Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
On 31 May 2005 09:12:51 -0700, rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 07:20:37 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 30 May 2005 02:02:14 -0400, George Macdonald
>> ><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 29 May 2005 07:06:28 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sun, 29 May 2005 01:49:25 -0400, George Macdonald
>> >>><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >><<snip>>
>> >>
>> >>>>Look back in the thread for *your* use and definition of "incompatible" -
>> >>>>no it wasn't I who started this. Both AMD & Intel sell actual x86 chips
>> >>>>which both run the same code; if a P4 is an "actual Intel chip" an Athlon64
>> >>>>is an "actual AMD chip". No it's not something else and the ownership of
>> >>>>the definition has just formally changed... to shared?
>> >>>>
>> >>>It's your claim, George. You can't demand that I do the work to back
>> >>>up your claim, can you? In any case, I'm not going to. Google says
>> >>>that the word "incompatible" belongs to you.
>> >>
>> >>4bv89155v8hviq15hg3kv810ru1gos26q2@4ax.com - "An AMD processor is
>> >>incompatible with an Intel processor because...." seems to predate anything
>> >>I've said.
>> >>
>> >Sorry, I couldn't find that. As it is, though, anything less than the
>> >full quote is misleading:
>> >
>> >"An AMD processor is incompatible with an Intel processor because it
>> >doesn't say Intel on the package and Intel will tell you to pound sand
>> >if you have questions about it."
>>
>> D'oh! You can't find that then you find it - what the hell are you on
>> about? What is it that you can't find about a Message ID? If your
>> newsreader doesn't support it, plug it into the Message ID box at Google
>> Groups.
>>
>
>It isn't absolutely obvious that I found the quote from the message ID
>because I quoted said message in my reply?
Have you been studying law?🙂
>> >It's clear that I'm not claiming they are incompatible in any ordinary
>> >sense.
>>
>> Just what are we to make of this? You said it... but you didn't
>> really<gawp> - on top of which you ascribed the use to me. Nobody in their
>> right mind would expect Intel to help them with an AMD CPU... and yet
>> that's a reason to mark AMD's product as "incompatible". This is nuts - an
>> exercise in the absurd.
>>
>Are you angling for a position on Firing Line?
I'm that good?:-[]
>> > Even so, it is just inconceivable to me that you'll never turn
>> >up differences between the two processors that mean that a user
>> >application will work with one and not the other. Badly designed
>> >application? Probably. It's just something that people aren't going
>> >to worry about it if they don't have to.
>>
>> What utter rubbish - there's as much chance of finding an app which works
>> with only one version of a P4 and not the other versions... or a P-M or
>> vice versa. Again you have no evidence so you speculate about things which
>> might be... and with apparently no first-hand knowledge or experience.
>> Talk about a definition of FFUD [sic]!
>>
>
>George, this is really very easy. In your view of the world, AMD
>processors are going to dominate the market. In my view of the world,
>that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Since AMD, at the moment, is
>the better deal for almost everyone, there has to be a reason why, in
>my view of the world, Intel's dominance will continue. I've stated my
>view of the world as clearly as I know how. Buyers favor the dominant
>supplier for a whole host of reasons, not all of them peculiar to IT.
>The reasons may look irrational, and some of them are irrational, but
>the safest bet is to buy from the largest, most stable supplier. The
>largest, most stable supplier is Intel. That's true now and far into
>the forseeable future. I'm tired of arguing about it.
No - you have it wrong. I do not expect AMD to dominate the market - I
just think they have an even chance of success; ideally from my consumer
POV, there'd be a 50:50 market split just to be sure that neither loses it
completely. Personally I buy the best deal for the $ with possibly a
narrow advantage to the underdog to contribute my bit to the 50:50; others
may see it differently.<shrug>
Apart from the smear aspects of your attacks on AMD, I dispute your
authority to speak for "buyers" in general. There are clearly sectors of
the market, outside the dumping activity, who choose based on performance.
I also am tired of arguing but I will not hesitate to present my view on
the subject again, when provoked.
--
Rgds, George Macdonald
On 31 May 2005 09:12:51 -0700, rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 07:20:37 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 30 May 2005 02:02:14 -0400, George Macdonald
>> ><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 29 May 2005 07:06:28 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sun, 29 May 2005 01:49:25 -0400, George Macdonald
>> >>><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >><<snip>>
>> >>
>> >>>>Look back in the thread for *your* use and definition of "incompatible" -
>> >>>>no it wasn't I who started this. Both AMD & Intel sell actual x86 chips
>> >>>>which both run the same code; if a P4 is an "actual Intel chip" an Athlon64
>> >>>>is an "actual AMD chip". No it's not something else and the ownership of
>> >>>>the definition has just formally changed... to shared?
>> >>>>
>> >>>It's your claim, George. You can't demand that I do the work to back
>> >>>up your claim, can you? In any case, I'm not going to. Google says
>> >>>that the word "incompatible" belongs to you.
>> >>
>> >>4bv89155v8hviq15hg3kv810ru1gos26q2@4ax.com - "An AMD processor is
>> >>incompatible with an Intel processor because...." seems to predate anything
>> >>I've said.
>> >>
>> >Sorry, I couldn't find that. As it is, though, anything less than the
>> >full quote is misleading:
>> >
>> >"An AMD processor is incompatible with an Intel processor because it
>> >doesn't say Intel on the package and Intel will tell you to pound sand
>> >if you have questions about it."
>>
>> D'oh! You can't find that then you find it - what the hell are you on
>> about? What is it that you can't find about a Message ID? If your
>> newsreader doesn't support it, plug it into the Message ID box at Google
>> Groups.
>>
>
>It isn't absolutely obvious that I found the quote from the message ID
>because I quoted said message in my reply?
Have you been studying law?🙂
>> >It's clear that I'm not claiming they are incompatible in any ordinary
>> >sense.
>>
>> Just what are we to make of this? You said it... but you didn't
>> really<gawp> - on top of which you ascribed the use to me. Nobody in their
>> right mind would expect Intel to help them with an AMD CPU... and yet
>> that's a reason to mark AMD's product as "incompatible". This is nuts - an
>> exercise in the absurd.
>>
>Are you angling for a position on Firing Line?
I'm that good?:-[]
>> > Even so, it is just inconceivable to me that you'll never turn
>> >up differences between the two processors that mean that a user
>> >application will work with one and not the other. Badly designed
>> >application? Probably. It's just something that people aren't going
>> >to worry about it if they don't have to.
>>
>> What utter rubbish - there's as much chance of finding an app which works
>> with only one version of a P4 and not the other versions... or a P-M or
>> vice versa. Again you have no evidence so you speculate about things which
>> might be... and with apparently no first-hand knowledge or experience.
>> Talk about a definition of FFUD [sic]!
>>
>
>George, this is really very easy. In your view of the world, AMD
>processors are going to dominate the market. In my view of the world,
>that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Since AMD, at the moment, is
>the better deal for almost everyone, there has to be a reason why, in
>my view of the world, Intel's dominance will continue. I've stated my
>view of the world as clearly as I know how. Buyers favor the dominant
>supplier for a whole host of reasons, not all of them peculiar to IT.
>The reasons may look irrational, and some of them are irrational, but
>the safest bet is to buy from the largest, most stable supplier. The
>largest, most stable supplier is Intel. That's true now and far into
>the forseeable future. I'm tired of arguing about it.
No - you have it wrong. I do not expect AMD to dominate the market - I
just think they have an even chance of success; ideally from my consumer
POV, there'd be a 50:50 market split just to be sure that neither loses it
completely. Personally I buy the best deal for the $ with possibly a
narrow advantage to the underdog to contribute my bit to the 50:50; others
may see it differently.<shrug>
Apart from the smear aspects of your attacks on AMD, I dispute your
authority to speak for "buyers" in general. There are clearly sectors of
the market, outside the dumping activity, who choose based on performance.
I also am tired of arguing but I will not hesitate to present my view on
the subject again, when provoked.
--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram