Slashdot Mirror


Tech Companies That Won't Survive 2009

buzzardsbay writes "Fresh off their annual market survey, eWEEK channel folks have compiled the list of tech vendors their readers think will fail, falter, or be sold off in 2009. It's important to note that these aren't the opinions of the magazine or its editors. The list comes from folks who work in IT, mostly technology resellers, who are out in the field selling, installing and maintaining this stuff. If there were ever canaries in the tech coal mine, they'd be these service and solution providers who live and die by the slightest shift in the markets. Some of the companies on this list, like Sun and AMD, are shocking because of their size. Others, like CA and Symantec, not so surprising." What other companies are headed for implosion, or should be if all were right with the universe?

60 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. The list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the list for those who are too lazy to read TFA or allow Flash:

    1) Novell
    2) NetApp
    3) Checkpoint
    4) McAfee (let's hope so!)
    5) Salesforce.com
    6) Juniper, CA, and AMD are tied for sixth place.
    7) Sun, no surprise there
    8) Citrix
    9) Symantec (again, let's hope so!)
    10) VMware

    1. Re:The list by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you believe the "Channel Insider" predictions, this is more a list of the companies that are highly unlikely to go out of business in 2009.

      Summary of article:
      "Our readers predicted these companies will fail. Our readers are idiots, all of these companies will be fine."

    2. Re:The list by Telvin_3d · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The list is obviously bull. Most of the companies on there could survive in some form for years just on legacy support contracts. Sure, some of them might shrink, have some layoffs or toss out a department or two, but go under? Not on your life.

    3. Re:The list by lekker+biltong · · Score: 5, Funny

      0. SCO

    4. Re:The list by edsousa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not funny your comment.. More like insightful and tells the story on one line.
      My first impression reading that article (can I say it is an article? I think that flash slideshows are not articles) was that my Engrish tricked me, but no...

    5. Re:The list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Sun sets; it doesn't sink. You insensitive clod!

    6. Re:The list by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know... I guess it's somewhat interesting that lots of people believe these companies will fail. If nothing else, it says something about their PR challenges. People aren't as likely to purchase products from companies they feel have an uncertain future.

    7. Re:The list by icebraining · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't agree: it found stuff that Norton and Panda couldn't. On the other hand, it lacks online cheking, so it's great to use as a backup AV only, for full system scans.

    8. Re:The list by fermion · · Score: 3, Interesting
      What is interesting is the numbers, which indicate most people can't decide on who is actually in trouble. About 1 out of 4 respondents think Novell is in trouble, which they have been since MS Windows 3.11 for networks made their extremely convoluted product a absolute non player in the SOHO market. How many years ago was that? Almost before we SOHO became everyday market speak. Somehow they survive. Maybe in SCOX is allowed to spend all of Novells money on litigation, they may not be able to recover from that. In other words, 75% of the people thing they will be ok.

      The we get to AMD, Sun, Citrix, Symantec, where about 1 out of every 6 people think these companies will fail. Certainly these companies have problems, but each has products that could keep or gain marketshare. Some mght be in trouble, again, those that align themselves with MS, such as AMD and Symantec, are at the whim of MS, which can be dangerous, but, OTOH, about 85% of the respondents believe that these companies will be ok.

      Then there is VMWare, in which a whopping 89% predict stability. They might be in trouble if a traditional OS continues to be utilized as a base OS, rather than relegated to guest status. On wonder why one would want MS Windows eating up resources with IE and Media Player and all the other stuff that gets loaded in, when one could run a custom version of *nix and VMWare, and then run MS Windows as a guest OS only when needed. I am sure for many with enterprise licenses to MS Windows, running it might virtual windows might make sense, but 90% of the respondants indicate that VMware has the better idea.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    9. Re:The list by duguk · · Score: 3, Informative

      ClamAV, but no live scanning. AVG is what I recommend for most customers; it's pretty decent but not amazing.

      For testing individual files; I highly recommend trying Virus Total. Upload a single file and they'll test it with a LOAD of different antivirus programs. Worth it for those small files you don't trust.

    10. Re:The list by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Funny

      From personal experience, Avast! is rubbish. It failed to find 8 viruses on my system.

      If you have that many viruses on your system, I think that scrapping the whole thing and buying a new hard drive is the only solution for you. ...it's the only way to be sure.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    11. Re:The list by Ngarrang · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's the list for those who are too lazy to read TFA or allow Flash:

      Cool. Thank for saving the click.

      1) Novell

      Odd. SUSE Linux is a popular product with many tie-in deals. They will be fine.

      2) NetApp

      Overpriced products easily duplicated with FreeNAS or any number of products at a fraction of the cost.

      3) Checkpoint

      Too many corporate support deals to go away quickly.

      4) McAfee (let's hope so!)

      Horrible products for years. Illicit money has been propping this company up for years.

      5) Salesforce.com

      Won't go away, but may have to scale back the development staff. Their product is too close to helping SaaS succeed.

      6) Juniper, CA, and AMD are tied for sixth place.

      AMD is stable. Juniper I could see going away.

      7) Sun, no surprise there

      Sun is a good company. Why do people harp on them?

      8) Citrix

      Their product is licenses by MS and integrated into Windows Server. I just don't see them going away.

      9) Symantec (again, let's hope so!)

      This is wishful thinking. Despite many years of bad product, their tie-ins with OEMs keep them afloat.

      10) VMware

      Now this is just crazy talk. VMware is a good product with a strong user base and good support. The free solutions simply don't compare in scope and flexibility.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    12. Re:The list by debrain · · Score: 3, Funny

      I note that SCO is not on that list ... it's like a cockroach, it'll survive nuclear holocaust.

    13. Re:The list by ShadowBlasko · · Score: 4, Informative

      How quickly people forget that AVG was the same company that spammed the internet for 2 weeks pretending to be IE, and then deleted user32.dll thinking it was a virus after a bad update from their servers.

      Nod32 for the win. now.

      (And I still have 5 valid licenses for AVG that I PAID for and will not use)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
    14. Re:The list by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm beginning to believe there's no such thing as a good antivirus...

      The reasons Norton and McAffee don't qualify should be obvious...

      AVG was nice until version 8. Then it decided it wanted to start acting like Norton (Slows system, misses a lot)

      Antivir might be tolerable (still misses some, but that nag screen is a dealbreaker)

      Clamav is close, but others already mentioned the lack of on-access (I'd be prefer on-write) scanning.

      How depressing.

    15. Re:The list by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Funny

          Don't blame an innocent computer for the failure of it's operator.

          Scrap the operator, and give the computer to someone who can properly care for it.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    16. Re:The list by Ngarrang · · Score: 3, Funny

      4) McAfee (let's hope so!)

      Horrible products for years. Illicit money has been propping this company up for years.

      This one is highly unlikely. The federal government recently spent a ton of money on McAfee's host-based security solutions. If they were smart, however, they might consider ditching their consumer-level stuff (it's crap...not saying the enterprise stuff is a lot better, but well....)

      Like I said...illicit money. ;)

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    17. Re:The list by 16384 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm currently using Avast! exactly because of the problems you mention. I can't stand Antivir due to all the nagging, was using AVG before, but not anymore. Avast! has some annoyances (spinning icon, some nagging notifications) but they can be disabled by editing a configuration file.

    18. Re:The list by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For instance, who gets elected president isn't up to popular opinion, but the mass media.

      Talk about false dichotomies-- who gets elected is a result of popular opinion, even if popular opinion is caused by the media's coverage.

      Anyway, that was just supposed to be an example of something: when someone answers a question, their answer may be wrong, but it might still have some meaning. It just might not have the meaning that the answerer intended it to have.

      Now clearly the people answering these questions aren't giving correct answers, and obviously their opinions don't have a direct causal relationship with the failure of those companies. On the other hand, their answers still might have meaning. For example, you could just treat it as a measurement of public opinion of these companies. If lots of people think you're going to fail, it could perhaps be a sign that people aren't happy with your products, or else maybe that people just haven't heard your name lately. The companies' marketing departments might care about that sort of thing. A bystander might find that interesting.

      Beyond that, general opinion of these companies can have an effect on these companies' future success. People are less likely to buy enterprise products of a company when that company's future is in doubt, since people generally want long-term support. Bad perception can cause funding to dry up, stock prices to drop, and business deals to fall through.

      Now I wouldn't come close to claiming that being on this list will cause a company to fail. But just because the list doesn't have that particular meaning doesn't mean that it's meaningless.

  2. An Exemplary Article for Making Stock Picks! by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fresh off their annual market survey, eWEEK channel folks have compiled the list of tech vendors their readers think will fail, falter, or be sold off in 2009.

    Wrong. Everyone falters at some point. You could probably make a claim that 60% of companies will "falter" this year and be able to point to some debacle, low quarter or misstep to claim you were accurate. Hell, in one of the many fields it's in, Microsoft will falter in 2009--I guarantee it. From the actual article:

    In the Channel Insider 2009 Market Pulse Survey, we asked solution providers which vendors they thought would go out of business or be acquired in 2009.

    So you're underscoring just how stupid the people that filled out this survey are. Because to say that Sun, AMD or even Novell will be acquired or out of business by December 31st, 2009 is like betting on your favorite American Football team to win the Super Bowl in 2025.

    The Channel Insider Prediction at the bottom of these reveals just how unlikely every single one of these predictions comes across as. They predominately disagree with every single reader prediction.

    It means that not only are we, the readers, being presented with completely contradictory statements on every page but every single statement is unfounded and backed up by nothing. No market saturation analysis or even talk of operations and profits. Market cap and revenue are good indicators but they don't mean everything.

    Others, like CA and Symantec, not so surprising.

    "Not so surprising?" Tell me, what has changed so dramatically for 2009 that makes you say that these companies will be acquired or go under?

    So tell me, what is a list of reader predictions dealing with the finances and markets of tech companies doing on a 'news for nerds' site?

    What other companies are headed for implosion, or should be if all were right with the universe?

    Ah, the coup de grÃce for this article ... I'm certain that the Slashdot community will proffer only on the most unbiased and strongly founded suggestions for this objective question.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Not Very Interesting by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the same sort of stuff we hear on Slashdot every day. The actual evaluation at the end of nearly every entry says, "Not very likely".

    Though I do think that Sun needs to expand their product strategy or face extinction. Their current high-end market may be lucrative, but it's continually being eaten away at by cheaper and cheaper equipment.

    Personally, I think Sun would do well to enter the desktop market. Their Mad Hatter system was a good first try, but they abandoned it before it had a chance to mature! (Speaking as one of Sun's customers who paid money for the software just to be left out in the cold.)

    1. Re:Not Very Interesting by javacowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Desktop market? You must be joking.

      Hey, I'm as much of a Sun fan as they come, but Sun doesn't have any expertise in writing user-friendly GUIs. There's no way they could compete with companies like Microsoft and Apple that have been doing this for decades.

      The best that Sun could do is make OpenSolaris as much of a developer workstation OS as they can, in competition with Linux. Still, as much as OpenSolaris has improved, they still have a long way to go to catch up to Linux distros like Ubuntu. Perhaps they could make is a Java developer OS, with a wide array of Java packages in their IPS packaging system.

      --
      This space left intentionally blank.
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Well now they're doomed! by ivoras · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How would you feel if you were the owner or a shareholder of one of companies so prominently set to fail? Self-fulfilling prophecies all around. Given how sensitive to subjective perception these things are, it's by now probably enough for a company's name to be mentioned in the same sentence as the word "bankrupt" for it to really do so.

    --
    -- Sig down
    1. Re:Well now they're doomed! by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely - we should stop giving articles like this publicity. ~ This is what's been happening in the UK over the last few months:

      1. Some hack writes that company X looks like it might be in trouble
      2. All the lenders think company X is now a very bad risk
      3. Company X suddenly finds that all their credit has dried up
      4. Company X collapses
      5. Hack says 'I told you so'

      STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! you're killing perfectly viable companies!

      --
      FGD 135
    2. Re:Well now they're doomed! by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If companies are losing credit due to newspaper articles instead of semi-reliable sources such as credit history or earnings reports (for public companies) then there is a bigger problem than telling writers to "Shoosh." If the company is profitable and current on its debts, only a foolish lender would turn down their business. Now, if a company is already millions in the hole, and SHOULDN'T be credit worthy, if a newspaper expose about their board of directors droping millions on yachts, hookers and blow; I'd say the media is doing what it is really "supposed" to do... that is give the public truthful information to make us all make better decisions. In either case, the fault lies on the part of the lenders for having previously extending credit to the unworthy, or for being foolish lenders in trusting an Op-Ed piece over emperical data.

      However, I could see PHBs reluctant to purchase their products if they believe they will be sold out and potentially have a sharp decrease in product lines, quality or most-importantly, support quality on their existing purchases. However, there is nothing to say that any company at the drop of the hat won't see off a division or exit a market, and I'd do a little more research before changing a vendor... particularly a one we've had good experience.

      --
      Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
    3. Re:Well now they're doomed! by rthille · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AMD not of value? Are you insane? Why do you think Intel invests so much in making their chips better/faster? Hint, it's because they have competition...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  6. No problem by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    We'll just release 2010 ahead of schedule.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Thanks Slashdot! by OglinTatas · · Score: 4, Funny

    So THIS is where I find out I'm being downsized?

  8. Virtualization by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Informative

    Both EMC/VMWare and Sun Microsystems (VirtualBox) are on the list. Does anybody honestly think that Microsoft will rule the virtual machine market? I think it's one or the other.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Virtualization by anomalous+cohort · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd like to see /.'s predictions on that, especially with regards to VMWare. In my own ad hoc findings, it is true that Microsoft shops are leaning towards HyperV but isn't that to be expected? I find non Microsoft shops to be leaning towards VMWare. What are you finding?

    2. Re:Virtualization by Amouth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Vmware isn't going any place.. to have them on the list just shows how much of a joke this is

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:Virtualization by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're mixed. All the desktops are on Microsoft. The servers are on a mix of Linux, BSD, and Microsoft. However, one of the admins has decided that Unix "isn't worth the hassle" (read: it doesn't work with all the proprietary junk he wants to throw into the system) so our installed base of Unix servers has been slowly dwindling.

      Anyways, we're on VMWare virtualization products exclusively. Hopefully we can keep it that way. That same admin has been trying to talk up "How much better the Microsoft virtualization products have gotten" lately.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  9. Can I be the first to ask by ericrost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the fuck is this presented in Flash? It has NO added value and makes the material harder to digest.

    1. Re:Can I be the first to ask by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why the fuck is this presented in Flash? It has NO added value and makes the material harder to digest.

      Now there is a company I would like to see go out of business. Unfortunately, Adobe appears to be doing just fine.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:Can I be the first to ask by i_ate_god · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is nothing wrong with Flash. There is everything wrong with using Flash in stupid ways. Youtube is not a stupid way to use Flash, this slideshow is.

      Instead of blaming the gun, blame the person who used it. It's better that way.

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    3. Re:Can I be the first to ask by ardle · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Correction:

      flash make things pretty and managers don't want just information, they want it conveyed in the nicest way possible.

      ;-)

    4. Re:Can I be the first to ask by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Youtube's sucess speaks otherwise. The simple fact is that the vast majority of systems have some working version of Flash on them. Youtube leverages this fact to the extent that rather than worrying about system architecture, browser, installed codecs, etc, it simply plays a video in flash. It doesn't look great, but it works almost everywhere and for the quick/stupid content present on Youtube the quality is mostly sufficient.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  10. So much for RTFA by Paul+Carver · · Score: 5, Informative

    I usually RTFA but in this case there doesn't appear to be an article. There's a bit of an intro but no list of companies that I can see.

  11. "Anti" Virus by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The scumbags who make the popups that tell you that your computer's been infected and needs to buy their product or OMG you'll lose all your family photos and pr0n! Such low-life tactics should be amptly rewarded with a swift chapter eleven - or should be, at least in my opinion.

  12. Sites that are going to die in 2009 by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sites that code cluelessly and need javascript and flash to display a simple list will die first (hopefully, I am not so sure). Topping the list is http://www.channelinsider.com/

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Sites that are going to die in 2009 by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I predict a growth in marketshare for this site.... They're starting to master the "sensationalistic troll" article, so they should be gaining impressions despite the poor layout and navigation.

      I bet you hadn't even heard of them until now.

  13. Not Very Accurate by zwekiel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How can you expect a list based on reader predictions to be accurate? Moreover, how can you expect the list to be taken seriously when the "Insiders" contradict the majority of the reader predictions?

    While people can be quite intelligent, allowing the mob to make investment picks based on rumours they read on Blogspot is simply ridiculous. If many analysts couldn't see the collapse of Bear Sterns coming before the last week, I doubt that these readers have the technical skills to predict the collapse of these companies a year in advance.

  14. And if we're really lucky.... by david_thornley · · Score: 5, Funny

    SCO!

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. if AMD went under by wjh31 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    would they take ati with them, or would ati be sold off. And if AMD went under what would that mean for intel in terms of monopoly rules, and to nvidia if ati went with them

    1. Re:if AMD went under by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the early 90's it was Apple. Sun is a perennial favorite now. I never read one of these things saying Hayes or Zeos would get bought or go under. Where's my Hayes DSL adapter?

      Zeos merged with Micron and now they are Crucial and MPC. Now guess who's in chapter 11? MPC/Micron is.

      What poll foresaw Digital going to Compaq or Compaq going to HP? Magitronic sure seems to have failed. eMachines was bought. Alienware is owned by Dell.

      These polls are silly. Some of these companies have more cash reserves than small countries have budgets. There's always a risk of a company large or small failing, but this poll means nothing.

  16. I wish by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Watching CA and Symantec die would be kind of satisfying, if only from a "revenge for all the problems your shitty fucking products have given me over the years" perspective.

    Doubt it, though.

  17. Only one choice by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Creative Labs.

    Have they released a good product in this millenium?

    --
    Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
  18. *My* Predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    OK, here goes:

    10)HP
    9)eBay
    8)Nintendo
    7)Adobe
    6)Red Hat
    5)Amazom.com
    4)IBM
    3)Microsoft
    2)Apple
    1)Google :D

  19. Demise *not* predicted ... by golodh · · Score: 4, Informative
    Nonsense.

    Those who read the article will see that the survey hedges in every way possible and that the above list is _not_ a list of companies that people expect to see disappear. It's a list of companies that people discussed, looked up the turnover of and then wrote noncommittal "analysis" next to.

    Please Anonymous, if you're going to try and summarize the article for those too lazy to click on a link, at least make sure you get it right. This is rubbish.

  20. Except for NetApp by trolltalk.com · · Score: 3, Informative

    The NetApp vs Sun lawsuit over ZFS isn't going the way NetApp would like it to ...

    http://www.sun.com/lawsuit/zfs/index.jsp

    To the contrary, NetApp may end up like SCO vs Novell, where the initial complainant ends up owing the respondent. Sun could very well end up both pwning AND owning NetApp.

    As for the antivirus companies - I wish, but there will always be *some* "useful fools" around, and people whose financial self-interest aligns with enabling them to stay dumb and foolish.

  21. Why flash? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    C'mon, folks. You've been watching the news in the last, say, two decades and you're asking "why flash"?

    Didn't you notice, the less content one has to present, the more you have to put into the presentation to cover it up.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Most of those companies aren't in big trouble by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Big companies with real products and a user base can hang on for a long time. Unisys is still around. NCR (National Cash Register), amazingly, is still around, and still selling cash registers (now "Point of Sale Workstations"). Most of the names on the list, like CA, Sun, VMware, and Novell, still have an installed base to service. They can shrink and remain profitable.

    I'd look for collapses in advertising-funded companies. We'll probably see some of the social networks go bust. Companies that get most of their revenue from Google ads are at risk. Marchex (the people with "www.90210.com" and hundreds of thousands of similar junk domains) have had their stock drop from 25 to 5. Expect to see free hosting sites, free mail services, and free blog services shut down.

    I did a list like this back in the dot-com area, based strictly on cash-flow analysis. That was quite accurate. It's easy to do this analysis for money-losing startups. The definition of "dead" used was "stock dropped 90%". From a stockholder perspective, that's "dead", even if some vestige of the company hangs on. That's was quite common with overfunded startups, by the way. Some of them succeeded, some of them went bust, but many of them become what VCs call "zombies"; they could generate enough revenue to cover their costs, but they couldn't pay back the money invested in them.

  23. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by jargoone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bad day or not, what's the real benefit of running OS X as a guest? Sure, it's good for some people on the desktop, and if that's your use, you probably have a Mac already.

    Virtualization is mostly used for servers. What "server" tasks can OS X do that Linux/Solaris/Windows can't do better?

  24. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by VoidEngineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not to nitpick, but VMWare Fusion runs on the Mac OS host, and as of version 2.0, Fusion now supports Mac OS X Server as a guest operating system. Your VMWare knowledge is about 6 months stale.

  25. Infinite refresh? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, Funny

    What
    What is
    What is with
    What is with the
    What is with the infinite
    What is with the infinite refresh?
    ???

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  26. If AMD goes Intel will have a problem by Gerzel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe not today, maybe not tommorow, but some times and soon...

    Someone will notice that Intel has beccome a full-scale monopoly that does indeed prevent other competitors from entering the market and competing.

    With AMD, Intel has a nice biopoly which it can easily and truthfully claim competition(not fair market competition mind you). AMD is all too happy to allow this and even lend a helping hand sometimes.

    If AMD goes then someone will pick up the pieces, and if they don't eventually you'll get back to monopoly litigation. Might not happen within the year, but it will eventually happen. That sort of litigation can force Intel to split and worse.

  27. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by SausageOfDoom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Running OS X as a guest would be perfect for a linux- or windows-based web developer who wants to test out how their client-side code runs on a mac.

    Or for a mac software developer who wants to maintain multiple versions and configurations of OS X to test their software against.

    Or for windows users who want to try out OS X on their existing expensive hardware, without having to lay waste to their existing installation, or fork out a sizeable chunk of money for more hardware.

  28. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    No it can't.

  29. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by bcat24 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes it can!