🚀 go-pugleaf

willmore@whelk.cig.mot.com (David A Willmore) wrote:


>[sorry for the loss of atributions]
>>: 	The P6 really isn't an issue in the pricing structure of the pentium
>>: chip.  It's a nice piece of technology, but it's geared for corporate
>>: duty, not the home & small business market
>[...deleted...]
>>: 			Best `o luck,   Hal

>This strikes me as a common theme from Intel.  New processor comes out,
>people predict the price of the previous processor will decrease, Intel
>says "No, this one is for a different market, it won't compete with 
>(previous chip)", price on previous chip drops a little after it normally 
>would have when everyone buys current chip.  The point of the arguement
>is, Intel doesn't decide who buys the chips, the consumers do.  If someone
>wants a P6 at home, they're going to buy one.  System makers will make one
>for the home market and the people who want it will buy it.  All processors
>compete with each other.  Face it, x86 cpu's are a commodity. 


>Cheers,
>David

Dead right.  And let's say that Quake or some other hot new game
"really runs best on a P6", according to some smug reviewer.  And
heck, for business I really only need a 386 for word processing, etc.
(which, sadly, I have).  My "home PC" is going to be a fast Pentium.
"Business use"??! Intel's holding the P6 because it doesn't run 16-bit
code fast enough, and Microsoft's sold about half of the "32-bit"
Win95 packages it had expected to.  They screwed up.

Mark