Slashdot Mirror
Dell Still Intel Only
wyckedone writes "Dell Computers has no plans to offer the new dual-core AMD Opteron even though it has been proven that "Opteron's integrated memory controller and multiple Hypertransport interconnects help it outperform Intel's Xeon processor on many benchmarks, especially those that measure the performance of memory-intensive applications.". HP, IBM and Sun Microsystems have all announced that they are going to release servers based on the new AMD chip. Why not offer customers an alternative that has better performance instead of risking the lose of those customers to another vendor that does? Intel has no plans to release a dual-core Xeon until 2006."
who gives a crap what chip vendor they choose to use? the pc market isn't a monopoly.
If Dell had a monopoly on PC manufacture, this would surely be big news. As it is, they're a company who've weighed both sides of an idea, and made a business.
Remind me why I should care?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Dude! Youre not getting a dualcore!
FP
[sig]you really dont want the answers, trust me[/sig]
It's Dell. They use these rumors to get a better deal from Intel.
Or so I've heard.
Why not offer customers an alternative that has better performance instead of risking the lose of those customers to another vendor that does?
Because the loss of customer's is less than the bribes they get from intel.
Why not offer customers an alternative that has better performance instead of risking the lose of those customers to another vendor that does?
1. AMD can't produce enough chips to satisfy Dell's demands
2. Intel has proven a reliable platform for Dell
3. Most end user's don't care
Dell seems to be inflexible. Why not pick the performance leader?
Why not offer customers an alternative that has better performance instead of risking the lose of those customers to another vendor that does?
Because Dell looked at the numbers and determined that the exclusively-Intel price discount that Dell gets is more valuable than the potential revenue they'd get by offering AMD.
$8.95/mo web hosting
Intel is paper-launching it's "desktop" Dual Core CPUs today ($1000+ desktop CPUs... Mmmm..) Meanwhile, AMD has supplied IBM, HP, etc with Dual Core CPUs for their server lines, which you can order today and receive within a few weeks.
This generation goes to AMD, pure and simple. The Opterons are going to swallow the Intel systems in performance whole. Maybe even price in some configurations.
You know Dell has signed some deal with Intel where if they only sell intel they get cheaper chips. Dell would not pass up $$$ otherwise.
1. Agree to sell only intel chips.
2. Get very cheap chips
3. Profit!!
If Dell used AMD , they probably could offer sub-200 computers because of their purchase power.
No matter where you go , there you are.
This means more business for HP, IBM and Sun Microsystems (if of course Businesses in the market for servers choose AMD).
Dell has chosen to stick with Intel which isn't the worse choice. It means lost profits but it also means less support for two distinct chips.
It is up to the above three companies to prove to Dell (and Intel) that AMD is a viable alternative by speaking with their dollars and buying Opteron servers
-Teiresias
If Dell decided to use Intel and AMD processors, they would have to dedicate resources to another product line. It's likely that for all their different models, Dell has a very limited number of motherboards and other such pieces of hardware. If they were to adopt AMD, they would have to dedicate development and support resources to a whole other set of product lines. It's just not worth it. They have their designs that work, they have their production lines in place, and they have their customer service set up. Adding AMD just makes things doubly complicated and eats into their profit margins. There is a huge barrier to adoption that they are just not going to be able to justify, no matter what the "demand" seems to be. People think AMD boxes would be cheaper, but for Dell to support them, they would not be.
Didn't something like this happen with IBM?
The i386 chip came out, it was faster, but IBM decided not to move right away - after all, who needed all of that extra speed? The i286 was fine!
If memory serves me right, I believe that Compaq came out within seconds telling anyone who would listen that they had i386 processors now - and made it their policy to always support the latest and fastest chips.
I wonder if this will hurt Dell at all. Odds are, with the enterprise vendors, not too much - but all it takes is a little mistake to give your competitors a chance to catch up. And as slim as margins on PCs are, I'm not Dell can afford to slip up in a situation like this.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
But if you are buying a Dell PC then you probably do not care to horribly much about the microseconds that AMD can buy in you in comparison to the Intel chip.
Which isn't to say your 12 year old doesn't, but that is besides the point.
This is another way of starting a sig with this and ending it with that.
Perhaps Dell doesn't think consumers will purchase computers that don't have "the Intel Inside"®. It's not just about price/performance, but about eroding market share if they switch products and consumers don't "get it." And, as the article hints at, as long as Dell can whip Intel into price concessions by playing the "maybe we'll go with AMD" game, there's no real economic gain for Dell to switch to AMD.
Unless, that is, the consumer PC market sees a marked demand for AMD-based systems. Especially if a significant Dell competitor (is there one?) starts to meet that demand with AMD systems. I just don't see another consumer PC maker with the type of market share necessary to force Dell into that position.
Could it be that Dell's customers are not asking for AMD? Maybe performance isn't a big issue for checking your email and typing out that King Lear essay?
I think the disadvantage here is that Dell sometimes supplies companies with computers and they're the ones without a big choice. Home users tend to pick dell because it's the easy thing to do.
Dell has never offered AMD. Yet they have grown to be the largest PC company in the world. HP and Compaq can combine and Dell still outperforms them. IBM decides to sell off their PC division. Sun is fighting for its life.
I'm a big fan of AMD, but the "everybody else is doing it" argument has always been a stupid one. It is more stupid when "everybody else", even combined, have withered against the "not everybody else" competition.
Verily, I hear the propaganda spewing from the mouths of the less computer savvy: Somehow they've been brainwashed through the years, I assume by Intel's Blue Men.
"B-b-but, it's Pentium 4 EXTREME Edition with HT Technology!!1one"
"B-b-but, Intel's better for gaming!"
"B-b-but, If it's not Intel Inside(tm), then it's not worth a damn!"
"B-b-but, Is Windows XP even compatible with AMD?"
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
Why is this news? Dell using AMD is just as possible as MS embracing Open Source methodologies and freely giving away all of their sourcecode.
Both are a possibility, but until either company is losing significant marketshare by staying the course they have traveled for so long... It won't happen.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
We used dell hardware (windows enviornment) for 2 years, and switched right back to HP.
The hard drives constantly crashed, raid never worked, and restoring from tape during production time was constant. Parts were never available, and the constant response from their help desk was "flash the bios" or "flash the firmware" when it pertained to nothing that was going on.
At one point they were just sending us new servers for free to fix the broken ones. Note: Those new ones then broke constantly as well.
I think there are plenty of other reasons to switch from dell than a lack of an AMD chip in a server.
(note: I do like dell workstations and home PCs and laptops... just not their servers)
Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
I guess when your company revenue for the past year was $49.2 billion Dell.com why bother to offer anything other than Intel? Especially when Intel wouldnt take too kindly to it. Plus who would want to get rid of those "wonderful" intel Integrated Graphics Devices....
TheInq on Intel Paper Launch
One thing you can all bet on. Dell does its numbers. If it didn't, it wouldn't be where it is now.
:)
:)
In the end it ALWAYS comes down to numbers. Intel probably gives Dell quite a discount for having Dell's exclusivety. Most corporate customers don't mind the performance difference, since they will never get fired for buying Intel... on the contrary, in the corporate / server world, Intel has a great reputation.
The press fanfare generated by such announcements probably is beneficial to Dell. Remember, (almost) any publicity is good publicity. Everyone that read this thread now remembered Dell exists
Don't worry, one day they probably will conclude its more profitable to also sell AMD - probably when AMD manages to give them a nice discount too
Look you guys, our university has gone through the server ranks: Netware on Compaq, Netware on Netframe(ug), Windows on Compaq, Windows on Dell. I can see approx 60 servers in racks in our server room. We can save money by using higher performance AMD dual core (since we may need fewer high end servers), We will, you will have lost, and joined the ranks of Compaq on our campus.
Then, just like Compaq, our desktop purchases go to the same company that sells servers and suddenly, it's two million bucks a year.
Make Sense?
M O N O P O L Y BUIS-NESS!
...].
... oh and it doesn't churn through 250W constantly and even at full load [where it's much faster than the average Intel offering] it consumes less power makes less heat, etc...
They sell Intel only for the same reason they're a Windows only shop [well for the majority]. They're gonna milk the "wintel" success to the very last drop if it takes a decade or two to get there...
Which, interestingly enough, is why you shouldn't buy dell machines [or gateway, or compaq or
Walk into a local retail shop, design your own computer from the ground up and get what you *actually* want not just *what the cheapest thing Dell will hawk on ya* thing is.
Sure I paid more than 399$ for my machine... I also got a workstation that is efficient and lets me do my work (and play games)
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Dell Computers has no plans to offer the new dual-core AMD Opteron
Also in the news:
- Ford has no plans to offer the new Honda engine.
- Suse has no plans to offer the new SP2 patch.
- Cadbury's Roses has no plans to offer the new Quality Street fillings.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
Any number of reasons come to mind, all pulled from my posterier based on what little I know about Dell's business model and relationship with Intel, but try any of these on:
It could be any combination of the above or something else entirely. Maybe Dell is just making a horrible business decision, but I'm guessing that they've run the numbers and decided that its in their best interests to stay the course. Decisions that seem to be perplexing to us almost boil down to money. Their financial analysts have convinced management that the company is best served this way.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Right or wrong, markets have inertia. If there isn't enough demand for AMD chips from Dells' huge corporate customers then it makes little business sense to expend effort on providing them. Unfortunately, the technology isn't the only factor here. When sufficient demand exists, expect Dell to get rather more keen on AMD products.
The other factor is AMD's manufacturing capacity. I imagine Dell would be wary about going for AMD if they had concerns about this.
Why not offer customers an alternative that has better performance instead of risking the lose of those customers to another vendor that does?
Why not allow a hugely successful company figure out what's best for it's customers rather than assuming that they would want to please an AMD fanboy.
It's a bit trollish, I know, but Dell isn't hurting. They're doing a great job, even without using AMD. Perhaps doubling the number of configurations would increase their stock on hand, and that would cost more money and cut down on profits. Perhaps it would add complexity to the orders, which might result in poorer customer service. Perhaps the number of customers on a given hardware platform would change, decreasing the amount of testing and QA they could perform per platform, resulting in a loss for customers and vendor alike.
Why not accept the fact that there is more than just a one line blurb, and that maybe Dell actually knows what they're doing...
Why not offer customers an alternative that has better performance instead of risking the lose of those customers to another vendor that does
Better performance, hmmm, this statement kind of makes me think we have an AMD fanboy on our hands. I think we all know that those "perfomance tests" are inflated and really don't tell you much about how the processor is actually going to perform. Intel has HT while AMD has 64 bit addressing, both seem to do well under certain circumstances, but I wouldn't say one is clearly better than the other.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
...is still Indian only.
Not to be a pessimist, but I've dealt with Dell Tech Support 23 times this past year, every time with India, and I had only 2 positive experiences.
The company I work for has a lot of sales folks, who like to break laptops and all. So, I usually end up calling Dell for replacements (fulfill warranties and such) and guess what, I ALWAYS have to talk to Tech Support first. Every single time it's "reboot the machine". Come on! And good luck trying to let them know all you need is a replacement part, they just ask you a bevy of questions first and THEN transfer you when they can't understand you anymore.
They should just automate the damn tech support, it's pretty much the same effect. Those folks cannot understand you, and you end up either with a dropped line or worse, a transfer to another tech support person. BAH!
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
this weeks decision by Dell is no different than the last week, or the week before, or the week before that.
This isn't an article, it's a PING PONG for Dell and if they are ever going to use AMD CPU's or not.
This time the heat is coming from Japanese regulators, who ruled this morning that the chipmaker has been stifling competition in the region.
Specifically, the six-page complaint says Intel, in at least one case, offered rebates or other funds on the condition that PC makers not work with any competing vendors, including longtime rival Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD). Another deal allegedly offered money to manufacturers in return for giving no more than 10% of their chip business to Intel competitors. The filing further claims that the practices have been ongoing since May 2002.
For its part, Intel says its business practices are fair and lawful. But it also included a key hedge in a statement issued this morning. It says that the Japanese, in their ruling, didn't consider whether any of Intel's actions hurt consumers through higher prices or other fallout. This, however, is a bogus argument straight from the "end justifies the means" school of business.
I mean, really, can't we assume that if Intel is engaging in unfair competition in Japan, at some point its competitors will be forced to conclude that operating in the region is a waste of money? What happens to consumers at that point? Do we just wait and find out? No, I don't think so.
Consider what's already happened. According to industry researcher Gartner Group (NYSE: IT), AMD's PC market share has taken a dive from 22% in 2002 to 10% in 2004. Over the same period, Intel's operations in Japan increased from 7% to 9% of its global revenues. Even more interesting is that from 2001 to 2002, Intel's total revenue from Japan declined from 10% to 7%.
Reporters need to keep asking Intel at every industry event whether Intel has a deal similar to what is alleged in Japan. They need to keep asking pointed questions in this area until Intel issues a similar filing with the SEC that explains away any anti-competitive deal they may have with Dell similar to what they filed in regard to the issues with Japan. Once Intel files that explanation to cover their asses, then reporters have something specific to hone in on.
As long as the reporters keep asking the questions about any deal with Dell to not use AMD whether financially rewarding type of deal or specific avoid ala Sherman Anti-trust deal, Intel's legal department (or Dell's) will at some point decide it necessary to file an explanation, disclosure or some double talk with the SEC.
That's when reporters can hone in on the disclosure and Intel/Dell for the kill.
These announcements have shocked the geek community so bad that highly intelligent virgins all over the world are committing suicide.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
I can think of one reason DELL may be willing to play keep away with AMD - an exclusive supplier agreement.
It isn't illegal to have one and it may be a key into DELL's low costs. By negotiating large contracts with vendors from graphics card to CPUs they can get only such a price break, but if DELL, the world leader in desktop computing, agrees to use your computer widget exclusively, well that is worth another penny or two per thingamajig, which adds up to $M for DELL's net profits.
Intel is savvy enough to get into this kind of pact with DELL. Here's a slighylt off topic story but it speaks to Intel's marketing wit.
Back in the 80's a marketing study was done to see what IT names people thought of when they thought Personal Computers. The usual suspects were there of course, Microsoft, IBM, even Apple. But strangely absent was the one company who's hardware was arguable at the heart of ever IBM compatible PC in the 80's - Intel. No one knew of them and when customers don't even know who you are, you risk being replaced by competition.
So Intel embarked on the "Intel Inside" campaign. They came up with the sticker that adorns just about every PC with an Intel processor as well as the doo-doo-doo tone we hear at the end of DELL, Gateway, HP, and other computer maker commercials.
But how did they get manufacturers to add stickers and 3 seconds of their 30 second commerical on Intel? With Money! Intel offered to share the cost of TV ads, radio, and print if manufacturers would put the sticker on and have the logo and doo-doo-doo tone on EVERY ad.
The campaign worked. Intel had another study done X months after the campaign launched and they shot up to one of the top on the list.
You can find out more from Intel and Google.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Dell's image has been suffering in the Business World for the last year. They been forced to move their Business support back to the states, due to the ID10ts they hired to outsource their support, there are major flaws to their servers, and their sizing tools are the stupidest in the world.
We are transitioning to IBM Intel Boxes. Main reason we use Intel Boxes, our software vendors tell us to.
In God we trust, all others require data.
Since when is Dell not using AMD news? It seems to me that "Dell still not using AMD" is a news article here about once per quarter. Let's just wait for them to actually use AMD, and then post that story. Hearing "nothing's changed" over and over again gets kinda.... boring.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Finally, someone who actually understands business decisions. Every time I read a story about Dell rejecting AMD on /. (this has been going on for years), a bunch of freshmen CS majors chime in and say it's Dell's loss, Dell is history, Dell is Intel's pocket, AMD will crush Dell and Intel, blah blah blah blah....
NONE of these predictions have come true. In fact, since the Athlon first came out and Dell rejected it way back when, Dell has blown everyone else out of the water. HP, now HP/Compaq, IBM, etc. They didn't to be the #1 PC manufacturer because they make stupid business decisions.
check it out here
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Well I'm sure Intel would make their discount lower which would actually end up lowering their profits
corevps.com - Root Servers from $7.99/mo
Dell is so entrenched in the corporate computing market now that a change would have to be motivated by dire need. For example, if a company just NEEDED that dual core performance and all that, I think a company would make an 'exception' but keep on buying Dell for all other cases.
So essentially until a desktop OS that requires it is adopted, then "good enough" will continue to be the rule... and that's Intel's new place in the business -- "Intel: It's good enough"
AMDs consume less power, and run much cooler.
I don't know how many people are thinking about the cost of infrastructure to host servers, but that is another reason to use AMD based systems.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
So Dell is now partnering with IBM/Sony? This is all so confusing!
Kia still does not offer their cars with an engine made by BMW. Really, when has Dell ever done anything to sell computers that are actually better for any reason?
Dell has never really been known as an innovative company, so there's no surprise they won't be using AMD's dual core chips anytime soon. Dell won't join the AMD party until it thinks it's safe and things sour a bit with Intel. In the meantime, competitors who live a bit on the edge will be able to make some progress, but not much, since quite honestly, the cutting edge market is probably only a fraction the size of the play it safe business market.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Who cares? Customers buy on a price/performance scale. If Dell doesn't meet there needs, they'll go somewhere else. Yes, brand names are important, but Dell isn't the only big gun out there - just the only one without AMD support.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
At a conference, Michael Dell spoke about this issue, indirectly. He argued that if Dell can satisfy most of the demand with a smaller number of parts, it will do that. I've heard other Dell managers speak and the magic number is usually 3 -- 3 graphics cards, 3 HD sizes, 3 speed levels, etc. Although Dell's factories are amazing in their ability to pump out customized PCs, each added part variant adds costs to the entire system.
Dell would rather lose a few percent of sales that drive the costs of the entire factory higher.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Well when you have a company that ships its own lame MP3 player instead of one people might actually want to buy (and I'm not even saying that would have to be an iPod!), then you realize that not all choices they make are really in thier long-term best interests - though Dell thinks they are I'm sure.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Marketing-driven GHz wars? Intel wins.
/.
In-place supply chain and logistics for delivering thousand upon thousands of multiple types of CPUs reliably? Intel wins.
What does AMD win? Real-world, measured performance. While true, that's not really relevant for using office software, sending emails, or even posting on
I know that Intel will subsidize your advertising budget if you go all-Intel. I wonder how much of it is a matter of mindshare through advertising... get Intel to pay more of your marketing costs, you can cut margins on your servers.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Dell would only give AMD a bad name. It's hard to wash off that Dell stink once you've come into contact with it.
cuz he sure would have liked these bones...
"May we strive to be the people our dogs think we are"
mmmmm tastes like ham, only sweeter
The odds of them not offering AMD chips hurting their business might as well not exist. The fact is Dell and Intel spend more on Advertising then most the other manufacturers combined. How many of you have seen AMD commercials? This is why AMD is SO much cheaper. They lack the marketing cost that Intel does. I doubt the Blue Man Group comes cheap.
As for Dell they have always thrown tons of money at Advertising and I would dare say more than most other PC manufacturers with maybe the exception of IBM, though they typically target more business users in the ads it seems. In the end stupid commercial get stupid people to buy stupid things. The smart ones know what they are doing and will buy the best performance for the price.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Can you imagine their Indian call center folk trying to even pronounce "AMD Opteron" ?
IBM is still alive. And kicking nicely.
Compaq as a company is gone. It's owner - HP - is nothing more than an ink-delivery system for printers (look at where all HP's profits come from...).
What was the point of your example, then?
We have been using Dell for the last 8 years and my experience has been just to opposite. I have had a Dell field service tech fly in at midnight with parts in hand to help fix a bad Array Enclosure. I have also had their tech support guys stay on the phone and help rebuild a Domain controller when a drive went bad. On the HP / Compaq side if the house (about 50/50 these days) I have had more problems with bad drives, power supplies, etc. Their support is OK but I have to call them more often. This is in a server room with about 75 servers. We use their Dell) Desktops as well and almost never have hardware issues. Ian
Really it does. AMD is faster for memory intensive programs. Pretty even on FP intensive programs. And wins based on bang for the buck. If you are going to build a HPC cluster AMD is often the better choice. Where Intel has an advantage is stability. You will really be hard pressed to find a more stabile combination than an Intel CPU on a motherboard using an Intel Chip set. Better yet an actual Intel motherboard. As long as AMD does not make their own chip set Intel will have if not a real at least a perceived advantage in stability. Dell used to use Intel motherboards even if they make their own now they use Intel chip sets. They can go straight to Intel and say will this work with that CPU. With AMD they would most likely then have to go to SIS, VIA, or nVidia to get a chip set. Then design a board using there reference. If machines started to have some strange issue Dell would then have to deal with the chip set provider blaming AMD and AMD blaming the chip set provider.
Dell has their relationship with Intel all worked out. They have there supply chain all set up. They are the number one PC maker on the planet. Right now they have no real motivation to move. With IBM leaving the x86 market "are they keeping the servers?" and HP flopping around Dell is in pretty good shape.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
When AMD processors become more mainstream due to HP and others that offer them, continue to outperform and underprice Intel... Dell is just going to be left in the dust. And by that point, by buying lots of cheaper processors from AMD and reaping the profits associated with a lower cost of production.
:)
It's competition that drives every vendor, and if Dell feels they can get away without offering AMD, that's fine. But then again, when you go looking for jobs, you don't see the need to be 'well versed in Dell Poweredge servers' do you? But HP/Compaq servers... that's a necessity when applying for a lot of jobs -- it just goes to show the reach of Dell's server market anyways. I think Dell makes the majority of its cash from home PC sales, and this move only shows that -- people will continue to be stupid and buy Dells though I have to admit, for $399 I couldn't build a computer as good as what Dell sells.
Time will tell in this departement, but I do believe that Dell will fare just fine, because they prey on ignorance of customers -- home custoemrs. Business customers need the best performance for the least money, and right now (and for the foreseeable future), that will probably be AMD, and businesses will flock to that as it necessitates for their daily chores. We did it here at work, the new Opterons work quite well with SQL Server 2003
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
I'd buy HP's ProLiant line, but not their PCs.
Dell is all about low margin *parts assembly*. Works fine for destops.
When we had a drive fail in a PowerVault 220S, Dell sent out a tech to replace the drive, and the entire RAID-5 volume got hosed. That's just simply not supposed to happen. Doesn't happen with the Sun boxes we have here, nor the CPQ/HP ProLiants. The Sun and HP boxes are engineered as systems. The Dell relied on a rebadged Adaptec card, a rebadged copy of Volume Manager, and tech support who don't know anything about how the parts work together.
If your IT stuff is done right, desktops are essentially disposable. Servers, not so much. Restoring a terabyte from tape is still a slow proposition, especially with network-based backup.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Your story is true, but on the ground for the technical people, this is what actually happened.
Compaq came out with the 386, and it was priced at (hold onto your hat) $5,000. I think it was a 386-25 if I'm not mistaken.
IBM announced late, but by the time everybody was shipping IBM was only a month or two late. It was not that big a deal.
But here's the kicker...the IBM PC was significantly slower than the Compaq.
In the mid-late eighties, I was a consultant for a large railroad, and we needed something fast to run PC-Focus. This company was an IBM-only shop, and we got the Compaq some by hook, mostly by crook. They were both nice PC's, but the Compaq had better graphics (Remember that real IBM VGA (c)(tm) was 320x200 in 256 colors and 640x480 in 16 colors), and the compaq was so much faster that after just a few minutes, the Compaq was significantly faster on our long term benchmarks. It took us about 10 minutes to determine that Compaq was the better PC. Plus the IBM 386 was about $8,000 and the compaq was $5,000.
That was the beginning of the end of IBM PC's at this customer. Not because it was "better" or because it was "cheaper", but "better and cheaper".
Funny to think a 386 would be $5K, eh? And that's the bargain model!
We had the exact same experience. We had very good luck with their workstations and notebooks. I loved my Dell C640. With that, they convinced our boss to try their new servers, switching us from HP/Compaq. That was a big mistake. The reliability was not there, the support was not there, and the enterprise maintenance was not there. Then they tried to get us to try their switch line. We pretty much laughed in their face with that one. However, I did run a pair of Dell PowerApp.BigIP boxes for three years without a single hiccup. They were the best servers/appliances I have ever had to setup and maintain.
It makes no sense for a company that specializes in squeezing every last dime out of commodity products to compete on the edge.
/. editors, how about a new DELL category so those who don't give a rats ass about this sort of stuff can uncheck the box.
That's all there is to it.
When was the last time Dell offered:
An ultralight notebook.
A competitive graphics workstation.
An high density blade server.
A multiprocessor TP tuned box.
anywhere near contemporary to the competition in these areas.
Dell is solid, reliable, stodgy, dull, and value for $. Just what the commodity market wants in X-86 hardware.
So
"""4 &e=1&u=/cmp/20050416/tc_cmp/160901704
Worldwide shipments of PCs rose by more than 10 percent in the first quarter, but sales in the United States were weaker than expected and computer maker Dell Inc. posted its slowest growth rate in 10 quarters, a market research firm said Friday.
"""
-- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=7
Buy a mac.
This has been stated before (or at least alluded to) but Dell's operations strategy is Just-In-Time.
They don't carry significant (read: almost any) inventory investment, but instead push the inventory upstream, forcing the suppliers to assume the risk.
This has quite a few implications. First off, you're dealing with negotiating a contract that states (roughly) that Dell wants the vendor to carry X amount of inventory at all times for use in any demand streams that may or may not be forecast.
This is a major hurdle to work around for a variety of reasons, and the parent nailed one of the primaries.
Simply put:
Increasing the complexity at the processor level increases the complexity of the models and the supply chain at a level that become much more difficult to manage successfully.
This is one of those wonderful little case studies in the business world where the best single point solution (offering both brands to increase revenue from the separate demand streams) does not increase revenue in the supply chain when observed holistically. While the single point improvement potentially increases gross revenue, Dell's operational strategy will incur additional costs that will be detrimental to the bottom line.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
How many "Dell may sell AMD", followed up a few days (or weeks) later by "Dell will remain Intel only" stories do we need? Dell announces every so often that it may offer systems with AMD processors to scare Intel into offering a better deal. I doubt they have ever seriously considered going with AMD, and I don't think that they will anytime soon. These stories are pointless.
Stability is a major factor; AMD once had a legacy of crash-happy platforms. I don't believe this to be true now, but Dell when they look at these things they weigh heat production, power consumption all as factors; including reputation. I think AMD has great technology now, I don't think that can be denied. But Dell markets on slightly different criteria than people the who build their own systems(yeah I know that statement is obvious, but its obviousness makes a point).
that was talking about how Dell was considering using AMD chips in the future?
Every quarter or two Dell makes noises about maybe using AMD chips, or some other chips, in some part of its business.
/me *shrugs*
Then it squeezes more concessions out of Intel to be the flag bearer. They get something - more marketing $$$, better volume margines, etc. that're given to them, and soon the dance starts over again.
The reason Dell hasn't used AMD to date is, from the customers point of view, because Intel keeps showering them with money. At the same time, HP is making sales here because they've got quad opteron systems.
So be it. If Intel doesn't keep padding Dell's bottom line, then maybe they'll have a 6850 fitted out with opterons next year.
-Peter
== Just my opinion(s)
...all those /. discussions about the problem of trying to support all our friends' computers. Geeks have been saying here for a long time, that instead of helping their friends with their computing problems, they just encourage those friends to go buy a Dell.
Maybe that party line should be changed to HP? Geeks' preference for funneling everybody to Dell has certainly done a lot of damage to the market's rationality. Other companies [Gateway? eMachines? IBM? Apple??] deserve a fair shake too. So even aside from this AMD-superiority debacle:
LET'S POINT PEOPLE TO OTHER VENDORS BESIDES DELL!
from getting your hardware from one of those other manufacturers.
Get over it, if Dell doesn't do it, their loss...
AMD is still very low volume manufacturer in Dell's eyes. They just bumped up the A64 output with 90 nm shrink by at least 50%.
Still, all this 90 nm output is completely soaked up by white box makers and just few models from HP, Gateway & co.
Dell does not like partners without excess capacity. They prefer Intel, which very often has huge loads of chips to sell, so they always ask Dell to soak up this volume out at the very low prices. Dell is usually playing the strong hand with Intel, helping it to sell.
How can they press AMD anyhow? Whatever they will ask, AMD will answer "you are just one of our partners, why should we sell to you cheaper thenm to others?". This is against Dell business model. Partner should beg them to buy parts.
Andrew
This is exactly what everybody was saying when the Dell Might Do AMD story was posted...
GUESS WHAT?
Exactly.
Really? Who cares what Dell does these days? Their products have turned to crap and their support is even worse. I remember back in the day when Dell was the best company around. Now they can suck on my sweaty balls for all I care. I will never buy another Dell product so long as I live.
We already have customers running AMD64 server platforms, which requires that we purchase AMD64 development and testing hardware. Like hundreds of thousands of companies across the world we usually purchase from Dell, but none of this AMD64 kit will be bought through them.
As a little aside, none of our customers have told us they intend to roll out IA-64 servers..
I was told that to be a supplier for Dell, you have to cut your price to Dell by some percentage EVERY QUARTER. With most component having but razor thin margin to begin with, it is no trivial task to be a supplier to Dell.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
I realize that there are umpteen thousand benchmarks out there "proving" that the AMD processor outperforms the Intel processor in almost every graphics and video game test known to man. However, in the business world this is far from a necessity. As a personal experience, our company was looking for a platform to handle a memory and floating point intensive home-brew program that runs on the latest generation of CPU's in about 48 hours. Since the program uses about 6 GB of disk space and 2 GB of memory at execution we thought the AMD might have an advantage with its onboard memory controller so we gave it a shot, in small tests it performed admirably so we bought 10 of them from IBM and SUN (x326 and v20z respectively). When we finally got a chance to run our full size problems, they slowed down.
In comparison, the latest 2MB cache model of the Intel Penitum 4 runs almost TWICE as fast as our Opteron 250's. Not only that, but the hyperthreading also allows it to actually respond to other OS operations at the same time. The AMD's on the other hand are quite unresponsive when CPU intensive tasks are taking place.
Lastly, a closer looks at the CPU architecture for the AMD platform shows a weakness in multiple CPU implementations. All slave CPU's must go through the master CPU to gain access to the PCI bus. While this isn't critical for memory based programs, if you have two disk bound programs running, the first CPU will get little work done as it stops execution to allow the hypertransport bus to pipe data to the slave CPU.
Sorry if that was a lot of crap on your screen, maybe a better summary is, real world performance for YOUR company cannot be measured by any benchmark that Intel, IBM, Sun, Tom's Hardware, can tell you. Each platform has its shortcomings and all-in-all, Dell has chosen to support Intel, which for my company is the right move. So don't jump down their throats for chosing a "inferior" chip, or not addressing the needs of gamers. Save your flaming for the tech support department, from what i hear, they could use it.
1: HP builds crap, supports it like crap, and was the first major manufacturer to stop shipping the Windows Operating System discs you paid for as part of the system with the system. Their "recovery disc" is even more crap, when you can get it. They sell computers mainly to bundle their much more profitable printers with. If you disagree, tell me the last time you recommended a Pavilion to a friend you wanted to keep.
2: Sun is overpriced! Let me repeat, Sun is overpriced!!
3: IBM is not as cheap as Dell, is trying to get out of the PC business because they're losing money on the desktop and notebook arenas, and hasn't been winning any customer support awards for end-users/home-users for years, if not a decade.
4: Gateway is dueling with Apple to see who can have a lower market share in computers. They try to sell TV's the way Apple sells iPods.
5: And Dell, who suffers from none of the above, keeps insisting that "Well sell AMD based computers when our customers demand it." How deaf can they be?
6: Alienware and the other niche marketeeters? $$$.
In my book, not a single good choice for a no-problems, affordable, supported, home AMD system. And both myself, my wife's business, and the company I now work for (as well as the last one) have all been loyal Dell customers accounting for well over 1000 units sold so far. Dell does not care about us!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I was agreeing with you until I saw I do like dell workstations and home PCs and laptops
Dell laptops are the worst brand of laptops you can buy. They break constantly. I go to school with 200 people who own a Dell laptop. Without fail, everyone I know with a Dell laptop has had very big problems.
If you're not buying a Mac, you're much better off with an IBM or Panasonic or a lesser-known brand
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
Maybe xeon is no dual core yet, but do not forget it currently comes handy as a heating device. This added value will certainly help Dell with pricing structure for models targeted to cold climate regions.
There you are, staring at me again.
Intel provides a complete solution, not just a processor. They get a rocksolid chipset designed by the same company producing the cpu. With AMD Dell has to deal with 2 companies instead of one. First they must get the cpus from AMD and then deal with a 3rd party for the chipset. With the amount of competition in the chipset arena for AMD chips the focus tends to be on features instead of stability (not saying that all the chipsets are flakey but far more often then intel's).
Oh and all this from an AMD fanboy.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
It is a no-brainer to use the CPU that is better(AMD) and offers a better performance/price ratio(AMD). There must be other factors at work than rationality meaning that someone high up, perhaps even Michael Dell himself, is getting paid big $ by Intel in order to stick with them.
If I was to buy a machine right now I would certainly not choose Dell.
Intel=>dualCoreXeon == Microsoft=>Longhorn
"Why not offer customers an alternative that has better performance instead of risking the lose of those customers to another vendor that does?"
Why not let a man run his own damn company in the way he has done so successfully for many years? Oh wait, obviously under your guidance Dell would have made trillions by now instead of billions.
Seriously, what's wrong with the people that submit this stuff? Are you hoping that such insight will encourage people to read your blog? Because I gotta tell you, buddy, your blog sucks more phallus than even NASA could calculate. We're talking numbers that exist only in theory here, bucko. The simple human mind can't even grasp the sheer enormity of cock gobbling going on.
This comment was formatted for readability, but I forgot the line break tags
Generalíssimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
Becasue consumers do not care about this technical pissing contest that is going on in the industry. They don't care, because they don't have to. The performence difference is squat in the real world.
Keeping that in consideration, why spend the extra dollrs supporting another chip that doesn't have brand awareness amoung Dell's customers?
People don't want faster computers anynmore, they want computers that work and that they don't have to worry about. The want their computers to be the next generation TV. Some may scoff, but the technical challenge of making a computer that worry free is far more challenging then another 10% speed increase that can only be measured running certian programs in lab like conditions.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... ...
AMD has a very limited manufacturing capability compared to Intel. The kind of production runs that Dell requires is something that AMD can't accommidate,
That's assuming that sales would be immediately robust as soon as the option is offered. That's unlikely. If sales were lousy, Dell would drop the line. If sales increased beyond AMD's capacity, they would have time to ramp up. Growth is supposed to be a good thing.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
AMD should issue a statement saying that for the next xx months they will not even consider selling any CPUs to Dell! :-P
Bye!
SeqBox
In other news....
"Dell has decided to stay with the Quill series of standard notepads. Critics claim that Office Depots line of notepads are technically superior; they offer superior pen grip and a brighter white color."
by adding AMD systems across the board, Dell would double overnight the number of motherboards that they have to support and troubleshoot. Even if AMD sales were only a small part of their overall revenue.
Would there be enough new revenue from selling AMD systems to justify that? It has to be NEW revenue, because if it's just replacing one revenue stream with another at a greater cost, why would you bother?
Dell probably does not see enough additional revenue from AMD sales to justify the increased support costs.
Compaq as a company is gone. It's owner - HP - is nothing more than an ink-delivery system for printers (look at where all HP's profits come from...).
However, if you strip away all of the other unrelated businesses that IBM and HP are in, it looks a little different. IBM is just about out of the PC market altogether, whereas HP is still a big player, profits or not.
On the topic of the original GP post: The 286 vs 386 isn't that comparable to today's situation. The 386 had almost 3X the performance of the 286, plus it added virtual memory and removed the shackles of 16-bit pointers. It was a massive upgrade.
The new dual core chips don't offer anything that you can't currently get with a dual CPU motherboard. It's pretty much just a packaging issue. It's an internal implementation detail that may temporarily affect the system vendor's cost margins, but a few months delay introducing them probably won't have much long-term effect.
More like intelligent but hopelessly naive virgins.
Intel Marketing Dollars.
How else do you think they get these wild & crazy prices? it's not ALL about their supply side management, it's also about leveraging your partners with 'marketing dollars' that lower the cost of pieces below what any normal person could buy...
Intel equipment just works. And guess what? In a production environment, reliability trumps performance.
I have yet to see an AMD server chip OR and AMD workstation chip that doesn't run hot and require an unconventional cooling solution.
Also, when AMD starts making their chipsets, I'll look at it. Until then, AMD can be the realm of the gamer and aficionado for all I care. I won't use my company like a guinea pig. Who are we schilling...err...advocating for, here???
Boy howdy, those 20% profit margins sure are tough!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=DELL&annual
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
The general public... not the Slashdot/geek crowd... if they think about processors, which isn't likely to begin with, and they hear the names Intel and AMD... probably think of Intel as genuine, and AMD as an imitator/wanna-be. I'm not saying this is the case, this is quite likely how the public, Dell's market, sees these chip manufacturers.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
BTW, does anyone here build their own laptops? Just curious.
From their perspective I can see why Dell does it. Probably the same reason Southwest only flies Boeing 737's: Cost. The fewer variables in your production line, the lower the costs.
If Dell loses market share it will because their gutting the quality service that got them to where they are. It was a service call that got me to start building my own boxes. One of my coworkers just sent back a Dell and bought an Alienware for the same reason. She got tired of dealing with Indian tech support reading from a script and just returned it. And it's funny that Dell doesn't feature their Indian call centers when advertising their "award winning service." If Dell doesn't have anything to hide, then why not be honest in their commercials? Show some guy riding an elephant to work. Dude, you be getting a Dell!
Seems like companies grow to the point they stop earning their living and start thinking they have a right to it.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Oh, wait, now I see it. PS/2, not PS2.
The people that really know the difference build their own systems anyway.
Dell's products are stripped and devoid of the features that are a must for real power users. On top of that, they have a lot of their parts custom made, for instance the SB live 5.1 card that is so common in their systems is not even a true SB Live 5.1 card. Just try using drivers from Creatives web site or using their sound card under Linux. It just won't work.
That is why Dell systems are cheap, they cut every possible corner.
Exactly. Dell makes business decisions, not decisions that necessarily benefit their customers directly. I am sure there were lots of factors that went into it, like the deals (and pressure) they get from Intel, manufacturing and delivery capabilities, etc.
Of course, it reminds me of the Flaming Homer episode, where Moe is making tons of money off of Homer's drink recipe...
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Dell has always been a very conservative company. Their forays into Linux alternatives is very limited. They have been very loyal to Intel and Microsoft. This all works because consumers don't really care and they can make money off of slimmer margins by limiting R&D and support costs in addition to getting better deals with the two. Apple, on the other hand, puts a lot of effort into R&D, keeps multiple chip suppliers, develops their own OS, and usually integrates new technology quicker. However, they have to rely heavily on higher margins which leaves their products more expensive. In the end, Dell has highest marketshare and Apple is technology leader.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Maybe, although I don't know if Dell has that kind of a deal. It likely also makes sense for them to only support one manufacturer from a cost standpoint. The more you streamline things the lower your costs, and for a company that lives on margins around 2%, that's important. No reason to go with AMD just for variety, particularly when few of Dell's customers demand it.
I run AMD in my machine, but then I didn't buy a Dell either.
That goes for all brands. Dells have overheating and crashing problems. HP/compaq with electrical problems. Toshibas with this device will suddenly not work problems. In general assume any laptop is a piece of crap. Yes, that goes for you too mac fans: I have seen many powerbooks and ibooks with screens practically falling off, and keys that damaged the screen by pressing into them, causing "bright spots" which most people just tried to prevent by using a cloth placed on the keyboard.
My advice is ignore advice, and research the specific model that you are planning to get.
And can someone tell me why IBM is still selling laptops if they sold off their laptop business to Lenovo. I am confused on who will handle warranty, etc.
badness 10000
The Saturn Vue Redline has a 250 hp V6 from Honda.
GM and Ford have teamed up to produce a high gear (6 or 7 gears) automatic. They have also worked together in the past on CVT transmissions.
The hybrid system in the Ford Escape hybrid has been outsourced from Toyota.
Just because companies are fighting for market share doesn't mean that they can't strike a few deals on the side.
you mean to tell me, they didn't drop Intel for AMD FairlyGood technology?
THE HORROR!
...the fact that Slashdot has run about 30 "Dell might maybe possibly be thinking about considering using AMD processors" only to run a "Never mind Dell denies it" stories. How about holding off on running another pair of these stories until Dell officially confirms they're using AMD processors?
The i386 chip came out, it was faster, but IBM decided not to move right away - after all, who needed all of that extra speed? The i286 was fine!
This is when IBM was saying "Nobody ever got fired for buying an IBM" And then the downfall of IBM
1-2 years ago Dell said "Nobody ever got fired for buying a Dell" Which was strange because it was exactly what IBM was saying 10+ years prior.
Is the writing on the wall for Dell?
IBM is still alive. And kicking nicely.
Absolutely, but in the PC market which is what the parent was talking about, the Pope is more alive than IBM.
The 386 introduced a 32-bit addressing mode and MMU capabilities which are required by modern, preemptively multitasking OSes.
Intel has been very careful to copy all of AMD64's 64-bit extensions into EM64T. There is no benefit, from a processor instruction set perspective, of AMD to Intel (assuming that Intel has MX).
The issue is not as critical as the Deskpro/386 was to the PS2. AFAIK, IBM hesitated on the 386 from fear that it threatened their other lowend/midrange systems (the s36/as400, for example).
Power users don't buy Dells anyway. I am a PowerPC fan but if I ran Windows or Linux I'd be building an Opteron system. Xeons aren't even close.
Powermac users' hopes are the new machines will use the new 970MP multi-core processor. If the new machines use dual chips then it'll be a quad core machine.
JAIL?! For weed? For fuck's sake, haven't the cops over there got anything better to do?
The reason Dell doesn't sell AMD is not because they don't want to! My girl friend works for Dell and I have asked her this before. She says AMD doesn't have the technology to make enough CPUs to supply Dell's demand! Intel might have a worse processor, but they sure have better technology to manufacture them.
If you really want this to change, then why not call Dell (1-800-WWW-DELL) and try to order a computer with an AMD chip in it. If they can see that they are losing business because of their stance they'll reconsider their policy. By taking the "Dell doesn't sell AMD so I won't bother to call" stance when buying a new computer Dell won't realize that they lost a customer due to their Intel only policy.
There's about 100 comments on this page about Dell's amazing manufacturing ability, but it's all ignorant misinformation. Dell relies on Flextronics, Selectron, et al to build practically everything they sell. Dell "integrates" the machine by installing the hard drive and taping up the box. Dell does have a very competent supply chain management operation, but they are mainly managing the supply chain of their subcontractor. Dell has, over the years, turned themselves into a really advanced cross between Gateway and UPS. Don't be fooled into believing they have some huge from-scratch design and manufacturing facility.
Because Dell looked at the numbers and determined that the exclusively-Intel price discount that Dell gets is more valuable than the potential revenue they'd get by offering AMD.
It's more likely because some Dell executives looked at the numbers and determined that the exclusively-Intel price kickbacks that Dell's worth is more valuable to their swiss bank accounts than the potential revenue they'd get by offering AMD. These same Dell execs then proceeded to come up with bullshit excuses of why they couldn't possibly afford to go with AMD. For chrissake, this is slashdot - if Dell was really listening to the marketplace and to customers - it would never have come to this.
I work at Dell, designing servers.
I am surrounded by geeks.
Lots of them.
If you read the article pointed to above, it is reasonably accurate.
What it does not explain is the prime directive.
The prime directive is:
Stay in business.
How do you stay in business?
By being successfull. That translates into staying profitable.
How do you stay profitable?
By not squandering your profits.
How do you do that?
By doing what the markets demands of you.
If you look at Dell sales, they are doing just that.
Growing faster than the market, by taking market share away from its competitors. At a profit.
50 Billion in sales a year is nothing to sneeeze at.
Bill Gates wishes his sales were that high.
So does Intel.
Dell's comeptitors are doing AMD and/or Intel.
And they are loosing market share to Dell.
So what really is the Prime Directive?
To keep us Dell geeks in paychecks so we can afford the latest geek toys.
Lots of geek toys.
Oh, baby, oh baby.
drool, drool.
By the way, thank you all for your contributions.
I personally really appreciate it.
thank you, thank you, thank you.
(he says, laughing all the way to the bank)
Really
wake up and hold your nose
Well, for examples of large scale AMD deployments, look at the top500, those do not have exotic cooling configurations relative to Intel solutions.
Additionally, AMD has been making their own chipsets for a while, the IBM e325/e326 uses AMD's chipset.
Stop spouting out-of-date nonsense and research things before you flame.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Thats funny, I bought 2 systems from Dell with Freedos on them. Dell does support alternatives, but only if it will be profitable.
Intel didn't lose anything.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
When the initial story appeared on ./ , a mighty wizard predicted such news. See this. Now, I don't want to see stories about Dell stupidity anymore.
My two cents.
Its that Intel does all their board development so that Dell doesn't have to.
That way they save on product R&D money so their boxes can get out the door for less.
Dell is primarily a box stuffing and repackaging company. They don't do R&D except on their own supply chain management. They ship more and build boxen cheaper. They don't care about better. Nobody notices except the geeks, who only buy one box at a time. Dell wants to ship thousands.
R&D on the bopx is just expense to Dell and that cuts into their profits (and executive compensation.)
If AMD wants to get into bed with Dell, they'll have to do the same thing as Intel: just about all the product R&D.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Averatec is worse...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Intel dual core systems are shipping. You can buy them at Dell.News Story.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
... That Dell signed a [very] long term contract with Intel not to use AMD parts? Is it possible that in exchange for those contract terms that Dell got very favorable pricing for Intel parts?
In the face of an apparent better mousetrap, Dell adheres to the inferrior supplier.
Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is usually the right answer.
JMHO. YMMV.
Those links are ancient, not the chipset and/or dealing with specific setups.
Intel chipsets have had their share of problems as well. here for example. Hell, early pentium CPUs had a division bug.
The bottom line is no matter your CPU when you spend $2 on your motherboard it will have problems. If you want to compare chipsets then you need to do so in the same price range for both processors.
Headline:
Intel Invest 3.5 billion Dollars into Sales.
Body:
It Seems that Intel is up to their old tricks. Just when we all thought that Intel was beaten by the AMD Operton, they announce that there will be a another 3.5 Billion dollars poured into sales.
Amoungst the top supports we have Dell, Gateway, and IBM headlining the top 3 supporters of Intel Chips. HP and Compaq say "they offer both chip in their line of products to give the user the choice... Read more, Click Here.
-- :)
first thought is that there is cross-ownership or cross-investment between intel and dell. second thought is that somebody (-ies) at dell is getting a little something under the table that hasn't made the old 1040 form. us tired old ex-newsmen never stop thinking "look for the money."
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I just bet they don't make as much off the whole deal as if they had simply sold some popular player. Remember they had to do some R&D to develop it and also manufacture it.
It's an attempt at positioning themselves to be like Apple, but I think a weak one and not as good for Dell in the long-term as they dilute the Dell brand with mediocre products.
I've seen one in a store and to me it smacks of genericness.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The math is pretty simple. Intel does separate pricing discussions with all of their OEMs. Dell's business model is based on being efficent. The CPU/Chipset is over 33% the cost of a motherboard (CPU/Mem/Everything else). A change in Dell's purchasing contracts by 3% can take 1% of margin out of Dell's business. Intel has Dell by the short hairs and they know it. The day Dell ships an AMD product and Intel "updates" their pricing, is the same day HP can think about being competitive. People who care are installing Opteron servers over Intel servers 2:1. Go look at Racksavers or any of the other "second tier" rack server suppliers.
HP, Sun, and whomever else should exploit the heck out of this opportunity to compete with Dell.
My 0.02
> Why not offer customers an alternative that has better performance instead of risking the lose of those customers to another vendor that does?
lock-in,texas,backroom deals,monopoly,arrogance,playing God,evil,strongarm tactics,stupid customers,brand loyalty
I can't believe how many "network/system administrators" these days buy Dell "servers" and manage to keep a straight face.. I guess they're better than what you can get at Walmart. You must like having some cocky bastard's name in your face all day!
Intel is still considered more stable in the minds of end users.
Maybe I should turn to computer journalism for my trade?. Might certainly get rid of these 'newshounds' that jump at the tiniest tidbits, forgetting the past, and forever turning mere morsels into a feasts.
"Joy is not in things; it is in us." Richard Wagner
It seems to me that much of what you are saying with regard to Dell being primarily a manufacturing company, thus basing their decision on total cost (as opposed to market perceptions) is largely true. Assuming that it is, this seems to lead to the interesting question of what is the most efficient manufacturing company building AMD systems? What other "AMD inside" firms are most likely to use the "Dell strategy" to improve their productivity and eventually put pressure on their nearest competitors in terms of cost? It would seem that until such a firm emerges, Dell will face no serious pressure to sell AMD processors.
It is not personally important to me one way or the other now. I use two Dell machines but will most likely buy a new Opteron for my next desktop purchase). However, as a consumer I generally tend to benefit when competition is alive and well in the market place, so although I am typically looking for the best product at the best price, I don't like to always buy from the same company, even if they have a good product because in the long run I benefit more by spreading my purchases among a variety of vendors. As consumers we must be wary when we conclude that the lower prices from near monopolistic (very large) vendors will always be the best. Although it may be true now, it may be that in the future they will never be as low as what they might have been had competition remained in the market place.
Usually the only thing preventing a server class cpu from being used on the desktop is price.
Alternatively, it is shown that fast desktop chips don't automatically make good server chips due to the different type of workload involved. If desktop chips made equally good server chips, then server chips wouldn't exist at all.
Conclusion: you'll see AMD dual-processor cpus on the desktop before you see Intel dual-processor cpus in servers.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Or better yet, be discovered shipping AMD white-boxes out the back loading dock to customers they'd lose otherwise for backing the wrong horse in the 64-bit derby.
There was a rumor that Dell would first try everything possible (including "corked" benchmarks) to try to get you to choose Intel. And only if that failed, offer an AMD solution. I'd love to hear more facts on that.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Dell has become successful by ENTERING a market where it has been shown they can turn a good profit. Dell does NOT create markets- they let other, less intelligent companies do the hard (and expensive) work of creating new markets.
If AMD is able to finally capture a significant share of the server market (which I honestly would like to see), then Dell will enter the market to meet customer demand. But given that they will then need to have two server lines with completely different architechtures and hardware requirements, there will need to be some rather heavy demand.
one of the most insightful posts I've read on this site in a long time.
Increasing the number of options does not mean you increase the number of consumers or profit.
or at least a clever title should be used if the Dell articles see-saw between the possibility that AMD may get a new distributor or not.
And can someone tell me why IBM is still selling laptops if they sold off their laptop business to Lenovo. I am confused on who will handle warranty, etc.
For now, the service is good despite getting the feeling the CSR you have is next to the Dell one. The only difference is that IBM doesnt mind calling you at odd hours for warranty calls - request electronically at 12am, get call at 1am, get laptop box around 8-10am, laptop's fixed and in your hands 1-3 days later.
IBM sends their laptops in to Selectron in most if not all cases for the service. If Lenovo still does that, it's going still be the same people making repairs, just that Selectron might be seeing metric tons more black/red/gold "Thinkpad" marked boxes that are only so in name but not in quality.
After IBM exits completely in 5-10 years, then there's going to be quite a stir as there will be tons of knockoffs, but no high quality standard - even if you were willing to pay $3500 for it, and definitely, I'm not going to put $3500 for an upmodded Sager or equivalent- I'd rather build my own laptop from chassis+board+cardbus+minipci/PCI-E video expansion board+matching 1600x1200 or better display+battery+dual media bays on up first (This is more or less designing it from the ground up, not off a design already in service, even though smart readers would think of an IBM A31p updated to features that'd make it something worth the A40p/A50p badge). Perhaps one might have to muscle some of the current producers (directly) into some custom orders with strict quality requirments since they're(IBM) the last to drop out of making quality equipment, even the Thinkpad.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
It's also possible to make many of the desktop models smoke, just by replacing the power supply with a standard ATX supply.
I had one Dell desktop where the power supply failed. The connector looked like a standard ATX connector; there were no markings to indicate otherwise, and the manual didn't have any warnings. So I installed a new ATX supply, turned it on - got a cloud of smoke. It turns out the connector has 3 rows of pins removed from one side and shifted to the other side - so it still fits on the motherboard, but is now miswired. Dell support was less than helpful ("not our fault our computers catch fire"). I'd believe they don't have any in-house engineering...at least not any engineers with more than half a brain. (Why would you deliberately reassign wires on the power connector, then not change the connector design or mark it in any way?)
Someone with some time on his hands should bring a class action lawsuit against Dell. They certainly deserve it.
If you scan through the postgresql-performance mailing list, you will see, time and again, that the AMD based machines routinely stomp the intel offerings into the ground. And not by 5 or 10%. By 50 to 200%.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
Along the same lines, how come all these vendors don't offer alternative operating systems preinstalled? I wouldn't be surprised if a company like SuSE would sell them copies at cost or less just to get the stuff out there. It would be cheaper than Windows at any price.
So why don't they do it? Why not offer better hardware? Why not offer better software? Because companies like Dell are still doing business in a retarded fashion where they don't consider what's actually good for their customers. They just want you to think that what they gave you is the best for you, but it's actually what's best for them, at your loss. Dell sucks. I wouldn't even bother to think about them.
Now, if your market share is rising, do you sign up with the company that's snubbed you in the past and will do their best to wring everything out of you in the future, or do you leave their competitors who have long had a better attitude to you swallow Dell's market share? It only makes sense for AMD to do that if Dell can sell its available chips in significantly higher volumes than other vendors (not just take the AMD sales from them), and AMD is willing to swallow its corporate pride, and AMD wants to say it doesn't mind being mistreated by OEMs
I think the example you gave contradicts your point. IBM is alive and profitable. Compaq no longer exists and the company that bought them is struggling.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
In more news, Bill Gates still has too much money, George W. Bush is still president and Bill Clinton was not seen in a gay bar.
-- www.WhereHaveIBeen.com
Dell doesn't make the worst laptops. That honor has to go to Crappaq.
I think Dell just likes to rattle the sabre once in a while to scare a discount out of Intel, since they're probably Intel's biggest customer. Like how company managers, back in the day, would leave out coffee cups with the logo's of IBM's compeditors when the IBM rep would swing by.
I thought it was Nintendo that had the PS2.
Oh, wait, now I see it. PS/2, not PS2.
Nintendo? I think you are still very confused.
So, that just means that I won't buy or even consider DELL for my company!
Their loss! Some one else's gain!
I agree with whoever modded this funny. We've got three Dell laptops that have had between them one problem, total, in more than a year and a half. For unknown reasons, the battery in my 600m stopped working. Called tech support. Next day, a courier takes the battery. Day after, I get the battery back. This is pretty much as good as it gets.
The indiscriminate use of vulgar language is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker