Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
AMD

AMD Takes Microsoft's Side in Antitrust Case 685

Skjellifetti writes "CNet has an article that says that AMDs CEO is opposed to the MS antitrust remedy being persued by the states. " There's a lot of information packed fairly tightly in that article that I won't rehash here. Worth a read tho. Update: 04/16 18:01 GMT by M : Reuters has a story with more about Sanders' testimony today.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Takes Microsoft's Side in Antitrust Case

Comments Filter:
  • by rainer_d ( 115765 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:27AM (#3349976) Homepage
    Everybody has a price.
    • Is there NO chance whatsoever that he actually believes that his testimony is true?

      Is it maybe possible that he truly feels that this a bad thing?

      Personally, I think he is blowing things out of proportion by saying this "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years," but MAYBE he knows something about chip and software interaction that I don't. (Didn't see that quote, maybe you never RTA?)

      Flamebait this isn't but its an unpopular opinion on /. so BURN KARMA BURN...nothing I won't get back.

      At least my thoughts might be visible for 10 seconds or so...
  • Simple Solution... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by QuantumFTL ( 197300 )
    I guess I don't really see the point of breaking Microsoft up, (look at what happenned to the baby bells) however I think there are some great ways to keep them from being anticompetative:

    1. Open up their APIs, etc... (Cool things like Lindows will be 100% legal then :))
    2. Fix their pricing so that it is uniform to all OEMs (so that OEMs will not be persecuted individually for carrying a competing product, like Linux or Netscape)
    3. Fine them for blatent lying in court (have they commited perjury?)
    4. As reparations for breaking the law, force them to issue free copies of software to schools in poor neighborhoods, etc...

    I just don't think that drastic solutions are going to work here... But in a way, I almost don't CARE about microsoft's monopoly, because it's almost a given that the desktop computer will lose its prevelance once Ubiquetous Computing (ala MIT's Oxygen, etc) becomes a reality. Just so long as they don't control *THAT*, I'm happy.

    It is funny to see AMD on microsoft's side, since MS has been very pro-Intel for a long time.
    Cheers,
    Justin
    • Really the only one that matters is item (2)...

      2. Fix their pricing so that it is uniform to all OEMs (so that OEMs will not be persecuted individually for carrying a competing product, like Linux or Netscape)

      I too don't see any point in breaking up microsoft. It's not like the resulting two companies won't cooperate on things like policy, price fixing, blacklisting uncooperative companies etc. In short breaking them up won't do anything buy make a lot of paperwork for some people. But if MS were not allowed to penalize stores that sell dual boot systems, that would change everything real fast.
    • by EllF ( 205050 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:42AM (#3350120) Homepage
      A few points:

      1. Opening up the WinAPI source would not make Lindows legal. Lindows is not illegal because of anything related to the WinAPI, it is illegal because Michael Robertson has not made the source code to Lindows available to the people who have purchased access, while still releasing the code under the GPL. Perhaps you're thinking of MS attacking Lindows based on its name?

      2. Issuing free copies of Windows is not a Good Thing. Why Windows and not some of the alternative operating systems (Linux, BSD, even MacOS)? Although it would seem like a punishment, such a forced-distribution would only strengthen MS's hold on the mindshare of tomorrow's geeks. It would be like saying that the RIAA should issue free N'Sync CDs to poor kids because they broke the law with their "uncopyable" CDs - it just indirectly furthers their dominance of the market.

      3. Why will desktop computing lose its prevalence once central-solutions become available? Most people don't need or want to be tied into such a system; I have serious personal doubts about anything that threatens both my privacy and my ability to manage my own system, and I'm not even doing anything *really* important.

      4. AMD being on MS's side makes quite a bit of sense, because MS has been pro-Intel for so long. AMD is trying to capture market share; by showing loyalty to MS, they are aiming to hedge out some room for a deal alongside Intel. Pissing MS off would result in them never seeing that market open up.
      • by walt-sjc ( 145127 )
        1. (Lindows) Agree. Lindows needs to open up. You partake in the free beer, you need to pony up.

        2&3. (free windows & privacy / centralization) Agree. 100%.

        4. AMD has another choice - to shut the hell up. They chose the dark side. Bad AMD. No biscuit. "Yeah I won the race, but I was in collusion with the second place guy to slash the tires on all the other cars." AMD is willing to hurt the rest of the computer industry for its own gains. Can't condone this.
    • Cool things like Lindows will be 100% legal then

      How will Microsoft opening up their APIs cause Lindows to stop breaking the terms of the GPL?

    • I guess I don't really see the point of breaking Microsoft up, (look at what happenned to the baby bells) however I think there are some great ways to keep them from being anticompetative:

      I agree that there is no point (other than making some anti-corporate types happy), but your suggestions are actually great ways of discouraging success (and hence competition) in the software industry.

      1. Come on, this is not something we want government deciding about.

      2. Yeah, fixed prices are great for competition! At best, fixed prices are the same as they would be in the market, so it's much easier to just let the market decide. And dictating contract terms between corporations is scary scary scary.

      3. If they have blatantly lied in court, then isn't that already perjury? Perjury's perjury. As far as I can tell that's the only thing anyone at MS has actually done wrong ("wrong" here means illegal or immoral, not the usual "isn't nice to competitors" definition so popular here).

      4. For heaven's sake...

      I just don't think that drastic solutions are going to work here... But in a way, I almost don't CARE about microsoft's monopoly, because it's almost a given that the desktop computer will lose its prevelance once Ubiquetous Computing (ala MIT's Oxygen, etc) becomes a reality. Just so long as they don't control *THAT*, I'm happy.

      Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in any market (except the market for Windows given them by copyright law...but that's the same monopoly enjoyed by any copyright holder) for any reasonable definition of "monopoly." Linux is an OS, it exists. Ergo, no monopoly on x86 OS's. Yes, they have a huge share of the market. It's not their fault no one has given them a run for their money.

      Ubiquitous computing...someone might dominate that. They might be MS. They might be someone else. Whoever's involved won't be any more or less good or evil than MS. They will just be trying to make a buck. Hopefully the U.S. gov't will decide to let them.

      It is funny to see AMD on microsoft's side, since MS has been very pro-Intel for a long time.

      How many CPUs would AMD sell without Windows? Just because some geeks think of AMD as some kind of righteous band of rebels doesn't make it so. At the end of the day they're doing the same exact thing as Microsoft, Intel, Red Hat, and every other company in the world that isn't being protected by a government-enforced monopoly (the only true kind of monopoly!). Trying to make some money.

    • I guess I don't really see the point of breaking Microsoft up, (look at what happenned to the baby bells)

      Absolutely no sense of history. Do you have any idea what it was like BEFORE they broke up AT&T?

    • I'll take these on one point at a time.

      1. (Open API's) Yes. Best thing we can do. HOWEVER: this MUST also include the RAND licensing for commercial software, and Free licensing for opensource / freeware software of all patented algorithms. Having open API's is USELESS if you can't use the technology.

      2. (fixed pricing) Yes. This has to include other components like Office too otherwise MS will penalize them by jacking up the price on Office if they don't install Windows on all their boxes. MS has other power over OEM's too. Consider things like co-marketing dollars. Those are BIG incentives to "force" companies to bend to BillG's will.

      3. (Fine for purgury) No brainer. Of course.

      4. (Free software to schools) Frankly, this is a bad idea. It puts companies like Apple, or solutions like Linux at a disadvantage. Poor schools shouldn't be buying software in the first place. They should use their dollars more wisely and support open source. Frankly, I'd like to see a mandate that ALL branches of government consider open source as an alternative including the option of funding development instead of paying license fees. Imagine where Linux would be with a couple billion spent on development...

      As far as AMD is concerned, I'm boycotting them now. How dare they support a company that has illegally abused its monopoly power to harm other technologies and companies. You sleep with the dark side, you take the chance of being convicted in the court of public opinion. Guilty.
      • "They should use their dollars more wisely and support open source."

        Sorry - but I've got to take exception to this. HOW is this wise? In general, open source requires more technical expertise to install, manage and support than MS. If you know what you are doing, it may be easier, but you've got to get past the learning curve.

        Most poor schools don't have that available. Not by faculty, not by staff, not by contractors and certainly not by students.

        If MS is willing to donate Windows/Office to poor schools (both urban and rural), hey great! They need everything they can get. Don't bash MS for doing good - see the positive. So what if these students learn to use Windows. Apple in the 80's was a HUGE supporter of schools. Many schools had dozens of Macs, but no PCs. So what do I use - the PC. The arguement of "brainwashing" the youth into using a particular platform just doesn't hold water - sorry.

        -- Ravensfire

    • 2. Fix their pricing so that it is uniform to all OEMs

      Ideal, if it really worked in practice.

      It seems to me, though, that there are 1001 different things besides price that MS can use to sway OEMs to do what MS wants.

      For instance, how much "effort" to put in making my OS and apps work on your hardware, how "complete" is the disclosure of important parts of the API - if they're all incomplete descriptions of the behavior of Windows, or any other MS app, then there's a lot of wiggle room for them to play favorites or not with whomever they choose.

    • You know this is a bad idea; try this instead. Make them pay the schools, and then make them compete for those schools' software dollars in an open marketplace. If they really are just a "natural" monopoly, then the schools will give MS all their money back and get software as if it was free. If not, then we will see it unfold in the public record of how the schools spend these dollars. Just make sure the process is de-politicised and fully disclosed so we can catch people trying to give kickbacks to school officials on the side.

  • by dryueh ( 531302 )
    The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."

    Twenty years? I guess my old Commodore might become useful after all.

    20 years? Is this an accurate statement? I'm skeptical of anyone's testimony when Bill Gates *asks them to testify* on MS's behalf.

    • The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."

      A number of people have said that windows has already set the computer industry back 20 years...

      There was a time when the OS was rock solid and if your program crashed, it was because of bugs in the program. Now, bugs are documented and called features, and phrases like "three finger salute" and "BSOD" have been added to our vocabulary.

      • There was a time when the OS was rock solid and if your program crashed, it was because of bugs in the program.

        No. No there wasn't. Or maybe there was, and since then Windows, Linux, *BSD, all Unices have all forgotten how to do this. Oh no, that's right. in the above list only Windows ever crashes; not like any of the other OSs *ever* do.

        Also, out of curiosity, since you seem to know a lot about this golden age of solid OSs, could you tell me whether this was before or after the concept of protected mode CPUs?

        • I don't know which Unixes you've been running, but the one's I have been running over the past 12 years fit the original description.

          You deploy them and they just keep on going and going and going. When the Energizer Bunny has collapsed on the side of the road, Ultrix, Irix, Linux, FreeBSD, SunOS, QNX and Solaris are still going strong.
    • I'm skeptical of anyone's testimony when Bill Gates *asks them to testify* on MS's behalf.


      • Yeah ... because I'm sure the states asked companies to testify on their behalf solely for the good of the people. I'm sure Sun and AOL took the stand to make sure the nation's citizens' rights were defended.
  • Not surprising... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by !ramirez ( 106823 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:32AM (#3350025)
    Not very surprising, given the recent news surrounding the Xbox 2... [theregister.co.uk]
    • by Zeio ( 325157 )
      This is a dangerous game to play, if anything they should have abstained from saying much. They just came out with new (decent) processors for the handheld market, and things like Sharp Zaurus and Palm are legitimately good alternative to Microsoft CE devices.

      AMD also had (had?) a contingent of ultra-loyalist OSS tinkerers and others who are not so hept on supporting Chipzilla and Microsoft.

      I think that given the XBOX has has questionable market acceptance, that the damage done in supporting microsoft is far worse than the potential gain in chip sales through what is still a vapor product (and seeks to eliminate Nvidia for some odd reason in favor of ATI).

      I don't understand how supporting a company that makes use of questionable long term strategies such as horrifically restrictive EULAs helps AMD much. It seems interesting that AMD is willing to use the OSS community to come up with ports of various OSS operating systems and distributions and optimizations in OSS compilers, but is also willing to spit right back in their faces with support companies that do little to promote OSS (unlike, say, IBM.). Also, vendors are not going to be further endeared to a chip company that supports a company that wants to let Microsoft get away with tell OEMs what software they *must* buy for every machine that goes out the door.

      The worst thing of all is that the first AMD-64 optimized kernel that will run on the Clawhammer will be Linux, probably on a RedHat distribution.

      I think the long term ramifications of this show of support will probably not be a determining factor on AMD survival or ability to make money, but this, in my opinion, is not the best was to serve the shareholders or create revenue, something that AMD has a hard time doing (actually making money) - they usually just break even or make some minute percentage of what Intel makes in profit.

      People should know who their friends are.
  • by CSG_SurferDude ( 96615 ) <wedaa@wedaa . c om> on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:33AM (#3350034) Homepage Journal
    Some years ago, whne I worked at AMD, a corporate level decision was made to run whatever the MS Mail solution was at the time (Exchange? Outlook?); even though there were several significantly better solutions out there.

    What eventually came out was that it was a political decision. MS wanted to be able to show that large companies were successfully using their email package; and AMD NEEDED MS DOS/Windows to run on their 386/486 chips, and apparently this was one way of making sure that MS didn't have an "bugs" that would cause MS SW to crash on AMD chips.

    What's that old quote about MS? "Window's ain't done till Lotus don't run?"

    Same thing again, only different.

  • Anybody want a slightly used Duron 700?

    Let me just yank it out with a pair of pliers first....

  • by SkyLeach ( 188871 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:34AM (#3350044) Homepage
    "AMD Takes Microsoft's Side in Antitrust Case" is a long damned streatch from them/CEO being opposed to the "remedy being persued by the states".

    Your comment was inflamatory and hurt AMD without cause. If they come out and say "M$ is our bestest buddies and they didn't do nothing wrong." then you might have a point, but they didn't do that.

    That was a GD troll CT and you know it.
    • by jmu1 ( 183541 )
      Yup. It's getting to the point these days that I have to take a pepcid before I read /. . I can't stand the bologna that they are posting as headlines. Seems to me they are taking a tip from Robert D. Rayford of the "John-Boy and Billy BigShow" All that old drunk wants to do is start flame-wars.
    • by scenic ( 4226 ) <sujal@COLAsujal.net minus caffeine> on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:43AM (#3350134) Homepage Journal
      On the contrary, Sanders did come out and say that "M$ is our bestest buddies and they didn't do nothing wrong." For example, this quote from Sanders's testimony:

      "Contrary to some suggestions I have heard in connection with this case, product integration is unambiguously good for consumers," Sanders testified. "The integration of innovative features is a principal means by which both software and hardware products are improved, to the benefit of consumers."

      Since the case ostensibly was about bundling and integration, that statement is tantamount to saying Microsoft did nothing wrong.

      In addition, other statments, such as the following quote from the article:

      In his testimony, Sanders argued that Microsoft's dominance in PC operating systems fosters diversity rather than limits consumer choice. He compared the situation to "proprietary operating systems that run only on specific hardware designed and manufactured by the same vendor," such as Apple Computer's Mac OS or Sun Microsystems' Solaris. "Microsoft's Windows operating systems run on computers manufactured by thousands of different companies," he stated.

      demonstrates an incredible ignorance of the technical reasons why Windows requires no single hardware manufacturer. This amazing technical feat has nothing to do with Microsoft, and more to do with IBM and the use of a central (reverse-engineered) bios, and Intel's ubiquity and the reverse-engineering of their instruction set. You would think that the chairman of AMD would realize this.

      So, no, Skjellifetti's summary and the headline choice wasn't a troll.

      Sujal

      • "Contrary to some suggestions I have heard in connection with this case, product integration is unambiguously good for consumers," Sanders testified. "The integration of innovative features is a principal means by which both software and hardware products are improved, to the benefit of consumers."

        Since the case ostensibly was about bundling and integration, that statement is tantamount to saying Microsoft did nothing wrong

        Actually, he is right. Product integration does make the consumer experience better. What does NOT magically flow from this, is that Microsoft should be the one who decides what products get integrated and don't get integrated. Yet, it subtly implies that MS is the natural choice for deciding what gets integrated and what does not. So in this respect people who rally behind MS by saying "hey, integration is what got us this far, so be light on MS", are being disingenuous.
      • He compared the situation to "proprietary operating systems that run only on specific hardware designed and manufactured by the same vendor," such as Apple Computer's Mac OS or Sun Microsystems' Solaris. "Microsoft's Windows operating systems run on computers manufactured by thousands of different companies," he stated.

        While you rightly make the point that the central bios and Intel's ubiquity may deserve more of the credit for that, you can't deny Microsoft did change the business model for computer manufacturers. Before them, everyone wanted to sell hardware. The OS was just what you had to include to make the hardware work. They were one of the first companies to base their success on selling the OS and let someone else deal with the hardware.

        Through a combination of lucky breaks, good timing, shrewd long-range planning and incredibly effective marketing (okay, and a few good products thrown in along the way) they succeeded in commoditizing the developing PC hardware market. IBM had still planned on making the money from the hardware.

        Now, despite immense natural barriers to entry, ever higher-range systems becoming commodities. As there are comparatively low barriers to entry in the software business, the only reasonable explanation for Microsoft's continued high margins is that they somehow artificially maintain high barriers. (Hmm, didn't a judge recently rule that this is exactly the case?)
    • Feel free to read the article:

      Sanders, in written testimony submitted before his scheduled appearance, said that the litigating states' proposed remedy of requiring Microsoft to sell a stripped-down version of Windows "would have harmful effects on AMD, the computer industry as whole, the U.S. economy and consumers worldwide."

      The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."

      Sanders praised Microsoft for helping to bring standardization to the computer industry. "Standardized platforms promote competition," he asserted. The absence of this standardization "would diminish overall competition as many software and hardware vendors would have to decide which particular operating system(s) to target as a development platform."

      Now, I'm not a big city lawyer, but it sure sounds like AMD *is* taking Microsoft's side in the case, and it sure sounds like the CEO *is* opposed to the "remedy being persued by the states".

    • "AMD Takes Microsoft's Side in Antitrust Case" is a long damned streatch from them/CEO being opposed to the "remedy being persued by the states". Your comment was inflamatory and hurt AMD without cause. If they come out and say "M$ is our bestest buddies and they didn't do nothing wrong." then you might have a point, but they didn't do that. That was a GD troll CT and you know it.


      If that was a troll, then the entire AMD testimony seems to be a troll as well.
      The 'many versions of windows and problems with hardware' doesn't fly. They're talking about (a) a single stripped down version to allow oem's and users to add competitive software. (b) The settlement is based on promoting competition of middleware, not the base system. Middleware generally doesn't interact directly with hardware. (c) Software that does interact, such as drivers, wouldn't be any different since the full vs. stripped down Windows would be the same in the hardware interfaces.

      The 'testimony' seems like a parody of the same MS statements. And the comment on competition and scalable servers on x86 platforms? MS has workever very hard to insure there isn't competition at the server platform using proprietary standards and attempting to force that servers be MS to work with clients using windows. That statement practically works to the benefit of the states. (And as noted, he does fail to mention the only solutions that are making a dent in server deployment on x86, Linux&BSD systems, not at all the 'proprietary microprocessors' he mentions.) I wonder how AMD would react if MS changed their licensing agreements to permit Windows to run ONLY on Intel chips. Hmm.

      • OEMs and users can already add competitive software. But if that software isnt as good, or as easy to use than the microsoft alternative, then nobody is going to use it.

        I personally would be really pissed off if I got a computer that didnt have a browser on it, because I would need a browser to go download another browser.

  • by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:36AM (#3350058) Homepage Journal

    It's a shame that AMD, that has long battled uphill against the market dominance of Intel, has bowed under like this.

    I'm positive there are intangible benefits, such as MS agreeing to port Doze aggressively onto x86-64 platforms that are motivating Sanders.

    I remember reading a whitepaper from AMD's site once where they were complaining about Intel being the 800 lb gorilla, etc. and then having the grand vision that Intel was not the monopoly, that MS was the monopoly and the standard to which everything must adhere.

    I guess it just goes to show that in business, if the monopoly isn't hurting you directly, that an "accommodation" can be made for the sake of furthering business interests.

    Unfortunately, I doubt the court will be fully informed about the benefits that accrue to AMD as a result of Sanders testifying for MS, just as there are many subtle "sticks" used on companies that are now long dead that, too, have not been fully revealed to the court.

    • I'm positive there are intangible benefits, such as MS agreeing to port Doze aggressively onto x86-64 platforms that are motivating Sanders.

      Since you are positive, that must mean you have proof. Please provide that proof.


      AMD has a good point which you fail to grasp: Windows runs on hardware made by thousands of vendors, and this is good for choice. Releasing bits of Windows that are different for every vendor creates less choice because specific custom versions of Windows will be tied to a specific vendor. This means that you will have to go with one hardware vendor or another to get the version of Windows you want. He makes a much better case for open APIs than hacked up Windows. Open APIs keep consumer choice in place (choose the same OS for 1000's of hardware vendors), allow competing software into the platform, and does require much work on anyones part in terms of enforcement.
      • by JordoCrouse ( 178999 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:57AM (#3350254) Homepage Journal
        Windows runs on hardware made by thousands of vendors, and this is good for choice.

        Windows runs on hardware made by thousands of vendors that are only using a handful of approved CPUs and BIOS approved and mandated by Microsoft themselves. You will find drastic similarity in 95% of all of those products.

        Releasing bits of Windows that are different for every vendor creates less choice because specific custom versions of Windows will be tied to a specific vendor.

        The other 5% of vendors (PDAs, set top boxes, etc...) *do* run custom versions of Windows, apparently with no noticable affect on profits. And remember that Microsoft probably charged these companies hundreds of thosuands of dollars for custom versions of the operating system.

        This means that you will have to go with one hardware vendor or another to get the version of Windows you want.

        This is completely not true. The code that you are discussing is so far removed from the processor type that its like trying to say that your car runs differently depending on what color shirt you are wearing. Again, the code on 95% of all Windows boxes will be virtually idential (exepct for some bootstrap code that probably already differs for each processor anyway). The other 5% are already custom jobs, so your point has no merit.

        Open APIs keep consumer choice in place (choose the same OS for 1000's of hardware vendors), allow competing software into the platform, and does require much work on anyones part in terms of enforcement.

        Which is great, as long as the API is truely open. In the past, they have opened half of a given API, and its turns out that the other half is the stuff that really makes the software work well. Its difficult to compete with the makers of the worlds most dominate operating system when they won't even give you the complete API to make your program work in the first place.


    • > It's a shame that AMD, that has long battled uphill against the market dominance of Intel, has bowed under like this.

      It might be nice to be privy to communications between Microsoft and AMD on the antitrust case. I mean, it would be a real shame if the next version of Windows didn't work on AMD processors, kind of thing.

      Any states' antitrust staffers reading Slashdot? If so, take a hint and have your boss go for the subpoena.

      Of course, any MS/AMD staffers reading Slashdot might also take a hint and recommend that their boss start shredding e-mail. (Though I specifically advise not doing that, unless you want Ken Lay for a roommate.)

  • by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:36AM (#3350059) Journal
    Poor Slashdotters,

    AMD good... but M$ bad... but AMD good... but M$ bad... but AMD good
    MOMMY!

    It's actually the smartest thing I've heard lately. A bunch of different OS versions won't help consumers, but releasing the APIs would. Go Sanders.
    • "A bunch of different OS versions won't help consumers"

      I challenge you to back this up.

      Let's look at a market that is "similiar" to the PC market and see how healthy it is.

      Game consoles. You have software makers, proprietary APIs, zero compatibility of games from console to console (even within the same console maker), yet it THRIVES. We can't imagine any other way to buy game consoles.

      Why is the PC market any different? Think about this for a second, imagine if you went into a computer store and there were four sections, HP, Sony, Apple, and Gateway. Each had their own software shelf, each had their own hardware. Would people be confused? No, of course not, just like Nintendo and PSX2 doesn't confuse them. Would people finally have choice? Yes!

      Any ruling that leaves MS in 100% control of the x86 OS market does NOTHING to stop MS from abusing their monolopy. The simpliest decision is to give the OEMs a lifetime license to the WinXP source code (as it exists today, so MS doesn't have leverage with future OS's) and let OEMS do anything they please with that source code. If the changes suck, it won't sell. Apple seems to be proving that the consumer market can accept a new OS. Let HP, Sony, DELL, Gateway, and the like do the same.

    • What does AMD have to do with whether multiple versions/configurations/permutations of windows would be good or not? They just make CPU's and chipsets that emulate Intel's instruction set. This instruction set is not operating system dependent. Rather is the operating system (at least the machine dependant part of it, such as NT's HAL) dependent on the CPU.

      Apart from that, indeed my next CPU will no more be an AMD.
      • by Slynkie ( 18861 ) <jsalit@NoSpam.slunk.net> on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @12:44PM (#3351213) Homepage
        Apart from that, indeed my next CPU will no more be an AMD.
        I'll assume that to mean that previously, you've bought AMD rather than Intel for political reasons. And I'll also assume that to mean that in the future you won't buy AMD because they've sunken down, politically, to an Intel-like level (although I wouldn't go that far, myself).

        If so, however, why wouldn't you buy AMD, if they are (at the time of purchase) producing the best chips? Unless you're gonna go Alpha or Sparc or something. My point is, even if AMD has sunk a few levels with this announcement, they're certainly not as bad as Intel, and even if they were, wouldn't it then just come down to who made the better chips?
  • by icejai ( 214906 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:36AM (#3350062)

    In his testimony, Sanders argued that Microsoft's dominance in PC operating systems fosters diversity rather than limits consumer choice. He compared the situation to "proprietary operating systems that run only on specific hardware designed and manufactured by the same vendor," such as Apple Computer's Mac OS or Sun Microsystems' Solaris. "Microsoft's Windows operating systems run on computers manufactured by thousands of different companies," he stated.


    For some reason, I can't help but think amd's ceo has a valid point here.
    Would (almost) every home have a pc if microsoft didn't exist? What if the market share were split evenly between mac/solaris/*nix/*bsd/etc?
    Would game developers pump millions into development of a game for something like... 25% market share?

    Seriously... just wondering... (no this isn't a troll... )
    • IANAGD (IANA Game Developer), but I imagine that a very large chunk of the work of creating a modern game goes into level design, graphics, sound, music, fmv, etc, and another chunk into gameplay. I would have thought that the actual coding involved, whilst certainly non-trivial and a large amount of work, probably makes up a relatively small amount of the effort.

      Not only that, but if the code is well designed and modular, a lot of it should be pretty easy to port from one platform to another. The hard parts will be the bits that do hardware access, ie the graphics and sound routines. Id seems to have done pretty well on that score - just avoid any platform-specific libraries as far as possible.

      Note that I'm not trying to say that releasing a game for multiple platforms is easy, just that it does not require four times the effort to release for four platforms as for one.

      Cheers,

      Tim
    • Would ... developers pump millions into development ... for something like... 25% market share?

      They used to. Think back to when there were a plethora of OS's or, your way, video game machines. We had great diversity and some of those products which launched on the non-dominant paradigm were pretty damn good. (On that note, we could certainly spend a lot of bandwidth revisiting the issue about why games suck so much and lack originality, right?)

      Sander's statement "Microsoft's dominance in PC operating systems fosters diversity rather than limits consumer choice" is dead wrong. While providing a fairly unified platform for development, it's also been heavily leveraged by the guilty monopolist to force out perfectly good technologies for enrichment. Doesn't anyone ever wonder why Gates, Allen, Ballmer, et al are billionaires? Would they be without the MS deathgrip on the desktop? Would MS products be better if they truly competed? Absolutely! Every day here on Slashdot, yet inexplicably sometimes forgotten, like a pain in the leg you learn to live with.

      The entire software industry agreeing on open standards would provide much better products, in much the same way business and consumers have benefitted from open standards on dynamic memory (SDRAM) JEDEC, despite Rambus' machinations is the right way to go about joint development, rather than MS coming out with the standard of the day and proclaiming it, only to build advantages into their OS and do things outside the API when it suits them, to effectively castrate the competition.

      We know better, don't we?

    • by GroundBounce ( 20126 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @12:44PM (#3351216)
      Why does Fram make oil filters for cars even though the car market is split between a dozen or so major manufacturers? Why does Champion make spark plugs even thought the automobile market is split between a dozen or so major manufacturers? Etc., etc.? Because the profits are still there in the products, and the *APIs* (thread sizes and interfaces in this case) are standerdized (at least to some degree).

      What I think Sanders and others don't realize, is that if the OS market share had been evenly split between several major players, then what would have become standardized would have been the APIs and interfaces rather than the OS platform itself. The market would have demanded it, and the standards would have been determined by the needs of all companies involved rather than by decree of one monopoly company.

      Even with today's situation, there are several examples of such API standards, such as TCP/IP, OpenGL, HTML, XML, etc. Unfortunately, because of the current monopoly situation, there are several standards which are proprietary and not open, primarily in the area of file formats such as MS Office formats. And there is proprietary pressure on the current existing open standards (e.g., embrace and extend).

      Sure, standardizing the entire OS instead of the APIs and interfaces achieves the same goal in the short term, and perhaps this goal does benefit consumers and some software vendors, but it does so by eliminating competetion in the OS and API market, which will have the effects of monopoly rents (already happening) and eventually reduced quality (may take a little longer, but it will happen).
  • 20 years (Score:3, Funny)

    by _crunge ( 515920 ) <driver@shortCOMM ... .org minus punct> on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:37AM (#3350074)
    "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years." So if it set the industry back 20 years.... MSWindows wouldnt be around right?... doesnt sound like a bad trade.
  • "Microsoft's development of reliable and scalable server operating systems has enabled AMD to enter and compete more effectively in the server businesses...because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors," he testified.

    So linux doesn't run on AMD? Right! Does he even have a clue as to how many small businesses are using AMD processors with linux? I suppose server operating systems require Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer and taking them out would make it less effective as an email, print, or webserver! Sanders is talking out his ass!

  • "Microsoft's development of reliable and scalable server operating systems has enabled AMD to enter and compete more effectively in the server businesses...because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors," he [Sanders] testified

    This line (the last of the article actually) puzzles me a lot. Microsoft servers are not in direct competition with big irons but more with linux, BSD and solaris servers as far as my understanding goes. So why does he say that "non-MS servers" run on specialiazed microprocessors.
    AMD processors are very well supported under linux, albeit a bit later than Intel counterparts

    I'm leaving aside the claim that MS makes "reliable and scalable" servers.

    AMD, like other software and hardware vendors, would no longer be able to rely upon the existence of particular software code in Windows or the APIs
    I really wonder what APIs or software code in the media player or IE AMD, a HARDWARE vendor relies on... I really do...
  • In addition, Sanders contended it would be too expensive for companies like AMD to "create products for multiple, inconsistent versions of Windows."

    As opposed to running multiple and inconsistant versions of Linux and *BSD???

  • by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:41AM (#3350113) Homepage
    Ok it's obvious what's happening here.

    AMD and Intel are competitors.

    Intel and Microsoft have fallen out a while ago, Intel uses a whole bunch of Linux boxes internally for development purposes for example. Not going to go down well with Microsoft.

    And Microsoft is fighting for its life (or atleast that's how Microsoft sees it) so you can bet that Microsoft has offered some bargaining chip or other to AMD under the table (or above the table) to testify in this way; and in view of the animosity between Microsoft and Intel, they're going to be inclined to take it.

    Whether this bargaining chip will be worth anything at the end of the day is probably debatable; history says anything that Microsoft gives you is usually worthless, or atleast costless to Microsoft. And going into bed with Microsoft; what kind of idiot would voluntarily do this?
    • I wonder if the bargining chip is to make AMD the preferred platform for Windows. If Windows supported the AMD specific x86-64 instruction set, and this gave performance gains for AMD over Intel, then Intel would suddenly switch into second place.
  • "Sanders argued that Microsoft's dominance in PC operating systems fosters diversity rather than limits consumer choice. He compared the situation to "proprietary operating systems that run only on specific hardware designed and manufactured by the same vendor," such as Apple Computer's Mac OS or Sun Microsystems' Solaris. "Microsoft's Windows operating systems run on computers manufactured by thousands of different companies," he stated."

    Sounds like when Henry Ford, commenting on the lack of variety in color of the Model-T, declared that every American could have whatever color car they wanted, as long as that color was black.

  • Microsoft supports AMD because they want the price of the cpu to be as low as possible. Higher prices for the cpu leaves less money for the operating system.
  • The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."


    Yeah, but now we know how to do things, and hopefully we can do them "right" this time.
    • And in the mean time, as I won't be able to play Half-Life any more, I'd better get out my ZX81 until the computer industry recovers from this 20-year setback.
  • integration good? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by maraist ( 68387 ) <michael.maraistN ... .com ['Mgm' in g> on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @10:48AM (#3350177) Homepage
    "Contrary to some suggestions I have heard in connection with this case,

    product integration is unambiguously good for consumers," Sanders
    testified


    and then

    He cited AMD's integration of memory-controlling functionality into its

    upcoming Hammer microprocessor as an example of how companies integrate
    once-separate features into their products.


    Wow, and AMD is sure to remember Intel's integration of a RAMBUS controller into it's Pentium 4, and how embarrising that was after Intel decided to rethink their strategy.

    Could someone explain to me how choosing a particular technology for your customers and saying this is all you're allowed to use fosters competition?

    -Michael
    • Wow, and AMD is sure to remember Intel's integration of a RAMBUS controller into it's Pentium 4, and how embarrising that was after Intel decided to rethink their strategy.
      Could someone explain to me how choosing a particular technology for your customers and saying this is all you're allowed to use fosters competition?

      RDRAM is pretty good stuff as long as A> you're dealing with interlaced RIMMs, which everyone is these days, and B> the price of the technology is not driven up by a stupid patent.

      But interleaved DDR SDRAM is better; It's faster, doesn't have the bank-switching or latency issues, and it's cheaper, though not much these days since the P4 DDR chipsets came out offering almost the same performance as the fastest available RDRAM.

      This is different at the OS level, however. You can use windows without ever using IE at more than the component level, to download updates. If you only want critical/recommended updates, the autodownload wizard can be configured to inform you that there are pending updates before downloading them, then let you know it's ready to install them, and finally install them, without ever seeing a browser window. You can set your default browser, email client, etc to other apps (Mozilla, Mozilla Mail, etc.)

      And given that there are P4 DDR chipsets, it seems to me that the P4 doesn't exactly lock you into RDRAM.

      It's annoying that you have to have IE installed on windows, but the fact of the matter is that they ARE using its technology ALL OVER the gui, including for the help system. So it's reasonable to have it on the system, and you are NOT, repeat NOT forced to use it for web browsing. However, I do, because I feel that it is the best web browser available for windows at this time. When the mozilla team gets over itself enough to give you the option to use native widgets instead of emulated ones, I might think about using mozilla, but they have made the choice for me that I should use their stupid slow interface, when I could be using OS-native API widgets.

      Oh yeah, and if Microsoft is required to remove media playing capabilities from windows, I want to see apple forced to not bundle quicktime, iTunes, and so on, because that's a crock. Every other OS comes with media playing tools; If they want to talk to M$ about media player, maybe they should tell them to make it not be spyware. But fer chrissakes, taking the browser and the media player out of the box DOES cripple you. How do you download a browser without a browser? Do you expect people to use ftp.exe? Or perhaps they should remove ftp.exe because it competes with other FTP applications?

      Microsoft HAS done several things wrong. Bundling a web browser and media player... these are not wrong things. Everyone else is doing them; What's next, removing xmms and mozilla from linux distributions because they are now too full-featured to compete with windows?


  • I found the statements made by Sanders to be very odd. There must be something more to this that we aren't seeing, else why would he make so many statements that are 1) clearly wrong and 2) at odds with AMD's past positions on what is good for the industry? Specifically:

    "most no Microsoft OS only run propritary hardware"--in the microcomputer industry at least, this has never been true. CP/M, for example, ran on a variety of 8 & 16 bit hardware, as did MOSS, Forth, etc., and in the Unix world it's even more absurd. To see my point, just turn the question around: if you were developing a new processor and needed an OS for it, would your first thought be to try to port Windows?
    AMD has been very clear about how bad they think it would be for Intel to keep the hardware analogues of "API" information a secret, and how good they think it is for the free world to have multiple sources for x86 processors.
    As I typed this, I think I answered my own question. Do you suppose he's worried (or has been convinced) that the only thing keeping alternative processor architectures out of the main stream it the difficulty of porting Windows? Does he fear a flood (or even strong trickle) of non-x86, and thus non-Intel/AMD processors might weaken AMD's strategic position?

    I wonder.

    -- MarkusQ

  • Some of the statements in the article strike me as quite bizzare. They claim that de-integrating Windoze and opening up the APIs would set the computer industry back 20 years... That should be plainly absurd to even to a complete moron. In that era we're talking monochrome greenscreens, IBM PCs (the original), Apple ][, TRS-80, etc. I mean, 1982 is the year TCP/IP was invented.

    At the end Sanders claims most server operating systems run on specialized microprocessors... Excuse me? Ever hear of Linux, FreeBSD, BSDI, etc. etc.? I would think that the Linux crowd would be more likely to use an AMD processor than the average Windows user (who would have some pre-built PC sporting a Pentium 3/4 with a big MHz number).

    They do have a (partially) valid point about integration though... While I don't know that it does anyone any good to force Internet Exploder and Media Slayer down everyone's throat, some integration is a Good Thing. Remember having to use Trumpet Winsock in Win 3.1 to use the Internet? Nobody thinks integration of a TCP/IP stack into the OS was a bad thing. I'm not even against the inclusion of M$'s HTML rendering engine (it's one of the better ones - ActiveX and crap aside). Lots of apps seem to be moving away from Windoze help files (which suck) to HTML documentation, and having HTML rendering handled by the OS seems perfectly acceptable (and it doesn't force any particular product on the user).
    • And, if Windows didn't run on non-specialized microprocessors (whatever is more specialized to Sparc than to Intel puzzles me), something else would run on it; for example Unixware, or some other commercial UNIX variant would have taken over the Intel market.

      Also possible is that Apple would have had a bigger marketshare, and the PowerPC would be THE general purpose CPU instead of Intel/AMD.

      Anyway he reverses cause and effect.
  • Hello WindAMD.

    Looks like Sanders is trying to get in good with MS to gain some leverage against Intel.

    What he stated was his opinion, probably to benefit his company - nothing more. Remember where his interests lie, he is a CEO.

  • This is my favorite quote from the article:

    [The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."]

    Hmm, removing IE and WMP and OE will set us back 20 years? Hell, we could step back to the days of DOS and not suffer a 20 year setback. Windows (version 1.0 that is) was released 11/10/1983. 20 years would bring us back to 1982. The original QDOS was released back in 1980. (http://www.powerload.fsnet.co.uk/timeline.htm)

    I suppose we'd also have to throw out advancements like oh, the Athlon processor if Microsoft suddenly disappeared eh?

    Wow, I really like AMD's products but I definitely do NOT like Mr. Sanders' testimony.
  • by stinkydog ( 191778 ) <sd@NOSPAM.strangedog.net> on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @11:04AM (#3350311) Homepage
    There are two possible conversations:

    Jerry: Hello.
    Bill: Hey Jerry, could you set the DoJ right about the goodness of Windows.
    Jerry: Sure! Anything to support your Monoply.
    Bill: Great, see you next week. Bye.

    Or

    Jerry: Hello.
    Bill: Hey, Jerry wouldn't it be funny if Windows XP V2 read the CPU ID and just mysteroiusly crashed if it saw AMD in it?
    Jerry: Good one Bill. What can I do for you?
    Bill: Some losers are suing me because I have the power to destroy a company with a simple code change. I need you to testify on my behalf.
    Jerry: Um, Sure Bill, Anything to keep you happy.
    Bill: Don't forget to wax my car this week.
    Jerry: Sure anything you say.
    Bill: One OS to bind them. HA HA HA HA.

    You decide which is true.

    SD
    • Huh? How about

      Bill: "Here's a an assload of money."

      Jerry: "Thanks, Microsoft Rules, Linux Drools! There's no monopoly, just sore losers!"

      Bill: "Attaboy."

      I refuse to pity AMD because they're being pressured. I refuse to believe that AMD would cave from pressure. I find it easy to believe that AMD just sold right the fuck out.
    • more likely:
      Jerry:Hello.
      Bill: Hey, Jerry wouldn't it be funny if Windows .Net Server never had a native version for Sledgehammer?
      Jerry: Good one Bill. What can I do for you?
    • by InigoMontoya(tm) ( 463228 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @12:00PM (#3350856) Homepage
      How about:

      Bill: "Hey Jerry, since we've talked before about this case, and I know you agree with me because of that conversation, would you be willing to come testify on our behalf?"
      Jerry: "Okay."

      You know, there is an off chance that Jerry Sanders actually believes what he is saying, and is testifying in court that the states' remedy is bad because he (gasp!) believes that the states' remedy is bad.

      Some people here are worse than Republicans or gun control advocates in thinking that anyone who disagrees with them has to be getting something for it and couldn't possibly believe it themselves. People do have opinions that differ from yours, and they very well may be well-reasoned and well-thought-out.

      Just a little nugget of truth in the midst of all the AMD-bashing.

      InigoMontoya(tm)
      (the one with the tm)
  • by telstar ( 236404 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @11:08AM (#3350352)
    "the Justice Department made clear that the federal government and not the states sets national antitrust policy--a point the judge should take into consideration."
  • by GMFTatsujin ( 239569 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @11:13AM (#3350382) Homepage
    "Microsoft's development of reliable and scalable server operating systems has enabled AMD to enter and compete more effectively in the server businesses...because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors," he testified.

    How many processors can Linux compile on again? With exactly the same functionality?

    Just curious.
    GMFTatsujin
  • "Sanders said Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates asked him to testify and that he agreed out of concern over the remedy proposal."

    I imagine the conversation went something like this...

    Gates: 'If you know whats good for you, you will testify regarding the proposal...'

    "The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years." "

    Ahh yes.. I almost forgot that there have not been any advances in the computer industry except for Windows and Microsoft software since 1982.

    "In addition, Sanders contended it would be too expensive for companies like AMD to "create products for multiple, inconsistent versions of Windows."

    Hmm.. AMD products seem to work fine for my multiple inconsistent linux boxes..

    Its apparant. AMD is now Microsoft's bitch.
  • ... not that it was in doubt, but this is amazing.

    Sanders' contention is that having a single, standardized operating system gives hardware manufacturers a single, well-defined target to aim for when developing new versions of their processors.

    Actually, that makes a lot of sense, if you are so steeped in the MS-dominated worldview that you think it makes sense for hardware manufacturers to be optimizing their devices to run specific software faster.

    But, isn't that backwards? Doesn't it make more sense for software makers to optimize for the available hardware? I always thought so. But, then it never until just now occurred to me that AMD is not and never has been in the business of making Intel-compatible chips; they've always been in the business of making Microsoft-compatible chips, and the distinction is not a subtle one.

    Is it possible that Sanders' view does make sense from an overall efficiency standpoint? Which is more complex, a microprocessor, plus accompanying chipsets, or an operating system? Both are horrendously complex beasts these days, but I think it's pretty clear that the software running on the processor is orders of magnitude more complex, and therefore harder. And it's reasonable to suggest that the simpler component should adapt itself to the more complex component, right? Maybe even more important, which component has the longest life? They're both pretty short, but I'd say a single software release tends to span processors more than the converse.

    Food for thought, indeed.

    My opinion is still that the consumer is best-served if competition between hardware and software platforms (and between different components of software platforms) can proceed independently. Operating systems should try to run on a wide variety of hardware platforms and should all compete amongst themselves. Hardware platforms should try to attract OS developers by being faster, more robust, cheaper, more scalable, etc. Similarly, OSes should compete for application developers.

    But this also means that a great deal of effort will be expended on many sides trying to come to agreement on common APIs, rather than just getting on with the business of innovation. More variety also leads to more confusion on the part of consumers. This is an argument Microsoft has been making for a long time, albeit in a software-only context. There is some sense to it: Fixing one part of the equation makes the surrounding parts easier to optimize.

    We all know which part of the equation Microsoft wants to hold constant, of course.

    • But, isn't that backwards? Doesn't it make more sense for software makers to optimize for the available hardware? I always thought so. But, then it never until just now occurred to me that AMD is not and never has been in the business of making Intel-compatible chips; they've always been in the business of making Microsoft-compatible chips, and the distinction is not a subtle one.


      yep, way back in 1980 or so when IBM was requiring a second source for 808x processors, AMD wasn't in the business of making Intel compatible chips, they were only making microsoft-compatible chips.

      AMD chips run the same binaries as Intel chips, so long as you don't want all the advanced features to be exactly the same... I think that AMD stopped supporting all the opcodes when Intel stopped playing nice, right around the original pentium.

  • When MS integrates as many feature as possible into Windows it makes Windows slow down more and more each version. So by letting MS continue this, people will have to buy faster and faster processors with every version of Windows which means more AMD processors sold.

    By the time Windows 3000 comes out everyone will need a multi-processor system. One processor for notepad, one for the desktop. AMD will make a killing!
  • It's already cool to see AMD having their 64bits supported in the next windows, I understand why they are acting like this. While it's not good from a purist's point of view... buisness is buisness and they did do a major strike to get microsoft to not only support Intel like everyone thought they would at first.
  • 20 years?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dohnut ( 189348 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @11:33AM (#3350598)
    The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."

    Where did that number come from? Windows hasn't even been around for 20 years, how is pulling out the browser going to be worse than starting from scratch?

    He faulted the remedy provision of the litigating states, which would compel Microsoft to release a second version of Windows without so-called middleware, such as browsing and media playback technologies.

    Oh no, what would we do, use Netscape or WinAmp? Or, or, we could still use IE and WindowsMediaPlayer, only it would be by choice, that's all we're asking..

    What a bunch of FUD.
  • Even though the Anti-Trust investigation into Intel has been closed this would make a great headline in response.
  • by Zo0ok ( 209803 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @12:15PM (#3350986) Homepage
    I find it very likely that the computer industry and consumers would suffer (slightly) if MS is required to [your favourite punishment].

    After freeing up a monopilised market it always takes time for the market to stabilize, and during this time customers may suffer. This is however no reason not to kill off the monopoly.

    Of course MS supplies the "best" OS out there if you need to use applications requireing windows. This is no reason to protect the monopoly! The government regulated monopoly (in my country) for selling anything with alcohol is of course harmful to costumers the same way the microsoft monopoly is. And of course killing off the monopoly would lead to confusion and possibly worse customer service - until the market has stabilized.

    • I think the best analogy for this situation if we try to destroy Microsoft would be akin to the early electrical utility industry--every company had their own ideas on how to generate and distribute electricity, and each company will have its own idea on a wall socket. No thanks!

      This is where Linux desperately needs to get all the major developers together and create a true unified standard for the entire OS from the OS kernel all the way up to the user interface. All that would do is save untold hours of costs from installation, configuration and maintainance of the entire OS.
  • by hexix ( 9514 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @12:19PM (#3351018) Homepage
    Much of the article mentioned Sanders saying that not letting Microsoft bundle their software with the OS would fragment the Windows operating system, which I totally don't understand. And to make it even more puzzling to me, he said that this fragmentation would make it harder for companies like AMD to support the operating system. Would someone kindly explain to me how letting people use competing web browsers or media playing programs would make it harder for AMD to make chips?

    I think one of the more interesting parts of the article is at the bottom:

    "Microsoft's development of reliable and scalable server operating systems has enabled AMD to enter and compete more effectively in the server businesses...because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors," he testified.


    I read this as AMD wanting Microsoft to be able to continue its illegal business practices as the more people who use Windows, the more potential AMD customers. And I think AMD might be scared that if Microsoft had to play fairly that would open people up to other non-x86 platforms.
  • http://www.shacknews.com/funk.y?id=3439046

    Yeah, I don't see this as amounting to much either; I mean, look at what Intel has done in supporting Microsoft. I bet that's what the AMD execs were saying to themselves when they were trying to think of a way to ensure the viability of X86-64's future.

    Other than that, nothing but lots of knee-jerk reaction posts and trite speculations. Oh well, carry on.
  • Enough already (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WildBeast ( 189336 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @01:46PM (#3351843) Journal
    How many freaking years have this lawsuit been going on? For God's sake, I would pay a thousand bucks just so they can settle this lawsuit and stop talking about it.
  • by Screaming Lunatic ( 526975 ) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @02:18PM (#3352209) Homepage
    ...or is my AMD K6-2 running Linux, Apache, Ftp, SSH, CVS, etc.
    "Microsoft's development of reliable and scalable server operating systems has enabled AMD to enter and compete more effectively in the server businesses...because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors," he testified.
    What a bunch of poop.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." -- Hunter S. Thompson

Working...