Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 01:35:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Doug Russell <drussell@saturn-tech.com> To: Tom <tom@sdf.com> Cc: "John T. Farmer" <jfarmer@sabre.goldsword.com>, freebsd-hardware@freefall.freebsd.org, jfarmer@goldsword.com Subject: Re: supermicro p6sns/p6sas Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970930013250.3930A-100000@586quick166.saturn-tech.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970929233431.5433C-100000@misery.sdf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Tom wrote: > Huh? For CPU sockets? Manufactures always just built what they need. > Besides CPU design has changed a lot. I agree with Intel's motivation to > go to a SEC. It provides a package which is easier to cool for a start. > Is there a "standard" SEC style design that Intel could have used instead > of coming up with slot 1? They could have made it available for use by others, but instead they patented it to make it more difficult for the competition. Of course, the competition would probably do the same thing in their place, but... :) Of course, there is always the risk of a backfire. Come up with a better design than Intel's, patent IT, and only give the rights to your non-Intel buddies. :) Later...... <Doug> go Non-Intels! :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970930013250.3930A-100000>