Dear Elmer:
I used Pricewatch for the availability. I used the categories and searched for those attributes I wanted such as the i840 or the i820 with RIMMs. Just the searches a typical user would do on such a web site. Everyone uses it to determine presence in the DIY market. You should know this site by now. You do used it when, Intel was a Juggernaut. You seem to be able to find the sites proving Intel superiority. I just showed a different way to get at the same data. Intel also uses a unavailable compiler, unavailable platform in its benches. It did use the 4.5 plug in for six months in SPEC benchmarks before "releasing" it. Yet a typical CS graduate can not verify such scores. One such graduate, the creator of the QMC and Moldyn benchmarks which I have pointed to before (using the method I got to them for courtesy), could not, with messages to Intel support, get those benchmarks to compile into reliable code. A Cmine at 933Mhz which, is not as available as Athlon K75 at 1GHz, would not beat the same Athlon in most benchmarks.
AMD as little as 1.5 years ago used to announce a product that would not show up in the DIY market for as much as three months. Intel used to around that time, to my satisfaction, announce a product that was available in a short time in the DIY market. Now AMD announces a product that becomes available in the DIY market in a week or two and Intel announces one that has yet to show up three months later. The positions are now reversed. As of now, no one has grilled Intel Management about how they allowed this to happen. Their stock has not taken a hit, that is given to any other management doing the same in this business.
I think that you should be asking Intel's Management these questions since you are an Intel Stockholder, than defending their practices. I think that Coppermine is a great Intel processor. There are things I do not like about it. One is the Processor ID. Another is that Intel requires me to use RMBS memory with it, when there is no real good reason for this. The agreement with RMBS was and still is a very big mistake. It is a technology that makes sense for the embedded market only where the advantages may even be worth the cost. But, to shoehorn us, the consumers, into such a costly platform, simply shows the arrogance of Intel.
In any business, where the "customer is king", good management may suggest a better platform but, give them the platform they want, if they insist. Intel shows too much arrogance by demanding we do it their way. And then they add insult to that injury, by forcing us to pay more for it. Any company that does this, will have me, and many others, go use a company that will give us a system more to our liking at a cost we will pay for it. That is why many companies used to force the second source, out of a basic desire for CYA, for their component needs.
Too many companies have fallen into this trap of arrogance. Most have had their head handed to them on a platter. The rest, wisely have changed their ways. I hope that Intel does mend its ways. You, the stockholders deserve no less. And we, the customers, like this CPU competition. IMHO, competition stops this from occurring when it is easier to switch than put up with it.
Pete |
