From jc-news.com
9/06/04, 5:05pm - Okay, I admit it! That particular articlet I put up is a bit extremist, and
does have some inaccuracies. I was mainly interested in seeing what kind of reaction it would
get, but there are a couple things that I honestly didn't know about DRDRAM. Okay, apparently
the clock of 800MHz DRDRAM is 400MHz (it's double pumped), so I was wrong to criticize zdnet
on that account. I still think it's really promising, though that DDR is achieving bandwidth
equivalent to 300MHz SDRAM right now, while Rambus is spec'd to possibly not be completely
ready for 200MHz SDRAM-equivalence at the end of the year. Dang.... Okay, I promise I'll
actually read into all this and reassess. I hate being considered as part of an "anti-Rambus
coalition", especially considering my info isn't all correct. I do admit, too, that part of my
motivation for being anti-Rambus is that I don't like the idea of one of the competitors in the cpu
market (especially by far the most powerful one) having a controlling interest in the memory
standards market. That's like Microsoft suddenly getting control over BIOSes -- it leaves too much
to the imaginations in terms of scary possibilities, like Microsoft modifying their BIOSes to only
accept certain copyrighted OS codes at bootup.... Ah, well. I'll try to be less extremist in the
future. :)
regards,
bp |
