AT&T is allied with Verizon on this front, the comment about them being opposed was on other issues in tel-co. And I personaly don't car about the service history of Verizon or it's money inspired motives. As long as they help keep the DMCA at bay I'll be happy. After the DMCA is defeated, if Verizon starts pissing consumers off, the war will turn against them. First rule of war, fight only one at a time.
When it was being formed, they (Verizon & Telcos) fought against the DMCA until it was in a form which they deemed acceptable to their networks, their user interests and their own interests. Then they agreed. SInce the implimentation of the DMCA, the world, and the internet has changed, and now the CW industries are looking to expand the DMCA. However, Verizon and the telcos do not see the expansion as a legitimate defense of the copyrights, therefore they are fighting against it again, though perhaps this time with more force.
I love the decription of the RIAA et al being online vigilantes. Wasn't the whole point of begining regulation of the internet to stop "vigilantes" from attacking corporate and legitimate business websites?
Note the bit in the article on the creation of a licenceing scheme which would allow for file sharing but protect the copywrite holders. I don't know how they would impliment it, but it can't be much different than the royalty you pay on Audio CD-Rs and VHS tapes
The copyright community has to understand the reality that if consumers are not happy with the compromise...many of these illegal activities are going to continue
Right there, that is the whole point. Consumers aren't happy, and DRM, DMCA, Hollings et al are not making them any happier.
That's funny, Microsoft [greenleft.org.au] seem to have found them useful for more than road work and stamping license plates
So the prisoners get paid a minimum wage job, and then get helf of it sent to the government in the form of taxes. Sounds like a lot of people I know. Besides, when you seriously think about it, what use does a prisoner have for money?
I don't think that, I think people who are in prison are there to be killed or reformed. Turning them into slave labour does not reform them, neither does making them watch TV all day.
nor do I think that, but no where have you shown me evidence of these people being made into slaves. They've simply been reduced to part of the minimum wage workforce. But people in prison are not there to be killed, as most of America seems to be to timid to actualy kill someone (i.e. 2 life sentences + 100years without possibility of parole? Just kill the damn bastard and free up some resources). Nor are they there to be reformed, that's what psychologists and rehab centers are for. Prison is punishment for doing wrong, in the same way your parents spanked you with a wooden spoon (which by the way is not child abuse) and in the same way they grounded you. Prison is grounding for adults. They shouldn't like it.
But most of the people in prison are in prison on a non-violent drug related charge. Your attitude towards drug abuse will be pretty harsh i'd imagine, but remember that drug abuse (any drug) is a sympton of depression. This is easy to illustrate, noting the countries (and states) with the highest drug, alcohol and suiside rates all have shitty weather and the highest depression rates (Alaska, Iceland, Russia, Scotland....).
Actualy, my additude towards drug abuse and drugs in general is "Who cares?" My personal opinion is drugs should be legalized (if you really want, I'll explain that, but you have to ask) and that if you want to get high on everything under the sun all day long, go for it. But as soon as you start injuring others or commiting crimes, into the prisons you go. Simple.
Depression is a side effect of provity and supression, drug abuse is a side effect of depression, jail is a side effect of drug abuse, slavery is a side effect of jail. IF you are poor we will make you a slave.
Not nessisarily. Just because two things correlate does not mean they are cause and effect. For example, growth is a side effect of eating. Strength is a side effect of growth. Power is a side effect of strength. Corruption is a side effect of power. Criminal acts are a side effect of corruption. There for, eating must cause you to become a criminal. Now there are plenty of peopl ein this world who are perfect examples of that not being the case. Likewise, there are many people living in poverty that are not criminals. Nor will they become such.
And putting people in jail is going to help them stop being poor, how?
I didn't say it would, nor did I suggest doing so.
But, but, but, but where? that sweatshop job your poor uneductated black-ass can do is not in the hand of some prisoner, where either person likes it or not. Why not eductate the person in prison and employ the person who needs a job to stay out of prison.
But we don't do that. We provide welfare and unlimited funding for people who are poor, and take away a reason to try to get a job. (Would you go looking for work when your unemployment check gives you more than any job you can redaily get would?) Likewise, with prisoners, why should we have to educate them. Let them get work experience, be hired once they're out of prison, and work theri way to an education and a job, like everyone else.
It says effectively nothing about the individuals in the database, and nothing about the methodology used by the police in selecting the individuals. It also says nothing about what the database actually contains, who has access to it, how and when it is used, and why it was developed
Nor should it. Once you release you rmethod for determining possible criminals and for flaging the usage of the database, criminals will begin to work arround it. It's like publishing the security patterns of a nuclear powerplant on the front gate. Bad Idea
I think your missing the point. It's profitable to have people in jail for companies, even though we are paying the bill, we don't see the profit, we are subsidizing slavery for companies that can are enjoying a cheaper alternative to thrid world sweatshops
BULL SHIT ON A STICK. Find me some number which show that corporations are getting rich off prison labor. Last I knew, all prisoners were good for was stamping license plates and doing road work (chain gangs are illegal now, cruel and unusual punishment). And it's not like we're locking these prisoners in dank musty cells. Don't tell me you think cable TV, a wieght room/exercise program, no taxes and no bills is a cheap bill on US tax dollars.
You want my opinion on criminals, if your guilty (espesialy of high crimes like murder, arson etc) you have given up all your rights as s US citizen. You knew what the consequences were of getting involved and getting caught, yet you did it anyways, so pay up.
Yeah, it is a crime to be poor, espsialy if you try to solve that problem by robbing people and stores. If you're poor, get off your ass and start finding something to do. Hell, there are plenty of religious groups which provide jobs to the poor and there are plenty of openings at McDonalds. Or you could do what the guys in NYC do, collect cans and bottles. It's not much, but it's better than sitting on your ass collecting welfare. "but" you say, "what about Mrs. So and So with her 8 kids to support." Hey, you know what, if she was so damn poor, she shouldn't have been getting it on so often. Yes I do realize there are so circumstances where it is nessesary for someone to have government assistance, but that's to be decided on a case by case basis.
You bet it's not free, if it was then I wouldn't have pay $40K in taxes last year. The American public needs to realize that US corporations are getting what belongs to the public, FOR FREE (well OK they spent a few million paying some party's campain fund, normally paying both the lead parties evenly).
If you're paying 40k in taxes you must be making a pretty hefty pay check. And if you're so concerned about the prisoners and the poor people, why aren't you taking that money and sending it to NPOs and charities to support those people????? YOu get to write that off on your taxes you know.
And what that belongs to the public (and therefore is free) are the companies getting for free?
1) It's not linux. Believe me I've tried over and over to get linux to run nicely on a mac, and while it runs, there are always plenty of flaws and bugs, more so than in OS X.
2) OS X is cleaner. Period. There is no linux distro out there that I have found that installs as easily and painlessly as OS X.
3) Support. If I have a problem, I call apple, apple fixes my problem. If I'm useing YDL and I have a problem, Apple will say,sorry we don't offer support for YDL
4) Have they gotten rid of the dependency on OS 9? Last time I played with LinuxPPC (about 1 year or so ago) it required a control panel in OS 9 and required you to begin booting in OS 9 so that the boot manager could load and then you chose to boot linux. That to me was a pain.
5) No need to reformat my drive to work under *NIX.
6) Developer tools. Yeah I can download the CD, but having a hard copy and not having to waste my time is much more valuble.
7) After spending 3 days downloading LinuxPPC over a 33.6 modem, with the understanding that it would work on a 5400/180, only to try to install it and have it not work at all, would you want to try again?
Those are my reasons to pay $70 to buy OS X.2 WHat are your reasons for using YDL?
You've obviously had a bad run with the macs you own, my sincerest apologies. However, I would like to point out 2 facts:
1) You're case seems to be in the extreme, just like the horor stories of windows machines that crash every 15 minutes, or on linux users that can even launch netscape wthout creating kernel panics. And of ocurse there's the other end of the spectrum, winodws users who claim never to have had a crash in their life. Linux users whol claim that it was easier to use that windows and mac users who swear up and down that their machines are 100% perfect and never crash. Each of these cases is on the extreme end of computing, and while some of them may be valid (as in your case) they are not the normal user experience.
2) There is something in the mac that keeps you buying. As you said, your first iMac had problems, but implying you have more than one. You speak of beige G3s and B&W G3s, plus you continue to buy the OSes, so there must be something in the mac which you like. And like alot because any PC user buying computers with those problems from Del of Compaq would have stopped long ago. It is for thise reason that people buy macs. Not for just style, but for whatever it is that they see in the mac that makes it worth ignoring a couple lousy hardware setups.
I agree with you in your stance of not wanting to buy OS X.2 quite yet. However, I offer a suggestion. Go to compUSA and buy yourself a copy of X.2. If I recall correctly CompuUSA has a 14 day return policy on software. Take the software home, and try it out. See if it work son your machines. If it doesn't, take it back to CompUSA for your refund, if it does, you could keep it, or take it back and shop for a better deal. Either way, you get to find out whether the system will work properly, and there is little risk involved.
And it was freely given in the hopes that it could be used to develop something better, and it did. You're just sore because you're not selling a succesful computer line and OS. Well sucks to be you. Believe me, if the original developers thought their code was not being used properly, they would have already begun suing apple.
MS makes cheap operating systems. That's why they got on the PC in the first place -- DOS was the cheapest thing IBM could find.
Actualy, I heard, though not from any sources which I would call 100% reliable, that the day Bill Gates came calling to IBM with DOS, not only did he not actualy have a product, but that earlier that day, IBM was supposed to meet with another developer to possible licence an OS, but the developer was sick, and had to cancel the meeting. Talk about blind luck!
1) If it takes overclocking my processor and 1.5 gigs of RAM to get a word processor to run "fine" on my computer, I'd rather use notepad ( or MS office, Apple Works, Simple Text etc etc etc). I should not have to superchardge a machine to get something as simple as a wordprocessor working.
2) Open Office is nice (I use it primary on my Athlon machine) but it is slower than other word processors that I've used. It hase some great features (auto word complete is great)and lot's of potential. But it truely is not up to commercial program standards yet, it still feels like a hacker developed program, un polished, not quite finished.
3) It's ironic to see someone call another person a troll and then go on to bash them, bash their OS and call names. Might I suggest you get off the computer, pay attention to your teacher and finish your work, recess is starting soon, you don't want to be left behind.
So go out and earn the money. Stop wasting your money upgrading your PC, stop buying the latest office and windows updates, don't buy that new PC you've been looking at, and get a job. Within about 2 years, you should have more than enough money to buy a mac. The honest reason why PC users (IMHO anyways) do not have enough money to buy a mac is because they keep sinking more and more money into their PC.
The speech is free, it's just a matter of personaly preference. Remembr, no comment get's modified or deleted. MOderation only changes the level of viewability. If you so chose, you could read every single post regardless of it's moderation. However, some people don't like wading through posts like "Billy Gates sucked my balls last night" to get to any sort of significant discussion. If you want complete free speach, surf slashdot with your threshhold set to -1.
I've been saying for a long time and will continue to do so, you can not easily make money off of something which promotes the free and unrestricted flow of information. The internet allows for data to move easily from point to point and removes many of the barriers that allow for making money. To make money off the net is chalenging and very few will ever be succesful.
And what great TV has come over the american airwaves recently? I haven't seen much, in fact I've taken to watching reruns of M*A*S*H, Bugs Bunny and Simpsons. Other than that, there isn't much good on TV here,ecept Who's Line Is It Anyways (oh but wait that's a british show).
Subjective views may be subjective, but that's what determines the real world. Take for example a scientist, who works out a formula for a chemical reaction. ON paper, the reaction should do what he predicts, so then he does the experiment and discovers that it did do what he predicted. If no other scientist can duplicate his results, his findings are considered invalid.
For me it's the same with computers, you can tell me all you want that it's going to run faster and faster, but untill I see it, I'm not going to believe it.
What I meant was in terms of the itanium. LIke I said, current processors have hit a brick wall. There isn't much farther they can go without some new technology. So we have new tech, AMD is working on 64 bit chips, IBM has the new Power4 chips (I think that's what they were, I'm tired right now) for the macs and pcs and then there's the itanium stuff from intel. One of the reasons intel hasn't and won't for a while pushed the itaniums is that it would be nearly impossible for them to convince their consumers that the chip with a lower Mhz is actualy better than the ones they have now. It's the same battle that Apple and AMD are fighting, except Intel has to fight it against themselves
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T is allied with Verizon on this front, the comment about them being opposed was on other issues in tel-co. And I personaly don't car about the service history of Verizon or it's money inspired motives. As long as they help keep the DMCA at bay I'll be happy. After the DMCA is defeated, if Verizon starts pissing consumers off, the war will turn against them. First rule of war, fight only one at a time.
When it was being formed, they (Verizon & Telcos) fought against the DMCA until it was in a form which they deemed acceptable to their networks, their user interests and their own interests. Then they agreed. SInce the implimentation of the DMCA, the world, and the internet has changed, and now the CW industries are looking to expand the DMCA. However, Verizon and the telcos do not see the expansion as a legitimate defense of the copyrights, therefore they are fighting against it again, though perhaps this time with more force.
I love the decription of the RIAA et al being online vigilantes. Wasn't the whole point of begining regulation of the internet to stop "vigilantes" from attacking corporate and legitimate business websites?
Note the bit in the article on the creation of a licenceing scheme which would allow for file sharing but protect the copywrite holders. I don't know how they would impliment it, but it can't be much different than the royalty you pay on Audio CD-Rs and VHS tapes
The copyright community has to understand the reality that if consumers are not happy with the compromise...many of these illegal activities are going to continue
Right there, that is the whole point. Consumers aren't happy, and DRM, DMCA, Hollings et al are not making them any happier.
Doesn't the USPO already do this? Don't they have claim to prior art.
Anywhere I read says BSD is Unix, it's merely an alternative version of it.
In simple terms:
BSD UNIX : AT&T UNIX
as
RedHAT : SuSE
That's funny, Microsoft [greenleft.org.au] seem to have found them useful for more than road work and stamping license plates
So the prisoners get paid a minimum wage job, and then get helf of it sent to the government in the form of taxes. Sounds like a lot of people I know. Besides, when you seriously think about it, what use does a prisoner have for money?
I don't think that, I think people who are in prison are there to be killed or reformed. Turning them into slave labour does not reform them, neither does making them watch TV all day.
nor do I think that, but no where have you shown me evidence of these people being made into slaves. They've simply been reduced to part of the minimum wage workforce. But people in prison are not there to be killed, as most of America seems to be to timid to actualy kill someone (i.e. 2 life sentences + 100years without possibility of parole? Just kill the damn bastard and free up some resources). Nor are they there to be reformed, that's what psychologists and rehab centers are for. Prison is punishment for doing wrong, in the same way your parents spanked you with a wooden spoon (which by the way is not child abuse) and in the same way they grounded you. Prison is grounding for adults. They shouldn't like it.
But most of the people in prison are in prison on a non-violent drug related charge. Your attitude towards drug abuse will be pretty harsh i'd imagine, but remember that drug abuse (any drug) is a sympton of depression. This is easy to illustrate, noting the countries (and states) with the highest drug, alcohol and suiside rates all have shitty weather and the highest depression rates (Alaska, Iceland, Russia, Scotland....).
Actualy, my additude towards drug abuse and drugs in general is "Who cares?" My personal opinion is drugs should be legalized (if you really want, I'll explain that, but you have to ask) and that if you want to get high on everything under the sun all day long, go for it. But as soon as you start injuring others or commiting crimes, into the prisons you go. Simple.
Depression is a side effect of provity and supression, drug abuse is a side effect of depression, jail is a side effect of drug abuse, slavery is a side effect of jail. IF you are poor we will make you a slave.
Not nessisarily. Just because two things correlate does not mean they are cause and effect. For example, growth is a side effect of eating. Strength is a side effect of growth. Power is a side effect of strength. Corruption is a side effect of power. Criminal acts are a side effect of corruption. There for, eating must cause you to become a criminal. Now there are plenty of peopl ein this world who are perfect examples of that not being the case. Likewise, there are many people living in poverty that are not criminals. Nor will they become such.
And putting people in jail is going to help them stop being poor, how?
I didn't say it would, nor did I suggest doing so.
But, but, but, but where? that sweatshop job your poor uneductated black-ass can do is not in the hand of some prisoner, where either person likes it or not. Why not eductate the person in prison and employ the person who needs a job to stay out of prison.
But we don't do that. We provide welfare and unlimited funding for people who are poor, and take away a reason to try to get a job. (Would you go looking for work when your unemployment check gives you more than any job you can redaily get would?) Likewise, with prisoners, why should we have to educate them. Let them get work experience, be hired once they're out of prison, and work theri way to an education and a job, like everyone else.
It says effectively nothing about the individuals in the database, and nothing about the methodology used by the police in selecting the individuals. It also says nothing about what the database actually contains, who has access to it, how and when it is used, and why it was developed
Nor should it. Once you release you rmethod for determining possible criminals and for flaging the usage of the database, criminals will begin to work arround it. It's like publishing the security patterns of a nuclear powerplant on the front gate. Bad Idea
I think your missing the point. It's profitable to have people in jail for companies, even though we are paying the bill, we don't see the profit, we are subsidizing slavery for companies that can are enjoying a cheaper alternative to thrid world sweatshops
BULL SHIT ON A STICK. Find me some number which show that corporations are getting rich off prison labor. Last I knew, all prisoners were good for was stamping license plates and doing road work (chain gangs are illegal now, cruel and unusual punishment). And it's not like we're locking these prisoners in dank musty cells. Don't tell me you think cable TV, a wieght room/exercise program, no taxes and no bills is a cheap bill on US tax dollars.
You want my opinion on criminals, if your guilty (espesialy of high crimes like murder, arson etc) you have given up all your rights as s US citizen. You knew what the consequences were of getting involved and getting caught, yet you did it anyways, so pay up.
Yeah, it is a crime to be poor, espsialy if you try to solve that problem by robbing people and stores. If you're poor, get off your ass and start finding something to do. Hell, there are plenty of religious groups which provide jobs to the poor and there are plenty of openings at McDonalds. Or you could do what the guys in NYC do, collect cans and bottles. It's not much, but it's better than sitting on your ass collecting welfare. "but" you say, "what about Mrs. So and So with her 8 kids to support." Hey, you know what, if she was so damn poor, she shouldn't have been getting it on so often. Yes I do realize there are so circumstances where it is nessesary for someone to have government assistance, but that's to be decided on a case by case basis.
You bet it's not free, if it was then I wouldn't have pay $40K in taxes last year. The American public needs to realize that US corporations are getting what belongs to the public, FOR FREE (well OK they spent a few million paying some party's campain fund, normally paying both the lead parties evenly).
If you're paying 40k in taxes you must be making a pretty hefty pay check. And if you're so concerned about the prisoners and the poor people, why aren't you taking that money and sending it to NPOs and charities to support those people????? YOu get to write that off on your taxes you know.
And what that belongs to the public (and therefore is free) are the companies getting for free?
If it was just the display, wouldn't it have made sense to power off and on the display instead of restarting the system?
1)BSD is UNIX.
2)http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
read up before you post
By OS designed in 1984, we was referring to the Mac OS of old, not UNIX
1) It's not linux. Believe me I've tried over and over to get linux to run nicely on a mac, and while it runs, there are always plenty of flaws and bugs, more so than in OS X.
,sorry we don't offer support for YDL
2) OS X is cleaner. Period. There is no linux distro out there that I have found that installs as easily and painlessly as OS X.
3) Support. If I have a problem, I call apple, apple fixes my problem. If I'm useing YDL and I have a problem, Apple will say
4) Have they gotten rid of the dependency on OS 9? Last time I played with LinuxPPC (about 1 year or so ago) it required a control panel in OS 9 and required you to begin booting in OS 9 so that the boot manager could load and then you chose to boot linux. That to me was a pain.
5) No need to reformat my drive to work under *NIX.
6) Developer tools. Yeah I can download the CD, but having a hard copy and not having to waste my time is much more valuble.
7) After spending 3 days downloading LinuxPPC over a 33.6 modem, with the understanding that it would work on a 5400/180, only to try to install it and have it not work at all, would you want to try again?
Those are my reasons to pay $70 to buy OS X.2 WHat are your reasons for using YDL?
You've obviously had a bad run with the macs you own, my sincerest apologies. However, I would like to point out 2 facts:
1) You're case seems to be in the extreme, just like the horor stories of windows machines that crash every 15 minutes, or on linux users that can even launch netscape wthout creating kernel panics. And of ocurse there's the other end of the spectrum, winodws users who claim never to have had a crash in their life. Linux users whol claim that it was easier to use that windows and mac users who swear up and down that their machines are 100% perfect and never crash. Each of these cases is on the extreme end of computing, and while some of them may be valid (as in your case) they are not the normal user experience.
2) There is something in the mac that keeps you buying. As you said, your first iMac had problems, but implying you have more than one. You speak of beige G3s and B&W G3s, plus you continue to buy the OSes, so there must be something in the mac which you like. And like alot because any PC user buying computers with those problems from Del of Compaq would have stopped long ago. It is for thise reason that people buy macs. Not for just style, but for whatever it is that they see in the mac that makes it worth ignoring a couple lousy hardware setups.
I agree with you in your stance of not wanting to buy OS X.2 quite yet. However, I offer a suggestion. Go to compUSA and buy yourself a copy of X.2. If I recall correctly CompuUSA has a 14 day return policy on software. Take the software home, and try it out. See if it work son your machines. If it doesn't, take it back to CompUSA for your refund, if it does, you could keep it, or take it back and shop for a better deal. Either way, you get to find out whether the system will work properly, and there is little risk involved.
And it was freely given in the hopes that it could be used to develop something better, and it did. You're just sore because you're not selling a succesful computer line and OS. Well sucks to be you. Believe me, if the original developers thought their code was not being used properly, they would have already begun suing apple.
MS makes cheap operating systems. That's why they got on the PC in the first place -- DOS was the cheapest thing IBM could find.
Actualy, I heard, though not from any sources which I would call 100% reliable, that the day Bill Gates came calling to IBM with DOS, not only did he not actualy have a product, but that earlier that day, IBM was supposed to meet with another developer to possible licence an OS, but the developer was sick, and had to cancel the meeting. Talk about blind luck!
Cause I have nothing better to do.
1) If it takes overclocking my processor and 1.5 gigs of RAM to get a word processor to run "fine" on my computer, I'd rather use notepad ( or MS office, Apple Works, Simple Text etc etc etc). I should not have to superchardge a machine to get something as simple as a wordprocessor working.
2) Open Office is nice (I use it primary on my Athlon machine) but it is slower than other word processors that I've used. It hase some great features (auto word complete is great)and lot's of potential. But it truely is not up to commercial program standards yet, it still feels like a hacker developed program, un polished, not quite finished.
3) It's ironic to see someone call another person a troll and then go on to bash them, bash their OS and call names. Might I suggest you get off the computer, pay attention to your teacher and finish your work, recess is starting soon, you don't want to be left behind.
So go out and earn the money. Stop wasting your money upgrading your PC, stop buying the latest office and windows updates, don't buy that new PC you've been looking at, and get a job. Within about 2 years, you should have more than enough money to buy a mac. The honest reason why PC users (IMHO anyways) do not have enough money to buy a mac is because they keep sinking more and more money into their PC.
The speech is free, it's just a matter of personaly preference. Remembr, no comment get's modified or deleted. MOderation only changes the level of viewability. If you so chose, you could read every single post regardless of it's moderation. However, some people don't like wading through posts like "Billy Gates sucked my balls last night" to get to any sort of significant discussion. If you want complete free speach, surf slashdot with your threshhold set to -1.
I've been saying for a long time and will continue to do so, you can not easily make money off of something which promotes the free and unrestricted flow of information. The internet allows for data to move easily from point to point and removes many of the barriers that allow for making money. To make money off the net is chalenging and very few will ever be succesful.
And what great TV has come over the american airwaves recently? I haven't seen much, in fact I've taken to watching reruns of M*A*S*H, Bugs Bunny and Simpsons. Other than that, there isn't much good on TV here,ecept Who's Line Is It Anyways (oh but wait that's a british show).
Subjective views may be subjective, but that's what determines the real world. Take for example a scientist, who works out a formula for a chemical reaction. ON paper, the reaction should do what he predicts, so then he does the experiment and discovers that it did do what he predicted. If no other scientist can duplicate his results, his findings are considered invalid.
For me it's the same with computers, you can tell me all you want that it's going to run faster and faster, but untill I see it, I'm not going to believe it.
Your memory served you wrong then, the motherboard has 4 DDR slots, and of course I'm using DDR RAM
What I meant was in terms of the itanium. LIke I said, current processors have hit a brick wall. There isn't much farther they can go without some new technology. So we have new tech, AMD is working on 64 bit chips, IBM has the new Power4 chips (I think that's what they were, I'm tired right now) for the macs and pcs and then there's the itanium stuff from intel. One of the reasons intel hasn't and won't for a while pushed the itaniums is that it would be nearly impossible for them to convince their consumers that the chip with a lower Mhz is actualy better than the ones they have now. It's the same battle that Apple and AMD are fighting, except Intel has to fight it against themselves