Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:18:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: tony@dell.com (Tony Overfield) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: >64MB Message-ID: <199711101918.MAA11628@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971110034659.0069e370@bugs.us.dell.com> from "Tony Overfield" at Nov 10, 97 03:46:59 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> To their credit, the non-Intel system designers are taking advantage of > the abundance of Intel compatible devices and now you want to complain > that the Intel compatible industry should have spent more energy > accomodating the other .5% (wild, irresponsible guess) of the market, > but they didn't do it because they "don't know how." No, I want to complain that Intel wields monopolistic power in the marketplace, and should have it's CPU division broken away from its support chip divisions, under the terms of the Sherman Antitrust Acts. But since doing so will fall on deaf ears, I won't do that here. ;-). > I don't suppose > you can think of any other reason besides that one. Sure I can: they've leanrned the lesson Apple keeps failing to learn: it's better to have 30% of 90% of the market than it is to have 100% of 6% of the market. To get 30% of 100% of the market would take more than a 3% cost of goods sold increase (mostly because the 10% was not form factor compatible, historically -- now they are). So it's simply that they are behind the times, and slow to react. Before you rip me a new one, note that in my previous posting, I referred to putting the mode tables where an OS could find them, as opposed to making the (much bigger) investment in "Open" Firmware. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711101918.MAA11628>