Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rudedog who wrote (100441)	3/7/2000 10:46:00 AM
From: Gary Ng	Respond to of 186894

rudedog, Re: Most important for this discussion is that CPQ uses Intel exclusively for all of their commercial products Not true. There was a Prosignia line that use AMD CPUs(in certain models). Don't know if it is still the case. This is as far as I know the only commercial line(from all major OEMs) that use AMD CPUs. Gary

To: rudedog who wrote (100441)	3/7/2000 6:36:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Interesting post, rudedog, I just noticed it because it made the SI home page. But I must, somewhat rudely of course, dispute something. My understanding of the reason you can't get NT or Win2k on Athlon machines doesn't have much to do with the consumer/business line. Rather, it's just the line Intel has drawn. One of those backroom NDA contract negotiation things, where you have the "choice" of what Intel offers you or a horse head in the bed. The OEMs still have to deal with Intel, whether they like it or not. Somewhat related to Intel giving server "customers" what they want, at the OEM level, in the ability to use SDRAM, while the desktop "customers" really, really want to use Rambus, despite the 5x cost premium for little visible performance advantage. Athlon does just fine running NT/Win2K, and I'd guess a bulk purchaser could negotiate a bundled deal with the OEMs. Athlon would be particularly good in the engineering workstation market, because of its excellent floating point, and I don't thing people much hold with Win9x in that market. As for what, exactly, constitutes consumer versus business, you can contrast these 2 gateway systems. gatewayatwork.com and gatewayatwork.com. I imaging the 1000mhz Athlon system would be described the same way the 850 one is, I haven't checked back. The $979 Celeron system has NT as an option, and the $2k plus Athlon system doesn't. Why is that, rudedog? The Athlon system is described as a business system, too. Cheers, Dan.

To: rudedog who wrote (100441)	3/8/2000 12:03:00 AM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 186894

Thread and all - I am responding to my own post here - what was an off-the-cuff generalization about Win98 memory usage has raised some specific questions about buying memory, and I want to clear the air a bit. My statement There is no significant benefit to running more than about 64M and 128M is surely overkill applies to the general case for Win98 - multitasking performance of applications that running alone would use less than a few MB up to maybe 10 MB... which is most apps. But an application can theoretically use a lot more memory, and someone doing a dedicated task like 3D rendering or other graphics work, where the ability to get as much of that job in RAM as possible will have big performance impact, might get a benefit from more RAM, maybe even from A LOT more. So if you are looking to do something like that, check with tech support for the application and see if they can and will use big memory under Win98, if the RAM is available on the machine. I don't do big graphics on Win98 and don't know the answers offhand... Other single-task-intensive applications might benefit as well. So like any rule, the rule that says 64M is plenty is true except for all of the places where the rule does not apply.