Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD sides with MS=new relations

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 18, 2002 11:49:35 AM

Well alot have probably seen this on the hard news page, but <A HREF="http://theregus.com/content/3/24651.html" target="_new">http://theregus.com/content/3/24651.html&lt;/A> what do you think?
Normally I don't criticize AMD, but this is just suck-up to MS to get their treat in the end.
However it does feel odd that AMD suddenly helps MS in their eternal lawsuit, and in some way, this opens almost a sure gate to AMD's dreams for their Hammer. For sure that if MS feels backed up by AMD, that they will also give back. I wonder how Intel will help here....I hope not paying the judges... :lol: 

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 

More about : amd sides relations

April 18, 2002 12:17:22 PM

There some issue between MS and intel.HT implentation in software.Unlike AMD it dont need support it already have it.

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie
April 18, 2002 8:12:22 PM

Oh yes, it works, and it also destroys performance...geez oh powerful is HT in current Windows huh? (Sarcastic tone)
I am sure there will be x86-64, otherwise we'll never have a fair transition to 64-bit in the future years.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
Related resources
April 18, 2002 8:14:02 PM

Hehhehe looks like today's news with the RegUS about Jerry Sanders backs my idea again, more suck up!
Well they do raise a point, having different Windows OS' by manufacturers would make stuff too confusing and would create problems. Lousy antitrust case, end this already and stop whining!


--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 18, 2002 10:18:20 PM

Quote:
otherwise we'll never have a fair transition to 64-bit in the future years.


McKinley is still an unkown, I've heard that it does 32-bit quite a bit better than Itanium, though. I don't of course know if Intel will have something to make a perfectly smooth transition, but you can't say for certain that they won't.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 18, 2002 11:17:54 PM

Well amd is right to suck up to MS, without a native 64 bit version of windows I doubt the hammer would sell too well. MS does have alot of market share you know.

<i>My life wasn't complete untill I tried sse-2 optimized pong</i>
April 19, 2002 12:35:19 AM

Yeah something like 90+%. Nothing to worry about though... they only have a monopoly..... :eek: 
April 19, 2002 1:03:11 AM

Dude, Itanium performs so poorly, yet it costs so much, without a single worth for 32 bit backwards compatibility. You honestly think McKinley will really help when the thing will probably cost a giant's leg?



--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 19, 2002 5:55:28 AM

How much have you looked at McKinley? It's a completely different core.

Oh, and by the way, <A HREF="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-265396.html?legacy=cnet" target="_new">here</A> is a link to the 733MHz Itanium smacking down the 900MHz Ultra-Sparc III in floating point and holding even in integer. Itanium is $1110 on PriceWatch (4mb version, too), do you happen to know how much an Ultra-Sparc III 733MHz is?

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FatBurger on 04/18/02 11:00 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 19, 2002 6:31:05 AM

Ace hardware have also spec benchmark database.

Look scrappy.

Power Pc 4 have 128 mb of L3 off dice damm that 1/2 of my ram.

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie
April 19, 2002 6:54:06 AM

Ultra sparc 3 is not considered one of suns greatst products... SUN had a problem with the US3 line which had a hardware bug in early revisions the current updated version of US is US3Cu which segnifecntly out preform itanic.
the two real big guns are EV68..EV7(not yet relesed) and IBMs Power4.
excluding x86 processors there are currently 6 devices outprefroming Itanic on SpecFP those include 3 alphas the power 4 and US3 900Mhz and US3cu.
abd many many processors beating itanic on Specint.

and you cant buy a single Sparc processor - they only come in SUNs servers.

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by iib on 04/19/02 09:59 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 19, 2002 3:51:32 PM

So how does Itanium compare with other first-generation CPUs? That were the first core based on a new technology, I mean.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 19, 2002 4:54:47 PM

It gets worse than that. Read <A HREF="http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technolo..." target="_new">http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technolo...;/A> and you hear that Jerry Sanders of <font color=green>AMD</font color=green> sounds like a clueless moron.

<font color=green>
Quote:
Any relief that would fragment the Microsoft Windows platform, and thereby impair the large compatibility benefits provided by that platform, would set the computer industry back almost 20 years, all at tremendous cost to consumers and to the national economy

Quote:
Twenty years ago hardware and software vendors had to choose whether to develop for incompatible desktop computers from Apple Computer Inc. AAPL.O , Commodore, Tandy and other suppliers

</font color=green>

It is pretty sad when a <i>chief executive</i> of <font color=green>AMD</font color=green> can't even tell the difference between software and hardware. It is worse when he doesn't even allow for the possability that Windows users will just continue using their older versions of Windows <i>if</i> problems arise, and that everyone could just migrate to Linux, which would <i>hardly</i> "<font color=green>set the computer industry back almost 20 years</font color=green>".

Not only is <font color=green>AMD</font color=green> wiping large clumps of brown matter from their collective nose, but either Jerry Sanders is highly unqualified for his position, or he's been lobotomized by Billy-G and programmed with a dermal implant chip to quote some seriously f-ed up M$ propaganda at the press of a button.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
April 19, 2002 5:46:13 PM

"Dude, Itanium performs so poorly, yet it costs so much, without a single worth for 32 bit backwards compatibility. You honestly think McKinley will really help when the thing will probably cost a giant's leg?"

I love the Itanium FUD you guys spread, you are clueless.

First off no one who buys an Itanium will be running 32bit applications for its primary function.

The Performance is above par for the class of processor and it does compete and beat other 64bit processors on the market. Unlike other 64bit processors the Itanium has MS Windows in its favor and that is the only reason you guys even consider it to bash on. If it did not run a flavor of windows you guys would not be able to compare it to 32bit apps. If you care about 32bit apps do not look at the Itanium and keep your stupid comment to yourself.

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
April 19, 2002 7:07:55 PM

I would have to agree with most of the content in fuggers messege... I dont like the tone.

it is senceless considering Itanic 32bit preformance as a real factor. nobody offers itanic for desktop most of the guys buying Itanic anyway use independent systems bassed on Unix Linux or othr *nix OSs for instance SUN has Solaris, Alpaph has its own distrebution of UNIX, LINUX and many others including windows...
in the market we compare itanic to no one uses x86 anyhow...


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
April 19, 2002 8:47:46 PM

Yep. I've got Red Hat for my useless Alpha box which acts as the biggest and most expensive paper weight I have ever used. The company bought it and shoved it at me to make our software Alpha compatible. I wish they would have consulted third-party software vendors first who refuse to do the same with their libraries.

I actually also have WinBlows using a combination of x86 emulation and MicroShaft NT4 for Alpha distrubution on the costly paperweight. I use derogitory descriptions of it as a M$ platform simply because the darn thing is completely useless unless running Linux. If a program actually doesn't crash, it is never for a lack of trying. Most programs won't even get past the installation packaging to install.

At least I like the case. The darn thing has two quiet fans in front (with a filter), two quiet fans in rear, the typical CPU HS/F, and a memory fan. (Why they have it for standard-clocked single-rate SDRAM I will never know...) I'd love to take that case and build a new desktop system for myself, but seeing as how it <i>is</i> the company's and all ... I behave.

But anywho, if you want Windoze, stick to a cute little 32-bit Intel or AMD chip. (Maybe VIA ... haven't actually seen compatability conversations about their C3/Eden/whatevers.) Itanium, just like all other 64-bit CPUs (with the exception of the ClawHammer) is for running crap that most people will never deal with in their lives anyway.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
April 19, 2002 9:16:10 PM

Quote:
Itanium, just like all other 64-bit CPUs (with the exception of the ClawHammer) is for running crap that most people will never deal with in their lives anyway.

Too bad that doesn't stop people from comparing the itanium with the hammer. One is a true 64-bit chip made for running 64-bit software for people who really need to.. the other a cute pseudo-64 bit chip made for running 32-bit software on desktops.

<i>My life wasn't complete untill I tried sse-2 optimized pong</i>
April 19, 2002 10:04:40 PM

Oh yeah? And what is the main goal of McKinley? To improve by almost 2 fold the 64 bit performance, a clear factor indicating POOR 64-bit. Raystonn himself said that it will improve such performance.
What about Hammer? Should we qualify that as a 64-bit chip too? If so, then its 32 bit performance much be awesome for the price performance that offers compared to the package Itanium offers. Maybe it's IA64, but at least Hammer's 64-bit is not costing all that much, even as it won't be used much.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 19, 2002 11:02:55 PM

Dude, look around you. I gave you a link that showed Itanium smacking down the Ultra-Sparc III, and you still say it has terrible performance? You have no pricing information about Hammer or McKinley, and you still say that Hammer will be way cheaper? McKinley's 32-bit performance is unkown, and supposedly will be far better, but you still say it's going to suck? x86-64's performance is still unkown, but you still tout it as something that will kill off IA64?

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 19, 2002 11:05:26 PM

Agreed, Eden, you can't make comments like that so early.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
April 20, 2002 12:01:40 AM

While performance comparisons of the Hammer and McKinley are, of course, bogus until we actually see the processors, the real question is "will valid comparisons be available once they are both released."

Just like the Alpha and Mips procs had extremely limited 32bit Windows NT application support compared to the Intel procs, the Hammer vs. Itanium (McKinley included) question has yet to be resolved. As several individuals have already stated, true 64bit support is only needed for specific applications like databases, CAD, scientific number crunching, etc. Intel <b>has</b> to do everything in its power to prevent Win64 application developers from deciding that x86-64 is better than IA-64 (I'm not making that judgement yet myself) at 64bit applications. Intel is therefore doing everything it can to stop or delay Microsoft from ever introducing Win64 for x86-64. Imagine Autodesk (maker of AutoCAD) or the manu of ProE (I forget) trying to decide whether to make a few changes to their code to re-compile for x86-64 or having to relearn an architecture and make drastic changes to provide IA-64 functionality. Which would you do if you had a current Win32 app that would benefit significantly from 64bit support? Think of Oracle - they could support x86-64 almost overnight - if they don't already.

The question of how well x86-64 will perform against Itanium is unanswerable until the chips are actually available. All arguements are moot until that happens, but the real question (performance aside) is which will survive. This is determined by the application vendors, so having Win64 available for x86-64 will be critical for AMD.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
April 20, 2002 1:09:56 AM

Ok now you're putting words in my mouth Fat. I did not say McKinley will suck at all. But I did say that judging Intel's known reputation, this thing will LIKELY cost a lot more than Itanium, and that is a sure bet to me.
Now I did not say IA64 is worse than x86-64 but I did mean that it isn't as much beneficial in itself if not alot will use it currently. I and you too, should admit that we both have no skill in 64-bit or don't work in that sector, so I will stop "touting" off things.
But my main point is, that AMD's Hammer solution for 64-bit computing is much better than Intel's current.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 20, 2002 1:12:57 AM

Considering they're aimed at different markets....

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
April 20, 2002 2:25:58 AM

I'm a newbie at this forum, but im not a newb in CPU's. I'm not an expert, but I do know alot of stuff. Now i simply want to state the facts:

- clawhammer is 32/64 bit hybrid CPU
- Itanium is made for 64 bit market exclusively, not 32
- thus, clawhammer and Itanium are aimed at different markets
- thus, comparing them is unfair

Fatburger, fugger, and Intel_inside are all correct. Eden, Itanium does NOT have poor performance. If Itanium was fully 32-bit (just imagine), then it would kick Clawhammer (although it would be more expensive). Again, Itanium cannot be compared to hammer because clawhammer is hybrid. Many say that Mckinley will be a hybrid aimed at the 64-bit market. Now, a good processor to compare with Clawhammer would probably be Yamhill, A souped-up P4 prescott (next gen p4) with 64-bit capabilities. Yamhill will probably be aimed at the desktop market, and Yamhill is supposedly a 32bit CPU, with 64 bit capability. Thus, it is aimed at the same market as clawhammer, and thus can be compared to it. Only problem is that it comes out a few months later then clawhammer (according to Intel).
April 20, 2002 2:33:46 AM

Yes you're right, I admit I haven't been much using my brain on this one lately, most likely cuz the topic got switched so fast from my question of what people think about AMD's current sucking up... I guess I hate it when a topic of mine drifts without at least having a few good discussions about it.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 20, 2002 6:46:13 AM

Quote:
But my main point is, that AMD's Hammer solution for 64-bit computing is much better than Intel's current.

You have <i><b>NO IDEA</i></b> how Hammer will perform or what it will cost, how can you say that with a straight face?

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 20, 2002 9:05:51 AM

Woah, easy on the boldface there. Perhaps you forgot a closing tag? :wink:

Anyways, as it is, there are faster, better, less power-hungry processors than the Itanium (USparc IIIcu, Alpha, etc). To be fair, Itanium is first-gen, and McKinley might well be a lot better. But I wouldn't buy an Itanium over an Alpha based on how the McKinley is expected to perform, any more than I would have bought a K6-2 over a P3 based on how the Athlon was expected to perform.

<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?
April 20, 2002 9:23:19 AM

Quote:
- clawhammer is 32/64 bit hybrid CPU
- Itanium is made for 64 bit market exclusively, not 32
- thus, clawhammer and Itanium are aimed at different markets
- thus, comparing them is unfair

You are partially correct - clawhammer and Itanium <i>are</i> aimed at different markets - clawhammer at the desktop/workstation/low-end server market with Itanium at the midrange Unix (Solaris, NumaQ, RS6000, HP9000, etc.) platform market with a Win64/Linux solution. You forget however that the "true" Hammer is the SledgeHammer - that while also is a 32/64 hybrid - is aimed squarely at the 2-8 multiproc low-end (as compared to Unix/Mainframe) server market - Xeon's playground - as well as the introductory level (8-16 proc) of the midrange market - Itanium's supposed market.

Still, until Hammer - in all of its incarnations - ships, we won't know how it stacks up.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
April 20, 2002 4:21:41 PM

Yes, I didn't mention sledgehammer, which is supposed to compete with Xeon, and indirectly, Itanium. Itanium is aimed at the mid/high range market, and sledgehammer is being aimed around there too. Of course, as you mentioned, sledgehammer is still a hybrid, so it's different than the Itanium.
April 20, 2002 9:15:16 PM

Wow, usually when you have a quarrel with skater101, you never pop angry, but to me you do? Man I must have really been annoying in between my words. My apologies man, if it was too much!
First of all, part of why I replied so abruptly to you that way, was because each time you mention McKinley, you make it look like it's a Desktop solution and that you will go buy one. I personally find it ridicule to have such an appeal, which is why I tried to explain that this thing will arguably cost much more than Itanium.
Also again don't put words in my mouth by claiming I said McKinley will suck. I never said that and you'll have to refer to my paragraph above to get the answer.
Next I wanted to incline that backwards compatibility is a much better option to many. Here's a proof: About a month or two ago, some guy came here asking Raystonn or someone else in a thread, that he wanted to install 64-bit processors but with a 32-bit capability, to allow a transition to be done for his employees, and that it would be worth it. What do you expect to tell this gentleman? That he should wait for Hammer? That he goes to buy an Itanium, even though it costs, and its 32-bit is horrible, which he also responded that he cannot accept any poor 32-bit, or go buy those server procs that cost 10 times Itanium? That guy was living proof that not all companies prefer 64-bit only procs, especially when they are transitioning, and which is why if McKinley is to be respectable, that it has powerful 32-bit and professional 64-bit, and that it won't cost a giant's leg!
Athomso is right, SledgeHammer is a server target, and if companies like Sun are interested in it, and more come in, then surely you cannot possibly imply anymore that x86-64 is not viable for server use and that IA64(or whatever 64-bit architecture big CPUs use) is the way to go? If the Sledge succeeds, that its transition value, as well as price compared to Itanium is worth it, then AMD has some big chance of hitting it well in the server market.

My main interests as of now are Hammer and Prescott. We can't discuss any bare info on Yamhill, since all we know is its possibility of using x86-64, so it's a debate that will last 3 posts tops...

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 04/20/02 05:15 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 21, 2002 5:32:19 AM

Back to the original topic... AMD sides with MS.

Of course Jerry Sanders is gonna say whatever the hell MS wants him to say. For now, he is their bitch. He has to stick his head FAR up bill gate's ass. Sanders needs an OS, period. MS can give it to him. So Sanders is gonna do anything he can to get it, even if it includes lying out his bung-hole that MS is not a monopoly.
Here is the equation:

Need an OS + Hammer = $
MS = OS
Sanders puckers = bill bends over


Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
April 21, 2002 1:45:49 PM

Hehheh, it's almost like a new era of PC CPUs requiring each their own OS', not just one for all! But when you think about it, if AMD gets their OS so early on, and people want to use it, but they have Intel processors, that could stir up some serious talks out there!
Imagine an Intel user going to buy an OS, sees this new x86-64, but he can't! That is rather an odd thought that AMD has their own OS before Intel, but that would at least speed up the Yamhill, and show Intel how AMD does not like to always be an underdog.
Funny how people like Sanders are MS' best friends...

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 21, 2002 5:10:14 PM

Well, no one is saying that MS is not a monopoly. Instead, what's being argued now is whether or not MS Windows can or should be sold without things such as IE, WMP, etc. So, in essence, Sanders isn't lying, but saying that having that many possible versions of Windows is a bad thing. I don't really know myself if it is or not, but it could be that Sanders reasoning (or Gates convincing Sanders) is that eventually, that mix and match idea for Windows might be extended into instruction set code, i.e. some versions of Windows might <i>only</i> have x86, x86-64, or IA64 coding, and the others are left by the wayside. If that was the case, and the x86-64 vs IA64 battle keeps going even after 64-bit becomes mainstream, it will be hard for people to switch processors if the OS they have doesn't support that. Since AMD is the one that will most likely be replacing Wintel boxes with MSAMD boxes, not having both instuction sets supported in an OS would be disaterous.

So, in essence, Sanders is doing what's expected of a small fry trying to make it in the big leauge: do what the higher-ups tell you, and you'll be able to go far in this world. Intel doesn't fear MS retailiation for denouncing MS's stand against the State's lawsuit, because they know that if MS wants to still be in the consumer market, they have to support Intel processors, since Intel is in about 75-80% of all boxes in the US. AMD is screwed in that respect. They need an OS for x86-64 for it to be as successful as it could be, and the only company out there big enough to do so is MS.

Personally, I think the State's arguement is flawed in requiring different versions of Windows being sold. It would have been much easier and palateable to force MS to allow the user to uninstall all non-core software from the existing installation. That way, everyone can benefit, other than the purchasers of the future OSes, from the lowly Win9x kernal to the current XPPro and beyond.

And I'm spent

-SammyBoy
April 21, 2002 7:51:55 PM

I could not agree more. Well maybe we are a tad hard on ol' Sanders', but if he is standing against the States' suing, then I'm with him on this one. I am sick of this anti-trust story, it won't go nowhere, and yes, an option for what components to install is much better than a modifiable Windows which in the end might yeild some kind of incompatibilities. Kinda like different Linux versions, although I don't know much of that.
Imagine buying a game and on the side it says: Requires Windows Harry Potter Edition...
Ouch.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 21, 2002 8:38:19 PM

personally, i think they should (and can, despite what they say) allow selection (and removal) of any components of the os, that are non-vital... in the add/remove programs list, (not through some reg-hack) things like ie, outlook, messenger, wmp, wmm, all the "tour windows xp" crap, script processing... just to name a few...

(bb || !bb) - Shakespeare
April 21, 2002 9:32:07 PM

However, personally, removing IE destroys a lot of the functionality and ease of use in WinXP, or especially Win98's interface. You end up with a Win 95 A edition interface and personally, keeping IE's internal functions has to stay. Yes, MSN and others are optional, even if I use 'em all, but I would go against removing IE.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 21, 2002 9:54:47 PM

perhaps, but it should still be an option, and some of the interface should stay... i think they are afraid that if they remove ie, people will realize how fast their computer is...

Edit: like my parent's P75, which has windows 95b on it... it boots in about the same time as my 1700+ (@2000+) boots into winxp... (even after bootvis, etc)... mind you multitask, and it eats it...

(bb || !bb) - Shakespeare<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by tnadrev on 04/21/02 06:30 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 21, 2002 10:39:22 PM

Well problem is, in most of the Windows interface since Win98 and Win95B+ IE4, you could navigate inside directory windows, go to different places, as well as use big icons that include the Back Button and such. You also have easier access to shortcuts. Yes if people would choose not to install IE, then there will be major modifications, unless MS finds a way to keep them. However that would still result in IE core components, not the navigator itself.
In any case, it's Netscape's fault for screwing up their NN 6 program. Sure it has a nice interface, but it is sluggish to load(you should see what it looks like opening it on a P100 for school use) and lacks sound and interface ease. It is fast, mind you, like its predecessors using this gecko engine to load faster, but I still use IE for its stability in the past, and its simple yet intuitive interface and fast loading even on old machines.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 04/21/02 06:40 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 21, 2002 10:45:47 PM

you have to realize that one of the reasons that ie loads so fast, is that it is pretty much loaded with your computer, so if ie was removed from windows, it would most likely take quite a bit longer to load, (and windows a whole lot less, like my parent's comp) both netscape (4) and ie 5.5 load in about the same amount of time on their system... i am not saying i don't like ie, or it's interface, but that is one of the big issues of this trial...

(bb || !bb) - Shakespeare
April 21, 2002 10:53:36 PM

i must admit, that logically i don't understand what this is trial is about, i mean, who is to say what can, and can't be included in an OS? If ms made the whole thing proprietery so that it only ran apps made by microsoft, i wouldn't complain (although they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.) i really don't see what is wrong with them including a web browser with windows (or anything else for that matter)... it IS their product, if you don't like it, don't buy it, the only case against this, is when microsoft uses their capital, or political power to influence the course of alternate OS development, that IS monopolistic.

i just feel, as a user, i'd prefer to have more options upon installation...

(bb || !bb) - Shakespeare
April 22, 2002 3:00:56 AM

Man that is how I have been thinking too. I mean who are THRY to control MS! They made Windows, if they don't like it, go make your own and see how easy it can be...
Geez this and the amount of people who hate MS and Windows, yet cannot realize that Windows is the most solid and compatible OS out there. Until THEY can make one better, they had better shut up about insulting the OS and its maker. Personally I admire MS for advancing so much. WinXP is a gift to me, it makes life easier, safer and much more stable than ever, so who am I to complain? Their products are also top notch, Ms OFFICE, Flight Sim 2002, Midtown Madness series etc.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 22, 2002 3:18:26 AM

i agree with about the products, however they HAVE used unfair business practices... but i beleive that is seperate from componentialized windows... i think winXP is pretty good myself, i even use the new start menu (but the luna interface is pushing it) my system dual boots to red-hat linux, mainly so i have experience with it, and i do, do some programming on it... and i must say, people who think that the average joe could install, and use a standard linux distro is whack...

(bb || !bb) - Shakespeare
April 22, 2002 10:50:43 AM

Its hard to say wether windows is the best out there, because other than Linux.. there isnt anything to compare it to. I think MS business practices has stifled competition and therefore innovation.
There are probably some MUCH better ways to build an OS, but noone is gonna do it because the software world is dependant on certain Windows features. For example the .dll drivers.
Lindows was its first battle. But lindows strikes me more as a heavily ported linux than anything else. Not very efficient. But then again, neither is windows.
Problem is, operating systems have to take into account millions of different setups, and millions of levels of idiot users. THey should build an OS based on IQ and user competence :) 


Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
April 22, 2002 1:09:14 PM

Well, normally the government would have no right telling a company what they can or can't sell with their products. But, Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. As a monopoly a company cannot legally use the same business practices that made them a monopoly to keep that monopoly or gain another monopoly with a different product. This is where the problems occur. Before I have a monopoly I can require my vendors to do certain market limiting things (like requiring IE and only IE to be installed with my OS) to get special pricing. But, the momement I am determined to have a monopoly I can no longer maintain that monopoly with the same practices - because it makes it near impossible for another, "better" product to gain marketshare.

Of the several convictions Microsoft was "awarded," only a few were overturned or remanded back to the lower court and the new judge. Most stayed on record as convictions. One of the things Microsoft has been convicted of doing is using its monopoly in the OS market to illegally prevent "middle-ware" products like JAVA from progressing in their own market. Microsoft did everything they could to divide the JAVA market. The biggest advantage of JAVA was/is that a programmer could write a single version of a program that could run on any hardware/OS platform that had a JAVA run-time environment. This scared MS because a user wouldn't need to run Windows to run their programs if the majority of programs were JAVA. Any small software house could introduce a new OS (Linux, BeOS, etc.) and run all available JAVA software. You didn't even need a PC - you could be running it on a completely different type of system. This treatened their OS monopoly.

The original problem with JAVA applications was that they didn't perform well because the "bytecodes" had to be decoded at run-time. Microsoft came out with a new Just-in-time (JIT) compiler that converted the program bytecodes into machine language just prior to running it. This allowed JAVA to run very quickly on Windows platforms. While this sounds great, Microsoft insidiously (according to the courts) introduced some incompatibilities between official JAVA bytecode and their JIT-c. They also added new features that weren't available in official JAVA. In addition, Microsoft introduced a JAVA developement environment, Visual J++, that would produce bytecode that only worked on the MS JIT-c (despite the fact that MS said it would work cross-platform). While all of these things were not necessarily illegal from an anti-trust stand-point (They were found to be violations of MS's contract with SUN) the real anti-trust violation was yet to come.

Because of the cross-platform compatibility problems with MS's JIT-c and JAVA environment, Intel decided to develop their own high-performance JAVA environment and JIT-c for Intel platforms (mostly MS Windows based) that followed the official specifications from SUN. At the same time, AMD was just getting ready to release the K6 series of processors and very much wanted MS's endorsement and support for performance enhancements. MS basically told Intel that if they continued with production of the Intel Java environment, they would support AMD (Intel's primary competitor). Intel eventually conceded. MS was found guilty (one of the convictions that still stands) of illegally protecting their OS monopoly and using that monopoly to place illegal barriers to entry into the middle-ware market.

What scares me here is that MS is acting like they were never convicted of anything. They are doing the same AMD vs. Intel game behind the scenes. I think that they should be required to support new processors/technology if the manu is willing to put up the money to compensate for the up-front costs - something that AMD has offered and MS has yet to accept (at least publicly). This type of requirement (with court oversite and equality in pricing) would eliminate further anti-trust violations of this sort.

As to MS's claim that the 9 states' proposal will cause them to have to manufacture and support "thousands" of versions of the OS, this is total FUD! All the 9 states want (in this particular instance/topic) is for the PC vendor (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) to be able to replace included components (MSN, Java, IE, etc.) or applications (Office) with ones of their own choosing. They would also like to be able to present the user with a customized interface. MS already does not provide support for OEM licenses of their OSes - you have to go the the vendor. Microsoft has some very specific requirements about what a user is allowed to see the first time their PC is booted. Most PC vendors would like to change this, but can't due to their license aggreements with MS. While I don't know if I personally would like a "customized" OS if I bought an over-the-counter PC, It would allow the vendors and consumers to choose what they wanted without interference from MS.

To Dark Anchronis: Itanium is not aimed at the high-end market (yet). This is the domain of "big-iron" - Mainframe systems and super-computers.

low-end: PC's to 2-4 way proc servers
mid-range: 4-32+ proc Unix style systems (MS Windows Enterprise Edition is trying to enter this market)
high-end: Big-Iron ES9000+, super-computers (sometimes x86 based), etc.

All of the above ranges have within them a low to high range, so you could have a high-end midrange system powered by Itanium procs - or a high-end PC (in the low-end of the computer market).


I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
April 22, 2002 2:53:10 PM

ath0mps0:
thanks for all that, it all seems a little clearer... i don't really have much grasp of american law (or canadian at that)

texas_techie:
yeah, that would be funny, if before creating a new user, you had to complete an IQ test...

(bb || !bb) - Shakespeare
April 22, 2002 5:15:30 PM

Kelledin: Yes, I put the / outside of the closing bold bracket. Oops :tongue:

Eden: I'm not angry, just trying to drive the point home for you and everyone else I see spouting about how Hammer is going to revolutionize the industry.
Why do we want Hammer? Hammer's 64-bit currently only allows more RAM. Without even an x86-64 Windows, we're paying more for the same thing. I seriously doubt Hammer's increase in 32-bit performance will be the same or more than the increase in price. McKinley is not just for huge clusters. HP has a single and dual Itanium workstation available, and I would assume they'd do the same for McKinley, especially since they had a spot where you could enter to win a McKinley workstation to be given away in June (I couldn't find the link again, though I entered last week).

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 22, 2002 7:29:24 PM

Quote:
McKinley is not just for huge clusters. HP has a single and dual Itanium workstation available, and I would assume they'd do the same for McKinley, especially since they had a spot where you could enter to win a McKinley workstation to be given away in June (I couldn't find the link again, though I entered last week).

Which puts them at the high end of the low end market. It is not completely about the # of procs - it is about the overall performance.

If the thought I thought I thought had been the thought I thought, I wouldn't have thought so much.
April 22, 2002 8:19:17 PM

Thanks for the long but informative read!
Well I do agree of partial modification of the OS, but to me, personally, what is the point of being a home user, who has no IE6 installed on his WinXP, if he wants to access the net?
HOW, just how, unless you order a CD which is far off, would you be able to surf the web or connect online to download a web surfer? What do normal people know in internet browsers other than IE or Netscape? How just how will they connect temporarily to DL their own prefered browser if the OEMs choose to remove IE?

That is what most hits me.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 22, 2002 8:37:59 PM

The issue is not whether the OEM system would ship with a browser or not - they all would ship with one. The issue is whether or not the <i>vendor</i> gets to decide which browser to ship. If MS had not forced (through pricing structures) their OEM manus/vendors to pay for a Win License with every machine that shipped (with Win or not) and had not forced them to ONLY install IE and not modify the MS spec'ed config, who knows what browser would be #1 in pre-installs? Basically it went like this - MS says: either you pay $5 per copy of Win for every machine you ship this year (1,000,000 MS only units = $5,000,000) and do as we say (which eliminates the competition), or you pay $85 per license (the standard OEM license cost) and do what you want (900,000 Win/Netscape/Opera/StarOffice customized units, 100,000 Linux = $85,000,000). The OEM saves $80,000,000 and MS drives out the competition. They are guilty of illegal maintenance of a monopoly for doing this.

If the thought I thought I thought had been the thought I thought, I wouldn't have thought so much.
April 22, 2002 9:06:46 PM

Quote:
Which puts them at the high end of the low end market.


Yes, that's a very good way of putting it.

Quote:
It is not completely about the # of procs - it is about the overall performance.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!