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.

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

To: gnuman who wrote (47089)	1/23/1999 11:37:00 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571311

The conclusion. Intels CPU ID is a marketing ploy to sell P-III chips. www5.tomshardware.com www5.tomshardware.com

To: gnuman who wrote (47089)	1/23/1999 1:06:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571311

Gene, >Re:The DMV could set up a separate division, DPC, (Department of >PC's). When purchased the seller would create a title and >registration that would be sent to the DPC. At the time of resale >the owner would sign the title over to the new purchaser. >Each State would need to implement this to handle interstate >transfers. Of course there would need to be a tax on the sale and >registration of PC's to fund the new Department. Retailers would be >required to collect taxes on the original sale and the DPC would >send out an annual tax bill thereafter. Probably need a sticker to >attach to the PC with the PCID and State registration number. >And consumer activist groups can get involved. For example, MADD >could create a MAAB affiliate, (Mothers Against Addictive Browsing). >(Bet we know who's mom would be a charter member). Great response, it really made my Saturday morning. This whole scheme for ID's is backfiring on Intel. There is a real need for it for corporate apps, but the more I think about it for consumers I think it is clearly a bad idea. I am seriously worried that Intel could taint the PIII as a BIG Brother chip. It could cost them billions as their mainstream CPU could gace serious acceptance problems. Jeez, my Intel investments could tumble. Hopefully Paul will have some soothing words for us. Regards, Kash

To: gnuman who wrote (47089)	1/23/1999 1:52:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1571311

Gene, When Intel came up with slot 1, the main idea was to create a proprietary bus which would force AMD out of the x86 business. Instead, it turned out that slot 1 was an expensive solution which offered no added value to the consumer. This made K6 look very attractive to OEM's, and AMD's market share surged. Intel is making the same mistake again with their Clipper II (PIII) chip. They think that a proprietary data security scheme will force people to buy Intel chips. The reality is that the vast majority of PC buyers will not want their Clipper solution, and will seek alternative CPU's instead. Intel is complaining that users have the option to turn the security features off, but most people are smart enough to figure out that software vendors won't allow that to happen. Once you get a Clipper II in your house, your computing freedom will be diminished forever. Scumbria