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.
The price for support for X86-64 ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Support for own opinion MAYBE??? (Score:2)
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
At least my thoughts might be visible for 10 seconds or so...
Simple Solution... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2)
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2)
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?
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2)
Absolutely no sense of history. Do you have any idea what it was like BEFORE they broke up AT&T?
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Simple Solution... (Score:2)
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.
*NO* MS Antitrust credit for free school software (Score:2)
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.
back to the stone age (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:back to the stone age (Score:2)
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.
Re:back to the stone age (Score:2)
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?
Re:back to the stone age (Score:2)
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.
Re:back to the stone age (Score:2)
...and DirectX is just a collection of libraries, fundementally no more sophisticated than GEM.
The best you can do is draw very subjective comparisons between user interfaces.
Re:back to the stone age (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah
Not surprising... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
AMD NEEDS to scratch MS's Back..... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:AMD NEEDS to scratch MS's Back..... (Score:2)
No. It's "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run."
Re:AMD NEEDS to scratch MS's Back..... (Score:2)
Worth noting tho, is that AMD has been very friendly to the Linux/BSD community. I hope that doesn't change.
Time to sell the CPU, I guess (Score:2)
Let me just yank it out with a pair of pliers first....
Hold on a damn second (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hold on a damn second (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hold on a damn second (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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
Re:Hold on a damn second (Score:2)
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.
But that raises an interesting point (Score:2)
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?)
Re:Hold on a damn second (Score:3, Insightful)
If multiple distros use the same kernel, they can all use the same device drivers.
It's only problematic to support multiple variants of WinDOS at the driver level because Microsoft has made it that way. They didn't create a driver model that could stand the test of time when they released their first Win32 variants.
Re:Hold on a damn second (Score:2)
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".
Re:Hold on a damn second (Score:2)
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.
Re:Hold on a damn second (Score:2)
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.
Best Friend Money Can Buy (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Best Friend Money Can Buy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Best Friend Money Can Buy (Score:2)
> 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.)
Poor Slashdotters (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Poor Slashdotters (Score:2)
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.
Re:Poor Slashdotters (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what will happen. A clear winner _will_ emerge and the "monopoly" power will simply shift to a PC vendor, a PC vendor OS, and Microsoft's fragmented Windows. Now people must comply with a vendor's definition of an OS. Just like Linux supporters must comply to Red Hat's definition of Linux simply so they have a substantial market there. And you see this happening with the adoption of RPM into even _Slackware_! And Debian, SuSE, etc. must also use RPMs to have a fighting chance at the marketplace.
Do not think that this "remedy" does more than stir up the consumer marketplace for a limited time. So much time will be lost in the scramble for a winner that advancement will creep to a stop for at least a little while. This is hillarious. You know what fragmenting Windows will do to software makers? CREATE AN EVEN HIGHER BARRIER TO ENTRY! Between the time of Windows' fragmentation and a PC vendor's definition of "Windows" captures the market there will be an emmense barrier placed on software makers. Instead of supporting just Windows they now must support GatewayOS, DellOS, CompaqOS, etc. This means multiple ports which are _costly_. And you know who is in the best position for the shift of "monopoly" power? Apple. They are already working in this exact way. They control the hardware and the software. Software makers will simply flock to Apple because now MacOS has the larger consumer market. Goodbye cheap generic hardware. Goodbye Linux. We now all use MacOS X. The barrier to OS competition is now a brickwall. Hardware will once again move towards proprietary and away from cheap generic x86 and the OS will once again be a part _of_ the computer, rather than an interchangable part (which is allowed by Microsoft and IBM's doing).
This demand for choice is going to simply create no choice. Be thankful you can install Linux/BSD on almost any PC out there today. Back in the day it was the _hobby_ market which created the extreme demand for IBM's mostly free architecture (which can be seen by the ability to install a mostly hobby OS such as Linux even 20 years after the hardware hobby market has evaporated). It was easy to clone. Today that demand is extremely small compared to end-user demand. End-users don't care about proprietary hardware or software. They just want the applications they need. They don't care about shelling out huge amounts of cash either, which is why they consistently purchase Windows with new PCs (and they do this _knowingly_.. they aren't misled at all). Hell, they pay huge amounts of cash _just_ for the pretty iMac colors. Do you really want these same people in charge of demanding where applications flock? The fact that we have a widespread clonable architecture is a near miracle in its own right. I believe people are taking this for granted.
Re:Poor Slashdotters (Score:2)
Apart from that, indeed my next CPU will no more be an AMD.
Re:Poor Slashdotters (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Poor Slashdotters (Score:2)
Well, come on. They're only complying with the RPFJ. MS has made it clear that they don't consider using the (L)GPL to be a "viable business model", so they don't have to give their APIs to people who use them!
</SARCASM>
Per the ADA, SARCASM tags added for the sarcasm-impaired.
Here's an interesting twist..... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... )
Re:Here's an interesting twist..... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Valid Point? (Score:2)
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?
Yes, they would, because the profits are still the (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:20 years (Score:2, Insightful)
Does he really believe this crap? (Score:2, Interesting)
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!
I find that line particularly interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I really wonder what APIs or software code in the media player or IE AMD, a HARDWARE vendor relies on... I really do...eh? (Score:2)
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???
My enemies enemy is my friend... (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:My enemies enemy is my friend... (Score:2, Insightful)
I've heard something like this before... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 amd support (Score:2, Insightful)
eh? (Score:2)
Yeah, but now we know how to do things, and hopefully we can do them "right" this time.
Re:eh? (Score:2)
integration good? (Score:3, Interesting)
and then
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
Re:integration good? (Score:2)
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?
This is very odd (Score:2)
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: 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
Re:This is very odd (Score:2)
Windows, however, allows me to choose my hardware manufacturer. I can buy NT and then buy any x86 chip (there used to be quite a few) to run it on. I'm not tied down and I think that's what he's getting at.
Ah, but you are tied down; in fact, you're tied down to a pool that includes AMD. I think the point is that AMD is tied to providing for this pool (by sunk R&D, for example) even more strongly than you are tied to buying from it (by Windows). Elsewise his testimony seems unmotivated.
-- MarkusQ
Bizzare statements... (Score:2, Flamebait)
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).
Re:Bizzare statements... (Score:2)
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.
Goodbye Wintel.... (Score:2)
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.
Mr. Sanders needs a history lesson. (Score:3, Interesting)
[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.
Backroom arm twisting (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Backroom arm twisting (Score:2)
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.
Re:Backroom arm twisting (Score:2)
Jerry:Hello.
Bill: Hey, Jerry wouldn't it be funny if Windows
Jerry: Good one Bill. What can I do for you?
Re:Backroom arm twisting (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Most Important Finding in Yesterday's Proceedings (Score:3, Insightful)
Valid statement or plain old BS? (Score:3, Insightful)
How many processors can Linux compile on again? With exactly the same functionality?
Just curious.
GMFTatsujin
AMD == Microsoft's Bitch (Score:2)
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.
Strongest proof yet of MS' monopoly position (Score:2, Troll)
... 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.
Re:Strongest proof yet of MS' monopoly position (Score:2)
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.
The reason why they are taking MS's side.. (Score:2)
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!
Not like they have a choice. (Score:2)
20 years?? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Redhat takes Intel's side in Anti-Trust case (Score:2)
Killing any monopoly will harm customers (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Killing any monopoly will harm customers (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Doesn't make much sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Anyone care to see an outside opinion? (Score:2)
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)
Is it just me... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:as the truth unfolds... (Score:2, Funny)
or is it Advancing Microsoft's Development
--
Re:as the truth unfolds... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:as the truth unfolds... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:AMD's advantage (Score:2, Insightful)
'better' depends on point of view.
Re:AMD's advantage (Score:2)
If I want to pay a premium for especially selected hardware, I can just go buy a Sun or Apple.
Yep, it is the Pentium 4 (Score:2)
Re:Pathetic! (Score:2)
Re:AMD's advantage (Score:2, Informative)
I hate to say it, but Intel never got 'taken down', and how much more progress do you think AMD is going to make now that they have finally have the slower processors?
Sorry for the offtopic, but I have to blast these bizarre, dreamy head in the clouds claims when I see them.
Re:Boycot AMD! (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post starts by praising AMD for its quality products and valuable market role. After reading the rest of the post, however, it's hard to understand why you would want to boycott AMD simply because of their agreeing with Microsoft, regardless of whether or not AMD produces a superior product.
I really don't mean this to be a troll, but does AMD's support of Microsoft really make that much of a difference?
If I recall correctly, AMD was once hailed as the Linux of CPU's because they provided an inexpensive and valid competition to the (then evil) Intel juggernaught, who at the time had a rather strong relationship with Microsoft. Apparently the Slashdot community is now prepared to completely reverses that sentiment, condemning AMD and praising Intel.
If your perception of a product's quality depends solely on it's relationship with Microsoft, you really need to be more critical of the product itself, and less concerned with their affiliations.
This is messed up as he really is dead (Score:2)
.
Linux geeks supporting AMD? um no... (Score:4, Interesting)
Having sold Apple Computers for the last 9 months, I can tell you what 5% of the market feels like. I'd say over 60% of our foot traffic had never even heard of an Apple computer, and practically none of them knew what it meant to say that OSX is built on UNIX. To hedge their bets like that is to give up on the consumer PC market and join the Sun/Apple/Amiga's of the world.
I buy apple hardware, I run linux as well, but the rest of the business world (AMD/M$ included) really doesn't really give a damn.
Re:Why AMD did it? and the solution to MS's Monopo (Score:2)
You wouldn't demand that car dealers sell cars without engines, would you? Or if you did, you'd expect mucho pain. Expecting everybody to become a computer guru is not realistic because, frankly, for most people it's not a priority, much like most people don't know enough chemistry to produce their own pharmaceuticals and most haven't studied enough engineering or architecture to design their own homes.
Re:Proprietary hardware? (Score:3, Informative)