From owner-freebsd-hardware Tue Sep 30 00:36:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA09845 for hardware-outgoing; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:36:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 586quick166.saturn-tech.com ([207.229.19.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA09837 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:36:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (drussell@localhost) by 586quick166.saturn-tech.com (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP id BAA03945; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 01:35:41 -0600 (MDT) X-Authentication-Warning: 586quick166.saturn-tech.com: drussell owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 01:35:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Doug Russell To: Tom cc: "John T. Farmer" , freebsd-hardware@freefall.freebsd.org, jfarmer@goldsword.com Subject: Re: supermicro p6sns/p6sas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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...... go Non-Intels! :)