From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262139AbUBXBTO (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:19:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262181AbUBXBTM (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:19:12 -0500 Received: from 64-52-142-65.client.cypresscom.net ([64.52.142.65]:35246 "EHLO scsoftware.sc-software.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262182AbUBXBS2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:18:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:11:28 -0800 (PST) From: John Heil To: Thomas Zehetbauer cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Intel vs AMD x86-64 In-Reply-To: <1077584461.8414.164.camel@hostmaster.org> Message-ID: References: <16435.14044.182718.134404@alkaid.it.uu.se> <20040222025957.GA31813@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <1077584461.8414.164.camel@hostmaster.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Thomas Zehetbauer wrote: > Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:01:02 +0100 > From: Thomas Zehetbauer > To: Kernel Mailing List > Subject: Re: Intel vs AMD x86-64 > > On Sam, 2004-02-21 at 19:12 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Any Intel people on this list: tell your managers to be f*cking ashamed of > > themselves. Just because Intel didn't care about their customers and has > > been playing with some other 64-bit architecture that nobody wanted to use > > is no excuse for not giving credit to AMD for what they did with x86-64. > > This very clear statement deserves standing ovations :-) > > If anyone from Intel is really listening here I would like them to know > that I am pretty much pissed of by their product politics as well. > > Although older Celeron processors supported SMP configurations they were > not supported and to my knowledge never used in the primary SMP market. > So in fact they even helped Intel to increase their revenues by allowing > hobbyists to build their own affordable SMP boxes. Nonetheless Intel has > decided to disable this capability in current Celeron and even Pentium > processors attempting to force hobbyists into the professional market > with about four times the cost of previous configurations. > > For my part I have understood the message from Intel, that they do not > want hobbyists looking for cheap SMP configurations as their customers > and will accordingly buy AMD in the future. > > Tom > I'll second that. For whatever it's worth I replaced all my intel business boxes w AMD w the advent of the K7/Athlon's and haven't looked back since, including SMP. Next up for us will be dual Opteron. I cannot see ever returning to Intel. johnh - ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Heil South Coast Software Custom systems software for UNIX and IBM MVS mainframes 1-714-774-6952 johnhscs@sc-software.com http://www.sc-software.com -----------------------------------------------------------------