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.
Everybody has a price.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
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.
Advanced Micro Devices...
or is it Advancing Microsoft's Development
--
--sig fault--
Not very surprising, given the recent news surrounding the Xbox 2...
No, it is Advancing Microsoft's Domination :)
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!
Almost Monopoly Dependant
The speed of time is one second per second.
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 $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
It's a shame that AMD, that has long battled uphill against the market dominance of Intel, has bowed under like this.
I'm positive there are intangible benefits, such as MS agreeing to port Doze aggressively onto x86-64 platforms that are motivating Sanders.
I remember reading a whitepaper from AMD's site once where they were complaining about Intel being the 800 lb gorilla, etc. and then having the grand vision that Intel was not the monopoly, that MS was the monopoly and the standard to which everything must adhere.
I guess it just goes to show that in business, if the monopoly isn't hurting you directly, that an "accommodation" can be made for the sake of furthering business interests.
Unfortunately, I doubt the court will be fully informed about the benefits that accrue to AMD as a result of Sanders testifying for MS, just as there are many subtle "sticks" used on companies that are now long dead that, too, have not been fully revealed to the court.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Poor Slashdotters,
AMD good... but M$ 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.
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... )
"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.
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!
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???
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
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
Yeah, but now we know how to do things, and hopefully we can do them "right" this time.
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
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
sorry, but i didn't notice linux radically taking over the desktop.
'better' depends on point of view.
Your post starts by praising AMD for its quality products and valuable market role. After reading the rest of the post, however, it's hard to understand why you would want to boycott AMD simply because of their agreeing with Microsoft, regardless of whether or not AMD produces a superior product.
I really don't mean this to be a troll, but does AMD's support of Microsoft really make that much of a difference?
If I recall correctly, AMD was once hailed as the Linux of CPU's because they provided an inexpensive and valid competition to the (then evil) Intel juggernaught, who at the time had a rather strong relationship with Microsoft. Apparently the Slashdot community is now prepared to completely reverses that sentiment, condemning AMD and praising Intel.
If your perception of a product's quality depends solely on it's relationship with Microsoft, you really need to be more critical of the product itself, and less concerned with their affiliations.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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 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.
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?'"---
"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."
How many processors can Linux compile on again? With exactly the same functionality?
Just curious.
GMFTatsujin
"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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Even though the Anti-Trust investigation into Intel has been closed this would make a great headline in response.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
Hahaha, try Power4, the current speed/die winner without a doubt. Alpha is unfortunately doomed now that Intel owns everything, they will take some of the tech that is good and easily absorbed and move it into the future Pentium lines (good) and throw away the rest (bad).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
If you can't throw just any old hardware at Windows, then WHAT'S THE F*CKING POINT? This is especially germane considering that that the AMD argument boils down to "everything must be DOS compatible".
If I want to pay a premium for especially selected hardware, I can just go buy a Sun or Apple.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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
I'm sorry, Intel taken down? Are you smoking turpentine laced crack? :) Intel is still one of the most profitable businesses of all time, and despite AMD's performance advantage for the past few years they have only been able to increase their market share marginally. I personally love AMD to death, but now (starting with the 2.4G Northwood) benchmarkers everywhere are agreeing that Intel is now king of the speed hill. (Here's a typical review
I hate to say it, but Intel never got 'taken down', and how much more progress do you think AMD is going to make now that they have finally have the slower processors?
Sorry for the offtopic, but I have to blast these bizarre, dreamy head in the clouds claims when I see them.
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
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...
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 was wondering the same thing. The CPU and hardware is supposed to dictate what the OS does and how (to some extent), and not the OS (or the company producing the OS) dictate what the CPU and hardware can do. Given this, some of the statements by AMD CEO seem to be a lie--or the worries of someone who is clueless. Why would they have to worry about working towards a common denominator for all possible systems? The OS runs on top of the CPU. How the OS is designed and programmed is really irrelevant to how the CPU works and is designed. The CPU and hardware dictate how the code is written, and not the other way around!
It is the responsibility of the OS company (or Project team in Linux's case) to make the OS work with the CPU and Hardware, and it is the OS Company that has to test it. What happens to Microsoft in this trial should be irrelevant to CPU makers!!!! Whether it's Microsoft write the OS, another company, or a project team it doesn't matter (and shouldn't matter) to the CPU and Hardware Developers. Microsoft has to be pulling some strings somewhere.
I think this is another case of Microsoft abusing it's Monopoly!!!
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Another Microsoft Dummy
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).
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.
Of course it does. Especially while AMD was leading the bogomips race. The more bloated applications are, the faster the CPU you'll need.
You can brag about toy sales all you like.
We in the "linux world" will still be the ones to deploy the large, expensive corporate systems that this CEO sells only in his wet dreams. That's still where real money and the margins are.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That is exactly it. Jerry Sanders sucked up to Microsoft big-time when he talked about the "hammer" productline. Many times stating somthing about "the Windows CPU". It's obvious to many that Microsoft is playing AMD and Intel and since AMD is the underdog, they are sucking up to Microsoft in a very big way.
Sucking up so much that Jerry Sanders will go to court for them. That is some pretty big sucking up.....
I think it's ironic that AMD will fight one monopoly on one hand and then support a monopoly on the other hand. IMHO, this new found friendship with Microsoft, by AMD, does not bode well for AMD. The Black Widow will strike again.
Too bad, because I used to like AMD. That was before Jerry Sanders started whore'ing the company around.....
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
You're quite correct that Intel was not "taken down." They're still very much "up" and show no signs of being knocked off their pedestal any time soon. However...
/. belief, Microsoft is no exception. If they fall asleep at the wheel, they *will* have their asses handed to them by a smaller competitor, antitrust or no.
10 years ago it seemed that Intel would forever dominate desktop CPU's the way Microsoft dominates the desktop OS. Intel started getting sloppy, producing overpriced, underpowered chip, and one of its scrappy competitors managed to steal a significant chunk of their market share. The result was a tremendous spurt in x86 performance, lower prices, and win-win situation for consumers.
I think there's a valid analogy to Microsoft. If MS stops keeping their customers happy, there are plenty of potential competitors who will try to eat their lunch. They are successful because they mostly keep their customers happy and mostly produce good products. And before you start flaming me about the previous sentence, remember that Microsoft's customers are Joe Six pack and the PHB's not geeks who read slashdot. From the perspective of non-technical users, Windows was and still is the best thing on the market. Most of us don't like Windows for arcane technical reasons, but we're a tiny minority in the broad software market.
So the non-head-in-the-clouds claim that I'm trying to make is that free markets and competition works pretty damn well as a way of keeping companies accountable, and Intel is a good example. Contrary to prevailing
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.
I think what AMD did was force Intel to compete. It was 486 clones that forced them to create pentiums, and it was AMD and Cyrix that gave us the pentium 2. Without AMDs aggressive tech push, we might still be slavering over the Celeron 300A
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
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.
The SPARC platform is not proprietary, it's an open standard.
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.
1. There are better products.
2. I can't switch because software that I need to use for work is only developed for windows, because...
3. MS uses it's monopoly bully tactics to make sure it stays that way.
The Internet is generally stupid
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.
-- MarkusQ
While that may be true, Col. Sanders may just like Windows, or Bill Gates personally. A lot of people (especially business types) do admire Microsoft, and I can't think of anything Microsoft has done that hurts AMD directly. Even the oligopoly of OEMs maintained by Microsoft showed they were not 100% Intel after all (even if they all are again.) He is right about Windows servers selling AMD chips where they weren't sold before. That Linux is doing so at the same time doesn't change that. And Linus has probably never invited him to lunch.
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
Didn't those get swapped out, or wasn't there some workaround put into Linux to deal with it? I've never run across that problem (just started loading up the latest Gentoo last night on my spare computer, which runs a 300-MHz K6-2).
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
+1, Insightful
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 think it's worse than whore'ing the company. I cannot for the life of me understand ANYBODY, let alone Sanders in his position, submiting written testimony, under oath, stating it in fact, without any attempt to see if what he was saying was true. It sounds like MS has 'em all by the short ones. It makes Sanders, IMHO, look like a total fool. It'd seem to me it doesn't put Gates in too good of a light either. I have to believe the states just loved this guy. (And IANAL applies, but shouldn't the Court just toss his entire testimony? He's providing expert testimony, but he's admited it's all heresay, simply saying what he was told by Gates, and without any verification or even reading the states proposed settlement to know what he is even testifying against. If they want Gates opinion, shouldn't MS be forced to put HIM on the stand? )
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.
To compare Linux to a microprocessor is not very smart; they are two very different things.
The AMD processors are drop in replacements in HARDWARE which is very standardized - the 8086/8088/80386 instruction set is pretty well known and easy to replicate.
Linux, on the other hand, is not a drop in replacement for Windows. Window's code is hidden and largely inaccessible to Linux programmers.
Programs written for Windows are not very portable at all compared to other operating systems but UNIX style programs are usually very portable as a rule.
As long as Microsoft can keep control of the API's and their implementations and effects on operation of the OS, they will keep Linux/UNIX and just about everyone else boxed out of the Desktop market.
Users want programs so they buy Windows; Developers want Users and customers so they program for Windows. Windows is popular BECAUSE it is popular. If Linux can reach a critical mass of users then developers will make more software avail to them; as that software becomes avail then more users will use Linux and so on and so on.
As for AMD's CEO spouting such drivel as I read in the article, I think the man is either clueless or is reading from a prepared text Microsoft paid him to read.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
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
As we saw with Intel just a few years ago, the big monopoly CAN be taken down.
Hate to break it to you, but Intel still has a huge market share compared to AMD. I don't have the numbers, but it's in the 60-80% range. AMD isn't a new company either, nor is their superiority a relatively new phenomenon. In fact, only AMDs answer to the pentium (k5, k6, k6-2, k6-3) were weak compared to intel counterparts(though by sheer brute force, the later K6-2 and K6-3s were better than the 200MMXs from Intel, even in the FP department). Their 386 and 486 were measurably faster at the same clock speeds than Intel counterparts.
If there is a better product (ie Linux) at a better price, it can take over the market.
It can, but in recent years, it hasn't. Linux is being squeezed out of most of the niche markets it's in by MS, despite the valiant efforts of thousands of volunteers. MS marketshare in servers has been growing, despite all predictions(Winners don't use MS in a mission critical setting. Learn it. Live it.). MS desktop share has never been challenged, even by the most powerful of competitors. It's just not going to happen.
Similarly, despite AMD providing a comparable product at a significant discount, they are still having problems breaking into the market.
I don't have to remind you of which processor has the best performance right now.
I wish it mattered.
It's been a long time.
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.
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
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
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.
I laughed out loud when I read that Sanders didn't even read the the settlement or the states proposal.
This looks like the Microsoft legal clowns will be making us laugh again. I only hope the courts don't cave like the appeals court did and like the 1995 consent failed.
Isn't Balmer going to be on the stand? If so, that should be a treat.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
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.
I think the estimate would be in a couple millions. However you are correct in the relative scale, I think you are underestimating the sales of Windows machines by about the same factor.
The answer is *both* are bad. And both can be good (just wait until MicroSoft accidentally does something good if you want to post such wit here on SlashDot). They are huge organizations of people who are not necessarily smart enough to figure out how to maximize their own evil, so they will do all kinds of random things.
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.
I got one of those 1998 K6-II's that works like a charm. Dozens of them actually, but only still use the one. I'm not excited about X86-64 either, and Itanium will never be practical, but I still dream about that Alpha that was stuck doing DNS on NT.
Kind of a Jack Palance look, but more rugged looking.
- Jonathan
I thought 'AMD Monopoly Dependent' would be more appropriate in this forum ;)
Years ago some guy invented fuel injection for automobiles. Texaco bought the patent. For 17 years, no cars had fuel injection.
Not so many years ago Netscape made a web browser which became immensely popular. Then Microsoft bought a competing product and started offering it installed with the OS. In order to use Netscape you had to download what Microsoft considered "a critical part of the operating system" over a 26400 byte dialup connection (if you were lucky. ) In order to try to compete (Netscape, who wasn't getting anything for the browser -- Microsoft made $87 or more on every copy of Internet Explorer sold -- except to a few large OEMs who got it a bit lower.)
Netscape offered to pay the OEMs to include Netscape. Some agreed... that is until microsoft threatened to force them to pay retail-- that's $150 -- for Windows if they included both Windows with internet explorer AND netscape.
Microsoft doesn't give away software they "include" it, and then raise the price of windows.
OK, you tell me--which current hardware company today--not dependent on M$--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.
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
..."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..."
You mean, before Microsoft ruled the universe with an iron fist? Where do I sign up?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
I don't think AMD needs Linux as much as they need Windows, because Windows requires faster CPU's than Linux...
Obvious really.
And how many complex GUI applications do you know that will run on absolutely every Linux installation in existence?
Oh, yeah. There are none.
I think AMD was just slow in getting the Athlon to the market. The K6-2 was meant to compete with the p2, I have no doubt about that, and for what it did, it was great. Even without a pipeline, the k6-2 and k6-3 at least matched the fastest Pentium MMX in the worst case scenario. The Athlon definitely was a competitor for the Pentium 3 line, judging from when it appeared.
the naming of the k6-3 was mere co-incidence. It was a slightly beefier K6-2. nothing more. I think it was meant primarily as a mobile solution.
It's been a long time.
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.