Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

For RM, another fine article you might enjoy

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2005 11:13:27 PM

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

From Gundeep Hora, who you've stated in the past to agree with his
point of view, complete with damning praise. :-)

CoolTechZone::Column: Could AMD be the Next Intel?
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&ta...

Yousuf Khan

More about : fine article enjoy

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2005 7:27:15 AM

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> From Gundeep Hora, who you've stated in the past to agree with his
> point of view, complete with damning praise. :-)
>
> CoolTechZone::Column: Could AMD be the Next Intel?
> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&ta...
>

The article is almost entirely speculation used for rhetorical
purposes. It seems like a complete waste of time and bandwidth, as it
doesn't explore anything the author thinks will happen or even might
happen, but rather events that are invented for the purposes of moral
evaluation, and not very incisive moral evaluation, at that.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2005 8:51:02 AM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> The article is almost entirely speculation used for rhetorical
> purposes. It seems like a complete waste of time and bandwidth, as it
> doesn't explore anything the author thinks will happen or even might
> happen, but rather events that are invented for the purposes of moral
> evaluation, and not very incisive moral evaluation, at that.

Actually, that's true. What I thought too.

How about this one?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-1678069,00...

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2005 9:26:24 AM

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

YKhan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > The article is almost entirely speculation used for rhetorical
> > purposes. It seems like a complete waste of time and bandwidth, as it
> > doesn't explore anything the author thinks will happen or even might
> > happen, but rather events that are invented for the purposes of moral
> > evaluation, and not very incisive moral evaluation, at that.
>
> Actually, that's true. What I thought too.
>
> How about this one?
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-1678069,00...
>

"Is competition in your industry conducted in a fair and proper
manner?" Who's kidding who? And what's fair and what's proper?

Let me try to draw a bright line here. Those keeping the books at
Enron were (apparently) committing crimes that harmed a great number of
people. Their actions brought down that business and probably many
others and disrupted the lives of almost all former Enron employees.
Enron deliberately distorted markets in ways that harmed consumers (and
often poor consumers) who needed things so basic as electricity.

We have businesses in the US who use shareholder money to influence
regulatory, tax, industrial, and foreign policy in ways that, in my
estimation, cause much greater harm than anything that I can conceive
that Intel has been or will be accused of.

Does any of that make (say) alleged bribery of customer officials okay?
Of course not. But I assume that businesses will do everything they
think they can get away with to gain competitive advantage, and that
sometimes they will step over the line and do something they can't get
away with. It's going to happen. That's just the way the world goes.

I can't stop you or others from carrying on, gloating, obsessing,
speculating or otherwise satisfying your own emotional needs by
discussing this case. Have at it. It just doesn't interest me that
much, and I don't see that I have any chance of persuading you that you
are looking at the world with a strangely distorted perspective.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2005 1:27:13 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> I can't stop you or others from carrying on, gloating, obsessing,
> speculating or otherwise satisfying your own emotional needs by
> discussing this case. Have at it. It just doesn't interest me that
> much, and I don't see that I have any chance of persuading you that you
> are looking at the world with a strangely distorted perspective.

Here's another one:

AMD to Intel: Fight!
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1833952,00.a...

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2005 9:40:23 AM

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2005 05:26:24 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >
> >I can't stop you or others from carrying on, gloating, obsessing,
> >speculating or otherwise satisfying your own emotional needs by
> >discussing this case. Have at it. It just doesn't interest me that
> >much, and I don't see that I have any chance of persuading you that you
> >are looking at the world with a strangely distorted perspective.
>
> Oh com'n cut it out. It "doesn't interest" you but you'll write 4 paras of
> diversionary padding. Are you just trying to disrupt any serious
> discussion of the issues?
>

Not diversionary, George. Prophylactic. Plenty goes on in the world
that I disapprove of. I'd say I disapprove of Intel's marketing
tactics, but saying so would make me sound sanctimonious. In today's
society, it would be like disapproving of divorce. The fact that a
particular business practice is common doesn't make it right, but I
want to keep my sense of perspective, even if no one else does.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2005 12:27:49 PM

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

On 5 Jul 2005 05:26:24 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>YKhan wrote:
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>> > The article is almost entirely speculation used for rhetorical
>> > purposes. It seems like a complete waste of time and bandwidth, as it
>> > doesn't explore anything the author thinks will happen or even might
>> > happen, but rather events that are invented for the purposes of moral
>> > evaluation, and not very incisive moral evaluation, at that.
>>
>> Actually, that's true. What I thought too.
>>
>> How about this one?
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-1678069,00...
>>
>
>"Is competition in your industry conducted in a fair and proper
>manner?" Who's kidding who? And what's fair and what's proper?
>
>Let me try to draw a bright line here. Those keeping the books at
>Enron were (apparently) committing crimes that harmed a great number of
>people. Their actions brought down that business and probably many
>others and disrupted the lives of almost all former Enron employees.
>Enron deliberately distorted markets in ways that harmed consumers (and
>often poor consumers) who needed things so basic as electricity.
>
>We have businesses in the US who use shareholder money to influence
>regulatory, tax, industrial, and foreign policy in ways that, in my
>estimation, cause much greater harm than anything that I can conceive
>that Intel has been or will be accused of.
>
>Does any of that make (say) alleged bribery of customer officials okay?
> Of course not. But I assume that businesses will do everything they
>think they can get away with to gain competitive advantage, and that
>sometimes they will step over the line and do something they can't get
>away with. It's going to happen. That's just the way the world goes.
>
>I can't stop you or others from carrying on, gloating, obsessing,
>speculating or otherwise satisfying your own emotional needs by
>discussing this case. Have at it. It just doesn't interest me that
>much, and I don't see that I have any chance of persuading you that you
>are looking at the world with a strangely distorted perspective.

Oh com'n cut it out. It "doesn't interest" you but you'll write 4 paras of
diversionary padding. Are you just trying to disrupt any serious
discussion of the issues?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2005 11:01:07 PM

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

George Macdonald wrote:

> On 6 Jul 2005 05:40:23 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >George Macdonald wrote:
> >> On 5 Jul 2005 05:26:24 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> >
> >> >I can't stop you or others from carrying on, gloating, obsessing,
> >> >speculating or otherwise satisfying your own emotional needs by
> >> >discussing this case. Have at it. It just doesn't interest me that
> >> >much, and I don't see that I have any chance of persuading you that you
> >> >are looking at the world with a strangely distorted perspective.
> >>
> >> Oh com'n cut it out. It "doesn't interest" you but you'll write 4 paras of
> >> diversionary padding. Are you just trying to disrupt any serious
> >> discussion of the issues?
> >>
> >
> >Not diversionary, George. Prophylactic.
>
> Intel needs prophylactic protection?:-)
>

No, I do. Intel can clearly shift for itself. Some business methods
are plainly harmful to society and society has to act against them. I
don't see Intel's alleged actions as fitting into the Enron (or even
the Microsoft) category. AMD has a right to sue, the courthouse door,
as my lawyer told me, is always open, and they've sued. I just don't
have to be a part of the cheering section, but neither do I think that
means that anything goes.

> > Plenty goes on in the world
> >that I disapprove of. I'd say I disapprove of Intel's marketing
> >tactics, but saying so would make me sound sanctimonious. In today's
> >society, it would be like disapproving of divorce. The fact that a
> >particular business practice is common doesn't make it right, but I
> >want to keep my sense of perspective, even if no one else does.
>
> Your comparisons get weirder and weirder. No I don't think Intel's tactics
> are as common in business as you suggest - the Japanese have made their
> decision on it.
>

Uh-huh. I wouldn't let GWB decide what I think is right or wrong,
worth acting on or not acting on. I don't see why the Japanese should
have any more standing.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2005 11:27:55 PM

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

On 6 Jul 2005 05:40:23 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On 5 Jul 2005 05:26:24 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> >
>> >I can't stop you or others from carrying on, gloating, obsessing,
>> >speculating or otherwise satisfying your own emotional needs by
>> >discussing this case. Have at it. It just doesn't interest me that
>> >much, and I don't see that I have any chance of persuading you that you
>> >are looking at the world with a strangely distorted perspective.
>>
>> Oh com'n cut it out. It "doesn't interest" you but you'll write 4 paras of
>> diversionary padding. Are you just trying to disrupt any serious
>> discussion of the issues?
>>
>
>Not diversionary, George. Prophylactic.

Intel needs prophylactic protection?:-)

> Plenty goes on in the world
>that I disapprove of. I'd say I disapprove of Intel's marketing
>tactics, but saying so would make me sound sanctimonious. In today's
>society, it would be like disapproving of divorce. The fact that a
>particular business practice is common doesn't make it right, but I
>want to keep my sense of perspective, even if no one else does.

Your comparisons get weirder and weirder. No I don't think Intel's tactics
are as common in business as you suggest - the Japanese have made their
decision on it.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2005 12:09:05 AM

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

On 6 Jul 2005 19:01:07 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On 6 Jul 2005 05:40:23 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >George Macdonald wrote:
>> >> On 5 Jul 2005 05:26:24 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I can't stop you or others from carrying on, gloating, obsessing,
>> >> >speculating or otherwise satisfying your own emotional needs by
>> >> >discussing this case. Have at it. It just doesn't interest me that
>> >> >much, and I don't see that I have any chance of persuading you that you
>> >> >are looking at the world with a strangely distorted perspective.
>> >>
>> >> Oh com'n cut it out. It "doesn't interest" you but you'll write 4 paras of
>> >> diversionary padding. Are you just trying to disrupt any serious
>> >> discussion of the issues?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not diversionary, George. Prophylactic.
>>
>> Intel needs prophylactic protection?:-)
>>
>
>No, I do. Intel can clearly shift for itself. Some business methods
>are plainly harmful to society and society has to act against them. I
>don't see Intel's alleged actions as fitting into the Enron (or even
>the Microsoft) category. AMD has a right to sue, the courthouse door,
>as my lawyer told me, is always open, and they've sued. I just don't
>have to be a part of the cheering section, but neither do I think that
>means that anything goes.

I haven't seen any strong partisan opinions expressed here at all... apart
from your zealous defence. Since you appear not to have digested things
yet, taken at face value the charges are that Intel has indulged in
corporate terrorism, behavior more associated with the likes of organized
crime syndicates. Whether it can be proved is something we'll have to wait
for.

>> > Plenty goes on in the world
>> >that I disapprove of. I'd say I disapprove of Intel's marketing
>> >tactics, but saying so would make me sound sanctimonious. In today's
>> >society, it would be like disapproving of divorce. The fact that a
>> >particular business practice is common doesn't make it right, but I
>> >want to keep my sense of perspective, even if no one else does.
>>
>> Your comparisons get weirder and weirder. No I don't think Intel's tactics
>> are as common in business as you suggest - the Japanese have made their
>> decision on it.
>>
>
>Uh-huh. I wouldn't let GWB decide what I think is right or wrong,
>worth acting on or not acting on. I don't see why the Japanese should
>have any more standing.

Irrelevant. The fact is that the JP FTC indicted Intel; it would appear
that the U.S. FTC likely declined so AMD took matters into its own hands.
I doubt that your perception of Japanese "standing" matters much in the
grand scheme - we'll also see how much the Japanese courts award AMD in
their civil damages suit... or if Intel will settle out of court. Whatever
the amount, though it may not hurt Intel significantly financially, it will
blacken the corporate image. Somebody in Hillsboro should have thought of
that *before* the fact - talk about reckless endangerment!

Since we live in the most litigious country on Earth, I expect to see a
follow-on to AMD's accusations in the form of class action suits - the very
form of the AMD complaint, as a narrative of specific events, invites it;
Intel's chance of prevailing there is near zero.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
July 8, 2005 7:04:34 AM

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

On 6 Jul 2005 19:01:07 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com>
wrote:

....snip...
>No, I do. Intel can clearly shift for itself. Some business methods
>are plainly harmful to society and society has to act against them. I
>don't see Intel's alleged actions as fitting into the Enron (or even
>the Microsoft) category. AMD has a right to sue, the courthouse door,
>as my lawyer told me, is always open, and they've sued. I just don't
>have to be a part of the cheering section, but neither do I think that
>means that anything goes.
....snip...
>RM

Enron? Intel is not accused of cooking the books or otherwise
cheating the investors. MSFT? Quite close, and even worse than that.
You can download and install under Windows your favorite browser,
media player, and office suit from the competitors. You can make your
Windows machine dual-bootable (Linux or whatever else OS you like).
Heck, you can even download your favorite Windows and MS Office
versions, together with keygen, without paying a penny to Bill Gates
(disclaimer - I do not, in any way, shape, or form encourage anyone to
do so). Not exactly what one would call a monopolistic grip on the
market.
What is your chance to get Opteron-based server (that would have
much better chance to eliminate the application bottleneck and fit
within the budget, even with 4 dual cores, unlike Xeon MP) if the
corporation you work for decided to standardize on Dell? If you want
correct comparison for INTC, it would be Standard Oil, A&P of 1930s,
GM of early 1950s, AT&T, or IBM around 1980.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2005 8:28:21 AM

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

nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2005 19:01:07 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ...snip...
> >No, I do. Intel can clearly shift for itself. Some business methods
> >are plainly harmful to society and society has to act against them. I
> >don't see Intel's alleged actions as fitting into the Enron (or even
> >the Microsoft) category. AMD has a right to sue, the courthouse door,
> >as my lawyer told me, is always open, and they've sued. I just don't
> >have to be a part of the cheering section, but neither do I think that
> >means that anything goes.
> ...snip...
> >RM
>
> Enron? Intel is not accused of cooking the books or otherwise
> cheating the investors. MSFT? Quite close, and even worse than that.
> You can download and install under Windows your favorite browser,
> media player, and office suit from the competitors. You can make your
> Windows machine dual-bootable (Linux or whatever else OS you like).
> Heck, you can even download your favorite Windows and MS Office
> versions, together with keygen, without paying a penny to Bill Gates
> (disclaimer - I do not, in any way, shape, or form encourage anyone to
> do so). Not exactly what one would call a monopolistic grip on the
> market.
> What is your chance to get Opteron-based server (that would have
> much better chance to eliminate the application bottleneck and fit
> within the budget, even with 4 dual cores, unlike Xeon MP) if the
> corporation you work for decided to standardize on Dell? If you want
> correct comparison for INTC, it would be Standard Oil, A&P of 1930s,
> GM of early 1950s, AT&T, or IBM around 1980.

The purpose of my post wasn't to propose a general theory of corporate
wrongdoing. The purpose of my post was to state that I have my own
_personal_ notions of what matters and what doesn't and to try to give
some idea of what those notions are. You have posted as
nobody@nowhere. I post under my own name.

As to Intel being worse than Microsoft, that's just bizarre. Microsoft
has nearly single-handedly wrecked software, possibly forever, and
almost certainly for my lifetime. I can't identify any similar impact
of Intel that has any chance of being permanent.

The world needs inexpensive x86 processors, and they will be available.
The world does not _need_ quad core Opterons. They might be better as
servers, assuming that all the appropriate infrastructure went with
them, but there will be no human suffering attributable to AMD's
failure to penetrate the marketplace. I'm just not going to respond to
any more "I want my AMD, and I want it now posts," because that's what
they are.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2005 12:18:38 PM

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

nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2005 19:01:07 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
>>No, I do. Intel can clearly shift for itself. Some business methods
>>are plainly harmful to society and society has to act against them. I
>>don't see Intel's alleged actions as fitting into the Enron (or even
>>the Microsoft) category. AMD has a right to sue, the courthouse door,
>>as my lawyer told me, is always open, and they've sued. I just don't
>>have to be a part of the cheering section, but neither do I think that
>>means that anything goes.
>
> ...snip...
>
>>RM
>
>
> Enron? Intel is not accused of cooking the books or otherwise
> cheating the investors. MSFT? Quite close, and even worse than that.
> You can download and install under Windows your favorite browser,
> media player, and office suit from the competitors. You can make your
> Windows machine dual-bootable (Linux or whatever else OS you like).
> Heck, you can even download your favorite Windows and MS Office
> versions, together with keygen, without paying a penny to Bill Gates
> (disclaimer - I do not, in any way, shape, or form encourage anyone to
> do so). Not exactly what one would call a monopolistic grip on the
> market.
> What is your chance to get Opteron-based server (that would have
> much better chance to eliminate the application bottleneck and fit
> within the budget, even with 4 dual cores, unlike Xeon MP) if the
> corporation you work for decided to standardize on Dell? If you want
> correct comparison for INTC, it would be Standard Oil, A&P of 1930s,
> GM of early 1950s, AT&T, or IBM around 1980.
>
Make that IBM of around 1953, not 1980. In 1980 IBM's behavior was
legal. They won all the cases, although they settled the CDC case.
And besides those cases were from the 70's, as I recall.


--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”
July 11, 2005 2:18:03 AM

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

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:18:38 -0500, Del Cecchi
<cecchinospam@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
>> On 6 Jul 2005 19:01:07 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...snip...
>>
>>>No, I do. Intel can clearly shift for itself. Some business methods
>>>are plainly harmful to society and society has to act against them. I
>>>don't see Intel's alleged actions as fitting into the Enron (or even
>>>the Microsoft) category. AMD has a right to sue, the courthouse door,
>>>as my lawyer told me, is always open, and they've sued. I just don't
>>>have to be a part of the cheering section, but neither do I think that
>>>means that anything goes.
>>
>> ...snip...
>>
>>>RM
>>
>>
>> Enron? Intel is not accused of cooking the books or otherwise
>> cheating the investors. MSFT? Quite close, and even worse than that.
>> You can download and install under Windows your favorite browser,
>> media player, and office suit from the competitors. You can make your
>> Windows machine dual-bootable (Linux or whatever else OS you like).
>> Heck, you can even download your favorite Windows and MS Office
>> versions, together with keygen, without paying a penny to Bill Gates
>> (disclaimer - I do not, in any way, shape, or form encourage anyone to
>> do so). Not exactly what one would call a monopolistic grip on the
>> market.
>> What is your chance to get Opteron-based server (that would have
>> much better chance to eliminate the application bottleneck and fit
>> within the budget, even with 4 dual cores, unlike Xeon MP) if the
>> corporation you work for decided to standardize on Dell? If you want
>> correct comparison for INTC, it would be Standard Oil, A&P of 1930s,
>> GM of early 1950s, AT&T, or IBM around 1980.
>>
>Make that IBM of around 1953, not 1980. In 1980 IBM's behavior was
>legal. They won all the cases, although they settled the CDC case.
>And besides those cases were from the 70's, as I recall.

Admittedly, I may be somewhat off with the dates. Yet you got my
point right.
!