To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I think the author is a shill for the communist party. Does anybody seriously think that the competition between Intel and AMD has not been good for consumers?
I do. The competition between Intel and AMD is one of the things that has kept the x86 architecture around several years past the point when it should have been dumped. Tight competition also means fewer risks that a competitor wants to take.
There are many facets in competition. I'm not claiming all of them are good, but surely this article is examining them all.
"""
I do. The competition between Intel and AMD is one of the things that has kept the x86 architecture around several years past the point when it should have been dumped.
"""
You are perfectly free to buy an Itanium, a Sparc, or a PPC. Anyone is.
Intel tried to push Itanium. The industry, and the public chose X86_64.
X86_64 solves the two biggest problems with x86_32 very cleanly. It removes the addressing constraints. And it eliminates the register-constrained nature that has been the bane of x86 for decades.
There are babies. And there is bath water. And it is best not to confuse the two, since people tend to have rather strong feelings as to their relative values.
Opinions differ, of course. I'd take the bath water any day. ;-)
Edited 2007-08-30 15:51





Member since:
2005-07-06
I think the author is a shill for the communist party. Does anybody seriously think that the competition between Intel and AMD has not been good for consumers?
There really aren't any facts or figures from any studies in his opinion piece. Are we supposed to take it on faith that reliability has gone down?
I can't believe this made it as an article for OSNews.com.