Pentium M Crusade starts to take off

Hi,

I've read your article here.

I want to say that I've also start my personal crusade with Intel, since you've posted the news that reports selling of Pentium-M in Japan and the presence, at recent Cebit and IDF, of one Pentium-M rightly working on a respectively, Granite Bay and Plumas chipset.

I've also asked something about it to Intel, but without luck. Now, I'll make a test: I want to put a Pentium-M took from a Centrino notebook on a Granite Bay mobo, if the P-M has the 478mFcpga package.

Way to go with your crusade: having a Pentium-M desktop pc will be a benefit for the users. try to promote it to Intel!

Best regards

Gianluca Salina
Business Manager, Pro.Sys. s.a.s.

Here is Intel's own contribution to your Pentium M crusade.

Name, email address supplied

Now there's a phrase - Real Soon Now.

But how many people can tell you where it comes from? I can, if you allow for the details I might have forgotten during the past 20 years.

Epson was making a very serious attempt to enter the PC business back in 83. It was manufacturing some very advanced hardware in those days, as you see here.

One of which was the QX 10 an 8-bit PC (Zilog Z 80A) that was in need of an OS. Forth was the language upon which it was based. Bad Mistake.

Chris Rutkowski was the person in charge of this outsourced project and headed a small group called Rising Star. It was their job to deliver the OS, written in Forth. The progress (or lack thereof) in the development of the OS for the Epson PC was monitored closely in the press by Jerry Pournell (jerrypournell.com) who had a column (Chaos Manor) in Byte Magazine. Pournelle used his column to track the anticipated arrival of the computer and duly noted that its market entry was being held up by the fact that the Forth-based OS was not actually complete enough to allow the computer to be used as intended.

Typically Pournell's monthly column contained references to the overdue project with statements to this effect; "I just finished talking to Chris Rutkowski and he assures me that the next version of the team's operating system, the one which fixes all the things that are broken or not done yet, will be ready REAL SOON NOW", and the QX 10 will ship to the public.

Well, this went on and on and on. The OS never did get finished, at least not on time, and the computer was doomed to obscurity. The phrase, Real Soon Now, lives on, however, and is often invoked. And now you know whence it comes.

Gene Mosher, email address supplied

hehe.... who the hell does a test using redhat? ROFL

Why didn't they test against Gentoo or something? Redhat is one of the worst distributions of Linux ever. Comparable to Windows ME.

That article is about as accurate as the Jerry Springer show....

Later.......

Name, email supplied

Great job on your description in the RIAA deceit campaign!

As a p2p network hubowner in the Direct Connect system, I appreciate anyone who is not fooled by the RIAA's purported losses.

I thought this page would be of interest to you.

I'm glad someone in the media understands that mp3s are not stealing music -- they are the best advertising an artist could hope for. Regards,
Jile, email address supplied

Since Microsoft's new license "agreements" (Like that term..."you agree or else you can't use what 90% of the American public use") prohibit you from publishing or talking about any benchmark which involves their .net products, including OSes, without advance written permission from Microsoft, won't all benchmarks with Microsoft products be illegal? (Unless someone can find one that favors Microsoft and gets prior written approval?)

On the plus side for journalists, I suspect that getting those written permissions will be easier if you obtain the list of what to test and how, (and which of those results you want to publish) from Microsoft. This should vastly simplify your job.

No longer will you have to take silly detours that simply compare all products in all ways. Now you can just test one or two items on one or two particular tests, and, they will probably help point those out to you.

Note, this is VERY different from when they used to provide written material for Ziff-Davis columnists monthly columns. This prevents those columnists from erring by presenting ANY data other than pre-approved.

Joe

I'm sending this via the "flame..." link, though the flame level is intended to be pretty mild -- I'm fairly sure you'll get a bunch of replies about how unbalanced the "test" was [things like block sizes on the linux system being "the default" while the windows side was tweaked] so I won't go into those.

What I would like to see, however, is for folks to advocate a series of trials that are designed to "level the field" a bit:

* an "out of the box" test: under careful observation that "pure defaults" are chosen for an off-the-shelf [random sampling] install, then run the tests. points deducted if any "system/kernel" level changes are needed to actually perform the test, and if system "A" needs to make a change, proponents of system "B" are allowed to make the same of functionally similar change and repeat the test, keeping the better of the two scores.

* a "performance pro" test: have the top people for each respective platform pull out "all the stops" to make their system the fastest. The systems should, of course, be kept on separate networks to avoid "interference" from one system to the other

and finally,

* a "real world" test: have sys admins enter a random drawing -- pick 5-10 for each system and have them do the "performance pro" test to the best of their abilities (no consulting between team members, though perhaps allow them internet access to research techniques...) The "real world" part of this isn't the software nor knowledge of esoteric settings, but rather a test of "the guy you hired last week being able to maximize the system"

http://www.intel.com/design/network/devnet/mempress.htm http://www.intel.com/platforms/applied/eiacomm/perform5/perform5.htm http://www.advantech.com.tw/content/0000001073/0000001073.asp?css=corp&name= corp

Kind Inq Staff,

I think all this concern about Win XP right click menus eating 100% of CPU time is a bit off the true mark. Since the introduction of XP the shop where I work has received for "repair" literally hundreds and hundreds of XP machines where the CPU wails away at 100% usage at all times right from boot-up. In most cases the villain has been the installation of InterActual DVD player or PCFriendly DVD player on a computer that already has a decoder although there have been a few times where the cause has not been obvious. But the symptoms are exactly the same as the right click with the same devastating effects on music, video playback, etc. and it is possible the two are related.

Over the last year and a half the only guaranteed repair for all these units has been an FDISK/Re-install. This situation has been extremely common and resulted in many, many refunds of computer purchases.

Name, email supplied

Y'know, Mike, I'm quite looking forward to this... in a kind of Goetterdaemmerung reverse-nostalgic way. No actually, it's more Armageddon I'm thinking of.

When Rustworthy Computing sets in, and PCs come with all sorts of clever RIAA-Intel-Microsoft hardware to stop you doing what they don't like, there will perhaps be a Reckoning. As the PC becomes a highly constricted device whose functioning is firmly out of the "owner's" (better make that "consumer's") control, we may actually see the rebirth of a "real computing" market.

Even if there are 1 billion consumer PC devices being sold every year, and only - say - 10 million or so proper computers, the people who prefer the latter could at last get on with advancing the state of the practice without being continually dragged down by the market-oriented obfuscations of Microsoft and others.

The PC devices will be "programmed" (to the very limited extent they can be) in VBscript, while the owners of real computers - hardware by AMD, etc., Linux, Apache, Mozilla, etc. - can apply proper software engineering principles (or XP, according to taste) to deliver interesting, useful, reliable and security applications.

We may even be able to partition Usenet so that the clueless, abusive louts who dominate far too many newsgroups at present will go and dwell in the Rustworthy Computing groups (.rust?) and leave the others to people who really want to compare notes and learn how to do things better.

Utopian? Probably. All this depends on clueless politicians not making real computing illegal.

Tom
Email address supplied

Hi Mike,

I read your [actually €uromole's] article yesterday about the RIAA. I ended up going all the way through it - it was one of the best I've read.

This link I'm sending relates to the subject. It's very revealing and unique. Its not long - I do think you will enjoy it.

L'INQ

Steve, email address supplied

Mad Mike,

How's this one?

A client of ours has a server machine that has a very disk intensive PostScript RIP application which creates and destroys very large files 24 hours a day, weekdays. They have very high speed 8-way RAID 0+1 dual channel SCSI sub-system for this machine which operates at about 28-46Mb/sec sustained read/write performance with REAL application measurements. The total disk size is 124Gb approx, sometimes we get down to 10Gb free. No file is larger than 2Gb.

For A$1000, Diskeeper 7.0 Server cannot get this disk defragmented over a weekend. In frustration we bought a 120Gb Western Digital IDE HD and now we copy off all the data, and then copy it back over the weekend as a more effective defrag. It takes about 6 hours to do this, late Saturday night.

Why does Diskeeper perform so poorly? It has always been crap, and not once does it stretch the drive system to 28Mb/sec performance. Why? It should be hammering those SCSI drives read/writing.

We get nothing but silence from Executive Software. I've tried pursuing this over the years but nothing. This is the crowning turd - using another 120Gb HD to do the job for 1/5 the price.

Would any of your readers care to comment?

Regards,

Connor, email address supplied

Good Morning Guys

I just had to comment on the total stupidity of this little boy. He obviously had no computer experience for 1998.

"Xeon price attack.

Thank God! The Opteron prices were way out of line with their price-to-performance ratio. Add on top of the outrageously priced chip the cheapest motherboard is $533!

AMD is going to have to shit or get off the pot.

David"

This child has no memory of P266 or P133 - every one of these processors came out from Intel with an average price tag of $1000 to $1200 us dollars a pop. I bought an AMD 500 Mgz Slot A and motherboard for $550, and was so happy.

This fool above should get down on his knees and kiss AMD's you know what that he can even afford and buy a top of the line chip and MB at all, the spoiled little brat.

Oh well, the world is full of fools

Have a Great Day!

Brian Martinez, email address supplied

It begins: Rustworthy (sic) computing firm ...

As my mouthful of coffee wended its way up, around, through and out of my nostrils I made a mental note to make certain my lawyer bills you for the cost of a replacement keyboard (and a new cup of coffee) .

Thanks for the smile on my dial!

Regards>
John Beamish, email address supplied

I just submitted this article to the FTC, asking if the RIAA activities are legal.

(re: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9380) Name, email address supplied

Dude what an awesome article, you obviously did your homework, although it was quit long I learned quit a bit of information . Have you ever thought about being a Lawyer, because If I were a Judge the Argument you just Gave Should Get a Perfect 10. And now I know why http://www.theinquirer.net is my HOME PAGE :).

Jason Chavous
Email address supplied

Subject: Intel ranked third from top in business ethics

So.....all your bullshit stories about Intel "strongarming" this company and that company were just hogwash?

Paul R. Engel
Email address supplied

Subject: [Fwd: The SCO lawsuit as dark comedy] feedback

From: Harvey Zimmerman Egan I suppose you have to write about something. I suggest you pick a subject you have a clue about. The amount of UNIX IP in Linux is far more than you or any OSS person would or could admit to. For a small example, the lovely SGI kernel scale ability stuff so graciously open sourced, was UNIX IP as it was based on licensed UNIX IP.

Why don't you investigate Intel as the cause of all the current issues, when Intel persuaded IBM and HP to help develop Linux for the Itanium. The story goes Intel wanted a very inexpensive OS for its new server lines and was tired of being held for ransom (no pun intended) by Microsoft. To make Linux viable for Business some very serious work needed to be done and that to accomplish the goals, Big Corporate guidance was needed.

First, fund a company sufficiently to represent Linux as in a meaningful way to Fortune the 500 and the large international corporations both in and outside of the US.

So, Red Hat gets set up big time with investments and contracts. Second, gets lots of experienced salaried Unix people to work on Linux (starting in 1998).

[Mind you SCO's Gemini 64 was about six months from beta (Nov 1998) for its complete support for the Itaniumin mid 1999, before IBM offered SCO a deal it could not refuse, only if they immediately stopped and discontinued all work on Gemini 64, for Monterey or AIX5L].

Yes, IBM, HP, Intel, Compaq and others moved employees and hired new ones to work on Linux. Many had been working with SCO UnixWare or had access to its source and were trained in its internal workings. Does that mean they used UNIX IP? They certainly did not follow the UNIX IP licensing guidelines. A court will determine that (and my guess is that Linux will have to go back to 2.2.x). The only company with Licensed UNIX IP and the right to extend its license is SUN. Hence, you could have obtained most of the Solaris 8 source, once you agreed to the extended UNIX IP licensing agreement.

Third, Intel seduced IBM and HP with the vision of all of their platforms running on the same OS.

Magically all of IBM's and HP's inter machine communication nightmares would be gone.

HP would stop spending $ on its own processor Line. Large cost saving for IBM and HP once they had an enterprise worthy Linux (dropping AIX and HP-UX by the end of 2005).

After SCO acquired UnixWare from Novel, Novel's UnixWare workers went to SCO and HP with the agreement to jointly develop a 64 bit UnixWare. HP was reluctant to provide their share of the work and within a year or so, the arrangement ended.

An Aside, I am not saying that many fine ideas and contributions have come from the OSS and the GNU folks. I am saying there is lots going on behind the scenes of which all but the insiders are clueless about. The ranting and raging that I continue to read expresses the mental and emotional immaturity of, what appears to be, a large segment of the OSS. As for OSS's president saying SCO is slurring them, when they said "could have been responsible".

All one needs to do is read some threads and its clear from the comments on DoS, Boycotts, etc that it's not windows crackers or hackers behind the DoS attack. Which points to one of the drawbacks of OSS development model, no control or accountability of the diverse contributors.

Fourth, while SCO's complaint appears to have numerous erroneous facts and various members of their high level management are not on the same page does not detract from the fact that they have a very real case to present. If SCO prevails, then Linux and even the GNU tool chain may suffer. This is going to be a long drawn out process, probably many years.

Fifth, from experience I can attest to the difficulty of developing an OS and to make it enterprise worthy. The effort to organize and manage the PSS portion is daunting, coordinating the architecting and design, project implementation and inter communication. The required equipment is staggering (in acquisition and operation), 16 and 32 processor based systems, with 16gb or 64gb of memory and 1024 or more fixed and removable drives with supporting hba controllers, 4 or 8 or more NIC's, routers, A/C and conditioned power is and more than small corporations have for business. Access to the latest technical materials licensed only to bonded entities with long established working arrangements is something that does not happen easily.

These things have been coming to Linux companies more easily today, as a result of the foundation laid through Red Hat. Academic knowledge is good, UNIX kernel experience is better.

UnixWare scales better (higher utilization rate per added CPU) then another OS! When Oracle wants to show case its DB performance or try for new performance Records, they use UnixWare.

The year to year grind is why so many OSS projects peter out. The Corporate $s have sustained the Linux and GNU communities. Linus, would most likely be earning a living and doing Linux part time, if he were not being salaried to deal with Linux. The same is true of a great many of the major contributors.

Investigate where the $ and influence comes from. That would be a good story, oh I forgot, you shoot from the hip and investigative reporting is not your thing.

Sixth, there a number of Linux developers employed by SUN, SGI, Lucent and UniSys that have access to UNIX IP and/or UnixWare source, even thought they are not working on Linux for their company.

Eric Carp, a long tine SUN employee claimed to me that over the years when Linux developers were asked if they were doing anything improper with regard to IP, "...nobody raided their hand", was his response.

If that is the extent of the Linux, OSS and GNU communities attempts to determine if IP has been used in any of their projects, then they are in deep trouble.

Why not track whom contributed what from what entity, that might help clear things up. Harvey Zimmermann, email supplied

Subject: RIAA Terriorist Org? Couldn't you under the existing terrorist laws perform some sort of citizen's arrest of the RIAA? Suppose some Air Force guy downloads a copy of a RIAA trojan horse and it runs in a high sensitive area. Isn't that the same as terrorism? And as our leader George W. Bush has stated publicly to have to pre-emptivily strike against terrorists.

Seems to make sense to me at least.

Name, email address supplied