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 362849
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by flanque
by kaiwai on Mon 11th May 2009 16:03 UTC 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[3]: Comment by flanque
by kaiwai on Mon 11th May 2009 17:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by flanque"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06



That is a Linux driver, not an opensource one. I want a driver that is available on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, OpenSolaris as well as Linux. My personal preference is OpenSolaris and unfortunately Broadcom through its failure to disclose specifications or provide some platform agnostic way of delivering support results in me not being able to use AMD products at all.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[3]: Comment by flanque
by daedliusswartz on Mon 11th May 2009 23:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by flanque"
daedliusswartz Member since:
2007-05-28

I certainly like how they maintain the mainboard socket for a long time, unlike Intel who seems to "require" a new socket each time a new chip comes out.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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