Wired magazine's vaporware awards

[Guest]

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

There's some good potshots at Intel for not being able to hit 4Ghz with
Pentium 4, but the really funny shot goes against Apple/IBM for not
getting G5 out at 3Ghz.

> Intel's in good company. Nobody hit the chip speeds they promised. In June 2003, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said IBM's G5 chips would be at 3 GHz within 12 months. It's been 18.
>
> In response, Justin Evers submitted a "Reading from the Book of Apple, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20":
>
> "Then did St. Steve raise on high the Holy G5 of Cupertino, saying, 'Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine Dell enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the renderings of lambs and toads and tree sloths and fruit bats and orangutans and lickable icons.... Now did the Lord say, 'Thou in 12 months, thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the GHz and the number of the GHz shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two-point-five, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the GHz, be reached, then thine will be great and powerful in my sight, however if thou shall have more than one button on thou mouse, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff thine's life.'"

Wired News: Vaporware Phantom Haunts Us All
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66195-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1

 

[Guest]

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

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:GdWdnaB5Z6CLg33cRVn-pQ@rogers.com...
> There's some good potshots at Intel for not being able to hit 4Ghz with
> Pentium 4, but the really funny shot goes against Apple/IBM for not
> getting G5 out at 3Ghz.
>
>> Intel's in good company. Nobody hit the chip speeds they promised. In
>> June 2003, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said IBM's G5 chips would be at 3 GHz
>> within 12 months. It's been 18.

AMD is up to 2.6ghz on their 13nm process, you wait until they make their
high performance 90nm chip with SSE3, they should be there before the G5,
that is unless they want to wait for intel to catch up.

>> In response, Justin Evers submitted a "Reading from the Book of Apple,
>> Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20":
>>
>> "Then did St. Steve raise on high the Holy G5 of Cupertino, saying,
>> 'Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine Dell enemies to
>> tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the people did rejoice and did feast upon
>> the renderings of lambs and toads and tree sloths and fruit bats and
>> orangutans and lickable icons.... Now did the Lord say, 'Thou in 12
>> months, thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the GHz
>> and the number of the GHz shall be three. Four shalt thou not count,
>> neither shalt thou count two-point-five, excepting that thou then
>> proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the
>> number of the GHz, be reached, then thine will be great and powerful in
>> my sight, however if thou shall have more than one button on thou mouse,
>> who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff thine's life.'"
>
> Wired News: Vaporware Phantom Haunts Us All
> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66195-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1

 

[rush]

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

"Nicholas Buenk" <morn@tpg.com.au> wrote :

> AMD is up to 2.6ghz on their 13nm process, you wait until they
> make their high performance 90nm chip with SSE3, they should be
> there before the G5, that is unless they want to wait for intel to
> catch up.

I dont know. You can O/C P4 to 4GHz with serious air cooling, AMD64
goed to 2.9GHz (I havent seen 3GHz aircooled AMD64 yet).

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

 

[Guest]

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

Nicholas Buenk wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> news:GdWdnaB5Z6CLg33cRVn-pQ@rogers.com...
>
>>There's some good potshots at Intel for not being able to hit 4Ghz with
>>Pentium 4, but the really funny shot goes against Apple/IBM for not
>>getting G5 out at 3Ghz.
>>
>>
>>>Intel's in good company. Nobody hit the chip speeds they promised. In
>>>June 2003, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said IBM's G5 chips would be at 3 GHz
>>>within 12 months. It's been 18.
>
>
> AMD is up to 2.6ghz on their 13nm process, you wait until they make their
> high performance 90nm chip with SSE3, they should be there before the G5,
> that is unless they want to wait for intel to catch up.

That's actually kind of my assumption as well. I think AMD could be at
3.0Ghz now, but there's no point since they are so far ahead of Intel
performance-wise. About the only thing that might cause them to hurry
3.0Ghz along is simply to beat PowerPC to it just for bragging rights
between the two technology partners.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:44:13 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
>> news:GdWdnaB5Z6CLg33cRVn-pQ@rogers.com...
>>
>>>There's some good potshots at Intel for not being able to hit 4Ghz with
>>>Pentium 4, but the really funny shot goes against Apple/IBM for not
>>>getting G5 out at 3Ghz.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Intel's in good company. Nobody hit the chip speeds they promised. In
>>>>June 2003, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said IBM's G5 chips would be at 3 GHz
>>>>within 12 months. It's been 18.
>>
>>
>> AMD is up to 2.6ghz on their 13nm process, you wait until they make their
>> high performance 90nm chip with SSE3, they should be there before the G5,
>> that is unless they want to wait for intel to catch up.
>
>That's actually kind of my assumption as well. I think AMD could be at
>3.0Ghz now, but there's no point since they are so far ahead of Intel
>performance-wise. About the only thing that might cause them to hurry
>3.0Ghz along is simply to beat PowerPC to it just for bragging rights
>between the two technology partners.

I'm not so sure about "now". What's available now and over the past
4-5months in the channel would seem to indicate they are gettting poor to
no yield at the top end from 90nm. The fastest 90nm I've seen is the
Skt939 3500+ and even that is in very short supply; I think it's fair to
say they need 90nm to get to 3GHz and they just don't seem to be getting
it... judging by retail channels - no idea what the OEMs are getting.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

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

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:zKnEd.3780$TN6.336229@news20.bellglobal.com...
> That's actually kind of my assumption as well. I think AMD could be at
> 3.0Ghz now, but there's no point since they are so far ahead of Intel
> performance-wise. About the only thing that might cause them to hurry
> 3.0Ghz along is simply to beat PowerPC to it just for bragging rights
> between the two technology partners.
>
> Yousuf Khan

I'm not so sure about that, if Intel got smart and released that Pentium-M
that might force AMD to hurry up... I really can't imagin why the hell Intel
keeps trying to peddle P-4's on the Market.

Carlo

 

[keith]

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

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:02:50 -0500, Carlo Razzeto wrote:

>
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> news:zKnEd.3780$TN6.336229@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> That's actually kind of my assumption as well. I think AMD could be at
>> 3.0Ghz now, but there's no point since they are so far ahead of Intel
>> performance-wise. About the only thing that might cause them to hurry
>> 3.0Ghz along is simply to beat PowerPC to it just for bragging rights
>> between the two technology partners.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> I'm not so sure about that, if Intel got smart and released that Pentium-M
> that might force AMD to hurry up... I really can't imagin why the hell Intel
> keeps trying to peddle P-4's on the Market.

Perhaps because they've already paid the advertising bill? Dunno, I asked
that same question a couple of years ago. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[rush]

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

"Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote :

> I really can't
> imagin why the hell Intel keeps trying to peddle P-4's on the
> Market.

Because Intel is not a reasonable person, its a corporation.
Corporations are bad, M'kay?

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

 

[Guest]

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote:
> "Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote :
>> I really can't imagin why the hell Intel keeps trying to
>> peddle P-4's on the Market.

Because they have nothing else to sell that is competitive on
the desktop with IA64 (Itanium) a flop. For laptops, their 10
year old P6 core tweaked as Pentium-M is still competitive,
mostly because Intel has excellent process and a can work
this core for low power consumption.

> Because Intel is not a reasonable person, its a corporation.
> Corporations are bad, M'kay?

This is an oversimplification. Do you think one individual
could produce a modern CPU? What form of co-operative
organization would you think better? Government enterprises?
Joint-stock companies most certainly have their flaws, but
they do permit pooling resources to undertake large projects.

-- Robert

 

[keith]

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

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:11:55 +0000, RusH wrote:

> "Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote :
>
>> I really can't
>> imagin why the hell Intel keeps trying to peddle P-4's on the
>> Market.
>
> Because Intel is not a reasonable person, its a corporation.

Intel, like even the "reasonable person" has interests that may be
contrary to yours, and mine.

> Corporations are bad, M'kay?

Nonsense. Corporations are people. By the force of law, they act in the
intrests of those people. Perhaps not well, but the officers first
responsibility is to the owners.

--
Keith

 

[rush]

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

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote :

> Nonsense. Corporations are people. By the force of law, they act
> in the intrests of those people. Perhaps not well, but the
> officers first responsibility is to the owners.

So what exactly has one to do to put those "people" in prison then ?
Show me ONE such example and I'l rest my case.
Corporation is a "person" with all the benefits, but without the
obligations.

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

 

[Leslie]

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

keith (krw@att.bizzzz) wrote:
:
: Corporations are people. By the force of law, they act in the
: intrests of those people. Perhaps not well, but the officers first
: responsibility is to the owners.
:


AFAIK, only the U.S. has granted personhood status to corporations,
in an 1886 Supreme Court Decision's head note, written by the court
reporter.

For more on this travesty, see:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm
Now Corporations Claim The "Right To Lie"


--Jerry Leslie
Note: leslie@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email

 

[rush]

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

LESLIE@JRLVAX.HOUSTON.RR.COM (leslie) wrote :

> written by the court
> reporter.
>

who happened to be a former corporation CEO, brilliant )
For more revelation (torrent):
http://rasz.neostrada.pl/
third picture (dont mind the ugly face)

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

 

[Guest]

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

"RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
news:Xns95DD476259F4ARusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...

> Corporation is a "person" with all the benefits, but without the
> obligations.

In the same sense that a corporation can't be put in prison, it can't
break the law. So it cuts both ways.

DS

 

[Guest]

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote:
> So what exactly has one to do to put those "people" in
> prison then ? Show me ONE such example and I'll rest my case.

AT&T breakup.

Not too many corporations are "in prison" [under direct court orders],
but many are "out on parole" and have to report to regulators.

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

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

David Schwartz wrote:

> "RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
> news:Xns95DD476259F4ARusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...
>
>
>>Corporation is a "person" with all the benefits, but without the
>>obligations.
>
>
> In the same sense that a corporation can't be put in prison, it can't
> break the law. So it cuts both ways.

That would be fine, if our government actually punished the *people* who
break the law while acting on behalf of corporations. And I'm not
talking about Martha Stewart, I'm talking about the ones who rob people
of their life savings and pour pollutants into the rivers, etc.

--
Mike Smith

 

[keith]

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:01:37 +0000, RusH wrote:

> keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote :
>
>> Nonsense. Corporations are people. By the force of law, they act
>> in the intrests of those people. Perhaps not well, but the
>> officers first responsibility is to the owners.
>
> So what exactly has one to do to put those "people" in prison then ?

You're being silly. Corporations don't have a body and as such it makes
no sense to "send 'em to jail". A coroporation has no ethics, and no
morals. People do. However the *officers* (people) of said corporations
are indeed sent to jail for breaking laws.

> Show me ONE such example and I'l rest my case. Corporation is a
> "person" with all the benefits, but without the obligations.

You're simply being stupid. Corporations are a civil entity. I
suppose you've never heard of a corporation being sued? See: tobacco.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:03:35 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote:
>> So what exactly has one to do to put those "people" in
>> prison then ? Show me ONE such example and I'll rest my case.
>
> AT&T breakup.

Even better: Tobacco

> Not too many corporations are "in prison" [under direct court orders],
> but many are "out on parole" and have to report to regulators.

And pay through the nose in civil penalties. The officers of may
corporations are doing time for illegal activities, as well.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:41:39 -0500, Mike Smith wrote:

> David Schwartz wrote:
>
>> "RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
>> news:Xns95DD476259F4ARusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...
>>
>>
>>>Corporation is a "person" with all the benefits, but without the
>>>obligations.
>>
>>
>> In the same sense that a corporation can't be put in prison, it can't
>> break the law. So it cuts both ways.
>
> That would be fine, if our government actually punished the *people* who
> break the law while acting on behalf of corporations.

You bloody fool! They *are* going to jail.

> And I'm not
> talking about Martha Stewart, I'm talking about the ones who rob people
> of their life savings and pour pollutants into the rivers, etc.

If people are vesting all their wealth in one place they deserve what they
get. The Enron fools were just that. Sure, throw the criminals in
jail, but stop the pity-party for absolute idiots.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:19:30 +0000, leslie wrote:

> keith (krw@att.bizzzz) wrote:
> :
> : Corporations are people. By the force of law, they act in the
> : intrests of those people. Perhaps not well, but the officers first
> : responsibility is to the owners.
> :
>
>
> AFAIK, only the U.S. has granted personhood status to corporations,
> in an 1886 Supreme Court Decision's head note, written by the court
> reporter.

A corporation is in fact an entity anywhere, whether they want to admit
it or not. It is a method of limiting liability for the owners, since
they don't have control of the day-to-day operation of the corporation.
Thus, the corporation is the entity.

> For more on this travesty, see:
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm Now Corporations
> Claim The "Right To Lie"

"The requested document does not exist on this server"

A corporation *CANNOT* lie. Only people can lie. You people are nutz!

--
Keith

 

[keith]

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:04:20 +0000, leslie wrote:


>
> Democracy is a value that the corporation just doesn't understand.

Well, duh! If the author is this dumb, the rest of what's written is just
as suspect. A *corporation* doesn't have a will, consience, or guilt.
Only people have those attributes. As such, a corporation cannnot violate
a law, only people can. A corporation (its owners) can be held liable for
civil damage, but not criminal.

Good grief, we have a world full of nitwits here!

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

>>>>> "keith" == keith <krw@att.bizzzz> writes:

keith> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:01:37 +0000, RusH wrote:
>> keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote :
>>
>>> Nonsense. Corporations are people. By the force of law, they act
>>> in the intrests of those people. Perhaps not well, but the
>>> officers first responsibility is to the owners.
>> So what exactly has one to do to put those "people" in prison
>> then ?

keith> You're being silly. Corporations don't have a body and as such
keith> it makes no sense to "send 'em to jail". A coroporation has no
keith> ethics, and no morals. People do. However the *officers*
keith> (people) of said corporations are indeed sent to jail for
keith> breaking laws.

>> Show me ONE such example and I'l rest my case. Corporation is a
>> "person" with all the benefits, but without the obligations.

keith> You're simply being stupid. Corporations are a civil entity. I
keith> suppose you've never heard of a corporation being sued? See:
keith> tobacco.

keith> -- Keith

Well I not an expert but


http://www.wndu.com/news/062002/news_14635.php

Well no one went to jail however the corporation was found guilty by a
jury. The corporation had to close. Anyway the point is corporations
can be taken to court and punished. So I guess this means that a
corporation has ethics, and morals. Whatever ;-))

If this keeps up we will have to build special jails to hold the
corporations ;-)).

Laws are strange.

Alan

 

[Guest]

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> A corporation (its owners) can be held liable for
> civil damage, but not criminal.

Interestingly, some (Australian?) companies didn't have limited
liability. The owners could be made to pay if the company
went bankrupt. Stocks would trade at negative prices -- the
buyer would be given money to take over the registration of
the shares. Sort of like a "capital call" on Lloyds "names".

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

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

keith wrote:

>The Enron fools were just that. Sure, throw the criminals in
>jail, but stop the pity-party for absolute idiots.

I thought the old saying was "put all your eggs in one basket".

 

[Guest]

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

keith wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:41:39 -0500, Mike Smith wrote:
>
>
>>David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns95DD476259F4ARusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Corporation is a "person" with all the benefits, but without the
>>>>obligations.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the same sense that a corporation can't be put in prison, it can't
>>>break the law. So it cuts both ways.
>>
>>That would be fine, if our government actually punished the *people* who
>>break the law while acting on behalf of corporations.
>
>
> You bloody fool! They *are* going to jail.

All of 'em? You really think that most of the corporate execs who break
the law or harm the public end up in jail?

>>And I'm not
>>talking about Martha Stewart, I'm talking about the ones who rob people
>>of their life savings and pour pollutants into the rivers, etc.
>
>
> If people are vesting all their wealth in one place they deserve what they
> get. The Enron fools were just that. Sure, throw the criminals in
> jail, but stop the pity-party for absolute idiots.

The fact that the victims were idiots (and many of them were) does not
make the guilty parties any less culpable.

--
Mike Smith