Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th May 2009 08:46 UTC
Intel Microsoft isn't the only company in the technology industry with a monopoly. Its partner in crime, Intel, has often been accused of monopoly abuse as well, and is currently under scrutiny by the same European Commission who fined Microsoft. Sources have told eWeek (which generally has a good track record) that Intel will indeed be found guilty this week of abusing its monopoly position to stifle the competition.
Thread beginning with comment 362823
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by flanque
by flanque on Mon 11th May 2009 09:45 UTC
flanque
Member since:
2005-12-15

If you want to sell your products within the EU, you had better follow the rules to be sure it's a fair game.

I'd rather see the game being fair globally. It really pisses me off that very good companies with very good products, like AMD, suffer because of the likes of Intel.

I vote with my wallet and have been with AMD for years now, and have loved every moment of it.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Comment by flanque
by TechGeek on Mon 11th May 2009 14:47 in reply to "Comment by flanque"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

While I dont deny that Intel may have abused its monopoly, AMD did at least as much to hurt itself as Intel has. There are many people who like me won't buy AMD because they relied on VIA to make their chipsets. VIA makes or at least did make, pure crap. In all my years building PCs, I have never had a board built with Via tectnology that hasn't crapped out before its time except one. And that one had the KT133a chipset which was so messed up that I threw away the board.

I have Intel boards that got tossed around in boxes for years, no static bad, no protection. Fired them up and they worked just fine.

YMMV, but there is a reason I choose Intel.

Edited 2009-05-11 14:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by flanque
by bannor99 on Mon 11th May 2009 17:33 in reply to "RE: Comment by flanque"
bannor99 Member since:
2005-09-15

MMDHV ( My mileage definitely has varied ) but it seems
that your experience with AMD and the chipset problems are quite out of date.

Have you built an AMD system since 2001?
The first AMD system I built, back in 97, still works
although it's really too slow to be practical anymore.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by flanque
by 0brad0 on Tue 12th May 2009 06:28 in reply to "RE: Comment by flanque"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

While I dont deny that Intel may have abused its monopoly, AMD did at least as much to hurt itself as Intel has. There are many people who like me won't buy AMD because they relied on VIA to make their chipsets. VIA makes or at least did make, pure crap. In all my years building PCs, I have never had a board built with Via tectnology that hasn't crapped out before its time except one. And that one had the KT133a chipset which was so messed up that I threw away the board.

I have Intel boards that got tossed around in boxes for years, no static bad, no protection. Fired them up and they worked just fine.

YMMV, but there is a reason I choose Intel.


I've had tons of boards for AMD CPUs all the way back to K6's and never had a problem. I've definitely had Intel boards (especially actual Intel boards) die on me.

One serious problem I have with Intel is how they introduce a new socket type for practically EVERY CPU they release. It is so beyond annoying. -1000 points Intel.

Also VIA hasn't been in the picture for A LONG time for chipsets for AMD boards. The market shifted to almost as bad NVIDIA chipsets and Broadcom chipsets but nowadays since buying ATI they're pushing their own chipset division to build chipsets for all system types which is a great thing.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by flanque
by kaiwai on Mon 11th May 2009 16:03 in reply to "Comment by flanque"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd rather see the game being fair globally. It really pisses me off that very good companies with very good products, like AMD, suffer because of the likes of Intel.

I vote with my wallet and have been with AMD for years now, and have loved every moment of it.


Every AMD laptop so far out that I have seen ships with Broadcom wireless devices; I'd love to use an AMD based laptop but due to aligning with opensource hating companies like Broadcom, I am forced to go with Intel. Nothing has ever stopped AMD from stating that the only partners as part of their laptop platform are those who support the opensource community through the provision of hardware specifications.

So please, tell me, why should I go with AMD when AMD are their own worst enemy? Lets also remember the length of time that it took for them to finally open up the specifications to ATI graphics cards (even now the documentation isn't complete). Again, AMD is its own worst enemy - and ultimately they have no one else to blame apart from themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by flanque
by adkilla on Mon 11th May 2009 16:32 in reply to "RE: Comment by flanque"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Broadcom does have partially open source drivers:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/new_linux_broadcom_wi_fi_drivers_arr...

You can get it here:
http://www.broadcom.com/docs/linux_sta/README.txt

-Ad

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by flanque
by daedliusswartz on Mon 11th May 2009 21:30 in reply to "RE: Comment by flanque"
daedliusswartz Member since:
2007-05-28

He never said anyone should go with AMD.

Edited 2009-05-11 21:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by flanque
by phoenix on Mon 11th May 2009 22:37 in reply to "RE: Comment by flanque"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Every AMD laptop so far out that I have seen ships with Broadcom wireless devices; I'd love to use an AMD based laptop but due to aligning with opensource hating companies like Broadcom, I am forced to go with Intel.


Adding a separate, known-good, working wireless card from a different manufacturer is hard because ... ?

You don't think that a surge in after-market, third-party wireless cards (like those with Atheros chipsets) would send a message to the OEMs, motherboard makers, and chipset makers?

Is it really that hard to disable devices you don't need/want in the BIOS?

I can understand picking a laptop, desktop, motherboard, etc based on the core chipset, but to reject the entire thing based on a single, replaceable option?

So please, tell me, why should I go with AMD when AMD are their own worst enemy?


Perhaps because they have some the nicest server chips out there? Because they have some of the nicest prices for chips? Because there's more than one usable chipset maker for this CPUs? Because you get more bang-for-the buck in everything segment except ultra-portable and uber-HPC-style servers?

Because there's more to a computer than just a wireless chipset?

Lets also remember the length of time that it took for them to finally open up the specifications to ATI graphics cards (even now the documentation isn't complete).


So, instantly, as soon as the paperwork was signed, they should have just dumped a tonne of documentation on the world and said, "Have at it?"? As opposed to taking the time to do due diligence, and make sure they have the right to release the documentation and what not?

How long did it take Intel to release documentation on their graphics chipsets?

Again, AMD is its own worst enemy


They certainly aren't their best friend, and they have made several mistakes over the years, but the reasons you give aren't the end-all and be-all of the issue.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by flanque
by computrius on Tue 12th May 2009 02:36 in reply to "RE: Comment by flanque"
computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

I have yet to own a laptop, AMD or Intel, that DIDNT use broadcom wireless chips.. It has nothing to do with the processor.

"Lets also remember the length of time that it took for them to finally open up the specifications to ATI graphics cards (even now the documentation isn't complete)."

I may be wrong, but im pretty sure nvidia hasnt released the specs of their drivers at all..

Edited 2009-05-12 02:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by flanque
by lemur2 on Tue 12th May 2009 03:03 in reply to "RE: Comment by flanque"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Lets also remember the length of time that it took for them to finally open up the specifications to ATI graphics cards (even now the documentation isn't complete). Again, AMD is its own worst enemy - and ultimately they have no one else to blame apart from themselves.


What do you believe is still missing from AMD/ATI?

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r600_700_gui...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzAxNg

As far as I was aware, the last of the documentation, and some open source code as well, has been released.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzE3Nw

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r700_oss_3d&...

The developers are working right now on a full-featured open source driver. It isn't that far away. When it is released, that will make ATI graphics chips easily the most powerful and capable GPUs with open source 3D drivers.

Edited 2009-05-12 03:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by flanque
by El_Exigente on Tue 12th May 2009 05:50 in reply to "RE: Comment by flanque"
El_Exigente Member since:
2007-01-08

Every AMD laptop so far out that I have seen ships with Broadcom wireless devices; I'd love to use an AMD based laptop but due to aligning with opensource hating companies like Broadcom, I am forced to go with Intel. Nothing has ever stopped AMD from stating that the only partners as part of their laptop platform are those who support the opensource community through the provision of hardware specifications.

So please, tell me, why should I go with AMD when AMD are their own worst enemy? Lets also remember the length of time that it took for them to finally open up the specifications to ATI graphics cards (even now the documentation isn't complete). Again, AMD is its own worst enemy - and ultimately they have no one else to blame apart from themselves.


That's, uh, really interesting but if you think that the availability of open source drivers from AMD/ATI or, even more comically, their use of Broadcom chips, has anything to do with their market share, then you are delusional.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by flanque
by 0brad0 on Tue 12th May 2009 06:15 in reply to "RE: Comment by flanque"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Every AMD laptop so far out that I have seen ships with Broadcom wireless devices; I'd love to use an AMD based laptop but due to aligning with opensource hating companies like Broadcom, I am forced to go with Intel. Nothing has ever stopped AMD from stating that the only partners as part of their laptop platform are those who support the opensource community through the provision of hardware specifications.


The OEM vendors are who decides what hardware is being used. This is not AMD's fault, but Intel very stronly encourages vendors putting their crap Wifi chipsets in systems with its piss poor and non free firmware. Restricting what hw can be used is the dumbest thing that could be done. If you have a problem with this situation take it up with the OEM vendor.


So please, tell me, why should I go with AMD when AMD are their own worst enemy? Lets also remember the length of time that it took for them to finally open up the specifications to ATI graphics cards (even now the documentation isn't complete). Again, AMD is its own worst enemy - and ultimately they have no one else to blame apart from themselves.


Show me complete documentation from Intel for their GPUs or any documentation or freely redistributable firmware for their Wifi chipsets.. oh wait, it doesn't exist. There are a few other pieces of hardware that Intel also does not release documentation for. Plus their GPUs are garbage and the open source drivers are crap. Intel is their own worst enemy. I refuse to buy Intel garbage. Intel is FAR from being "open source friendly". The situation with them is a farce.

Reply Parent Score: 0