Re: Why are you so enamored of this guy?
I'm not enamored of Sanders, and am disappointed by his recent market activity.
But I am convinced that without him, the servers I configure at work would cost twice as much and run half as fast.
And the PCs we all buy for work and home would be the same. As modern technological society becomes more interdependent, more and more opportunities arise for a particular function to become a functional and economic bottleneck. I view Intel's efforts to provide us with no alternative to slow, unreliable, and overpriced chips as essentially the same as the UAW/GM attempts in the 70's to force us to buy poor quality, overpriced, unreliable cars. Sanders, whatever his motivation may be, is presenting the same comparison to Intel as the Japanese auto makers did to UAW/GM when Lexus/Honda/etc. gave us something to compare to Cadillac/Ford/etc.
All automobile manufacturers had to develop better products and learn to do a better job building them. Ultimately (in a small way) our way of life was improved.
Intel was getting so big, so fat, so sloppy, and so arbitrarily arrogant (no alternative to RDRAM shall exist?) that it was vital that it be pressed back into a facing a market economy, rather than its previous circumstances.
Intel was close to becoming the commissariat of CPUs - we were all at the point of having to queue up for hours to pay a high, non-negotiable price, to get a moldy processor of questionable value - and any OEM who didn't like it would see their computing resource supply cut off by Intel's politburo of distribution.
Look at what's now available to the economy in terms of computing capability and cost, and honestly compare that to what would be out there in the absence of competition from AMD.
Regards,
Dan |
