"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7bbfafb4-94f1-4383-9ecd-bb1348e681a3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oct 7, 11:20 am, chrisv <chr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > chrisv <chr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> >>> >You're stuck in a mental rut. Who cares if PC's go 50% faster?
>
> >> It's price/performance that is the "bottom line". So, "who cares"
> >> if
> >> Intel has no serious competition, so are allowed to feed us
> >> overpriced, mediocre products?
>
> >> We care. The world cares. Sheesh.
>
> >In reality it matters to hardly anyone.
>
> You're right. It's OK if Intel monopolizes the market - it matters
> to
> hardly anyone that we all would have to pay more to get less.
>
> At least Intel would then have the resources they need to accomplish
> their goals...
First, the productivity of personal computers is set not by hardware,
but by software. Bloatware can and consistently has consumed any
increase in computing capacity. This is an arrangement that suits
both Microsoft and Intel, as people are forced to go out and buy new
computers and Windows licenses. In practice, a 50% increase in
performance accomplishes no perceptible benefit for the end user. A
revolution in software, including perhaps the unseating of Microsoft,
would benefit nearly everyone.
AMD has successfully challenged Intel with the help of a company that
invented most of the concepts that Microsoft uses to keep users
hogtied--IBM. Thus the easily perceived bias among the IBM'ers here.
Having *IBM* as a credible alternative for high-end microprocessors is
im****tant.
What we have here, though, is a battle among monopolists: IBM, Intel,
and Microsoft. AMD hardly matters, except to the extent that it fits
into IBM's ill-concealed strategy to keep Intel in check.
If you wanted to pick a competitor that threatens monopolies, it would
be Apple, not AMD. Apple *did* play a key role in getting us where we
are, as AMD did not. Apple continues to keep a fire lit under an
otherwise complacent Microsoft. I'm not an Apple user.
The kinds of things that matter to you matter mostly to people like
you: hardware geeks who would no more notice incremental performance
improvements in hardware than do most people if they didn't read those
mind-numbing "benchmarks" that highlight marginal gains.
Robert.
--------------------
So far as I know IBM hasn't got a secret or even a non-secret strategy
to "keep Intel in check". AMD staying alive is to Intel's benefit to
help keep the government off their back.
And IBM is not a monopolist. Hasn't been for many years, since the
50's. And those desktops that you all worry about are now not made by
IBM but lenovo. IBM does make nice x86 servers, some of which
probably use AMD chips.
del
|
