Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Robert X. Cringely on the Apple / Intel deal

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2005 8:43:04 PM

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

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

Very, very interesting. I have no idea if he's right, but a MAJOR
shakeup if he is.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2005 9:11:57 PM

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

Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2005 10:59:39 PM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:43:04 -0500, Henry Nettles
<hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:

>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
>
>Very, very interesting. I have no idea if he's right, but a MAJOR
>shakeup if he is.

"Remember, you read it here first."

Nup. Said it here aready. Payback time for Chairman Bill.

RM
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2005 11:19:09 PM

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

"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118362317.534982.175550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
He gets paid for this stuff? Sheeeit.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2005 11:31:21 PM

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

"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118362317.534982.175550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
Apple's market cap is 31 Billion USD. So Intel would have to cough up
40B. And since Intel's PE is lower than AAPL it might not be good for
INTC stock. Also there is the coming up with the 40B. They could make
it a cash and stock deal or an all stock deal and issue another 1.5e9
share to go with the 6B shares already outstanding. Uffda. Lot of
money.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2005 12:21:31 AM

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

On 9 Jun 2005 17:11:57 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
>
Aw, c'mon, Yousuf. Live a little! You've got your spiffed-up and now
immortal x86 from AMD, and it's mopping the floor with Intel on
performance. Now dream of the outcome we'd *all* like to see.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2005 12:40:20 AM

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

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:31:21 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
<dcecchi.nospam@att.net> wrote:

>
>"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1118362317.534982.175550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>Apple's market cap is 31 Billion USD. So Intel would have to cough up
>40B. And since Intel's PE is lower than AAPL it might not be good for
>INTC stock. Also there is the coming up with the 40B. They could make
>it a cash and stock deal or an all stock deal and issue another 1.5e9
>share to go with the 6B shares already outstanding. Uffda. Lot of
>money.
>
Ain't gonna happen, either. Intel might have a contract out on Gates,
but they're going to need the money that they might use to buy out
Apple if they're going to go after Microsoft turf in any serious way.
I do think they've got much more that 2-3% of anything in mind here.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2005 2:10:32 AM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2005 17:11:57 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
> >
> Aw, c'mon, Yousuf. Live a little! You've got your spiffed-up and now
> immortal x86 from AMD, and it's mopping the floor with Intel on
> performance. Now dream of the outcome we'd *all* like to see.


Uh no, as Del mentioned, paying between $30-40 Billion for a piece of
the iPod action doesn't seem very financially sane to me.

I think Mr. Cringely has decided that now that what was thought
impossible has happened, now anything else that seems impossible can
also happen. So he's going for a hail-mary of craziness. Next he'll be
predicting Dell will start using AMD processors, for example. :-)

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2005 4:40:31 AM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:43:04 -0500, Henry Nettles
<hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:

>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
>
>Very, very interesting. I have no idea if he's right, but a MAJOR
>shakeup if he is.

I have serious trouble taking someone seriously when damn near every
tidbit of information he throw's out is flat out wrong. A few
examples:

"OS X 10.4 -- Tiger -- is a 64-bit OS"

Actually Tiger includes very little 64-bit code and only very limited
support for the larger memory addressing that makes 64-bit chips
interesting. Calling Tiger a 64-bit OS is like saying that Win3.1 was
a 32-bit OS.


"remember, yet Intel's 64-bit chips -- Xeon and Itanium -- are high
buck items aimed at servers, not iMacs."

Uhh, is he forgetting about the fact that Intel released 64-bit
desktop processors a good 6 months ago? Intel even plans on pushing
out 64-bit Celeron processors for the low-end by the end of the year.


(speaking of AMD vs. Intel) "AND [AMD] does so at a lower price point
across the board?"

Has he checked the prices of AMD and Intel's newest chips? Intel's
most expensive Pentium-D is about the same price as the cheapest of
AMD's Athlon64 X2 chips!


"The CPU ID is still in there"

Actually it's not.


"just as every network device has its unique MAC address"

MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).


"If Apple was willing to consider a processor switch, moving to the
Cell Processor would have made much more sense than going to Intel or
AMD,"

?!?! Has he SEEN how ridiculously different the Cell design is from
existing chips in Macs? There's just no way to do emulation of
current software on the Cell and make it run at acceptable speeds, and
porting applications to Cell would be FAR more complicated than
porting from PowerPC to x86. The simple fact is that the current
software paradigm just doesn't fit the Cell at all. In the closed
environment of a gaming console it is easy enough to change that
paradigm, but not with a general purpose PC.



<sigh> And this guy gets paid for all this?! Geez. If they wanted
someone to spew nonsense based on incorrect facts then PBS could have
just dredged through the postings at Slashdot!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
June 10, 2005 6:58:46 AM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:59:39 -0400, Robert Myers
<rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:43:04 -0500, Henry Nettles
><hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
>>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
>>
>>Very, very interesting. I have no idea if he's right, but a MAJOR
>>shakeup if he is.
>
>"Remember, you read it here first."
>
>Nup. Said it here aready. Payback time for Chairman Bill.
>
>RM
Don't forget that MSFT _DOES_ have a second source of chips - AMD. If
INTC is perceived by Chairman Bill to really intend to act as
described at the URL above, MSFT may counter by, for instance,
optimizing its code for AMD, leaving INTC even more behind in terms of
performance. Also MSFT has even greater cash reserves than INTC, and
can use some of it to help AMD increase production. Besides, IBM may
use the capacity freed by G5 to fab chips for AMD. And, finally, for
MSFT to acquire AMD outright is even easier than for INTC to buy AAPL
- wouldn't that be fun to see the competition of these 2 after these
mergers? After all, MacOS has only about 3% of the desktop market,
and Windows pretty much the rest, and in servers Mac is a non-entity.
I just don't see Intel going after 3% of the market and risking huge
losses in Windows PC/Servers, so they will have to proceed carefully
as to not ruffle Chairman Bill's feathers.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2005 9:53:39 AM

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

On 9 Jun 2005 22:10:32 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Robert Myers wrote:
>> On 9 Jun 2005 17:11:57 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
>> >
>> Aw, c'mon, Yousuf. Live a little! You've got your spiffed-up and now
>> immortal x86 from AMD, and it's mopping the floor with Intel on
>> performance. Now dream of the outcome we'd *all* like to see.
>
>
>Uh no, as Del mentioned, paying between $30-40 Billion for a piece of
>the iPod action doesn't seem very financially sane to me.
>

Agreed. It doesn't make much sense for Intel actually to buy Apple.
I do think Intel and Apple are making much bigger plans than just
having Intel replace IBM as a chip supplier, and that what Intel
brings to this action is not just plant capacity and a notebook chip
but also money.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2005 10:02:08 AM

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:58:46 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
<mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:59:39 -0400, Robert Myers
><rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:43:04 -0500, Henry Nettles
>><hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
>>>
>>>Very, very interesting. I have no idea if he's right, but a MAJOR
>>>shakeup if he is.
>>
>>"Remember, you read it here first."
>>
>>Nup. Said it here aready. Payback time for Chairman Bill.
>>
>>RM
>Don't forget that MSFT _DOES_ have a second source of chips - AMD. If
>INTC is perceived by Chairman Bill to really intend to act as
>described at the URL above, MSFT may counter by, for instance,
>optimizing its code for AMD, leaving INTC even more behind in terms of
>performance.

I'd be very surprised if Intel didn't regard Microsoft's x86-64
decision as a declaration of war. That is to say, Microsoft already
_has_ optimized its code for AMD.

>Also MSFT has even greater cash reserves than INTC, and
>can use some of it to help AMD increase production.

That would and should produce a shareholder revolt at Microsoft.

>Besides, IBM may
>use the capacity freed by G5 to fab chips for AMD.

IBM's fab capacity is limited by its ability to make money making
chips, which it hasn't been doing in quite a while.

>And, finally, for
>MSFT to acquire AMD outright is even easier than for INTC to buy AAPL
>- wouldn't that be fun to see the competition of these 2 after these
>mergers? After all, MacOS has only about 3% of the desktop market,
>and Windows pretty much the rest, and in servers Mac is a non-entity.
>I just don't see Intel going after 3% of the market and risking huge
>losses in Windows PC/Servers, so they will have to proceed carefully
>as to not ruffle Chairman Bill's feathers.

All the feathers are already ruffled. There is simply no way that
Gates cannot be taking a dark view of the Intel-Apple deal, and Intel
is already furious over 64-bit decisions (x86/Itanium) by Microsoft.
The only question is where the bodies lie when the shooting stops.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2005 11:56:56 AM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:43:04 -0500, Henry Nettles <hnettles@hal-pc.org>
wrote:

>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
>
>Very, very interesting. I have no idea if he's right, but a MAJOR
>shakeup if he is.

How can he be right? This guy thnks Intel only does 64-bit in Xeons and
Itanium! He also thinks Intel/Apple as a merger works - Intel knows from
decades ago not to try to sell boxes and an OS.

As an alternative OS supplier/partner, Apple may make sense and as a tactic
to waken M$ from their AMD64 dreams it could be a good move for Intel.
It's still going to take a while to get from 2% of the market to where
Apple has much impact on Intel's sales numbers and ASP... if ever.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2005 12:41:55 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
>>Uh no, as Del mentioned, paying between $30-40 Billion for a piece of
>>the iPod action doesn't seem very financially sane to me.
>>
>
>
> Agreed. It doesn't make much sense for Intel actually to buy Apple.
> I do think Intel and Apple are making much bigger plans than just
> having Intel replace IBM as a chip supplier, and that what Intel
> brings to this action is not just plant capacity and a notebook chip
> but also money.

Maybe they might be trying to get Apple to start licensing MacOS out to
other manufacturers. So far Apple is refusing. But maybe they won't for
long. It can only help Apple's bottom line to sell MacOS independently.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2005 5:07:55 PM

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

Tony Hill wrote:

> "just as every network device has its unique MAC address"
>
> MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).

Ever heard of Organizationally Unique Identifier?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUI
http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt

<quote>
For Ethernet use, the OUI is combined with an internally-assigned
24-bit number to form a MAC address.
</quote>

Ethernet MAC addresses are, most definitely, unique.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2005 9:23:20 PM

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:40:31 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

> "just as every network device has its unique MAC address"
>
> MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).

MAC addresses are unique, barring people changing them of course. Of course your
chances of accidentally changing it to match another devices address on
your subnet are very very small indeed.

--
Cheers
Anton
June 11, 2005 2:32:43 AM

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:23:20 +1200, AD. wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:40:31 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> "just as every network device has its unique MAC address"
>>
>> MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).
>
> MAC addresses are unique, barring people changing them of course. Of course your
> chances of accidentally changing it to match another devices address on
> your subnet are very very small indeed.

Actually, not they're not unique. They're designated in blocks and
several manufacturers have recycled MACs. As Tony said, which you seem to
agree, that they only need be unique on a subnet and ther eis little
chance of an "issue".

--
Keith
June 11, 2005 2:34:05 AM

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:07:55 +0200, Grumble wrote:

> Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> "just as every network device has its unique MAC address"
>>
>> MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).
>
> Ever heard of Organizationally Unique Identifier?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUI
> http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt
>
> <quote>
> For Ethernet use, the OUI is combined with an internally-assigned
> 24-bit number to form a MAC address.
> </quote>
>
> Ethernet MAC addresses are, most definitely, unique.

Nope. Several manufacturers have run out of their "block" and have
recycled the numbers they were assigned. No big deal though.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 11, 2005 3:05:39 PM

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:53:39 -0400, Robert Myers
<rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 9 Jun 2005 22:10:32 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>> On 9 Jun 2005 17:11:57 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
>>> >
>>> Aw, c'mon, Yousuf. Live a little! You've got your spiffed-up and now
>>> immortal x86 from AMD, and it's mopping the floor with Intel on
>>> performance. Now dream of the outcome we'd *all* like to see.
>>
>>
>>Uh no, as Del mentioned, paying between $30-40 Billion for a piece of
>>the iPod action doesn't seem very financially sane to me.
>>
>
>Agreed. It doesn't make much sense for Intel actually to buy Apple.
>I do think Intel and Apple are making much bigger plans than just
>having Intel replace IBM as a chip supplier, and that what Intel
>brings to this action is not just plant capacity and a notebook chip
>but also money.

And chipsets. About the only chip that Apple (co-)designed in the
current PowerMac G5 systems is their memory controller chipset. I
wouldn't be at all surprised if that eat up a rather substantial
portion of their entire R&D budget. If they have to go through this
with every different chipset for each different market then they are
going to be talking about some serious money, even if they had IBM
helping out on some designs (as I believe was the case with the G5
chipset). Fortunately for them they decided to opt for a
hypertransport design on this chipset which allowed them to use AMD's
8131 PCI-X and 8111 I/O chips for the rest of the I/O in the system,
but the memory controller was a customer design.

Intel may also be bringing a few other things to the table with
regards to compilers and development tools.

However I think the real question that is floating around with all of
this is how the software works into things. ie Will MacOS X run on
non-Apple branded computers. That is the real question that keeps
floating around in my head at least. If so, then Apple becomes more
of a software vendor that just happens to also sell some kinda funky
PCs to the artsy crowd. And will Apple PCs using Intel chips also run
Windows? Will Apple SELL PCs with Windows?

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 11, 2005 3:05:39 PM

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:23:20 +1200, "AD." <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:40:31 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> "just as every network device has its unique MAC address"
>>
>> MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).
>
>MAC addresses are unique, barring people changing them of course. Of course your
>chances of accidentally changing it to match another devices address on
>your subnet are very very small indeed.

The fact that they can be changed (easily) and are not FORCED to be
unique means that you can most definitely not *depend* on them being
unique, ie trying to design some sort of DRM scheme around MAC
addresses is an exercise in futility.

Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if we're starting to push up against
the limits of some MAC address ranges. 48-bits does give you a hell
of a lot of addresses, but there are some restrictions within that
space and EVERY network connected device ever made has a MAC address.
Sooner or later we're just going to start running out of new ones and
have to re-use old ones. In fact, this has probably already happened
just because, as mentioned above, you are not FORCED to have unique
MAC addresses except on an individual subnet.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 11, 2005 3:05:39 PM

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:07:55 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> "just as every network device has its unique MAC address"
>>
>> MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).
>
>Ever heard of Organizationally Unique Identifier?
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUI
>http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt
>
><quote>
>For Ethernet use, the OUI is combined with an internally-assigned
>24-bit number to form a MAC address.
></quote>
>
>Ethernet MAC addresses are, most definitely, unique.

No, they most definitely are not. There is absolutely no requirement
that the internal 24-bit numbers assigned by the companies are unique
and it is possible (and easy) to change a MAC address on many (most?)
ethernet devices.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2005 12:43:23 AM

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:05:39 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:07:55 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Tony Hill wrote:
>>
>>> "just as every network device has its unique MAC address"
>>>
>>> MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).
>>
>>Ever heard of Organizationally Unique Identifier?
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUI
>>http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt
>>
>><quote>
>>For Ethernet use, the OUI is combined with an internally-assigned
>>24-bit number to form a MAC address.
>></quote>
>>
>>Ethernet MAC addresses are, most definitely, unique.
>
>No, they most definitely are not. There is absolutely no requirement
>that the internal 24-bit numbers assigned by the companies are unique
>and it is possible (and easy) to change a MAC address on many (most?)
>ethernet devices.

I'm not sure how the 48 bits are divided up but I think it's fair to say
that the original intent was that it be a universally unique number. It's
not that long ago that we had most ethernet cards with a MAC burned into a
ROM. Along the way some addresses were purloined by bottom feeders who
copied other mfrs' controllers & cards, including copying their burned in
addresses. As Keith has said, some mfrs are now recycling so the
modifiable MACs can be useful I suppose. OTOH I wonder how many orgs
bother to modify them and why?... what's the point? Are there now mfrs
selling cards where the burned in MAC address is repeated willy-nilly?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
June 12, 2005 1:56:18 AM

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:43:23 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:05:39 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:07:55 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Tony Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>> "just as every network device has its unique MAC address"
>>>>
>>>> MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).
>>>
>>>Ever heard of Organizationally Unique Identifier?
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUI
>>>http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt
>>>
>>><quote>
>>>For Ethernet use, the OUI is combined with an internally-assigned
>>>24-bit number to form a MAC address.
>>></quote>
>>>
>>>Ethernet MAC addresses are, most definitely, unique.
>>
>>No, they most definitely are not. There is absolutely no requirement
>>that the internal 24-bit numbers assigned by the companies are unique
>>and it is possible (and easy) to change a MAC address on many (most?)
>>ethernet devices.
>
> I'm not sure how the 48 bits are divided up but I think it's fair to say
> that the original intent was that it be a universally unique number.

That's true, but who would have thought that a 32bit number wouldn't be
enough for the Internet? The same thing applies. The fact is that
neither is a flat space and vast subsections were carved out for the
earlybirds. Even they have been recycling numbers.

> It's
> not that long ago that we had most ethernet cards with a MAC burned into
> a ROM. Along the way some addresses were purloined by bottom feeders
> who copied other mfrs' controllers & cards, including copying their
> burned in addresses. As Keith has said, some mfrs are now recycling so
> the modifiable MACs can be useful I suppose.

Not only purpose, but requirement. Ethernet is a tad old. I don't think
its designers knew where it was going.

> OTOH I wonder how many
> orgs bother to modify them and why?... what's the point? Are there now
> mfrs selling cards where the burned in MAC address is repeated
> willy-nilly?

There have been for at least ten years, maybe longer. The manufacturers
ran out of MACs long ago and have been forced to repeat them. As long as
two don't show up on the same subnet, who cares? If by some unlucky
coincidence they do, simply change one. AIUI, that's the reason they're
changable.

This shouldn't be a shock to anyone who's run the numbers. 2^24 is only
16M. Many manufacturers have made more than 16M Ethernet devices.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2005 4:32:39 AM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> I'd be very surprised if Intel didn't regard Microsoft's x86-64
> decision as a declaration of war. That is to say, Microsoft already
> _has_ optimized its code for AMD.

Why would it be offended? In the end, it saved Intel a lot of money
having to adopt AMD's instruction set, instead of trying to develop its
own from scratch. And Microsoft waited to release Windows until Intel
was ready to release its own chips.

And of course Microsoft has already optimized for AMD, who else were
they going to optimize for? It was there 1.5 years before Intel, and
much longer if you count pre-production chips which it would absolutely
have given to Microsoft first. Hell, even Microsoft's programming header
files call the platform "AMD64". Linux headers are actually more kind
towards Intel by calling the platform by the more generic "x86-64".

>>Also MSFT has even greater cash reserves than INTC, and
>>can use some of it to help AMD increase production.
>
>
> That would and should produce a shareholder revolt at Microsoft.

Sort of like the shareholder revolt that happened after Microsoft gave
cash infusions to Apple and Corel when they were looking shakey?

>>Besides, IBM may
>>use the capacity freed by G5 to fab chips for AMD.
>
>
> IBM's fab capacity is limited by its ability to make money making
> chips, which it hasn't been doing in quite a while.

IBM doesn't seem to be able to produce anything with any reliability.
Nvidia was originally going to use IBM's Fishkill as its main source for
Geforce GPUs taking the job away from TSMC, but IBM had production
problems and Nvidia had to give it all back to TSMC.

Cray contracted IBM to produce the data router chips for its Red
Storm-line of supercomputers. Again, IBM had trouble producing enough of
them. To make matters worse, due to this delay, IBM itself was able to
get its own various supercomputers released earlier than Red Storm. Cray
has since gone on to give the job to TI.

IBM seems to not be very good at applying its own knowledge to its own
production. It's able to help people like AMD out with new production
processes, and AMD goes on to use it well. But IBM can't seem to improve
production in its own fabs.

> All the feathers are already ruffled. There is simply no way that
> Gates cannot be taking a dark view of the Intel-Apple deal, and Intel
> is already furious over 64-bit decisions (x86/Itanium) by Microsoft.
> The only question is where the bodies lie when the shooting stops.

Intel has nobody to blame but itself for its Itanium failures. As for
x64, it had nothing of its own, so it was likely going to use AMD's
stuff anyways.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2005 7:40:33 AM

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:56:18 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:43:23 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

>> OTOH I wonder how many
>> orgs bother to modify them and why?... what's the point? Are there now
>> mfrs selling cards where the burned in MAC address is repeated
>> willy-nilly?
>
>There have been for at least ten years, maybe longer. The manufacturers
>ran out of MACs long ago and have been forced to repeat them. As long as
>two don't show up on the same subnet, who cares? If by some unlucky
>coincidence they do, simply change one. AIUI, that's the reason they're
>changable.
>
>This shouldn't be a shock to anyone who's run the numbers. 2^24 is only
>16M. Many manufacturers have made more than 16M Ethernet devices.

But a full MAC address is 48 bits. Is half of it reserved for some
Ethernet thingy?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2005 9:21:43 AM

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

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 00:32:39 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:

>Robert Myers wrote:
>> I'd be very surprised if Intel didn't regard Microsoft's x86-64
>> decision as a declaration of war. That is to say, Microsoft already
>> _has_ optimized its code for AMD.
>
>Why would it be offended? In the end, it saved Intel a lot of money
>having to adopt AMD's instruction set, instead of trying to develop its
>own from scratch. And Microsoft waited to release Windows until Intel
>was ready to release its own chips.
>
>And of course Microsoft has already optimized for AMD, who else were
>they going to optimize for? It was there 1.5 years before Intel, and
>much longer if you count pre-production chips which it would absolutely
>have given to Microsoft first. Hell, even Microsoft's programming header
>files call the platform "AMD64". Linux headers are actually more kind
>towards Intel by calling the platform by the more generic "x86-64".
>

Did you miss the episode of Intel trying to get Microsoft to implement
Windows for an incompatible Intel 64-bit x86 extension?

We seem to be off into speculation about what nice people do in a nice
world. Intel is unhappy with Microsoft over Microsoft's 64-bit
decisions, and it doesn't make the slightest difference to Intel's
attitude toward Microsoft what Linux calls x86-64.

>>>Also MSFT has even greater cash reserves than INTC, and
>>>can use some of it to help AMD increase production.
>>
>>
>> That would and should produce a shareholder revolt at Microsoft.
>
>Sort of like the shareholder revolt that happened after Microsoft gave
>cash infusions to Apple and Corel when they were looking shakey?
>
Intel spent that money in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that it
*is* a predatory monopoly.

<snip>

>> All the feathers are already ruffled. There is simply no way that
>> Gates cannot be taking a dark view of the Intel-Apple deal, and Intel
>> is already furious over 64-bit decisions (x86/Itanium) by Microsoft.
>> The only question is where the bodies lie when the shooting stops.
>
>Intel has nobody to blame but itself for its Itanium failures. As for
>x64, it had nothing of its own, so it was likely going to use AMD's
>stuff anyways.
>

The only reason Intel implemented x86-64 and not some proprietary
variant is because Gates left them no choice. Whether Intel has only
itself to blame or not for itanium failures doesn't matter. Intel
can't be happy at Microsoft decisions to support x86-64 and not
Itanium.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2005 10:23:04 AM

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

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 05:21:43 -0400, Robert Myers
<rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:


>>
>>Sort of like the shareholder revolt that happened after Microsoft gave
>>cash infusions to Apple and Corel when they were looking shakey?
>>
>Intel spent that money in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that it
>*is* a predatory monopoly.
>
You'll never let that one go. It should read that Microsoft spent the
money to obfuscate the fact that *it* is a predatory monopoly. As to
Intel being a predatory monopoly, it would like to be, I'm sure.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2005 5:43:19 PM

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

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:

> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:05:39 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:07:55 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
>>wrote:
>>No, they most definitely are not. There is absolutely no requirement
>>that the internal 24-bit numbers assigned by the companies are unique
>>and it is possible (and easy) to change a MAC address on many (most?)
>>ethernet devices.
>
> I'm not sure how the 48 bits are divided up but I think it's fair to say
> that the original intent was that it be a universally unique number.

It's a 24-bit OUI and a 24-bit serial number. At least on Ethernet,
bit 40 og the OUI is the multicast/unicast bit, and bit 41 is the
Local/Global bit.

Regards,


Kai
--
Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <khp(at)harrekilde(dot)dk>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 13, 2005 3:32:47 PM

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:05:39 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:23:20 +1200, "AD." <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:40:31 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
>>
>>> "just as every network device has its unique MAC address"
>>>
>>> MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).
>>
>>MAC addresses are unique, barring people changing them of course. Of
>>course your chances of accidentally changing it to match another devices
>>address on your subnet are very very small indeed.
>
> The fact that they can be changed (easily) and are not FORCED to be unique
> means that you can most definitely not *depend* on them being unique, ie
> trying to design some sort of DRM scheme around MAC addresses is an
> exercise in futility.

Agreed. I just misread your statement to mean something like "they are by
design unique on a subnet but not unique globally".

Not having read the article (whadya you mean this isn't Slashdot?), I
didn't realise the context was around their usefulness in DRM schemes.
That little extra bit of context makes your meaning much clearer now :) 

--
Cheers
Anton
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 13, 2005 3:38:18 PM

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:05:39 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

> And will Apple PCs using Intel chips also run Windows?

Probably IMO.

> Will Apple SELL PCs with Windows?

No chance. Then they'd have to support it like all the other OEMs. I can't
imagine Apple being willing to do that.

Then again when 'support' these days consists of "pop in the recovery CD
and reboot", maybe they would?

--
Cheers
Anton
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 13, 2005 4:56:55 PM

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

keith wrote:

>There have been for at least ten years, maybe longer. The manufacturers
>ran out of MACs long ago and have been forced to repeat them. As long as
>two don't show up on the same subnet, who cares? If by some unlucky
>coincidence they do, simply change one. AIUI, that's the reason they're
>changable.

Hmm... They're not customer-changable on the products my company
makes...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 14, 2005 12:13:58 AM

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

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:43:19 +0200, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
<khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:05:39 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:07:55 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>No, they most definitely are not. There is absolutely no requirement
>>>that the internal 24-bit numbers assigned by the companies are unique
>>>and it is possible (and easy) to change a MAC address on many (most?)
>>>ethernet devices.
>>
>> I'm not sure how the 48 bits are divided up but I think it's fair to say
>> that the original intent was that it be a universally unique number.
>
>It's a 24-bit OUI and a 24-bit serial number. At least on Ethernet,
>bit 40 og the OUI is the multicast/unicast bit, and bit 41 is the
>Local/Global bit.

Ah, OK - now I see... there's even a list of OUI "known" mfrs:
http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt. Certainly I can see that,
now that mbrds can have on-board NICs -- and some more than one -- where
they are going to run out of serial numbers... and maybe quite quickly. I
also wonder about all the OUIs which are locked up through mergers etc.
over the years being badly distributed.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
June 14, 2005 2:12:18 AM

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

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:56:55 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> keith wrote:
>
>>There have been for at least ten years, maybe longer. The manufacturers
>>ran out of MACs long ago and have been forced to repeat them. As long as
>>two don't show up on the same subnet, who cares? If by some unlucky
>>coincidence they do, simply change one. AIUI, that's the reason they're
>>changable.
>
> Hmm... They're not customer-changable on the products my company
> makes...

Really? They've been changable on everything I've worked on for years
(and no, I've not had any reason to look recently). The utility to change
them (it's in the serial EEPROM) may not be obvious, but it's there.

--
Keith
June 14, 2005 2:15:33 AM

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

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:13:58 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:43:19 +0200, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
> <khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:
>
>>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:05:39 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:07:55 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>No, they most definitely are not. There is absolutely no requirement
>>>>that the internal 24-bit numbers assigned by the companies are unique
>>>>and it is possible (and easy) to change a MAC address on many (most?)
>>>>ethernet devices.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how the 48 bits are divided up but I think it's fair to say
>>> that the original intent was that it be a universally unique number.
>>
>>It's a 24-bit OUI and a 24-bit serial number. At least on Ethernet,
>>bit 40 og the OUI is the multicast/unicast bit, and bit 41 is the
>>Local/Global bit.
>
> Ah, OK - now I see... there's even a list of OUI "known" mfrs:
> http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt. Certainly I can see that,
> now that mbrds can have on-board NICs -- and some more than one -- where
> they are going to run out of serial numbers... and maybe quite quickly. I
> also wonder about all the OUIs which are locked up through mergers etc.
> over the years being badly distributed.

I believe we've had the same argument here over IP addresses. 64bits
should be enough for *everyone*! ...except that reality steps in.

I still have a hard-wired IP address (perhaps two) out of the 32bit space.

--
Keith
!