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 : INTC -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (754)	10/28/1997 12:26:00 AM
From: Mark Brophy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 990

The price cuts are very aggressive. If Intel is having some difficulty in accepting it's leadership, it certainly isn't from being reluctant to push the envelope and bring the fastest processor to the masses. IBM lost their leadership because they refused to become inefficient and cut prices fast enough. Intel doesn't have that problem! If they lose their leadership, it'll be for a different reason. If they can increase profits after this kind of cut, it'll be a miracle. The DEC deal sure is a great start - it'll be profitable in 12 months!

To: greenspirit who wrote (754)	10/29/1997 6:19:00 PM
From: Mark Brophy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 990

Re: Tricks Phoenix taught Microsoft and Intel From Technology Focus, the Phoenix company magazine article, "OnNow - Defining Power Management in Tomorrow's PC" at phoenix.com. Arman Toorians, director of new product development at Phoenix and the chief architect of Phoenix's ACPI efforts (power management): Before Microsoft went public with the ACPI concept, they called Phoenix into a meeting about 6-weeks before releasing the specification. They told us what they were planning. We were involved early with Microsoft in the OnNow specification with regard to APM 1.2.... In December of 1995, when the public specification was announced, there were a few surprises -- like finding out that Microsoft intended for the OS to completely take over power management. Microsoft and Intel were then asking "how does Phoenix plan to support manufacturers with the quality assurance and implementation of ACPI," and "how does Phoenix plan to implement all of these power management and configuration capabilities?" Microsoft's original plan was to remove the BIOS from the power management role completely. Everything would be in an operating system driver. In meetings and communication between Phoenix and Microsoft engineers, we showed that there is no way to completely eliminate the BIOS and replace it with a driver. There are simply too many restrictions on a driver running the power management, and because drivers load after the operating system, you would have no "pre-boot" initialization or configuration support. Through our discussions with Microsoft and Intel, we worked out the details and came to a point where Microsoft realized that they still need the BIOS -- in a significant way.... The way BIOS works, and the interaction users have with it may be streamlined, but critical functions such as the Power On Self Test (POST), memory check, hardware initialization and device enumeration will still be controlled by the BIOS. Also even though the OS will be carrying out power management policy, the actual instructions to turn a device on or off will still be handled by the BIOS.