Robert Myers wrote:
>"Dale E. Pontius" <suit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> I'll confess to being pro-AMD, but I will deny being an AMDroid. My
>> position is simple: The marketplace is healthier with competition.
>> Intel is in no danger whatsoever of going away. AMD is. In as much as
>> AMD has had quite a good streak with the execution, on K7 and K8, I put
>> my $$ where my mouth is. Any processor decision where the technical
>> merits are a tie or near tie, I'll vote with my $$ to keep competition
>> alive.
>
>"Competition," where "competition" is defined as the survival of one
>particular player, is about as free market as a Soviet-style planned
>economy.
Poor you. X86 dominates, with two major producers.
Would it be better to have two main architectures, both solely
produced by your beloved Intel? I'm certain that you think so...
>The "competition" by AMD has served to freeze in a particular
>architecture. Maybe good or maybe bad, but which isn't obvious on the
>face of it. AMD steered (manipulated) the market to its benefit just
>as Intel does.
>
>This computer has an AMD processor. I don't think of it as putting my
>money where my mouth is. I think of it as taking advantage of the
>naivete of investors in AMD, which has to sell its processors at a
>much lower margin than Intel.
Guffaw. "Naivete". Yes, I'm sure you're so much smarter than they
are...
|
