my mixed-up head -- PCs must've been
32-bit all along. Adding the L1 cache and FPU right into the same die with
the 486 -- buh, never happened. Pentium? Everything had been a Pentium all
along since the beginning of time, until Intel finally introduced the
Pentium Pro in 1996 -- which *must* be based off of this patent. It only
makes sense. :-)

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)

More about : legal affairs computer intel

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 20, 2004 11:51:55 PM

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

On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:28:04 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

>Now I didn't realize it till now, Intel only started enhancing the
>performance of its computers since 1996. Until that point, computers had
>remained at exactly the same performance level for decades. The transition
>from 8088 to 286 -- imaginary. The introduction of of the 32-bit 386 in
>1986 -- happened completely inside my mixed-up head -- PCs must've been
>32-bit all along. Adding the L1 cache and FPU right into the same die with
>the 486 -- buh, never happened. Pentium? Everything had been a Pentium all
>along since the beginning of time, until Intel finally introduced the
>Pentium Pro in 1996 -- which *must* be based off of this patent. It only
>makes sense. :-)

Of cos it does! How else did you think all those turn your 286 into
386 programs and turn your 386 into a 486 programs worked??? They were
just unlocking crippled functionality and speeds that evil Intel
locked up! :p pPPPPp

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :) 
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2004 5:56:02 AM

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

On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:28:04 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

>http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/335673...
>
>According to its patent, "Apparatus and Methods for Enhancing the
>Performance of Personal Computers", which All Computers has held since 1996,
>Intel owes it some big money ($500 mln, probably in US $ too).
>
>Now I didn't realize it till now, Intel only started enhancing the
>performance of its computers since 1996. Until that point, computers had
>remained at exactly the same performance level for decades. The transition
>from 8088 to 286 -- imaginary. The introduction of of the 32-bit 386 in
>1986 -- happened completely inside my mixed-up head -- PCs must've been
>32-bit all along. Adding the L1 cache and FPU right into the same die with
>the 486 -- buh, never happened. Pentium? Everything had been a Pentium all
>along since the beginning of time, until Intel finally introduced the
>Pentium Pro in 1996 -- which *must* be based off of this patent. It only
>makes sense. :-)

I think Patriot Scientific, also mentioned in the article, makes for much
better reading - all that intra- & inter-family squabbling is much more
fun.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2004 5:43:00 PM

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

In article <EU5rc.81131$Zxc.4506
@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, news.tally.bbbl67
@spamgourmet.com says...
> http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/335673...
>
> According to its patent, "Apparatus and Methods for Enhancing the
> Performance of Personal Computers", which All Computers has held since 1996,
> Intel owes it some big money ($500 mln, probably in US $ too).
>
> Now I didn't realize it till now, Intel only started enhancing the
> performance of its computers since 1996. Until that point, computers had
> remained at exactly the same performance level for decades. The transition
> from 8088 to 286 -- imaginary. The introduction of of the 32-bit 386 in
> 1986 -- happened completely inside my mixed-up head -- PCs must've been
> 32-bit all along. Adding the L1 cache and FPU right into the same die with
> the 486 -- buh, never happened. Pentium? Everything had been a Pentium all
> along since the beginning of time, until Intel finally introduced the
> Pentium Pro in 1996 -- which *must* be based off of this patent. It only
> makes sense. :-)

I surely don't understand this one. Have you read the patents?
The article didn't list the patents, so I did a search on
Assignee= All Computers and cam up with only two patents:
5,450,574 (1995) and 5,506,981 (1996). Both basically describe a
method and apparatus for an "accelerator *board*", really an
overdrive processor. Basically they're running the processor at
a higher speed than the bus, then switching to a lower speed
oscillator when bus activity is required (why not wait states?).
Memory is added to the accelerator *board* to minimize bus
traffic. I don't see how accelerator *boards* are generally
applicable to current Intel offerings.

Get the popcorn. This should be fun! ;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2004 3:16:52 AM

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

On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:43:00 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
>I surely don't understand this one. Have you read the patents?
>The article didn't list the patents, so I did a search on
>Assignee= All Computers and cam up with only two patents:
>5,450,574 (1995) and 5,506,981 (1996). Both basically describe a
>method and apparatus for an "accelerator *board*", really an
>overdrive processor. Basically they're running the processor at
>a higher speed than the bus, then switching to a lower speed
>oscillator when bus activity is required (why not wait states?).
>Memory is added to the accelerator *board* to minimize bus
>traffic. I don't see how accelerator *boards* are generally
>applicable to current Intel offerings.

The only thing that jumps to mind here is that they might be going
after the old Slot 1 PII and PIII chips. I suppose you could call the
PCBs in the cartridges "accelerator boards"... or at least you could
if you were a scumbag lawyer. They did run at different frequencies
from the bus, though I don't think there was any oscillator used to
lower the speed for bus activity (they just had two independent
buses).

>Get the popcorn. This should be fun! ;-)

More likely to be sad as millions upon millions of day-traders run
around yelling how great All Computer's is and how they are going to
win.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2004 2:53:31 AM

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

In article <0jmab0d6q0g8be2sn0cpjpj45qfnk5cajn@4ax.com>,
hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca says...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:43:00 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
> >I surely don't understand this one. Have you read the patents?
> >The article didn't list the patents, so I did a search on
> >Assignee= All Computers and cam up with only two patents:
> >5,450,574 (1995) and 5,506,981 (1996). Both basically describe a
> >method and apparatus for an "accelerator *board*", really an
> >overdrive processor. Basically they're running the processor at
> >a higher speed than the bus, then switching to a lower speed
> >oscillator when bus activity is required (why not wait states?).
> >Memory is added to the accelerator *board* to minimize bus
> >traffic. I don't see how accelerator *boards* are generally
> >applicable to current Intel offerings.
>
> The only thing that jumps to mind here is that they might be going
> after the old Slot 1 PII and PIII chips. I suppose you could call the
> PCBs in the cartridges "accelerator boards"... or at least you could
> if you were a scumbag lawyer. They did run at different frequencies
> from the bus, though I don't think there was any oscillator used to
> lower the speed for bus activity (they just had two independent
> buses).

Read the patents. They have no claim against the PII/III either.
THey had a constant clock to the bus, and no on-board at-speed
"memory". It's a long stretch to claim cache as "memory".

> >Get the popcorn. This should be fun! ;-)
>
> More likely to be sad as millions upon millions of day-traders run
> around yelling how great All Computer's is and how they are going to
> win.

Indeed! If one were to play the wheel, one would look at this as
another RMBS. Though these claims are even more silly! Read 'em
and weep!

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2004 6:47:13 PM

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

On Thu, 27 May 2004 22:53:31 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
>In article <0jmab0d6q0g8be2sn0cpjpj45qfnk5cajn@4ax.com>,
>hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca says...
>> The only thing that jumps to mind here is that they might be going
>> after the old Slot 1 PII and PIII chips. I suppose you could call the
>> PCBs in the cartridges "accelerator boards"... or at least you could
>> if you were a scumbag lawyer. They did run at different frequencies
>> from the bus, though I don't think there was any oscillator used to
>> lower the speed for bus activity (they just had two independent
>> buses).
>
>Read the patents. They have no claim against the PII/III either.
>THey had a constant clock to the bus, and no on-board at-speed
>"memory". It's a long stretch to claim cache as "memory".

Ahh, but Keith, you are not a scumbag lawyer. Don't expect them to
let little things like the fact that the patents don't cover the
technology stop them from CLAIMING that their owed lots of money!

>> >Get the popcorn. This should be fun! ;-)
>>
>> More likely to be sad as millions upon millions of day-traders run
>> around yelling how great All Computer's is and how they are going to
>> win.
>
>Indeed! If one were to play the wheel, one would look at this as
>another RMBS.

The worst part is that it probably WILL be another RMBS... or at least
it would if the company was public. Actually this company doesn't
seem to exist at all! They don't seem to have a website, they aren't
publicly listed and I can't find any sort of contact info for this
company at all, not even a mailing address!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
!