A Computer hardware and components forum. ComputerBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ComputerBanter.com forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Intel's agreement with the FTC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 6th 10, 11:02 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 917
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On 8/6/2010 3:46 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
On Aug 6, 1:52 pm, wrote:

Windows requires a PCI bus so that alone will keep from going anywhere.


But not as a x16 slot that nVidia can plug its cards into.

Otherwise, why am I paying government lawyers to reserve space on
every motherboard I buy for at least six years?

Robert.


It hasn't said that you need to keep the slots around, just the bus.
That means GPUs can be soldiered onto motherboards using PCIe lines
directly.

Yousuf Khan
  #22  
Old August 6th 10, 11:11 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 917
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On 8/6/2010 2:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:

snip rest of crap

Were I Intel, I'd be *much* more worried about ARM than about AMD.
That doesn't even account for the fact that China has both the capital
and the engineering expertise to do more or less whatever it wants,
independent of both Intel *and* ARM.


Well, of course, that's because the ARM market is the only market that
Intel hasn't been able to bring to brink of near destruction with its
anti-competitive actions. Remember it wasn't so long ago that Intel
itself was selling ARM processors, in the form of Xscale. Nobody wanted
to buy them from Intel, because everybody was afraid of dealing with
Intel. Instead they bought their ARM's from anybody else but Intel. It's
not that there was anything wrong with the Xscales, in fact they started
selling like hotcakes -- once they were produced by Marvell instead.
Nobody wants to deal with the mafia if they have a choice.

Aside from optical interconnects, this entire thread has been about
yesterday's news.


What this is supposed to be a form of derision from you? News is always
about yesterday's news.

Even optical interconnects are yesterday's news. Why not just wait for
quantum interconnects?

Yousuf Khan
  #23  
Old August 6th 10, 11:14 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 6, 6:02*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 8/6/2010 3:46 PM, Robert Myers wrote:

On Aug 6, 1:52 pm, *wrote:


Windows requires a PCI bus so that alone will keep from going anywhere..


But not as a *x16 slot that nVidia can plug its cards into.


Otherwise, why am I paying government lawyers to reserve space on
every motherboard I buy for at least six years?



It hasn't said that you need to keep the slots around, just the bus.
That means GPUs can be soldiered onto motherboards using PCIe lines
directly.


I *knew* you'd say that. Let's see what happens.

Robert.

  #24  
Old August 6th 10, 11:38 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 6, 6:11*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:

What this is supposed to be a form of derision from you? News is always
about yesterday's news.

Even optical interconnects are yesterday's news. Why not just wait for
quantum interconnects?


But you were just telling me that optical interconnects wouldn't
happen for ten years. How could that be yesterday's news?

Let's put it this way. AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot
Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours.

Robert.

  #25  
Old August 7th 10, 01:41 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 917
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On 8/6/2010 6:14 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
It hasn't said that you need to keep the slots around, just the bus.
That means GPUs can be soldiered onto motherboards using PCIe lines
directly.


I *knew* you'd say that. Let's see what happens.

Robert.


That's the way discrete graphics in laptops are done anyways. Have you
ever seen a video card for laptops, either from ATI or Nvidia? The
mobile video "cards" are really just part of the motherboard. Plus Atom
systems will still need PCIe lines, because all modern PC-Card (formerly
PCMCIA) peripherals are direct extensions of the PCIe interfaces.

Yousuf Khan
  #26  
Old August 7th 10, 01:44 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 917
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On 8/6/2010 6:38 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:11 pm, Yousuf wrote:

What this is supposed to be a form of derision from you? News is always
about yesterday's news.

Even optical interconnects are yesterday's news. Why not just wait for
quantum interconnects?


But you were just telling me that optical interconnects wouldn't
happen for ten years. How could that be yesterday's news?


At some point everything is yesterday's news compared to some other news.

Let's put it this way. AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot
Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours.


Speaking of yesterday's news.

Yousuf Khan
  #27  
Old August 7th 10, 04:13 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 6, 8:44*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 8/6/2010 6:38 PM, Robert Myers wrote:

On Aug 6, 6:11 pm, Yousuf *wrote:


What this is supposed to be a form of derision from you? News is always
about yesterday's news.


Even optical interconnects are yesterday's news. Why not just wait for
quantum interconnects?


But you were just telling me that optical interconnects wouldn't
happen for ten years. *How could that be yesterday's news?


At some point everything is yesterday's news compared to some other news.

Let's put it this way. *AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot
Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours.


Speaking of yesterday's news.


And yesterday's wars. Maginot Line was ineffective because it
prepared for a war that was already over.

Robert.

  #28  
Old August 7th 10, 07:14 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On 06/08/2010 11:13 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
Let's put it this way. AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot
Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours.


Speaking of yesterday's news.


And yesterday's wars. Maginot Line was ineffective because it
prepared for a war that was already over.


I'll agree with part of that historical sentiment. The PCIe ruling was
mainly a sop to Nvidia because Intel was crippling the performance of
Nvidia GPUs within its latest PCIe chipsets. That's basically just a
little skirmish in a long drawn-out, multi-front war. It's a battle that
might have already finished, for all we know. However, unlike the case
of the WW2-era French Maginot Line, which was a lesson learned from a
previous major war, but this lesson made France complacent about its
defenses, this thing does the opposite. It takes a lesson from a
previous minor skirmish and completely surrounds and shackles Intel. In
other words, it's the reverse of the Maginot Line, it is an
over-reaction against Intel. As you said, Intel is now obligated to keep
carrying PCIe for several more years (which it probably would've done
anyways), but now it must clear its changes with its rivals (which it
would've never done).

Yousuf Khan

***

"Section V. is one of the most interesting, it puts some serious
handcuffs on Intel. All while forcing them to dig a hole deep enough for
light not to reach the bottom. And sit there. Smiling. What V. says is
that any time Intel makes a change, basically any change, that degrades
the performance of another competitor, Intel has to prove that it was
done for technically beneficial reasons.

Remember the part about PCIe changes that allegedly hamstrung Nvidia
GPUs? Well, if that happens again, the burden of proof is now on Intel
to show why they did it. Mother hen is getting jittery from all that Red
Bull, and is looking for someone to hit. Hard. Intel has to climb out of
the hole, feed the hen Valium, and then dance. Fast. And look pretty
while doing it, or WHAM."
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/08/...t-cleaned-ftc/
  #29  
Old August 7th 10, 06:55 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 7, 2:14*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 06/08/2010 11:13 PM, Robert Myers wrote:

Let's put it this way. *AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot
Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours.


Speaking of yesterday's news.


And yesterday's wars. *Maginot Line was ineffective because it
prepared for a war that was already over.


I'll agree with part of that historical sentiment. The PCIe ruling was
mainly a sop to Nvidia because Intel was crippling the performance of
Nvidia GPUs within its latest PCIe chipsets. That's basically just a
little skirmish in a long drawn-out, multi-front war. It's a battle that
might have already finished, for all we know. However, unlike the case
of the WW2-era French Maginot Line, which was a lesson learned from a
previous major war, but this lesson made France complacent about its
defenses, this thing does the opposite. It takes a lesson from a
previous minor skirmish and completely surrounds and shackles Intel. In
other words, it's the reverse of the Maginot Line, it is an
over-reaction against Intel. As you said, Intel is now obligated to keep
carrying PCIe for several more years (which it probably would've done
anyways), but now it must clear its changes with its rivals (which it
would've never done).

* * * * Yousuf Khan

***

"Section V. is one of the most interesting, it puts some serious
handcuffs on Intel. All while forcing them to dig a hole deep enough for
light not to reach the bottom. And sit there. Smiling. What V. says is
that any time Intel makes a change, basically any change, that degrades
the performance of another competitor, Intel has to prove that it was
done for technically beneficial reasons.

Remember the part about PCIe changes that allegedly hamstrung Nvidia
GPUs? Well, if that happens again, the burden of proof is now on Intel
to show why they did it. Mother hen is getting jittery from all that Red
Bull, and is looking for someone to hit. Hard. Intel has to climb out of
the hole, feed the hen Valium, and then dance. Fast. And look pretty
while doing it, or WHAM."http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/08/06/more-intel-dirt-cleaned-ftc/


The irony of all of this, Yousuf, is that you wouldn't even have this
playground if it weren't for the aggressive behavior of two upstart
monopolists: Microsoft and Intel. IBM, the once-invincible
monopolist, never saw it coming. IBM survived, but it almost didn't.

If it can happen once, it can and almost certainly will happen again.
Maybe the mass market for uber expensive PC's will dry up, and the
future is ARM and Ubuntu. Maybe the server space and even HPC will
become dominated by specialized CPU's that only do some jobs
exceedingly well and others not at all. Right now, the business is
sufficiently capital and research intensive that it favors
monopolists, but the technology is maturing and on its way to being
commoditized.

Anyone who has observed all this from beginning to end, watching
companies come and go like fireflies flickering in the night, has to
realize that everything is temporary. The interesting question for
someone with such a perspective isn't what fleas like the FTC will do
next, but from which bush the next pit bull will leap out. "I always
say," Caligula opines in I, Claudius, "find a dog who'll eat a bigger
dog."

The bigger dog will come, even if no one knows from where or when. In
the meantime, the sob stories of also-rans just aren't that
interesting.

Robert.
  #30  
Old August 8th 10, 03:43 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Joe Pfeiffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 116
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

Yousuf Khan writes:

On 8/6/2010 6:14 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
It hasn't said that you need to keep the slots around, just the bus.
That means GPUs can be soldiered onto motherboards using PCIe lines
directly.


I *knew* you'd say that. Let's see what happens.

Robert.


That's the way discrete graphics in laptops are done anyways. Have you
ever seen a video card for laptops, either from ATI or Nvidia? The
mobile video "cards" are really just part of the motherboard. Plus
Atom systems will still need PCIe lines, because all modern PC-Card
(formerly PCMCIA) peripherals are direct extensions of the PCIe
interfaces.


I thought PC Card was PCI, ExpressCard (which I've never actually seen
in real life) was PCIe?
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel to pull x86 cross-licensing agreement with AMD in 60 days Yousuf Khan General 0 March 16th 09 09:11 PM
Vista license agreement is a joke Garrot Homebuilt PC's 47 November 22nd 06 10:18 AM
Vista license agreement is a joke Garrot Storage (alt) 6 October 15th 06 05:06 AM
Vista license agreement is a joke Garrot Nvidia Videocards 0 October 13th 06 08:07 PM
Support contract agreement not met; what does Dell do about it? Clint Dell Computers 8 April 6th 06 09:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ComputerBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.