His point... seems to be that
all these choices are bad for us.
I'm a web junkie, and I've given the matter some thought.
My primary sources of information are USENET and the web.
Of course, I only keep up with a few out of the thousands of newsgroups.
Likewise, I follow a few quite specialized web sites, like Slashdot.
When the focus is so narrow, it's easy to lose perspective, especially when egoboo like Slashdot kharma is involved.
Have you ever gotten hot under the collar after an anonymous coward's flame?
Why?
If "All you hot Natalie Portman grits are belong to us!" makes any sense to you, you probably don't get out enough.
I'm convinced that there's a danger in always agreeing with what you read.
I read a Mother Hubbard at the gym the other night.
It had an article pointing out the irony of a Republican senator (I forget his name) who helped pass mandatory minimum sentences for drug convictions, then helped his son avoid such a sentence.
Right on, stick it to the hypocrite!
Then again, I feel a little insulted by Mother Hubbard's obvious agenda.
The world would be a better place if conservatives read Mother Hubbard and liberals read the Wall Street Journal, or something like that.
Increasing fillrate is pointless, when things are already so memory-bound.
Exactly. Anand's GeForce3 preview puts it this way: "even the GeForce2 GTS with its 800 Mpixels/s fill rate was only capable of a 300 Mpixels/s fill rate in a real world situation."
If you look at the GeForce2 MX reviews, you'll see that it barely edges ahead of the SDR GeForce at higher resolutions, and falls well behind the DDR GeForce. Forget about doing old-fashioned FSAA on an MX.
Don't blame him, he has no real choice in this matter.
He chose to monopolize a number (a small number, in fact: 0x535348).
He chose to use that against the OpenSSH project.
Don't tell me has no choice.
The trademark system is designed to protect the consumer, not the trademark owner. OpenSSH is not defrauding anyone. It may be costing Tatu business, but that's tough on him.
Furthermore, it's not clear to me what he has actually trademarked.
If you look at ssh.com, you'll see "SSH (R) Secure Shell tm."
"(R)" means, I wish I had any rights to reserve.
"Secure shell" is descriptive, and therefore not subject to trademark.
surely the license at fault... is the GPL... which places the onerous requirements... which infects everything it touches
The GNU GPL implements copyleft, an attempt to keep the software in the free software community so as to maximize its utility.
The GPL doesn't infect anything.
RMS may give you that impression, when he brags that "At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline."
Maybe that developer "saw the light," or maybe he was just lazy, but he made a choice: release under GPL or rewrite Readline.
That's a much better deal than you'll get if you pilfer code from a proprietary program.
Public domain (or BSD-licensed) software may be incorporated into a proprietary program.
If your goal is more users, then that may be acceptable.
An API or reference implementation of an open standard should probably be public domain (see, e.g., SAX).
Fundamentally, it comes down to the freedoms you want to give your users.
If you buy into copyleft, use a GPL-compatible license.
Liebowitz and Margolis is a straw-man-beating meta article.
It's an overreaction to off-the-cuff remarks that mention Sholes v. Dvorak in the same breath as Beta v. VHS.
Salon has a more balanced article, based on real life experience.
The author's experience echoes my own:
curiosity in a novel, intuitively appealing layout
experimentation, which gets nowhere until I start using it on the job
confusion, during which time I can type neither Sholes nor Dvorak
breakthrough after about a month
I find it comfortable and intuitive.
Despite years of practice with Sholes, I am slightly faster and more accurate with Dvorak.
It is superior.
However, if you're not committed to give it an honest effort for a month or so, you will be disappointed.
I'm not a Dvorak evangelist, just a satisfied convert.
I want to release my library fltk under the LGPL...
the LGPL seem to require dynamic linking of
my library, so that it can be "replaced by the user".
As others have noted, section 6a of the LGPL says that distributing header files and object files is sufficient.
I just wanted to thank you for your work on fltk.
I'm working on a GLUT binding library for Inventor.
If it goes well, I may look at writing a fltk binding library.
You've got it the other way around -- CL sued Aureal for patent infringement....
Aureal did turn around and sue CL on the basis of their supposedly frivolous lawsuit
It's clear from its press release that Creative Labs is a patent aggressor.
CREAF boasts that "EMU's... patent was upheld and
found to be valid and enforceable," and pledges to appeal (or buy Aureal, whichever comes first).
it's quite possible that [NVIDIA] will continue to support the open effort of current 3dfx cards
I doubt it.
NVIDIA's Q&A says, "The structure of this deal allows NVIDIA to purchase certain assets that are consistent with our business model without acquiring 3dfx liabilities."
One of these liabilities, apparently, is the current Voodoo line:
"The remaining 3dfx entity is responsible for their current product lines and retail channel....
The 3dfx product in the channel and installed base and customer support remain the responsibility of 3dfx.
It is best to check those details with 3dfx management."
After this deal, there isn't going to be a "remaining 3dfx entity."
According to the 3dfx press release, the "board of directors will recommend to its shareholders that they... approve a plan to dissolve the company following completion of the asset sale."
The creditors will lick the plate clean, any remaining employees will be fired, and Nasdaq will remove TDFX from the ticker.
Once there was 3dfx and NVidia, but the latter swallowed the former
Once there was Creative Labs and Aureal, but the former swallowed the latter
I own a Voodoo 2 (Guillemot), Voodoo 3, and Vortex 2 (Diamond).
I find it quite amusing:
Aureal marketed A3D, an essentially proprietary API.
It sued Creative Labs for patent infringement, with mixed results.
Creative Labs bought Aureal, including all the patents it allegedly infringed.
3dfx marketed Glide, a proprietary API (going so far as to sue Glide wrapper developers, including Creative Labs).
It sued NVIDIA for patent infringement, with mixed results.
NVIDIA is buying 3dfx, including all of its patents.
Some New Year's resolutions:
Micron: buy Rambus
Barnes & Noble: buy Amazon
AMD or VIA: buy Intel
Prodigy: buy BT and/or Unisys
Moral: developers are cheaper and more effective than lawyers.
I expect that it'll be an easy case for Prodigy.
And once Prodigy wins, the patent will be null and void.
Don't count on Prodigy doing the Right Thing.
All BT has to do is convince Prodigy that licensing the patent is cheaper than taking the case to court, even if it is guaranteed to win.
Look at all the companies that rolled over for Rambus.
Prodigy doesn't have morals.
It's a publicly traded company.
The Open Source Definition disallows this sort of license clause. Look at the part concerning "fields of endeavor".
This is one of the clauses I really like about the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
(I prefer to refer to the DFSG, as the Open-Patch^H^H^H^H^HSource Definition is weakened by the OSI's role in interpreting it.
Yes, I know you wrote them both.)
A good free software license should restrict its domain to the software.
I hate that university research continues to produce software for "non-commercial" use.
The GNU GPL has nothing to say about using software, although the waters have been muddied by recent discussions about dynamic linking, plugins, and CORBA-like components.
(What, after all, is the difference between dlopen() and system()?)
The GNU GPL should stay that way.
I'd rather leave the "ASP loophole" in place than muddy the waters even further.
Likewise, free software licenses should say as little as possible about patents.
Every once in a while, Slashdot posts an outrageous patent story and someone says, "Hey, let's amend the GPL to punish patent aggressors."
Bad idea.
Copyleft to subvert copyright.
Patent pools (e.g., mutual defense) to subvert patents.
Linus says "version 2", period,
and will make his own choice later when he can see the text of a new license
I see the version clause as a necessary evil.
If you write a good piece of software, you maximize its utility by specifying "version $foo or later," where $foo is as low as possible.
If Linux is GPL 2 and Mozilla is GPL 2.1 or greater, you have an artificial obstacle to sharing.
Compare this to LGPL clause that permits relicensing under the GPL.
You may not want someone to make a GPL fork of your LGPL library, but that's a risk you have to take to realize the goal of the LGPL--linking with GPL code.
Many may argue... that it was a terrible mistake for Corel to enter the Linux market.
Personally, I think it was a good move at the wrong time.
It was a terrible mistake to enter the Linux distribution market.
Corel was going head-to-head with Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, et al.
How did it expect to succeed?
By pulling a mini-MSFT and bundling WordPerfect Office.
WordPerfect Office 2000 has not been well received, because it's a dog.
Conventional wisdom says the WINE layer slows it down.
Whether that's true or not, Linux users see it as kind of an affront--give me a native app., dammit!
There is demand for WordPerfect, Quattro Pro, and Corel Draw for Linux.
I hope that Corel continues to develop these products.
Maintaining a good Linux distribution is a lot of work.
Corel should be applying that effort to improving the Linux ports of its bread-and-butter apps.
Corel may not be good for free software, but it can be good for Linux.
That's good enough for now.
Please do not encourage the amateur lawyers to voice their uninformed opinions.... History has shown that we mostly don't really know what we're talking about.
Ask Slashdot is not legal advice.
It is not a substitute for time with a lawyer.
It's still a resource.
Ditto USENET and any other distributed discussion forum.
I sometimes read the forums at vwvortex.com for ideas and help with my car.
I still take it to the mechanic.
My advice for the original poster is to be very careful about investing time on a project that is based on a TV show, movie, etc.
The game industry refers to this as a license, as in "The Matrix is a hot license"--the right to use Warner Brothers' Matrix trademarks, copyrights, and possibly patents is valuable.
Incidentally, some folks are working on a Matrix mod for Half-Life.
They are setting a trap for themselves.
Warner Brothers can shut them down (or threaten to do so, which is almost as good).
Another poster on this topic mentioned that this happened to the Aliens TC for Doom.
Some game companies will develop a game in the hope of securing a license.
This is kind of like typecasting a role for a play or a movie.
For example, M. Night Shyamalan wrote The Sixth Sense with Bruce Willis in mind.
It worked out as he hoped. That was lucky.
As an independent working more for love than money, don't count on such luck.
BeOS, OTOH, is a much better direction in terms of something to de-throne the giant.
And this would be good why?
I did the OS/2 thing.
I rooted for a technically superior but market-share challenged proprietary underdog.
(Who knew IBM would be so inept?)
BeOS may have some technical advantages over Windows, but where are the applications?
BeOS may have some advantages over Linux, but Linux is free--to use, to modify, to sell, to pay someone to fix, etc.
I'll grant that competition is good, even when both choices kind of suck, because it helps to keep people honest.
That's why I root for Apple every now and then.
both the submitter and [Timothy] picked one bit of unrepresentative flamebait out of a long, long interview.
Agreed.
ESR continually annoys me.
In part, he has brought this on himself: his annotations to the "halloween documents" are weak snipes at MSFT, he compares Bill Gates to Hitler, and he openly calls MSFT and Bill Gates the enemy.
I think a lot of this comes from a lack of perspective.
Bruce Perens seems to have mellowed since his look-at-me resignations from SPI and OSI.
Hopefully, ESR will do the same.
I'm fascinated by ESR and RMS: full-time free software advocates.
This is the best interview I've read in a long time.
It's a shame that Slashdot has painted it with the anti-MSFT brush.
Yankowski also talked about a 5.0 version of the operating system that will support higher screen resolutions
I've borrowed a Palm a few times, and screen resolution is the biggest killer.
If they can affordably (<$400) double the horizontal and vertical resolution, I'll be all over it.
Discussions on linux-kernel seemed to indicate that the Pentium 4 returned Family 15 (IV, get it?)
I misread the CPUID supplement.
The family is, indeed, 15 (all ones).
I guess I don't know the assumptions that Linux makes.
Intel's usage guidelines caution that you should "not assume that a given family... has any specific feature. For example, do not assume the family 5 value (Pentium processor) means there is a floating-point unit on-chip. Use the feature flags for this determination."
If the cpuid database does not
match the CPU, it is the kernel's best interest behave like an ad hoc i386 kernel
The CPUID instruction returns three important values: family, model, and stepping.
The Pentiums comprise family 5.
The Pentium Pro, II, and III comprise family 6.
The Pentium 4, apparently, introduces family 8.
The family number increases, and processors are backwards compatible (right?).
So why not fall back to the most recent family?
The great thing about the web is that there's always someone out there more anal--er, informed--than yourself.
Google directed me to a Spanish web site with some information on the 386 and later:
El 486DX de Intel se comercializa en cuatro versiones: de 20 Mhz, de 25 Mhz, de 33 Mhz y de 50 Mhz.
El 486SX se comercializa en dos versiones: de 25 Mhz y de 33 Mhz.
El 486DX2 se está comercializando en tres versiones: de 40 Mhz (trabaja externamente a 20 Mhz), de 50 Mhz (opera externamente a 25 Mhz) y de 66 Mhz (externamente trabaja a 33 Mhz).
[El 486SX2 se] comercializa en dos versiones: de 50 Mhz (externamente opera a 25 Mhz) y 66 Mhz (externamente trabaja a 33 Mhz).
El DX4... se está fabricando en tres versiones: de 75 Mhz (externamente opera a 75/3 = 25 Mhz), de 83 Mhz (externamente trabaja a 83/2.5 = 33 Mhz), y de 100 Mhz (externamente puede trabajar a 100/3 = 33 Mhz o a 100/2 = 50 Mhz).
I don't see any mention of it on Intel's web site, but the list may not be complete.
As I recall, there was a line of clock-doubled 486 SX processors dubbed the SX2.
I don't see any mention of those, either.
But what really gets me going is that people buy 2000$ computers to read email and surf the web these days. Do we really need 10 Ghz ?
Bill Machrone often writes in PC Magazine that the computer you want always costs $5,000.
I'd spend most of it on the monitor, like an 18" LCD or Apple's 22" LCD, although I'd like to see a 1920 x 1080 display for high-definition widescreen.
Software will continually get slower, but CPUs will eventually be so cheap that you won't think twice about embedding them in special-purpose devices for basic tasks.
Quick, how many motors, transformers, and AM/FM tuners do you have in your house?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a web junkie, and I've given the matter some thought. My primary sources of information are USENET and the web. Of course, I only keep up with a few out of the thousands of newsgroups. Likewise, I follow a few quite specialized web sites, like Slashdot. When the focus is so narrow, it's easy to lose perspective, especially when egoboo like Slashdot kharma is involved.
Have you ever gotten hot under the collar after an anonymous coward's flame? Why? If "All you hot Natalie Portman grits are belong to us!" makes any sense to you, you probably don't get out enough.
I'm convinced that there's a danger in always agreeing with what you read. I read a Mother Hubbard at the gym the other night. It had an article pointing out the irony of a Republican senator (I forget his name) who helped pass mandatory minimum sentences for drug convictions, then helped his son avoid such a sentence. Right on, stick it to the hypocrite! Then again, I feel a little insulted by Mother Hubbard's obvious agenda.
The world would be a better place if conservatives read Mother Hubbard and liberals read the Wall Street Journal, or something like that.
Exactly. Anand's GeForce3 preview puts it this way: "even the GeForce2 GTS with its 800 Mpixels/s fill rate was only capable of a 300 Mpixels/s fill rate in a real world situation."
If you look at the GeForce2 MX reviews, you'll see that it barely edges ahead of the SDR GeForce at higher resolutions, and falls well behind the DDR GeForce. Forget about doing old-fashioned FSAA on an MX.
He chose to monopolize a number (a small number, in fact: 0x535348). He chose to use that against the OpenSSH project. Don't tell me has no choice.
The trademark system is designed to protect the consumer, not the trademark owner. OpenSSH is not defrauding anyone. It may be costing Tatu business, but that's tough on him.
Furthermore, it's not clear to me what he has actually trademarked. If you look at ssh.com, you'll see "SSH (R) Secure Shell tm." "(R)" means, I wish I had any rights to reserve. "Secure shell" is descriptive, and therefore not subject to trademark.
Fans cool the latest 50 W processors from AMD and Intel. Fans cool overclocked beasts like the NVIDIA (TNT|GeForce) [12] Ultra.
The G4 Cube makes do without a fan. My K6-3+ can probably do without one, although the power supply is not immune.
The GNU GPL implements copyleft, an attempt to keep the software in the free software community so as to maximize its utility. The GPL doesn't infect anything. RMS may give you that impression, when he brags that "At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline." Maybe that developer "saw the light," or maybe he was just lazy, but he made a choice: release under GPL or rewrite Readline. That's a much better deal than you'll get if you pilfer code from a proprietary program.
Public domain (or BSD-licensed) software may be incorporated into a proprietary program. If your goal is more users, then that may be acceptable. An API or reference implementation of an open standard should probably be public domain (see, e.g., SAX).
Fundamentally, it comes down to the freedoms you want to give your users. If you buy into copyleft, use a GPL-compatible license.
Salon has a more balanced article, based on real life experience. The author's experience echoes my own:
- curiosity in a novel, intuitively appealing layout
- experimentation, which gets nowhere until I start using it on the job
- confusion, during which time I can type neither Sholes nor Dvorak
- breakthrough after about a month
I find it comfortable and intuitive. Despite years of practice with Sholes, I am slightly faster and more accurate with Dvorak. It is superior. However, if you're not committed to give it an honest effort for a month or so, you will be disappointed. I'm not a Dvorak evangelist, just a satisfied convert.As others have noted, section 6a of the LGPL says that distributing header files and object files is sufficient.
I just wanted to thank you for your work on fltk. I'm working on a GLUT binding library for Inventor. If it goes well, I may look at writing a fltk binding library.
It's clear from its press release that Creative Labs is a patent aggressor. CREAF boasts that "EMU's ... patent was upheld and
found to be valid and enforceable," and pledges to appeal (or buy Aureal, whichever comes first).
I can't find any details on Aureal's lawsuit.
I doubt it. NVIDIA's Q&A says, "The structure of this deal allows NVIDIA to purchase certain assets that are consistent with our business model without acquiring 3dfx liabilities." One of these liabilities, apparently, is the current Voodoo line: "The remaining 3dfx entity is responsible for their current product lines and retail channel. ...
The 3dfx product in the channel and installed base and customer support remain the responsibility of 3dfx.
It is best to check those details with 3dfx management."
After this deal, there isn't going to be a "remaining 3dfx entity." According to the 3dfx press release, the "board of directors will recommend to its shareholders that they ... approve a plan to dissolve the company following completion of the asset sale."
The creditors will lick the plate clean, any remaining employees will be fired, and Nasdaq will remove TDFX from the ticker.
I own a Voodoo 2 (Guillemot), Voodoo 3, and Vortex 2 (Diamond). I find it quite amusing:
Some New Year's resolutions:
Moral: developers are cheaper and more effective than lawyers.
Don't count on Prodigy doing the Right Thing. All BT has to do is convince Prodigy that licensing the patent is cheaper than taking the case to court, even if it is guaranteed to win. Look at all the companies that rolled over for Rambus. Prodigy doesn't have morals. It's a publicly traded company.
This is one of the clauses I really like about the Debian Free Software Guidelines. (I prefer to refer to the DFSG, as the Open-Patch^H^H^H^H^HSource Definition is weakened by the OSI's role in interpreting it. Yes, I know you wrote them both.) A good free software license should restrict its domain to the software.
I hate that university research continues to produce software for "non-commercial" use. The GNU GPL has nothing to say about using software, although the waters have been muddied by recent discussions about dynamic linking, plugins, and CORBA-like components. (What, after all, is the difference between dlopen() and system()?) The GNU GPL should stay that way. I'd rather leave the "ASP loophole" in place than muddy the waters even further.
Likewise, free software licenses should say as little as possible about patents. Every once in a while, Slashdot posts an outrageous patent story and someone says, "Hey, let's amend the GPL to punish patent aggressors." Bad idea. Copyleft to subvert copyright. Patent pools (e.g., mutual defense) to subvert patents.
I see the version clause as a necessary evil. If you write a good piece of software, you maximize its utility by specifying "version $foo or later," where $foo is as low as possible. If Linux is GPL 2 and Mozilla is GPL 2.1 or greater, you have an artificial obstacle to sharing.
Compare this to LGPL clause that permits relicensing under the GPL. You may not want someone to make a GPL fork of your LGPL library, but that's a risk you have to take to realize the goal of the LGPL--linking with GPL code.
It was a terrible mistake to enter the Linux distribution market. Corel was going head-to-head with Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, et al. How did it expect to succeed? By pulling a mini-MSFT and bundling WordPerfect Office.
WordPerfect Office 2000 has not been well received, because it's a dog. Conventional wisdom says the WINE layer slows it down. Whether that's true or not, Linux users see it as kind of an affront--give me a native app., dammit!
There is demand for WordPerfect, Quattro Pro, and Corel Draw for Linux. I hope that Corel continues to develop these products. Maintaining a good Linux distribution is a lot of work. Corel should be applying that effort to improving the Linux ports of its bread-and-butter apps.
Corel may not be good for free software, but it can be good for Linux. That's good enough for now.
Ask Slashdot is not legal advice. It is not a substitute for time with a lawyer. It's still a resource. Ditto USENET and any other distributed discussion forum. I sometimes read the forums at vwvortex.com for ideas and help with my car. I still take it to the mechanic.
My advice for the original poster is to be very careful about investing time on a project that is based on a TV show, movie, etc. The game industry refers to this as a license, as in "The Matrix is a hot license"--the right to use Warner Brothers' Matrix trademarks, copyrights, and possibly patents is valuable. Incidentally, some folks are working on a Matrix mod for Half-Life. They are setting a trap for themselves. Warner Brothers can shut them down (or threaten to do so, which is almost as good). Another poster on this topic mentioned that this happened to the Aliens TC for Doom.
Some game companies will develop a game in the hope of securing a license. This is kind of like typecasting a role for a play or a movie. For example, M. Night Shyamalan wrote The Sixth Sense with Bruce Willis in mind. It worked out as he hoped. That was lucky. As an independent working more for love than money, don't count on such luck.
There are some articles at Gamasutra that discuss this topic in more detail. For instance, "Artistic License: Acquiring, Managing and Dealing with Licenses (and Making Them Profitable)" in the Business & Legal features and "Adapting Licensed Products to the Computer Medium." Most of the rules that apply to a game company apply to a mod maker. It doesn't matter that you're not trying to make money. It doesn't matter that you love The Matrix, DragonBallZ, Aliens, etc. The owner of the licensed property will defend his trademark, copyright, and patent rights.
And this would be good why? I did the OS/2 thing. I rooted for a technically superior but market-share challenged proprietary underdog. (Who knew IBM would be so inept?) BeOS may have some technical advantages over Windows, but where are the applications? BeOS may have some advantages over Linux, but Linux is free--to use, to modify, to sell, to pay someone to fix, etc.
I'll grant that competition is good, even when both choices kind of suck, because it helps to keep people honest. That's why I root for Apple every now and then.
Agreed. ESR continually annoys me. In part, he has brought this on himself: his annotations to the "halloween documents" are weak snipes at MSFT, he compares Bill Gates to Hitler, and he openly calls MSFT and Bill Gates the enemy.
I think a lot of this comes from a lack of perspective. Bruce Perens seems to have mellowed since his look-at-me resignations from SPI and OSI. Hopefully, ESR will do the same. I'm fascinated by ESR and RMS: full-time free software advocates.
This is the best interview I've read in a long time. It's a shame that Slashdot has painted it with the anti-MSFT brush.
I've borrowed a Palm a few times, and screen resolution is the biggest killer. If they can affordably (<$400) double the horizontal and vertical resolution, I'll be all over it.
I misread the CPUID supplement. The family is, indeed, 15 (all ones).
I guess I don't know the assumptions that Linux makes. Intel's usage guidelines caution that you should "not assume that a given family ... has any specific feature. For example, do not assume the family 5 value (Pentium processor) means there is a floating-point unit on-chip. Use the feature flags for this determination."
The CPUID instruction returns three important values: family, model, and stepping. The Pentiums comprise family 5. The Pentium Pro, II, and III comprise family 6. The Pentium 4, apparently, introduces family 8. The family number increases, and processors are backwards compatible (right?). So why not fall back to the most recent family?
I'm getting this information from AP-485 Intel Processor Identification and CPUID Instruction and Intel Pentium 4 Processor Identification and the CPUID Instruction.
The great thing about the web is that there's always someone out there more anal--er, informed--than yourself. Google directed me to a Spanish web site with some information on the 386 and later:
So the 40-MHz 486 was a DX2.I don't see any mention of it on Intel's web site, but the list may not be complete. As I recall, there was a line of clock-doubled 486 SX processors dubbed the SX2. I don't see any mention of those, either.
Bill Machrone often writes in PC Magazine that the computer you want always costs $5,000. I'd spend most of it on the monitor, like an 18" LCD or Apple's 22" LCD, although I'd like to see a 1920 x 1080 display for high-definition widescreen.
Software will continually get slower, but CPUs will eventually be so cheap that you won't think twice about embedding them in special-purpose devices for basic tasks. Quick, how many motors, transformers, and AM/FM tuners do you have in your house?
For more data points, see the Intel processor hall of fame technical specifications and the microprocessor quick reference.
subject says it all