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

Intel desktop mobos face mass extinction
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26082

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Intel desktop mobos face mass extinction
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26082
>

So what. Today's pricing of computers and components have
made them throw-away commodities. So long as Intel, or any
other manufacturer, churns out products that can perform or
work, there will be buyers. Of course, the fringe players
will continue to demand top-of-the-line, speedy machines
and development will continue for them. But what succeeds
in this niche market should satisfy the thundering herd that
typically follows.

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Intel desktop mobos face mass extinction
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26082
>
I don't understand why you think this is important. Some product is
being discontinued, car makers do that all the time. More to the point,
unless you believe Intel is never going to have any new products, this
"roadmap" only shows part of the info, so that the article can draw the
most alarming conclusions.

I admit that there are a few board there I have used, but other people
make board, and chipsets, and CPUs. I fail to see anything but normal
product offering churn.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

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

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:06:11 GMT, Bill Davidsen
<davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:

>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Intel desktop mobos face mass extinction
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26082
>>
>I don't understand why you think this is important. Some product is
>being discontinued, car makers do that all the time. More to the point,
>unless you believe Intel is never going to have any new products, this
>"roadmap" only shows part of the info, so that the article can draw the
>most alarming conclusions.
>
>I admit that there are a few board there I have used, but other people
>make board, and chipsets, and CPUs. I fail to see anything but normal
>product offering churn.

Obsolescent SKUs are part of any component business of course but the
article said quite clearly that OEMs, integrators and others were not
pleased: they cited "scant opportunity to shift stock". Apparently this
has more to do with a shortage of chipset manufacturing capacity as normal
product cycles - Intel has chopped off the low, least profitable end of its
chipset business long before usual expected EOL.

Do you really think an OEM like Dell or Gateway, or a systems integrator,
can just shift mbrd components to an alternative supplier with a different
chipset that quickly and expect to keep business customers happy? Have you
not heard of platform homogeneity? It's been claimed here umpteen times as
the reason to stay with Intel as a chipset/mbrd supplier. You should have
read the article.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:06:11 GMT, Bill Davidsen
> <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>>>Intel desktop mobos face mass extinction
>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26082
>>>
>>
>>I don't understand why you think this is important. Some product is
>>being discontinued, car makers do that all the time. More to the point,
>>unless you believe Intel is never going to have any new products, this
>>"roadmap" only shows part of the info, so that the article can draw the
>>most alarming conclusions.
>>
>>I admit that there are a few board there I have used, but other people
>>make board, and chipsets, and CPUs. I fail to see anything but normal
>>product offering churn.
>
>
> Obsolescent SKUs are part of any component business of course but the
> article said quite clearly that OEMs, integrators and others were not
> pleased: they cited "scant opportunity to shift stock". Apparently this
> has more to do with a shortage of chipset manufacturing capacity as normal
> product cycles - Intel has chopped off the low, least profitable end of its
> chipset business long before usual expected EOL.
>
> Do you really think an OEM like Dell or Gateway, or a systems integrator,
> can just shift mbrd components to an alternative supplier with a different
> chipset that quickly and expect to keep business customers happy? Have you
> not heard of platform homogeneity? It's been claimed here umpteen times as
> the reason to stay with Intel as a chipset/mbrd supplier. You should have
> read the article.
>
Seeing this is from theinquirer could this "shift stock" be UK
vernacular for "didn't have time to sell our stock and reduce our
inventory to zero" before the discontinuance was announced and value
dropped?
del


--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:06:11 GMT, Bill Davidsen
> <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>>>Intel desktop mobos face mass extinction
>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26082
>>>
>>
>>I don't understand why you think this is important. Some product is
>>being discontinued, car makers do that all the time. More to the point,
>>unless you believe Intel is never going to have any new products, this
>>"roadmap" only shows part of the info, so that the article can draw the
>>most alarming conclusions.
>>
>>I admit that there are a few board there I have used, but other people
>>make board, and chipsets, and CPUs. I fail to see anything but normal
>>product offering churn.
>
>
> Obsolescent SKUs are part of any component business of course but the
> article said quite clearly that OEMs, integrators and others were not
> pleased: they cited "scant opportunity to shift stock". Apparently this
> has more to do with a shortage of chipset manufacturing capacity as normal
> product cycles - Intel has chopped off the low, least profitable end of its
> chipset business long before usual expected EOL.
>
> Do you really think an OEM like Dell or Gateway, or a systems integrator,
> can just shift mbrd components to an alternative supplier with a different
> chipset that quickly and expect to keep business customers happy? Have you
> not heard of platform homogeneity? It's been claimed here umpteen times as
> the reason to stay with Intel as a chipset/mbrd supplier. You should have
> read the article.
>
Having had both Dell and IBM tell me they could no longer supply
identical servers or previously available options to existing servers, I
know that vendors can and do obsolete models which were "just announced"
product less than 15 months ago when I bought the original. IBM has
withdrawn CPU upgrades for units under two years old, even when the
parts are still being sold by Intel. These are rack mount servers, not
consumer goods, and not all units in a given order are always identical,
vendors make "running production changes" as well, under the same model
number.

Those vendors also change RAID controller specs available for new
purchase (cards), chipsets on the built-in network hardware and/or SCSI
controllers, etc. And I'm told by my friend who sells Sun that other
vendors do that as well.

I believe that vendors are unhappy, but it's because Intel made the
decision, not because no such decisions have ever been made in the past.
I did read the article, but didn't see much new. Vendors have been
changing things on short notice for at minimum 25 years, do you really
think large business customers are going to be more unhappy that the
change is driven by Intel instead of the OEM?

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

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

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:45:56 -0500, Del Cecchi <cecchinospam@us.ibm.com>
wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:06:11 GMT, Bill Davidsen
>> <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Intel desktop mobos face mass extinction
>>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26082
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't understand why you think this is important. Some product is
>>>being discontinued, car makers do that all the time. More to the point,
>>>unless you believe Intel is never going to have any new products, this
>>>"roadmap" only shows part of the info, so that the article can draw the
>>>most alarming conclusions.
>>>
>>>I admit that there are a few board there I have used, but other people
>>>make board, and chipsets, and CPUs. I fail to see anything but normal
>>>product offering churn.
>>
>>
>> Obsolescent SKUs are part of any component business of course but the
>> article said quite clearly that OEMs, integrators and others were not
>> pleased: they cited "scant opportunity to shift stock". Apparently this
>> has more to do with a shortage of chipset manufacturing capacity as normal
>> product cycles - Intel has chopped off the low, least profitable end of its
>> chipset business long before usual expected EOL.
>>
>> Do you really think an OEM like Dell or Gateway, or a systems integrator,
>> can just shift mbrd components to an alternative supplier with a different
>> chipset that quickly and expect to keep business customers happy? Have you
>> not heard of platform homogeneity? It's been claimed here umpteen times as
>> the reason to stay with Intel as a chipset/mbrd supplier. You should have
>> read the article.
>>
>Seeing this is from theinquirer could this "shift stock" be UK
>vernacular for "didn't have time to sell our stock and reduce our
>inventory to zero" before the discontinuance was announced and value
>dropped?

That's the way I read "shift stock" though whether it means inventory of
just mbrds or other matching parts that they expected to dribble down to
zero slowly... I dunno?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:40:19 GMT, Bill Davidsen
<davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:06:11 GMT, Bill Davidsen
>> <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Intel desktop mobos face mass extinction
>>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26082
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't understand why you think this is important. Some product is
>>>being discontinued, car makers do that all the time. More to the point,
>>>unless you believe Intel is never going to have any new products, this
>>>"roadmap" only shows part of the info, so that the article can draw the
>>>most alarming conclusions.
>>>
>>>I admit that there are a few board there I have used, but other people
>>>make board, and chipsets, and CPUs. I fail to see anything but normal
>>>product offering churn.
>>
>>
>> Obsolescent SKUs are part of any component business of course but the
>> article said quite clearly that OEMs, integrators and others were not
>> pleased: they cited "scant opportunity to shift stock". Apparently this
>> has more to do with a shortage of chipset manufacturing capacity as normal
>> product cycles - Intel has chopped off the low, least profitable end of its
>> chipset business long before usual expected EOL.
>>
>> Do you really think an OEM like Dell or Gateway, or a systems integrator,
>> can just shift mbrd components to an alternative supplier with a different
>> chipset that quickly and expect to keep business customers happy? Have you
>> not heard of platform homogeneity? It's been claimed here umpteen times as
>> the reason to stay with Intel as a chipset/mbrd supplier. You should have
>> read the article.
>>
>Having had both Dell and IBM tell me they could no longer supply
>identical servers or previously available options to existing servers, I
>know that vendors can and do obsolete models which were "just announced"
>product less than 15 months ago when I bought the original. IBM has
>withdrawn CPU upgrades for units under two years old, even when the
>parts are still being sold by Intel. These are rack mount servers, not
>consumer goods, and not all units in a given order are always identical,
>vendors make "running production changes" as well, under the same model
>number.
>
>Those vendors also change RAID controller specs available for new
>purchase (cards), chipsets on the built-in network hardware and/or SCSI
>controllers, etc. And I'm told by my friend who sells Sun that other
>vendors do that as well.
>
>I believe that vendors are unhappy, but it's because Intel made the
>decision, not because no such decisions have ever been made in the past.
>I did read the article, but didn't see much new.

I'm not sure what the point of all the above is supposed to be - bears no
relation to the case at hand. The fact is that, according to the story,
the OEMs, SIs et.al. are not pleased about some unexpected discontinuity in
Intel's product offerings, whether it be due to shortened product life
cycles for them... or some other reason.

> Vendors have been
>changing things on short notice for at minimum 25 years, do you really
>think large business customers are going to be more unhappy that the
>change is driven by Intel instead of the OEM?

Given that, apparently, IT buyers have had a certain confidence in a
consistent platform strategy based on Intel's previous record, some of them
may be seeking a scapegoat. The OEM supplier is evidently going to point
to Intel's premature(?) withdrawal of components in the form of chipsets
and mbrds. It just seemed to me that your suggestion that "other people
make board, and chipsets, and CPUs" is not relevant to the IT buyers' needs
on platform consistency.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

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

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in
message news:5pa4j1h04evj1decnn6gpmn45s60ius86o@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:40:19 GMT, Bill Davidsen
> <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:06:11 GMT, Bill Davidsen
>>> <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Intel desktop mobos face mass extinction
>>>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26082
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't understand why you think this is important. Some product is
>>>>being discontinued, car makers do that all the time. More to the
>>>>point,
>>>>unless you believe Intel is never going to have any new products,
>>>>this
>>>>"roadmap" only shows part of the info, so that the article can draw
>>>>the
>>>>most alarming conclusions.
>>>>
>>>>I admit that there are a few board there I have used, but other
>>>>people
>>>>make board, and chipsets, and CPUs. I fail to see anything but normal
>>>>product offering churn.
>>>
>>>
>>> Obsolescent SKUs are part of any component business of course but the
>>> article said quite clearly that OEMs, integrators and others were not
>>> pleased: they cited "scant opportunity to shift stock". Apparently
>>> this
>>> has more to do with a shortage of chipset manufacturing capacity as
>>> normal
>>> product cycles - Intel has chopped off the low, least profitable end
>>> of its
>>> chipset business long before usual expected EOL.
>>>
>>> Do you really think an OEM like Dell or Gateway, or a systems
>>> integrator,
>>> can just shift mbrd components to an alternative supplier with a
>>> different
>>> chipset that quickly and expect to keep business customers happy?
>>> Have you
>>> not heard of platform homogeneity? It's been claimed here umpteen
>>> times as
>>> the reason to stay with Intel as a chipset/mbrd supplier. You should
>>> have
>>> read the article.
>>>
>>Having had both Dell and IBM tell me they could no longer supply
>>identical servers or previously available options to existing servers,
>>I
>>know that vendors can and do obsolete models which were "just
>>announced"
>>product less than 15 months ago when I bought the original. IBM has
>>withdrawn CPU upgrades for units under two years old, even when the
>>parts are still being sold by Intel. These are rack mount servers, not
>>consumer goods, and not all units in a given order are always
>>identical,
>>vendors make "running production changes" as well, under the same model
>>number.
>>
>>Those vendors also change RAID controller specs available for new
>>purchase (cards), chipsets on the built-in network hardware and/or SCSI
>>controllers, etc. And I'm told by my friend who sells Sun that other
>>vendors do that as well.
>>
>>I believe that vendors are unhappy, but it's because Intel made the
>>decision, not because no such decisions have ever been made in the
>>past.
>>I did read the article, but didn't see much new.
>
> I'm not sure what the point of all the above is supposed to be - bears
> no
> relation to the case at hand. The fact is that, according to the
> story,
> the OEMs, SIs et.al. are not pleased about some unexpected
> discontinuity in
> Intel's product offerings, whether it be due to shortened product life
> cycles for them... or some other reason.
>
>> Vendors have been
>>changing things on short notice for at minimum 25 years, do you really
>>think large business customers are going to be more unhappy that the
>>change is driven by Intel instead of the OEM?
>
> Given that, apparently, IT buyers have had a certain confidence in a
> consistent platform strategy based on Intel's previous record, some of
> them
> may be seeking a scapegoat. The OEM supplier is evidently going to
> point
> to Intel's premature(?) withdrawal of components in the form of
> chipsets
> and mbrds. It just seemed to me that your suggestion that "other
> people
> make board, and chipsets, and CPUs" is not relevant to the IT buyers'
> needs
> on platform consistency.
>
> --
> Rgds, George Macdonald

Soounds to me like the resellers are irritated that they didn't get
advance notice so they could sell their stock at full price before Intel
let the public in on the fact that these boards/chipsets were prematurely
obsolete.

If you want a system that will be supported for the long term and in
which the installed base is considered, I know where to buy them.

del

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

Del Cecchi wrote:
> "George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in
> message news:5pa4j1h04evj1decnn6gpmn45s60ius86o@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:40:19 GMT, Bill Davidsen
>><davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:06:11 GMT, Bill Davidsen
>>>><davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Intel desktop mobos face mass extinction
>>>>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26082
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't understand why you think this is important. Some product is
>>>>>being discontinued, car makers do that all the time. More to the
>>>>>point,
>>>>>unless you believe Intel is never going to have any new products,
>>>>>this
>>>>>"roadmap" only shows part of the info, so that the article can draw
>>>>>the
>>>>>most alarming conclusions.
>>>>>
>>>>>I admit that there are a few board there I have used, but other
>>>>>people
>>>>>make board, and chipsets, and CPUs. I fail to see anything but normal
>>>>>product offering churn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Obsolescent SKUs are part of any component business of course but the
>>>>article said quite clearly that OEMs, integrators and others were not
>>>>pleased: they cited "scant opportunity to shift stock". Apparently
>>>>this
>>>>has more to do with a shortage of chipset manufacturing capacity as
>>>>normal
>>>>product cycles - Intel has chopped off the low, least profitable end
>>>>of its
>>>>chipset business long before usual expected EOL.
>>>>
>>>>Do you really think an OEM like Dell or Gateway, or a systems
>>>>integrator,
>>>>can just shift mbrd components to an alternative supplier with a
>>>>different
>>>>chipset that quickly and expect to keep business customers happy?
>>>>Have you
>>>>not heard of platform homogeneity? It's been claimed here umpteen
>>>>times as
>>>>the reason to stay with Intel as a chipset/mbrd supplier. You should
>>>>have
>>>>read the article.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Having had both Dell and IBM tell me they could no longer supply
>>>identical servers or previously available options to existing servers,
>>>I
>>>know that vendors can and do obsolete models which were "just
>>>announced"
>>>product less than 15 months ago when I bought the original. IBM has
>>>withdrawn CPU upgrades for units under two years old, even when the
>>>parts are still being sold by Intel. These are rack mount servers, not
>>>consumer goods, and not all units in a given order are always
>>>identical,
>>>vendors make "running production changes" as well, under the same model
>>>number.
>>>
>>>Those vendors also change RAID controller specs available for new
>>>purchase (cards), chipsets on the built-in network hardware and/or SCSI
>>>controllers, etc. And I'm told by my friend who sells Sun that other
>>>vendors do that as well.
>>>
>>>I believe that vendors are unhappy, but it's because Intel made the
>>>decision, not because no such decisions have ever been made in the
>>>past.
>>>I did read the article, but didn't see much new.
>>
>>I'm not sure what the point of all the above is supposed to be - bears
>>no
>>relation to the case at hand. The fact is that, according to the
>>story,
>>the OEMs, SIs et.al. are not pleased about some unexpected
>>discontinuity in
>>Intel's product offerings, whether it be due to shortened product life
>>cycles for them... or some other reason.
>>
>>
>>>Vendors have been
>>>changing things on short notice for at minimum 25 years, do you really
>>>think large business customers are going to be more unhappy that the
>>>change is driven by Intel instead of the OEM?
>>
>>Given that, apparently, IT buyers have had a certain confidence in a
>>consistent platform strategy based on Intel's previous record, some of
>>them
>>may be seeking a scapegoat. The OEM supplier is evidently going to
>>point
>>to Intel's premature(?) withdrawal of components in the form of
>>chipsets
>>and mbrds. It just seemed to me that your suggestion that "other
>>people
>>make board, and chipsets, and CPUs" is not relevant to the IT buyers'
>>needs
>>on platform consistency.
>>
>>--
>>Rgds, George Macdonald
>
>
> Soounds to me like the resellers are irritated that they didn't get
> advance notice so they could sell their stock at full price before Intel
> let the public in on the fact that these boards/chipsets were prematurely
> obsolete.
>
> If you want a system that will be supported for the long term and in
> which the installed base is considered, I know where to buy them.
>
Don't keep us in suspense, tell us where. I've been seeing "running
production changes" from IBM, HP, and Dell for several decades now, so I
want to hear which established vendor sells rackmount systems which
never change.

Not that it's an issue, as long as the system is functionally the same.
Servers matter less than office machines, where I've had systems
rejected because they weren't quite the same color as the last batch.
--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

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

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Del Cecchi wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
snip
>>
>> Soounds to me like the resellers are irritated that they didn't get
>> advance notice so they could sell their stock at full price before
>> Intel let the public in on the fact that these boards/chipsets were
>> prematurely obsolete.
>>
>> If you want a system that will be supported for the long term and in
>> which the installed base is considered, I know where to buy them.
>>
> Don't keep us in suspense, tell us where. I've been seeing "running
> production changes" from IBM, HP, and Dell for several decades now, so I
> want to hear which established vendor sells rackmount systems which
> never change.
>
> Not that it's an issue, as long as the system is functionally the same.
> Servers matter less than office machines, where I've had systems
> rejected because they weren't quite the same color as the last batch.

I was coyly referring to the IBM lines of z series and i series, and I
suppose also P series. Idon't know much about the policies of Xseries.

I also don't know about the changes made to blade center stuff. But you
are certainly correct. last years stuff in the PC world is considered
obsolete, and no one much wants to buy it so they stop building it.
Given the tight margins no one can afford to stock extra parts in case
someone wants to order a few of last years model. Just a fact of life.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”