The consumers DON'T need to know about the corporate politics. If someone from Google tell Joe Sixpack Microsoft is the devil and Vista is a piece of crap, Joe Sixpack WILL believe him. And then he will tell his other friend Joe the Plumber that his Google friend told him Vista sucks. And the on and on. Customers do what they are told, especially if what they told is an expert opinion (ie from a tech or computer scientist). If there is a few thousand very loud but influencal people out there, they can potentially influence millions. Even someone with a lowly job like Geek Squad tech can influence thousands of people over the course of a year. IMO bad word of mouth hurt Vista, mostly started by computer experts/professionals with beef with Microsoft. I was just saying why people have beef with Microsoft in the first place.
figuerres said:Bass said:*snip*
One other general comment....
with apple dropping the Power PC chips and with the AMD parts beeing almost 100% the same as an intel part (at least so far as running programs on them anyway) I wonder amout the way that tends to give us a kind of "hardware monoculture"
in plant sci. a monoculture is generaly seen as bad due to pests and such, 1,000,000 acers of the same kind of wheat can be wiped out really fast but if you had 3 kinds of wheat + 2-3 other crops ...
even the iPhone and the ce devices ARM chips are used in them...
just another side to the story...
Well the reason x86 is so popular is mostly because of Windows. Windows (desktop) only runs on x86 - not because it's impossible to port WINDOWS itself to any other arch (it's been done before, even in recent times). It's impossible to port all the software that runs on Windows which explicitly is compiled to x86. Because not one organization controls it all and there can be software out there in use without the source code left or the company who made it is bankrupt, and still this software is important.
So porting off x86 is hard/impossible. That's the only reason we still even use the arch. Really it's a terrible arch (4 GP registers, wtf?). In fact, x86 is so complex, so braindead of a design, that there doesn't even exist an REAL x86 processor today. No one would dare dream to make one. Internally AMD and Intel processors have a different instruction set and different arch, they just expose an x86 instruction to the outside. There is this level on indirection (like a virtual machine IN the hardware) built in for compatibility and it costs a substantial amount of circuity to implement (this "microcode").
ARM is much better - it can be implemented efficiently WITHOUT microcode, the instructions are executed directly by the processor, so it gets better per transistor performance that x86 can ever dream of. (The reason ARM processors are slower then modern x86 is because they use FAR less transistors, it has nothing to do with the arch itself). It's instruction set is very consistent, easy to understand.
MIPS is also a lot better. One of the purest and simpiest instruction sets around. Both are very simple cores (RISC) but manage to pack in a lot of useful instructions and many more registers then x86.
Of course they would. Microsoft is the biggest beast in the list I said. But for the most part these companies have a niche and they stay in it, they might move to another business but they aren't like Microsoft who spreads their tentacles EVERYWHERE. Actually this is hurting Microsoft, they are so spread out competiting against Google, against Adobe, agaanst Nintendo, against Oracle they aren't doing a good job competiting with anybody. If you look at they balance sheet it's mostly just Windows and Office holding this company up, none of their business reaches are really doing very well. And they hurt Microsoft's PR in such ways that it effects Windows in the end anyway.
There is no problem with economics of scale type pricing. The problem here is with a cartel agreement Intel made with several companies (who really should also be prosecuted IMO). Actually what Intel did if it's true is direct violation of the spirit of anti-trust law. This is the exact type of situtions anti-trust law was CREATED to fight against. Anti-trust actually means anti-cartel ("trust" is just a 19th centure word for "cartel"). You can say Microsoft / IE is creative interpretation of the law's wording, but I think this clearly violates both the word of the law and the spirit of the law.
What I can't believe is the EU was the one who actually took this further. IMO it should be America, who should have sued Intel and pushed this matter because Intel is one of our companies and so is AMD and it should be the USA who deals with this case. But I can not blame the EU at all. America is so slow with these kind of corporate crimes or basically ignores they exist. Maybe it could have been the USA taxpayers getting this kind of money otherwise.
Vista has a negative image because people badmouthed it, and people badmouthed it because people hate Microsoft.
Why do people hate Microsoft? People hate Microsoft because Microsoft is fundamentally in everyone's business. Intel hates AMD, AMD hates Intel. They are bitter competitors. But Microsoft competition is basically the whole software industry and then some. They compete with so many different entites, eg: Oracle, IBM, Apple, Adobe, Google, free software, Sony, Nintendo. These entities might not even share much of anything in common otherwise.
If Microsoft was a good little boy and stayed in their little nitch they wouldn't get as much hate. But they seem to want to own everyone's business. Pretty much they would love to bankrupt everyone, and control the whole industry. That's why so much Microsoft hate. Hate is just a natural response to a threat. No matter how big they think they are I believe Microsoft opened too many fronts against too many "countries", and it's going to (or already is) biting them in the * in the end.
Apple had a record profit turnout in the middle of a recession (and in the same quarter Microsoft's profit dropped something like 32%). If Apple is being smug, well I think they have pretty damn good reason to be smug with results like that. And I don't think "record profits and revenues" is a sign that there needs to be a change in management either. They are doing something really really right.
GoddersUK said:Bass said:*snip*
It's Advanced Micro Devices.
And don't kid yourself that the EU's not biased either - AMD have large manufacturing interests in Europe - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD#Production_and_fabrication
That said if the allegations of Intel's buying of market share are true I wholeheartedly agree with the ruling (and think it's a good thing regardless as to whether the allegations are true)
Hah nice catch. My bad.
What? You thought they'd just stay quiet?
Good news for the consumer and thank you EU. My only issue is it should be the USA doing these kind of things. We also have anti-trust laws and they aren't much different then the EUs. Unfortunately our government tends to be too far up corporations asses collectively to see any possible illegal dealings when it smacks them in the face. And you can't even make the argument that an Intel monopoly beneifts the USA in some way (see the DeBeers monopoly and South Africa). Intel largest competitor AMD is also an American company (hence "American Micro Devices"). The fact that AMD had to go to the EU to complain about Intel is pretty compelling evidence on how ineffective our own government is in stopping cartel behavior.