• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Anti-Trust Lawsuit: Chipzilla Strikes Back !!!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Intel doesn;t own x86. Transmeta, Cyrix, AMD, Intel, and others (winchip or something ??) all make CPU's that are x86 code compatable...
Click to expand...

Even though others are allowed to sell into Intel's market, Intel is still the inventor/designer of x86. They have perfect rights to say, 'Buy Their Defacto Design'.

*** The issue is, is there a monopoly on hardware that runs Microsoft's API's ??? ***

I would say now, no, as Microsoft's .NET isn't hardware specific and is becoming the major software design platform.

Also another point is MS Longhorn home/pro/server versions and most new applications are all .Net framework based.

So there is No Monopoly on hardware to run window's applications. AMD just needs to step out of Intel's customer base and create their own.

.
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
The FUD just doesn;t stop... Its not Intels ahole....

Mods !!!!!!
Click to expand...

This isn't FUD! This is gibberish...
It's like saying that it's hot outside and these guys are saying that "seawater has salt" in response...mindless gibberish.
 
Originally posted by: porkster
Even though others are allowed to sell into Intel's market, Intel is still the inventor/designer of x86. They have perfect rights to say, 'Buy Their Defacto Design'.

*** The issue is, is there a monopoly on hardware that runs Microsoft's API's ??? ***

I would say now, no, as Microsoft's .NET isn't hardware specific and is becoming the major software design platform.

Also another point is MS Longhorn home/pro/server versions and most new applications are all .Net framework based.

So there is No Monopoly on hardware to run window's applications. AMD just needs to step out of Intel's customer base and create their own.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. Period.

There is a large installed base of software that is not in Java/.NET, and hence portability is not an issue that you can sweep under the rug (sorry, but ignoring it is only something a troll would do!). Also, AMD has no reason to leave the x86 instruction set behind; that was settled in court years ago. By no means whatsoever do they need to, or should they be expected to, go out on their own with their own instruction set. Regardless of the current case concerning Intel's unethical and illegal behavior, only the most ridiculously out of touch with reality fanboy would claim that AMD is the one who has to bow down and kiss feet.
 
Originally posted by: porkster
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Intel doesn;t own x86. Transmeta, Cyrix, AMD, Intel, and others (winchip or something ??) all make CPU's that are x86 code compatable...
Click to expand...

Even though others are allowed to sell into Intel's market, Intel is still the inventor/designer of x86. They have perfect rights to say, 'Buy Their Defacto Design'.

*** The issue is, is there a monopoly on hardware that runs Microsoft's API's ??? ***

I would say now, no, as Microsoft's .NET isn't hardware specific and is becoming the major software design platform.

Also another point is MS Longhorn home/pro/server versions and most new applications are all .Net framework based.

So there is No Monopoly on hardware to run window's applications. AMD just needs to step out of Intel's customer base and create their own.

.
Click to expand...

Again I will say this Pork, AMD would be effectively commiting suicide if they stepped out of the X86 market, Intel has NO domain over X86, just because they invented it doesnt mean it is only their product. When the US made and atomic bomb did they whine when the Soviets created an atomic bomb of their own, did they whine and cry and say create your own superweapon? No.

This has been the case throughout history, and until something better like DNA computers or something, X86 will remain the standard. Period.
 
Originally posted by: Viditor
This isn't FUD! This is gibberish...
It's like saying that it's hot outside and these guys are saying that "seawater has salt" in response...mindless gibberish.
Click to expand...
No, that's giving them too much credit. To be accurate, it would be more like "seawater has no salt," or "fresh water creates blind airplanes."
 
Porkster

One you haven't looked into it, so why even open your piehole about any of this?

Two when you essentially pay people not to use other peoples widgits...THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW.

Three Doesn't matter what you or I think, it is about what the law is.

Lastly...You sir are a FANBOY and an illogical one at that.
 
I would probably buy a AMD if they were totally unique.

Currently I don't buy AMD as I see them a clone maker. As in it's too easy for Microsoft to dev everything for Intel and then let AMD catch up. But like I said now, the .Net framework is changing everything, it's no longer x86 hardware specific to run windows applciations.

.
 
Last I checked it was Intel running to catch up to AMD with a few things, does integrated memory controller, and 64 bit processors ring a bell.....
 
You Moron ! The reason AMD is so far ahead right now is their unique design, imbedded memory controller, HTT, etc... Theyu designed it, and are now killing Intel with it, so don't give me this clone crap.... That was 10 years ago!!!
 
Originally posted by: DeathBUAAgain I will say this Pork, AMD would be effectively commiting suicide if they stepped out of the X86 market....
Click to expand...

Maybe so but that doesn't say Intel is wrong to encourage all to buy their invention within their customer base.

Also like someone said from another site, AMD is currently selling their desktop CPU's at a higher price. It's not typical in a monopoly scenario that the so called victim will sell at a higher price, they're usually are forced to discount prices to stay afloat.

.
 
Originally posted by: porkster
Originally posted by: DeathBUAAgain I will say this Pork, AMD would be effectively commiting suicide if they stepped out of the X86 market....
Click to expand...

Maybe so but that doesn't say Intel is wrong to encourage all to buy their invention within their customer base.

Also like someone said from another site, AMD is currently selling their desktop CPU's at a higher price. It's not typical in a monopoly scenario that the so called victim will sell at a higher price, they're usually are forced to discount prices to stay afloat.

.
Click to expand...

I assume you know what supply and demand is?? That would explain AMD's higher prices, not to mention it's also a monopoly tactic to undercut your competitioner by selling things at lower prices.

Intel didnt encourage anyone, they threatened, and in the US that's illegal in sofar as trying to suppress competition, and once again I want YOU to tell me what would happen if Intel was the only CPU maker in the world??
 
Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Last I checked it was Intel running to catch up to AMD with a few things, does integrated memory controller, and 64 bit processors ring a bell.....
Click to expand...

Maybe so for some features. but those AMD features can also be a restriction. Like AMD can't get DDR2 until they redesign the socket/mobo and MCU.

It's the likes of Dell that I also think are on the same wave length as me, see Intel as more future ready and solid as a professional buyers product. It's not about Dell being bribed to buy Intel. It's an issue of quality.

.

 
Originally posted by: porkster
Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Last I checked it was Intel running to catch up to AMD with a few things, does integrated memory controller, and 64 bit processors ring a bell.....
Click to expand...

Maybe so for some features. but those AMD features can also be a restriction. Like AMD can't get DDR2 until they redesign the socket/mobo and MCU.

It's the likes of Dell that I also think are on the same wave length as me, see Intel as more future ready and solid as a professional buyers product. It's not about Dell being bribed to buy Intel. It's an issue of quality.

.
Click to expand...

And you point is......????? Quality? Both chip makers make quality chips you moron or else they wouldnt be in business. And if you checked and AMD roadmap they are gearing up for DDR2 not to mention when Sct939 released DDR was the standard not DDR2, Intel had to redesign their chips and such for DDR2 so dont act like it's an AMD problem.
 
Originally posted by: porkster
Maybe so for some features. but those AMD features can also be a restriction. Like AMD can't get DDR2 until they redesign the socket/mobo and MCU.
Click to expand...
AMD doesn't need DDR2 now. They may need it when they get quad cores, but at this point it wouldn't be necessary... so why break upgradability for folks who already have "invested" in DDR?
It's the likes of Dell that I also think are on the same wave length as me, see Intel as more future ready and solid as a professional buyers product. It's not about Dell being bribed to buy Intel. It's an issue of quality.
Click to expand...
Did you even freaking read the freaking legal documents, you idiot? :roll:
 
Quality solid ? Even though THG had a crap test, all they really proved is that Intels current solution is hot, takes a lot of power, and is not stable, except on one platform. Get real and wake up fanboy....
 
Originally posted by: DeathBUAdidnt encourage anyone, they threatened, and in the US that's illegal in sofar as trying to suppress competition, and once again I want YOU to tell me what would happen if Intel was the only CPU maker in the world??
Click to expand...

If they did, then I agree with you, but the point I'm making is how is AMD limited?

It's like saying Intel as a monopoly on making white police cars. AMD can make anything they want but they are restricting themselves to trying to do the same white car Intel is making, so to speak.

I can't see how AMD are limited. If they are restricted, then in what market, the server market, the desktop market, or both?

If AMD make a unique CPU and it's far better than any x86 based chip at running Window's .Net apps, will they be limited in sales due to Intel? I would say no. So in my opinion I consider still there is no monopoly.

.
 
Originally posted by: porkster
If they did, then I agree with you, but the point I'm making is how is AMD limited?

It's like saying Intel as a monopoly on making white police cars. AMD can make anything they want but they are restricting themselves to trying to do the same white car Intel is making, so to speak.

I can't see how AMD are limited. If they are restricted, then in what market, the server market, the desktop market, or both?

If AMD make a unique CPU and it's far better than any x86 based chip at running Window's .Net apps, will they be limited in sales due to Intel? I would say no. So in my opinion I consider still there is no monopoly.
Click to expand...
And you're still clearly wrong. You deliberately chose to ignore the issues I raised in a previous post, stating plainly why creating a new architecture is not an option.
 
Originally posted by: porkster
Originally posted by: DeathBUAdidnt encourage anyone, they threatened, and in the US that's illegal in sofar as trying to suppress competition, and once again I want YOU to tell me what would happen if Intel was the only CPU maker in the world??
Click to expand...

If they did, then I agree with you, but the point I'm making is how is AMD limited?

It's like saying Intel as a monopoly on making white police cars. AMD can make anything they want but they are restricting themselves to trying to do the same white car Intel is making, so to speak.

I can't see how AMD are limited. If they are restricted, then in what market, the server market, the desktop market, or both?

If AMD make a unique CPU and it's far better than any x86 based chip at running Window's .Net apps, will they be limited in sales due to Intel? I would say no. So in my opinion I consider still there is no monopoly.

.
Click to expand...

No you just dont get it, Intel wouldnt limit their sales a lack of programs that support the chip would be the problem, microsoft for one would need an OS that would support Intel and one that supports AMD, thats costly and unrealistic.

Basically you are just whining because of the fact that while Intel may have invented X86, AMD at the moment has the better solution for X86, that may change back to Intel at some point but right now AMD has the better solution.

If you want proof to my argument remember how long it took microsoft to upgrade to 64 bit OS, solely because AMD makes something unique without any products actually supporting it.....and because AMD didnt own enough market share Ms felt no pressure to bring out WinXP 64bit, if AMD make a new processor arch there would be NO demand for it as nothing would be supported by it
 
Originally posted by: porkster
It's the likes of Dell that I also think are on the same wave length as me, see Intel as more future ready and solid as a professional buyers product. It's not about Dell being bribed to buy Intel. It's an issue of quality.
Click to expand...

So when you wake up in the morning, do you think to yourself, "Man, I'm gonna spread some real FUD today!" Hey, whatever motivates you. Personally, I know that all of the people I build rigs for come to me precisely because they've had it up to here with Dell 'quality' and 'future-readiness'. You can't make an issue of 'quality' and 'solid products' when I've had numerous co-workers come to me fearing they've broken the office computers because they're beeping at them...lo and behold the Intel software is reporting a CPU overheat on their 3.2 Prescotts...under the stressful conditions of having both Word and Media Player open simultaneously.
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Quality solid ? Even though THG had a crap test, all they really proved is that Intels current solution is hot, takes a lot of power, and is not stable, except on one platform. Get real and wake up fanboy....
Click to expand...

The AMD are probably the better gaming CPU, but the Intel make better all rounders. Intel is also better for business in alot of ways. It's horses for courses. Dell are selling to professionals and they are happy to have a computer that is offical/defacto chipset, even if gaming fps are a little lower in some games.

Also maybe Dell still thinks AMD haven't proven themslves enough yet. Like Apple and Intel are rock solid in the minds of busienss people. Many still have horror stories when they hear the word AMD.

goto go... cheers.

.
 
Originally posted by: porkster
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Quality solid ? Even though THG had a crap test, all they really proved is that Intels current solution is hot, takes a lot of power, and is not stable, except on one platform. Get real and wake up fanboy....
Click to expand...

The AMD are probably the better gaming CPU, but the Intel make better all rounders. Intel is also better for business in alot of ways. It's horses for courses. Dell are selling to professionals and they are happy to have a computer that is offical/defacto chipset, even if gaming fps are a little lower in some games.

Also maybe Dell still thinks AMD haven't proven themslves enough yet. Like Apple and Intel are rock solid in the minds of busienss people. Many still have horror stories when they hear the word AMD.

goto go... cheers.

.
Click to expand...

Silly troll is finally beaten because he cant answer all the questions raised by everyone else, good riddance you flaming fvcker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top