> Utter, fatuous nonsense. AMD's lack of fiscal strength as
> result of their decision to move away from their
> traditional areas of strength (microcontrollers, bipolar,
> military) in favor of taking on Intel in the PC mainstream
> market *IS* on-topic!
Does your message have *anything* to do with what I actually said in my message?
> Oh, I see, this is a _cheerleading_ group, and pointing
> out that Jerry blew it and AMD is likely going to be a
> pile of rubble is "off topic."
Nobody said anything of the sort. Your silly, nonsense jab about gaming was the stupid comment that started this. I said absolutely nothing about Jerry, and I really do not appreciate having you putting words in my mouth.
> "Cool our jets in the AMD/Intel discussion" while the AMD
> cheerleaders have been bragging for two years about what a
> great game machine the Athlon makes?
What are you talking about? Do you even know what "cool our jets" means?
> Well, it seems that while AMD was goosing up its
> Quakemarks benchmarks,
A minor point, but Quake is a benchmark which prefers Intel processors.
> because it figured the only market
> was indulgent Yuppie parents buying little Sid Vicious his
> own 1.4 GHz Quake machine, Intel was covering its bases
> with Xeons, servers, MP, IA-64, and mil-spec systems for
> the major aerospace companies.
Good for Intel. But what does that have to do with what I said before? I made absolutely no comments about the prospects of either companies or any products.
> Now that little Sid Vicious
Who is Sid Vicious?
> is being told to forget about the new game machine this
> year, AMD is in a world of hurt.
AMD does not produce products for gaming consoles. Intel makes processors for the X-Box, though. I do not see what you are trying to suggest. Could you elaborate on your point?
-JC |
