deleted. meant to reply to a post.

Newb!

lol

The one that's smarter and plays dirty always wins, that's the nature of business. If you want to be successful you have to shut down the competition by any means necessary.

And that's what Intel, M$ and the rest of the big boys always tried to do.
If you want to be the good guy in business your not going to make it. Example: Apple, good guy 2.7% of the market, evil M$ 95%.

But unlike Apple, AMD is actually competing with Intel. AMD just has to be more aggressive and who knows in 5 years they could even be no. 1. They already have superior processors.

How's Apple good, and MS bad? I think is's more of flexibility make you big. Apple = not flexible = Over priced products = 2.7%. MS = flexible = 95%

"The one that's smarter and plays dirty always wins"

Completely untrue.

http://www.cio.com/archi...rprise/061599_feth.html
http://www.business-mark...cle-businessethics.html
http://humanresources.ab...hip/a/leader_values.htm

You're right, I totally agree.
But in general people have the impression that M$ is the evil corporation.

Perhaps because they have been convicted of doing evil things?

That's a rather simplistic (and fundamentally flawed) view. Marketing and wheeling and dealing got MS it's kickstart - from there, it's just been a matter of controlling the market with borderline anti-competitive strategies, and clever business decisions.

I'm torn.

I was witness to the business practices of Intel when I was working for a PC manufacturer. Suffice it to say, any claim made to the effect that Intel shut-out competition (At least during the K6 era) is 100% valid.

The reason I'm torn, is that it simply looks like this is *not* what the case is about. It seems as though this case revolves around actions taken by Intel *outside* the United States...complaints which AMD must take to the respective countries involved, not the US.

That, and with Google whining about IE, I've about had it with companies crying because they are unable to compete.

I know AMD has great Processors, I refuse to buy anything else, but even *I* have to admit their marketing borders on non-existant. It just plain sucks.

One might be easily swayed to believing that it's kind of hard to sell a product *YOU DON'T MARKET*.

...I'm just sayin'.

I share your thoughts on this. I am also upset that the trial is being set for 2008--by that time, it is "theoretically" possible that AMD could be gone from the market. Why is this upsetting? Because IF all of the claims AMD makes against Intel are true, Intel can literally use the same practices to eliminate AMD entirely BEFORE THE TRIAL EVEN BEGINS. I understand this type of huge lawsuit can take time, but my God! 3 years before a trial even starts!?! That's insane!

I agree with you. But AMD's chips speak for themselves. They speak volumes to those that are in the business, but not to the general users. Again, they don't care that they have AMD or INTEL, as long as that machine turns on when they push that button.

HP and now Gateway are using more and more AMD chips in their systems. Marketing is needed by AMD, but they should not stop the fight against what has happened in the past. This will only lead to Intel continuing on their path.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Intel being sued in Korea also? Similar grounds as MS? Though I feel that these cases are more in an attempt to get after "those arrogant Americans" than it is law. --IMO

I really can't see this happening at this point. AMD has gained a spot on the roost now. They would have to seriosly mess up in order to fall that quickly. They are still innovative and hurting Intel's hold. With the eyes upon them, it will be extremely difficult at this point to do "business as usual" or become more dirty.

I don't think it will happen either, don't get me wrong--only that it COULD happen, and that exposes a huge problem with the way this type of lawsuit just doesn't work. Sad truth is that so much can happen to Intel and/or AMD in the next three years that this lawsuit could be affected.

On the other side, what if "Conroe" nd "Woodcrest" have some huge major design flaw that requires Intel to completely redesign them from the ground up? What if Intel really screws up and AMD takes the market share crown? The lawsuit would be affected, no? Again, neither of these situations are LIKELY to happen, but the fact that they can happen is just a little scary. Think of all the things that can happen between now and 2008, that can affect this issue.

no the thing abou tthis case that pisses me off is that it is not about the business practicies intel uses, although they are unfair and do lock out competition, amd uses them too. but the problem i have is that amd says it is not ok for intel to use them because they are a monopoly, but it is ok for amd to use them cause they arent. which obviously their logic is flawed.

My God...

Everyone is agreeing with me.

This is unusual. Don't know quite how to react.

Not *one* flame people? Not a single troll or condescending remark?

Have ya'll gone yellow on me?!?!?

Ah well....the day is young yet.

I don't agree. You suck, your comments are off topic, stupid, and pointless.

Don't call me yellow you sissy!

There, are you happy now?

(Of course I am doing this just to appease the coffee makers of america)

Innovative??? They stole the x86 microcode!

Bah, they suck. But Juan Valdez thanks you.

AMD helped ease the production strain off of Intel back in the 80486 days (Intel did not have the capacity to provide enough processors to meet demand), and Intel GAVE them the code so that AMD, in a way, saved Intel's butt. After Intel recovered, AMD continued to make their own processors, however, and that is when the competition started.

Point is--AMD did not steal the code, Intel knowingly gave it to them.

lol, yah, OK.
kinda be like owning RISC?
or maybe x64?

Point is - still no innovation! And I believe it was the 386!

i don't see you inventing your own chip using x86 architecture, i'd say they were VERY innovative. besides, just imagine what kind of monopoly it'd be if no one else could make an x86 chip. be sorta like microsoft in the OS business. shouldn't have to re-code a program to work on another OS on the same architecture. i would use linux more if the same programs that ran in windows would run in linux as well. but, then again, MS wouldn't be so bloody rich and powerful if that were the case.

AMD claimed Intel was enforcing 80% to 100% quotas for major OEMs, or they would not get kickbacks and stuff. I am not aware of AMD offering kickbacks for selling 100% their processors. AMD also claimed the Intel compiler generated faulty and inefficient code-paths that crash its processors. I'm guessing they wouldn't claim that unless they could prove it.

Actually, AMD had their own processor architecture, which they dropped in order to help Intel. I can only wonder what wonders it would have brought.

Many companies make x86 processors. VIA is the first that pops into my head, but several times I've seen small devices that list processors I'm unfamiliar with. Googling them reveals different companies producting x86 processors for specific purposes.

http://dynamism.com/oqo/specs.shtml

Edit: I'm not sure if HT(Hyper Transport) was created by AMD or bought out, but that's one innovation many people love. Their on-die memory controllers are also quite nice.

x64?

Not stolen, but given? Then why was it that in 1995 a court ruling denied AMD the rights to the code and AMD ended up having to "reverse engineer" their version of the 486? ABTW, the whole spat started with the "copying" of the 80287.

I thought that was citrix?

"x64?"

term used to describe the new 64-bit instruction set used by intel and amd.
(i see it as a seperate type of architecture than x86, and soon whole chips to center around the x64 instructions)

Intel is always outside. The United States is always outside. Intel + MS + US = 100% whiners.

AMD + Google = 100% best.

I'm just sayin.... lol

Citrix is a thin client technology software manufacturer in Ft Lauderdale FL.

If you are referring to Cyrix , IBM had reseller rights to stamp their name on Cyrix chips for a spell. Cyrix hit bad times and sold their processor line to National Semiconductor who re-sold it to VIA (who also bought the rights to the IDT WinChip) while retaining rights to it for a spell (they released a chip as the National Semiconductor Geode processor). VIA went on to release their chip as a VIA Cyrix CPU initially, now it's just a VIA CPU.

(I still have a 200MHz Winchip on an old I-opener systemboard.)

And the Google MS IE7 issue? That wasn't Google Whining? Cuz it *sure* sounded like it to me.

Innovation. You guys were talking x86, the originator of the thread was talking innovation and claiming AMD had noe.

I stated x64. Created by AMD and licensed by Intel.

We up to speed now?

what the hell are you talking about?

"I stated x64. Created by AMD and licensed by Intel."

amd and intel each have their own version of x64, researched and created independantly

amd calls theirs AMD64
intel calls theirs EM64T (or IA-32)

Intels EM64T is a reverse engineered X86_64. Intel refused to license the 64bit x86 extensions (if memory serves).

IA-32 isn't EM64T, and IA-64 is Itanium.

IA-32E (IA-32 Extensions) not IA-32 (sry), they re-named it EM64T

Yeah, that's what I mean, cyrix, not Citrix.