Slashdot Mirror
Intel's Answer to AMD's Hammer - Yamhill
bdolan writes: "Today's San Jose Mercury News is reporting that Intel is going to put a 64 bit architecture extension in upcoming Pentiums if it turns out the Itanium doesn't take off. Hmm. Apparently they intend to only turn this on if AMD's 64 bit processor make major inroads against the Itanium architecture. Aren't we glad that competition is keeping everyone on their toes."
I don't believe M$ is a monopoly. The only monopolies we've had historically are ones where the government either mandated a private corporation (telcom, energy, etc), or the government subsidized one corporation and tariffed, penalized, or regulated its competition (Standard Oil, etc).
Microsoft has many MANY MANY competitors -- the varieties of Unix, the Apple O/S's, etc. The fact of the matter is, the market and the businesses and the consumers PREFER Microsoft's products. I've tried for years to find a product that runs better, faster, and is easier to use than Office, and I have yet to find one. Netscape over IE? Netscape was a P.O.S., on ANY OS I ran it under.
If your competitors make crappy products, its their own fault. Eventually, M$ WILL HAVE THEIR DAY. They will get hurt, just like Chrysler did without Government intervention, just like many others. Look at MS Network, what a (billion dollar) failure that was.
OTOH M$ keeps the Computer Consulting industry in business. If everything ran well, do you think the industry many of you is in would be as healthy? Thank God for Nimda I say! Job security for geeks.
How is Microsoft a monopoly? They have competitors (many MANY competitors), they aren't mandated by law to be the only source for their software, and people buy it at a price that is reasonable, its performance is considered reasonable (or better) to most consumers, and it does the job people want it to do.
If Microsoft made programs that were overpriced, and they didn't allow competition, and the government forced you to buy their product, then it would be a monopoly. All Microsoft is is another large corporation that is having its day (or its decade). Just wait another decade and we'll see if they'll be around. How many times did liberals like yourself cry wolf in the past 60 years, and the government ALMOST got involved, but the "monopoly" collapsed on its own?
Why should M$ open their code? If you want open code, make a similiar product, create your own interface, and then market it. Get a loan. Start a corporation. And market, market, market. Do you think Krispy Kreme releases it's recipe for donuts? Why should M$ give away its trade secrets? That's not a monopolistic practice...
In your ass? You gotta start *refusing* those hot beef injections.
What's the point of adding more bits?
That's just 32 more address/data lines to suffer from clock-skew and synchronization problems.
Seems like a wintel marketting trick to keep us wanting more, faster, better. Who cares? If you don't play games or do numerical processing, then what's the point? Linux already takes 0.5 sec to boot, what's 0.1s?
"Dang, I can't take all this waiting, that extra 0.1s is killing me, I gotta drop another $5000 this week to upgrade and throw away my 'old' hardware!"
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
I don't understand why anyone else didn't make a machine that could compete with theirs?
The realities are that they had between 75% and 85% of the market BECAUSE THEIR PRODUCT WAS BETTER. Mises Institute actually mentions them in a decent "Barriers to Entry" article that denounces most of the "monopolistic practices" that the government has put down in error, in this article.
Another article that briefly talks about how many "monopolies" fell apart on their own even before government lawsuits ran their course. It's obvious that the reason some of these companies exist is because they make a damn good product at a damn good price. Exclusionary practices are a farce -- people who are too lazy to compete are usually the complainers. It's easy to complain, especially if you don't have the brain cells needed to comprehend competing rather than complaing.
You're right, I reread it, and I must have blurred my eyes a bit. Thanks :)
And if someone made a competing machine that was better, faster, and cheaper, do you think people would re-sign into a stringent contract with these guys?
Not my fault that you signed a faulty agreement. Think twice before your greed gets the best of you. Don't go crying to the daddy-state when you want out of a bad deal you signed into. Contracts are binding, and contracts do not create monopolies. Accepting a BAD contract just give a company more power over the person who signed it.