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

Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 09:41:16 -0800 Subject: Why not to overclock Let me say up front that I work for Intel, and that this is not an official Intel statement, only my opinions. That out of the way, I help design microprocessors, so maybe I can shed a little light on this subject. Yes, with the currently available crop of chips, you can usually get away with moderate overclocking. What you are trading off is reliability and chip life. There are certain semiconductor failure modes that are speed sensitive. We design chips with these in mind for a certain (rather long) lifetime. Overclocking reduces this, but many people don't care as they will have traded in their machines long ago. We care, because we honor the warranty on that chip, no matter who has it now, so overclocked chips cost us extra money in support. Also, faster chips can be sold for higher prices, right? When we test manufacturing batches, we sort them by maximum reliable speed. If a 333 MHz chip was capable of running reliably at 350 or 400, don't you think we would be selling it at that speed, with it's correspondingly higher price? Whatever you may think of Intel, we aren't stupid. The speed-sensitive error causing that lower speed rating may or may not be significant to your application, but how do you know? We don't label the chip with the type of error, only the maximum reliable speed. Anyway, the newer chips coming out soon have more effective speed control methods built into them, so overclocking will soon become a dead subject. Why do we go to such great lengths to prevent hobbyists from experimenting with their personal property? Ah, if that were all it was... There are people who make their living by grinding off the speed labels on our chips, and reselling them at higher prices. The unsuspecting buyer of a system with one of these chips doesn't know this, they were only interested in maximum speed at minimum price. Then when problems pop up, who has to pay for replacing that chip? Not the overclocker, they are offshore somewhere; and not the screwdriver shop that assembled the system with grey-market components, they too are long gone. Who is still around to catch the blame? Intel. That's why we care. It comes out of my paycheck in the form of a slightly smaller year-end bonus, so I care, personally. - Karl Well, if that don't sound like a nail in a coffin, I don't know what to tell you......bummer eh? I wish Intel could come up with a way to simply tell if the CPU was ever OC'ed, that would take care of the warranty issue. Makes you wonder if their official, "We don't care what you do with the CPU in the privacy of your own home", is for real or not........... Thanks to Emilio Lam for the heads-up!

No offense but who cares. Face it, my poor little celeron 300/450 will be out of date long before any warranty. I'm happily overclocked and fully aware that I gave up any warranty. Warranties are like rebates, a lot promised and little delivered. I appreciate the hard work you do and do not begrudge you your opnion. But lets face it, the last thing that virtually any big business cares about in the long run is the best interests of their customers, especially in the computer industry. jmo...

Quoted text (53 lines)

> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 09:41:16 -0800 > Subject: Why not to overclock > Let me say up front that I work for Intel, and that this is not an official > Intel statement, only my opinions. That out of the way, I help design > microprocessors, so maybe I can shed a little light on this subject. > Yes, with the currently available crop of chips, you can usually get away with > moderate overclocking. What you are trading off is reliability and chip life. > There are certain semiconductor failure modes that are speed sensitive. We > design chips with these in mind for a certain (rather long) lifetime. > Overclocking reduces this, but many people don't care as they will have traded > in their machines long ago. We care, because we honor the warranty on that > chip, no matter who has it now, so overclocked chips cost us extra money in > support. > Also, faster chips can be sold for higher prices, right? When we test > manufacturing batches, we sort them by maximum reliable speed. If a 333 MHz > chip was capable of running reliably at 350 or 400, don't you think we would be > selling it at that speed, with it's correspondingly higher price? Whatever you > may think of Intel, we aren't stupid. The speed-sensitive error causing that > lower speed rating may or may not be significant to your application, but how > do you know? We don't label the chip with the type of error, only the maximum > reliable speed. > Anyway, the newer chips coming out soon have more effective speed control > methods built into them, so overclocking will soon become a dead subject. Why > do we go to such great lengths to prevent hobbyists from experimenting with > their personal property? Ah, if that were all it was... > There are people who make their living by grinding off the speed labels on our > chips, and reselling them at higher prices. The unsuspecting buyer of a system > with one of these chips doesn't know this, they were only interested in maximum > speed at minimum price. Then when problems pop up, who has to pay for > replacing that chip? Not the overclocker, they are offshore somewhere; and not > the screwdriver shop that assembled the system with grey-market components, > they too are long gone. Who is still around to catch the blame? Intel. That's > why we care. It comes out of my paycheck in the form of a slightly smaller > year-end bonus, so I care, personally. > - Karl > Well, if that don't sound like a nail in a coffin, I don't know what to tell > you......bummer eh? > I wish Intel could come up with a way to simply tell if the CPU was ever OC'ed, > that would take care of the warranty issue. Makes you wonder if their > official, "We don't care what you do with the CPU in the privacy of your own > home", is for real or not........... > Thanks to Emilio Lam for the heads-up!

Theres too much I could say in response to the original post, but I'll just state this. Intel as a manufacturer has brought this overclocking, and pirating of processors upon themselves. Why should we the consumer have to spend our hard earned money for a computer system(anywhere from 900-2500 dollars on the average) only to have it outdated within hours? weeks? days? get my point. Kinda makes me as a consumer a little irate. If you have the technology, and ability to release a processor, and then 2 weeks later release one thats 33MHz faster. WHY release the first one? As consumers we are trapped because everytime Intel comes out with a "bigger better" quantum leap in technology, the software manufacturers IMMEDIATELY start to take advantage of it. So the system I just bought will be obselete by the time that long awaited game comes out. So basically what I'm saying is Intel's, or any other manufacturer's warranty means SQUAT as far as long term goes. As an example Two years ago this February I bought a Pentium 200 non-MMX, got a fantastic warranty from the builder (like 5 years on parts I think) but YOU tell me Mr Intel employee, what darn good is the warranty now? you cant even FIND a Pentium 200 cpu......why? because they're outdated. Gamers buy the Intel Celeron 300a because of it price, and overclockability. How much would sales drop on that particular cpu if it were not for that feature? I know that none of the people that I personally know would have bought one, most would have gone with AMD instead, because its reaching a point where with this throw away computer age we're entering. Price is everything, and a certain amoumnt of quality can be sacrificed because next year you'll need new anyhow. Dont stand on your soap box, and whine about overclocking, and how it cuts into your "year end bonus" most consumers dont even get a year end bonus. Your employers at Intel have brought these problems on themselves, if you want to complain, complain to them. Overclocking is not whats costing you money, its mass marketing, and overpriced equipmen.t. there is near equivalent out there for much less.........and they made use of a present design instead of FORCING consumers to buy a completely new system, they left open options for upgrade. Off my soapbox now T

1) The market demand for that rating of chip may not be particularly high as yet, and the marketing dept want to keep the price artificially high since competitors are as yet unable to deliver a competing product. That maximises profits. Flooding the market with higher level chips brings prices down. That's less the case recently with conditions of the semiconductor market, but nonetheless another issue affecting the binning of chips. 2) Intel's guarantee and the guarantee required by a user are very different. At the time of testing Intel are not aware of the final application for the chip - it could be in a server where a crash once per year will be a disaster, or it could be a games machine where whacking the speed up and getting a crash once or twice a day isn't a worry. Cheers! John

I'm not buying this!!! If Intel's real concern was the people fraudulently remarking the chips they would simply mark them in a more permanent manner. Like stamping instead of printing the speed rating. Yes, it would be more difficult, but hey, they're Intel they could do it.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 09:41:16 -0800 >Subject: Why not to overclock >Let me say up front that I work for Intel, and that this is not an official >Intel statement, only my opinions. That out of the way, I help design >microprocessors, so maybe I can shed a little light on this subject. >Yes, with the currently available crop of chips, you can usually get away

with >moderate overclocking. What you are trading off is reliability and chip life. >There are certain semiconductor failure modes that are speed sensitive. We >design chips with these in mind for a certain (rather long) lifetime. >Overclocking reduces this, but many people don't care as they will have traded >in their machines long ago. We care, because we honor the warranty on that >chip, no matter who has it now, so overclocked chips cost us extra money in >support. >Also, faster chips can be sold for higher prices, right? When we test >manufacturing batches, we sort them by maximum reliable speed. If a 333 MHz >chip was capable of running reliably at 350 or 400, don't you think we would be >selling it at that speed, with it's correspondingly higher price? Whatever you >may think of Intel, we aren't stupid. The speed-sensitive error causing that >lower speed rating may or may not be significant to your application, but how >do you know? We don't label the chip with the type of error, only the maximum >reliable speed. >Anyway, the newer chips coming out soon have more effective speed control >methods built into them, so overclocking will soon become a dead subject. Why >do we go to such great lengths to prevent hobbyists from experimenting with >their personal property? Ah, if that were all it was... >There are people who make their living by grinding off the speed labels on our >chips, and reselling them at higher prices. The unsuspecting buyer of a system >with one of these chips doesn't know this, they were only interested in maximum >speed at minimum price. Then when problems pop up, who has to pay for >replacing that chip? Not the overclocker, they are offshore somewhere; and not >the screwdriver shop that assembled the system with grey-market components, >they too are long gone. Who is still around to catch the blame? Intel. That's >why we care. It comes out of my paycheck in the form of a slightly smaller >year-end bonus, so I care, personally. >- Karl >Well, if that don't sound like a nail in a coffin, I don't know what to tell >you......bummer eh? >I wish Intel could come up with a way to simply tell if the CPU was ever OC'ed, >that would take care of the warranty issue. Makes you wonder if their >official, "We don't care what you do with the CPU in the privacy of your own >home", is for real or not........... >Thanks to Emilio Lam for the heads-up!

Nothing personal here, so don't be offended, but: And why not? Your company has certainly gouged the consumer for the original price enough. In most cases. The way I understand it, you couldn't keep up with demand for Pentium II 300's (the under $1000 computer craze) and so started making them on some of the lines used for the 450's. In this case, you are re-branding a 450 as a 300 (the SL2YK and SL2W8 300's, specifically), and selling it cheaper. Now, don't try to tell me that it somehow costs over $300 *more* per CPU to "test" this CPU at 100Mhz FSB than at a 66Mhz FSB. (It seems, according to my very reliable sources in the business, that 100% of the SL2YK and SL2W8 300Mhz CPUs run fine at 450 Mhz with only a normal CPU cooler, and that with additional cooling, 504 Mhz is easily accomplished. Sounds a lot like a 450Mhz CPU if you ask me. Convince me otherwise. And so Intel decided to enter this lucrative market by giving us Celerons without any cache. After all, 266 Mhz is still 266Mhz, and it's cheaper, right? :) When those flopped, Intel had to do something to avoid losing market share, and thus the 300A was born. But what you're inferring is this is a large problem, and it's not. I've been in the computer business for 19 years, and in the retail end of it for 10 now. I've seen the predatory pricing Intel has practiced while it had it's monopoly...that "wonderful" 10% per quarter price cut that was supposed to make the consumer feel good, with the only real price cutting happening when Intel introduced a newer, faster, "carrot" to dangle in front of those who could afford to pay for maximum power at any cost. I remember when the 486DX-2 66 came out at over $1000 each in 10,000 quantity, and the DX-33 was still $450 at wholesale, and at that time the president of AMD stating that the cost to build of a 486DX 33 CPU, including amortizing R&D and production costs for the "market life" projected sales of the chip was a mere $14.00 each. And Intel and the distributors adding a bit over 3200% markup by the time it got to the retailers isn't gouging? Bet your bonuses were nice back then. I don't see it...you cut prices a bare minimum because you can, then cut big to try to keep any competition from arising with a profitable competing product. This year has seen the biggest price decreases in a long time, merely because Intel has lost so much market share to AMD and Cyrix/IBM in the "cheap computer" market, and sales of those 450 Mhz behemoths to business hasn't been what was projected. You're not exactly going to win the sympathy vote, my friend. Take what year end bonus you get and be thankful for it, because the rest of us paid for it, and when we see we can get a bit of an advantage over being gouged again, we'll take that too...all the way to the bank. Regards, Doc Wynne Technical Support & Network Services Support Engineering/dickson.net http://www.dickson.net -- Never a late apex, never a dull moment.

>The 'unsuspecting buyer'... lol... they generally buy Packard >Bells and sign up with AOL... as with all of us who have mostly >been down that road, they climb the learning curve pretty quick >if their interest is piqued and their IQ is not hardwired to >4.5xFSB... That is such a perfect statement!! It pretty much sums it all up, right there. My thirst for speed would drive me to methods that won't limit my future expansion. If Intel locks us all out of overclocking, only those that DON'T overclock will be buying them. As long as AMD and Cyrix don't follow suit, their sun may rise ever higher.... "Gunner" ICQ 24045680

<snip> <snip> I knew the Celeron 300a was too good to last - getting the fastest pc chip out there for $80? Well, it was really fun while it lasted. In another year this chip will be 'slow' and Intel will have introduced more $1000 chips to set the standard. By the way, my last two chips were and AMD and a Cyrix. Granted, they weren't quite as good, but they were the best bang for the buck at the time. Were it not for the 300a, I wonder what I'd be using now? rob.

I'm so tired of people bit**ing at Intel and MS. People constantly make excuses to rip off big companies. Glad to hear Karl give a logical explanation for why something is done the way it is. David G Fisher >> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 09:41:16 -0800 >> Anyway, the newer chips coming out soon have more effective speed control >> methods built into them, so overclocking will soon become a dead subject. Why >> do we go to such great lengths to prevent hobbyists from experimenting with >> their personal property? Ah, if that were all it was...

Quoted text (24 lines)

>Path: >On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 04:06:36 -0500, >>I'm so tired of people bit**ing at Intel and MS. >> People constantly make >>excuses to rip off big companies. >Overclocking is a rip-off of big companies? >If Ford motor company put a big sticker in your new Ford which >said "Obey all Speed Limits", and then you decided to drive your >car 120mph, would that be 'ripping off' Ford (the big company)? >Your car is capable of 120mph. Ford made it that way. You >bought the car, and Ford received their money for it. >Where is the rip-off? >>Glad to hear Karl give a logical >>explanation for why something is done the way it is. >We are always glad to hear from the engineers at Intel, or Ford.......

But you have to consider the rights of Intel ford et all, to say taht we don't warranty our car at that speed, and we have to lock it now, because people execd it, break their warranty conditions, then demand repalcement, and Ford or Intel have no way to check if this was the case. Perhaps a solution os for intel to sell No warranty chips expressively for overclockers ;) Z.

On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 04:06:36 -0500, "David G Fisher" >I'm so tired of people bit**ing at Intel and MS. People constantly make >excuses to rip off big companies. Glad to hear Karl give a logical >explanation for why something is done the way it is. Amen. 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. Their practices are not always morally right or totally defensible but the two things that are clear are that it is Intel's right to market their products as they see fit and the consumer's right to buy or not. How well Intel predict the latter is what will determine their strategy, and ironically enough during "the bad old days" they seem to have been bang on and it's only recently that they've lost their way a bit. X86 market share down to 76% these days, not good. Cheers! John

Can anyone explain to me why a manufacturer does not have the right to ask any price they want for a product, provided they have not conspired with other manufacturers to fix prices? bob

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> And why not? Your company has certainly gouged the consumer for >>the original price enough. >Can anyone explain to me why a manufacturer does not have the right to >ask any price they want for a product, provided they have not >conspired with other manufacturers to fix prices? > bob

In the game/sim arena, nearly all programs are written to conform to Intel CPU instructions first and foremost... so for max performance from most off-the-shelf games/sims, one has to go the Intel CPU route. Certainly not a ***, but all the major players are assuredly aware of this fact of life (and we all sooner or later learn that life is not necessarily fair). Intel's legal beagles hoard that copyrighted CPU instruction subset (FPU) -- dare I say judiciously? <g> With AMD and Cyrix on the field, Intel maintains a fair price. But _only_ in response to that, and with a heavy dollop of litigative resistance, IMHO. Almost a cornered market in some situations, to finally <g> answer your question. Rgds, Mark R.

Quoted text (14 lines)

>On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 04:06:36 -0500, "David G Fisher" >>I'm so tired of people bit**ing at Intel and MS. People constantly make >>excuses to rip off big companies. Glad to hear Karl give a logical >>explanation for why something is done the way it is. >Amen. >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... I hear that shareholder value B.S. everytime my multi-billion dollar employer cuts my wages while the CEO (who could not even _do_ my job) pulls down a million dollar bonus for the year... which P.O.'s the front line grunts and results in the customers getting grumpier service which decreases shareholder value.. ad nauseum. It sounds good on paper to the NYSE and the FTSE, but in reality it's a gouge. The instituional investors may love it, but that is a case of the tail wagging the dog. The right that the customer actually has in this particular situation is to buy an inferior CPU (AMD/Cyrix) for the game/sim he/she is going to run, due to the copyright laws which I have absolutely no problem with... until the market gets cornered. Of course, MS has generally gotten away with *** in this arena, and Andy Grove more-or-less gleefully rides along on Gate's coattails (latest spates notwithstanding). WinTel indeed... Rgds, Mark R.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I don't think you answered his question. Here it is, one more time: > : Can anyone explain to me why a manufacturer does not have the right to > : ask any price they want for a product, provided they have not > : conspired with other manufacturers to fix prices? > Care to try again? > -- > ( rrevved is at mindspring dot com > ( post in haste, repent at your leisure

In a free market system, a manufacturer or retailer absolutely has the right to charge whatever they like for a product as long as they are not violating any anti-trust laws or other regulations (regarding monopolies, etc.). 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. Where one starts to run into difficulty is anticipating the consumer's expectations and perceptions regarding a product. Two people might have very different notions of value given the identical product: it's simple relativism. If one consumer feels as though he or she is being overcharged for a given product (i.e. the producer and or retailer is making too much profit in the consumer's opinion) then he or she is likely to not buy the product and will search for another one. If not given any choice and the consumer is "forced" to buy the 'overpriced' product to satisfy his or her needs that cannot be met in any other way, then we have one disgruntled person! If *enough* people get disgruntled then the manufacturer faces a problem as consumer confidence wanes. Consumers naturally search for alternatives and if none are available, some enterprising person realizes this and develops a competative product to fill that market demand. Then the whole thing goes to pot when the government steps in and says: 1) this market is going to be regulated because it is an indispensable product; 2) this market is going to be de-regulated because the company we gave license to make this product is behaving in a ***, monopolistic way and we want to bring prices down on this said, indispensable product by suddenly creating a glut of manufacturers or suppliers in the industry by removing manufacturing and copyright restrictions. Hmmmmm.... a long time since I took economics at university -- maybe I should have paid more attention to those graphs! Cheers, Gian. -- Hell bent for leather in GPL!

Quoted text (34 lines)

>>Path: >>On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 04:06:36 -0500, >>>I'm so tired of people bit**ing at Intel and MS. >>> People constantly make >>>excuses to rip off big companies. >>Overclocking is a rip-off of big companies? >>If Ford motor company put a big sticker in your new Ford which >>said "Obey all Speed Limits", and then you decided to drive your >>car 120mph, would that be 'ripping off' Ford (the big company)? >>Your car is capable of 120mph. Ford made it that way. You >>bought the car, and Ford received their money for it. >>Where is the rip-off? >>>Glad to hear Karl give a logical >>>explanation for why something is done the way it is. >>We are always glad to hear from the engineers at Intel, or Ford....... >But you have to consider the rights of Intel ford et all, to say taht we don't >warranty our car at that speed, and we have to lock it now, because people >execd it, break their warranty conditions, then demand repalcement, and Ford >or Intel have no way to check if this was the case. >Perhaps a solution os for intel to sell No warranty chips expressively for >overclockers ;) >Z.

Warranties on semiconductor components are basically worthless. If it works out of the box, it's gonna work for years, barring a voltage spike.... the same as the digital clock radio on your bedside. Even overclocking a CPU, assuming you stay reasonably within temperature limits, is not going to promote any permanent ill effects until the warranty has expired. I find it extremely difficult to digest that Intel receives any significant number of returned CPU's due to overclocking. Or any at all, for that matter. Of course, Intel can do whatever it wants to with it's CPU's. The market (savvy consumers and programmers) will take note of that and adjust accordingly. 3D Now! is getting some game ports... Intel should be smelling the coffee instead of wasting intellectual resources on trying to lasso a cow already out of the barn aand/or hampering a very small customer base that willingly takes the risk of squeezing out a few more pints of milk -- and the spilt bucket that might result. As already shown, motherboard manufactures will find a customer-desired way to work around Intel's clumsy attempts to deny us a tweak or two. Rgds, Mark R.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>1) this market is going to be regulated because it is an indispensable product; > Win98? >>2) this market is going to be de-regulated because the company we gave license to >>make this product is behaving in a ***, monopolistic way and we want to bring >>prices down on this said, indispensable product by suddenly creating a glut of >>manufacturers or suppliers in the industry by removing manufacturing and copyright >>restrictions. > ATT? > Totally agree!

Lol! Are we in the right newsgroup! I never see that here! <vbg> Yup, we are basically thinking of the same examples... I am Canadian and recently Bell Canada was forced to give up a monopoly on long distance telephone calls by the CRTC and suddenly AT&T, Sprint and a bunch of others showed up. The bottom fell out of the long distance market and everybody is basically competing to *lose* money in the hopes that they can gain market share and then raise prices once they have a secure foothold. And yes regarding Microsoft, too. The whole pc/software market is one that has grown essentially overnight and has become a huge market. Suddenly software has become so vital to modern commerce and industry that the government has to step in. It will be interesting to see what happens. Cheers, Gian.

Rrevved, you're mixing the theoretical with the real world. And I don't need the original item posted back to me for reconsideration (nor do others following the thread), so no I _don't_ care to try again -- the last line of my post was patently clear (at least to me). Try reading it again... it was the key to the entire post. If you don't get it, then I'll accept that failing on my part and hope that others get the point. To reply to the one point (barb) you made (tossed)... governmental regulation often hampers the maketplace more than it helps -- after a period of time (that varies according to the technology and the marketplace). In the real world capitalism does work well... but it does go thru cycles wherein one party or the other (the buyer or the seller) gets abused. This is often the result of third-party (government) involvement. It is more often the result of a limited supply/demand scenario coupled with the former, or, in other words -- a cornered market. Competition usually even things out. This brings us to... Copyrights have a finite life. Depending on market distrubution/saturation, they could be in some instances shorter IMHO. The pharmaceutical industry has recently been under some scrutiny in this regard, with respect to consumer costs. The companies are making money just fine, and you often reach a point wherein it becomes a public burden to continue paying a higher cost for copyrighted R&D long since amortized. It is most definitely a fine line to walk... the age old question, how to balance socialism against capitalism. Both have their good points and both can be brutal to the consumer in the pure form. I do digress... ;-) Rgds, Mark R.

<< provided they have not : conspired with other manufacturers to fix prices?>> Who has proof that they havent?

>Fair has nothing to do with the question asked. Intel or AMD or >Ford or Pepsi Cola or anybody can charge *any* price they want. >The market will decide to buy or it won't. Until they have a monopoly, which Intel very nearly does. What "choice" can you have in a monopoly situation? In fact without some protection against monopolies it does not work AT ALL well. Anyone who studies even the smallest amount of corporate history in the US alone can observe this obvious fact. Joe

>Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 09:41:16 -0800 >Subject: Why not to overclock (snip) >Also, faster chips can be sold for higher prices, right? When we test >manufacturing batches, we sort them by maximum reliable speed. If a 333 MHz >chip was capable of running reliably at 350 or 400, don't you think we would be >selling it at that speed, with it's correspondingly higher price? Whatever you >may think of Intel, we aren't stupid. I disagree. If I can sell 5000 333mhz chips for $225 ea. or sell 1000 450mhz chips for $550 ea. then it would make sense to me to rate more of my chips at 333mhz. If Intel only considers the unit price and not the price multiplied by the units sold, then with all due respect, they are stupid. So you are saying that if I send a in a CPU for warranty replacement and the speed label has been ground off, Intel will replace it? If this is true, no one at Intel should get a bonus. The people in "rec.autos.simulators" are generally an intelligent lot. You are going to have to try harder if you expect anyone to feel guilty about over-clocking their CPUs.

>David, glad you could drop by......... Thanks. It was my first post here, and I was a little nervous, but I think I'll be ok from now on. David G Fisher

>Oh my Lord, the blue-*** capitalist sentiment rears it's ugly >head <g>. John, Intel has a defacto monopoly here in certain >software segments... Hardware? Anyway, WHY do they have that monopoly? Look at their investment versus anyone else in the industry, and how much better they have managed their business than even the big DRAM players. BS? Like you think you could do his job? It's an attitude like that that ensures we are unlikely to ever see, say, a cure for cancer. It costs billions to develop, and any company that did do it would be fored to give it away by dint of massive public opinion. Either that or it would be sold for unit variable cost only, ignoring the massive investment in time, resource and money. If Intel have the market cornered it's because they have a better product - you either go with their product and pay the going rate or by an "inferior" brand. All this whining that Intel rips people off is a joke. If you feel there's no competition then blame A.M.D., I.B.M. and National Semiconductor for doing a bad job, not Intel for doing what they should be. Cheers! John

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>Oh my Lord, the blue-*** capitalist sentiment rears it's ugly >>head <g>. John, Intel has a defacto monopoly here in certain >>software segments... >Hardware? Anyway, WHY do they have that monopoly? Look at their >investment versus anyone else in the industry, and how much better >they have managed their business than even the big DRAM players.

The monopoly is there in the _software_ segement because they (Intel) have the predominat market share in copyrighted FPU instructions, which puts the third-party program writers in the position of coding for Intel first and foremost. This is not necessarily bad in the present market condition until we get posts from so-called Intel employees (the origination of this particular thread) that they are in effect going to try and crush the oh-so-small percentage of customers that try to take monetary advantage of the Celeron's capabilities and/or production line advances in soon-to-be secondary products. Yup. At least better than he could do mine, assuming no additional training involved. That point was made, again, in reference to the original thread... a monetary squeeze -- the folks on the low end of the totem pole (Intel customers) whom are intended to be deprived of a low-cost performance solution arrived at only by their technological savvy (in most cases). Any effect on Intel's yearly EPS would almost assuredly be immeasurable. Simple spite comes to mind... look at the spates Tom Pabst often incurs with the Intel legal beagles. Uh huh... and how many taxpayer dollars go into university grants and the like that often form the base of such pioneering medical research. The big corporate boys and girls have more than enuf political clout to make sure their costs and a modicum of profit are covered, to say the least. The only whining I'm making here -- other than the replys that are soon to exceed the thread-managment of my reader <g> -- is that a highly profitiable company is going for that extra 0.0000001% from paying -- and probably repeat -- customers that know their way around a mobo jumper pin. Again, in response to the original thread. Would love to hear your thots on the current MS case <g>. Bottom line, I have absolutely no problem paying an extra 10% for a comparable Intel chip vs an AMD chip. Just stay the hell out of my BIOS clock and multiplyer <g>. I do have the monetary resources to go for a true P-II, but a lot of people don't and Intel is gonna lose some present customers if they continue to try and maximize profits to the nth degree without accepting that a small percentage of us (generally hobbyists) are willing to push the tolerances to save a buck. Either way it goes, their stock price is not going to notice. Rgds, Mark

Lack of proof conveys innocence in the U.S. No winks or grins, that;s the way it is and that's the way it should be.

Quoted text (15 lines)

>On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:42:19 GMT, >>>Fair has nothing to do with the question asked. Intel or AMD or >>>Ford or Pepsi Cola or anybody can charge *any* price they want. >>>The market will decide to buy or it won't. >>Until they have a monopoly, which Intel very nearly does. What >>"choice" can you have in a monopoly situation? >AMD, Cyrix, SGI, Unix, OS/2, Coke, Chevrolet...

By dint of the U.S. copyright laws, Intel has a monopoly on x86 FPU instructions. Wrong or right, for max perf programmers code for this first and foremost. Have I mentioned this before? <g> As with all patents, after a fixed period of time, as the law is currently written, yes. Varies as to the time period, based on the technology. As do copyrights. Capitalist monopolies have a long history of abuse, more often than not in collusion with the politicians... shall we start wtih the U.S. railroads in the last century? Everybody has a right to make a buck. Government's responsibility is to make sure the consumer and/or the public good do not get gouged by collusion or a cornered market in the process. Tough assignment? You bet. OIC. Once again I am reminded that 222 years of societal developement do not a sociologically-hip country make. Pardon the syntactical error on the latter. We be da biggest, so we be da bestest and da smartest, right? No wonder the WWF draws SRO crowds in this country. History is best learned by reading, not by listening to Ronald Regan and Dan Rather... or Hulk Hogan.

>Do you think Intel or Microsoft should come under government >scrutiny/control and be forced to release their rights to their >various patents, because they are successful? Wouldn't be a bad idea actually. They could still compete with better PRODUCTS and their huge revnues for r&d and marketing. At least there would be some *chance* of competition. Straw man alert! Joe

>>BS? Like you think you could do his job? >Yup. At least better than he could do mine, assuming no >additional training involved. There your argument breaks down. If you think you could run a company like Intel then you truly have no conception of what you are saying. Intel can be seen to accept it, and thus open themselves up to all kinds of warranty exceptions, or stick to the letter of what the warranty said. Believe me, if they truly wanted to stop overclocking they could have, and would have, done so by now. Oh, and it would be substantially more lost revenue than 0.0000001%. I'm not touching that one..! Precisely, although I think their stock price will suffer if their market share continues to fall. The Celeron is the only thing keeping Intel in the game at the bottom end of the market, and that's where all the action is right now. Until and unless Intel can come up with a quantum leap that would allow them to pull the carpet from AMD as they did with the 486-->Pentium shift in the past, I think we won't see any change in the overclockability of the Celeron. That doesn't mean Intel will "accept" overclocking, but if it allows the Celeron to outsell the K6 then I reckon they'll take the sales anyway they can. Cheers! John

>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.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >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...

> 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

Quoted text (21 lines)

>> >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.

>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