Slashdot Mirror

Sure I'd go right to the horse's mouth for this one:
Architecture volume 3. The basics are in chapter 4; the hardware issues are in chapter 5.

Jet3D was compiled and optimized for the best performance on each platform

and yet he didn't use the Intel compiler (a free download) on the P4?

It's people like him that keep losing our space probes. ;)

However, take a look at intel's timeline. The 386 came out in 1985. Arguably, it's the Pentium that finally put it to death - It didn't come out until 1993. The Pentium itself, and by this I mean the P54C, not the P55C (Pentium MMX) is still doing good work for quite a few people - people who are using Windows 98 of course, or Linux, but I'm concentrating on the mainstream. However, you could say that it was put to death in business by the Pentium III - in 1999. So the 386 had an eight year lifespan, and Pentium lasted only six.

It looks to me like technology lifespans are actually shrinking. Of course, operating systems ARE changing more slowly, but applications are still growing rapidly. For instance, you could do meaningful work with Lightwave 3D's older versions on an Amiga with a 386 at 25MHz, but just running the GUI is something of a slowdown on (say) an Athlon 700 with a GF2MX card, let alone getting to the rendering part. Of course, it does a whole lot more now, which is my whole point. Windows XP might not be dramatically different or more CPU hungry than Windows NT 3.51 (try turning off a bunch of the new crap in XP, you'll see what I mean - mind you I leave all that crap turned on) but Office XP is insanely more resource-hungry than Office 97, let alone Microsoft Works 1.0 :)

So if the current pattern is fit, the current generation of processors will be obsoleted within just a few years. But, we'll see what happens. There's always hope that we'll see a renaissance of optimization.

...the programmer with a dual-xenon box at home.

I'm not just picking on you, my buddy was going on and on about the dual Xenon he was building for his brother and law and it drives me nuts. Unless he's going to shine his dual xenon lamps on the 5900, he's got a dual xeon box. And searching Google for dual xenon has the first 9 results referring to dual processors instead of the gas or its applications in lamps or elsewhere.

OK, sorry, you can go back to comparing mindless differences between cards that we'll be replacing a year from now.

No sense in letting a rejected post go to waste. :)

Here's more background on the ideas and issues at stake, especially (surprisingly) the technology press links.

At the recent Wireless Internet Opportunity for Developing Nations conference, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that 802.11b (AKA Wi-Fi) has "a key role to play everywhere, but especially in developing countries and countries with economies in transition," where there is little to no telecommunications infrastructure in place. Keynote speaker Intel CTO Pat Gelsinger was understandably thrilled saying, "We see millions of people with the potential to become Wi-Fi users," and that wireless Internet was particularly appropriate for developing nations because it was neither government-regulated nor licensed. With 40-50 million PCs in use already, developing nations (including China and India) now make up the fastest growing market segment. Intel's new Centrino 802.11b laptop chipset and 30-mile-range MANs now under development that are based on 802.16 make Gelsinger hope for a sales bonanza that will put Intel in the lead for wireless notebooks. Critics say that a technology focus is not the panacaea for the poor, but instead solutions should be matched to the needs of a population.

If you're going to make a small PC, wouldn't using a low-power chip instead of the 845gv chipset (note a lack of details about heat dissipation) make more sense? I realize its not a laptop, so there's no worry, but inefficient power-drain == hot-plate for a small device.

Why not a Centrino or TransMeta? It would be making the smallest desktop using intelligent engineering decisions. How about a cycles/in^2 or sufmin'.

166-200 wasnt till the end of 95. That means real availablity was not till like begining 96. Might have a few computer shoppers still laying around to look it up. Even on those whats being suggested would have been a chore. I wouldnt want to do anything like that on anything less than a 733 (mid 99). Even then just guessing those numbers would still be awfull. No DeCSS was a lucky break... Because even IF you were lucky enough to guess the number you would have to verify it through visual inspection. Which instantly makes the thing a sticky problem to solve. The problem wasnt something you could let the computer whirrr away at and just come up with a magic number. It involved a human interaction. If someone had had a 'encrypted' and a 'non encrypted' version of any movie it probably could have been solved as well. But no studios were giving that up... Which is why I say the encyption they used was 'decent'. Because it was dificult enough to crack. Which is the point of encryption. To make it so hard you can not do it in a reasonable time frame.

intel cpu history

After reading the Intel doc on Intel vs. GCC compatibility, I stand corrected

The evaluation versions of Intel® Software Development Products are free and valid for product based time period from the day you receive your license and will cease to function at the end of that period. The evaluation license will be non-renewable.

Doanload page

If my car has 200HP at 6,800RPM on the sticker, I usually donâ(TM)t take the stickers word for it, but trust that I would get around those numbers on average.

There are those people who want to know if those numbers are EXACT 101% of the time, so they go bust out their dynamometer and begin writing complaint letters when their engine only hits 195HP.

I think benchmarks these days are no longer a science that they used to be. There are far, far, FAR too many hardware and software variables to do an accurate cross-platform analysis and comparison.

I mean, is it really logical to compare Apples (har har har) to Oranges? I mean, most all applications that will be running on the G5 will be optimized for the G5. So does it matter how a 'comparable' application will run on x86? No, because the x86 Application might have a few more optimizations which would make the comparison pointless.

These days people should take benchmarks with a grain of salt. Just another selling point they'll put on the big list of bulleted marketing jargon on the back of the box to try and rope in first time buyers who are turned on by big acronyms and high-tech sounding words.

So yeah, I think people just need to cool their heels and take this for what it is, just marketing propaganda. Does QuantiSpeed really make your CDs burn faster? No. Does the P4 make âthe internetâ(TM) faster? No. Just take it for what it is and let it go.

I find it kinda strange how the SPEC results varied quite markedly between what Intel had listed and what was on display on the Apple website. So, I decided to look into it. First thing I did was goto Veritest's site and look at how they did the benchmark.

I noticed something odd... Veritest decided to run TWO different tests in the P4, one with and without Hyper-Threading enabled. Hyper-Threading is enabled by default on the P4 processor. Odd.

Then I decided to goto www.Spec.org and do a benchmark search for Intel P4:

SPEC.org results:
SPECint2000 : 1200
SPECfp2000 : 1229
SPECint_rate2000 : 14.1
SPECfp_rate2000 : 13.7

Apple.com results:
SPECint2000 : 889
SPECfp2000 : 693
SPECint_rate2000 : 10.3
SPECfp_rate2000 : 8.07

And yes, I did choose the latest results for the Intel P4.

It is very clear that the results obtained by Veritest and put forth in their report is of a P4 3.06 GHz with Hyper Threading DISABLED. The last I checked, HT is a feature which is enabled by default. WHY would someone purposely disable HT? Purposely make their CPU run SLOWER? Hmmm...

Come on Apple, do a serious system comparison, the best versus the best. Not the best versus a crippled system.

According to Apple's web site, they tested their machine against two Dell Intel boxes (Dell Dimension 8300 (P4) and Dell Precision 650 (Dual Xeon)) running Red Hat Linux 9.0 Professional (at Apple's request).

Intel states that Red Hat Linux 9.0 Professional is one of the Linux OS's currently available that "include optimizations for HT Technology and are currently eligible to carry the Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor with HT Technology logo".

Apple commissioned the benchmark from a company called Veritest. The full report (in .PDF format) including all hardware and software used is available from Veritest's web site.

This could make Intel take notice! Of course, this benchmark comes on the same day that Intel announces the 3.2GHz Pentium IV (and Xeon) processors. Go figure!

Of the published data on both (in SPEC processor benchmarks), Apple's Power Mac G5 generated a SPECfp_base2000 score of 840 and SPECint_base2000 score of 800, while Intel claims that their new 3.2 GHz processors get a SPECfp_base2000 score of 1252 and a SPECint_base2000 score of 1221.

And the SPIN goes on!

According to Apple's web site, they tested their machine against two Dell Intel boxes (Dell Dimension 8300 (P4) and Dell Precision 650 (Dual Xeon)) running Red Hat Linux 9.0 Professional (at Apple's request).

Intel states that Red Hat Linux 9.0 Professional is one of the Linux OS's currently available that "include optimizations for HT Technology and are currently eligible to carry the Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor with HT Technology logo".

Apple commissioned the benchmark from a company called Veritest. The full report (in .PDF format) including all hardware and software used is available from Veritest's web site.

This could make Intel take notice! Of course, this benchmark comes on the same day that Intel announces the 3.2GHz Pentium IV (and Xeon) processors. Go figure!

Of the published data on both (in SPEC processor benchmarks), Apple's Power Mac G5 generated a SPECfp_base2000 score of 840 and SPECint_base2000 score of 800, while Intel claims that their new 3.2 GHz processors get a SPECfp_base2000 score of 1252 and a SPECint_base2000 score of 1221.

And the SPIN goes on!

According to Apple's web site, they tested their machine against two Dell Intel boxes (Dell Dimension 8300 (P4) and Dell Precision 650 (Dual Xeon)) running Red Hat Linux 9.0 Professional (at Apple's request).

Intel states that Red Hat Linux 9.0 Professional is one of the Linux OS's currently available that "include optimizations for HT Technology and are currently eligible to carry the Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor with HT Technology logo".

Apple commissioned the benchmark from a company called Veritest. The full report (in .PDF format) including all hardware and software used is available from Veritest's web site.

This could make Intel take notice! Of course, this benchmark comes on the same day that Intel announces the 3.2GHz Pentium IV (and Xeon) processors. Go figure!

Of the published data on both (in SPEC processor benchmarks), Apple's Power Mac G5 generated a SPECfp_base2000 score of 840 and SPECint_base2000 score of 800, while Intel claims that their new 3.2 GHz processors get a SPECfp_base2000 score of 1252 and a SPECint_base2000 score of 1221.

And the SPIN goes on!

[begin snide commentary]
I always make sure that all of the software I purchase is compatible with that of a convicted monopolist!
[end snide commentary]

Vendor independence? From whom? Microsoft or Intel? Multiple distribution channels does not correspond to vendor independance.

Unfortunately, Taco et al have drank the Jobs Kool-Aide and have become little more than a drooling fanboy WRT Apple's hardware. Thus, they ignore apple's many shortcomings, including price, compatibility, their obnoxious hardware design, etc. As Apple is the last computer maker to head into the modern era with a 64 bit processor -- something other makers have had for months, if not years -- they're trying to generate hype for themselves and other fanboys so they can keep saying to themselves that the money they spent on the crapware from cupertino was somehow worth it.

UnixWare really gets a bad rap around here. They used to have what was considered the best Intel SMP implementation. If they've been surpassed by Linux and NT, it's only been in the last couple years.

32-way machine running UnixWare These machines have been on the market for years -- long before the SGI Altix. (more info)

The page you linked is for the P4 Mobile. The Pentium M is a different beast which indeed has a 1M L2 cache: link.

FYI, the Pentium M processors have 512KB of trash in 1.4GHz-2.6GHz varieties: link

Just wondering - what are you referring to as "the original" when you say "Well the original had 29,000 transistors, ... "? If you start from the 4004, then according to Intel, the 4004 has the following specs:
Clock speed: 108 KHz
Date introduced: Nov. 1971
Process: 10-micron
Transistors: 2,300
Addressable Memory: 640 Bytes

The 8008/8080/Z80 were Personal Computer processors. Oh, and that is of course according to intel in 1974 or 72, depending on how you wish to define Personal computer.

http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/q12001/article s/art_1.htm

From x86 manual:

The developments leading to the Intel Architecture can be traced back through the 8085 and 8080 microprocessors to the 4004 microprocessor (the first microprocessor, designed by Intel in 1969). However, the first actual processor in the Intel Architecture family is the 8086, quickly followed by a more cost effective version for smaller systems, the 8088.

I do believe they are counting from the first 8086, rather than from the 4004. And if you read the article is does mention X86 specifically at the end.

Whoops, it appears that it has been announced on their website, too. Ok, I am no longer skeptical.

Press Release

"Most important, it's the only home consumer base that flaunts its support for the Wireless Distribution System, which knits multiple access points together to act as a single network. An AirPort base plugged into the DSL or cable modem can bridge to up to four additional AirPorts, nearly doubling the network's wireless reach in four directions at once. Even better, the method lets you put an AirPort right in the room with you, rather than trying to beam the connection through a wall. This approach vastly reduces the amount of squirming in your seat required before your laptop will pick up enough signal from the other room."

Total BS. If this guy was a real expert, he'd know you could also buy the Intel 2011 access point (and I'm sure there's others out there with the same feature set). It can also act as a repeater (scroll down on that link a little). I know because I have two in my house, and one repeats the signal to the back half of the house. They work phenomenally.

The Intel may be more expensive (~$500), but I can guarantee it covers more area. The antennas are about 8 inches each (diversity!), and I can actually get my whole house on one of them (why'd I get two? optimal coverage for multiple people...plus it's cool!).

Section 3-8, page 26 of this disagrees.

The processor protects itself from catastrophic overheating by use of an internal thermal sensor. [...]

That's for the Pentium Pro. I'm alsmost certain the same functionality existed all the way back to the 486, although I'll admin my recollection is a bit rusty, so I may be wrong.

Last-ditch termal protection was certainly present in Intel CPUs before the P4.

There was a video released by AMD in answer to the THG video which showed this in action.

I somehow suspect such a video would be displaying ideal conditions, both in terms of the proximity of the thermistor to the CPU and the reaction speed of the motherboard's monitoring software.

The point is, this is something that should be built into the CPU, not tacked on afterwards by hardware integrator's whose primary interest is in making it as cheap as possible.

In such a case, the motherboard is guaranteed to be destroyed already, and probably also the cards the heatsink hit on the way down.

Fact is, I've seen machines shipped where the HSF has come off the CPU during transit. Put it back on and the machine powered up fine.

Realistically, the heatsink just doesn't come off without catastrophic impact or force to the system, something that just plain doesn't occur very often.

Not necessarily. The ridiculously high-tension clips on some HSFs can eventually snap the plastic lugs that hold them onto the CPU - this is much more prevalent with the models that only hold on via a single lug each side instead of all three. Again, I've *seen* this sort of spontaneous failure (well, more accurately, heard the snap from inside the case).

A heatsink that is not affixed to the processor cannot cool the processor, because it is not in effective contact with it.

Of course it's in contact with it. This tricky thing called gravity pulls it down onto the CPU. Now, this contact is far from thermally ideal and probably wouldn't be good enough for extended use, but it is enough to transfer some heat away from the CPU. If there's some thermal compound there it's even better.

Ahh the 266*2 was wishful thinking :). You are right about its 133*4, apologies about that.

My understanding is that xeon mp line is for their
4-way based motherboards. The main advantage is they have a meg of cache on them. But the normal processorshave 512k the same as the new p4's I believe.

The xeon mp motherboards are $2k and the processors are about $2k each (pricewatch 1.6ghz/1meg cache i.e made of gold :)

In any case the normal xeon dual systems are actually not that much more than buying a 875pe
motherboard and processor. Btw here is the road map I found on the inquirer. Apparantly the xeon mp's are going up to 2.8ghz/2 megs of cache and the normal xeons are going up to 3.06/1 meg of cache and selling for $700.

Here's the weird part, while it looks like intel skipped 667 fbs for the PIV line, the xeon line will "ramp up" to 667 early next year.

In anycase I'm probably going to build a "normal" xeon/iwill running at ~2.66 which comes out to really not much more than a normal PIV/865/875 series. The selling of 800mhz memory/bus speeds on the PIV line while keeping the xeon line at 533/667 makes no sense to me. I was going to wait until a new set of mbs/chipset came out for the xeons but it doesn't look it will happen.

-bloo

Ahh the 266*2 was wishful thinking :). You are right about its 133*4, apologies about that.

My understanding is that xeon mp line is for their
4-way based motherboards. The main advantage is they have a meg of cache on them. But the normal processorshave 512k the same as the new p4's I believe.

The xeon mp motherboards are $2k and the processors are about $2k each (pricewatch 1.6ghz/1meg cache i.e made of gold :)

In any case the normal xeon dual systems are actually not that much more than buying a 875pe
motherboard and processor. Btw here is the road map I found on the inquirer. Apparantly the xeon mp's are going up to 2.8ghz/2 megs of cache and the normal xeons are going up to 3.06/1 meg of cache and selling for $700.

Here's the weird part, while it looks like intel skipped 667 fbs for the PIV line, the xeon line will "ramp up" to 667 early next year.

In anycase I'm probably going to build a "normal" xeon/iwill running at ~2.66 which comes out to really not much more than a normal PIV/865/875 series. The selling of 800mhz memory/bus speeds on the PIV line while keeping the xeon line at 533/667 makes no sense to me. I was going to wait until a new set of mbs/chipset came out for the xeons but it doesn't look it will happen.

-bloo

a) Is this indicative of a high level strategy by NVidia's management, who's marketing department is pressuring them to have higher 3DMark2003 scores than ATI?

Of course it is. Fudging the drivers for a synthetic benchmark are a time honored way to make crappy hardware look good.

It worked for me a couple years ago with cheap USB cameras. I haven't used it recently, so I want to know if there are better choices now. I've got a new robot platform with a lot more CPU power and USB bandwidth, so I'm going to try working on the vision thing again.

Back then, I started with the instructions at Program Your Computer to See. Note how the URLs inside the article are mostly out of date.

Actually, the development of the microprocessor was outsourced from Japan to the US. Intel had a contract from a Japanese calculator company called Busicom to develop a set of chips for a new calculator. One of Intel's engineers realized that it was easier to build one programmable chip than several function-specific chips, and the 4004 was born.

Intel realized what they had done and bought the rights back from Busicom for $60K. Busicom went broke soon after.
See Intel's version of the story.

Interesting piece of software. I wonder if "Performance Inspector" was inspired by Intel's VTune Performance Analyzer software ( http://www.intel.com/software/products/vtune/).

Either way, this might become a popular piece of software, especially if the capabilities and features are somewhat similar to that of the VTune program. Would probably make a good comparison article for DevChannel.org

--
Gerard Beekmans

"Still, concerned about what could happen if a downward trend continues, companies like I.B.M. are intensifying their programs to reach out to potential computer scientists, efforts that are aimed at children as young as elementary school age. Intel has spent $700 million on its outreach program, which is intended for students in kindergarten through high school.

An "outreach" program offered, no doubt, to distract the masses from the massive offshoring.

Intel is running a "Chip Camp" in Arizona ( Intel in the Community )--the same place where last year, Intel gave its employees the ultimatum: move to India at a reduced salary to train your counterpart or be furloughed...

The personal server is not an actual product. Just an interesting concept.

If you want to complain to Intel and HP for supporting SCO, you probably could do so: here, here, or here and here or even here

If you want to complain to Intel and HP for supporting SCO, you probably could do so: here, here, or here and here or even here

If you want to complain to Intel and HP for supporting SCO, you probably could do so: here, here, or here and here or even here

Intel's compiler smokes gcc in most benchmarks (not surprising, given that Intel knows how to squeeze every last bit of performance out of their own processors). Although it is not 100% compatible with all the gcc features, and therefore can't compile the Linux kernel, each release adds more and more compatibility. I hope the day will soon come when we can compile a whole Linux distribution with the Intel compiler.

No, but IA-32 motherboard manufacturers go a good number of steps further. ;) I recommend that you investigate Intel's Placer (E7505) chipset and motherboards based on it (several of Supermicro's offerings, as well as offerings from Tyan and other manufacturers, e.g. the Iwill DPL533 and DP533. These motherboards support 133 MHz QDR system buses (coming to 533 million transfers a second), matched (quite well) with two channels of PC2100 DDR SDRAM (resulting in 4.267 GB/s of memory bandwidth that is actually utilizable by the processors, since the memory bandwidth matches the system bus bandwidth, unlike Apple's offering, which is bottlenecked by the system bus at just 1.333 GB/s, whether you have one processor or two). (And I'm certain that 200 MHz QDR Xeon chipsets are not far off in the future, since Intel in general appears to be headed in that direction.)

Intel P4 3.0 costs $417 US. AMD 3200+ costs $464 US.

Makes you wonder why Intel chooses a place like New Mexico, which is facing serious water shortage problems, to put its manufacturing plants.

...that's why Itanium is not yet in the mass-market. Regardless of the flaws. It's also why my first 64-bit CPU is likely to be an AMD.

I mean, come on. I want 64-bit a lot. An awful lot. I even wanted a redesigned instruction set - something I was please to see Intel had the balls to do with Itanium. The old IA-32 has a lot of baggage and bad design choices. But for crying out loud - $7000 for a single chip?

I kid you not about the $7000 price tag for a single CPU - Itanium 2 is literally 10 times more expensive than AMD's 64-bit Opteron.

This is why, as a life-long fan of Intel, am planning on defecting to AMD with my next machine purchase. To anyone else buying a new machine in the next 6 months: it makes absolutely no sense to get a 32-bit system when vastly more capable and future-proof 64-bit ones can be had for almost the same price as the old 32-bit ones.

This time next year, I reckon that Intel will be steadily loosing market share to new system purchases because of their exhorbitant prices and their complete failure to provide a capable 64-bit platform in the same price range as AMD. Intel haven't even announced a consumer 64-bit chip. AMD's announced six - 2 Opterons, 4 Athlon 64's).

I'm desperately hoping that AMD and Microsoft's marketing machines ramp up to push 64-bit - the sooner the better to punish Intel for not being more pro-active in the marketplace.

I don't get it -- the numbers the author gave are perfectly in order to the thing which is often referred to as "Moore's law":
16 years of doubling hard disk size gives indeed 2^16 = 65,000, which is indeed the factor of 60,000 he gave. So: well his numbers are correct. So what's new here?

In fact, let's just restate what many probably have said thousants of times before:
* Moore did not say anything about money or hard disks. All he observed was an exponential growth in the number of transistors per integrated circuit. http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.ht m
* In day to day talk, the term "Moore's law" has been (ab)used for three things:
1) The speed of CPU seems to double every 18 months (assuming it is a CPU of the same price, it is unclear if this is just the number of Gigaflops, or the clockspeed)
2) The speed of hard disk storage doubles every 12 months
3) The speed of network capacity doubles every 9 months

Regrettably, the writer just made a pretty common observation. Too bad. It would have been a much more interesting story if drew an interesting conclussions, like: despite the exponential growth, the CPU proceessing speed really is getting behind compared to network capacity, so in a matter of a decade we can expect a lot more distributed computing, just because it will be cheaper to buy more bandwidth than to buy more CPU's

We have Moore's law for microprocessors. But who's coined a law for hard disks?

You hear people refer to the assumption that electronics will keep getting cheaper and and cheaper as "Moore's Law". Nit-pickers hate this, insisting that "Moore's Law" only refers to the number of transistors on a chip. But even casting Moore's predictions as a "Law" goes beyond what Moore actually said. So it makes just as much sense (or just as little) to speak of the whole economic trend as "Moore's Law". After all, the fact that transitor logic keeps getting cheaper and cheaper isn't obvious to most people. The resulting collapse in the cost of computing and electronics is.

umm... hello? they even linked the chipset page at Intel's site in the article... "optimized for the Pentium III"

Another interview of Roy Want about the personal server can be found on Intel's website here

http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/


http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/platform/firmware/E FI/default.asp

Best thing to come out of Itanium, IMO.

Harking back to the thread a day or two ago about Intel's new software x86 emulator, and how "AMD64 is better anyway", I have to say that AMD64 doesn't have this, which makes it incredibly uncool in comparison. If you go Itanium with your server, you also ditch the old BIOS, and the nasty MBR too (Intel/MS have a new disk partitioning system, GPMmmsomething, which rocks in some ways but sucks in others.. but it's not numbered backwards and there is no daft primary/extension/logical distinction)

I wonder how EFI handles stuff like firmware updates. Intel supply an EFI example (it loads OS from FAT etc.) - maybe there's room for a special part of it somewhere that updates firmware on reboots..?

Still not quite as good as OpenFirmware IMO (having Forth there is something.. umm.. nice..?)

Not really. Intel has had an open-source computer vision library for a while. It's not aimed at being a product itself, it's aimed at helping people develop products for intel chips.

<html>
<head>
<!-- DOC-FACTORY Generated Tags BEGIN -->
<title></title>
<meta name="creation_date" content="17-Sep-02">
<meta name="stop_date" content="13-Sep-03">
<meta name="next_check_date" content="13-Mar-03">
<meta name="last_check_date" content="13-Sep-02">
<meta name="web_author_id" content="cmstraig">
<meta name="country" content="USA">
<meta name="description" content="">
<meta name="keywords" content="">
<meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!-- /DOC-FACTORY Generated Tags END -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript">
//alert(document.referrer) ;
var where= document.referrer
window.open('http://appzone.int el.com/disti_locator/default.asp','disti_locator', 'location,height=600,width=750,scrollbars,resizabl e');
document.location = where;
//document.location="/integrator/na/en/ind ex_mp.htm";
</script>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" topmargin="15" leftmargin="10" marginheight="15"
marginwidth="10" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000" vlink=
"#800080">
</body>
</html&g t ;