Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:The remaining 1/3 will turn off the lights. (Score 1) 147

Starting with the Pentium Pro the internal processor core of Intel processors has been essentially 100% RISC. They take the CISC commands and break them into a series of RISC commands and execute. So externally you are correct the commands are 100% CISC but that goes away after decode.

Comment What about other IP? (Score 2) 100

The Federal government pays a lot of money for research and development in a lot of areas, architecture, bridges, roads, jet engines, custom ASICs, etc etc. I used to design custom racks, brackets, conduit routing, power/heating/cooling systems for electronics. Think Humvees with quarter racks to a full mobile data center. It eventually got to the point where we were only doing something new/innovative every 3rd or 4th deal. Every other deal was use the bracket designed for A, the rack from B, the generator from C, etc. If we had to release those cad drawings we would have had no competitive edge. If they're saying code should be reusable across agencies and parts should be made open, when stop just at software?

Comment Re:Obviously (Score 1) 335

In regards to the women on women ism. I heard an interview with Claudia Goldin, professor at Harvard who studies gender equality. She holds that most of the pay gap can be controlled for. The interesting part is when they came to that small part that remained the interviewer asked, if woman are the victim who is the oppressor? Goldin said the natural response is to look at it in the binary, if women are the victims then not women, or men, must be the oppressors, but this isn't the correct way to see it, because this implies that women can't or won't impact earnings from other women and that's just isn't true from the statistics. Women both from their internal and external behaviors contribute, whether is asking for more flexible hours in exchange for lower pay or maintain that hourly flexibility should result in reduced wages.

Comment Re:Vote Hillary Clinton! Women Unite!! (Score 1) 335

Not all people are sexist or racist, so at some point the non-sexist person would see a female applicant, see them for the quality they were, and see the deal, 72 cents on the dollar, they could even split the difference, save 14% and have a competitive advantage, rinse repeat. This would ultimately create a mostly female, reasonably yet underpaid company with a massive economic advantage. I remember reading once that someone even tried to do it. Staff a chunk of his business with 72 cent on the dollar woman. He couldn't find them. While I believe sexism is still there and there is still some gender based wage discrimination in some businesses and some industries the gap number just isn't a valid apples to apples comparison.

Comment How on earth? (Score 3, Interesting) 84

A couple of reasons. First as others have mentioned IBM still needs the lines. IBM's processor design is fairly integrated. It needs custom circuits which really on their fabrication technology. Their chip design process is the antithesis of fabless development. So they can't just shut off lights to the fab without crippling the Power, Mainframe, and high end storage business for years to come. The other issue is there are customers getting chips manufactured. If you shut that down there are typically very steep contract termination fees. This is really 6 year wind down with higher costs every year. The fab business is very cutthroat, you have to hit fairly high yields and have the line near full capacity or else you lose a boatload because the fixed costs are so high. They've been getting out of this business for years, especially on the low end. This is just the last step.

Comment Re: Half a century (Score 1) 113

IBM is deploying system I on power now but they are still making custom z processors for the mainframe, although the mainframe can also have some power and x86 processors they really aren't for mainframe processing just hi RAS local access for offloading certain workloads. It's going to be interesting what arm does. There are multiple vendors looking at arm based servers with hp already having one out.

Comment Re:it's to fight the content owners (Score 2) 424

I'm regurgitating this from an article I read recently, so hopefully I'll do it justice. By and far the bundles are really the doing of cable companies as a way to try and control per channel costs. The stronger stances the channels have taken on their cut more recently are because they don't want to subdivide their channels anymore. Now the following scenario didn't play out for everyone but it played out for many. The way the bundles started was because channel wanted $x per month because they had y viewer hours. The cable company didn't want to set a precedent that Y viewable hours get $x so they said if you come out with a channel-2 we'll give you $.7x for channel-1 and $.3x for channel-2. This initially looked like a deal. Advertising money was skewed toward TV and the cable landscape was sparse. The channel didn't want the sister network to be a total dog because there was a cost and they needed to hit minimum bars to get some good advertising revenue so they shifted some content from channel-1 to channel-2 diluting the brand a little but cashed in for a ton of combo cash. The cable companies won as well. They got more channels, weaker individual channels, some of those channel-2's were exclusive for a period of time and now when a lesser channel came the could say the more popular channel only gets $.7x why do you deserve more? Now TV advertising has lost a bunch of share to web based advertising and the cable landscape has so many channels the -2,3,and 4s are just getting lost, so they no longer want to subdivide their brands, they want what they see as their fair share based of the number of hours viewers watch the channel. When you look at how some of the fights break down the cable companies portray it as greedy network wants a 100% increase. What they leave out it's a 100% increase on a rate established 6 years ago and this is the last rate increase they'll get for the next 5. They also leave out the network is just trying to get money more inline with what other networks are getting for the same amount of views. Neither is really at fault but neither is innocent. The predication is for cable prices to stay somewhere between flat to mildly up, network prices to increase faster, but the number of channels to start to decrease.

Comment Should read the low-end of the x86 business (Score 2) 202

The article should read the low end of the x86 business. IBM has already picked over the best parts of System X and moved them into PureSystems and has also started co-designing x86 server hardware with Hitachi for PureSystems. So they are going to be focusing on integrated server, networking, and storage plays instead of just plain standalone servers. Really trying to mimic the success EMC and NetApp have had partnering with Cisco and their UCS platform.

Comment Re:Summary should probably also mention... (Score 1) 202

IBM sold their hard drive division to Hitachi, storage is still in STG Lexmark was essentially a spin-off of the consumer printer group Ricoh purchased IBM's enterprise printer business Lenovo purchased IBM's PC group Network Hardware Group was sold to Cisco, NHD was drunk on token ring, although IBM is back into networking by purchasing BNT. Point of Sales systems was sold to Fujitsu IBM sold their low end PowerPC business to Applied Micro. Lenovo's also been OEMing low end IBM servers for years and if I understand it correctly selling them for a lower price at higher margin.

Comment Re:Lenovo - a collector of IBM garbage (Score 5, Interesting) 202

One man's trash is another man's treasure. Selling off PC group was a huge win for both companies. IBM shed a low margin business, margins that were so low investing the money the put into PC group into t-bills would have yielded more profit. Lenovo had a leaner operating structure and different business options being a Chinese company that would let them run higher margin and they've made more then enough profit to pay off the acquisition several times over. IBM also got a nice revenue stream from licensing IP to Lenovo as well as the services for running Lenovo's first line support as well as coordinating their break fix.

Slashdot Top Deals

A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.