Tech Bits

View : : :
2 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
2.
 
Athlon 64 processor of 2002?
Feb 18, 2003, 17:38
2.
Athlon 64 processor of 2002? Feb 18, 2003, 17:38
Feb 18, 2003, 17:38
 
OMG. I own several Athlon products. They have been good chips, but what could compell a company to declare an untested process due Q4 2003 as "processor of the year" in 2002? And what kind of company would want to put up such an award over a non-existant product.

It's really sad to see a company that could once simple stand on it's merits ("we have a fase, inexpensive chip") reduced to "reinventing" it's ratings system over and over to declare existing processors faster, and having to find obscure people to award "processor of the year" 2 years in advance.

I'm reminded (sadly) of when Motorolla was puttin gout performace charts against Intel. They would put an existing Intel chip on a chart with their projections for the next 24 months. Shock and suprice, their projections for next years PPC chip would out perform the actual numbers for this years Intel chip.

That's just pathetic

1.
 
Control Issues
Feb 18, 2003, 12:13
1.
Control Issues Feb 18, 2003, 12:13
Feb 18, 2003, 12:13
 
Whether it is used for "good" or "evil," he says, will depend on who gets to control the technology

Boy, nothing truer could be said. The fact that MS has even suggested something like this gives me the willies. And the good ol' "P" word was thrown in there as well. What I really don't understand is how could people stand for a system where essentially they cant to squat with it, unless someone else says they can? And I love how the article states that MS is listening to their critics. Bah, as if they would. I don't know about anyone else, but Palladium sounds far to Orwellian for my taste.

2 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older