SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maverick who wrote (33140)6/4/1998 8:54:00 PM
From: Paul Engel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572124
 
Maverick - Re: "AMD fights back with new 3D K6 chip--"

Intel Looks To Dominate Arcade Games

by Malcolm Maclachlan, TechWeb

June 03, 1998 (01:39 P.M.)

techweb.com

Intel, whose chips dominate the PC business, is now looking to take on the arcade game market.

The chip maker's vision is to turn arcade games into larger versions of PCs, with Intel microprocessors and a standardized architecture.

The idea is to lower prices for arcade owners, who now pay anywhere from $15,000 to $40,000 for a game. Yet Intel (company profile) is not the only company with such plans. However, its competitors may be able to deliver similar machines with more power and at a lower cost, analysts said.

Speaking at Electronic Entertainment Expo '98 last week in Atlanta, Claude Leglise, vice president of Intel's Content Group, outlined his company's vision of the arcade game of the future.

Each machine would have a standardized architecture, he said, both for the computer inside and for the cabinet that holds it. If a game is not getting much play, Leglise said, an arcade owner can open it up and load a new game off of a CD-ROM.

If necessary, the owner could easily change the set of controls, each of which is essentially a PC peripheral. The design will also allow users to easily upgrade each time Intel comes out with a faster chip.

Slap some new stickers on the box, and the arcade owner has a new game, Leglise said.

This scenario contrasts with today's system of proprietary chips and architecture on machines that are difficult to upgrade, he said.

"If you look at the arcade machines, they look like the mainframes of 20 years ago," Leglise said.

When Intel gets arcade machines into the market, they might benefit from a flood of PC games being ported to arcade versions, said Scott Tandy, director of strategic marketing for S3, maker of the Savage3D video card for PCs. If this happens, he said, companies that make video accelerators and other hardware would have to get behind it.

"The merging of the PC price structure and the ability to upgrade seems like it would be an advantage over time," Tandy said.

Intel has been working to make its vision a reality for more than a year through its Open Arcade Architecture Forum. This program includes a number of partners, including Sega -- one of the three largest makers of arcade games.

But Sega has already delivered a similar standardized platform on its current generation of arcade games, which are easy to reprogram, said Peter Glaskowsky, a microprocessor analyst with Microdesign Resources. Standardizing games is a good idea, Glaskowsky said. But while Intel brings a lot of clout to the table, he added, it may not be the best company to do it.

"It's certainly not something that the entire industry is going to unilaterally adopt," Glaskowsky said. "You
could do a better cost reduction with a different kind of chip."

Intel chips are great for general PC functions, he said, but competing chips are better at dealing with graphics and real-time functions important to gaming.

The current K6 chips from AMD, Glaskowsky said, perform better than more expensive high-performance Intel chips in gaming environments. Intel has been touting 700-MHz Pentium chips as the real driver for
arcades.

But such chips probably will not be available until late next year. By that time, Glaskowsky said, AMD will probably have 400-MHz chips that nearly match their performance.

Another viable contender comes from the PowerPC camp, he said, which can also offer more performance for a lower price. A Colmar, Penn., company called PlayPak has standardized arcade games on this
architecture, with help and investment from Apple.

Unlike Intel, PlayPak has a complete set of application program interfaces, said PlayPak president Daniel Stein. It started trial distribution of its standardized arcade boxes in the Northeast in April 1997.

PlayPak games offer a great deal of price savings, Stein said. The cabinets costs $4,599, and the software costs $1,495 -- although cabinet buyers can try out a game for as little as $325 for 4,000 plays.

This will allow buyers to evaluate if a game is likely to bring in the $300-plus a week needed to make it profitable. Such trial plans, he added, are usually not available from traditional arcade game distributors.

The company's goal right now, Stein added, is to get hit games onto the platform. PlayPak works with a number of companies that can port games to the PowerPC architecture in a couple days to a couple weeks
for a minimal cost, he said.

In fact, he said, the race could be decided by which companies launch an original arcade hit on their platforms.

"No one knows what makes a winner," Stein said. "That's the hard part for Intel and for us."

Copyright 1998, CMP Media Inc.

Paul



To: Maverick who wrote (33140)6/5/1998 12:31:00 AM
From: Paul Engel  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572124
 
Maverick - Popular Response to the FTC Probe on Intel

Please read all of this.

Twice.

Paul

{========================================}

cmpweb-media0.web.cerf.net@^1310@.ee6bbbb

Intel Takes The Hot Seat

There are amazing parallels between
Microsoft's position in software and Intel's in
hardware, says CMPnet's Fred Langa: If it's
wrong for Microsoft to assimilate more and
more technologies into the OS, then why should
Intel be able to build whatever it wants into its
chip sets?

What's your take? Does Intel need taming or is
this another case of unwarranted government
intrusion into private business?

(17 previous messages)

William S. Wong - 10:55am Jun 4, 1998 PST (#18 of 29)
Guest User

I absolutely favor integration, which is the central idea of VLSI or
ULSI circuits. By integrating more components on a chip, you
reduce system complexity while increasing clock speeds.

Remember the old 80386 days when the math coprocessor is a
separate chip?

William Wong Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Stan Durst - 01:47pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#19 of 29)
Guest User

I can remember when less than 5% of the automobiles
manufactured in the US came with factory air. Back then there was
a significant cottage industry that installed after market air
conditioning in cars. Over time more and more cars were outfitted
with air at the factory and guess what, there's nobody left our there
making after market air conditioning for cars. Should the
government have stepped in and stopped the auto manufacturers
from installing air at the factory to prevent the elimination of the after
market industry, they didn't. I don't think the public would want to
forgo the cost savings nor the convenience we now enjoy, the same
thing applies to Intel and Microoft, leave thenm alone!!

Tom Shuman - 02:34pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#20 of 29)
Guest User

The sad part of both these cases is that some strong-arm or
allegedly strong-arm) business practices will likely cause delays in
the development of some really great hardware and software.

Anyone who has read ANY of the 1000s of trade magazines in the
last 10 years knows EXACTLY where both INTEL and MICROSOFT
"WANTED TO GO TODAY"... Messers Gates and Grove have been
quite open about the direction they wanted to take their respective
companies.

Want to leave Intel and Microsoft in the dust? Want to compete?
DEVELOP TRULY BETTER PRODUCTS and not just "CLONES"
of the original! Unless you're the lead DOG, the view is the same!

Rich Miller - 02:45pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#21 of 29)
Guest User

Perhaps we should stop all American innovation! I thought that
building things bigger and better was the American way but I guess
this isn't true anymore.

Intel is going for a low end chip to compete against others. Whats
wrong with that? As long as the public still has the choice to buy the
high end hardware, a motherboard and software to build the system
to there liking or a complete system of there choice whats the
problem.

Intel and Microsoft has done more to make hardware and software
compatable than any other leading force in the marketplace. Don't
you remember when it took hours or days to install a 300 baud
modem that cost $300.00 dollars and a database was $600.00?
Now you can buy a decent system for $1000.00 and an Office suite
for $300.00.

It doesn't look like competion is anywhere near dead to me.

Vince Orton - 03:03pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#22 of 29)
Guest User

Intel's plan of integrating multiple functions onto the processor has
been done already - by its competitors (we all knew that).

Intel could have done this years ago and crushed its competition
back then (we all knew that).

Intel is just responding to consumer demand (again). These
PC-on-a-chip systems have grown in market share, and Intel is just
responding to the market. Crime? I think not. Business? I think so.

Others have claimed that Intel has been pushing inferior technology
& processors through superior marketing. Half right (they do have
good marketing). Intel DOES make other, better processors. We
the market just keep on purchasing x86 chips. Intel (or any company
for that matter) would be stupid not to provide generations of x86
chips, and improve & diversify the x86 line. I'm sure Intel (like all
intellectual companies & professionals) would love to "switch" to
another, far superior, processor architecture.

Don't kid yourself. Intel is absolutely capable of creating far superior
processors. Heck, anyone who can make a CISC chip perform on
par with a RISC chip has got something in their noodle! Intel, like
many other companies, could make a screaming processor
architecture if allowed to start with a clean slate. But there is always
reality - would we buy it?

I'm not saying that the government shouldn't keep watching Intel. I'm
just not sure that this case has merit.

M. D. Johnson - 03:06pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#23 of 29)
Guest User

There are however real differences in the way Intel and Microsoft do
business. Intel is much less repressive.

Eucke Warren - 03:30pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#24 of 29)
Guest User

Yeah, that's what we need...The government teaching the private
sector how to compete. I believe that, very clearly, the Justice
Department does NOT understand technology. That was clear in
Butch Reno's recent comments. We could see about the
establishment of an ITU type committee to oversee the development
of new technologies and for the publishing of standards. We all
know how quickly V.90, USB, Firewire got to market recently.

I love the innovation of Microsoft and Intel and I think that this is a lot
like the "Follow my Leader" scene from Blue Thunder. If AMD or
Cyrix or some other upstart wants to take the lead then they need to
make those type of efforts. Who, in the tech trade hasn't struggled
with a INTEL chipset motherboard only to find that VIA or OPTi or
someone else has a better answer.

Innovation does not result in a perfected product. You want perfect?
Then buy equipment that is a generation old and has had the kinks
worked out it. You want performance and cutting edge? Then,
expect the bugs. If the government were regulating the PC industry I
would by writing this on a KAYPRO, looking forward to the advent of
the 486 in 2012.

Chuck Donaldson - 04:10pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#25 of 29)
Guest User

Those of us in the technical field need to stop thinking of this issue
as a "technical" issue. This is an issue of Principle. What is the
proper function of government in a free enterprise system? Short
and sweet: to protect all of us from thief, fraud, and
coercion-physical coercion. It is not to make the market "fair", to
give the other guy "an even chance," to "open up the playing field."
Anti-Trust is not to protect the consumer, it is to punish the best, to
destroy if possible, those who succeed beyond some envious
congressman's grasp. Anti-Trust has nothing to do with justice, and
everything to do with politcal envy. Once the Iron Wedge was
pushed into business then every successful business was under the
microscope. After Microsoft then Intel, then CISCO/Lucent? Look
around, who is the most successful in some market? If they are too
successful they're next. Find and read, "Ten Thousand
Commandments," and then get the government to separate
government and economics just like we do government and religion.
They do not mix.

Fred Langa - 04:31pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#26 of 29)

a question...

Is it me, or is Intel getting cut more slack from the participants here
than Microsoft did in last week's discussion? 8-)

Ron Exner - 08:18pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#27 of 29)
Guest User

If Justice has it's way we will return to the bad old days of DOS.
Remember?

It was a time when every program and piece of software installed
had it's own printer, video and other drivers. Is it back to future?
Should we shelve standarized 'voice recognition' hooks as part of
the OS? Should we avoid MMX extensions? I think not.

Neil Lesser - 08:25pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#28 of 29)
Guest User

Microsoft and Intel deserve the nation's support for their brilliant
innovation over the past decade.

Is our government going to succeed in dictating to Microsoft and
Intel what they can and can't integrate into their products? I don't
think so.

When the bureaucrats and legal people begin to fully grasp the
implications of what they're asking for, they'll back off. They will
realize that the job Microsoft and Intel have to do is best left to them.

The complexity of the issues will be more than their minds can
comprehend. We must hope they have the integrity to realize their
error and back away from trying to master technology without the
training to do this.

We've gotten to this point by supporting the level of integration we
take for granted today. That's progress and we Americans are not
going to have our DOJ put roadblocks to ease of use, reliability, and
other improvements we're just beginning to realize.

Let's be patient, sit back and watch our DOJ embrace the
"tar-baby" technology!! Hope they don't waste too much time and
tax-payer's money learning this lesson.

Avik Dey - 09:11pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#29 of 29)
Guest User

Birds of a feather flock together. One keeps on making pricier and
faster processor the other keeps on making pricier and slower
applications.

If Intel & Microsoft are not stopped now the consumer will continue
to be deprived of innovative technology because no innovation can
survive in the face of billion dollar competition. Either the competitor
will be bought out or get crushed under a barrage of freebies.
Remember every time a competitor goes down that means the
price goes up a notch.

We all keep hearing this response to Intel's integration of more
functions on its processor, "Let the competition go out there and
build a better product and not a Intel clone and the market will be
there for them to." Sure they can do that, but does that guarantee a
market for their products? Who is going to be the mouse that ties
the bell around the cat's neck? Not the mouse that already depend
on Intel to survive in the business, quickest way to loose all advance
information from Intel I would say and I don't think there are too many
companies that have the guts to take that chance. So, now's the
time for the government to do it.



To: Maverick who wrote (33140)6/5/1998 2:29:00 AM
From: Paul Engel  Respond to of 1572124
 
Maverick - Possible Trouble at AMD's Vantis Subsidiary

You may want to check this out, but I suspect AMD may have some bad sales problems with their Vantis division. Perhaps a surprise will be sprung on us with AMD's quarterly "earnings" report.

Why?

Because their Vice President of Sales and Marketing, David Chavoustie, has "resigned" and taken a job at ASML.

Here's the article. Be sure to research the details and report back what you find.

Paul

{===============================}
Former AMD Executive Dave Chavoustie to Lead ASML'S
Worldwide Sales Efforts

Business Wire - June 04, 1998 02:16

%ASM-LITHOGRAPHY ASMLF ASML. %ARIZONA %COMPUTERS %ELECTRONICS %COMED %MANAGEMENT %CHANGES
V%BW P%BW

Jump to first matched term

TEMPE, Ariz.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 4, 1998--ASML (ASM Lithography) announced today that industry veteran Dave Chavoustie has joined the company as vice president in charge of worldwide sales.

Chavoustie replaces Doug Marsh, who will be heading a new ASML operation to be announced later this year.

Prior to joining ASML, Dave Chavoustie worked at Advanced Micro Devices as the vice president of worldwide sales for the company's programmable logic device subsidiary, Vantis. Chavoustie also worked
at AMD as the vice president and general manager of the company's embedded processor division.
Prior to joining AMD, Chavoustie worked at VLSI Technology as the senior vice president and general manager
of the ASIC products division. He has more than 27 years of experience in the semiconductor industry.

ASM Lithography (NASDAQ:ASMLF) (Amsterdam Stock Exchange:ASML) is a world leader in photolithography with an installed base of more than 1,000 systems at customer sites around the world. The company, recognized by Dataquest as the No. 2 supplier of steppers in the world, had 1997 revenues of $889 million. ASML is headquartered in Veldhoven, The Netherlands, with a U.S. operations center in
Tempe, Ariz., and regional sales and service facilities in Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Singapore.

"Safe Harbor" Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Except for historical
information, the matters discussed in this news release that may be considered forward-looking statements
may be subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual results to differ materially from
those projected, including uncertainties in the market, pricing competition, procurement and manufacturing
efficiencies, and other risks detailed from time to time in reports filed by the Company with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. The Company assumes no obligation to update the information in this release.

CONTACT: ASM Lithography, Veldhoven, The Netherlands
Evert Polak, (31) 40-2303-537 (VP, Marketing)
Jan Hoefnagels, (31) 40-230-3939 (Manager, IR)
or
ASM Lithography, Tempe, Ariz.
Dave Chavoustie, 602/438-2832 (VP, Worldwide Sales)
Mark Reagan, 602/453-2802 (Public Relations)
or
Mathews & Clark, Sunnyvale, Calif.
Walt Mathews, 408/736-1120
or
Mathews & Clark, London, England
Ann Read, (44) 171-631-1606