I agree. I have IE disabled and several other "features" of windows as well as a finely tuned firewall which controls traffic in, out, and between the machines of my network.
The end result of this is that although we have virus protection which is up to date etc I get maybe one or two alerts a day that anything is even trying to come in for 20+ users, and that is usualy a blocked email.
Firefox bugs seem to be the sort that can only be exploited in a supremely limited scenario where as IE bugs tend to trash your system if they get hit. Little difference? I think so.
What I wonder is why no one publishes opera bugs? Are they that good or just not enough market share?
You noticed that too eh? Proves what they are spending thier money and development time on.
I think as technologicaly aware individuals we have a responsability to inform others, as was stated earlier. Even if they do not care, planting the seed of doubt in thier mind will have an effect.
What if Dell tries to sell longhorn but is hit with too many requests for XP still? They will cave, and microsoft will loose. As another individual pointed out... do not buy the monitors, and when you get content that requires it write the company explaining why you will not purchase it. If they get even a few hundred of these letters it will make an impact.
It does not have to be a large number of people that do these things, simply large enough that OEMs will continue to offer alternatives and we win.
Who cares? It is INTEL compiler!!!
Why does no one get this... it is THIER compiler... it has NO requirements to be nor has it been marketed as a generic compiler for all platforms.
It has in fact been marketed as an optimised compiler for the Intel processors which it sounds to me like it does.
So what is the friggin issue? You want your program to run on AMD you compile with something else, hurt thier sales and you have excercised your rights as a consumer to influence the market just like you did buying the processor.
If on the other hand I want to run an Intel processor and have super fast code running on it I will compile it with the product designed for the processor.
Simple enough?
The real question is did Intel ever CLAIM thier compiler to be compatable with other processors? Did they ever sell it is a generic compiler for all platforms or did they sell it saying "This is our compiler for our chips and it will produce rock solid fast code for our chips"
If so then those who baught it got what they paid for. What did they expect buying a compiler from a chip manufacturer?
I don't buy a BMW engine, put it in a frame I "built to thier specifications" and then complain to BMW that it does not drive like one of thier cars. That is basicaly what this complaint boils down to.
The other thing people seem to be missing here is Intel has NOT targeted AMD specificaly, they have targeted ANY processor that is not thiers. Does this make sense? YES. How else than they ensure full compliance with thier specs? Do you expect each executable to fully test every chip it is run on before executing an instruction?
The compiler is not meant to be a generic compiler, it is mean to take advantage of technology in an Intel chip. If AMD wants to compete they should write a compiler that takes advantage of thier chips.
The best they could do is offer some "certification" of the processor to allow it to report as compliant. Again though, why should they have to? Thier compiler is a product to produce optomised code to run on THIER chips, end of story.
Slashdot Mirror
But will they be glowing silicon lazer boobies that make colored bubbles?
feel less of a need to discriminate between home and work than some other groups.
We get to go home? Since when? I thought that is why they put the couch in the hall for me.
I agree. I have IE disabled and several other "features" of windows as well as a finely tuned firewall which controls traffic in, out, and between the machines of my network. The end result of this is that although we have virus protection which is up to date etc I get maybe one or two alerts a day that anything is even trying to come in for 20+ users, and that is usualy a blocked email. Firefox bugs seem to be the sort that can only be exploited in a supremely limited scenario where as IE bugs tend to trash your system if they get hit. Little difference? I think so. What I wonder is why no one publishes opera bugs? Are they that good or just not enough market share?
You noticed that too eh? Proves what they are spending thier money and development time on.
I think as technologicaly aware individuals we have a responsability to inform others, as was stated earlier. Even if they do not care, planting the seed of doubt in thier mind will have an effect.
What if Dell tries to sell longhorn but is hit with too many requests for XP still? They will cave, and microsoft will loose. As another individual pointed out... do not buy the monitors, and when you get content that requires it write the company explaining why you will not purchase it. If they get even a few hundred of these letters it will make an impact.
It does not have to be a large number of people that do these things, simply large enough that OEMs will continue to offer alternatives and we win.
Who cares? It is INTEL compiler!!! Why does no one get this... it is THIER compiler... it has NO requirements to be nor has it been marketed as a generic compiler for all platforms. It has in fact been marketed as an optimised compiler for the Intel processors which it sounds to me like it does. So what is the friggin issue? You want your program to run on AMD you compile with something else, hurt thier sales and you have excercised your rights as a consumer to influence the market just like you did buying the processor. If on the other hand I want to run an Intel processor and have super fast code running on it I will compile it with the product designed for the processor. Simple enough?
Ok since you posted this while I was typing basicaly the same thing I am just going to try and mod your post up.
The real question is did Intel ever CLAIM thier compiler to be compatable with other processors? Did they ever sell it is a generic compiler for all platforms or did they sell it saying "This is our compiler for our chips and it will produce rock solid fast code for our chips"
If so then those who baught it got what they paid for. What did they expect buying a compiler from a chip manufacturer?
I don't buy a BMW engine, put it in a frame I "built to thier specifications" and then complain to BMW that it does not drive like one of thier cars. That is basicaly what this complaint boils down to.
The other thing people seem to be missing here is Intel has NOT targeted AMD specificaly, they have targeted ANY processor that is not thiers. Does this make sense? YES. How else than they ensure full compliance with thier specs? Do you expect each executable to fully test every chip it is run on before executing an instruction?
The compiler is not meant to be a generic compiler, it is mean to take advantage of technology in an Intel chip. If AMD wants to compete they should write a compiler that takes advantage of thier chips.
The best they could do is offer some "certification" of the processor to allow it to report as compliant. Again though, why should they have to? Thier compiler is a product to produce optomised code to run on THIER chips, end of story.