rec.autos.simulators

More on the demise of OverClocking.. This time from an Intel employee.

Maps

More on the demise of OverClocking.. This time from an Intel employee.

by Maps » Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:00:00


>Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 09:41:16 -0800


<...>

I wonder how long that lifetime is. As much as I don't care for Macs,
one thing they have going for them now that makes me a little jealous
is temperature efficient (cool running) processors- Pentium2
processors get so hot that I imagine this is foremostly what
determines their operating life. I think I've heard it said that Intel
invented a whole industry- processor fans.

This was an interesting post- thanks. I guess it all comes down to how
long the operating life of the processor is versus how long you will
need it to work until something faster is so cheap it is worth
discarding the original.

Jim Sokolof

More on the demise of OverClocking.. This time from an Intel employee.

by Jim Sokolof » Fri, 18 Dec 1998 04:00:00




> >Intel, like any other business, exist not to make processors for
> >people but to make money. They are not a charity. If they "ripped
> >people off" by charging high prices that is their decision and their
> >right, in fact they owe it to their shareholders who have invested
> >their money and their trust in Intel to be succesful.
> Oh my Lord, the blue-*** capitalist sentiment rears it's ugly
> head <g>.  John, Intel has a defacto monopoly here in certain
> software segments...

You're complaining about Intel, a primarily hardware company, having a
defacto[sic] monopoly in certain *software* segments?

Like it or not, there are alternatives to Intel x86 chips. This
message is composed on a Sparc Ultra-2 (*). I could just as easily
have composed it on an AMD, Cyrix, Motorola, ... CPU.

---Jim

(*) In the interest of full disclosure, it happens that my X-terminal
has a PPro 200 in it...

Jim Sokolof

More on the demise of OverClocking.. This time from an Intel employee.

by Jim Sokolof » Fri, 18 Dec 1998 04:00:00


> Likewise, a consumer has the complete freedom to buy or not to buy a
> given product; most often this is based on a sense of "value".  Basic
> supply and demand economics supposes that given identical products in
> every way but price, a consumer will choose the lower cost item.

So far so good; you're getting on a roll, but you're about to "have an
off"...

<SNIP>

IMO, if a consumer is concerning themself with "how much profit is my
counterparty making if I buy this?" rather than "how much value will I
derive if I buy this?", they are being a short-sighted ass.

As an example, I occasionally buy bottled water, a beer at a bar, or a
nice meal at a restaurant. I know about how much water costs, and know
about what beer and food ingredients and labor cost. Nonetheless, I
don't care that Polar, Poland Springs, La Hacienda, Bugaboo Creek, or
Top of the Hub make a lot of money on my transaction with them, just
that I get something of value in excess of what I paid.

I don't care how much money Intel makes from my CPU purchases. I only
care that I get value in excess of what I pay. (If I don't, I don't
buy, almost by definition of "value" for a rational consumer.)

---Jim

Mark

More on the demise of OverClocking.. This time from an Intel employee.

by Mark » Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:00:00






>> >Intel, like any other business, exist not to make processors for
>> >people but to make money. They are not a charity. If they "ripped
>> >people off" by charging high prices that is their decision and their
>> >right, in fact they owe it to their shareholders who have invested
>> >their money and their trust in Intel to be succesful.

>> Oh my Lord, the blue-*** capitalist sentiment rears it's ugly
>> head <g>.  John, Intel has a defacto monopoly here in certain
>> software segments...

>You're complaining about Intel, a primarily hardware company, having a
>defacto[sic] monopoly in certain *software* segments?

>Like it or not, there are alternatives to Intel x86 chips. This
>message is composed on a Sparc Ultra-2 (*). I could just as easily
>have composed it on an AMD, Cyrix, Motorola, ... CPU.

>---Jim

>(*) In the interest of full disclosure, it happens that my X-terminal
>has a PPro 200 in it...

Jim, defacto is spelled defacto in my Oxford American.... so, in
your next (sic), provide a ref.

And the topic is games... specifically auto sims... which you
have apparently and obviously missed altogether.   Had this been
a newsreader forum you would be correct.  Since you're this far
'off track' there's no need to get into the FPU issues and the
third-party programming to comply with such.

Like it or not, take a look at Microsoft's alternative to
(bastardization of?) Java, since you brought up Sun... quite
apropos considering the derived topic.

Rgds,
Mark R.

John Walla

More on the demise of OverClocking.. This time from an Intel employee.

by John Walla » Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:00:00



>Jim, defacto is spelled defacto in my Oxford American.... so, in
>your next (sic), provide a ref.

How can you trust "American English" when the language is Latin? :-) I
believe Jim was pointing out that from the original Latin "de facto"
is not one word, it is two.

Mind you, "apropos" was originally also two words, but the accepted
spelling in English is as one.

Cheers!
John


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.