By: Paul DeMone (pdemone.delete@this.igs.net), February 5, 2003 12:20 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
() on 2/5/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>>Have you looked at the date when this article was written?
>>
>>Do you find it surprising that I would change my position when better
>>and more complete information becomes available that contradicts
>>my earlier held view?
>>
>
>And how exactly does the fact that
>an article was written in 2000 make
>any statements about how the i386,
>i486, and i586 were initially marketed
>less true? If anything they should be
>more even more reliable than
>statements made today, since now we
>have hindsight, as well as time
>futzing up our recollections.
Ok I see what you getting at. I misunderstood because
you accused me of saying something I didn't. Silly me.
You said:
"On page four, third paragraph down,
you are contradicting your current
position on a couple of topics.
Namely a discussion a few days ago
about which targets Intel marketed
processors (i386/i486/i586) at their
introduction."
In my article I wrote:
"Anyone with a bit of history under their belt
remembers how each new Intel processor generation
from the 80386 onwards was accompanied by industry
analysts pronouncements how it was a 'server chip',
it was 'overkill for the desktop PCs', users would
'never need the power of the new chip' etc. The
history lesson from that era is that Intel can drive
a new processor core to the mainstream remarkably fast,
especially if there is effective competition against
the previous generation."
Notice I didn't say Intel marketed each new core to
servers first, I said some "industry analysts" tended
to frame it that way because of the hoary old question
"what would anyone need all that somputing power for".
Intel drove the new cores into high end PCs because
that's where the volumes are.
---------------------------
>>Have you looked at the date when this article was written?
>>
>>Do you find it surprising that I would change my position when better
>>and more complete information becomes available that contradicts
>>my earlier held view?
>>
>
>And how exactly does the fact that
>an article was written in 2000 make
>any statements about how the i386,
>i486, and i586 were initially marketed
>less true? If anything they should be
>more even more reliable than
>statements made today, since now we
>have hindsight, as well as time
>futzing up our recollections.
Ok I see what you getting at. I misunderstood because
you accused me of saying something I didn't. Silly me.
You said:
"On page four, third paragraph down,
you are contradicting your current
position on a couple of topics.
Namely a discussion a few days ago
about which targets Intel marketed
processors (i386/i486/i586) at their
introduction."
In my article I wrote:
"Anyone with a bit of history under their belt
remembers how each new Intel processor generation
from the 80386 onwards was accompanied by industry
analysts pronouncements how it was a 'server chip',
it was 'overkill for the desktop PCs', users would
'never need the power of the new chip' etc. The
history lesson from that era is that Intel can drive
a new processor core to the mainstream remarkably fast,
especially if there is effective competition against
the previous generation."
Notice I didn't say Intel marketed each new core to
servers first, I said some "industry analysts" tended
to frame it that way because of the hoary old question
"what would anyone need all that somputing power for".
Intel drove the new cores into high end PCs because
that's where the volumes are.
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
New Article Available | David Kanter | 2003/02/02 01:44 AM |
Excellent Article, Paul (NT) | Arcadian | 2003/02/02 03:57 PM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Dean Kent | 2003/02/02 06:53 PM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Singh, S.R. | 2003/02/02 11:38 PM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Dean Kent | 2003/02/02 11:53 PM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Anonymous | 2003/02/03 06:03 AM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 08:13 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Peter Gerassimoff | 2003/02/03 12:38 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Bill Todd | 2003/02/03 02:18 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 09:08 AM |
Opteron SPEC Performance | Arcadian | 2003/02/03 11:15 AM |
Opteron SPEC Performance | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 11:18 AM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/03 12:15 PM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/05 08:23 AM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/05 01:50 PM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | tecate | 2003/02/05 04:09 PM |
gender should be irrelevant | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/05 05:36 PM |
gender should be irrelevant | Dean Kent | 2003/02/05 06:03 PM |
gender should be irrelevant | tecate | 2003/02/05 08:27 PM |
well it is all about your viewpoint | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/05 11:44 PM |
well it is all about your viewpoint | doriangrey | 2003/02/06 11:39 PM |
Please be a girl. :p | NIKOLAS | 2003/02/06 05:28 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 07:43 AM |
larger cache for POWER4+? | Anil Maliyekkel | 2003/02/03 04:08 AM |
larger cache for POWER4+? | Thu Nguyen | 2003/02/03 05:35 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 06:41 AM |
well written indeed | tecate | 2003/02/03 08:05 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 08:12 AM |
well written indeed | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 08:15 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 11:04 AM |
well written indeed | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 11:58 AM |
about Jim Keller | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 12:50 PM |
about Jim Keller | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 01:22 PM |
Nope but will now (NT) | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 01:50 PM |
patent info... | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 01:52 PM |
about the article... | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 03:49 PM |
Er, I just have to point something out. | Anonymous | 2003/02/04 09:19 PM |
Next time check the date. | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/05 12:10 AM |
Yes, I know it was written in 2000. | Anonymous | 2003/02/05 11:42 AM |
Yes, I know it was written in 2000. | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/05 12:20 PM |
about Jim Keller | Alejandro G. Belluscio | 2003/02/09 12:09 PM |
about Jim Keller | Dean Kent | 2003/02/09 12:40 PM |
about Jim Keller | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/09 01:00 PM |
about Jim Keller | David Wang | 2003/02/09 01:18 PM |
about Jim Keller | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/09 02:47 PM |
about Jim Keller | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/10 10:11 AM |
about Jim Keller | Dean Kent | 2003/02/10 11:06 AM |
about Jim Keller | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/11 05:53 PM |
about Jim Keller | Dean Kent | 2003/02/11 08:52 PM |
about Jim Keller | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/12 10:06 AM |
about Jim Keller | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/13 03:19 PM |
about Jim Keller | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/11 10:35 PM |
about Jim Keller | David Kanter | 2003/02/11 11:24 PM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/12 09:54 AM |
Taxation systems | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/13 06:23 AM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro Bellusco | 2003/02/13 09:53 AM |
Taxation systems | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/13 02:47 PM |
Taxation systems | Aleajdnro G. Belluscio | 2003/02/13 04:56 PM |
Taxation systems | Jouni Osmala | 2003/02/14 07:03 AM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro G. Belluscio | 2003/02/14 05:13 PM |
Taxation systems | David Kanter | 2003/02/14 11:18 PM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/15 07:36 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 01:40 PM |
E8870 Chipset | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/04 02:19 PM |
E8870 Chipset | Arcadian | 2003/02/05 12:54 AM |
E8870 Chipset | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/05 08:13 AM |
E8870 Chipset | Arcadian | 2003/02/05 11:49 AM |
Minor question | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/04 02:24 PM |
well written indeed | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 08:18 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 08:36 AM |
well written indeed | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 09:33 AM |
hear hear... | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 11:16 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 02:02 PM |
well written indeed | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 03:48 PM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/04 12:56 PM |
well written indeed | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 09:19 AM |
BTW Paul, it was VERY well written... BUT... =) | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 09:25 AM |
Ditto (NT) | William L. | 2003/02/10 07:28 PM |
New Article Available | JS | 2003/02/05 01:09 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | Richard Stacpoole | 2003/02/06 04:46 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/06 09:47 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | doriangrey | 2003/02/06 11:41 PM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | William L. | 2003/02/10 07:34 PM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | Singh, S.R. | 2003/02/10 09:34 PM |
Watch this | Singh, S.R. | 2003/02/10 09:42 PM |
excellent article, just a nit or two | mulp | 2003/02/15 11:11 PM |