Tejas canned?

G

Guest

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

Suggests that the followon generation to the Prescott Pentium 4 is no longer
following on. There might already be an AMD64-capable Pentium M ready to
take its place.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15749

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just send mail to above address ;-)
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 07 May 2004 02:20:34 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

>Suggests that the followon generation to the Prescott Pentium 4 is no longer
>following on. There might already be an AMD64-capable Pentium M ready to
>take its place.
>
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15749


Well, I hope Intel will deliver x86-64 dual core Pentium M based CPUs
for the desktop first and then a IA64 capable one later on.
They should give customers the ability to choose which 64bit
architecture they want since Microsoft it's supporting both and if the
IA64 one will deliver better performance customers could decide which
64bit ISA will be successfull in the desktop market.
 
G

Guest

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

geno_cyber@tin.it wrote:

>Well, I hope Intel will deliver x86-64 dual core Pentium M based CPUs
>for the desktop first and then a IA64 capable one later on.

Why bother?

>They should give customers the ability to choose which 64bit
>architecture they want since Microsoft it's supporting both and if the
>IA64 one will deliver better performance customers could decide which
>64bit ISA will be successfull in the desktop market.

Like there's any doubt?
 
G

Guest

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

geno_cyber@tin.it wrote:
> On Fri, 07 May 2004 02:20:34 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
> <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Suggests that the followon generation to the Prescott Pentium 4 is no longer
>>following on. There might already be an AMD64-capable Pentium M ready to
>>take its place.
>>
>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15749
>
>
>
> Well, I hope Intel will deliver x86-64 dual core Pentium M based CPUs
> for the desktop first and then a IA64 capable one later on.
> They should give customers the ability to choose which 64bit
> architecture they want since Microsoft it's supporting both and if the
> IA64 one will deliver better performance customers could decide which
> 64bit ISA will be successfull in the desktop market.
>

Your phrasing is very confusing. Would you mind explaining more clearly
what you hope will happen? For examples, "will deliver x86-64 dual core
Pentium M first and then a IA64 capable one later on". First and one
are unclear. Are you hoping dual core comes to x86 before Itanium? It
looks like the first dual core from intel will now be Montecito, an
Itanium, if the Inquirer stories are correct. Are you hoping that
Pentium M is shipped as a x86-64 part and then as an Itanium? That
won't happen. It will only be x86 forever. Are you hoping intel delays
Itanium to give x86 a fair chance and let the market decide which it
wants? It won't matter which is first, since the market will decide
anyway. And it's not a direct competition between Pentium M and
Itanium. Different markets.

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)
 
G

Guest

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Suggests that the followon generation to the Prescott Pentium 4 is no longer
> following on. There might already be an AMD64-capable Pentium M ready to
> take its place.

This all shoulda happened a long time ago. I guess somebody at Intel
just couldn't admit that the P4 was a mistake.

--
Mike Smith
 
G

Guest

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

geno_cyber@tin.it wrote:
> Well, I hope Intel will deliver x86-64 dual core Pentium M based CPUs
> for the desktop first and then a IA64 capable one later on.
> They should give customers the ability to choose which 64bit
> architecture they want since Microsoft it's supporting both and if the
> IA64 one will deliver better performance customers could decide which
> 64bit ISA will be successfull in the desktop market.

This possibility is not even a starter. The Pentium-M is an x86 chip,
through and through. You can't just add IA-64 to this architecture, it's a
major rewiring job. But you can certainly add AMD64 to it, without a sweat.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

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

"Yousuf Khan" <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:SnCmc.19098$urx.2023@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Suggests that the followon generation to the Prescott Pentium 4 is no
longer
> following on. There might already be an AMD64-capable Pentium M ready to
> take its place.
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15749
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
> --
> Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
> Spambots: just send mail to above address ;-)
>
>

Presscott is a lame duck, 4Ghz tops, intel though the solution was just
throwing more stages down and pushing the MHZ, I guess someone forgot the
laws of physics.
 
G

Guest

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

Mike Harrison <mharrison@aol.com> wrote:
> Presscott is a lame duck, 4Ghz tops, intel though the solution was
> just throwing more stages down and pushing the MHZ, I guess someone
> forgot the laws of physics.

Actually I have my doubts that they'll even get it to 4Ghz, it's taking
heroic effort to get it to 3.4Ghz. Time will only tell, I guess.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

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

"Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:jlunc.8306$pp.2352@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Mike Harrison <mharrison@aol.com> wrote:
> > Presscott is a lame duck, 4Ghz tops, intel though the solution was
> > just throwing more stages down and pushing the MHZ, I guess someone
> > forgot the laws of physics.
>
> Actually I have my doubts that they'll even get it to 4Ghz, it's taking
> heroic effort to get it to 3.4Ghz. Time will only tell, I guess.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>

Amazing, how did they spend so much time on developing 90nm prescott without
figuring out the possibility of leakage.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <2g8e8hF5m6biU1@uni-berlin.de>,
hugodrax@draxindustries.com says...
>
> "Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> news:jlunc.8306$pp.2352@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Mike Harrison <mharrison@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Presscott is a lame duck, 4Ghz tops, intel though the solution was
> > > just throwing more stages down and pushing the MHZ, I guess someone
> > > forgot the laws of physics.
> >
> > Actually I have my doubts that they'll even get it to 4Ghz, it's taking
> > heroic effort to get it to 3.4Ghz. Time will only tell, I guess.
> >
> > Yousuf Khan
> >
> >
>
> Amazing, how did they spend so much time on developing 90nm prescott without
> figuring out the possibility of leakage.

c/possiblitiy of/underestimate/

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

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

On Mon, 10 May 2004 00:24:04 -0400, "Hugo Drax" <hugodrax@draxindustries.com>
wrote:

>
>"Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
>news:jlunc.8306$pp.2352@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> Mike Harrison <mharrison@aol.com> wrote:
>> > Presscott is a lame duck, 4Ghz tops, intel though the solution was
>> > just throwing more stages down and pushing the MHZ, I guess someone
>> > forgot the laws of physics.
>>
>> Actually I have my doubts that they'll even get it to 4Ghz, it's taking
>> heroic effort to get it to 3.4Ghz. Time will only tell, I guess.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>>
>
>Amazing, how did they spend so much time on developing 90nm prescott without
>figuring out the possibility of leakage.

perhaps the foundry guys kept telling the architects that they'd solve the
leakage issues in plenty of time to ship? ;-)
 
G

Guest

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

In article <fpd0a05qp1jmert8hqnvvkohin2fvvhf62@4ax.com>,
day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com says...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 00:24:04 -0400, "Hugo Drax" <hugodrax@draxindustries.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> >news:jlunc.8306$pp.2352@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >> Mike Harrison <mharrison@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > Presscott is a lame duck, 4Ghz tops, intel though the solution was
> >> > just throwing more stages down and pushing the MHZ, I guess someone
> >> > forgot the laws of physics.
> >>
> >> Actually I have my doubts that they'll even get it to 4Ghz, it's taking
> >> heroic effort to get it to 3.4Ghz. Time will only tell, I guess.
> >>
> >> Yousuf Khan
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Amazing, how did they spend so much time on developing 90nm prescott without
> >figuring out the possibility of leakage.
>
> perhaps the foundry guys kept telling the architects that they'd solve the
> leakage issues in plenty of time to ship? ;-)

Perhaps the architects were sleeping during that lecture. ;-)

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

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

daytripper wrote:

>
> perhaps the foundry guys kept telling the architects that they'd solve the
> leakage issues in plenty of time to ship? ;-)
>

Fdry> Houston, we have a problem.

Mgt> So what else is new? Fix it.

Fdry> You don't understand. We've got a really big problem.

Mgt> What's to understand? Get back to us when your problem is fixed.

Fdry> We don't know how to fix it.

Mgt> Wrong answer. You're paid to know how to fix things. Get back to
us when you've done your job.

Fdry> Mumble.

Mgt> So have you the product ready? We've got the press releases all
written and the ad budget all made up, so we're ready to go.

Fdry> NO, we don't have a product ready.

Mgt> Well, why not?

Fdry> We have problem.

Mgt> How long will it take you to fix it?

Fdry> We don't know how to fix it.

Mgt> That's not what I asked. I asked you how long it would take to
fix it.

Fdry> Ummm. Ninety days.

Mgt> That's better. You've got ninety days. Good thing for you we're
so understanding.

Fdry> Mumble.

Mgt> So, you have that problem fixed yet?

Fdry> We're working on it.

Mgt> You said that ninety days ago. We can't ever count on you guys not
to screw up, can we? Good thing we've got some really sharp marketing
people and don't have to rely on you losers.


RM
 
G

Guest

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

In article <axXnc.67311$Ik.5014644@attbi_s53>, rmyers1400
@comcast.net says...
> daytripper wrote:
>
> >
> > perhaps the foundry guys kept telling the architects that they'd solve the
> > leakage issues in plenty of time to ship? ;-)
> >
>
> Fdry> Houston, we have a problem.
>
> Mgt> So what else is new? Fix it.
>
> Fdry> You don't understand. We've got a really big problem.
>
> Mgt> What's to understand? Get back to us when your problem is fixed.
>
> Fdry> We don't know how to fix it.
>
> Mgt> Wrong answer. You're paid to know how to fix things. Get back to
> us when you've done your job.
>
> Fdry> Mumble.
>
> Mgt> So have you the product ready? We've got the press releases all
> written and the ad budget all made up, so we're ready to go.
>
> Fdry> NO, we don't have a product ready.
>
> Mgt> Well, why not?
>
> Fdry> We have problem.
>
> Mgt> How long will it take you to fix it?
>
> Fdry> We don't know how to fix it.
>
> Mgt> That's not what I asked. I asked you how long it would take to
> fix it.
>
> Fdry> Ummm. Ninety days.
>
> Mgt> That's better. You've got ninety days. Good thing for you we're
> so understanding.
>
> Fdry> Mumble.
>
> Mgt> So, you have that problem fixed yet?
>
> Fdry> We're working on it.
>
> Mgt> You said that ninety days ago. We can't ever count on you guys not
> to screw up, can we? Good thing we've got some really sharp marketing
> people and don't have to rely on you losers.

Fdry> define "working", once again?

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

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

On Tue, 11 May 2004 03:13:11 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:

>daytripper wrote:
>
>>
>> perhaps the foundry guys kept telling the architects that they'd solve the
>> leakage issues in plenty of time to ship? ;-)
>>
>
>Fdry> Houston, we have a problem.
>
>Mgt> So what else is new? Fix it.
>
>Fdry> You don't understand. We've got a really big problem.
>
>Mgt> What's to understand? Get back to us when your problem is fixed.
>
>Fdry> We don't know how to fix it.
>
>Mgt> Wrong answer. You're paid to know how to fix things. Get back to
>us when you've done your job.
>
>Fdry> Mumble.
>
>Mgt> So have you the product ready? We've got the press releases all
>written and the ad budget all made up, so we're ready to go.
>
>Fdry> NO, we don't have a product ready.
>
>Mgt> Well, why not?
>
>Fdry> We have problem.
>
>Mgt> How long will it take you to fix it?
>
>Fdry> We don't know how to fix it.
>
>Mgt> That's not what I asked. I asked you how long it would take to
>fix it.
>
>Fdry> Ummm. Ninety days.
>
>Mgt> That's better. You've got ninety days. Good thing for you we're
>so understanding.
>
>Fdry> Mumble.
>
>Mgt> So, you have that problem fixed yet?
>
>Fdry> We're working on it.
>
>Mgt> You said that ninety days ago. We can't ever count on you guys not
>to screw up, can we? Good thing we've got some really sharp marketing
>people and don't have to rely on you losers.

lol

wait - that better not be privileged information - I could get in huge trouble
if there's an NDA involved ;-)

/daytripper (not speaking for...um....anyone ;-)
 
G

Guest

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

"Mike Harrison" <mharrison@aol.com> wrote:

>Presscott is a lame duck, 4Ghz tops, intel though the solution was just
>throwing more stages down and pushing the MHZ, I guess someone forgot the
>laws of physics.

Hardly. It's nothing but physics. It seems that something went awry,
but that sometimes happens when you're on the bleeding edge and
implementing new technologies (e.g. strained silicon) at the same time
you're doing a new, smaller process.
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:51:40 GMT, "tony"
<tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Can't help you there. I don't consider OCing ability a feature, as I don't
>do that. Low
>heat output is a criteria for me, the goal being a fanless PC. Intel desktop
>processor design
>doesn't agree with my own criteria: overly vented cases (especially silly
>side vents) required
>by high-heat components, for example, make for noisy PCs. My goal is SILENT
>PC, and with
>Intel processors it's tough to get even a QUIET PC. To be fair, AMD is no
>better. The good
>piece and good engineering PC standard doesn't appear to be available! So
>much for the
>theory of capitalism producing what consumers (this consumer) wants/has
>always wanted.

No amount of capitalism is going to force you to chose the right
product for yourself! Just because you bought a product that was not
well suited to your own needs doesn't mean that such a product does
not exist.

Have you considered trying to get a Pentium-M machine instead? Intel
has started selling retail-box Pentium-M chips into the market, though
motherboard support for them is still a bit weak. Or there's the
Opteron 140EE chip, which consumes only 30W of power and should be
possible to get into a fanless system without too much difficulty.
Hell, even P4 and AthlonXP/Athlon64 chips can be used in fanless PC
setups, Hush Technologies and VoodooPC both sells some:

http://www.hushtechnologies.com/

http://www.voodoopc.com/systems/f50.aspx


The latter simply uses a Zalman TNN 500A case, available here:

http://www.zalmanusa.com/

In short, don't blame capitalism for your ignorance. The market does
exist, companies have seen an opportunity for profit and they have
released products to satisfy this market. Just because you haven't
bothered to look for these products doesn't mean that they aren't out
there.

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

Tony

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2001
1,944
0
19,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:pdmca0pe21khdb46lb48meo81qjh1lck0t@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:51:40 GMT, "tony"
> <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >Can't help you there. I don't consider OCing ability a feature, as I
don't
> >do that. Low
> >heat output is a criteria for me, the goal being a fanless PC. Intel
desktop
> >processor design
> >doesn't agree with my own criteria: overly vented cases (especially silly
> >side vents) required
> >by high-heat components, for example, make for noisy PCs. My goal is
SILENT
> >PC, and with
> >Intel processors it's tough to get even a QUIET PC. To be fair, AMD is no
> >better. The good
> >piece and good engineering PC standard doesn't appear to be available! So
> >much for the
> >theory of capitalism producing what consumers (this consumer) wants/has
> >always wanted.
>
> No amount of capitalism is going to force you to chose the right
> product for yourself! Just because you bought a product that was not
> well suited to your own needs doesn't mean that such a product does
> not exist.
>
> Have you considered trying to get a Pentium-M machine instead? Intel
> has started selling retail-box Pentium-M chips into the market, though
> motherboard support for them is still a bit weak. Or there's the
> Opteron 140EE chip, which consumes only 30W of power and should be
> possible to get into a fanless system without too much difficulty.
> Hell, even P4 and AthlonXP/Athlon64 chips can be used in fanless PC
> setups, Hush Technologies and VoodooPC both sells some:
>
> http://www.hushtechnologies.com/
>
> http://www.voodoopc.com/systems/f50.aspx
>
>
> The latter simply uses a Zalman TNN 500A case, available here:
>
> http://www.zalmanusa.com/
>
> In short, don't blame capitalism for your ignorance. The market does
> exist, companies have seen an opportunity for profit and they have
> released products to satisfy this market. Just because you haven't
> bothered to look for these products doesn't mean that they aren't out
> there.

But I'm forced to buy something special purpose and not mainstream
where it really should already be (IMO). Probably big bucks to get it
to and bigger bucks to support maybe. I think there's no stretch of the
imagination in looking at the PC industry as one of capitalism's failures to
produce the right thing in all these years. Capitalism is S-L-O-W!
Bottlenecked by the profit motive and the few controlling providers, no
doubt.

Tony
 
G

Guest

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips tony wrote:
> to and bigger bucks to support maybe. I think there's no stretch of the
> imagination in looking at the PC industry as one of capitalism's failures
> to produce the right thing in all these years. Capitalism is S-L-O-W!

*ROFLOL*

I'm about as far from a rabid free-marketter as you can get without being
called a commie, but capitalism responds to certain sort of feedback faster
than other systems, and other sorts of regulated or centrally managed
systems respond better to other sorts of feedback.

The PC industry, though, is still one of the fastest-moving industries
around. WAY faster than any regulated or centrally managed system could
account for, or most capitalist industries.

We may well have monopolies in the tech industry someday, but in general the
closer a company gets to a monopoly, the more chance someone else has of
stealing their niche. It nearly has happened to Intel a couple of times,
and they've always managed to counter it, but it's all of a 30 year history.
That's nothing -- and 30 years was around when IBM's dominance of the
mainframe market began to be a nonissue as the PC market exploded.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
 

Tony

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2001
1,944
0
19,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:6anon1xjjo.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips tony wrote:
> > to and bigger bucks to support maybe. I think there's no stretch of the
> > imagination in looking at the PC industry as one of capitalism's
failures
> > to produce the right thing in all these years. Capitalism is S-L-O-W!
>
> *ROFLOL*
>
> I'm about as far from a rabid free-marketter as you can get without being
> called a commie, but capitalism responds to certain sort of feedback
faster
> than other systems, and other sorts of regulated or centrally managed
> systems respond better to other sorts of feedback.

Theory (everyone's got one!). Stop making it sound so difficult.

> The PC industry, though, is still one of the fastest-moving industries
> around.

God help us then: Pretty soon we'll be going backwards!

> WAY faster than any regulated or centrally managed system could
> account for, or most capitalist industries.

Orders of magnitude slower (actually I don't know how much slower, I just
know
it is slower) than in an unconstrained environment.

> We may well have monopolies in the tech industry someday,

Someday??


You probably are mistaking lot's of wheel spinning with moving forward fast.
Certainly in software "we" are still moving backwards. It'll be a few more
years before any significant progress is made. (Oh, perhaps you think
just because wrong paradigms were chosen a long time ago and now
they are slowly being corrected that that is progress. No, that's simply
a mistake (or maybe wool over the eyes) rather than progress. Probably
wouldn't have happend in an unconstrained environment. Oh well, like they
say: capitalism is a bitch, then you die.)

Tony
 
G

Guest

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips tony <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
> > called a commie, but capitalism responds to certain sort of feedback
> > faster than other systems, and other sorts of regulated or centrally
> > managed systems respond better to other sorts of feedback.
>
> Theory (everyone's got one!). Stop making it sound so difficult.

Real-world systems are f___ing complex. Just how they are.

> > The PC industry, though, is still one of the fastest-moving industries
> > around.
>
> God help us then: Pretty soon we'll be going backwards!

Compare to the auto industry. "New models" every year, but _real_ changes
to most models every 3-10 years, whole new technologies... about once a
decade.

And compare that to the aviation industry. Or to banking. Or to consumer
aspects of the telecom industry.

> > WAY faster than any regulated or centrally managed system could
> > account for, or most capitalist industries.
>
> Orders of magnitude slower (actually I don't know how much slower, I just
> know it is slower) than in an unconstrained environment.

Capitalism is about as unconstrained as you can get without taking the old
Cold-war DARPA approach of just throwing tons and tons of money at multiple
approaches to a problem.

TOO unconstrained, typically. Most industries require some balance of free
market and regulation, or excesses occur. True, to an extent, in the PC
industry but not really that badly yet.

> > We may well have monopolies in the tech industry someday,
>
> Someday??

Yes, someday. If you think Microsoft is a monopoly now, or Intel, try
looking into a real monopoly someday. They're certainly dominant players,
but there's a real difference. If Intel tripled their prices arbitrarily,
you'd see pretty much the whole world turn to AMD and Via and not miss a
beat.

Compare that to what's happening in the oil industry...

> Certainly in software "we" are still moving backwards. It'll be a few more
> years before any significant progress is made. (Oh, perhaps you think
> just because wrong paradigms were chosen a long time ago and now
> they are slowly being corrected that that is progress. No, that's simply
> a mistake (or maybe wool over the eyes) rather than progress.

Software evolves as fast as it has to. With hardware getting more powerful
much faster than most applications require, there's no need for it to. It's
hardly a matter of moving backwards.

We know how to do things better, but it's more expensive to do so. As long
as more MIPS/memory/disk keeps being close to a free bonus with the normal
replacement/purchasing cycle, why bother?

> Probably wouldn't have happend in an unconstrained environment.

What are you visualizing for an unconstrained environment?

> Oh well, like they say: capitalism is a bitch, then you die.)

They say that about life, too. But like many things, life is better than
the alternative.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
 

Tony

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2001
1,944
0
19,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:st3tn1x33a.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips tony <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> > "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
> > > called a commie, but capitalism responds to certain sort of feedback
> > > faster than other systems, and other sorts of regulated or centrally
> > > managed systems respond better to other sorts of feedback.
> >
> > Theory (everyone's got one!). Stop making it sound so difficult.
>
> Real-world systems are f___ing complex. Just how they are.

That's how "they" like it.

> > > The PC industry, though, is still one of the fastest-moving industries
> > > around.
> >
> > God help us then: Pretty soon we'll be going backwards!
>
> Compare to the auto industry. "New models" every year, but _real_ changes
> to most models every 3-10 years, whole new technologies... about once a
> decade.
>
> And compare that to the aviation industry. Or to banking. Or to consumer
> aspects of the telecom industry.

It's slow compared to a free (unconstrained, unmanipulated) environment.
Things change more for profit reasons than other. Keep it complex, keep it
proprietary, keep it "new", keep "innovating" are the mottos to keep making
money. It's all very contrived.

> > > WAY faster than any regulated or centrally managed system could
> > > account for, or most capitalist industries.
> >
> > Orders of magnitude slower (actually I don't know how much slower, I
just
> > know it is slower) than in an unconstrained environment.
>
> Capitalism is about as unconstrained as you can get

That's just "defending the god". Sounds like it anyway.

> without taking the old
> Cold-war DARPA approach of just throwing tons and tons of money at
multiple
> approaches to a problem.

>
> TOO unconstrained, typically. Most industries require some balance of free
> market and regulation, or excesses occur. True, to an extent, in the PC
> industry but not really that badly yet.

I guess if you "know the rules", you can easily be blinded by them. You
apparently
buy into the design without really knowing what factors are causing what
results since there are so many points of untraceability. But nevermind.
If mine was an RFP to improve, saying "it can't be done" would be rejected.

> > > We may well have monopolies in the tech industry someday,
> >
> > Someday??
>
> Yes, someday. If you think Microsoft is a monopoly now, or Intel, try
> looking into a real monopoly someday. They're certainly dominant players,
> but there's a real difference. If Intel tripled their prices arbitrarily,
> you'd see pretty much the whole world turn to AMD and Via and not miss a
> beat.

Surely we all miss what could have been and could have been sooner that
would have resulted in an environment that simply works well.

> Compare that to what's happening in the oil industry...
>
> > Certainly in software "we" are still moving backwards. It'll be a few
more
> > years before any significant progress is made. (Oh, perhaps you think
> > just because wrong paradigms were chosen a long time ago and now
> > they are slowly being corrected that that is progress. No, that's simply
> > a mistake (or maybe wool over the eyes) rather than progress.
>
> Software evolves as fast as it has to.

It's tied mostly to profit rather than need. Hence it has been slow going
(no
"need" to evolve since it is making money or can be milked for more).

> With hardware getting more powerful
> much faster than most applications require, there's no need for it to.

I think you've just described a "vicious cycle".

> It's
> hardly a matter of moving backwards.
>
> We know how to do things better, but it's more expensive to do so. As long
> as more MIPS/memory/disk keeps being close to a free bonus with the normal
> replacement/purchasing cycle, why bother?
>
> > Probably wouldn't have happend in an unconstrained environment.
>
> What are you visualizing for an unconstrained environment?

Oh I wouldn't want to constrain your own thinking of such.

> > Oh well, like they say: capitalism is a bitch, then you die.)
>
> They say that about life, too. But like many things, life is better than
> the alternative.

So much for analogies (and analogy wars)! Someone always has to escalate
the analogy just to win rather than make a point clear.

Tony
 
G

Guest

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

In article <VtXqc.213$J_7.150@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
> news:st3tn1x33a.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
> > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips tony <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > > "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
> > > > called a commie, but capitalism responds to certain sort of feedback
> > > > faster than other systems, and other sorts of regulated or centrally
> > > > managed systems respond better to other sorts of feedback.
> > >
> > > Theory (everyone's got one!). Stop making it sound so difficult.
> >
> > Real-world systems are f___ing complex. Just how they are.
>
> That's how "they" like it.

Indeed. Customers like complexity in their hardware. They pay
for it, after all.
>
> > > > The PC industry, though, is still one of the fastest-moving industries
> > > > around.
> > >
> > > God help us then: Pretty soon we'll be going backwards!
> >
> > Compare to the auto industry. "New models" every year, but _real_ changes
> > to most models every 3-10 years, whole new technologies... about once a
> > decade.
> >
> > And compare that to the aviation industry. Or to banking. Or to consumer
> > aspects of the telecom industry.
>
> It's slow compared to a free (unconstrained, unmanipulated) environment.
> Things change more for profit reasons than other. Keep it complex, keep it
> proprietary, keep it "new", keep "innovating" are the mottos to keep making
> money. It's all very contrived.

Give us an example of a business that is more un-constrained, and
faster moving than the PeeCee business.

I do note that you're still using WinBlows, even though your in a
tiff about the hardware. ...go figgr.

> > > > WAY faster than any regulated or centrally managed system could
> > > > account for, or most capitalist industries.
> > >
> > > Orders of magnitude slower (actually I don't know how much slower, I
> just
> > > know it is slower) than in an unconstrained environment.
> >
> > Capitalism is about as unconstrained as you can get
>
> That's just "defending the god". Sounds like it anyway.

Nope, simply sating the facts that you don't want to see.

> > without taking the old
> > Cold-war DARPA approach of just throwing tons and tons of money at
> multiple
> > approaches to a problem.
>
> >
> > TOO unconstrained, typically. Most industries require some balance of free
> > market and regulation, or excesses occur. True, to an extent, in the PC
> > industry but not really that badly yet.
>
> I guess if you "know the rules", you can easily be blinded by them. You
> apparently
> buy into the design without really knowing what factors are causing what
> results since there are so many points of untraceability. But nevermind.
> If mine was an RFP to improve, saying "it can't be done" would be rejected.

I guess *you* don't understand the rules. You buy, we sell what
you buy (and *only* what you buy). It's all *YOUR* fault! ;-)

> > > > We may well have monopolies in the tech industry someday,
> > >
> > > Someday??
> >
> > Yes, someday. If you think Microsoft is a monopoly now, or Intel, try
> > looking into a real monopoly someday. They're certainly dominant players,
> > but there's a real difference. If Intel tripled their prices arbitrarily,
> > you'd see pretty much the whole world turn to AMD and Via and not miss a
> > beat.
>
> Surely we all miss what could have been and could have been sooner that
> would have resulted in an environment that simply works well.

I note that you're using WinBlows. Isn't that *your* fault?

> > Compare that to what's happening in the oil industry...
> >
> > > Certainly in software "we" are still moving backwards. It'll be a few
> more
> > > years before any significant progress is made. (Oh, perhaps you think
> > > just because wrong paradigms were chosen a long time ago and now
> > > they are slowly being corrected that that is progress. No, that's simply
> > > a mistake (or maybe wool over the eyes) rather than progress.
> >
> > Software evolves as fast as it has to.
>
> It's tied mostly to profit rather than need. Hence it has been slow going
> (no
> "need" to evolve since it is making money or can be milked for more).

....and *you're* still a WinBlows customer. Amazing!

> > With hardware getting more powerful
> > much faster than most applications require, there's no need for it to.
>
> I think you've just described a "vicious cycle".

Certainly, but you've done exactly what to end it? Let me remind
you that you're still a Win-luser. You're a hypocrite if you
want others to change, but aren't willing yourself.

> > It's
> > hardly a matter of moving backwards.
> >
> > We know how to do things better, but it's more expensive to do so. As long
> > as more MIPS/memory/disk keeps being close to a free bonus with the normal
> > replacement/purchasing cycle, why bother?
> >
> > > Probably wouldn't have happend in an unconstrained environment.
> >
> > What are you visualizing for an unconstrained environment?
>
> Oh I wouldn't want to constrain your own thinking of such.

Nice (non)answer. Of course no one takes your seriously with
your adolescent attitude. Take charge of your own life and stop
whining!

> > > Oh well, like they say: capitalism is a bitch, then you die.)
> >
> > They say that about life, too. But like many things, life is better than
> > the alternative.
>
> So much for analogies (and analogy wars)! Someone always has to escalate
> the analogy just to win rather than make a point clear.

No someone has to take charge of their own life. If you don't
like what's offered, don't buy. I build my own systems because
noone offers what I want. There is a lesson here, but I suspect
that you don't want to pay any premium for your *wants*. ...I
am.

--
Keith