Slashdot Mirror
AMD Takes Microsoft's Side in Antitrust Case
Skjellifetti writes "CNet has an article that says that AMDs CEO is opposed to the MS antitrust remedy being persued by the states. "
There's a lot of information packed fairly tightly in that article that I won't
rehash here. Worth a read tho. Update: 04/16 18:01 GMT by M : Reuters has a story with more about Sanders' testimony today.
As we saw with Intel just a few years ago, the big monopoly CAN be taken down. If there is a better product (ie Linux) at a better price, it can take over the market. I don't have to remind you of which processor has the best performance right now.
--sig fault--
Everybody has a price.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
so, what does the "M" in AMD stand for, again?
I'll wager anything that Windows XP for x86-64 is pretty much in the bag now.
I guess I don't really see the point of breaking Microsoft up, (look at what happenned to the baby bells) however I think there are some great ways to keep them from being anticompetative:
:))
1. Open up their APIs, etc... (Cool things like Lindows will be 100% legal then
2. Fix their pricing so that it is uniform to all OEMs (so that OEMs will not be persecuted individually for carrying a competing product, like Linux or Netscape)
3. Fine them for blatent lying in court (have they commited perjury?)
4. As reparations for breaking the law, force them to issue free copies of software to schools in poor neighborhoods, etc...
I just don't think that drastic solutions are going to work here... But in a way, I almost don't CARE about microsoft's monopoly, because it's almost a given that the desktop computer will lose its prevelance once Ubiquetous Computing (ala MIT's Oxygen, etc) becomes a reality. Just so long as they don't control *THAT*, I'm happy.
It is funny to see AMD on microsoft's side, since MS has been very pro-Intel for a long time.
Cheers,
Justin
Twenty years? I guess my old Commodore might become useful after all.
20 years? Is this an accurate statement? I'm skeptical of anyone's testimony when Bill Gates *asks them to testify* on MS's behalf.
Could this start a new reign of terror from the MS camp? I just wonder.
Boycott AfterSlash 'cause it sucks!
It seems that karma-whoring is not just on Slashdot and not just for geeks.
true
This sounds more like AMD covering themselves than a vote of confidence from M$. As recent news has shown M$ can hurt anyone it wants to and AMD is just trying to dodge any bullets.
A Break down would be quite stupid and irrelevant, as it didn't prevent many baby Bells to merge again and to continue their monopolistic practises.
I think it'd be fairer to ask them (and most other corporations) to open their APIs, but as this'd imply a complete revision (suppression?) of the software patenting system this might not happen for some time.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Not very surprising, given the recent news surrounding the Xbox 2...
You know, If there was one company that I thought would be immune to M$, AMD was it. Now the only saving grace for all that is good in this world may be to be AOL after all. I know I'm gonna start a flame war but AOL is the biggest competitor M$ has and they are usong Mozilla now!! ;-)
Some years ago, whne I worked at AMD, a corporate level decision was made to run whatever the MS Mail solution was at the time (Exchange? Outlook?); even though there were several significantly better solutions out there.
What eventually came out was that it was a political decision. MS wanted to be able to show that large companies were successfully using their email package; and AMD NEEDED MS DOS/Windows to run on their 386/486 chips, and apparently this was one way of making sure that MS didn't have an "bugs" that would cause MS SW to crash on AMD chips.
What's that old quote about MS? "Window's ain't done till Lotus don't run?"
Same thing again, only different.
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
It's about survival. They need to convince MS to provide 64-bit Windows support for their processors. And sucking up to them in court is the way to do it. MS has to support intel because intel still owns most of the market, but AMD needs to curry all the favor it can, or have their 64 bit chips ignored by the 8000 lb gorilla of the computing world.
Still kind of disappointing, though. Big business in america is pretty much all about sucking dick for money.
Microsoft products are known for requiring more CPU horsepower than competing products. AMD and Intel like that as it encourages consumers to upgrade their computers more often. I am not surprised to see AMD side with Microsoft.
Let me just yank it out with a pair of pliers first....
"AMD Takes Microsoft's Side in Antitrust Case" is a long damned streatch from them/CEO being opposed to the "remedy being persued by the states".
Your comment was inflamatory and hurt AMD without cause. If they come out and say "M$ is our bestest buddies and they didn't do nothing wrong." then you might have a point, but they didn't do that.
That was a GD troll CT and you know it.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Why doesn't AMD realize that they have a huge following in the linux world and that a microsoft breakup wouldn't hurt them that much? Even Intel, which is used on more Microsoft systems than AMD, is not going to get hit -that- hard by anything that could possibly happen to Microsoft.
It's a shame that AMD, that has long battled uphill against the market dominance of Intel, has bowed under like this.
I'm positive there are intangible benefits, such as MS agreeing to port Doze aggressively onto x86-64 platforms that are motivating Sanders.
I remember reading a whitepaper from AMD's site once where they were complaining about Intel being the 800 lb gorilla, etc. and then having the grand vision that Intel was not the monopoly, that MS was the monopoly and the standard to which everything must adhere.
I guess it just goes to show that in business, if the monopoly isn't hurting you directly, that an "accommodation" can be made for the sake of furthering business interests.
Unfortunately, I doubt the court will be fully informed about the benefits that accrue to AMD as a result of Sanders testifying for MS, just as there are many subtle "sticks" used on companies that are now long dead that, too, have not been fully revealed to the court.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Poor Slashdotters,
AMD good... but M$ bad... but AMD good... but M$ bad... but AMD good
MOMMY!
It's actually the smartest thing I've heard lately. A bunch of different OS versions won't help consumers, but releasing the APIs would. Go Sanders.
Intel testifying against Microsoft, & AMD for Microsoft. Expect great favors from MS to AMD, even an XBox2 contract. Time to invest in AMD
OTOH, What a quandry for slashdotters!!! Will they boycott AMD for sleeping with the enemy, support Intel for going againt MS?
For some reason, I can't help but think amd's ceo has a valid point here.
Would (almost) every home have a pc if microsoft didn't exist? What if the market share were split evenly between mac/solaris/*nix/*bsd/etc?
Would game developers pump millions into development of a game for something like... 25% market share?
Seriously... just wondering... (no this isn't a troll... )
"Sanders said Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates asked him to testify and that he agreed out of concern..."
Yep, concern for his company. MS would strong arm him most likely, and the last thing AMD needs is the lack of support from MS. I do not see this as a bad thing, hey, it's business, but rather underhanded of MS if it is the reason for AMD's support.
Sent from your iPad.
"would set the computer industry back almost 20 years." So if it set the industry back 20 years.... MSWindows wouldnt be around right?... doesnt sound like a bad trade.
When I read this article, I can sense the terror behind this man's opinions. Something tells me this man is fearful of his life and is being forced to go along with Microsoft.
This is truly terrifying
So linux doesn't run on AMD? Right! Does he even have a clue as to how many small businesses are using AMD processors with linux? I suppose server operating systems require Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer and taking them out would make it less effective as an email, print, or webserver! Sanders is talking out his ass!
Intel should join Transmeta(read:Linux) to oppose M$.
/.'ers by siding with M$.
Oh, right, that'd never happen... Then again, who thought AMD would try to piss off us
This whole situation is just making my brain hurt. Think I'll take 2 aspirin and take a nap.
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
This line (the last of the article actually) puzzles me a lot. Microsoft servers are not in direct competition with big irons but more with linux, BSD and solaris servers as far as my understanding goes. So why does he say that "non-MS servers" run on specialiazed microprocessors.
AMD processors are very well supported under linux, albeit a bit later than Intel counterparts
I'm leaving aside the claim that MS makes "reliable and scalable" servers.
I really wonder what APIs or software code in the media player or IE AMD, a HARDWARE vendor relies on... I really do...One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
In addition, Sanders contended it would be too expensive for companies like AMD to "create products for multiple, inconsistent versions of Windows."
As opposed to running multiple and inconsistant versions of Linux and *BSD???
Someone has a clue here, wow, who would have thunk it?
My last 4 processors have been AMD ones and I was very happy with them.
Also I always thought AMD had a vital position as competitor to INTEL. Without AMD, Intel chips would be much more expensive and much worse.
Now we can see that to get decent AMD support in Microsoft products, AMD starts lying in public:
Instead of comparing Windows(no TM) to Linux(TM), they compare it to Solaris and OSX. Of course Windows is better for AMD then the two, but even better would be an open industry standard like linux, which is prevented by MS and which runs on every architecture. Also I don't see any connection to the modularisation of MSWindows.
Thinking about Intel, I recall the release of the intel compilers and other goodness for OSS. My next CPU will be an Intel.
Yours as well?
Moritz
Ok it's obvious what's happening here.
AMD and Intel are competitors.
Intel and Microsoft have fallen out a while ago, Intel uses a whole bunch of Linux boxes internally for development purposes for example. Not going to go down well with Microsoft.
And Microsoft is fighting for its life (or atleast that's how Microsoft sees it) so you can bet that Microsoft has offered some bargaining chip or other to AMD under the table (or above the table) to testify in this way; and in view of the animosity between Microsoft and Intel, they're going to be inclined to take it.
Whether this bargaining chip will be worth anything at the end of the day is probably debatable; history says anything that Microsoft gives you is usually worthless, or atleast costless to Microsoft. And going into bed with Microsoft; what kind of idiot would voluntarily do this?
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Sounds like when Henry Ford, commenting on the lack of variety in color of the Model-T, declared that every American could have whatever color car they wanted, as long as that color was black.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Since then, we have cell phones, wireless internet, consumer broadband, lower phone bills, better service. And a whole lot more...
Hell, don't break up Micro$oft, NUKE Redmond into a big glassy crater with a BIG thermonuclear device!
a small time ago AMD made a deal with SuSE about support for the hammer, now they'r choosing M$ side, little bit confusing :S... ok, ok, logic explanation: they just want everybody to love them and buy their stuff as long as they keep cheaper (and better) than Intel's, I'll choose their side.. but if they'll drop support for Linux, well then they can s**********.
If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
Microsoft supports AMD because they want the price of the cpu to be as low as possible. Higher prices for the cpu leaves less money for the operating system.
love is just extroverted narcissism
it seens MS is threating AMD to stay on their side otherwise they will put this piece of code on windows:
if (processor == "AMD") {
crash();
} else {
install_windows();
}
Fabio - Sumare/Sao Paulo/Brazil/South America/Earth/Solar System/Milky Way/Universe
http://www.morroida.com.br
"As we saw with Intel just a few years ago, the big monopoly CAN be taken down. If there is a better product (ie Linux) at a better price, it can take over the market. I don't have to remind you of which processor has the best performance right now."
Yeah if a flavor of Linux took over the market, I guarantee they would jack up the price. Oh BTW, Intel has the fastest chip right now. It beats the fastest AMD in most benchmarks.
Yeah, but now we know how to do things, and hopefully we can do them "right" this time.
Ahhhhh! What will I do!
Microsoft - badAMD - good
Microsoft - good!??
AMD - bad !??
Everything I've held so true and dear is collapsing around me!
This really looks like a bought statement, because it rephrases the well known point that standards promote competition, but it wrongly equals this with the dominant OS platform (which is dominant because of an illegal monopoly).
True, AMD benefits from the binary compatibility it has with Intel processors, but they wouldn't be interesting to consumers without the Windows monopoly. If any other OS would have been dominant (as much as MS windows) AMD would work towards running the same OS natively, because it sells CPUs...
On the other hand, if commercial drive had not occured as much as it has and standards would have been dominant on a different "layer" (application data, network protocols) the competition would be on which processors are best able to perform or are cheapest to produce or have the best operating power-usage.
Purely due to the monopoly, application (office) data is currently a (choking, uneasy) de facto standard and processors are (for the PC market) judged by how fast they can run windows. Of course, if AMD doesn't see any other OS taking over the dominant position, their strategy would be to sell as much CPUs for the dominant OS.
So basicly this says that AMD sees no competition upsetting the monopoly of MS, even with a negative outcome for MS in the trial.
- Bundling IE and other software with Windows is good for consumers. We're doing it too, bundling a memory controller with our new chips.
- Microsoft releases enough information as it is in the form of APIs. Don't force them to release any more.
- Microsoft's monopoly fosters diversity and helps consumers.
This was not a simple disagreement, this was a 17-page letter pledging broad support for Microsoft and its practices.First, AMD is trying to turn a profit. They make good money making CPUs for cheap Windows boxen, as well as high end CPUs for Unix boxen.
Second, MS does not have a fucking monopoly, DoJ notwithstanding. If Bill had a monopoly on the OS market, then I wouldn't be able to choose between dozens for Linux distributions, OS X, or *BSD.
If they really had a browser monopoly, then I wouldn't be able to choose Opera, or Mozilla, or Konqueror, or fucking Lynx.
From the CEO point of view, Linux does not seem to run on AMD...
"...because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors," he testified."
Thats total B.S.
Unix is user friendly... it just chooses it's friends selectively!!
and then
Wow, and AMD is sure to remember Intel's integration of a RAMBUS controller into it's Pentium 4, and how embarrising that was after Intel decided to rethink their strategy.
Could someone explain to me how choosing a particular technology for your customers and saying this is all you're allowed to use fosters competition?
-Michael
-Michael
Wait till the cross exam when his remarks get blown to hell and back.... In court a witness can get up and say anthing especially when the word thinks is involved. Of course by doing so you risk the chance as this fellow has done of getting lashed and dragged through the mud during cross examination.
Got Code?
I found the statements made by Sanders to be very odd. There must be something more to this that we aren't seeing, else why would he make so many statements that are 1) clearly wrong and 2) at odds with AMD's past positions on what is good for the industry? Specifically: As I typed this, I think I answered my own question. Do you suppose he's worried (or has been convinced) that the only thing keeping alternative processor architectures out of the main stream it the difficulty of porting Windows? Does he fear a flood (or even strong trickle) of non-x86, and thus non-Intel/AMD processors might weaken AMD's strategic position?
I wonder.
-- MarkusQ
A Slashdot reader who goes by the alias 'Skjellifetti' has succeeded in planting a seed that will soon result in the addition of 'persue' as an alternative spelling for 'pursue' in many popular dictionaries. Skjellifetti will achieve this by reaching a staggering amount of impressionable geeks who weren't sure before, but are now, about exactly how that word is spelled.
What are the slashdot masses to do? Their beloved AMD is following the Anti-Christ! Do they now latch on to Intel, or do they forsake their ways and follow their leader into Hell. Oh, the humanity. What's a geek to do???
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
The headline says it all. AMD, while it had seemed to be a David against Goliath, is in fact taking sides with the software Goliath. Regardless of their justifications, I for one will not be buying an AMD based system for the indefinite future. Their opinion on the matter is moot anyway, but if their management is so tactless as to state their personal bias publicly, then so be it, they earned my boycott.
AMD and Microsoft are buddies. And Anders testimony cements that notion. Let's just hope their cooperation doesn't produce too many dreadful things.
Thanks for posting this.
The Pentagon crash has been bothering me for a long time. There is absolutely no way that was caused by a large plane.
Lets hope we can see an official investigation into 9-11.
Well, it's clear he is trying to curry favor. Frankly AMD doesn't even matter anymore. But I'd be wangling for the next Xbox contract if I were him as well.
Anyway, the gist of what Sanders says is utter crap. He is arguing as if MSFT has not wantonly broken the law. We know they have. The thing is because of MSFT's conduct we will never know what benefits might have come from fair and open competition. Of course consumers have benefited from being given stuff for free from the monopolist. However, this very act was an act of aggression against competitors who might have produced an even better products. We won't ever know.
Further, the fact that MSFT strong-armed the distribution channel (OEMs and retail) into favoring MSFT or outright excluding competing products would have gotten any other company's ass in jail by now. MSFT is getting away with this shit because they are big. And that's the whole point of this case -- they are too damn big for our own good. And theirs. Bascially Sanders' argument further reinforces the notion that MSFT can't compete any other way except through strong arm tactics and cheating. How can that be good for anyone other than a MSFT share owner?
The 9 states frankly are proposing mild remedies. The more hyperbole I hear from MSFT supporters, the more it seems those remedies would do exactly the right thing.
First of all, there would be no more sales to the government. I'm sure thats a substansial ammount of MS's market.
Also, this would give open source more credit to the general populus and all those federal employees might start to enjoy linux, or whatever they're running, over the use of windows. Therefor they could use it at home and tell friends "windows sucks"
Additionally, this could be used for lots of software. For example, Oracle. Feds are their biggest customer, but as 'the people', i think we have the right to push for MySQL or another open database system.
Alot of of slashdotters refuse to buy Microsoft products. Either out of disgust, distaste, or whatever. I know I'll never buy from them again. What do you want your taxes going to?
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
Does AMD depend on Windows 'peculiarities' to run benchmarks really fast or something?
Maybe they're worried that if MS loses its dominance, the truth about their CPUs will come out?
Read above
http://www.theredpenguin.com
Think about it. AMD needs a nice, friendly relationship with Microsoft. Microsoft has no choice but to be nice and cooperative with Intel. But AMD? Microsoft could put their processor division out of business in an instance if they so desired.
So what happens? Microsoft gets a much needed ally in its industry, something you'd be hard pressed to find today. And AMD gets on the nice-list for a little while.
It's business strategy at its finest, but definitely most blatant and obvious.
jrbd
...to kill your company. What an indication of big government--one biz opinions on another biz to keep their own biz.
Strange--my impression was that AMD gained their current market share because they had competitive chips at relatively cheap prices which were being used by DIYers, small shops, etc. They had lost attempts to make inroads with Dell and Gateway.
To me, that meant, while they did not have to reject MS, they did keep a certain distance away from them or, better, stayed an arm's length from the entire settlement battle. Apolitical if you will. This means much of their market share is not gathered up and used by big name players but supported by more of smaller players.
Now they take a side. Maybe MS put some pressure on them or lose future OS support for AMD's processors.
But it seems stupid to risk pissing off and losing some of the smaller players which tend to have more opiniated political views. Before AMD stayed away from the MS fray--now they are in it. They become no different than in that sense, so why the hell would someone like them anymore?
Is the DIY and self-builder market that small nowadays that they would risk that? Or is the CEO that stupid he doesn't consider making a political statement to gain business risks the company's current base of users?
I, for one, bought Athlons because they were cheap for the performance. They run hot comparatively to the P4, but that didn't matter to me much. But also significant to buy AMD was that they were a good CPU alternative--competition to the MS/Intel duopology. Now that seems to have been removed.
Wish Via would come up with faster chips than their cyrix derived line...
I'm not a M$ fan, but I really don't see the point in the antitrust case. Microsoft made a product, and got it to market, making deals for distribution along the way. People choose to use their product. M$ made a bunch of money.
Saying that they incorporate their browser and that's bad is like saying Ford shouldn't be installing their own air bags into cars. You don't need the air bag for the car to function, but it makes it convenient.
I also don't know what, exactly, the bells did wrong. If you don't like their service, get some money, run your own lines, and start selling your own phone service. Isn't that why we have a capitalistic economic system? So if you don't like it, you can try to go into business yourself to make a better product or provide a better service? I don't think companies should be penalized because the public is too lazy to switch to something new, I think I'd be rather $#%@'ed off if I had a business and the government started sticking their noses in where they don't belong.
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
Some of the statements in the article strike me as quite bizzare. They claim that de-integrating Windoze and opening up the APIs would set the computer industry back 20 years... That should be plainly absurd to even to a complete moron. In that era we're talking monochrome greenscreens, IBM PCs (the original), Apple ][, TRS-80, etc. I mean, 1982 is the year TCP/IP was invented.
At the end Sanders claims most server operating systems run on specialized microprocessors... Excuse me? Ever hear of Linux, FreeBSD, BSDI, etc. etc.? I would think that the Linux crowd would be more likely to use an AMD processor than the average Windows user (who would have some pre-built PC sporting a Pentium 3/4 with a big MHz number).
They do have a (partially) valid point about integration though... While I don't know that it does anyone any good to force Internet Exploder and Media Slayer down everyone's throat, some integration is a Good Thing. Remember having to use Trumpet Winsock in Win 3.1 to use the Internet? Nobody thinks integration of a TCP/IP stack into the OS was a bad thing. I'm not even against the inclusion of M$'s HTML rendering engine (it's one of the better ones - ActiveX and crap aside). Lots of apps seem to be moving away from Windoze help files (which suck) to HTML documentation, and having HTML rendering handled by the OS seems perfectly acceptable (and it doesn't force any particular product on the user).
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
Looks like Sanders is trying to get in good with MS to gain some leverage against Intel.
What he stated was his opinion, probably to benefit his company - nothing more. Remember where his interests lie, he is a CEO.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
This is my favorite quote from the article:
[The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."]
Hmm, removing IE and WMP and OE will set us back 20 years? Hell, we could step back to the days of DOS and not suffer a 20 year setback. Windows (version 1.0 that is) was released 11/10/1983. 20 years would bring us back to 1982. The original QDOS was released back in 1980. (http://www.powerload.fsnet.co.uk/timeline.htm)
I suppose we'd also have to throw out advancements like oh, the Athlon processor if Microsoft suddenly disappeared eh?
Wow, I really like AMD's products but I definitely do NOT like Mr. Sanders' testimony.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
There should be a new slashbox to help us keep track of the "good" companies versus the "bad" companies. Maybe JonKatz could run it.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
There are two possible conversations:
Jerry: Hello.
Bill: Hey Jerry, could you set the DoJ right about the goodness of Windows.
Jerry: Sure! Anything to support your Monoply.
Bill: Great, see you next week. Bye.
Or
Jerry: Hello.
Bill: Hey, Jerry wouldn't it be funny if Windows XP V2 read the CPU ID and just mysteroiusly crashed if it saw AMD in it?
Jerry: Good one Bill. What can I do for you?
Bill: Some losers are suing me because I have the power to destroy a company with a simple code change. I need you to testify on my behalf.
Jerry: Um, Sure Bill, Anything to keep you happy.
Bill: Don't forget to wax my car this week.
Jerry: Sure anything you say.
Bill: One OS to bind them. HA HA HA HA.
You decide which is true.
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
The Pentium 4 2,4 Ghz beats any AMD CPU right now, at least as far as raw performance goes.
What does the average Slashdotter (AMD-lover, MS-hater) do in this situation? I'm expecting some to have big headaches today just thinking about it. What next? Dogs and cats living together?
JAson
"FORMAT C:" - Kills bugs dead!
Why would anyone want to break them up or force them to force the public to use an OS that is unsupportable because MS had to gut it out at the behest of a few week businesses and states attorneys that can be bought?
MS has alot of anti-competitive faults, but someone should just nuke those nine states and get on with life... its costing us all tons of money.
Is there NO chance whatsoever that he actually believes that his testimony is true?
/. so BURN KARMA BURN...nothing I won't get back.
Is it maybe possible that he truly feels that this a bad thing?
Personally, I think he is blowing things out of proportion by saying this "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years," but MAYBE he knows something about chip and software interaction that I don't. (Didn't see that quote, maybe you never RTA?)
Flamebait this isn't but its an unpopular opinion on
At least my thoughts might be visible for 10 seconds or so...
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
I enjoy tinkering around with computers. I have a moderate idea of security. I've spent the last few days brining up a firewall which sits behind a cable/dsl router. I imagine a fair number of the people here are like that too. But we are not the general public. We are a biased subsample. I know many people who would rather not know or think about security if someone else could handle it for them. It is a service they would gladly pay others to do. With all the alarmist articles about the net, this is adds an incentive to have security done by someone. But people don't want to learn so sombody else. The other major reason that desktops could die is them well dieing. If someone could develop a client that is as reliable as the phone system and keep the complexity at the other end. Then pros can take care of the problems. So the end user never has to worry.
Nobody suspects the butterfly!
I wonder if Sanders has heard of any of the other computer developments that have happened in the past 20 years?
Or is he looking through the glasses supplied by redmond in the same package as the xbox 2 "deal"?
I find it both laughable and dissapointing that such a prominant figure would make such stupid claims...
5 years, that could be argued I guess, but 20 years?
Does anyone else remember the state of computing 20 years ago? (zx81 anyone?)br> Anyone who claims that using (for example) linux today is like computing was 20 years ago needs their head checked
that quote just made me stop reading the article and laugh
Uh, yeah, that's called restoring competition to the marketplace. It's the aim of the remedy.
"the Justice Department made clear that the federal government and not the states sets national antitrust policy--a point the judge should take into consideration."
And go and buy a VIA C3. Then you can run Linux on it with a clear conscience.
correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't MS software run on AMD products and not visa-versa.
he's acting like changes in the windows code will change the way chips are built.
while i'm sure bill would like to believe it, not even MS has this much power...
Check this out.
A single 800 MHz G4 just demolishes your precious 2 GHz P4...
you guys are losers and need to get a life you nerds
Of course it's good for consumers to get very good software packages included for free.
If I hear one more round of whining about how IE is anti-competitive because it's included as part of Windows, I'll puke.
The only reason IE is anti-competitive is because it's the BEST BROWSER. And it's free.
If you want to charge me for something I can get for free, it better be great. And so far, no one has come up with anything to compete with the software/utilities bundles with Windows, for any price. And by compete, I mean "does everything the Microsoft version can do, and way more".
I just have little patience for billion dollar companies whining all the time about how hard it is to compete with MS. When what they really mean is "Microsoft is ripping off the customers WE were gonna rip off! No fair!"
Don't get me wrong, I think MS has done some shitty things. And the court proved they did some illegal things, too. But the reason they are number one isn't because they are an all-powerful monopoly. It's because they are better at the software business than anyone else.
i tend to agree with some of the points of the article.
i'm not particularly a fan of microsoft, but i don't think it is in anybody's interest or resolves any of the issues that lead to the suits to go and strip down windows.
i think the states need to review their request for remedy and come up with a creative solution which goes to the core of the complaint of anti-competitive practices, rather than focus on one product of the company.
imho, this law suit is out of control to some extent. the complaint is valid, the requested remedy is totally out of touch with reality.
hopefully they'll sort this one out before the judge is forced to rule on these miserable options. i think it would be unfortunate if the judge had only these remedy options to consider.
Poof.
How many processors can Linux compile on again? With exactly the same functionality?
Just curious.
GMFTatsujin
AMD is just another brand name for those rare Intel processors that perform below the par.
From the article:
The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."
Hasn't Windows already done that?
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
"Sanders said Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates asked him to testify and that he agreed out of concern over the remedy proposal."
I imagine the conversation went something like this...
Gates: 'If you know whats good for you, you will testify regarding the proposal...'
"The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years." "
Ahh yes.. I almost forgot that there have not been any advances in the computer industry except for Windows and Microsoft software since 1982.
"In addition, Sanders contended it would be too expensive for companies like AMD to "create products for multiple, inconsistent versions of Windows."
Hmm.. AMD products seem to work fine for my multiple inconsistent linux boxes..
Its apparant. AMD is now Microsoft's bitch.
... not that it was in doubt, but this is amazing.
Sanders' contention is that having a single, standardized operating system gives hardware manufacturers a single, well-defined target to aim for when developing new versions of their processors.
Actually, that makes a lot of sense, if you are so steeped in the MS-dominated worldview that you think it makes sense for hardware manufacturers to be optimizing their devices to run specific software faster.
But, isn't that backwards? Doesn't it make more sense for software makers to optimize for the available hardware? I always thought so. But, then it never until just now occurred to me that AMD is not and never has been in the business of making Intel-compatible chips; they've always been in the business of making Microsoft-compatible chips, and the distinction is not a subtle one.
Is it possible that Sanders' view does make sense from an overall efficiency standpoint? Which is more complex, a microprocessor, plus accompanying chipsets, or an operating system? Both are horrendously complex beasts these days, but I think it's pretty clear that the software running on the processor is orders of magnitude more complex, and therefore harder. And it's reasonable to suggest that the simpler component should adapt itself to the more complex component, right? Maybe even more important, which component has the longest life? They're both pretty short, but I'd say a single software release tends to span processors more than the converse.
Food for thought, indeed.
My opinion is still that the consumer is best-served if competition between hardware and software platforms (and between different components of software platforms) can proceed independently. Operating systems should try to run on a wide variety of hardware platforms and should all compete amongst themselves. Hardware platforms should try to attract OS developers by being faster, more robust, cheaper, more scalable, etc. Similarly, OSes should compete for application developers.
But this also means that a great deal of effort will be expended on many sides trying to come to agreement on common APIs, rather than just getting on with the business of innovation. More variety also leads to more confusion on the part of consumers. This is an argument Microsoft has been making for a long time, albeit in a software-only context. There is some sense to it: Fixing one part of the equation makes the surrounding parts easier to optimize.
We all know which part of the equation Microsoft wants to hold constant, of course.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
...Film at 11.
Log onto your thin client for more details.
Microsoft has been found GUILTY of an illegal monopoly and this guy testifies that they should not be punished because breaking down the monopoly would set the industry back 20 years.
And just how many years fo TRUE INNOVATION have we lost in the iron grasp of Microsoft's suffocating monopoly?
Once again, it has been demonstrated that sleeping with the enemy for procreative purposes is OK. However, this doesn't seem to be a one-night stand.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
I have many complaints against the register. In the interest of being offtopic, I will enumerate through some of them.
First, they have a decidely British point of view, which is not entirely unexpected, considering they are located in England.
Secondly, they have a penchant for sensationalized headlines and shoddy reporting. If I wanted that, I'd read the drudgereport. This is further exacerbated by their "editors" obvious lack of understanding of anything peripherally related to computers or technology.
In conclusion, the difference between them and slashdot is that they don't allow comments or crash daily, or use linux/apache (but I repeat myself).
So, AMD came out in support of MS. Big Deal. Does this mean I am going to change my computing/buying habits? Not likely. I will continue not to buy Intel cpu's and continue to buy MS software. Why? AMD's cpu's are cheaper and as reliable/efficient as Intel's. MS software is the only viable choice if you use MS at work/school and need to be compatible at home. Simple. I love the alternatives to MS (*nix, BE, OS X), but realistically, they are novelties in the marketplace. I don't like MS's practices and policies, but for usability/compatibility, the choices are slim. I have read a number of /.'ers decrying this decision on the part of AMD and people saying that they will boycott AMD for crossing to the dark side, but as far as business is concerned, this is rather myopic. I have never (yes, never) purchased an Intel cpu for my home system (no choice at work) and do not intend to for the forseeable future, as long as there is a viable alternative. There is no viable alternative in the MS universe (at this time). OS X - great OS, no support in the business/corporate workplace. *nix - great OS, but only if you have time/talent to tinker with a command line or haven't moved off campus yet. BE - great OS, but seemingly dead in the water (shame on Palm).... Granted, there may be flamebait here, but so be it.
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
When MS integrates as many feature as possible into Windows it makes Windows slow down more and more each version. So by letting MS continue this, people will have to buy faster and faster processors with every version of Windows which means more AMD processors sold.
By the time Windows 3000 comes out everyone will need a multi-processor system. One processor for notepad, one for the desktop. AMD will make a killing!
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
It's already cool to see AMD having their 64bits supported in the next windows, I understand why they are acting like this. While it's not good from a purist's point of view... buisness is buisness and they did do a major strike to get microsoft to not only support Intel like everyone thought they would at first.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
I love it. All the slashdotters are "hurt". there couldn't be anything funnier.
Once again, Jerry Sanders proves that he's basically a jackass. Surprise. He's been an idiot for the last 20 years, and has done his best to crater his company again and again. It will be great when he finally retires.
Microsoft is a monopoly! Windows is an inferior os! Windows could've be taken out by Beos, had Beos gotten there a little faster, and had the marketing department, and a way to get around the exclusive contracts MS forced through. What user wouldn't have liked the impression of an entirely new machine? When I installed Beos on my pentium 225, the difference from win98 was impossible to me. Five second boot, a zillion 3d spinning teapots open at the same time, faster everything. And easier to use and install than linux. (No matter what anyone says, I am not a command line guy) I am a musician, and I just want things to WORK. I don't have time to sit around configuring stuff ('cept at work. ha.)
My proposed soulution to the MS monopoly: Any new x86 computer sold must have NO os preinstalled or included! Perhaps a list, or booklet of OSes capable of running on the machine can be included. This would at least let consumers have a choice, break the stranglehold MS has on OEMs, and introduce consumers to new OSes. Users can pick the OS that is 'right' for them and their needs. This would also push ease of use, better installer methods, and more open standards.
Anyone incapable of learning how to install a new 'easy to install' os, can have webTV. ugh.
AMD knows very well that should Microsoft not provide support for their platform, there are far better Open Source operating systems available even right now. They have to make an ethical choice right now, right here. Are they with us, or against us.
The way I see it, they have simply made a deal with the Devil. I will be very wary of purchasing or recommending AMD processors until this issue is resolved.
"The integration of innovative features is a principal means by which both software and hardware products are improved, to the benefit of consumers."
This is why people who know anything about computers buy from HP and Compaq, right?
Integration means less options, and less options means that consumers are forced into making decisions that they might not necessarily want. While I readily admit that a small level of integration is necessary (who wants to start fusing their chipsets to their motherboards?), the extent that Microsoft takes it is abominable. Can anyone else forsee the day that you boot up your computer to Windows RG (Really Good edition), to only have one program on your system: Windows Internet, Media, Email, Solitaire, Finance, Document, Spreadsheet, Slideshow, and Calculator Explorer?
No comment.
Sanders is an almost laid off and so Hector Ruiz will enter as AMD's chairman.
Jerry is just making sure that he doesn't blew out crap over the path AMD so hardly built up.
More, I won't lose respect for AMD because of this, Jerry was aiming at Intel's ass, not MS'. AMD doesn't care about which OS their processors are running on, I don't care too, unless AMD begin to produce anything like Hyperpipelined shit that slows down every cpu-intensive app.
Oh yes, Internet Explorer is the best browser. Not buggy and insecure or anything. People don't use non-MS software because they hate MS. They use it because MS software is shitty.
Well, think about it though. Did it become the best browser as you say because MSFT is the best, or because no one else had a reasonable chance to develop one and make money? Thing is we will never know. And that's the whole point.
.mht. Can anyone else read and write this format? No. What does that do if MSFT won't tell me how and people want to use it? It cuts me out of the equation, and I can't therefore compete.
Further, preventing OEMs from embracing the software of others, or charging them a different license fee if they chose to support other software is anti-competitive and illegal. So I think that's why the States have zeroed in on this. In truth it has zilch to do with the "browser" per se and more to do with letting other people at least have a shot at creating one and trying to market it if they want to.
If MSFT sees threats and simply gives away software in that category it kills any chance of getting another product funded and on the way to consumers. That's the issue here. If they are allowed to keep doing this, in the end you end up with a bunch of free, mediocre and "contaminated" products and formats.
Consider
Make sense? They do this on hundreds of levels, much more important than the browser, making it impossible to compete in the areas MSFT most wants to control.
As I see it, fragmentation would not mean the distribution of a "smorgasbord of different versions of Microsoft Windows". It would mean one core OS with an API for all to use, including Microsoft. This would also blow away the "multiple, inconsistent versions of Windows" theory Sanders has going.
And why would AMD be worried about "particular software code" in Windows anyway. Is not the normal cycle design hardware to standards, build OS to work with standard hardware, build apps to OS API, and run apps? I may live in a simplistic world, but the way I learned it was the OS was designed for the hardware. The hardware was not designed for the OS.
The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."
Where did that number come from? Windows hasn't even been around for 20 years, how is pulling out the browser going to be worse than starting from scratch?
He faulted the remedy provision of the litigating states, which would compel Microsoft to release a second version of Windows without so-called middleware, such as browsing and media playback technologies.
Oh no, what would we do, use Netscape or WinAmp? Or, or, we could still use IE and WindowsMediaPlayer, only it would be by choice, that's all we're asking..
What a bunch of FUD.
Stupider like a fox! - H.S.
Its hardly surprising that AMD back M$ in this area, because without Windows, the legacy i386 architecture that AMD make their business on is simply going to be superceded.
:)
:/
Im surprised that nobody mentions the fact that without Microsoft, the only thing holding all these linux/BSD users to i386 architecture is it's relative cheapness and availability.
Its easy to forget that M$ has been a huge force in leveraging legacy architecture onto our desktops for nigh on 20 years.
For example, I'm going to be using Mac architecture as soon as its cheap enough, because I'll be able to move to it pretty seamlessly, as I can use my legacy sun boxen or any other architecture supported by my operating system and apps. At that point it'll be good-bye Intel i386, AMD, Athlon and the host of bizarre h/w setups we've all been taught to view as normal
.. well maybe not that quick
He compared the situation to "proprietary operating systems that run only on specific hardware designed and manufactured by the same vendor," such as Apple Computer's Mac OS or Sun Microsystems' Solaris. "Microsoft's Windows operating systems run on computers manufactured by thousands of different companies," he stated.
While you rightly make the point that the central bios and Intel's ubiquity may deserve more of the credit for that, you can't deny Microsoft did change the business model for computer manufacturers. Before them, everyone wanted to sell hardware. The OS was just what you had to include to make the hardware work. They were one of the first companies to base their success on selling the OS and let someone else deal with the hardware.
Through a combination of lucky breaks, good timing, shrewd long-range planning and incredibly effective marketing (okay, and a few good products thrown in along the way) they succeeded in commoditizing the developing PC hardware market. IBM had still planned on making the money from the hardware.
Now, despite immense natural barriers to entry, ever higher-range systems becoming commodities. As there are comparatively low barriers to entry in the software business, the only reasonable explanation for Microsoft's continued high margins is that they somehow artificially maintain high barriers. (Hmm, didn't a judge recently rule that this is exactly the case?)
Nope, no sig
What in the world are you talking about? Are you suggesting that AMD stop supporting M$ because a whopping 2% of their chip sales comes from geeks who buy new kit and intend to install *only linux* on their computers? It may seem like everyone and their mother runs a *nix around /. (hell, from what I've read from a lot of you guys, your mothers _do_ run linux), but in the rest of the computer sector, that kind of marketshare and mindshare is amazingly small. Plus, how many /.'ers are reading this off a Pentium Pro system *because* they're preficient in linux?
Having sold Apple Computers for the last 9 months, I can tell you what 5% of the market feels like. I'd say over 60% of our foot traffic had never even heard of an Apple computer, and practically none of them knew what it meant to say that OSX is built on UNIX. To hedge their bets like that is to give up on the consumer PC market and join the Sun/Apple/Amiga's of the world.
I buy apple hardware, I run linux as well, but the rest of the business world (AMD/M$ included) really doesn't really give a damn.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
Gosh you mean the fact that it is bolted in and filled with a billion security holes is a bad thing? ;-)
Be a friend when you need them for your bussines!
Stab them in the back when you don't need them anymore.
Open source was a good partner when they had to grow
But nou AMD thinks it's can do without them and stab them in the back !
It's the old microsoft story!!
AMD thinks if they can do it we can do it also !
I think they are wrong about that, but shall see
Intel Tualatin 1400 GHz ... 27 W.
... 62.8 W.
AMD Athlon XP 1600+ (1400 GHz)
I can almost run my Intel using passive cooling whereas AMD requires a fan that sounds like a friggin' jet engine.
the jist i got out of this article was that less competition (microsoft's monopoly) in the software market is great for competition in the hardware market. while that's fine and dandy, the case against microsoft right now isnt really focusing on the hardware market, is it?
so this is just more info to confuse the courts. saying if A is good for B than A must be good for A too?
apples and oranges people.
I'm afraid, in the business world, there's no place for the truth.
The only thing that counts (for a 'traded company) is next quarter's results.
Of course, everybody is entitled to his own "opinion".
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
"Microsoft's development of reliable and scalable server operating systems has enabled AMD to enter and compete more effectively in the server businesses...because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors," [Sanders] testified.
This is misleading at best. Granted that *maybe* (I'm not personally familiar with all of these so I'm not sure) *nices like AIX, HP-UX, Slowaris, and IRIX run on "specialized" hardware, for each one of those I can name a free or almost free server OS or platform that runs on Intel/AMD. Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake, Slackware, SuSE, Lycoris, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, GNU/HURD, I could continue for a while. I mean, how many commonly used server OSes are there other than Windows and *nices?
And do I even need to comment on Microsoft's "reliable and scalable" OS and software, given the 10 new vulnerabilities found in IIS last week? Windows 2000/XP may be rather stable, but with vulnerabilities like that, what good does stability do you?
I love Slashdot! Just imagine what the reaction on Slashdot would be if Intel's CEO made the same statement.
If you're going to do that, I'd recommend bundling aspirin and Prozac, because there'd be a LOT of unhappy people.
You wouldn't demand that car dealers sell cars without engines, would you? Or if you did, you'd expect mucho pain. Expecting everybody to become a computer guru is not realistic because, frankly, for most people it's not a priority, much like most people don't know enough chemistry to produce their own pharmaceuticals and most haven't studied enough engineering or architecture to design their own homes.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Linux can fragment, but there are always the same set of APIs and programs. Gentoo isn't that different from RedHat, from SuSE, from Mandrake, from Slackware...
Under the worst case scenario Windows would fragment less than Linux already has, and Linux is not a nightmare of missing pieces. At worst some pieces are in different places, but the environment already has compensated.
There are "third sigma" versions of Linux, but there is also Windows XP embedded, both of which are heavily adapted to particular things, e.g. LTSP, LRP.
Even though the Anti-Trust investigation into Intel has been closed this would make a great headline in response.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
Is AMD CEO Jerry Sanders in any way related to KFC's Colonel Sanders? Strinking resemblance. I've got to start taking lunch breaks.
20 years ago IBM with the threat of anti-trust over there head released their API, which microsoft built their business on, and shown that innovation and new niche develop when underline standards are not proprietarily held.
20 years later, Microsoft have become the IBM of 20 years ago, fighting desperately from making the IBM 'mistake', since their price cow is slipping away as the historical circumstance demand it to be opened up.
Given the above, AMD's statement is incredibly lacking in perspective and insight.
The fact that the maker of a general purpose CPU is designing their "general purpose" chips for a specific operating system is proof positive that consumers and innovation are being harmed. If this isn't "the tail wagging the dog" I don't know what is.
AMD,Intel,MIPS,IBM etc. should be designing the best possible CPU's and hardware packages, it's than up to the OS vendors to map those services to a common interface. It's not IBM's fault there's no Microsoft Window's for the PPC.
6502! lol. It's a tad slow at around 1MHz but it gets the job done.
//e why did anyone ever upgrade?
I have a dot matrix printer and a 300Baud modem (however I cannot find a phone that fits in the receiver anymore). Plus my Green Screen is sweet. The delete button isn't activated in any programs though.
Apple
It's funny to note that AMD runs a lot of Linux, especially in their engineering groups. We are talking well over 2,000 CPUs here. They run a mix of Red Hat 6.2 and 7.x
-jason m
Do you ever wonder if Koter-Kelly is to the point of just dreading any new "Testimonies." I think I'd be completely burnt out by now with the daily bullshit from both sides. It's got to be pissing her off by now.
-jj-
The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."
Linux is already highly modular (which is what the states are asking Windows to be), and hardly fragmented. Perhaps he's saying if Windows is forced to be modular, it will take MS 20 years to get to where Linux is today?
Basically, Sanders got up and parroted what Gates told him to say. My favorite quote in the article: "You agreed without knowing what you would be testifying to other than the characterization that Mr. Gates gave you?"
Looks like Microsoft's brilliant legal team is at it again. Maybe Microsoft is trying to set up an inadequate defense appeal.
. . . to use Alpha processors.
Intel's a monopoly in bed with Microsoft,
now AMD is Microsoft's bitch as well,
PowerPC is too tightly controlled by Apple,
and while Alpha may be dying,
MIPS and Sparc are dying more quickly.
Makes me wish that someone out there would make an original and butt kicking processor design. Our processor choices are starting to get too limited . . .
Nope, it was developed in the early 1970s by Vinton Cerf and others. I don't have any links right now but surely someone can second me.
--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.
Check out:t itrust _4.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/020416/microsoft_an
Sanders basically admits that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and was only up there because Gates asked him to be.
I love AMD and everything they have done to spur true innovation in the processor market. While I am very disappointed with their stand on the M$ AT case, I will still support them. They have a great product and have kept Intel on their toes which is a great thing for all of us. Hopefully the judge was listening to some MP3s instead of AMDs comments ;)
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
After freeing up a monopilised market it always takes time for the market to stabilize, and during this time customers may suffer. This is however no reason not to kill off the monopoly.
Of course MS supplies the "best" OS out there if you need to use applications requireing windows. This is no reason to protect the monopoly! The government regulated monopoly (in my country) for selling anything with alcohol is of course harmful to costumers the same way the microsoft monopoly is. And of course killing off the monopoly would lead to confusion and possibly worse customer service - until the market has stabilized.
Much of the article mentioned Sanders saying that not letting Microsoft bundle their software with the OS would fragment the Windows operating system, which I totally don't understand. And to make it even more puzzling to me, he said that this fragmentation would make it harder for companies like AMD to support the operating system. Would someone kindly explain to me how letting people use competing web browsers or media playing programs would make it harder for AMD to make chips?
I think one of the more interesting parts of the article is at the bottom:
"Microsoft's development of reliable and scalable server operating systems has enabled AMD to enter and compete more effectively in the server businesses...because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors," he testified.
I read this as AMD wanting Microsoft to be able to continue its illegal business practices as the more people who use Windows, the more potential AMD customers. And I think AMD might be scared that if Microsoft had to play fairly that would open people up to other non-x86 platforms.
FiGZ.COM - A waste of perfectly good web space
No confussion here!!!
The reason AMD became a "real" choice in the first place was because they snaked-eye the enthusiasts with the Duron's 50% over-clockability at a reasonable price, when Intel was charging an arm and a leg for similar performance.
The choice is very simple:
If you are not paying for the products and your a$$ is on the line you go with the "standards"!!! - Intel, MS, SUN, etc...
If you are paying for the products out of your own wallet, then you go with the best (support*performance)/price ratio. The need for "support" is relative to an individual.
AMD is/was lacking in the support department, but performace and price was great. AMD support is improving both in MS and Linux environments (but this is support from the community -at least on the linux platform- rather than support from AMD).
Intel is/was a bit hefty on on the performance/price, but support is/was great.
If AMD scratches MS's back for the sake of "support" more power to them. But if AMD starts matching Intel's prices and AMD's performance/price ratio starts to match Intel's performance/price, Intel here I come, because support=experience=age.
...back in the 80's that Apples big mistake was not porting the Mac OS to x86 hardware. What they had then was so much better than Windows (still is). MS would not have stood a chance. Now that OS-X is a Unix OS, it seems like this would be very easy to do. MS is in a much better position, but in time, Apple would gain market share and MS would lose.
~S
Sun The Network is the Computer We are the dot in .com Write Once Run Anywhere Do Everything in One Place Open Network Environment Open Network Computing Scalable Processor Architecture Reduced instruction set Computer .com Write Once Run Anywhere Do Everything in One Place Open Network Environment Open Network Computing Scalable Processor Architecture Reduced instruction set Computer .com Write Once Run Anywhere Do Everything in One Place Open Network Environment Open Network Computing Scalable Processor Architecture Reduced instruction set Computer .com Write Once Run Anywhere Do Everything in One Place Open Network Environment Open Network Computing Scalable Processor Architecture Reduced instruction set Computer .com Write Once Run Anywhere Do Everything in One Place Open Network Environment Open Network Computing Scalable Processor Architecture Reduced instruction set Computer .com Write Once Run Anywhere Do Everything in One Place Open Network Environment Open Network Computing Scalable Processor Architecture Reduced instruction set Computer .com Write Once Run Anywhere Do Everything in One Place Open Network Environment Open Network Computing Scalable Processor Architecture Reduced instruction set Computer
Sun The Network is the Computer We are the dot in
Sun The Network is the Computer We are the dot in
Sun The Network is the Computer We are the dot in
Sun The Network is the Computer We are the dot in
Sun The Network is the Computer We are the dot in
Sun The Network is the Computer We are the dot in
Does this mean we have to boycott AMD now? Come to think of it, the computer I'm posting with has a Athlon in it...
oh, I feel so dirty... (shiver)
They used to. Think back to when there were a plethora of OS's or, your way, video game machines. We had great diversity and some of those products which launched on the non-dominant paradigm were pretty damn good. (On that note, we could certainly spend a lot of bandwidth revisiting the issue about why games suck so much and lack originality, right?)
Sander's statement "Microsoft's dominance in PC operating systems fosters diversity rather than limits consumer choice" is dead wrong. While providing a fairly unified platform for development, it's also been heavily leveraged by the guilty monopolist to force out perfectly good technologies for enrichment. Doesn't anyone ever wonder why Gates, Allen, Ballmer, et al are billionaires? Would they be without the MS deathgrip on the desktop? Would MS products be better if they truly competed? Absolutely! Every day here on Slashdot, yet inexplicably sometimes forgotten, like a pain in the leg you learn to live with.
The entire software industry agreeing on open standards would provide much better products, in much the same way business and consumers have benefitted from open standards on dynamic memory (SDRAM) JEDEC, despite Rambus' machinations is the right way to go about joint development, rather than MS coming out with the standard of the day and proclaiming it, only to build advantages into their OS and do things outside the API when it suits them, to effectively castrate the competition.
We know better, don't we?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
There's a FRACTIONAL possibility that, under oath, the guy JUST MIGHT be giving his objective opinion.
/. people start running around with their hands in the air screaming about corporate witch-hunts. The guy's Jerry Sander for fuck sake. I'd credit him with the intelligence to be objective in this sort of situation.
Why is it as soon as anything antitrust/MS based is posted on
If you want to scream about multinationals and conflicts of interest talk about CSFB, JP Morgan and Merril Lynch because the shit they've been putting out for the last ten years makes all this "AMD's underhand strategy" stuff seem like a walk in the park.
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
My wife said this right now after I cited your message to her. She is not a computer person but have to work with M$ Office. IMHO this is perfect.
You know this is a bad idea; try this instead. Make them pay the schools, and then make them compete for those schools' software dollars in an open marketplace. If they really are just a "natural" monopoly, then the schools will give MS all their money back and get software as if it was free. If not, then we will see it unfold in the public record of how the schools spend these dollars. Just make sure the process is de-politicised and fully disclosed so we can catch people trying to give kickbacks to school officials on the side.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
And it runs just about everything I throw at it just fine. *shrug*
My next processor buy will be a G3 card for my Mac, if any Slashbots care.
-lee
http://www.shacknews.com/funk.y?id=3439046
Yeah, I don't see this as amounting to much either; I mean, look at what Intel has done in supporting Microsoft. I bet that's what the AMD execs were saying to themselves when they were trying to think of a way to ensure the viability of X86-64's future.
Other than that, nothing but lots of knee-jerk reaction posts and trite speculations. Oh well, carry on.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
"I'm going to put together my cheap x86 system now! Screw Microsoft! I'm a hardcore geek, putting together my own!"
You just have Microsoft more money.
x86 sucks, and so do YOU.
In Sanders' comments, he asserts that most non-MS operating system run on proprietary hardware. That is extremely misleading! Sanders' even uses Sun's Solaris & Mac OS as examples. Yes, Solaris does run on the proprietary Sparc platform, but it also runs on the x86 platform as well. And what about Darwin? Darwin is the open source brainchild of Mac OS X that runs on the Risc chip platform and x86. Chips that AMD sells can and do run Solaris & Darwin. Do you think that he knows that?
While the vast majority of the popular non-M$ alternatives can and do run on proprietary hardware, that is sidestepping the fact that most also run on the same proprietary/reverse-engineered platform that the M$ operating system run on. All of the Linux distros, the BSD's, Solaris and even Apple's Darwin OS can run on both proprietary hardware and x86 based hardware.
But why bring attention to the fact that there are alternatives to Micro$oft?
I'm glad I haven't bought that Athlon XP yet. Looks like I'll be getting a P4 instead. At least Intel has the kahones to stand up to big brother. In more arena than one.
Why does Fram make oil filters for cars even though the car market is split between a dozen or so major manufacturers? Why does Champion make spark plugs even thought the automobile market is split between a dozen or so major manufacturers? Etc., etc.? Because the profits are still there in the products, and the *APIs* (thread sizes and interfaces in this case) are standerdized (at least to some degree).
What I think Sanders and others don't realize, is that if the OS market share had been evenly split between several major players, then what would have become standardized would have been the APIs and interfaces rather than the OS platform itself. The market would have demanded it, and the standards would have been determined by the needs of all companies involved rather than by decree of one monopoly company.
Even with today's situation, there are several examples of such API standards, such as TCP/IP, OpenGL, HTML, XML, etc. Unfortunately, because of the current monopoly situation, there are several standards which are proprietary and not open, primarily in the area of file formats such as MS Office formats. And there is proprietary pressure on the current existing open standards (e.g., embrace and extend).
Sure, standardizing the entire OS instead of the APIs and interfaces achieves the same goal in the short term, and perhaps this goal does benefit consumers and some software vendors, but it does so by eliminating competetion in the OS and API market, which will have the effects of monopoly rents (already happening) and eventually reduced quality (may take a little longer, but it will happen).
Witness Grilled in Microsoft Case
4/16/2002 11:39:00 AM
WASHINGTON, Apr 16, 2002 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- The first defense witness in the Microsoft penalty hearing acknowledged Tuesday that he has never read the federal settlement with Microsoft or harsher proposals by nine states and is relying on the word of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and his lawyers.
FRONT PAGE NEWS
U.S. stocks stoked by upbeat earnings news
US industrial production up 0.7% in March
GM first-quarter results roll in ahead of targets
FleetBoston revamping, to sell off Robertson Stephens
Sign up to receive FREE e-newsletters:
Get the latest news
24 hours a day from our 100-person news team.
W.J. "Jerry" Sanders, chairman of Advanced Micro Devices Inc., testified that because Microsoft's Windows operating system is so widely used, it allows software and hardware makers to innovate freely. Imposing the penalties recommended by the states would set back the computer industry 20 years, he said.
Sanders said he received a call from Gates asking him to testify "as a personal favor." During the call, which came on the last day Microsoft could name its witnesses, Sanders said Gates called the state proposals "crazy."
Howard Gutman, a lawyer for the states, tried to prove a quid pro quo between Sanders and Gates. Sanders said he had hoped Gates was calling to tell him about Microsoft support for AMD's new chip, which Sanders called the single most important thing in AMD's future.
According to Sanders, Gates said Microsoft and AMD engineers would talk about the new chip. Sanders also wanted Gates to withhold support for a competing chip from market-leader Intel Corp.
But Microsoft still has not announced support for either AMD's or Intel's chip.
"You agreed without knowing what you would be testifying to other than the characterization that Mr. Gates gave you?" Gutman asked.
Sanders agreed. "If there's no fragmentation in the remedies, my appearance here is irrelevant."
It would definitely be stupid to remove browsing and media playing from windows, especially considering every other OS around comes with browsing and media playing tools. In addition, many other microsoft components rely on parts of IE to function at this point, so it is clearly not reasonable to expect the removal of IE. Furthermore, Apple ships Quicktime with their system; This is a proprietary video system which is forced on people by Apple. Not any different from media on Windows, really.
This is mostly crap for two reasons. I do agree with his assertion about apple - Their OS really DOES only run on a serious subset of hardware - It doesn't even run on all of their machines which it could conceivably run on. Apple drew a line for their convenience, and cut off far more customers than windows did when they went to XP. Your celery 366 can run XP just fine, as long as you have a whole bunch of ram, I'd say 384MB and up. 256 doesn't seem to be the magic number.
But Solaris runs on x86 these days, and I'm told that it's pretty decent now. I know when I started using 2.5 for x86 it was crap; The boot loader was extremely immature, and the hardware support really wasn't there. We did use it for a number of workstations, however, because at the time linux was having interoperability issues.
However, Windows doesn't run on half the shit it says it will, either. There's any number of hardware problems, driver issues, and so on. Microsoft's inability to sit down and choose a driver format until recently - and has it really been settled? - has caused no end of problems. Then again, drivers for old apple products can be a serious issue as well, and apple didn't just throw away architectures, they discarded connectors that their users had tied themselves to. Not literally, I hope.
This is definitely not shinola. What it is, well, that's left as an exercise to the reader. Everyone is going to have to include the Win32 API, no one will go through the effort to replace networking on any system where you expect to have those APIs... You're also going to have DirectX everywhere. And realistically, who's going to avoid installing IE? I mean, as a PC vendor, your customers want IE. It's the leading browser. More sites are designed with IE exclusivity in mind than any other page, and that weight will keep IE a concern for a long time.
Unambiguously? Nonsense. It IS good for consumers in the sense that there is less code to debug, since portions of IE can be reused. I thought code reusability was hot these days? But it also means that microsoft gets to promote their browser. Then again, it's their OS, they can bundle what they want. If your replacement solution is actually better than what is bundled, people will use it, provided you can get the word out... and I haven't heard of IE censoring mozilla download sites yet, have you?
This is significantly different from packaging a browser. AMD is putting the memory controller in the CPU for two reasons; One, simpler SMP, thus reducing MP motherboard cost; and Two, performance. Microsoft is also bundling Aieee! and WiMP with windows for two reasons, and only one of them is simpler; They are reusing components of IE in the OS itself, from the login screen to online help, so that does make windows easier, and thus potentially cheaper, at least for them. But the other reason, I fear, *IS* to gain a browser monopoly.
That's funny to think about. In my mind, a "specialized microprocessor" is something like a DSP. Last I checked, neither the G4 nor the UltraSparc III were DSPs, though at least the G4 and probably the US3 have DSP functions in them... just like the P4, and the various Athlon chips. In fact, they are generalized microprocessors. The processor is not the problem, but Sanders is of course trying to draw attention to AMD's core business. The problem is the architecture underneath the CPU. MacOS will only run on PPC systems with open firmware and with a certain set of drivers. Solaris runs on an even more elite cadre of machines in some ways, though a low-end ultrasparc system is cheaper, brand new, than a low-end apple system. I am not prepared to do a price:performance comparison, though. Meanwhile, Windows DOES run on vastly more different systems, but as other posters have pointed out, those different systems have been designed specifically to resemble one another. Even the Athlon is intended at least in part to resemble the P3 and now the P4, with largely identical instruction sets.
However the fact is that Windows is making heavy reuse of IE components throughout windows and that replacing them with something else would reduce the effectiveness of the system and raise internal costs at microsoft. You don't judge L. Ron Hubbard's non-scientology books because of what scientology does - you can decide that they are crap on their own merits, or lack thereof - and you shouldn't judge the M$ OS based on Microsoft's dubious business strategies. Instead, fine the hell out of the people in charge of microsoft, who are currently able to hide behind the corporation. They are the ones who decide what it does, and they are the ones who are supposed to be held responsible, but in our current society, we have moved away from personal responsibility.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If he'd've said 5 years, then *maybe* he'd have some credibility. I don't believe the court order was ever repealed that forbade Microsoft to bundle Internet Explorer with Windows.
Anyway, sometimes you have to take a step back to move forward. If we went back twenty years to an industry without Microsoft, (and no other technology since then existed), advances would likely come much quicker, and be more scalable. Maybe we'd have had SMP RISC/CISC SCSI computers with secure, robust, free operating systems and a truly useful p2p internet ten years ago.
This guy obviously blows goats. Boycott all AMD products. He is in Billy Gates's pocket. Fuck him and his company!
Saying that IE killed Netscape is like saying Ford is killing Kenwood by including stereos in their cars. Other software companies need to offer more value than Microsoft, and they don't. If Microsoft can make a clone of your product that works almost as well, but is free, that's YOUR problem. Make it better. Make it so much better that people will pay for it. Repeat every time Microsoft catches up to you. And if you don't want to put that much effort into it, if you'd rather NOT have to continually improve your product to stay on top, if you'd rather rest on your laurels and rake in the bucks, well, then I guess you are not in the right business. In fact, you shouldn't be in business at all. You should be in politics.
Of course it does. Especially while AMD was leading the bogomips race. The more bloated applications are, the faster the CPU you'll need.
This is just too easy...
"Microsoft's development of reliable and scalable server operating systems has enabled AMD to enter and compete more effectively in the server businesses...because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors," he [Jerry Sanders, AMD CEO] testified.
HAAAAA-HAAAA HA! HA! HAAAAAAA!! HA hahahahahaha haaaaaaa!!!!!
char *mySig;
of course AMD will take Microsoft's side.. like 90% of AMD computers are running windows..
that is if I don't buy a mac.
Is it just me or does Jerry kind of resemble Colonel Sanders. All he needs is a white suite and one of those funny looking ties...
I am a regular reader at /. and appreciate the humor and intelligence. But most of you need a big wake-up. My Win2k has not produced the blue screen since the day after I set it up almost 2 years ago, and that was my fault. Only a fool believes his enemy is stupid and weak and I am suprised you all fell into this trap. I code on windows because I want to survive. I use linux and unix because I am geek who likes tinkering with the innards. Until *nix becomes usable to the majority of users(think about the intelligence level of the general public). Windows will be king of the desktop and most coders will code for them. By the way I'll put Win2k up against any *nix brand destop for reliabilty with ease and win. And AMD testifying only makes sense they have been trying to get M$ to make AMD specific changes for awhile, looks like they found a way in.
10 security patches per week is this how he defines reliable? The biggest joke will be when we see new Microsoft promotions of AMD procs.
I guess they like big ones!
Some SPEC benchmarks come close to measuring processor speed. Photoshop test measures only one particular type of easily parallelizable operations - applying filters to images. Sorry to burst you bubbly, boy, but you have not got a clue..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
VIA bought them, and they just came out with 2 new chips, the samuel 1 and samuel 2. They are socket 370 compatible, and are pushing 1 gighz. They also have extremely low power consumption. My MP3 machine features a Samuel 1 @ 667, which only consumes 12-14 watts. I bought this on an integrated motherboard with video, audio, lan, ata66, and 3 PCI slots for $80. Very quiet machine, with low power bill.
-- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
People need to get a little smarter. The MS/DOJ/States antitrust trials will eventually end and the effect on Microsoft's activities and business plans will be insigificant. Microsoft will dominate operating system software for the forseeable future even more than they do now. Therefore, AMD has no choice but to support Microsoft. Be grateful that non-MS operating systems still run on Intel and AMD hardware...for the moment, anyway. I am sure that Microsoft would like Intel and AMD to include special hardware hooks that would prevent any non-MS OS from running. You can wail and moan about how *wrong* the current reality is but _it_does_not_matter_. Microsoft has achieved total and complete control of the IT industry and raising your tiny little fists in anger towards Microsoft is as pointless and useless as getting angry at the power company when they raise your electricity rates. Yeah, you can go "off the grid" and install your own generator or you can use Linux for your OS but it all amounts to the same thing: useless posturing and self-satisfaction but nothing more.
I'm afraid I agree with you here, RinkRat. I stopped supporting Microsoft years ago due to their morally corrupt behaviour, and now witnessing AMD's chairman supporting that monopoly in a court of law in order to advance their own corporate agenda is quite revolting to me. For me corporate greed will never be a higher virtue than justice, fairness and honesty.
Lot of these people would undoubtably stand witness on behalf of drug cartels if they were to get some material benefit from doing so.
I just bought a new AMD rig a few months ago and now I regret it. So which of their competitors will get my money next time? Is Intel still using those processor IDs? What about Via Inc.'s C3 Cyrix-derivatives? Will the C3's be getting a faster (DDR?) memory interface some day?
I would like to see some intelligent geeksite doing a thorough comparison of the CPU vendors, their products AND their market practises. Something that would help us ethically-aware consumers in evaluating the choices. Buyers CAN obviously influence market trends and a shift of just few percentage points in marketshare from a bad vendor to a better one does send a signal.
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
I create complex pdfs in LaTeX and I don't remember the file format changing as long as I've been using it.
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
Now take a look at some real benchmarks that entire industry measures against - SPEC
P3 1Ghz performs alot better then top of the line G4 800.
The BSD machine sitting on my desk, with an AMD processesor, is some sort of freak?
Talk about being kicked in the nuts over breakfast. I've had AMD machines for over 10 years, ever since my first 486DX 40. I buy and build AMD machines exclusivly for work. I'd guess I've spent (personally and through work purchases) $15k on AMD products. I have fervent brand loyalty to AMD because A: when alls said and done, they have a better price/performance ratio, and B: I like underdogs.
If AMD decides it wants to be microsofts little bitch poodle, B is gone. If somebody else gives comparable price/performance, then I am gone as their customer.
The Internet is generally stupid
Check this out: From Reuters (I read it on iwon.com).
Tuesday April 16, 1:02 PM EDT
By Peter Kaplan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) first witness against antitrust sanctions sought by nine states admitted in court on Tuesday that he asked for a favor when Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates called seeking his testimony.
Jerry Sanders, chief executive of computer chip-maker Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD), also conceded he had not read the states' proposed sanctions, but that Gates had told him they were "crazy" and would fragment the Windows operating system.
Howard Gutman, an attorney for the states, told U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that Sanders asked Microsoft to announce support for its chip technology, codenamed Hammer, ahead of a competing product just being developed at Intel Corp. (INTC)
Damn, only pasted part of the article: here's the whole thing:
Microsoft Witness Asked Gates for a Favor
Tuesday April 16, 1:02 PM EDT
By Peter Kaplan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) first witness against antitrust sanctions sought by nine states admitted in court on Tuesday that he asked for a favor when Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates called seeking his testimony.
Jerry Sanders, chief executive of computer chip-maker Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD), also conceded he had not read the states' proposed sanctions, but that Gates had told him they were "crazy" and would fragment the Windows operating system.
Howard Gutman, an attorney for the states, told U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that Sanders asked Microsoft to announce support for its chip technology, codenamed Hammer, ahead of a competing product just being developed at Intel Corp. (INTC)
"Mr. Gates said he would talk to his people about that," Gutman said of the Feb. 8 call by Gates to Sanders.
"Yes," agreed Sanders. "I asked Mr. Gates to hold Intel to the same standard he held us to."
Sanders' testimony was Microsoft's opening response to more than four weeks of witnesses testifying for the states, who are seeking stiffer sanctions against Microsoft for illegally maintaining its Windows monopoly.
The exchange was reminiscent of efforts by Microsoft lawyers to discredit the motives of industry executives testifying on behalf of the nine states that have rejected a proposed settlement of the case.
"You've never checked to this day whether what Mr. Gates told you... was true in the remedies," Gutman challenged. Sanders agreed he had not read the states' proposals.
AMD is the second-largest producer of microprocessors that form the brains of personal computers after Intel.
Sanders said in written testimony that fragmenting the Windows operating system would set the computer industry back almost 20 years.
A key demand of the states is for Microsoft to produce a stripped-down version of Windows that can be customized by computer manufacturers and competing software designers.
VERSIONS OF WINDOWS
Sanders said multiple versions of Windows would diminish competition as designers of software and devices that work with computers focused on just one of the versions.
"Any relief that would fragment the Microsoft Windows platform, and thereby impair the large compatibility benefits provided by that platform, would set the computer industry back almost 20 years, all at tremendous cost to consumers and to the national economy," Sanders said.
Twenty years ago hardware and software vendors had to choose whether to develop for incompatible desktop computers from Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL), Commodore, Tandy and other suppliers, Sanders said.
The states have rejected a proposed settlement of the four-year-old landmark antitrust suit reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department in November.
The settlement, also being considered by Kollar-Kotelly, aims to give computer makers greater freedom to feature non-Microsoft software on the opening computer screen.
But the states still pursuing the case want Microsoft to make some Windows functions removable rather than just hide consumer access. They also seek more disclosure of Windows' inner workings and a giveaway of the source code for Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser.
RELIANCE ON MICROSOFT
A parade of witnesses for the states has testified over past weeks that Microsoft's operating systems dominance allows it to hold tremendous sway over the computer industry.
Some of Sanders' written testimony supported this impression. He said AMD depends on Microsoft operating system support for its chips and licensing of the Windows logo for marketing purposes.
"If we fail to retain the support and certifications of Microsoft, our ability to market our processors could be materially adversely affected," Sanders said, quoting from AMD's annual report.
The remedy hearings are expected to run through May at their current pace.
Microsoft has asked Kollar-Kotelly to dismiss the states' demands on grounds ranging from failure to make their case to the states' lacking standing now that the federal government has agreed to settle.
But the judge has so far been inclined to let the states air their arguments, even allowing testimony on new computer technologies that were not considered in the original case launched four years ago.
The Justice Department on Monday backed the states' right to press ahead on their own in seeking stronger remedies against Microsoft. But at the same time it warned Kollar-Kotelly that the states' proposals could harm consumers and retard competition.
Microsoft's list of 30 possible witnesses includes Gates and chief executive Steve Ballmer, but it is not clear when those senior executives might be called.
..."most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors..."
I wonder what exactly constitutes a non-Microsoft server operating system in his eyes?
Internet Explorer was unable to link to the Web page you requested. The page might use standard HTML or CSS.
"4. As reparations for breaking the law, force them to issue free copies of software to schools in poor neighborhoods, etc..."
Yeah! M$ passing out Linux!
This was just released. During Cross he admitted asking for favour on Hammer plus he has not read the States proposal relaying on Gates words.
Quote Jerry Sanders, chief executive of computer chip-maker Advanced Micro Devices Inc. AMD.N , also conceded he had not read the states' proposed sanctions, but that Gates had told him they were "crazy" and would fragment the Windows operating system. Howard Gutman, an attorney for the states, told U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that Sanders asked Microsoft to announce support for its chip technology, codenamed Hammer, ahead of a competing product just being developed at Intel Corp. INTC.O "Mr. Gates said he would talk to his people about that," Gutman said of the Feb. 8 call by Gates to Sanders. "Yes," agreed Sanders. "I asked Mr. Gates to hold Intel to the same standard he held us to." Sanders' testimony was Microsoft's opening response to more than four weeks of witnesses testifying for the states, who are seeking stiffer sanctions against Microsoft for illegally maintaining its Windows monopoly. The exchange was reminiscent of efforts by Microsoft lawyers to discredit the motives of industry executives testifying on behalf of the nine states that have rejected a proposed settlement of the case. "You've never checked to this day whether what Mr. Gates told you... was true in the remedies," Gutman challenged. Sanders agreed he had not read the states' proposals.
Help fight continental drift.
Congradulations, xnok! Your first post has been officialy recognized as the true First Post
Current Statistics:
Logged in FPs: 5
AC FPs: 2
First Posters:
1 - morhoj
1 - Spanko
1 - teambpsi
1 - Tensor
1 - xnok
Your analogy is awfull. Do you think that it takes only a couple of engineers, a few testers, and a simple production line to crank out a half a billion lines of code to create XP? Think again.
Crafting and bringing to market an oil filter and a computer operating system are way different. An oil filter fits on one car (okay, motor) at one precisely built and designed spot. It does not have to fit on dozens of entirely different engines and handle dozens of different fluids and stresses. An operating system on the other hand has to work on a wide range of wildly varying hardware setups, with wildly varying software, in a pretty broad range of environments and conditions (created by the user).
History teaches us that standardization is good. History has shown us in the PC industry that having multiple, competing operating systems just does not work for the same or similar hardware platform. Remember the days of DOS, PCDOS, Win3.1, OS/2, and a few dozen other smaller offerings? Software companies charged an arm and a leg for their software because they had to develope for multiple OSs at the time,a nd PC's were expensive for very nearly the same reason (that and the depth of investment and refining of manufacturing processes to be cost effective were immature at that point).
Standardization is great when it comes to pants and shoe sizes and a litany of other common things, and the same is true for computers. However, who is to say what is the standard? A market leader with an 80% market share, or some small group of self interested individuals pushing their ideas because they have to disagree with the mainstream? I feel a happy median, such as we sometimes see with organizations like IEEE is the way to go honestly as they not only listen to the technically self possessed (who may be right, but not for the reasons they hold true) and the majority as well. Until we see this kind of cooperation between literally hundreds of major software manufacturers as well as the key OS players, it just won't happen.
Breaking MS up won't force it to happen either... all you will get is a declining PC industry (serious economic pain for half a decade or more) who falls further and further from standards adoption and adhearance while it fragments into camps... sort of like the linux community and the many distros and modules and builds. Forcing MS to market 100 versions or more of windows is just as silly, and potentially not a benefit to the consumer or industry... you can force MS to release various versions of XP for instance, but no one can force them to support them free of charge for instance.
A solid answer is additional regulation of intra-industry licensing, a serious fine for MS since they know they did it and so do we, the release of key API source code (not the whole OS... that's just a retarded notion honestly), and the forcing of MS to release a 'clean and free' version of their OS along side their fully loaded operating systems in the future.
How many freaking years have this lawsuit been going on? For God's sake, I would pay a thousand bucks just so they can settle this lawsuit and stop talking about it.
Time for us to act, instead of intellectualizing and hair splitting AMD CEO's statements. AMD after benefitting from Linux is now helping MSFT knife open source by supporting them in the monopoly maintenance. Given MSFT insistence in snuffing the life out of open source, this is a sensible course of action. Time open source community started a boycott of AMD and other traitors in line to support MSFT lies. It is that simple, dear friends. So let us start a on-line campaign to make AMD feel the heat. Any volunteers ?
Well, nice. That kind of makes the States' case I would think.
What an idiot, talk about destroying your own credibility.
-- MarkusQ
wtf?
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Read the whole article at: http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020416/microsoft_3.html
Yeah, so does Linux. So do some of the various flavors of BSD? So does SOLARIS, for that matter!
Sanders praised Microsoft for helping to bring standardization to the computer industry. "Standardized platforms promote competition," he asserted. The absence of this standardization "would diminish overall competition as many software and hardware vendors would have to decide which particular operating system(s) to target as a development platform."
Hate to break it to you, Jerry, but software companies STILL have to make these decisions. Sure, Windows is the obvious choice, but other platforms STILL exist. Many applications are still ported to the Mac. Some are even ported to Linux. Some are even exclusive to these other platforms.
And how exactly is competition diminished by hardware and software vendors having to make these decisions anyway? These decisions are still being made today, despite MS's market dominance. In this case I believe that competition has diminished as a result of Microsoft leveraging their monopoly by pushing IE and Media Player down our throats! Remember when there actually WAS a browser war? And don't get me started on their increasingly restricted licenses preventing third party remote-control applications from being used with XP....
"Were computer manufacturers or other Windows licensees enabled to distribute a smorgasbord of different versions of Microsoft Windows...AMD, like other software and hardware vendors, would no longer be able to rely upon the existence of particular software code in Windows or the APIs," he said.
Well, you can blame Microsoft for that little problem, can't you? I mean if these components weren't as tightly-integrated into the OS to begin with ... and couldn't you simply use the core Windows OS as your development platform?
I mean, how difficult would it be to just simply include IE or the necessary DLL's on your drivers CD?
"Contrary to some suggestions I have heard in connection with this case, product integration is unambiguously good for consumers," Sanders testified. "The integration of innovative features is a principal means by which both software and hardware products are improved, to the benefit of consumers."
Except, of course, when you never USE those features yet they increase the price of the Operating System to astronomical levels. If you want a lower-cost version of Windows without the crap? Tough luck. And tough luck for the companies who used to get your business before Microsoft forced you to buy an Operating System+web browser+video player+CD burning software+remote control functionality+utilities bundle+whatever else instead of just an operating system. When someone pays that much money for all that, who's going to want to pay twice for the third-party applications YOU USED TO USE before Microsoft forced you to buy their solution instead?
He cited AMD's integration of memory-controlling functionality into its upcoming Hammer microprocessor as an example of how companies integrate once-separate features into their products.
Apples and oranges here, people. Apples and oranges...
For one thing, AMD doesn't have a monopoly on processors and the only reason they made their own chipsets is because VIA didn't have a solution available at the time and they needed something for the CPU to run with until VIA's solution became available. So AMD is not trying to leverage a monopoly they don't have to capture a market that they are not interested in anyway.
Also, a memory controller (albeit a very important part) doth not a chipset make. VIA will still likely make Hammer chipsets along with SiS and maybe ALi. AMD's intentions are not to take the chipset market for themselves.
"Microsoft's development of reliable and scalable server operating systems has enabled AMD to enter and compete more effectively in the server businesses...because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors," he testified.
I'll leave it up to you to insert your "MS makes reliable and scalable server OS's" joke here.
Anyway, I was dumbfounded by this quote ... MOST non-MS server OS's only run on specialized processors? Ex... scue me? What about Netware? x86 hardware. Linux, *BSD? Multiple platforms including x86 and other non-specialized hardware platforms. As far as I know those are Microsofts most popular competitors (i'm not a market analyst so i'm not sure how much of the market AIX, Digital Unix or any of the others have, nor do I know how many other higher-end Unices and server operating systems exist).
Anyway, if you ask me Jerry is making this up to get in bed with MS. I have a hard time believing anyone (including Bill Gates) would believe this tripe.
-- Jim
Yahoo is reporting that AMD CEO Sanders admitted in court that hadn't even read the proposed sanctions against Microsoft, but just took Bill Gates' word for it that they are "crazy". Oh, and he also asked that Microsoft announce support for AMD's Hammer technology before support for similar technology from Intel.
Naturalists, and other environmental resource managers have a saying: A fed bear is a dead bear.
So it might seem reasonable to assume that, because a software package (or a nugget of food) is being provided free, it must be to your benefit to take it. This is a very short-sighted attitude to take.
Feeding a bear benefits the bear by temporarily giving him access to the food, but also permanently destroys the bear's independence. Microsoft is well aware that by providing their web browser (or other packages) for free they are gaining market share which will be to their benefit (and your detriment) in the long run.
In other words, I hope you really like what's being given to you for free, because it may be all you get for a long time to come. Alternately, you may find yourself starving when that hand stops feeding you. It does not benefit Microsoft to give away high quality software once there are no competitors. Instead, you can expect the innovation to cease or the price to increase.
Are you a dead bear waiting to happen? Or are you smarter than the average bear.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
um, he's an corporate executive. It could have been Chrysler or Proctor and Gamble and he'd have the same insight into chips and software. He probably doesn't even use a spreadsheet himself.
How is my post a troll?
All I am saying is:
* AMD makes good products
* AMD was/is good for competition
* AMD is fscking with MS for benefits
I then disect the main argument made by AMD.
My consequence is not to use AMD products anymore.
I am using my buying power as a weapon.
Very troll-like behaviour? I think not.
Moritz
> He compared the situation to "proprietary operating
:^)
> systems that run only on specific hardware designed
> and manufactured by the same vendor," such as Apple
> Computer's Mac OS or Sun Microsystems' Solaris.
> "Microsoft's Windows operating systems run on
> computers manufactured by thousands of different
> companies," he stated.
Wow. AMD doesn't see an OS monopoly because of the way such a monopoly keeps their market free of specialized niche competitors?
How about your niche is so large already that *your* "specific hardware" that runs Windows is so ubiquitous you can't tell that in a free and fair market AMD'd be a bit player too, hunting its niche?
What's good for the goose might be good for the gander, but that don't make it right.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
well xbox, ps2 and gamecube are getting the same games released for all three. each version is slightly different due to the differences in capabilities, but nevertheless, ALL THREE platforms are being supported, albeit all being different. this is the kind of competition we want.
if computers and software including games were like this, life would actually become a LOT better.
sure, consoles are VERY different from full fledged computers with a variety of operating systems, but still, u can deploy on diff. platforms without too much extra work.
QED
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Of course, if you force Microsoft to create their own versions of windows then they are going to do their best to screw it up. For anyone who has watched Microsoft, this goes without saying. On the other hand, if you empower the OEMs to create their own versions of windows then having multiple versions does not mean that they will be incompatible.
Does it make my computer incompatible if I install netscape as well as IE? Does it make my computer incompatible if I put an AOL icon on the desktop? If I install a JAVA virtual machine? If I remove the Microsoft spyware? No. None of these things make windows incompatible.
The only way to stop Microsoft from abusing customers is to allow OEMs to modify windows as they wish without fear of Microsoft.
I'm not quite sure that limiting Microsoft activities would have a bad impact in the industry.
Look at all the variety of Operating systems that we have now thanks to At&t giving away their Unix to comply with their antitrust restrictions in the computer market.
Hey, that's not a "finding". It's something the JD said. It's an "argument". If the court should say this then it would be a "finding".
It also would seem to be a moot argument since the states, as parties to the case, have a right to reject any settlement not in the interests of the people they represent.
From article:
Sanders contended it would be too expensive for companies like AMD to "create products for multiple, inconsistent versions of Windows."
who creates a cpu for a specific version of an os? sounds a bit like a construction company worring about troubles of making houses around "multiple, inconsistent versions of furnature."
let's take a closer look. does this prove that microsoft has, in the past, dictated specific x86 features? it must if amd now complains that multiple versions of windows will be a hardship for them in this way. it shouldn't be a hardship for amd because they should just be able to build the chip and release the instruction set. it's only a hardship if the court order for microsoft will make them turn around and make impossible demands on amd. right? is there any other conclusion?
char *mySig;
If there was one company that I thought would be immune to M$, AMD was it
Why? Because a very vocal part of slashdot gets a little fanboy'ish for anything alternative? AMD is like nearly every other PC component vendor, nearly all their customers are MS-Windows users.
Liking Linux does not mean you have to hate Microsoft. Get away from slashdot and you will find that many who have Linux also want Windows, different tools for different jobs. That Linux is not a crusade, it's just a very good general purpose UNIX for when you need it.
... about all pro-microsoft testimony i've heard is how all the 'witnesses' claim how 'most server os's require specialized cpus', or 'this will break standards', and all other kinds of balleyhoo. these idiots don't see how the point of the operating system is to adapt to the hardware, not the other way around. standards are meant to be set and used in an unfettered way, not ebraced and locked up. it bothers me most how most of these mentalities focus on what the new settlement will mean for their current businesses and they miss entirely the proper way for the industry to function. set an open, unencumbered standard and have hardware and software manufacturers STICK to it regardless of how big they are. if they want to stretch the API's or standards then it shows that the standard was probably improperly designed and should be fixed using the same process that it was written with. there should not be a proprietary extension that becomes a so called 'standard' just because some idiots didn't know how to implement an RFC. *grrrr* okay, i'm done venting. :)
check out my comic: Essential Tremors
Kudos to the M$ lawyers. This testomony will likely go a long way toward confusing the issue even further. Why? Bringing such fundamentally unrelated concepts as bundled middleware and processor functionality will only confuse the technologically illiterate (read, the judge).
"I think we should tax people who stand in water! " - Mr. Gumby
Isn't this choice the heart of competition? Isn't the goal standardized hardware that everybody can write to? I don't want to only have one option for my operating system or my development efforts. I want every hardware vendor to target as many operating systems as possible. Every software vendor should be able to write code that compiles on any platform I hand them. (POSIX is your friend)
It's a shame that other operating systems aren't available for AMD hardware. I must be imagining things when I see linux booting happily on my dual AthlonXP box.
Microsoft can have credit for breaking IBM's hold on the desktop computer standards, but once that was broken Microsoft has done little to encourage innovation (unless you count "lets develop this 'cool thing'(tm) so so Microsoft will buy us" as encouraging innovation).
AMD should just be cranking out procs and letting people decide what they want to run on them, not telling us that Microsoft is good for their buisness because there are no other options -- or maybe the fact that there are no other options is the point. Seems to be screaming "Microsoft has the monopoly" to me.
oh well... maybe somebody else will hear that message in the middle of his "microsoft is good for me" garbage.
I think fragmenting Windows is as good an idea as it's cracked up to be. (pun intended)
The reason is simple: it would result in IT management nightmare, especially when you have competing software installed throughout the company. Think carefully: while IBM does have a major Linux development program, I think they too would love to make sure there is as much unification of everything above the OS kernel level as possible to make installation, configuration, and maintainance of the Linux as easy as possible. This is why I think Red Hat Linux has become the de facto standard for Linux, since for IT support simplicity it would be best if the entire organization uses the same distribution of Linux.
Competition at the commodity level (e.g., oil, basic food products, etc.) is great, but when the product gets very complicated (e.g., a computer operating system), competition would be akin to the early electric industry--no thanks.
"It's because they are better at the software business than anyone else."
Exactly. They're good at marketing and selling their software and bashing all the alternatives, therefore they're good at the software business. However, the thing they are not good at is software, in terms of functionality and quality. They can hype a product well; they just can't create a product that's worth the hype.
While I can see a number of reasons for them to support Microsoft in this (AMD has a lot to gain, in fact, like the official plaform for the X-box 2 and the official platform spec for Windows) I find this to be somewhat disappointing overall.
It's a business decision, and I can respect them for that part, but there are some blatant falsehoods in there. I won't repeat most of them, as many other people have already posted them here, but this is a very blatant thing.
When I purchased my current AMD processor, there was a lot of talk over the Pentium 3's trackable ID and the fact that it could be re-enabled software-wise easily. The fact that AMD had a superior processor in the performance-to-price ratio helped a lot as well.
Looks like things have evened out, and both AMD and Intel are trying to find an edge-- any edge-- to beat the competition. Even if that means helping Microsoft.
No more linux users using AMD processors. God, better just throw in the towel now, there goes the whole shooting match. That means loosing 1% of processor sales, negative comments and press from an obscure and shiftless community of hippies and drug addicts, and less support headaches and design issues to worry about. Oh my...
Dumb ass!
So Bill calls Jerry, tells Jerry the sanctions are "crazy". Jerry never read the sanctions but tells Bill that if you [secret Corporate deal] for AMD then I'll sing like a bird for ya in court.
"Yes," agreed Sanders. "I asked Mr. Gates to hold Intel to the same standard he held us to."
You know, guys my age used called this crapola payola!
"The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."
Let's see 20 years would put us back to 1982 pre-Windows days. His statement is total bullshit!
I can only wonder what backroom deal AMD has cut with Microsoft.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Intel is evil, Cyrix is laughable, and now AMD is evil. Who does that leave? Transmeta? Not for a high end system.
Looks like it's finally time to switch to Mac.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
My last processor was AMD, before that, ALL intel. My next one will be in a G4/G5 and run OS X.
Well, VMS is being ported to IA-64 now that Alpha out.
What's my Karma Mr. Burns? "Excellent"
How is a stripped down version of windows going to hinder microsoft? When I install windows the first thing I do is spend 3 hours tearing out everything possible and tweaking it before installing all my software. Windows being "bloated" is it's own weakness in my opinion. If Microsoft came out with a stripped down version of windows every techie I know with a CD writer would be on back order for copies of it.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
According to this article on cnet/news.com, Sanders did ask for a favour from MS in return for his testimony. He wants MS to support the Hammer architecture ahead of a "competing architecture" from Intel. Sanders also admits in the article that he did not read the State's proposed settlement, but that good old Bill Gates told him it was bad.
you probably shouldn't have read this.
In the Reuters story about Dr. Murphy I can't believe that this guys testimony could be taken seriously. First of all I see nothing in his credentials which would qualify him to talk about the computer industry and this thesis is quickly backed up by his testimony. What does he know about
"The potential costs of requiring the removal of (computer code) are far greater in terms of the costs it will impose on design and testing and the reliability problems it is likely to impose on users. "
No one has still actually seen the code. And you're going to love this one,
there is no proof that Microsoft's tactics actually harmed Netscape Navigator and Java.
Has he ever actually used a computer?!? This guy is obviously just reaching conclusions based on false data M$ gave to him. I cannot imagine that any judge with an I.Q. higher than your average house plant would give this guys testimony and credence.
I stole this Sig
Just curious if you[...]said they'd never buy an Intel chip when they announced the CPU ID because of privacy concerns?
:) Seriously though, Microsoft must have paid AMD some huge cash for this. I loved the part where AMD's CEO says that they can't compete in the server market because all the server os's run on proprietary hardware. Riiiggght.
Check, yep. Switched to AMD Duron after that.
Tell me again, why my next computer shouldnt be a Mac?
Funny, I just bought a G4 last week, so I don't have to be a hypocrite for a little while
Why is splitting Windows up even an issue??? Microsoft split Windows years ago. I still see Win98 on store shelves along with WinMe, Win2000, and WinXP. Each of these can almost be considered separate OSes as they stand. Yes, I know they can run mostly the same apps. But support(drivers,etc) for each one is a unique experience(so i've heard).
.NET, ActiveX and the likes as standards. A standard part of Windows, yes, but far from being standards.)
Also, I cannot see how removing M$ from the picture altogether even could set the industry back 2 years, don't even mention 20 years. Much of Windows has to still run code from the jurassic age. Come on! Getting rid of M$ will bring the industry into the new millenium!
The cost of switching from M$ will be high because of all the closed standards involved, but much less money will be spent in the long run.
There are many viable replacements to Windows already availiable. In the server sector, there are the *BSDs, and linux. On the desktop, the BeOS clones(YES I AM VERY WELL AWARE THAT THEY ARE NOT READY FOR MAINSTREAM USE AT THIS TIME!!! FLAME ALL YOU WANT, BUT THEY WILL MAKE EXCELLENT DESKTOP/MEDIA OSES WHEN THEY ARE RELEASED). Linux and FreeBSD will also make decent desktop OSes.
As for standards compliance, all the alternative oses combined are more standards compliant than Windows alone(I don't consider
As for AMD, this seems a chickenshit move. Just about every customer of Microsoft(not consumers, im talking the OEMs and other b2b) are on the side wanting Bill's head on a stake. Why is AMD standing up for M$?? While this whole ordeal is not likely to kill M$ immediately, I do think that it will wound M$ to the point where it can no longer maintain its monopoly much longer. M$ won't give up without a fight though, and will likely throw its money every which way trying to stay afloat. I don't think AMD will get much more than mucho publicity and a free hand out from M$. Is that so wrong? In the end AMD will come out some odd bucks richer, M$ will take its place in computing history, and (an)other OS(es) will take M$'s place.
I hope you enjoyed this bit of fiction, brought to you by the drimmeeper and the letters o, s, and s. Have an Open-Sourced Day! 8^)
So you're willing to take a performance hit and pay over the odds for it too?
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
Well, given that Mosaic was free, Netscape was free (and if you read their pre-IPO filings, was always going to be completely free -- they were selling servers), Lynx is free, Athena was free... etc etc etc....
... what's the problem with IE being free again? Maybe you could answer that. Given that as I see it, every OTHER browser around at the time was *FREE*.
Consider
It's a MIME ENCODED RFC822 MESSAGE BODY.
Want to know how I worked that out?
I opened the file and read the text. It said this:Not too bright are you?
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Even with today's situation, there are several examples of such API standards, such as TCP/IP, OpenGL, HTML, XML, etc.
I hate to be nit-picky, but only one of the standards you mentioned above is actually an API.
Slashdot readers *do* know what an API is, right? Or is everyone like my CS classmates?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Their products suck and I would like my money back, but how does this current bullshit help that? None. These companies throwing litigation out like it is rice to Ethiopians are using pretty rhetoric that makes history ignoring sheep blindy follow it. Sort of like when any Tyrant has his faithful followers simply because he tells them what they want to hear, regardless of any real ability to carry it out, much less any inconsistencies and two-facedness of his approach... who cares about facts, lets just blinly follow [cause] and justify along the way.
Truly open APIs would go a long way towards levelling the playing field for Windows applications developers. But I think the DoJ should require that M$ apps (and all other apps in the world, IMHO) should have an open file format. This would make applications OS-independent and platform-independent. With Office the driving force behind most Windows users lock-in to Windows, I think it could break Windows stranglehold on the OS market in 18 months.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
Yes, I do know what an API is. Sorry, should have been more precise, but I was trying to make a different point, and the difference between an API, a file standard, a standard communication protocol, etc., didn't really matter to the point. The important point is that they are all standardized interfaces of some sort, and that you don't have to have one-and-only-one OS in the whole world in order to have standardized interfaces that make writing portable code practical.
and presented as an evidence that Microsoft only gets supporters from _other_ industries, that benefit from software industry being hurt (worse software needs better CPUs, less software demands easier to design CPUs), and/or that Microsoft has an unjustified influence outside its industry.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The same point applies. Let's take another example: Why do Kodak and Fuji continue to make film even though the camera market is split between a half dozen or a dozen major camera manufacturers? Because there is profit in it and the *interface* (e.g., image size, sprocket hole placement, developing process, etc.) is standardized, NOT THE CAMERA ITSELF. Film is not a simple product (and nither are cameras, for that matter). Clearly, developing a good film takes far more than one engineer and tester, it takes years of work by many high-paid chemists, materials engineers, and others. Yet the interface is standard, and the same film works in all of the manufacturer's cameras.
The basic idea here is that you don't have to have one-and-only-one OS in the world to achieve standardized interfaces (APIs, file formats, and other interfaces) that make writing portable code practical. Microsoft (and apparently AMD) would like you to believe so, but it doesn't have to be the case. There are examples where it works, even if they are not mainstream because of Microsoft's dominance.
As to who should determine the standards, I have no problem with using the IEEE or any other appropriate body as long as they represent all of the players as equally and fairly as possible. I have been to IEEE standards meetings - they are long, tedious, and boring, and the process takes a long time, but it usually works out. Not always without some corporate political influence, but still better than a non-competitive one-company-takes-all approach.
I never advocated breaking up MS in my original post, but the PC industry will not decline if MS is forced (like all other monopolists) to avoid using their OS monopoly to gain monopolies in other areas by bundling. ATT wanted you to believe the same bunk decades ago when they were broken up, and it didn't happen. Remember back when Kodak was forced to un-bundle processing with their film? They weren't broken up, they were just forced to follow the law. Same idea here. What would happen is that interfaces would standardize in an open way so that, for example, all media players could play the same standardized media files and, oh my gosh!, users would get a bigger choice of media players. What a novel idea, more choice instead of less.
No, I think you mean Tangible. Having a 64 bit WinXP or such for the Hammers is, I'm sure, weighing heavily on Sanders mind. That awkward bit about holding Intel to the same standard, well, must be in terms of 'if you don't write XP for us, then don't write for them', dunno sounds like desperation.
The pity for Sanders now, after the truth comes out ...
"You've never checked to this day whether what Mr. Gates told you... was true in the remedies," Gutman challenged. Sanders agreed he had not read the states' proposals.
-- Gates had told him they were "crazy" and would fragment the Windows operating system.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Excuse me?
"Worse software means better cpus..."?
Well, goh-lee, I guess *all* software is getting "worse" since...OK, you tell me--which current hardware company today--not dependent on M$--is shipping "better software with worse cpus"...??? Come...on...let it out! I wanna' know! Whose cpus are worse today than they were a decade ago???
Like it or not, there is an x86 hardware market which began long ago. There were and are also several other computer hardware markets that began around the same period--SUN, Apple, etc. ad infinitum. They are ALL making better cpus today than they used to make. Am I supposed to think that this means they are ALL writing worse software? Man, that's got to be the weirdest attempt at a correlation I've ever heard.
Am I supposed to think I have *more freedom* under the SUN (sic) than I have running Windows? Puh-lease....no possible way on earth that's true. Same with Apple...ditto on down the line. Where's the FREEDOM in those camps? I can't see it!
SUN has been as altruistic as SCROOGE with its "open-platform" java initiatives. Did you know that one Java licensee doesn't know what the other Java licensee is paying SUN for the privilege? Oh--Paradise! Did you know that SUN arbitrarily decides which of its Java licensees are "towing the line" and which aren't--based on a fluctuating, ever-changing scale that SUN adopts as needed to suit SUN's immediate political--if not financial--goals? (Maybe behind the Iron Curtain of old this would be freedom--one candidate, one party, but you get to vote--I dunno. Sheeesh.)
The hypocrisy of people is utterly unbelievable. They'll stick with x86 hardware because they have by far the best choices in hardware available, not to mention the best prices, not to mention more software--and yet...and yet...they still manage to convince themselves that the house that M$ built is the least free of them all. That standardization sucks. You think so? Go SUN, then and learn. Go Apple and be reborn! I'm gonna' puke.
Heh-Heh....got one word for you--MAC! Yea, run out and buy a Mac and check out all the "freedom" and "choices" and so forth that you'll get on that side of the fence. Or, here's one--run out and buy a Java license from SUN--and let Freedom ring, baby!
Some of you guys haven't a clue.
And as far as "undue influence" goes...seems to me it wasn't Gates who hired Bork and Dole to go to Washington to lobby Congress--seems to me that it was McNealy and Barksdale who emptied their respective companies' coffers of millions of $$$ trying to Influence Peddle in Washington (right before Barksdale engorged Netscape's coffers with $4 billion AOL bucks--AFTER the company had been "so crippled" it could no longer "compete," or so Barksdale informed the Congress with a straight face.)
And you want to talk about "unjustified influence outside its industry"...???? Nope--Gates is definitely the runner up in that category--and that's not a defense of Gates, btw. That's what you call an impartial view of the facts as they happened.
Is AMD indebted to M$--you BETCHA'! To whom else might AMD BE indebted? Got a port done by Apple at Apple's own expense that runs OSX on Athlon platforms? Where's SUN's software compiled for x86 and AMD that's really given AMD a shot in the arm? I don't SEE 'UM.....
Some of you guys live in a pure-tee fantasy land. Some of you guys think--I mean, you REALLY THINK, that M$ is "out for itself" while "everybody else" is willing to give away the farm to support this cockeyed idea of "Open Source"--of which right now, IMHO, Linux derivatives and Netscape are the highest expression.
But I guess, in the narrow-minded little world of "Let's Kill M$" psychology, there's just no ROOM, is there, to consider the behavior of M$ as compared to its competitors SUN, IBM, APPLE, and all the rest--and how these companies treat THEIR markets????
"Turned around," indeed. What needs to be "turned around" in this whole pitiful circus is the idea that M$ is "doing things" it's competitors aren't--indeed, that M$ is even *matching* the sort of closed-shop hardware & software envrironment its competitors are running. Which only brings us full circle to the reasons WHY most people choose x86/Windows/Linux, whatever--to anything Apple or SUN ever produced. But hell, who cares about being open-minded so long as we can have the carrot of "open-source" dangled in front of us? A horse-and-carrot story this truly is.
Kind of a Jack Palance look, but more rugged looking.
- Jonathan
" Saying that IE killed Netscape is like saying Ford is killing Kenwood by including stereos in their cars."
No you better re-word that to
"by including stereos in their cars which people can't uninstall them, and the car itself will sometime have "unexpected" error with Kenwood's stereo"
SUUUUUURE you've got two 1400 GigaHertz CPUs.
FUCKHEAD.
Microsoft doesn't give away software they "include" it, and then raise the price of windows.
Ah ha! So now they're gonna join Microsoft. Do we get to see the scene where AMD got upset and decided to turn on its fans?
I'm not really a wrestling fan. This was just a silly idea that came to mind when I saw the headline.
I'm determined to reclaim my karma. Now, if I can only find a groundbreaking article and something witty to say....
OK, you tell me--which current hardware company today--not dependent on M$--is shipping "better software with worse cpus"...??? Come...on...let it out! I wanna' know! Whose cpus are worse today than they were a decade ago???
Palm and all palm-like things. Current Palm CPUs are, I think, inferior even to Netwon ones when CPU functionality is concerned. Also a lot of embedded systems remain with slow CPUs or even become slow.
Like it or not, there is an x86 hardware market which began long ago. There were and are also several other computer hardware markets that began around the same period--SUN, Apple, etc. ad infinitum. They are ALL making better cpus today than they used to make. Am I supposed to think that this means they are ALL writing worse software? Man, that's got to be the weirdest attempt at a correlation I've ever heard.
None of those CPUs types even constitute separate market, such as x86 CPUs/Wintel. None of companies that make OS for those CPUs (and happen to be hardware companies themselves) even get a noticeable profit from software -- Sun probably loses money on Solaris and Java and only recovers them through hardware sales. And yes, Java is a great example of shitty software that is necessary to justify wide use of overblown CPUs.
he hypocrisy of people is utterly unbelievable. They'll stick with x86 hardware because they have by far the best choices in hardware available, not to mention the best prices, not to mention more software--and yet...and yet...they still manage to convince themselves that the house that M$ built is the least free of them all. That standardization sucks. You think so? Go SUN, then and learn. Go Apple and be reborn! I'm gonna' puke.
The existence of cheap overblown CPUs is a positive result of consumers being fed shitty software. So what? A lot of medical information is a positive result of expreiments made in the death camps, but this hardly justifies Nazi. The existence of Unix is a positive result of the AT&T monopoly, and a result of existence of UCB, what is the result of existence of California as a state within US, what is the result of bloody wars, and, earlier in the history, a result of extermination of native population. Good justification for those things, too?
Is AMD indebted to M$--you BETCHA'! To whom else might AMD BE indebted? Got a port done by Apple at Apple's own expense that runs OSX on Athlon platforms? Where's SUN's software compiled for x86 and AMD that's really given AMD a shot in the arm? I don't SEE 'UM.....
Why would a company have to be indebted to anyone? Especially at the extent of forcing a blatant perjury by its CEO?
"Turned around," indeed. What needs to be "turned around" in this whole pitiful circus is the idea that M$ is "doing things" it's competitors aren't
Saying a lie with a lot of venom doesn't make it true.
--indeed, that M$ is even *matching* the sort of closed-shop hardware & software envrironment its competitors are running.
Like, demanding hardware companies to abandon ISA bus when all PCI modems were inferior Windows-only models? Demanding ACPI to be enabled even though it's still buggy?
Which only brings us full circle to the reasons WHY most people choose x86/Windows/Linux, whatever--to anything Apple or SUN ever produced. But hell, who cares about being open-minded so long as we can have the carrot of "open-source" dangled in front of us? A horse-and-carrot story this truly is.
That doesn't even parse without errors, leave alone making sense.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I really wonder what APIs or software code in the media player or IE AMD, a HARDWARE vendor relies on... I really do...
:-)
I used to wonder about this line of thinking too. But the answer struck me light a bolt of lightning when I remembered the CTL3D issue.
Remember the good ole' days when NT was the answer to the stability problems that had plagued Win 3.1 users? One of the issues that surfaced consistently in that period was incompatibilities between different revisions of CTL3D.DLL. You would have a stable system with the app of your choice, install another app, and poof, the first one dies. Or dies when started up *after* the first one, but not if started *before*. A nightmare for tech support staff.
That's what this CEO is worried about. In Linux terms, it'd be as if every app came with its own glibc, with incompatible API's.
Of course, all of the conflicting CTL3D's with conflicting version numbers originated from Microsoft themselves, but that doesn't make the nightmare any less.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
AMD on the stand: "You see, your honor, unless we take the side of Microsoft in this trial, they will strangle our company into bankrupcy within two years. So, my testimony is, they are not a monopoly! No way! Not them! They are innocent of all bad things anyone has ever accused them of, and furthermore, they are nice people who love children and puppies and the American way. I'm forgetting something... oh, here are my notes... Oh yes, their products won over so many users because they are superior to everything their competitors produced. Can we go now?"
I've been tempted to go the AMD route due to the boards fitting in my case, and believing the athlon to be a decent design.
However, the lack of a decent chipset, coupled with the experiences of both myself and friends with compatability problems (win2k wont install on a number of systems for example) are pushing me back to a p4.
In 4 1/2 years, i havent had a single issue with my p3 (originally p2) system, and history keeps nagging me that even though some of the things intel do may seem odd at the time (anyone remember the furore about the p2 having 1/2 speed cache when it first came out, unlike the p-pro with full speed?) there *is* a lot of future planning done.
This statement by Sanders is just the nail in the coffin. Besides, intel has always been more linux friendly...
Not only that, maybe there would be a standard GUI API. Jesus ass tities christ why hasn't that one apeared? QT GTK MFC Cocoa SWing AWT TK Winforms etc. Most high end 3D apps that have been ported to many OSes and have none naitive just write their own GUI layer. This is 2002, we have standard 3D but no 2D GUI? I think it would be different sans MS.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Why can't Gateway replace the IE rendering engine with one based on Gecko?
Why can you replace the Microsoft VGA driver with one from NVidia?
I doubt its for performance, its probably because hardware companies can't innovate very well behind a stagnant hardware definition.
Unlike software, which always benefits from a consistent set of insecure, feature oriented, bloated, standardized, and partially documented set of APIs based on algorithms and ideas borrowed from other sources.
---- Smokin' another sig.
This whole ordeal illustrates the need for a universal operating system. MS almost has it, yet everyone balks at this because MS is a company. MS goes after people's money, MS steals, MS ... etc. We all know this.
So, now what? Do we entrust another company with the development of this OS? I propose having a counsel take control of an open-source based solution. This would eliminate any and all competition on the OS side, yet would provide the common ground necessary for all other software development to exist. No more multiple platforms, no more griping about a company having too much control. Instead, we'd have something slimilar to JEDEC deciding what the system calls would be.
Fragmenting windows will not affect development of software. Seriously!! Unless they change the API and system calls (which is not what is proposed), then you'd have the rift in platforms. Fragmented windows basically means hacking out Messenger, IE, Calculator, or the ever present evil Paint. As far as I understand, IE basically is a clone of the original Window's Explorer, and all else are just extra applications. A fragmented windows then would be like installing a much improved version of Windows 95 (IE didn't really count for much in that distro), which I hear people still run and don't complain about.
Stop complaining about the halt on development of software because the platforms have changed, because in truth... they haven't.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
..."The WinAMD duopoly" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
'sapientia potestas est'
[Note, this is not troll or flamebait, please read through the entire thing before you decide]
Don't you realize the Microsoft, although they have not produced the best possible software, has done a great deal to get the computer industry to where it is now. Almost every hardware and software manufacturer has benefited from Microsoft bringing to the world OS's that unify the industry, software to make people realize that they need a computer, and other stuff.
I am willing to say that hardware companies benefitted a great deal from what MS has done. It is only because of Microsoft that Intel and AMD (and other PC hardware companies)have been able to achieve what they have achieved to this day. It is only because of MS that computers are so prevalent worldwide. Why, you ask? Imagine you are AMD (or Intel or ATI), your role is to maximize profit and lower costs. Let's just say that a certain chip design was specially optimized for OS1, another for OS2, another for OS3, it would cost you a great deal of money to reach all the customers. It's not just a matter of manufacturing [different molds and different factory lines would have to be used to produce each], but there is increase cost in research and development, in addition to more cost of supporting each chip (ie drivers, help desk, etc). So you say that you should produce only one chip that is not optimized for a certain OS? Well, all the individual niche companies would crush you in competition since their designs are better for certain OS's whereas you are a jack of all trades.
Software companies benefit for the same reason too. Would you rather have 5 teams working on ports of an application to OS1, OS2, OS3... or would you rather have one big team working on developing your application?
The consumer benefitted a great deal from the MS OS Monopoly. When your 70 year old grandmother goes out to buy a computer, because a majority of them are running Windows, as long as she buys a PC with Windows, she knows that what she does will be compatible with her grandson, her neighbor, etc... Businesses reduce costs buy being able to have documents be compatible.
Now, I agree, MS Windows is not the best of the best. In fact, there are many problems with it. However, it is important to realize that fact that we have a unified industry rather than a fragmented one. In the end, it helps out everyone involved. [Now, I agree, it's not always good to do something because other people are doing it...but the alternative to this is even worse.]
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
...in the same way that I disagree with the APIs for DCOM, in that I have never read them but know that they exist and do some stuff.
That's right. He never read it.
- The Amazina Llama
Hasn't AMD just shot a giant hole in MicroSoft's, "We can't make a version of Windows without IE" theory?
Rebutting this could be fun, you could point out that AMD has managed to run with all the prior incompatible version of Windows, well if you call Windows stability running, and does not seem to have a problem with Linux.
As was also noted on in an earlier reply the standard that allows AMD to reverse engineer the hardware is based in IBM PC open hardware.
(IBM did own 30% of Intel for a while.)
What credibility does AMD have when they say they speak for costumers.
I love the idea that a standard API would evolve out of competing operating systems.
I hope Judge Kotelly or some persitant journalist checks into the possibility that MicroSoft used illegal anti competitive behavior to induce/entice AMD's testimony and squander their credibility.
As far as the politics of buying from AMD, it is only a part of my decision. I'm not sure I would be better served by an AMD that stood up to, and got squashed by MicroSoft.
Cheap/cool/fast?
Where can I get a PPC mother board for $100 or a $1000 1600x1200 resolution laptop?
You mean, before Microsoft ruled the universe with an iron fist? Where do I sign up?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Jerry Sanders... hmm.. any relationship to good ole Colonel Sanders? They do have quite a resemblance...
He said "most". And I believe he said that deliberately -- a look at www.x86-64.org will confirm that AMD is well aware of the Linux community.
"Contrary to some suggestions I have heard in connection with this case, product integration is unambiguously good for consumers," Sanders testified. "The integration of innovative features is a principal means by which both software and hardware products are improved, to the benefit of consumers."
Indeed, "integration" itself is not the problem. Its the "leverage" and "exclusion" and "subverting of standards" that's the problem. Jerry cleverly avoid that.
Jerry also didn't address the possibility that integrating Netscape would also improve the products in the same way.
Jerry also didn't address the possibility that modularity to allow different kinds of integration would be even superior to Microsoft's proprietary choice.
In his testimony, Sanders argued that Microsoft's dominance in PC operating systems fosters diversity rather than limits consumer choice. He compared the situation to "proprietary operating systems that run only on specific hardware designed and manufactured by the same vendor," such as Apple Computer's Mac OS or Sun Microsystems' Solaris. "Microsoft's Windows operating systems run on computers manufactured by thousands of different companies," he stated.
Jerry is not ignorant of anything. The fact is that Microsoft does support many hardware and software manufacturers. The reason is simple -- MS doesn't want other monopolies to exist lest they exert influence on them! Jerry is basically saying that having one monopolist that just does software, that works to minimize monopolies on the hardware side is a good thing for the hardware side. And he is right.
Look at HAL, eXponential and Power Computing as examples of hardware companies that were unable to beat their respective monopoly (within their environments) competitors (Sun, Mot/IBM and Apple.) Yet somehow AMD survives against Intel. Why? Because Intel does not exert influence over the OS to shut out AMD (Intel has other nasty tricks, but obviously none of them have been entirely successful) -- that's why.
Everything Jerry testified to is true, and does speak to support the idea that Microsoft has done some good along the way. However, its just one sided testimony that ignores the balance of the facts. I think the Judge knows it, and I even think Microsoft knows it (but given the facts of the case, what else can MS expect??)
But nevertheless Jerry went ahead and gave the testimony. Support for Hammer can be the only reason for such a move, and personally I think for Jerry/AMD that is well worth it. I don't believe that Jerry's testimony is so key that it could affect the real outcome of the trial, and I think Jerry knows it. But he clearly gave MS everything they could possible want from him, so they *owe* him.
Its just business.
Standardisation is good. I agree on that. But I have a question: Is such standardisation good even if it is controled (and I can also say abused) by single privatly held company?
hany
wouldn't it be obvious to any judges seeing
this reaction that the action sander's
is taking is based purely on trying to win
microsoft's support, which would mean that
microsoft has significant market power such
that any hardware decision it chooses to make
could change the industry? and hey, isn't that
kind of market power typical of a monopoly ?
hany
yeah, pretty much no chance
-no broken link
Palm and all palm-like things. Current Palm CPUs are, I think, inferior even to Netwon ones when CPU functionality is concerned. Also a lot of embedded systems remain with slow CPUs or even become slow.
So, to investigate this twisted logic, I've got to think that Palm software is worse than Newton software merely because, in your opinion, the Newton had a "better" cpu? And what on earth have embedded cpus got to do with anything? The "software" for embedded use is the simplest because it has to be. Of course, neither of these opinions address the relative quality of software, other than to junk everything together under broad categories sorted by cpu "betterness."
You have yet to explain why better software can't be written for better cpus, and that's where your argument (I'm being charitable) disintegrates. In fact, the whole concept behind building better cpus is that of writing better software.
Surely, positively, you cannot believe that MS-DOS 3.2 is "better software" than Win2K or WinXP??? Surely, not. MS-DOS sucked in all its forms, and oh, how I loathed it. AmigaDOS, for instance, was far better, but Commodore didn't have enough sense to clone its hardware (like Apple) and so that's why software as rotten as MS-DOS won out in the end. No big mystery there at all--no unscrupulous business practices required.
None of those CPUs types even constitute separate market, such as x86 CPUs/Wintel.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with your argument--that better cpus were and are designed specifically to allow for worse software. Man, it must be tough to be so biased that you can come up with concepts like this....:) So *now* you're saying--what you really intended to say all along--is that your better cpu = worse software rule only applies to x86/Microsoft. Whew.
Sun probably loses money on Solaris and Java and only recovers them through hardware sales. And yes, Java is a great example of shitty software that is necessary to justify wide use of overblown CPUs.
I think you should take a look at SUN's ledger. If they lose money on Solaris and Java but "recover it" through hardware sales, that's all well and good, but without Solaris just how much hardware would SUN sell? I can't believe we agree on Java. Not only is SUN's Java truly shitty, but SUN's licensing provisions for it are, ironically, far more restrictive than any of M$'s, as far as I can see. But as far as Solaris goes, a fair number of people must not agree with you that it's crummy, because they keep buying it year after year to run on SUN's cpus which, according to SUN, get better year after year. Is SUN also guilty of "forcing shitty software on the public," too?
The existence of cheap overblown CPUs is a positive result of consumers being fed shitty software. So what?
Your logic is simply impenetrable. There's no "so what?" to talk about. Software developers holler year after year for better hardware, and as the technology is available, the hardware companies oblige to the extent they can. Also, they *compete* among each other to build better hardware, so as to give them a marketing edge. Then the software developers make use of that hardware. The pattern has been the same for as long as I can remember. Where you're getting the idea that this equates to "shitty software" is absolutely beyond me. The software I'm running today is a darn sight better than what I was running 15 years ago, and I certainly am not going to object to economies of scale making hardware (and software) much less expensive today than it was 15 years ago. I think I'd have to be a moron to object.
The existence of Unix is a positive result of the AT&T monopoly, and a result of existence of UCB, what is the result of existence of California as a state within US, what is the result of bloody wars, and, earlier in the history, a result of extermination of native population. Good justification for those things, too?
The existence of UNIX, California, etc., might well be the result of the things you mention above (very argumentative, though), but the *continuation* of all of those things surely is not. UNIX, California, and the rest have long outlived what you deem as their causes. Sorry, but neither you nor anyone else is going to put me on a silly guilt trip about history I had no part in writing.
Your logic, again, is incredibly twisted. In WWII we lost millions of men--would it have been preferable to have saved those lives so that the Third Reich would now own Europe, and Japan the Asian-Pacific? Oh, forget it--this is too twisted a path for me. BTW, AT&T was a government-protected, government-sanctioned monopoly against which it was illegal to form a competing company. That bears no resemblance whatever to M$ (which I assume is your intended parallel.)
Why would a company have to be indebted to anyone? Especially at the extent of forcing a blatant perjury by its CEO?
First, please elaborate on whom it was, in your opinion, committed "blatant perjury." I recall no perjury charges ever coming up during the course of these events, let alone anyone being found guilty of committing perjury. What are you talking about?
Secondly, what sort of world do you imagine we inhabit? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we don't live in a fantasy-utopia where events are ordered by someone's idea of perfection--even someone's *twisted* idea of perfection...:)
Steve Jobs went to M$, hat in hand, and humbly begged for money to save his beloved Apple--is he, also, to be condemned? What do you mean by "why would a company be indebted to anyone"...? Have you no idea at all of how the wheels that feed you turn in our society?
The point I was making was a very simply one: M$ has supported AMD right out of the starting gate. Sometimes, whether we like it or not, companies wind up helping each other. Oh, it's not altruistic, by any means. It's merely the old "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" axiom come to life. Like I said, nobody else has helped to speed along AMD's acceptance in the marketplace like M$--and AMD (Sanders) is not so stupid that he doesn't know it. M$ wasn't forced to do this--AMD didn't pay M$ to do it--M$ chose to do it at its own expense. And the result is that we now have some real competition in the marketplace instead of the monopoly that Intel *was* spoon-feeding us hardware all too slowly and at outrageous prices. Rant all you want about "cheap, bloated cpus" but you will find yourself in small company, indeed.
"Saying a lie with a lot of venom doesn't make it true.
???? Saying a lie with little venom doesn't make it true, either. The facts are very plain to see: unless Jackson had first declared M$ a "monopoly"--labeled the company as such legally--there would have been *no* penalty phase as we see happening now--because nothing M$ had done was outside the scope of the normal business activities that Apple and SUN and Coke and Pepsi and every large corporation--including Disney, for crying out loud--engage in routinely--LEGAL business practices, if you didn't know. Things like volume discounts and exclusive deals are completely and 100% LEGAL for companies and they engage in these practices on a daily basis with impunity--Apple does it, for God's sake. The only difference in M$'s case is the superficial legal tag of "monopoly" that Jackson's court attached to M$.
The ignorance surrounding this issue is appalling. Only because M$ had the ill-fortune to be decalared a "monopoly" (when it's so easy to point out the competition M$ has that companies like Standard Oil and AT&T *never* had) by a prejudiced judge in a kangaroo court (and the Appellate court agreed that Jackson was rogue, therefore throwing out his proposed remedies--a harsher condemnation Jackson could not have received at their hands for his prejudiced conduct--I believe their personal renunciation of Jackson comprised several pages of their order.) I fail to see how a judge can be prejudiced and yet have his "findings of fact" upheld, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Just another lesson that life isn't always what any of us think it "should" be.
Anyway, the *fact* is that unless the government labels you a monopoly, nothing M$ did, or was accused of doing, would be illegal for you. M$'s illegalities were proclaimed *after* the government informed M$ that it was a "monopoly" and therefore could not do business like everybody else. The question of how M$ was supposed to know it was a monopoly before being declared one by the government has never been addressed--and never will be, IMHO.
Is that "fair"? Of course not. But that's life.
"Like, demanding hardware companies to abandon ISA bus when all PCI modems were inferior Windows-only models? Demanding ACPI to be enabled even though it's still buggy?
Excuse me--demanding???? My cable modem's a hardware modem, and before that I owned external US Robotics modems--never used a software modem in my life--and never will. The abundance of hardware modems easily available seems to convince me that M$'s "demand" in this case went over like a lead balloon. More proof of M$'s impotence in direct opposition to this "monopoly" finding by a court full of lawyers who couldn't intelligently explain the difference between a floppy disk and a ram disk??? It would appear so--but then I never heard that M$ "demanded" Win modems in the first place. (Of course, they pushed them because M$ is, after all, a software company primarily.) But if they "demanded" them, apparently those demands fell on the deaf ears of the market, then.
As far as abandoning the ISA bus--I happen to think that's a good idea.
That doesn't even parse without errors, leave alone making sense.
I think it makes perfect sense (and parses OK, too.) The point there was that "open-source" advocates are like the horse behind the carrot. The horse is ever running toward the carrot held before him by extension of his harness, yet he never gets it, but he runs all the same. They believe in this vague, nebulous ideal of "open source" which, when pressed, they confess to not being able to understand all that well themselves. That's because "open-source" is a myth--a legend--almost a religion, to some. How and why "open source" is "better" than private development these advocates cannot say. But they like the idea behind open source which is so seductive--the idea of a random bunch of programmers "freely" cooperating with each other to produce masterpieces of code. Great idea, but where's the code to prove it? Surely, not to be found in Netscape's current browsers. And Linux, under the mantle of open source, is so fragmented that the majority of the public still doesn't know what it is, and the majority of people who run Linux usually do so in a dual-boot configuration so that they can run Windows to have some selection of software to choose from.
It seems to me that advocates of open source are chasing the ideal with no more real thought about it than the horse expends in thinking about the carrot he'll never get to eat.
So, to investigate this twisted logic, I've got to think that Palm software is worse than Newton software merely because, in your opinion, the Newton had a "better" cpu?
Just the opposite -- Palm software is better because it's more suitable for a handheld.
And what on earth have embedded cpus got to do with anything? The "software" for embedded use is the simplest because it has to be. Of course, neither of these opinions address the relative quality of software, other than to junk everything together under broad categories sorted by cpu "betterness."
Embedded software improves just like everything else -- it just doesn't make demands for CPU performance increase without justification, as opposed to, say, Windows.
You have yet to explain why better software can't be written for better cpus, and that's where your argument (I'm being charitable) disintegrates.
I have claimed no such thing. Are you a spin doctor?
In fact, the whole concept behind building better cpus is that of writing better software.
What? The whols concept behind building better cpus is to make them run faster. This can be either for increasing performance and functionality, or for running less efficient software (Windows and Word, for example -- their performance is constant, functionality increases marginally with subsequent releases, however demands to processing power grow exponentially).
Surely, positively, you cannot believe that MS-DOS 3.2 is "better software" than Win2K or WinXP???
I have said no such thing. One can write bad software for anything, and MS-DOS is equally bad on all CPUs. However I am comparing changes that Microsoft makes in the same line of software -- like Windows 95=>98=>Me, NT 3.51=>4=>2k=>XP, Office, etc. -- all those changes incurred hugely increased demands for resources while functionality and performance changed just barely. So to get basically the same thing at different times consumer has to buy hardware with the amount of processing power increasing with time accordingly, and this was keeping hardware prices constant while they are supposed to be dropping. Good for hardware makers, bad for consumers.
Your logic is simply impenetrable. There's no "so what?" to talk about. Software developers holler year after year for better hardware, and as the technology is available, the hardware companies oblige to the extent they can.
I am a developer, and I NEVER EVER asked anyone for better hardware. I have asked for cheaper low-performance hardware a lot though, and never was able to get any -- when it becomes cheap enough to be used widely enough for some applications it "mysteriously" goes out of production, being replaced by more powerful but also much more expensive equivalent, thus keeping the whole possible areas of software from developing --they would appear if more consumers had cheaper hardware, but alas, you can easily buy Athlon XP 1800+ but can't buy for a justifieable price (like, <$100) a small board with 486DX2-50, or low-end ARM/MIPS/PPC/... that would be perfect for cheap embedded things that don't need that freaking performance. I would be happy to develop for those things, but they aren't here.
The existence of UNIX, California, etc., might well be the result of the things you mention above (very argumentative, though), but the *continuation* of all of those things surely is not. UNIX, California, and the rest have long outlived what you deem as their causes. Sorry, but neither you nor anyone else is going to put me on a silly guilt trip about history I had no part in writing.
Strawman is your favorite propaganda trick, isn't it? I have asked one simple question -- does it mean that the cause was a good thing -- and all you can argue with is the figment of your imagination about your guilt. Yes, Microsoft managed to create an unnatural demand for things people wouldn't need or want otherwise, and that saved me and some other people who needed high-performance computers few thousands of bucks. My point is, this is not a valid justification for what Microsoft did to the progress in computer science and software industry, and very likely if Microsoft didn't exist, at least similar healthy demand would be created if the advances in computer science produced the task that actually demands all that processing power doing something more productive than printing out Herbalife ads.
I think it makes perfect sense (and parses OK, too.) The point there was that "open-source" advocates are like the horse behind the carrot. The horse is ever running toward the carrot held before him by extension of his harness, yet he never gets it, but he runs all the same. They believe in this vague, nebulous ideal of "open source" which, when pressed, they confess to not being able to understand all that well themselves. That's because "open-source" is a myth--a legend--almost a religion, to some.
Open source is not an ideological doctrine that all open source software authors subscribe to -- it never was meant to be created this way. rms may write open source software for one reason, Linus Torvalds may do it for a completely different reason, and I can do it for something that differs from both of them. However this does not change the fact that all this activity created a large amount of great software, and that despite differences in reasons and ideology, open source authors co-operate working as a community. This may make no sense for a shallow observer that sees any kind of "community" as one based on religiously followed philosophy, however for us it certainly makes sense because it works. Even the worst assholes of open source community (djb, deraadt and jwz, to name a few) co-operate with the rest of it in their own way, still producing software that works, not to mention nicer and naturally more co-operative people. If open source is a myth, then how is all that software created? By Santa's elves?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
as you may recall Netscape was not free at first. it was forced into cutting its own throat in order to try to keep client share when MSFT started giving away IE. or more aptly bolting it in.
unless you've been napping and i suspect you have been or are a billg rimmer, that's how this trial got started -- it's clear as a bell MSFT deliberately sought to put Netscape out of business as the infamous memo that started it all said "by cutting off their air supply". got it? you can't stay in buisiness that way jack-o.
as for not being too bright, don't you get that people have to pretty much use IE in order to use the web? try using Netscape for a week or Mozilla, they don't work. why? in large part because Microsoft has so contaminated the pool that only their browser works. it isn't the best, it's a monpolist's cudgel used to hold the rest of us hostage.
rinse and repeat:
1) they deliberately kill competiton
2) their browser "works best" because they pretty much set the standards
3) although they claim to share those standards and adhere to them this isn't true. they've spiked them just enough to break things except on their platform. even this isn't consistent. IE for example does not work well on the Mac, it breaks.
ps, as to using IE. i'm at work where i have to use it which goes further to my point. IS is so brainwashed they won't install anything else. oh, and tell me, really, how would i truly get rid of it if i wanted to?
In further reply, of course MHTML is supposed to be an open standard. Thanks for having the courtesy to assume that I didn't know that.
.mht file written by IE cannot be opened in Mozilla, in fact it crashes the browser utterly. Mozilla can write an MHTML file that Explorer has no problem reading. A .mht file written on the Windows side with IE cannot be read by a Mac IE client.
Check this out. A
Need I go on? Clearly MSFT is doing something here that is either buggy (possible) or just off enough from the standard that it makes using other tools with their file formats a challenge. Enough of a challenge that people stop trying to use alternatives. That's the kind of embrace and extend putz-nik that your pals in Redmond have a talent for creating.