🚀 go-pugleaf

As an Intel shareholder, I find the billboards to be a transparently offensive
attempt to keep users locked into a proprietary, single-source architecture.

Microsoft, Intel and IBM are working it from the software side, too, via a thing
called OS/2.

The 386SX chip may not cost much more than the 286, but the final price of 386SX
systems are substantially higher.  I think the 386SX exists in order to keep
the price unreasonably high for the 386.

Anyone see that article in Business Week where an Intel VP (David House?)
said that the American RISC chip designer/manafacturers licensing those
designs to the Japanese was criminal?  While he may have a point in that
the agreements do give the Japanese more capability to compete in the
high-performance microprocessor market, it is fairly obvious that the extra
clout it puts behind the various non-Intel RISC chips may give one of them 
enough strength to supercede the currently dominant proprietary Intel CISC 
architecture -- and Intel would clearly view that more directly as a threat
to Intel itself, despite that VP's trying to present it as an America vs. 
Japan issue.

As long as I'm rambling, here's something that I find really amazing:
Apple is a four billion dollar a year company, while Intel does only three
billion a year.  How may products does Apple have total?  One, in a way...
the Mac and its derivitaves.  How many does Intel have?  Thousands, probably.
It's little wonder Apple is trying to use the legal system to stake out 
substantial protection for concepts and ideas they more or less got from
Xerox, since that's about the only thing they have to differentiate themselves
from everybody else.
-- 
-- uunet!ficc!karl	"The last thing one knows in constructing a work 
			 is what to put first."  -- Pascal