So, where's the Intel monopoly?

[cantholdanymore]

Say what you want about MS but their OS is best. Bugs and all.

Because, if you don't consider apple and other specialized applications, they are the only ones actually making money in the x86 OS business?

 

[Hulk]

Actually your post is the best evidence against your argument. The reason we have fast, low priced chips is because AMD can compete in that part of the market. And the reason we have super fast $500 to $1000 CPUs is because AMD can't compete in that market space.

While it would be nice if Bulldozer could have challenged the fastest parts Intel makes it's enough that they can still compete with the lower end parts on a price/performance basis.

If Intel pushed the price of a 2100 processor to $500 I'd be a Bulldozer buyer in no time.

 

[jhu]

0$ cause they can't sell it and have to give it away. Say what you want about MS but their OS is best. Bugs and all.

I have purged all MS OSes from my house. What can Windows do for me that Debian or other free unix-like systems can't do?

 

[DaveSimmons]

I have purged all MS OSes from my house. What can Windows do for me that Debian or other free unix-like systems can't do?

Apples to oranges. AMD and Intel sell x86 chips that both run the same software.

Linux only sort of runs some Windows software, using WINE.

When running Windows you can choose between Intel and AMD. When running Windows applications, you can choose between Microsoft and . . . Microsoft. VMs don't count since you still need to pay Microsoft to use their OS in them legally.

 

[jhu]

Apples to oranges. AMD and Intel sell x86 chips that both run the same software.

Linux only sort of runs some Windows software, using WINE.

When running Windows you can choose between Intel and AMD. When running Windows applications, you can choose between Microsoft and . . . Microsoft. VMs don't count since you still need to pay Microsoft to use their OS in them legally.

That's the same with any OS. Can I run Final Cut Pro or Garage Band on Windows?

 

[soccerballtux]

I could imagine if Intel were to increase their prices by a significant amount(>200%?), that would just make the pace of transition of users to ARM based devices much faster than it is now. If the trend of the current market is to have a lower power consumption then most probably ARM is holding the fort against Intel while AMD fumbles around in the battlefield with a bulldozer.

A significant price increase by Intel would indirectly affect the OEMs as well and the huge price increase of a Dell would just make it that much harder to sell a Dell PC to a consumer that is constantly expecting prices to drop, not rise.

hm that's a very insightful of you.

 

[DaveSimmons]

That's the same with any OS. Can I run Final Cut Pro or Garage Band on Windows?

You can't run those on your $0 Debian either, the competition there is a $1,000+ Mac system.

Also, Linux apps usually can run on multiple, competing flavors of Linux.

Windows has 90+% of the market and most work applications outside of the art department are Windows applications. Most games are for Windows not Linux or OS X (though some run OK on Wine).

So: most programs that people want to run are Window programs, and Microsoft has a monopoly on the software that lets you run Windows programs.

People building a PC don't choose Windows the way they choose between AMD and Intel. They get Windows because it's their only choice for running Windows programs.

Back in the DOS days we had PC-DOS and DR-DOS competing with MS-DOS, and DR-DOS was superior in many ways. Instead of competing, MS abused their Windows 3.x monopoly to shut out competing OSs.

 

[soccerballtux]

I have purged all MS OSes from my house. What can Windows do for me that Debian or other free unix-like systems can't do?

play new games.
have a responsive UI (even with 3D accel).
Run Firefox as fast as Windows can.
Just to name a few.

 

[jhu]

.

People building a PC don't choose Windows the way they choose between AMD and Intel. They get Windows because it's their only choice for running Windows programs.

What do the majority of home users actually use their computer for? From the people around where I work, it's internet access, email, and the occasional office application. Where, in any of this, is Windows required? About the only home users who actually need Windows are those who play computer games. The rest of us play video game on gaming consoles.

Back in the DOS days we had PC-DOS and DR-DOS competing with MS-DOS, and DR-DOS was superior in many ways. Instead of competing, MS abused their Windows 3.x monopoly to shut out competing OSs.

The Windows API is very difficult to implement. It's a wonder how the WINE group are even able to do what they do. Apple's Cocoa API could also be similarly implemented, but no one really wants to.

 

[DaveSimmons]

x86 is difficult to implement too, but that isn't the only reason why no one has spent $1 billion to make a Windows clone to sell at $50 for a piece of the 18 million units MS sells each month.

MS has patents on enough pieces of their software stack that any clone OS would probably lose money just on the license payments.

 

[jhu]

x86 is difficult to implement too, but that isn't the only reason why no one has spent $1 billion to make a Windows clone to sell at $50 for a piece of the 18 million units MS sells each month.

x86 ISA isn't difficult to implement. My cousin made an 8086 compatible processor when he was in Cornell. x86 with even AMD level performance is difficult, but that is another matter.

MS has patents on enough pieces of their software stack that any clone OS would probably lose money just on the license payments.

Transgaming and Crossover sell repackaged WINE for unix-like systems. No cease and desist from MS.

 

[videogames101]

Intel isn't worried about AMD anymore, time for bigger issues. They're getting ready for a showdown with ARM.

 

[SlowSpyder]

How quickly people forget...

 

[frozentundra123456]

I know the thread was originally about intel. But is Microsoft having most of the PC operating system such a bad thing?? I mean, would you want to try to learn a new OS when you went from one company to another?? Or to try to convert files from one OS to another.

I work in the scientific research field, and we used to have a combination of Macs and PCs in our lab. We had no end of problems trying to transfer files across the platforms. So I am not sure that it is such a bad thing for nearly all PCs in various environments using the same OS and Office software.

 

[Stoneburner]

I would say we haven't really felt the effects of an Intel monopoly, and that is because they've gone out of their way in the last 5-6 years to keep it from happening. Make no mistake: Intel could wipe AMD off the map within a year or so by accepting lower gross margins on their sub-$200 parts. AMD exists but for the grace of Intel, as Intel purposely hampers themselves just enough in the sub-$200 market to keep AMD viable in the long-term and to avoid having to take any gross margin hits in the short-term.

Intel doesn't want to be a dejure monopoly, because that will get them heavily regulated. Instead they want to be the 800lb gorilla (or at the most, a defacto monopoly), always able to point at AMD when regulators come sniffing around. Thus the fact that they keep AMD around keeps them on their toes and avoids stagnation, as they have a 20% ghetto carved out for AMD and they need to make sure AMD stays there, which means they can't completely ignore AMD's progress.

This summarizes it nicely. Bear in mind, we DID feel the net affect of no competition years ago.

 

[jhu]

This summarizes it nicely. Bear in mind, we DID feel the net affect of no competition years ago.

Did we? There have always been other companies making x86 CPUs other than Intel since the first IBM PC came out.

 

[sandorski]

Learn from history, not a snapshot of what is going on now.

Intel didn't start to really improve their CPUs until they got kicked in the pants because of competition. It wasn't very long ago that AMD's best was far better than what intel could produce.

The tactic was sue them, when that didn't work, they tried to lock/freeze them out, and they got busted for that, and now, we have little competition in the mid to high end, and lots in the low end.

Intel still has a huge monopoly, and if they wanted to they could crush everyone by doing some big price cuts.

This. Also we'd probably be using much more expensive RDRam, although the Price would have dropped by now.

 

[Stoneburner]

Did we? There have always been other companies making x86 CPUs other than Intel since the first IBM PC came out.

That means there was competition?
Let me answer: No.

 

[Sunburn74]

Notice how a legal copy of Windows still costs you at least $99 at Newegg?

Yep, prices drop quickly when a monopoly has no credible competition. Or not.

You have to expect to pay something for a product. Prices won't fall to nothing either.

And FYI a legal copy of windows can cost as little as 29 USD if you are a student and as low as 15 USD if you work for certain corporations and universities.

I have purged all MS OSes from my house. What can Windows do for me that Debian or other free unix-like systems can't do?

Dunno... play games, run popular major software, play a simple video without needing a command terminal and a C++ manual nearby?

I kid somewhat, but this logic does offend me on an intellectual level. You act as if everything you can possibly grab for free you do regardless of how difficult, time consuming, or inconvenient it is which is far from true. You cherry pick microsoft in this regard; in regard to a million other things that you could get for free had you chosen to put the same time and effort as you did into learning Debian, Unix, programming languages etc, you most likely have callously subconciously said "meh I'd rather just pay for it because it works as it is". The fact of the matter is, there is a certain gestalt people enjoy by being against the grain, not mainstream, being different. Strangely but truely, its very hard to accept by a lot of people that many things that are popular and used by the majority of society often are that way and reached that position because they are quite good at what they do. I don't know what your computer needs are specifically but don't knock Microsoft for putting out their product because I assure you for everyone like you who hates paying for it to where they feel the need to purge it from their homes, there are 999,999 who will gladly will.

As for intel and their so called monopoly, the fact of the matter is they still fall under the laws of supply and demand. Nobody needs cpus (unlike things like food and water which don't fall cleanly under those laws). People want them and if the cost is too high people will find a way around them to get what needs to be done done. This will serve to naturally check cpu prices. Ask yourself what will happen if all the silicon in the world began to run out next year. CPU prices will go up, technology will find ways to get around needing cpus, and cpus will either fall in price or become irrelevant. Its no different if intel artificially raises prices. Sure it'll hurt a little in the meantime that prices go up, but people and technology will always prevail.After all, its why we are still here as a species after all this time.

 

[bononos]

.......

Transgaming and Crossover sell repackaged WINE for unix-like systems. No cease and desist from MS.

Lawsuits are not the only weapon from Microsoft, they can also squeeze corp sponsorship money eg by ending Corel's support for Wine.

 

[Arachnotronic]

ARM as a threat to Intel? Sure, in the phones/tablets, but ARM hasn't a prayer in the high end laptop/desktop/server arena.

Intel's only "threat" is corporate stagnation. They need to keep growing their business, and you do this by creating better, more compelling products.

 

[PreferLinux]

play new games.
have a responsive UI (even with 3D accel).
Run Firefox as fast as Windows can.
Just to name a few.

Have you checked recently? On my system, it is far more responsive than Windoze.

 

[Avalon]

Have you checked recently? On my system, it is far more responsive than Windoze.

I last used Ubuntu 11.4 and it's still not as responsive as my Win7 setup. This has been one of my primary issues with linux, on top of not being able to run any of the software I use for business or entertainment. I've also measured cross platform apps to be notably slower at loading under Ubuntu. Not sure if this is different with Debian or some other distro, but just my experience.

 

[jhu]

Dunno... play games,

console

run popular major software,

such as?

play a simple video without needing a command terminal and a C++ manual nearby?

I just double click on my video files and they play. OTOH, I can't play an .flv in Windows Media Player out of a fresh install.

I kid somewhat, but this logic does offend me on an intellectual level. You act as if everything you can possibly grab for free you do regardless of how difficult, time consuming, or inconvenient it is which is far from true.

Ubuntu is practically the easiest and least time consuming Linux distribution to install. Get a Windows 7 install disc and an Ubuntu install disc and go through the process of installing each on a computer. They're both on par in terms of how difficult it is to install.

The fact of the matter is, there is a certain gestalt people enjoy by being against the grain, not mainstream, being different. Strangely but truely, its very hard to accept by a lot of people that many things that are popular and used by the majority of society often are that way and reached that position because they are quite good at what they do.

For some things that's true (e.g. petroleum products). For other things it's not. And it's not necessarily that a particular item is quite good at what it does but rather that said item is good enough for what it does at a particular price point.

I don't know what your computer needs are specifically but don't knock Microsoft for putting out their product because I assure you for everyone like you who hates paying for it to where they feel the need to purge it from their homes, there are 999,999 who will gladly will.

Or they just bought a machine from Best Buy with Windows installed, it works for them, and don't want or care or even know that the possibility exists to install something else (ie most of the people I work with). Had the machine been installed with some other OS the computer would have also worked for them (eg. Apple).

 

[dma0991]

I last used Ubuntu 11.4 and it's still not as responsive as my Win7 setup. This has been one of my primary issues with linux, on top of not being able to run any of the software I use for business or entertainment. I've also measured cross platform apps to be notably slower at loading under Ubuntu. Not sure if this is different with Debian or some other distro, but just my experience.

If a responsive UI is only in question I agree with PreferLinux. I'm using Fedora 15 with Gnome 3 shell and it is definitely much better looking although without alpha channel for aero glass effect and more 'tablet' like UI than Windows 7. Windows 8 would be somewhere in the middle instead of totally revamping their UI to suit mobile devices more.

I would prefer to format any x86 tablets with Fedora 15 rather than Windows 7, not too sure about Windows 8 so I might change my mind by then. As for Ubuntu, there is a reason why I switched to Fedora because I simply hate the Unity shell.