Right, but the point I was trying to make (I guess I didn't use a very
good analogy) is that there is room for more than one company in the
high tech arena. The most innovative are the ones that survive.
Intel's big guns, even more than its technology, was the brilliant
advertising strategy to push the Intel Inside logo and the flood of
commercials, especially on television, that ingrained that musical
note and the Pentium name into everyone's mind.
As far as the greatness of the Pentium, maybe it's the computers I'm
using, but I don't notice a lot of difference between my 486DX66 and
my P133 in running applications and I don't notice any difference in
the reliability or stability of either one: both of them are far too
slow at starting programs and loading graphics.
Now, I have no technical background at all and I have no idea what it
really means, but I recall something about the buss speed limiting the
real increase in application speed; the clock speed helps but can also hinder if the clock-to-buss speeds are not in sync, that is, if
they aren't exact multiples of each other.
If that is true, it sounds like the company who figures out how to
correct that problem will be the most successful. As I say, I don't
really understand all that high-tech stuff, but it sounds logical to
me since, in reality, I don't see much difference with the Pentiums. |
