How about a dedicated FUD topic, the present MiserSoft bashing is all well and good but they ain't the only ones selling FUD.
Looking around the internet you can either find original FUD topics from Amdals (we are not worthy) original IBM bashing or the latest Linux led anti Microsoft stuff.
OK so MS are asking for it but FUD is not a linux issue just becuase MS choose to use it to attack LINUX. FUD starts at the Intel Inside if we are talking x86 archetecture and goes via the manufacturers into our IS department managers. The problem with FUD is its always quoted out of context by people who should know better. Lets be fair to MS they are actually trying underhand tactics to sell a product, possibly dishonest but really a lot better than an IS manager who knows its crap trying to use it on a finance exec who hasn't got a clue. Thats real dishonesty and probably accompanied by X-Mass pressents to boot.
Lets face it SUN are no better with hardware, buy a seagate disk on the open market and SUN will tell you unless you pay double for one they have barcoded and stuck in cheap plastic mounts your whole server will fall over. Lets not forget the origins of FUD with IBM (now linux friendly) using the same arguaments against Amdal.
The problem is the manufacturers and suppliers are all to happy to supply endless FUD to the consumer that wants it, het if they wanna pay double for the same thing lets help them get the budget !!
By making this a Linux / MS issue simply trivialises the issue, Im a big Linux fan and have 6 linux boxes in my house and only one MiserySoft for playing DVD's.
Lets put this in perspective, anyone trying to fight FUD can get a whole load of free literature about how its screwing Linux but in the real world the damage of FUD on the progression of technology is a much wider issue. If you want to fight FUD then fight FUD, not MS it simply trivialises the arguaments!
Dual Processor AMD boards ???
Why is this a landmark step...
First we have to examine the market for PC's.
The traditional market for the big guys has been corporate and this means standardisation.
Most corporate clients want single vendor contracts with discount (as if any corporate client pays the full price).
The corporate IS management world is full of idiots who don't understand the technology but like the buzzwords. Unfortunately many of the 'managers' failed to understand the technology early on and have been sliding backwrds ever since.
Since the Gartner Group report on TCO they have been given a nice report to show to upper management and say what they are doing about it. This means BUY INTEL, BUY COMPAQ or IBM and then try and make it all look complicated.
Lucky for the IS managers the big suppliers are all to eager to support that they buy all the hardware from them and will supply reams of information about how this is cheaper for the company, even if they are paying 20-30% more for the same machine.
This 'over standardisation' is noe getting to a point where the IS managers want not only single vendors but also single product ranges.
Unless AMD are accepted by the big vendors and represented in the server market the corporate market will stay out of grasp. I have personally heard it explained to senior mangement that these 'toy' machines will crash the whole network if connected.
AMD have aimed squarely at the single processor market, how many SMP servers are really in the market ?
Unfortunately for AMD this is not really the issue and until decent Dual and even quad processor AMD machines are available from the big vendors the millions of machines that only ever run Office or email will stay is INTEL.
This is a reality that AMD must live with, the server market may not be the volume they needed in the past but having got a reasonable share of the SOHO market they must address the issue if they want to get the big corporate cleints.
Slashdot Mirror
How about a dedicated FUD topic, the present MiserSoft bashing is all well and good but they ain't the only ones selling FUD. Looking around the internet you can either find original FUD topics from Amdals (we are not worthy) original IBM bashing or the latest Linux led anti Microsoft stuff. OK so MS are asking for it but FUD is not a linux issue just becuase MS choose to use it to attack LINUX. FUD starts at the Intel Inside if we are talking x86 archetecture and goes via the manufacturers into our IS department managers. The problem with FUD is its always quoted out of context by people who should know better. Lets be fair to MS they are actually trying underhand tactics to sell a product, possibly dishonest but really a lot better than an IS manager who knows its crap trying to use it on a finance exec who hasn't got a clue. Thats real dishonesty and probably accompanied by X-Mass pressents to boot. Lets face it SUN are no better with hardware, buy a seagate disk on the open market and SUN will tell you unless you pay double for one they have barcoded and stuck in cheap plastic mounts your whole server will fall over. Lets not forget the origins of FUD with IBM (now linux friendly) using the same arguaments against Amdal. The problem is the manufacturers and suppliers are all to happy to supply endless FUD to the consumer that wants it, het if they wanna pay double for the same thing lets help them get the budget !! By making this a Linux / MS issue simply trivialises the issue, Im a big Linux fan and have 6 linux boxes in my house and only one MiserySoft for playing DVD's. Lets put this in perspective, anyone trying to fight FUD can get a whole load of free literature about how its screwing Linux but in the real world the damage of FUD on the progression of technology is a much wider issue. If you want to fight FUD then fight FUD, not MS it simply trivialises the arguaments!
Dual Processor AMD boards ??? Why is this a landmark step... First we have to examine the market for PC's. The traditional market for the big guys has been corporate and this means standardisation. Most corporate clients want single vendor contracts with discount (as if any corporate client pays the full price). The corporate IS management world is full of idiots who don't understand the technology but like the buzzwords. Unfortunately many of the 'managers' failed to understand the technology early on and have been sliding backwrds ever since. Since the Gartner Group report on TCO they have been given a nice report to show to upper management and say what they are doing about it. This means BUY INTEL, BUY COMPAQ or IBM and then try and make it all look complicated. Lucky for the IS managers the big suppliers are all to eager to support that they buy all the hardware from them and will supply reams of information about how this is cheaper for the company, even if they are paying 20-30% more for the same machine. This 'over standardisation' is noe getting to a point where the IS managers want not only single vendors but also single product ranges. Unless AMD are accepted by the big vendors and represented in the server market the corporate market will stay out of grasp. I have personally heard it explained to senior mangement that these 'toy' machines will crash the whole network if connected. AMD have aimed squarely at the single processor market, how many SMP servers are really in the market ? Unfortunately for AMD this is not really the issue and until decent Dual and even quad processor AMD machines are available from the big vendors the millions of machines that only ever run Office or email will stay is INTEL. This is a reality that AMD must live with, the server market may not be the volume they needed in the past but having got a reasonable share of the SOHO market they must address the issue if they want to get the big corporate cleints.