People constantly complain about the fact that x86 sucks - here's finally a chance to do something about it (ala the mac powerpc change) and everyone starts whining
Yes, one of the strengths and weaknesses of the Wintel market. With Apple, they control the whole show, so they can both dictate, but then be sure to fully (well, somewhat fully) deliver such wholesale changes. With Wintel, you have to get buyin from M$ first and foremost, and then what are the odds that M$ will go at it both barrels, uh not! They'll hedge their bets and support whichever arch. that pushes more copies of Windoze (which with either chip, means a new upgrade, hooray).
but really, what advantage does it have on the high end not offered by Power, Sparc, PA-Risc, etc
Simple, the ability to run M$ operating systems (which the other chips no longer have). As long as M$ has it's weight behind the thing, then Intel will always have a significant advantage. Reasonable (though not stellar by any stretch) x86 compatibility also helps.
AMD has 32-bit backward compatability and intel's does not
Sorry, wrong. The Itanic IS backwards compatible with 32bit x86 software. AAMOF, it's been beat up quite a bit about it's lackluster performance in this regard (though understandable from Intel's POV, since it's designed to replace the x86 ISA, not just be a faster x86 chip).
You're thinking of copyrite/trademark law. One must actively defend copyrites/trademarks or risk "losing" them. Patents have no such requirement. The burden is on the other guy to make sure he isn't violating your patent, not on you (which would be near impossible since patented things are often times embedded in bigger things). Note that with copyrites/trademarks, it is not necessary to go after everybody, you just have to show that you are making an effort to enforce your rights to make the courts happy.
Actually, the patent is the thing that matters, not that it has been standardized. If the patent holds up, the fact that it has become a universal standard don't mean squat. This isn't copyright/trademark law, it's patent law, which is different.
So in other words, both companies are doing most likely the same thing, though Intel is slightly more underhanded about theirs
No, not at all. Two completely different paths. AMD's strategy is obvious. Intel otoh is a bit more complex. They want people (high end people that is) to move away from the commodity x86 chips (currently P4/Xeon) and to this new ISA. Why? Well, two primary reasons, the first one is a bit lost in the shuffle, the second one plain as day.
Firstly, you have to know the history behind the Itanium/Merced. It was conceived back when Intel still considered RISC to be a major threat and the likes of AMD were really no competition at all. So the thinking was that x86 would never economically scale up to the levels that RISC could, and therefore a complete departure was required to ensure that they kept the performance edge (boy howdy do times change!). Their primary goal was performance, x86 compatibility was an afterthought (and it shows). It wasn't until it became obvious that x86 compat. was important (and the surprising upramp in x86 clock rates) did Intel realize that they were going to have to put way more effort into x86 compat mode then they ever wanted to.
Secondly, and this is probably most important now given the huge advantage Intel has over rivals in the clock rate category, is the simple obvious fact that there are no IA64 clones. If Intel can convince the market to move to the new architecture, they will once again have free pricing reign over the market. They can also make sure that follow any clone activities much closer (i.e. the lawyers would follow the clone activity much closer). This my friends is the big buy. Once again, a sea all to themselves, once again massive margins (well ok, more massive margins). No niggling AMD nipping at your toes.
So, there you go, more than you ever wanted to know and probably care about.;)
Completely different issue here. Pentium -> PPro -> PII, the ISA was basically the same. Incremental changes only, cost of the hardware itself was the limiting factor. x86 -> IA64 is a completely different ISA, many more factors involved, with software now being the primary issue.
Think Quicktime7 ported to use the Infinite Reality engine. I can see that Onyx2 with purple translucent skins, but dang those blue led's on the hd's would look kewl.
Power4 - Won't happen. The "chip" is too high end to attract enough customers. Perhaps IBM will come out with a new PPC chip based on Power4 concepts (multiple cores, high bandwidth interconnects) though.
ARM - Probably won't happen. ARM is pitched toward low end PDA class machines, OSX would be way to heavy for such a use. Perhaps if it were paired down and classic compatability thrown away, it _might_ happen. Though it's hard to imagine any of the current ARM based PDA guys switching away from M$ since they all have desktops that use Windoze and they wouldn't want to piss M$ off.
MIPS - A moribund processor (as far as the desktop market goes). Not enough market share and no real hope of ever getting any (unless the PS2 with Linux kit starts to take over the home pc market space;) Maybe Apple will buy SGI and whatever patents they have remaining?
Sparc - Not likely. Those who buy Sparc based machines are typically data center guys, who would laugh in your face if you suggested installed OSX on their E10000.
Transmeta - Now this might have been interesting. Tweak the chip to efficiently run Classic as well as native OSX. Not enough ooomph though. Apples biggest marketing headache against WinTel is the mhz wars, and TM would not help there at all. And of course TM's problems. Perhaps IBM will buy TM and incorporate the technology into the G6 (along with the Power4 stuff from above).
Alpha - Never. A dead end as far as the market goes. Though running your VMS apps natively under OSX would have been interesting.
People often attributed Kurt Cobain's famous quote to him: "It is better to burn out than to fade away."
Ole Kurt was not the source of the quote though, that would be Neil Young from around '76-'77 time frame. He just, uh, borrowed it since it, uh, fit the moment, I guess.
Actually you are not disagreeing with what I said. If you'd re-read even what you quoted:
With a larger screen, losing part of it to ad's won't seem like such a horrible deal to many.
Notice I said "to many", not "everyone", and not necessarily you. I personally hate them myself (and I do have large screen tvs), but I do see it being more accepted because of the wide spread us of larger screens, which was my original point. How that turned into some endorsement of the whole concept, I have no idea. I guess it's the old/. "yer either for us, or against us" mentality, since I dared to not rip the concept;)
I realize that the resolution doesn't change (hence my careful wording that the screen size changes). People are less likely to notice a reduction in quality of picture do to information loss, than they are loss in portion of the picture (i.e. better to squeeze the image vs overlay it).
Since you mention legibility, todays tv's with their comb filters and what not are also better at displaying smaller text clearer than the tv's of yore (just look at the small fonts that the dtv and cable co's use for their systems).
They really don't talk about the fact that many now have 29"+ tv's in their homes. With a larger screen, losing part of it to ad's won't seem like such a horrible deal to many. We've already been conditioned by ESPN with it's sports ticker and CNN/et al with their news tickers. The shrinking of the content really sucks on 19" and smaller tv's, but with more and more people watching on their 51" projectors, this should help the networks and advertisers out a lot.
I don't know how Apple has been dealing with this pathetic shortage
Um, Apple is probably the _cause_ of the shortage. You can be guaranteed that Apple has a deal with Pioneer to ensure that they get first dibs on the units that are produced.
appeals to the masses that don't care about mucking with the thing
Once again, I'm refering to the a specific set of masses that don't care about mucking with hardware, not the general population. And there are definitely a large number of people who fall into this category. I never said "the masses that want to buy a Mac", you're misunderstanding what I wrote.
I won't comment about your final statement since it's so naive as to be troll bait.
appeals to the masses that don't care about mucking with the thing
Not the masses, but a specific subset, and it does appeal to them. Don't want to get into the whole market share/PC+Mac history thing. Just get your "why the masses buy what they buy", vs "buying the best tool for the job" thinking straight, cuz they have nothing to do with each other in the case of computers (and software).
Hey, your post should be used by the DOJ as proof that being able to bundle/integrate applications in/with the OS provides M$ with an unfair advantage, as even a "technical" person as yourself doesn't "feel like" taking the time/effort to download additional 3rd party software.
True, creating a computer that appeals to the masses that don't care about mucking with the thing and just want to get some work done is an act of 100% pure evil.
Well wouldn't it also depend a lot on whether or not one thought that the subjects getting zapped KNEW that that was what was going to happen. After all, I'd do it if I "knew" that the people on the receiving end had volunteered knowing what was going to happen to them. To me that would make all the difference in the world.
Actually the industry has severly downplayed the number of bits in their systems. This was a big deal esp when the jump from 16 -> 32 was made (3D0 era), but since then most manuf. usually just mention it, vs making it a key selling point (e.g. the 128bit Emotion Engine vs the 128bit Playstation2).
I guess this is a combination of the industry realizing that bits don't mean much beyond 32 and that the average user is now computer savy enough to know that the number of bits really doesn't matter (now the Mhz, why everybody knows that _it_ is the most important factor in performance;)
In short, while it may "make sense" to use consoles as a loss leader, this isn't how things are usually done in the industry
I think that the quote is somewhat correct (and so are you). What the quote really is referring to is initial costs. Almost all manufacturers take an initial hit on the hardware to create market share and thereby push software. The Herring article says that each PS2 costs Sony $185, which at an absolute is cheaper than their $199 MSRP. But when you consider that even if they sold it to their dealers for $190 to eek out some profit, we're still only talking $5 per box, not exactly a bounty (though still better than a loss). Now this is one area that Nintendo definitely has their sh*t together. They specifically designed the cube to be underpowered but easy/cheap to manufacture and are "reaping" the benefits.
But if I were the IBM sales rep for supercomputing, I'd sure be hyping the fact that when it's not simulating nuclear explosions, you can run Gimp and Mozilla
People, people, this was a joke. You know, not intended to be taken seriously. Of course if someone is going to spend 10 figures on a computer, they don't give a flip about Gimp, etc. Chill, it's ok, put the Pepsi down.
True, but if you look at the Top1000 list, you'll see significantly more IBM machines across the board then NEC, including a large number of "standard" units (sold as kick ass RS/6000's vs "supercomputers", e.g. the P690
I would think that this gives them a signficant edge in development costs as well as giving their customers more flexibility.
And I don't think you would sell many supercomputers for IBM if you were advocating Gimp and Mozilla as applications
Oh come on, nuclear physicists like to clean up photos of their dogs (probably don't have girlfriends) and surf the web just like anyone else;) Imagine the speed in which those nerdy scientists can apply those Gimp filters to all that pr0n they download.
Slashdot Mirror
People constantly complain about the fact that x86 sucks - here's finally a chance to do something about it (ala the mac powerpc change) and everyone starts whining
Yes, one of the strengths and weaknesses of the Wintel market. With Apple, they control the whole show, so they can both dictate, but then be sure to fully (well, somewhat fully) deliver such wholesale changes. With Wintel, you have to get buyin from M$ first and foremost, and then what are the odds that M$ will go at it both barrels, uh not! They'll hedge their bets and support whichever arch. that pushes more copies of Windoze (which with either chip, means a new upgrade, hooray).
but really, what advantage does it have on the high end not offered by Power, Sparc, PA-Risc, etc
Simple, the ability to run M$ operating systems (which the other chips no longer have). As long as M$ has it's weight behind the thing, then Intel will always have a significant advantage. Reasonable (though not stellar by any stretch) x86 compatibility also helps.
AMD has 32-bit backward compatability and intel's does not
Sorry, wrong. The Itanic IS backwards compatible with 32bit x86 software. AAMOF, it's been beat up quite a bit about it's lackluster performance in this regard (though understandable from Intel's POV, since it's designed to replace the x86 ISA, not just be a faster x86 chip).
You're thinking of copyrite/trademark law. One must actively defend copyrites/trademarks or risk "losing" them. Patents have no such requirement. The burden is on the other guy to make sure he isn't violating your patent, not on you (which would be near impossible since patented things are often times embedded in bigger things). Note that with copyrites/trademarks, it is not necessary to go after everybody, you just have to show that you are making an effort to enforce your rights to make the courts happy.
Actually, the patent is the thing that matters, not that it has been standardized. If the patent holds up, the fact that it has become a universal standard don't mean squat. This isn't copyright/trademark law, it's patent law, which is different.
So in other words, both companies are doing most likely the same thing, though Intel is slightly more underhanded about theirs
;)
No, not at all. Two completely different paths. AMD's strategy is obvious. Intel otoh is a bit more complex. They want people (high end people that is) to move away from the commodity x86 chips (currently P4/Xeon) and to this new ISA. Why? Well, two primary reasons, the first one is a bit lost in the shuffle, the second one plain as day.
Firstly, you have to know the history behind the Itanium/Merced. It was conceived back when Intel still considered RISC to be a major threat and the likes of AMD were really no competition at all. So the thinking was that x86 would never economically scale up to the levels that RISC could, and therefore a complete departure was required to ensure that they kept the performance edge (boy howdy do times change!). Their primary goal was performance, x86 compatibility was an afterthought (and it shows). It wasn't until it became obvious that x86 compat. was important (and the surprising upramp in x86 clock rates) did Intel realize that they were going to have to put way more effort into x86 compat mode then they ever wanted to.
Secondly, and this is probably most important now given the huge advantage Intel has over rivals in the clock rate category, is the simple obvious fact that there are no IA64 clones. If Intel can convince the market to move to the new architecture, they will once again have free pricing reign over the market. They can also make sure that follow any clone activities much closer (i.e. the lawyers would follow the clone activity much closer). This my friends is the big buy. Once again, a sea all to themselves, once again massive margins (well ok, more massive margins). No niggling AMD nipping at your toes.
So, there you go, more than you ever wanted to know and probably care about.
Completely different issue here. Pentium -> PPro -> PII, the ISA was basically the same. Incremental changes only, cost of the hardware itself was the limiting factor. x86 -> IA64 is a completely different ISA, many more factors involved, with software now being the primary issue.
Think Quicktime7 ported to use the Infinite Reality engine. I can see that Onyx2 with purple translucent skins, but dang those blue led's on the hd's would look kewl.
Power4 - Won't happen. The "chip" is too high end to attract enough customers. Perhaps IBM will come out with a new PPC chip based on Power4 concepts (multiple cores, high bandwidth interconnects) though.
;) Maybe Apple will buy SGI and whatever patents they have remaining?
ARM - Probably won't happen. ARM is pitched toward low end PDA class machines, OSX would be way to heavy for such a use. Perhaps if it were paired down and classic compatability thrown away, it _might_ happen. Though it's hard to imagine any of the current ARM based PDA guys switching away from M$ since they all have desktops that use Windoze and they wouldn't want to piss M$ off.
MIPS - A moribund processor (as far as the desktop market goes). Not enough market share and no real hope of ever getting any (unless the PS2 with Linux kit starts to take over the home pc market space
Sparc - Not likely. Those who buy Sparc based machines are typically data center guys, who would laugh in your face if you suggested installed OSX on their E10000.
Transmeta - Now this might have been interesting. Tweak the chip to efficiently run Classic as well as native OSX. Not enough ooomph though. Apples biggest marketing headache against WinTel is the mhz wars, and TM would not help there at all. And of course TM's problems. Perhaps IBM will buy TM and incorporate the technology into the G6 (along with the Power4 stuff from above).
Alpha - Never. A dead end as far as the market goes. Though running your VMS apps natively under OSX would have been interesting.
People often attributed Kurt Cobain's famous quote to him: "It is better to burn out than to fade away."
Ole Kurt was not the source of the quote though, that would be Neil Young from around '76-'77 time frame. He just, uh, borrowed it since it, uh, fit the moment, I guess.
I disagree
/. "yer either for us, or against us" mentality, since I dared to not rip the concept ;)
Actually you are not disagreeing with what I said. If you'd re-read even what you quoted:
With a larger screen, losing part of it to ad's won't seem like such a horrible deal to many.
Notice I said "to many", not "everyone", and not necessarily you. I personally hate them myself (and I do have large screen tvs), but I do see it being more accepted because of the wide spread us of larger screens, which was my original point. How that turned into some endorsement of the whole concept, I have no idea. I guess it's the old
I realize that the resolution doesn't change (hence my careful wording that the screen size changes). People are less likely to notice a reduction in quality of picture do to information loss, than they are loss in portion of the picture (i.e. better to squeeze the image vs overlay it).
Since you mention legibility, todays tv's with their comb filters and what not are also better at displaying smaller text clearer than the tv's of yore (just look at the small fonts that the dtv and cable co's use for their systems).
They really don't talk about the fact that many now have 29"+ tv's in their homes. With a larger screen, losing part of it to ad's won't seem like such a horrible deal to many. We've already been conditioned by ESPN with it's sports ticker and CNN/et al with their news tickers. The shrinking of the content really sucks on 19" and smaller tv's, but with more and more people watching on their 51" projectors, this should help the networks and advertisers out a lot.
I don't know how Apple has been dealing with this pathetic shortage
Um, Apple is probably the _cause_ of the shortage. You can be guaranteed that Apple has a deal with Pioneer to ensure that they get first dibs on the units that are produced.
A tiny subset of the masses is not "the masses".
No, no, no. Once again I said
appeals to the masses that don't care about mucking with the thing
Once again, I'm refering to the a specific set of masses that don't care about mucking with hardware, not the general population. And there are definitely a large number of people who fall into this category. I never said "the masses that want to buy a Mac", you're misunderstanding what I wrote.
I won't comment about your final statement since it's so naive as to be troll bait.
Read my post again
appeals to the masses that don't care about mucking with the thing
Not the masses, but a specific subset, and it does appeal to them. Don't want to get into the whole market share/PC+Mac history thing. Just get your "why the masses buy what they buy", vs "buying the best tool for the job" thinking straight, cuz they have nothing to do with each other in the case of computers (and software).
Hey, your post should be used by the DOJ as proof that being able to bundle/integrate applications in/with the OS provides M$ with an unfair advantage, as even a "technical" person as yourself doesn't "feel like" taking the time/effort to download additional 3rd party software.
True, creating a computer that appeals to the masses that don't care about mucking with the thing and just want to get some work done is an act of 100% pure evil.
Well wouldn't it also depend a lot on whether or not one thought that the subjects getting zapped KNEW that that was what was going to happen. After all, I'd do it if I "knew" that the people on the receiving end had volunteered knowing what was going to happen to them. To me that would make all the difference in the world.
Or 100 bats nibble his head off
Actually the industry has severly downplayed the number of bits in their systems. This was a big deal esp when the jump from 16 -> 32 was made (3D0 era), but since then most manuf. usually just mention it, vs making it a key selling point (e.g. the 128bit Emotion Engine vs the 128bit Playstation2).
;)
I guess this is a combination of the industry realizing that bits don't mean much beyond 32 and that the average user is now computer savy enough to know that the number of bits really doesn't matter (now the Mhz, why everybody knows that _it_ is the most important factor in performance
In short, while it may "make sense" to use consoles as a loss leader, this isn't how things are usually done in the industry
I think that the quote is somewhat correct (and so are you). What the quote really is referring to is initial costs. Almost all manufacturers take an initial hit on the hardware to create market share and thereby push software. The Herring article says that each PS2 costs Sony $185, which at an absolute is cheaper than their $199 MSRP. But when you consider that even if they sold it to their dealers for $190 to eek out some profit, we're still only talking $5 per box, not exactly a bounty (though still better than a loss). Now this is one area that Nintendo definitely has their sh*t together. They specifically designed the cube to be underpowered but easy/cheap to manufacture and are "reaping" the benefits.
But if I were the IBM sales rep for supercomputing, I'd sure be hyping the fact that when it's not simulating nuclear explosions, you can run Gimp and Mozilla
People, people, this was a joke. You know, not intended to be taken seriously. Of course if someone is going to spend 10 figures on a computer, they don't give a flip about Gimp, etc. Chill, it's ok, put the Pepsi down.
You can get an SX-6i
;) Imagine the speed in which those nerdy scientists can apply those Gimp filters to all that pr0n they download.
True, but if you look at the Top1000 list, you'll see significantly more IBM machines across the board then NEC, including a large number of "standard" units (sold as kick ass RS/6000's vs "supercomputers", e.g. the P690
I would think that this gives them a signficant edge in development costs as well as giving their customers more flexibility.
And I don't think you would sell many supercomputers for IBM if you were advocating Gimp and Mozilla as applications
Oh come on, nuclear physicists like to clean up photos of their dogs (probably don't have girlfriends) and surf the web just like anyone else
Yes, I mentioned the difference in my post:
...
Now ES' storage is significantly larger that AW