Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 13:23:09 -0600 (MDT) From: Atipa <freebsd@atipa.com> To: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@Kithrup.COM> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I20 to cause problems for linux et al. (fwd) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970915131254.25792B-100000@dot.ishiboo.com> In-Reply-To: <199709151819.LAA12526@kithrup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Sean Eric Fagan wrote: > In article <199709151616.LAA13343.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@argus.tfs.net> you write: > >Remember MicroChannel? > > > >A bus is as good as 3rd party manufacturing support for it. Most > >manufacturers didn't want to pay IBM, and most manufacturers think > >about the same of Mickeysoft as we do... > > Uh, sorry, hate to tell you, but I2O already has more support than MCA ever > did. > > Both uSoft and Intel now have more market control than IBM ever did in the > PC market. > > The main reason for I2O is for Intel to sell more Intel chips. Remember > that. > > And then go look at the "Slot One" (designed solely to prevent anyone else > from being able to make a compatible CPU) and the (IMEO bogus) patents Intel > has on the Merced instruction set. > Who owns a BETA VCR? I agree with the general notion that proprietary technology is RISKY, but I also see that possession is nine-tenths of the law, with Intel and MS being the possessors. Intel is still too chicken (or sly?) to leave X86 compatibility. If they wanted re-invent the PC, they would not allow others to use MMX. They still feel a need for competition. A schizm in PC compatibility would hurt them greatly. They want a nice, calm, confident, money-spending market. If anyone wants to disrupt the status quo, I'd expect it to be AMD. They are really trying hard to beat competitors to the punch, whether it is with their processor, chipset, silicon, or bus. Who knows... Kevin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970915131254.25792B-100000>