Intel: The chipset is the product

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

KR Williams wrote:
> In article <pln0c0dd5meqcsn9sjfo4ht5cp5t2bhf54@4ax.com>,
> fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
>
>>On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 04:09:28 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 20:00:23 -0400, George Macdonald
>>><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:11:31 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <it1sb0pcprehdarlpsnjtsjhehvflbn5l6@4ax.com>,
>>>>>neil.maxwell@intel.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:41:59 -0400, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Can we look for processors in designer colors next?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Only in Macs...
>>>>>
>>>>>You've obviously not shopped for PCs recently. There are kits to
>>>>>put *windows* (how did M$ miss this?) in the sides of cases to
>>>>>see pretty blue lights on the (also optional) lights inside. If
>>>>>you think Apple has a corner on the nutzo's you're just not with
>>>>>it!
>>>>
>>>>Can we talk, err.. rice?... for a computer?
>>>
>>>I'm still waiting for someone to offer a *HUGE* exhaust tip that I can
>>>slap on to the back of my power supply fan and a giant airplane wing
>>>to give my case more downforce! :>
>>
>>Time to patent my electrostatic ionizing chimney which will work in
>>conjunction with the hover lghts.
>
>
> You forgot the "high efficiency" peltier coolers.
>

It's fun to make fun of emotion- and probably hormone-driven gaming PC
buyers that you can feel superior to, I guess, but given a choice
between game PC buyers as an irrational decision maker (the desktop
supercomputer buyers) and the warehouse-sized supercomputer buyers with
a taxpayer credit card, I'll take the kids that want their cases to glow
as the better bet for the future of computing, thank you very much.

They don't hold press conferences to celebrate how smart they are for
spending $100 million on their last taxpayer-financed boondoggle or for
working out a deal that turns the availability of low-cost
university-owned real estate into an opportunity for personal fame with
a minimum contribution to science, and they don't expect the whole world
to recognize how important they are for owning computers that take up so
much real estate. The kids who want to have fun will eventually get us
just as much memory, just as many gigaflops, and just as much science as
the press-release generators and self-promoters, with a whole lot
smaller expenditure of taxpayer dollars and a whole lot less hot air.

There. Now I feel better. 🙂.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 04:13:04 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>It's fun to make fun of emotion- and probably hormone-driven gaming PC
>buyers that you can feel superior to, I guess, but given a choice
>between game PC buyers as an irrational decision maker (the desktop
>supercomputer buyers) and the warehouse-sized supercomputer buyers with
>a taxpayer credit card, I'll take the kids that want their cases to glow
>as the better bet for the future of computing, thank you very much.
>
>They don't hold press conferences to celebrate how smart they are for
>spending $100 million on their last taxpayer-financed boondoggle or for
>working out a deal that turns the availability of low-cost
>university-owned real estate into an opportunity for personal fame with
>a minimum contribution to science, and they don't expect the whole world
>to recognize how important they are for owning computers that take up so
>much real estate. The kids who want to have fun will eventually get us
>just as much memory, just as many gigaflops, and just as much science as
>the press-release generators and self-promoters, with a whole lot
>smaller expenditure of taxpayer dollars and a whole lot less hot air.
>
>There. Now I feel better. 🙂.
>
>RM

It was a nicely purgative rant ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

KR Williams wrote:
> In article <S41wc.50391$Ly.31838@attbi_s01>, rmyers1400
> @comcast.net says...
>

>>
>>Do you really think Intel could get the chipset marketing campaign for
>>free like that? For one thing, Intel tolerates licensed chipsets from
>>other manufacturers. If it intends to continue tolerating them, then it
>>needs to maintain reasonable relations with them, and suddenly declaring
>>that the "Intel Inside" moniker would not apply to boxes with licensed
>>non-Intel chipsets would be virtually a declaration of war on licensed
>>chipsets for Intel cpu's--probably not the message Intel wants to send
>>to anyone
>
>
> With as many mistooks as Intel has made over the last couple of
> years... Nothing would surprise me. What's the ServerWorks deal
> all about anyway? ...Intel slitting their collective throat once
> again, as I see it, anyway. Dumb! There is no money in
> chipsets. They're simply a necessary evil.
>

The difference between Intel and its proprietary and jealously-guarded
frontside bus and AMD with hypertransport could hardly be more striking.

The benign interpretation of Intel's strategy is that Intel doesn't want
to have problems with chipsets blamed on its silicon. The dark
interpretation, which is supported by Intel's own public pronouncements,
is that Intel wants to use control of the processor as a wedge to
control as much of everything the processor eventually connects to as it
profitably can.

The strategy is unattractive, but I don't know that I would call it
dumb, at least in the short haul. Over the long haul, I'm not so sure,
but if I try to think about the long haul in this business right now, I
wind up with bigger questions than Intel's frontside bus strategy.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <k7Kwc.17468$%F2.10716@attbi_s04>, rmyers1400
@comcast.net says...
> KR Williams wrote:
> > In article <S41wc.50391$Ly.31838@attbi_s01>, rmyers1400
> > @comcast.net says...
> >
>
> >>
> >>Do you really think Intel could get the chipset marketing campaign for
> >>free like that? For one thing, Intel tolerates licensed chipsets from
> >>other manufacturers. If it intends to continue tolerating them, then it
> >>needs to maintain reasonable relations with them, and suddenly declaring
> >>that the "Intel Inside" moniker would not apply to boxes with licensed
> >>non-Intel chipsets would be virtually a declaration of war on licensed
> >>chipsets for Intel cpu's--probably not the message Intel wants to send
> >>to anyone
> >
> >
> > With as many mistooks as Intel has made over the last couple of
> > years... Nothing would surprise me. What's the ServerWorks deal
> > all about anyway? ...Intel slitting their collective throat once
> > again, as I see it, anyway. Dumb! There is no money in
> > chipsets. They're simply a necessary evil.
> >
>
> The difference between Intel and its proprietary and jealously-guarded
> frontside bus and AMD with hypertransport could hardly be more striking.
>
> The benign interpretation of Intel's strategy is that Intel doesn't want
> to have problems with chipsets blamed on its silicon. The dark
> interpretation, which is supported by Intel's own public pronouncements,
> is that Intel wants to use control of the processor as a wedge to
> control as much of everything the processor eventually connects to as it
> profitably can.

We see this differently. There is only so much money that can be
spent on the CPU and it's necessary attachments. Every dime that
is spent on the attachments is a dime that cannot be charged for
the CPU. This is where I think Intel is *dumb*. The know they
can dictate to the chipset manufacturers, so why go through the
grief? Indeed, if they play one against the other they wind up
with the whole pot, minus the production costs. Capitalism at
work. AMD certainly figured this out, since they got out of this
losing market.

> The strategy is unattractive, but I don't know that I would call it
> dumb, at least in the short haul. Over the long haul, I'm not so sure,
> but if I try to think about the long haul in this business right now, I
> wind up with bigger questions than Intel's frontside bus strategy.

I repeat, *dumb*. Chipsets are no more than an necessary evil.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

KR Williams wrote:
> In article <k7Kwc.17468$%F2.10716@attbi_s04>, rmyers1400
> @comcast.net says...
>
>>KR Williams wrote:
>>

<snip>

>>>
>>>With as many mistooks as Intel has made over the last couple of
>>>years... Nothing would surprise me. What's the ServerWorks deal
>>>all about anyway? ...Intel slitting their collective throat once
>>>again, as I see it, anyway. Dumb! There is no money in
>>>chipsets. They're simply a necessary evil.
>>>
>>
>>The difference between Intel and its proprietary and jealously-guarded
>>frontside bus and AMD with hypertransport could hardly be more striking.
>>
>>The benign interpretation of Intel's strategy is that Intel doesn't want
>>to have problems with chipsets blamed on its silicon. The dark
>>interpretation, which is supported by Intel's own public pronouncements,
>>is that Intel wants to use control of the processor as a wedge to
>>control as much of everything the processor eventually connects to as it
>>profitably can.
>
>
> We see this differently. There is only so much money that can be
> spent on the CPU and it's necessary attachments. Every dime that
> is spent on the attachments is a dime that cannot be charged for
> the CPU. This is where I think Intel is *dumb*. The know they
> can dictate to the chipset manufacturers, so why go through the
> grief? Indeed, if they play one against the other they wind up
> with the whole pot, minus the production costs. Capitalism at
> work. AMD certainly figured this out, since they got out of this
> losing market.
>

What you would attribute to cleverness on AMD's part, I would attribute
to necessity. Intel has the cash and the need to find applications for
what it does best (making silicon); AMD doesn't have the cash, and it
doesn't make silicon.

If you're cash-strapped, it makes sense to do what AMD is doing:
conserve resources and focus on the core business. If you're Intel and
trying to find things to do with money, then letting someone else make
anything you could make is just giving business away.

I can think of arguments either way as to whether the strategy Intel has
chosen is really the best choice for the interests of shareholders.
Those arguments rarely carry any weight. Corporations instinctively
hoard and reinvest cash with the goal of growing, whether hoarding and
reinvestment really correspond to wise management of shareholder
resources or not. The fact that the interests of management don't
necessarily and frequently just don't align with the interests of
shareholders *is* a problem of modern corporate capitalism.


RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:27:13 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

>We see this differently. There is only so much money that can be
>spent on the CPU and it's necessary attachments. Every dime that
>is spent on the attachments is a dime that cannot be charged for
>the CPU. This is where I think Intel is *dumb*. The know they
>can dictate to the chipset manufacturers, so why go through the
>grief? Indeed, if they play one against the other they wind up
>with the whole pot, minus the production costs. Capitalism at
>work. AMD certainly figured this out, since they got out of this
>losing market.

Intel has other motives here. Back in the late '486/early Pentium
days, when PCs were really starting to proliferate and production was
ramping madly, Intel found their sales could be limited by chipset
availability, and decided that the way to ensure all possible CPUs
could be sold early (when margins are highest) was to make sure the
chipset support was there.

Chipset production was basically a tool to ensure that CPU sales
weren't at the mercy of outside vendors, and it's worked very well for
them as a strategy. They're a low margin business, but they enable
the high margin business.

It also helps guarantee compatibility and reliability (with a few
well-known exceptions), and the chipsets are manufactured on older
technology production lines that aren't capable of making the latest
CPU geometries, so it allows reuse of already depreciated resources.

Sure, they've messed it up a few times, but overall, it's been very
effective.


Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <7cbxc.15546$4S5.6605@attbi_s52>, rmyers1400
@comcast.net says...
> KR Williams wrote:
> > In article <k7Kwc.17468$%F2.10716@attbi_s04>, rmyers1400
> > @comcast.net says...
> >
> >>KR Williams wrote:
> >>
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>
> >>>With as many mistooks as Intel has made over the last couple of
> >>>years... Nothing would surprise me. What's the ServerWorks deal
> >>>all about anyway? ...Intel slitting their collective throat once
> >>>again, as I see it, anyway. Dumb! There is no money in
> >>>chipsets. They're simply a necessary evil.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The difference between Intel and its proprietary and jealously-guarded
> >>frontside bus and AMD with hypertransport could hardly be more striking.
> >>
> >>The benign interpretation of Intel's strategy is that Intel doesn't want
> >>to have problems with chipsets blamed on its silicon. The dark
> >>interpretation, which is supported by Intel's own public pronouncements,
> >>is that Intel wants to use control of the processor as a wedge to
> >>control as much of everything the processor eventually connects to as it
> >>profitably can.
> >
> >
> > We see this differently. There is only so much money that can be
> > spent on the CPU and it's necessary attachments. Every dime that
> > is spent on the attachments is a dime that cannot be charged for
> > the CPU. This is where I think Intel is *dumb*. The know they
> > can dictate to the chipset manufacturers, so why go through the
> > grief? Indeed, if they play one against the other they wind up
> > with the whole pot, minus the production costs. Capitalism at
> > work. AMD certainly figured this out, since they got out of this
> > losing market.
> >
>
> What you would attribute to cleverness on AMD's part, I would attribute
> to necessity. Intel has the cash and the need to find applications for
> what it does best (making silicon); AMD doesn't have the cash, and it
> doesn't make silicon.

No question that AMD doesn't have the resources that Intel has on
hand. However, that doesn't change PC economics. Simply, there
is no money there other than in the CPU and OS. Diluting
resources to produce unnecessary (unnecessary if someone else can
be fooled into doing it) chipsets is a waste of capital.

> If you're cash-strapped, it makes sense to do what AMD is doing:
> conserve resources and focus on the core business. If you're Intel and
> trying to find things to do with money, then letting someone else make
> anything you could make is just giving business away.

I'm sure they could find a hole to bury a pot-full of cache.
That's pretty much what chipsets are. They've stubbed their toe
in every other endeavor, graphics in particular.

> I can think of arguments either way as to whether the strategy Intel has
> chosen is really the best choice for the interests of shareholders.
> Those arguments rarely carry any weight. Corporations instinctively
> hoard and reinvest cash with the goal of growing, whether hoarding and
> reinvestment really correspond to wise management of shareholder
> resources or not. The fact that the interests of management don't
> necessarily and frequently just don't align with the interests of
> shareholders *is* a problem of modern corporate capitalism.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Neil Maxwell <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote:
> Intel has other motives here. Back in the late '486/early Pentium
> days, when PCs were really starting to proliferate and production was
> ramping madly, Intel found their sales could be limited by chipset
> availability, and decided that the way to ensure all possible CPUs
> could be sold early (when margins are highest) was to make sure the
> chipset support was there.
>
> Chipset production was basically a tool to ensure that CPU sales
> weren't at the mercy of outside vendors, and it's worked very well for
> them as a strategy. They're a low margin business, but they enable
> the high margin business.

I think AMD has the same strategy these days. For the last two generations,
the K7 and K8 lines, AMD has always introduced its own chipsets first, and
then stepped back once the third party chipsets came online. I guess it's
two ways of achieving the same results.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 11:19:11 -0700, Neil Maxwell
<neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:27:13 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
>
>>We see this differently. There is only so much money that can be
>>spent on the CPU and it's necessary attachments. Every dime that
>>is spent on the attachments is a dime that cannot be charged for
>>the CPU. This is where I think Intel is *dumb*. The know they
>>can dictate to the chipset manufacturers, so why go through the
>>grief? Indeed, if they play one against the other they wind up
>>with the whole pot, minus the production costs. Capitalism at
>>work. AMD certainly figured this out, since they got out of this
>>losing market.
>
>Intel has other motives here. Back in the late '486/early Pentium
>days, when PCs were really starting to proliferate and production was
>ramping madly, Intel found their sales could be limited by chipset
>availability, and decided that the way to ensure all possible CPUs
>could be sold early (when margins are highest) was to make sure the
>chipset support was there.

Err, yeah, I think that's what the "necessary evil" comment Keith made
was all about.

>Chipset production was basically a tool to ensure that CPU sales
>weren't at the mercy of outside vendors, and it's worked very well for
>them as a strategy. They're a low margin business, but they enable
>the high margin business.
>
>It also helps guarantee compatibility and reliability (with a few
>well-known exceptions), and the chipsets are manufactured on older
>technology production lines that aren't capable of making the latest
>CPU geometries, so it allows reuse of already depreciated resources.
>
>Sure, they've messed it up a few times, but overall, it's been very
>effective.

Effective for consumer chipsets, sure, but this whole discussion
started with the high-end server chipsets where Intel has been failing
miserably for 5 years and is now looking to become the ONLY supplier
in the business.

Take a look at the 2-way and greater servers from all the major OEMs.
HPaq doesn't have a single Intel chipset in the bunch, all Serverworks
for 2 and 4 way with their own customer job for 8-way setups. IBM is
pretty much the same story. Dell, forever the Intel stalwart, has
something like 1 or 2 of their 2-way servers using Intel chipsets, but
the bulk use Serverworks and all of their 4-way servers are
Serverworks chipsets.

However now Intel has declined Serverworks license for future
chipsets, meaning that all of those servers from all of the major OEMs
need to switch to an Intel chipset for future designs. What's even
worse though, there is no Intel chipset for them to switch to! Intel
has yet to release a 4-way (or greater) chipset for their P4-style
Xeons.

In short, Intel is largely shooting themselves in the foot. Their
performance in the 4P server market absolutely stinks vs. the Opteron,
largely because they are limited to 4 processors sharing a 400MT/s
bus. They can't increase that, not because they don't have the
processors for it but because they don't have their own chipset and
refuse to let Serverworks build one for them. Even in 2-way servers,
where the margin by which the Opteron beats them is slightly less
embarrassing, they're still stuck at a 533MT/s bus speed and forcing
all their customers to trash existing designs in favor of an untested
Intel solution. For the moment their only solutions in this market at
the e7505 chipset (limited to 533MT/s bus speeds for now at least) and
the i875P (no PCI-X support and limited memory capacity for a server).

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:49:21 -0400, Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>Effective for consumer chipsets, sure, but this whole discussion
>started with the high-end server chipsets where Intel has been failing
>miserably for 5 years and is now looking to become the ONLY supplier
>in the business.

I'll admit I'm speaking from a consumer perspective and don't really
pay much attention to the high-end chipsets. From the perspective of
the original Grantsdale thread, and Intel publicizing the chipset,
which is traditionally only geek turf, the strategy comments are still
valid, I believe.

This bunch knows much more about server chips and chipsets than I do,
so I just read those threads and absorb the info.


Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

[SNIP]

> Intel solution. For the moment their only solutions in this market at
> the e7505 chipset (limited to 533MT/s bus speeds for now at least) and
> the i875P (no PCI-X support and limited memory capacity for a server).

IBM and Unisys build their own chipsets, and they are pretty meaty. I
would like to see a comparison between one of them fancy 4P in-house
chipset boxes and an Opteron box. IBM reckon they can go to 32 way,
believe it when I see it I guess. 😛

Cheers,
Rupert

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Take a look at the 2-way and greater servers from all the major OEMs.
> HPaq doesn't have a single Intel chipset in the bunch, all Serverworks
> for 2 and 4 way with their own customer job for 8-way setups. IBM is
> pretty much the same story. Dell, forever the Intel stalwart, has
> something like 1 or 2 of their 2-way servers using Intel chipsets, but
> the bulk use Serverworks and all of their 4-way servers are
> Serverworks chipsets.
>
> However now Intel has declined Serverworks license for future
> chipsets, meaning that all of those servers from all of the major OEMs
> need to switch to an Intel chipset for future designs. What's even
> worse though, there is no Intel chipset for them to switch to! Intel
> has yet to release a 4-way (or greater) chipset for their P4-style
> Xeons.
>
> In short, Intel is largely shooting themselves in the foot. Their
> performance in the 4P server market absolutely stinks vs. the Opteron,
> largely because they are limited to 4 processors sharing a 400MT/s
> bus. They can't increase that, not because they don't have the
> processors for it but because they don't have their own chipset and
> refuse to let Serverworks build one for them. Even in 2-way servers,
> where the margin by which the Opteron beats them is slightly less
> embarrassing, they're still stuck at a 533MT/s bus speed and forcing
> all their customers to trash existing designs in favor of an untested
> Intel solution. For the moment their only solutions in this market at
> the e7505 chipset (limited to 533MT/s bus speeds for now at least) and
> the i875P (no PCI-X support and limited memory capacity for a server).

Well, as you pointed out, even though they are denying Serverworks any
further licenses for Xeon, IBM and HP don't use Serverworks for their 8-way
and greater chipsets, they use their own. So perhaps there is still a couple
of chipsets for Dell to use if they want 4-way or greater Xeons -- they'll
have to buy them from HP or IBM. 🙂

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

>
> What you would attribute to cleverness on AMD's part, I would attribute
> to necessity. Intel has the cash and the need to find applications for
> what it does best (making silicon); AMD doesn't have the cash, and it
> doesn't make silicon.
>

That's incorrectly stated. AMD does make silicon, of course, but it has
limited capacity and no need to look for things to do with the silicon
it can make.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

David Svensson wrote:

>
> I think you need to get out more and see the reality. It doesn't
> look like you have any experience of large corporations or the
> technical issues discussed.

LOL■. ...and exactly what have you contributed here?

■ How much more thirty years experience in system design and
processor development do I need to post to the Usenet?

What a maroon.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"K Williams" <krw@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:q_GdnelRU65JvFbdRVn-jw@adelphia.com...
> David Svensson wrote:
> >
> > I think you need to get out more and see the reality. It doesn't
> > look like you have any experience of large corporations or the
> > technical issues discussed.
>
> How much more thirty years experience in system design and
> processor development do I need to post to the Usenet?

Keith, pay attention! David specifically referred to **large**
corporations. Your experience at dinky little IBM doesn't count.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Felger Carbon wrote:

> "K Williams" <krw@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:q_GdnelRU65JvFbdRVn-jw@adelphia.com...
>> David Svensson wrote:
>> >
>> > I think you need to get out more and see the reality. It
>> > doesn't look like you have any experience of large corporations
>> > or the technical issues discussed.
>>
>> How much more thirty years experience in system design and
>> processor development do I need to post to the Usenet?
>
> Keith, pay attention! David specifically referred to **large**
> corporations. Your experience at dinky little IBM doesn't count.

Oh. "Nevermind".

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:28:11 -0700, K Williams <krw@adelphia.net> wrote:

>David Svensson wrote:
>
>>
>> I think you need to get out more and see the reality. It doesn't
>> look like you have any experience of large corporations or the
>> technical issues discussed.
>
>LOL■. ...and exactly what have you contributed here?
>
>■ How much more thirty years experience in system design and
>processor development do I need to post to the Usenet?

Perhaps he judges by height? Or blood type?

>What a maroon.

True.

/daytripper (who just loves good irony ;-)