| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
AMD joins OSDLAMD joins OSDLPosted Apr 22, 2004 22:02 UTC (Thu) by alspnost (subscriber, #2763)Parent article: AMD joins OSDL
Great stuff - Linux on Opteron is the dream price/performance platform of the moment ;-) What took AMD so long?
(Log in to post comments)
kind of sad.... Posted Apr 22, 2004 22:37 UTC (Thu) by havoc (guest, #2261) [Link] It's kind of sad. If AMD had joined the OSDL two years ago... or even one year ago, it would look significantly less like a last ditch effort to be viable. I strongly believe that AMD has superior technology to Intel in the "hammer" core CPUs, but being beholden to Redmond is killing them day by day. I still think (hope?) that AMD has a good chance of being a major player, but being Bill's "girl" is not helping things.
MS is trying to kill AMD? Posted Apr 22, 2004 23:55 UTC (Thu) by zorgan (guest, #4016) [Link] I don't think AMD will die. Intel doesn't want AMD to die (because notbeing dependent on a single vendor gives added attractiveness to the intel x86 platform), and Microsoft doesn't want AMD to die (as that would make them more dependent on Intel). Why do you think MS is trying to kill AMD?
MS is trying to kill AMD? Posted Apr 23, 2004 3:04 UTC (Fri) by havoc (guest, #2261) [Link] Oh, heavens no! NOT MS trying to kill AMD. NOT Intel trying to kill AMD.AMD trying to kill AMD, by making poor choices. A lot of people throw out the VHS vs. BetaMax analogy about "better technology losing out to inferior technology." In fact, I had that analogy tossed at me today _by an AMD employee!_ BetaMax didn't fail because the market chose VHS. BetaMax failed because Sony made fatal licensing choices and priced themselves out of the market. AMD has hung their entire fortune on Windows64. "Oh, I'm sorry, Windows64 won't be available until Intel, using the license we forced you to _GIVE_ to Intel, has their AMD^H^H^H x86_64 chips ready for the market. We'll just keep delaying the shipment until they're good to go." Not to diminish the millions that AMD pumped into SuSE to finance SuSE's 64-bit effort, but AMD has hung their future on Windows64. Had they fully embraced Linux two years ago (rather than treating it like a stray dog, feeding it relative scraps), AMD/Linux would be crushing its way through server rooms rather than just pushing it's way in. This full-frontal embrace may yet save AMD's bacon, but for the little guy to lean on Microsoft for support is seldom a wise choice. As an aside, MS would never let AMD fail -- they'd buy them out, first. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13077 http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13066 (yes, I realize that the INQ is a rumor site, but it's no less valid speculation.) havoc http://www.galacticslacker.com/
Remember the Alpha? Posted Apr 23, 2004 13:36 UTC (Fri) by chohman (guest, #5519) [Link] Is it just me, or this reminiscent of years ago when Digital Equipment developed their ground-breaking Alpha processor, and hung its success on Microsoft getting NT out the door? As I recall, the delay cost them any hope of staying in the desktop workstation market. Deja vu, anyone?
|
|
||||||||||||