>I compare their situation to that of Borland with respect to
>Microsoft. It is virtually impossible to compete with a
>company that 1) defines the technology, 2) implements it in
>precise, incremental, steps, and 3) has reserves of cash and
>market share to quickly switch directions as needed.
Your points are well taken. It's hard to tell what will happen in the future...
> AMD came up with the clever moniker of K6 to somehow
>imply that their chip is better than the P5 (Pentium). The
>K6, however, is esentially Pentium I technology which has
>been superceded by the P6 (Pentium Pro) and now the P7
>Pentium II).
I feel compelled to correct you here, the K6 is actually offering Pentium Pro performance, not Pentium, and is alligned to compete directly against the Klamath (Intel's latest chip, not their old one). The P7 is the Intel-HP hybrid. The Pentium II is the Klamath, an entirely different machine than the P7. See, Intel's naming scheme even confuses it's investors :)
> AMD would have a much better chance of survival by
>switching their business model to one that offers some REAL
>advantages to the technology arena rather than this
>ridiculous catch up game.
This is their business model, they are offering a chip which supposedly outperforms the Pentium Pro at the same clockspeed, (the Klamath pretty much being a Pentium Pro without the cache and running at faster than 200Mhz speeds). The K6 is expected to be offered in 166Mhz, 200Mhz and 233Mhz initially, and then on to 266Mhz and beyond later.
Alex |
