Related articles

• From: Chris Barker The PC I am writing to you about is the oldest PC I know of, and maybe the first (but probably not). I am using the definition of PC as "belonging exclusively to one person, and therefore personal." Why the need of this definition? This PC, of 1973 vintage, was a small minicomputer, though it was based on small components, for example the actual CPU. It happened this way: IBM was king of computer sales and their products were expensive, especially peripherals. One successful computer was the System-3. Memorex started making lower-cost IBM-compatible peripherals. In response, IBM jacked up prices on their CPUs and lowered prices on their peripherals. Memorex responded by building a System-3 compatible mini, the Memorex 30. IBM then successfully sued Memorex for patent infringement and the latter was forced to dispose of quite a few useless Memorex 30s. I friend of mine purchased one from American Used Computer Corp. for approximately $2,000 New Zealand dollars. That's about $1,400 at current exchange rates. It cost him about $3,000 more to ship it to New Zealand and get it through customs. He now had a CPU with no microcode, some documentation, but no support at all. I forget what it weighed, but it was about eight feet long, 2 1/2 feet wide and six feet high. For a while, it lived in his garage. Eventually the head of the computer science department at Victoria University (he was a student there) allowed him to put it in one of their rooms. Somehow he acquired some peripherals: tape readers, a printer and maybe other stuff that I forget-some of these were nearly as large as the CPU. And he began to work at writing microcode for it, so that he could eventually write an operating system for his Memorex 30. I have no idea how far he got, but this is certainly the most bizarre PC I have ever seen or heard of.

• Bye-bye Rambus: Intel's memory roadmap shown at Spring IDF confirmed the company's departure from Rambus for its high-end chipsets. Discussions over memory have traditionally aroused considerable passion and ire, not unlike the constant bantering between the AMD and Intel zealots. But perhaps nothing has brought so many so close to exchanging blows at otherwise civilized industry meetings or generated such incessant threads of hate mail exchanges than the Rambus, Intel, and JEDEC debate. At the time of the writing of this article, litigation over licensing arrangements between Rambus and alleged patent infringements as well as counter-suits in mostly U.S. courts rages on. Here, no sides will be taken in the legal battle - to paraphrase James Boswell, the 18th century English literary giant and lawyer by training, guilt or innocence is exclusively determined by a jury or judge in a court of law. But while much fury will be incited by merely addressing the issue, this text makes several assumptions: for a long while, Intel unabashedly stuck by Rambus memory, which has generally offered superior performance; Rambus memory is a lot more expensive than mainstream memory; and JEDEC, the standards body, was not happy with the Intel/ Rambus camp, especially since Intel's crème-de-la-crème chipsets have Rambus memory. But around spring 2002, Intel's relationship with Rambus began to change. In May 2002, Intel began to play catch-up with SiS and Via by launching a series of Pentium 4 chipsets with a 500 MHz bus that supported DDRAM after it had already begun its full-fledged onslaught of high-performance Pentium 4 chipsets using Rambus DRAM (RDRAM). This was after Intel had based its first Pentium 4 chipset on RDRAM. It took a long time before Intel would even consider adding SDRAM, much less DDRAM, support. Needless to say, RDRAM was never popular in the industry, especially among JEDEC members and memory suppliers, though RDRAM chipsets nevertheless remained inside the fastest Pentium 4 platforms. Then, during a recent Intel Developers Forum (IDF), Intel dropped the bomb: Intel showcased its two high-end chipsets, codenamed Springdale and Canterwood, which supported single- and dual-channel DDR400 and an 800 MHz front-side bus. Not only that, but Intel's memory roadmap was without Rambus memory. Samsung Electronics, Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., Infineon Technologies, and Elpida Memory immediately began announcing that they had DDR400 devices ready that met Intel's specs for DDR400 for its 865P/ 865PE/ 865G (Springdale version) chipsets and its 875P (Canterwood).

• More Than A SoundBlaster

  The world of sound cards took a big hit last year when Aureal Semiconductor, Inc. went into Bankruptcy Court in April. Aureal, who had been in litigation with Creative Labs over alleged patent infringement, obtained a favorable ruling in December 1999, which vindicated Aureal from patent infringement claims. However, even this favorable ruling did not save Aureal from assimilation by what they could only consider at the time to be "The Borg." Aureal was Creative Lab's main competitor in the sound card market. After Creative Labs purchased Aureal's assets from the Bankruptcy Trustee, one of the main sources for OEM sound card chipsets dried up. Subsequent to its purchase of Aureal, Creative has said that it does not plan any additional drivers or support for Aureal owners. Aureal produced several great chipsets, but they always seemed to have problems with drivers that were never quite resolved. Many people still feel that Aureal's 3D positional audio A3D technology was far ahead of anything else that has been developed so far. Microsoft has developed new Aureal drivers that will be included with Windows XP. However, Microsoft only included basic functionality at best, which will not compare to the drivers and control panels that have been developed for the majority of sound cards today. With Aureal gone, several sound card manufacturers have had to look elsewhere for chipsets. With the introduction of new products from Creative Labs that build upon their success in the sound card market, anyone considering products other than a Sound Blaster sound card will not have many options. Most dealers devote the vast majority of their shelf space to the Creative Labs products. Many people have asked me, "Why would I use anything other than a Sound Blaster?" People continue to tell me, "The Creative Lab's Sound Blaster is the standard in sound cards, and if all you need is basic audio functions, just save a few bucks by buying a motherboard that has integrated audio." It is true that most new motherboards do offer basic integrated audio (as an option in many cases), and that for many users this is more than enough. Another solution that is becoming more prevalent due to the inclusion of CNR and AMR slots in current motherboard technology is to use one of these slots to host a sound card, but this opens an entirely new can of worms. However, if you still want audio performance and features, then you must look beyond integrated audio or CNR/AMR technology.