Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Introducing "No-Moore's Law"

Author: Jeremiah Penery

Date: 19:18:35 03/02/03

Go up one level in this thread


On March 02, 2003 at 10:34:23, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On March 02, 2003 at 02:02:39, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>
>>On March 01, 2003 at 20:23:24, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>I consider Intel a "name brand".  I consider AMD a "copier".  Nothing wrong with
>>>being a "copier" but it also means you are a "follower".  And 2nd place is all
>>>that a follower can _ever_ reach...
>>
>>Matt already said most of what I wanted to say, so I will just give some
>>examples of 'follower' companies that eclipsed (or at least achieved parity)
>>with their 'leaders':
>>
>>AOL, Dell, Boeing, International Paper, Exxon-Mobil, Wal-Mart, Visa, Federal
>>Express, FOX (television network)...  The list can go on.
>
>
>Not the same thing.  _no_ "innovation_.

No innovation where?  AMD?  That's so laughable, I don't know where to begin.

>  And Boeing is not a "copier".  They've
>been around way too long.  IE what did they copy for the 707???  None of the

Several companies had commercial aircraft before Boeing.

>above companies is based solely on replicating a product that is identical in
>every way to something someone produced before them.
>
>I'm not sure I include base manufacturing processes in this mix either, as
>refining crude oil is about supply and demand mainly.

And manufacturing any other product isn't?  If there is no demand, there will be
no manufacture.

>Dell is hardly a "follower".  They jumped into the PC manufacturing world,
>but they've done plenty of innovation, from custom machines/motherboards/
>etc to customer support.

But they were still PCs, compatible with several other companies' PCs.  If you
claim AMD is a follower because they release a product compatible with another
companies product, Dell becomes a follower by your definition.

>But _none_ of those vendors build a product that their competition is forced to
>copy exclusively.  As Intel is doing.  They were at the right place, at the
>right time (yes, I would have preferred that Motorola had been the PC processor
>of choice as it is a better ISA) and they now define the PC architecture.

AMD does not exactly copy Intel processors, anymore than Boeing copied the DC-10
when they built the first 707.  In 1982, AMD was making 286s FOR Intel that had
more features than the parts Intel was manufacturing.  To make a claim that AMD
is showing no innovation in their products is simply an ignorant claim.



This page took 0.05 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.