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

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

Very, very interesting. I have no idea if he's right, but a MAJOR
shakeup if he is.

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:43:04 -0500, Henry Nettles
<hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:

>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
>
>Very, very interesting. I have no idea if he's right, but a MAJOR
>shakeup if he is.

"Remember, you read it here first."

Nup. Said it here aready. Payback time for Chairman Bill.

RM

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

Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)

Yousuf Khan

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

"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118362317.534982.175550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
He gets paid for this stuff? Sheeeit.

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

On 9 Jun 2005 17:11:57 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
>
Aw, c'mon, Yousuf. Live a little! You've got your spiffed-up and now
immortal x86 from AMD, and it's mopping the floor with Intel on
performance. Now dream of the outcome we'd *all* like to see.

RM

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

"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118362317.534982.175550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
Apple's market cap is 31 Billion USD. So Intel would have to cough up
40B. And since Intel's PE is lower than AAPL it might not be good for
INTC stock. Also there is the coming up with the 40B. They could make
it a cash and stock deal or an all stock deal and issue another 1.5e9
share to go with the 6B shares already outstanding. Uffda. Lot of
money.

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

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:31:21 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
<dcecchi.nospam@att.net> wrote:

>
>"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1118362317.534982.175550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>Apple's market cap is 31 Billion USD. So Intel would have to cough up
>40B. And since Intel's PE is lower than AAPL it might not be good for
>INTC stock. Also there is the coming up with the 40B. They could make
>it a cash and stock deal or an all stock deal and issue another 1.5e9
>share to go with the 6B shares already outstanding. Uffda. Lot of
>money.
>
Ain't gonna happen, either. Intel might have a contract out on Gates,
but they're going to need the money that they might use to buy out
Apple if they're going to go after Microsoft turf in any serious way.
I do think they've got much more that 2-3% of anything in mind here.

RM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:59:39 -0400, Robert Myers
<rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:43:04 -0500, Henry Nettles
><hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
>>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
>>
>>Very, very interesting. I have no idea if he's right, but a MAJOR
>>shakeup if he is.
>
>"Remember, you read it here first."
>
>Nup. Said it here aready. Payback time for Chairman Bill.
>
>RM
Don't forget that MSFT _DOES_ have a second source of chips - AMD. If
INTC is perceived by Chairman Bill to really intend to act as
described at the URL above, MSFT may counter by, for instance,
optimizing its code for AMD, leaving INTC even more behind in terms of
performance. Also MSFT has even greater cash reserves than INTC, and
can use some of it to help AMD increase production. Besides, IBM may
use the capacity freed by G5 to fab chips for AMD. And, finally, for
MSFT to acquire AMD outright is even easier than for INTC to buy AAPL
- wouldn't that be fun to see the competition of these 2 after these
mergers? After all, MacOS has only about 3% of the desktop market,
and Windows pretty much the rest, and in servers Mac is a non-entity.
I just don't see Intel going after 3% of the market and risking huge
losses in Windows PC/Servers, so they will have to proceed carefully
as to not ruffle Chairman Bill's feathers.

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:43:04 -0500, Henry Nettles
<hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:

>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
>
>Very, very interesting. I have no idea if he's right, but a MAJOR
>shakeup if he is.

I have serious trouble taking someone seriously when damn near every
tidbit of information he throw's out is flat out wrong. A few
examples:

"OS X 10.4 -- Tiger -- is a 64-bit OS"

Actually Tiger includes very little 64-bit code and only very limited
support for the larger memory addressing that makes 64-bit chips
interesting. Calling Tiger a 64-bit OS is like saying that Win3.1 was
a 32-bit OS.


"remember, yet Intel's 64-bit chips -- Xeon and Itanium -- are high
buck items aimed at servers, not iMacs."

Uhh, is he forgetting about the fact that Intel released 64-bit
desktop processors a good 6 months ago? Intel even plans on pushing
out 64-bit Celeron processors for the low-end by the end of the year.


(speaking of AMD vs. Intel) "AND [AMD] does so at a lower price point
across the board?"

Has he checked the prices of AMD and Intel's newest chips? Intel's
most expensive Pentium-D is about the same price as the cheapest of
AMD's Athlon64 X2 chips!


"The CPU ID is still in there"

Actually it's not.


"just as every network device has its unique MAC address"

MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).


"If Apple was willing to consider a processor switch, moving to the
Cell Processor would have made much more sense than going to Intel or
AMD,"

?!?! Has he SEEN how ridiculously different the Cell design is from
existing chips in Macs? There's just no way to do emulation of
current software on the Cell and make it run at acceptable speeds, and
porting applications to Cell would be FAR more complicated than
porting from PowerPC to x86. The simple fact is that the current
software paradigm just doesn't fit the Cell at all. In the closed
environment of a gaming console it is easy enough to change that
paradigm, but not with a general purpose PC.



<sigh> And this guy gets paid for all this?! Geez. If they wanted
someone to spew nonsense based on incorrect facts then PBS could have
just dredged through the postings at Slashdot!

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

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2005 17:11:57 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
> >
> Aw, c'mon, Yousuf. Live a little! You've got your spiffed-up and now
> immortal x86 from AMD, and it's mopping the floor with Intel on
> performance. Now dream of the outcome we'd *all* like to see.


Uh no, as Del mentioned, paying between $30-40 Billion for a piece of
the iPod action doesn't seem very financially sane to me.

I think Mr. Cringely has decided that now that what was thought
impossible has happened, now anything else that seems impossible can
also happen. So he's going for a hail-mary of craziness. Next he'll be
predicting Dell will start using AMD processors, for example. :-)

Yousuf Khan

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:40:31 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

> "just as every network device has its unique MAC address"
>
> MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).

MAC addresses are unique, barring people changing them of course. Of course your
chances of accidentally changing it to match another devices address on
your subnet are very very small indeed.

--
Cheers
Anton

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

On 9 Jun 2005 22:10:32 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Robert Myers wrote:
>> On 9 Jun 2005 17:11:57 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Fanciful, very fanciful. :-)
>> >
>> Aw, c'mon, Yousuf. Live a little! You've got your spiffed-up and now
>> immortal x86 from AMD, and it's mopping the floor with Intel on
>> performance. Now dream of the outcome we'd *all* like to see.
>
>
>Uh no, as Del mentioned, paying between $30-40 Billion for a piece of
>the iPod action doesn't seem very financially sane to me.
>

Agreed. It doesn't make much sense for Intel actually to buy Apple.
I do think Intel and Apple are making much bigger plans than just
having Intel replace IBM as a chip supplier, and that what Intel
brings to this action is not just plant capacity and a notebook chip
but also money.

RM

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:58:46 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
<mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:59:39 -0400, Robert Myers
><rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:43:04 -0500, Henry Nettles
>><hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
>>>
>>>Very, very interesting. I have no idea if he's right, but a MAJOR
>>>shakeup if he is.
>>
>>"Remember, you read it here first."
>>
>>Nup. Said it here aready. Payback time for Chairman Bill.
>>
>>RM
>Don't forget that MSFT _DOES_ have a second source of chips - AMD. If
>INTC is perceived by Chairman Bill to really intend to act as
>described at the URL above, MSFT may counter by, for instance,
>optimizing its code for AMD, leaving INTC even more behind in terms of
>performance.

I'd be very surprised if Intel didn't regard Microsoft's x86-64
decision as a declaration of war. That is to say, Microsoft already
_has_ optimized its code for AMD.

>Also MSFT has even greater cash reserves than INTC, and
>can use some of it to help AMD increase production.

That would and should produce a shareholder revolt at Microsoft.

>Besides, IBM may
>use the capacity freed by G5 to fab chips for AMD.

IBM's fab capacity is limited by its ability to make money making
chips, which it hasn't been doing in quite a while.

>And, finally, for
>MSFT to acquire AMD outright is even easier than for INTC to buy AAPL
>- wouldn't that be fun to see the competition of these 2 after these
>mergers? After all, MacOS has only about 3% of the desktop market,
>and Windows pretty much the rest, and in servers Mac is a non-entity.
>I just don't see Intel going after 3% of the market and risking huge
>losses in Windows PC/Servers, so they will have to proceed carefully
>as to not ruffle Chairman Bill's feathers.

All the feathers are already ruffled. There is simply no way that
Gates cannot be taking a dark view of the Intel-Apple deal, and Intel
is already furious over 64-bit decisions (x86/Itanium) by Microsoft.
The only question is where the bodies lie when the shooting stops.

RM

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

Tony Hill wrote:

> "just as every network device has its unique MAC address"
>
> MAC address are NOT unique (just unique on a subnet).

Ever heard of Organizationally Unique Identifier?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUI
http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt

<quote>
For Ethernet use, the OUI is combined with an internally-assigned
24-bit number to form a MAC address.
</quote>

Ethernet MAC addresses are, most definitely, unique.

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:43:04 -0500, Henry Nettles <hnettles@hal-pc.org>
wrote:

>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
>
>Very, very interesting. I have no idea if he's right, but a MAJOR
>shakeup if he is.

How can he be right? This guy thnks Intel only does 64-bit in Xeons and
Itanium! He also thinks Intel/Apple as a merger works - Intel knows from
decades ago not to try to sell boxes and an OS.

As an alternative OS supplier/partner, Apple may make sense and as a tactic
to waken M$ from their AMD64 dreams it could be a good move for Intel.
It's still going to take a while to get from 2% of the market to where
Apple has much impact on Intel's sales numbers and ASP... if ever.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

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

Robert Myers wrote:
>>Uh no, as Del mentioned, paying between $30-40 Billion for a piece of
>>the iPod action doesn't seem very financially sane to me.
>>
>
>
> Agreed. It doesn't make much sense for Intel actually to buy Apple.
> I do