Intel's Chip Naming Policy

[MacRumors]

Reuters reports (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&ncid=738&e=2&u=/nm/20040320/tc_nm/tech_intel_marketing_dc) that Intel announced that they would no longer be using processor speed as part of the name of upcoming processors.

Instead, Intel plans on introducing model numbers:

Intel's new model numbers give each Intel processor brand a series number. Within desktop computer chips, for instance, the low-end Celeron chip will be given the 300 series, the high-end Pentium 4 will be given the 500 series label, and its Pentium 4 Extreme Edition will be given the 700 series.

The move is expected to cause some confusion and require some reeducation of consumers.

[SeaFox]

The move is expected to cause some confusion and require some reeducation of consumers.

"reeducation of consumers" I had a flash of Orwellian 1984 and brainwashing when I saw that line. :D

"I'm afraid you've strayed from the normal mode of behavior in our society, we'll have to send you to a Reeductaion Complex to correct this personality imbalance"

[Kagetenshi]

But... but... but how will they maintain their lead via deceptive advertising?

~J

[mangoduck]

isn't the average consumer confused enough already? now they're using numbers that have little or nothing to do with speed, that only indicate the class of processor, and no other specifications along side... this is exactly what apple got away from (remember the LCs and vintage powermacs).

perhaps they're starting to shift people's focus towards things other than clock speed because they're stuck like moto was. i have a couple extra megahertz myths they can have for cheap.

[Abstract]

isn't the average consumer confused enough already? now they're using numbers that have little or nothing to do with speed, that only indicate the class of processor, and no other specifications along side... this is exactly what apple got away from (remember the LCs and vintage powermacs).

perhaps they're starting to shift people's focus towards things other than clock speed because they're stuck like moto was. i have a couple extra megahertz myths they can have for cheap.

Exactly what I was thinking. They can't keep the GHz increase coming, so they're changing their naming scheme to fool people into thinking that they're making huge progress despite the slowdown in speed improvements.

And I already do not understand their naming scheme. What happens if they increase the clock speed of a proc of a P4? Do they make th improvements without changing the name of the chip? That's what they do in the car industry, I guess, but now in computers as well?

And why the 3, 5, and 7 series? Hopefully BMW can sue them for taking a very popular BMW naming scheme that's very close to the identity of BMW. When people say "3-series", the name BMW should come up, not Intel. :rolleyes:

[zync]

Exactly what I was thinking. They can't keep the GHz increase coming, so they're changing their naming scheme to fool people into thinking that they're making huge progress despite the slowdown in speed improvements.

And I already do not understand their naming scheme. What happens if they increase the clock speed of a proc of a P4? Do they make th improvements without changing the name of the chip? That's what they do in the car industry, I guess, but now in computers as well?

And why the 3, 5, and 7 series? Hopefully BMW can sue them for taking a very popular BMW naming scheme that's very close to the identity of BMW. When people say "3-series", the name BMW should come up, not Intel. :rolleyes:

I was thinking that myself :D

[kpants]

Exactly what I was thinking. They can't keep the GHz increase coming, so they're changing their naming scheme to fool people into thinking that they're making huge progress despite the slowdown in speed improvements.

Not to defend Intel, but I think there's a bit more to this. To quote a news bit from Ars Technica:

Intel's Pentium M is near and dear to the company, and that this is the central impetus behind this move.

http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1079200740.html

The article basically discusses the noticeable slowdown in Intel's speed bump-ups, the growing popularity of the AMD 64s and the PPC 970s, and the importance of the Pentium M to the company's success. I think the M uses elements from both the P3 and P4, so it's not going to be a super fast chip initially, though it'll supposedly be better in the long run than the toasty P4.

[Booga]

So Intel will have their 300, 500, and 700 series... and IBM will be selling the PowerPC 970. I think IBM and Apple should do a pre-emptive strike in advertising their 900-series chip even while Intel is rolling out their new naming scheme.

[Highland]

Intel's Pentium M is near and dear to the company, and that this is the central impetus behind this move.
So they'll keep the 'M' badge?

Wow BMW will be so happy when Intel are branding their chips as 3-series, 5-series, 7-series, M3 and M5. :rolleyes:

[crenz]

Wow BMW will be so happy when Intel are branding their chips as 3-series, 5-series, 7-series, M3 and M5. :rolleyes:

If they're clever, they'll wait till Intel has spend loads of money on a new ad campaign, then sue them :p

[vpalvarez]

isn't the average consumer confused enough already?

Talk about an understatement

[Bakey]

Instead, Intel plans on introducing model numbers

Wasn't it Intels decision to drop the number convention in the first place, as Mr. Judge announced they [Intel] couldn't trademark a "number" eg. 386, 486 - all around the time when the likes of AMD and Cyrix began making headway in the introduction of their own flavours of the x86 line of processors.

Hence the introduction of the Pentium as it was a "name" trademark rather than it being called the 586 - and thus the beginning of the "Intel Inside" campaign.

If my memory serves me correctly of course!

;)

[amols]

I think this is a desperate move from Intel since Microsoft kicked them out of Xbox 2. And after-all, "Confusion of consumers" has always favored Intel.

[bumfilter]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but, are processor speed-bumps really that slow to happen? I once read that Intel could update the processor speed significantly every year but were limited by law (so people don't have completly out-of-date computers a year after purchase).

I think the article said something about being near 30Ghz by 2010. I assume this is all nonsense then?!

[Analog Kid]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but, are processor speed-bumps really that slow to happen? I once read that Intel could update the processor speed significantly every year but were limited by law (so people don't have completly out-of-date computers a year after purchase).

I think the article said something about being near 30Ghz by 2010. I assume this is all nonsense then?!

Yeah, it's nonsense. Or satire...

Can you really imagine the government coming in and saying "I'm sorry, you're improving productivity too quickly." There's legal restrictions on exports to certain countries, but they'd never limit domestic improvements.

[Analog Kid]

Wasn't it Intels decision to drop the number convention in the first place, as Mr. Judge announced they [Intel] couldn't trademark a "number" eg. 386, 486 - all around the time when the likes of AMD and Cyrix began making headway in the introduction of their own flavours of the x86 line of processors.

Hence the introduction of the Pentium as it was a "name" trademark rather than it being called the 586 - and thus the beginning of the "Intel Inside" campaign.

If my memory serves me correctly of course!
You're right. I think they're keeping the Pentium moniker and adding an arbitrary number to it rather than a speed rating. Interesting that Intel is taking yet-another-page from the AMD strategy book...

Some of this, I think, is driven by the fact that Prescott can't ramp up to speed as quickly as they hoped, and some is driven by the fact that the Itanic and Pentium M are running at lower speeds than the mainstream Pentium4 lines but with better performance per clock.

The Extreme Edition parts are running at the same clock but with much larger caches-- thus the higher series numbers.

Companies learned long ago that it's much better to rely on marketing than on an intelligent and informed consumer. A trick they picked up from jury selections, I think...

[rdowns]

Does anyone really think the manufacturers won't slap the GHz at the end of the chip series #? Pentium 500 series 3.4 GHz.

[jxyama]

Does anyone really think the manufacturers won't slap the GHz at the end of the chip series #? Pentium 500 series 3.4 GHz.

no, they won't be able to. AMD have had a policy in place ever since they re-named their processors with "arbituary" numbers (ex. "2500") that the actual clockspeed of the chips NOT be posted. and manufacturers have been faithful. they obviously re-named their chips to imply "effective" clockspeed, i.e. "2500" being effectively as fast as intel's 2.5 GHz chip, even though the actual clockspeed is "slower." this was, obviously, to counter intel's (now) FUDish marketing policy of touting higher clockspeed for the sake of clockspeed.

with pentium M's, intel's paying the price for its own FUDish policy. because P-M's are clocked lower, their sales have been rather slow - "average" consumers have been purchasing PIV, PIV-M or Celeron laptops instead of P-M laptops because the former had higher clockspeed.

[MorganX]

with pentium M's, intel's paying the price for its own FUDish policy. because P-M's are clocked lower, their sales have been rather slow - "average" consumers have been purchasing PIV, PIV-M or Celeron laptops instead of P-M laptops because the former had higher clockspeed.


I disagree. I believe the laptops you mentioned are selling more than P-M based laptops because P-M based laptops cost more. I believe Intel is changing the naming scheme and moving away more Speed Rules based marketing because they have finally reached a point of diminishing returns on speed increases and possibly the limit of significant speed increases given today's reduced power requirements. It made no sense, for Intel, until now. All CPUs can benefit from more speed. Intel was able to get more speed than other architectures to keep ahead, that is no longer the case and they must employ other methods to keep their CPUs on top.

[jxyama]

I disagree. I believe the laptops you mentioned are selling more than P-M based laptops because P-M based laptops cost more.

we are both right...

But Intel has failed to communicate that performance difference to retail buyers, who compare a 1.6-GHz Pentium M processor with a 2.4-GHz Mobile Intel Pentium 4-M processor, and think the 2.4-GHz label denotes the higher performing chip, Sargent says. And when those buyers look at the notebook's price tag, and discover the Pentium M notebook costs a few hundred dollars more, they are opting for the Mobile Intel Pentium 4-M notebook, he adds.

Full article from PCWorld.com (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113059,00.asp)

[deco]

I think that Intel has been successful in beating off AMD, etc. This is more about the fact that IBM is closing the MHz gap really fast, and what is more they are doing it with cooler chips, inexpensively, and 64-bit designs. IBM did not really focus on any consumer distribution for their chips, so Intel was safe. Now they are not. Clearly the Apple campaign closed the gap, and the XBox was a blow, since game machines by perception run "fast." IBM is betting on no MHz difference by the end of this year. Also the choice of series is no accident. Intel clearly thinks they have a chance to win that court battle.

[cr2sh]

But... but... but how will they maintain their lead via deceptive advertising?
~J
Holy **** that's funny. :D

So I go into BestBuy, and I'm Joe schmoe..and I'm looking at a peecee. I say to the bestbuy monkey, "how fast is this machine?" and he says "well.. that's a pentium class 5." and i say "what does that mean?" and he says "well, its faster than a 3.. but slower than a 7." and I say "are those numbers arbitrary or do they represent something?" and he says "they're.. uh... arbitrary."
Thank you intel. Thank you. :confused:

I can see it now... "Introducing.. the 7 Series Intel." and then in 4months.. "Introducing... the 7 Series Elite." and then 4 months later "Introducing.. the 7 Series 64bit."

Its so pathetic. Intel just admitted that the megahertz doesn't count for much.. they're going to make up a number and use it to sell their chips. (although some would argue they've been doing that with their fsb for a while now. :D)

[Snowy_River]

If they're clever, they'll wait till Intel has spend loads of money on a new ad campaign, then sue them :p

Assuming that the courts would agree that there is an infringement here (which is quite questionable, as we're dealing both with two different industries and with 500-series vs 5-series), they couldn't wait too long, as ownership of a trademark requires that you're proactive in defending it. If they were to wait too long the courts could find that they weren't sufficiently proactive in defending their intellectual property from a known potential infringer, and therefore the trademark would pass into the public domain.

[Snowy_River]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but, are processor speed-bumps really that slow to happen?

Check the Intel Pentium speed bump history. Here's (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=737549#post737549) a post that I made that includes a chart of the history. You can see that the last two years have seen a slow-down in the rate of speed bumps from them...

[Dippo]

Microsoft copies Apple.

Intel copies AMD.

What else is new?

[Quixcube]

It looks like AMD is going to have to push a new naming convention too...

Introducing the new AMD Athlon 700+ processor! It lacks something, huh?

[Quixcube]

It looks like AMD is going to have to push a new naming convention too...

Introducing the new AMD Athlon 700+ processor! It lacks something, huh?
Hmm... looks like they did :) Sorry. I should follow processors more closely.

I wonder what the next buzz word in PC shopping will be. Megahertz were so much fun to chase.

[Kagetenshi]

It looks like AMD is going to have to push a new naming convention too...

Introducing the new AMD Athlon 700+ processor! It lacks something, huh?

You mean actual information? Yeah, it does lack that.

~J

[mrsebastian]

hey intel, go [bleep] yourself! this is part of why i hate pcs. i mean we've all had that argument with a friend, how he just got the 6 gazillion meg processor from intel. then he wants to show you how fast it is, turns it on, and your waiting for an hour, while winblows figures out what the hell it's doin. at which point i tell him that's exactly my point, "you just blew a crap load of money and you got [bleep]! it's ok though, 'cause you can at least tell people, oh yeah, i got the new 6 gazillion meg processor from intel!" get a g5 with osx and be happy!

[Snowy_River]

hey intel, go [bleep] yourself! this is part of why i hate pcs. i mean we've all had that argument with a friend, how he just got the 6 gazillion meg processor from intel. then he wants to show you how fast it is, turns it on, and your waiting for an hour, while winblows figures out what the hell it's doin. at which point i tell him that's exactly my point, "you just blew a crap load of money and you got [bleep]! it's ok though, 'cause you can at least tell people, oh yeah, i got the new 6 gazillion meg processor from intel!" get a g5 with osx and be happy!

You know, there's a degree to which I dislike trolling in favor of Macs as much as I dislike trolling against them. Windows machines do work. I've never seen a high end Intel machine (which is what I'm assuming you're implying with '6 gazillion meg processor') that doesn't start up Windows in about the same amount of time that a high end Mac takes to start up OS X. If you're going to rail against Windows and Intel, at least do it in a reasonable and defendable way...

[jasonbw]

no, they won't be able to. AMD have had a policy in place ever since they re-named their processors with "arbituary" numbers (ex. "2500") that the actual clockspeed of the chips NOT be posted. and manufacturers have been faithful. they obviously re-named their chips to imply "effective" clockspeed, i.e. "2500" being effectively as fast as intel's 2.5 GHz chip

I believe the actual company line is that the model number is the speed differential between AMD's own chips, not intels (ie the AMD 2500 was 2.5 times as fast as a 1gig AMD chip, not a 1gig Pentium (winkwink, nudgenudge.)

i think the real reason behind this is that the clock speed/performance correlation between say a 3.2g and 3.4g chip is lessening. It's roughly 6% faster in raw clockspeed, but the performance benchmarks are closer to 5% and under in some cases. By the time intel hits the promised 5ghz mark, even an increase from a 4.5 ghz chip will only be 9% faster at maximum (considering that there is no revolutionary architectural changes, but even the new prescott chips are running slower than the previous generation chip).

i think this was coming for a while now, AMD was smart enough to see it earlier. Apple/IBM may eventually turn to it then as well.

[mangoduck]

Does anyone really think the manufacturers won't slap the GHz at the end of the chip series #? Pentium 500 series 3.4 GHz.

who says they have to? amd doesn't. consider the following hypothetical conversation:

- so it's an "athlon xp 2800" eh? does that mean it's 2800MHz, a 2.8? i don't see the specs anywhere.

- no, it's actually 2.08.

- then what's the 2800 for?

- iunno. means it's better than the 2700.

- but you could have used any numbers to show that. why such big ones? you could say an 8 is better than a 7. or letters, an "e" is better than a "d".

- but that wouldn't be as conf- i uh, iunno. they're powerful processors, and "2800" sounds powerful. that's what we're trying to convey. have a look at this model over here...

- it's ****e. your whole naming system is ****e. pants!

and that, folks, is how it all started. after the conversation moved to "why are there 2 processor class identifiers in the name, 'xp' and the unnecessarily large '2800' right next to each other", the disgruntled consumer ran off to the east and founded communist china. he lived happily ever after, never to be heard from again. and that's why groundhogs hate their shadows. and that's why sales reps have shirts with two buttons.

[jxyama]

isn't it all ironic that those who are most likely to be tricked/fooled/confused by performance indicator schemes (by the clockspeed, "AMD style" or "new" Intel scheme) are the ones who are least affected by their differences?

if you are a pro or mildly tech savy, you will know the performance difference regardless of the numbering scheme and most importantly, why those differences would be relevant.

if you are confused by all this, your uses are likely emailing, web surfing and Office - and it won't matter much whatever the processor you get for those tasks...

ahh, the irony...

[benpatient]

which is exactly why it doesn't matter. Intel can call them whatever the heck they want.

you think the 5 PC people who know the Mac world exists don't laugh at "G3" "G4" and "G5"?

remember when the new G4s were slower in Mhz than the new G3s?

Have you seen what an intel P4 EE 3.2 can do over a standard P4 3.2?

all that cache makes them roll...

we need two processors to keep up with (and in some cases pass) these things...

I've had a rediculous amount of trouble with my G5 and with Panther, if you ask me. I've got a PC at home that happily plays games my Dual 1.8 locks up trying to run. Apple's response is to "reformat the computer" which i have barely owned for a month and "start over."

Right. an entire magazine happens on this thing. I guess i'm lucky games don't work for crap, because my productivity would go down.

My PC is now 9 months old (i built it by hand), and I've not had to do anything to it since about week 2...i tried to impliment a RAID array after-the-fact and made a mess...

since then, it's been virtually indestructible, with the occasional (once every 3 months or so) unexpected reboot (i'm overclocking the graphics card, which is probably the excuse for the reboot).

My G5's power button has performed hard-boot duties more than 10 times so far...

anyway, i love this thing, but it's not perfect, and PCs are really no where near as bad as most of you guys seem to think. You're as ignorant as the 90% of computer users who think Mac's and PCs can't network together.

And by the way,, mr 6 gazillion megahertz, WinXP start-up time from a cold boot situation is as fast as or faster than all Mac OSes before Panther. Now they are very close...close enough that it isn't a relevant difference...

[MacFan25]

In some ways this seems like a good idea, but why bother changing the naming policy. It's been working for years, and I believe for the most part, most consumers understand the current system.

Of course, maybe they are just becoming afraid that the G5 will soon be at 3+Ghz..., and they can't the competition. :p

[Snowy_River]

which is exactly why it doesn't matter. Intel can call them whatever the heck they want.

you think the 5 PC people who know the Mac world exists don't laugh at "G3" "G4" and "G5"?

I don't know anyone on either side that finds the G3, G4, G5 naming scheme any funnier than the P2, P3, P4 naming scheme.

remember when the new G4s were slower in Mhz than the new G3s?

Check your history. When the G4 first came out, it was released at a top end 500MHz, as compared to the previous 450MHz for the G3 PM. Now, due to supply problems with Moto, the G4 was down-graded to 450MHz almost immediately, but it was never slower than the G3s.

Have you seen what an intel P4 EE 3.2 can do over a standard P4 3.2?

all that cache makes them roll...

and is a move to bolster a chip that they're having trouble pushing faster...

we need two processors to keep up with (and in some cases pass) these things...

Well, yes, we need two processors to keep up with, say, a dual Xeon. Two processors vs. two processors. Yes, there are some tests where a single P4 can out-perform a dual G5, but there are also tests where a single (1.6GHz) G5 can out-perform a dual (3.2GHz) P4 Xeon. It's too easy to quote figures back and forth. Over all, based on everything that I've seen, these chips are comparable. Therefore, the dual G5 is on a par with a dual Xeon.

I've had a rediculous amount of trouble with my G5 and with Panther, if you ask me. I've got a PC at home that happily plays games my Dual 1.8 locks up trying to run.

There is a simple reason why Macs aren't gaming machines: THE GAMES AREN'T WRITTEN FOR THEM. They're written for the PC, using things like DirectX, then they're ported over to the Mac, usually poorly. Just because a game is crashing your computer doesn't mean that the computer is bad.

Apple's response is to "reformat the computer" which i have barely owned for a month and "start over."

Well, in point of fact, this is a good idea with any new computer, whether Mac or PC. The first thing that I do when I get a new machine is reformat the drive and go. It's just a good measure. If you didn't do this, then you're reaping the benefits. If you did do this, it sounds like whatever games your trying to run are wreaking havoc with your system. Again, not the fault of the computer or Apple.

My PC is now 9 months old...i love this thing, but it's not perfect, and PCs are really no where near as bad as most of you guys seem to think. You're as ignorant as the 90% of computer users who think Mac's and PCs can't network together.

Great. I'm glad that your PC does what you want it to. Clearly it's a good machine for you. However, please don't throw such blanket insults around. Most of us here really do know that PCs are decent machines. We may personally dislike them, but they are, after all, just tools. It is simply a vocal few that are 'as ignorant as the 90% of computer users who think that Mac's and PCs can't network together.' But by issuing an insult to the majority, you tend to place yourself more in the category of a troll... :rolleyes:

My G5's power button has performed hard-boot duties more than 10 times so far...

It sounds like you may have some real issues. I'd certainly recommend starting with a clean install of the OS (if not a reformatted drive), and go from there. Macs, too, are just tools, and sometimes they're broken. If you go through the proper steps to find the problem, I'll bet your G5 will be even more indestructible than your PC (this coming from personal experience).

And by the way...WinXP start-up time from a cold boot situation is as fast as or faster than all Mac OSes before Panther. Now they are very close...close enough that it isn't a relevant difference...

Well, that's really not true. A few years ago I started up my old Mac LC, running System 7.1. I swear, I blinked and the desktop was up. I got curious about that and timed it. From turning the power on to having the desktop up took on the order of 5 seconds. That's what OSes used to be like. Oh well. Now, it may be true that XP has loaded faster than any previous version of OS X, but that's really saying something completely different...

[mangoduck]

[buys snowy a beer*]

* or beverage of choice

[carbonmotion]

benpatient got dissed....
Snowy tore benpatient a new hole....
benpatient got smacked like a biatch....
Snowy...you get the idea. trying to inject some humor...

actually im going to propound on this thread an age old computing theory... here goes...

I have a dual Athlon MP 2ghz that i built with my own manly hands... it has 2gbs of ddr ram and a Radeon 9700... blah blah blah. I also own a very sexy 1ghz Aluminum powerbook... I edit videos for my soc UROP ...their really boring interviews and require alot of slicing and transitioning and color re-adjustment ... so obiously one would think that working on the dual Athlon MP (2ghz) with windows xp pro ed would be a better decision since its a way more powerful machine. but after learning to use final cut pro, i realized that i can't edit video on pcs... period. I mean i found that i like final cut so much more then adobe premier that I've stuck my my powerbook... i actually get work done faster even though rendering takes up more time because i work more efficient. so, moral of the story is, screw benchmarks, cause they are a poor measure of real world productivity. I haven't booted the dual mp since december... it sleeps in my bedroom at home (miles away from my school) waiting for Doom 3, halflife 2, and splintercell pandora tomorrow to grace its harddrive. Yes, i do every thing on a inferior machine, and i get sheit done faster.

[GFLPraxis]

Microsoft copies Apple.

Intel copies AMD.

What else is new?
Sometimes I wonder if Intel actually works for Microsoft...like SCO...

The Megahertz Myth really worked against Intel with the Pentium-M/Centrino, I'll agree on that. When Centrino came out, Pentium 4's were 533 mhz bus speed and 512k cache. The Centrinos only went to 1.3 GHz but had a honking 2 MB of cache. Many people think, "Well, I hear Centrinos have good battery but I don't want a computer thats only 1.3 GHz...". True, Centrinos are now up to 1.6 GHz, but it still sounds way slower than the 3.4 GHz P4...

[carbonmotion]

Sometimes I wonder if Intel actually works for Microsoft...like SCO...

The Megahertz Myth really worked against Intel with the Pentium-M/Centrino, I'll agree on that. When Centrino came out, Pentium 4's were 533 mhz bus speed and 512k cache. The Centrinos only went to 1.3 GHz but had a honking 2 MB of cache. Many people think, "Well, I hear Centrinos have good battery but I don't want a computer thats only 1.3 GHz...". True, Centrinos are now up to 1.6 GHz, but it still sounds way slower than the 3.4 GHz P4... i can't stand pc laptops...so unartistic.... obiously dell did not hire industrial artists to desgin their shizzle.

[richland]

i can't stand pc laptops...so unartistic.... obiously dell did not hire industrial artists to desgin their shizzle.


PC laptops come in all shapes in sizes.

There is more than Dell out there.

[carbonmotion]

PC laptops come in all shapes in sizes.

There is more than Dell out there. some i like, some i dont... havent seen a design more attractive then the aluminum powerbook though.

[zync]

some i like, some i dont... havent seen a design more attractive then the aluminum powerbook though.

Definitely, wholeheartedly agree! Some of the VAIOs look nice though...their desktops do as well...Alienware is OK as well....Compaq is better than it used to be, and Dell still ****** sucks! They try, my god do they try, but they still turn out *****! Dell DJ anyone?

[Dippo]

Definitely, wholeheartedly agree! Some of the VAIOs look nice though...their desktops do as well...


For some reason I have had nothing but trouble with sony computers, maybe it just my bad luck.

ON Topic:

This news might have come as a surprise to some people but not to me. Intel was pushing pure megahertz as the defining factor of ALL chips, but this caused problems with the lower clocked Pentium-M type processors.

So what else could they do but try to undo all the years of pushing megahertz.

Intel flip-flops more than some politicians, remember the whole 32bit-64bit processor that they would NEVER make!!! Well they sure have changed their tune now.

[GFLPraxis]

which is exactly why it doesn't matter. Intel can call them whatever the heck they want.

you think the 5 PC people who know the Mac world exists don't laugh at "G3" "G4" and "G5"?

remember when the new G4s were slower in Mhz than the new G3s?

Have you seen what an intel P4 EE 3.2 can do over a standard P4 3.2?

all that cache makes them roll...

we need two processors to keep up with (and in some cases pass) these things...

I've had a rediculous amount of trouble with my G5 and with Panther, if you ask me. I've got a PC at home that happily plays games my Dual 1.8 locks up trying to run. Apple's response is to "reformat the computer" which i have barely owned for a month and "start over."

Right. an entire magazine happens on this thing. I guess i'm lucky games don't work for crap, because my productivity would go down.

My PC is now 9 months old (i built it by hand), and I've not had to do anything to it since about week 2...i tried to impliment a RAID array after-the-fact and made a mess...

since then, it's been virtually indestructible, with the occasional (once every 3 months or so) unexpected reboot (i'm overclocking the graphics card, which is probably the excuse for the reboot).

My G5's power button has performed hard-boot duties more than 10 times so far...

anyway, i love this thing, but it's not perfect, and PCs are really no where near as bad as most of you guys seem to think. You're as ignorant as the 90% of computer users who think Mac's and PCs can't network together.

And by the way,, mr 6 gazillion megahertz, WinXP start-up time from a cold boot situation is as fast as or faster than all Mac OSes before Panther. Now they are very close...close enough that it isn't a relevant difference...

No, YOU'RE just lucky. Trust me on this. You're VERY lucky. I have several PC's and two Macs. One Mac is a G3 Pismo, the other is a 1 GHz G4 PowerBook, both running Panther, both laptops. The Pismo crashes a bit (once every week or two), but hey, it's unsupported hardware.
My main Windows computer runs fairly well, but its getting slower all the time. At 2.6 GHz it's fairly fast. And it's a fancy Sony VAIO. It screws up once in awhile, forcing a restart.

My previous desktop (which I still have) was a 900 mhz Celeron running Windows XP Pro. I should call it a 900 mhz Crasheron. When I installed Windows XP (previously had 98, did not upgrade but installed XP on another partition), it was completely screwy whenever I played the game Bridge Commander. I got the Windows XP driver for my graphics card, and all was good for a time. Then it started crashing every half hour. Not just crashing- Blue Screen of Deathing me. I thought BSOD's were gone in XP, but nope, I got the BSOD 2.0, with revised fonts and left-aligned.

Crash crash crash, every half hour. It told me the graphics card got caught in an infinity loop, while I was only browsing in Internet Exploiter!
After I let my parents use the computer, IE became filled with spyware and adware and viruses.

I finally replaced the graphics card and bought a new one, and donated the graphics card to a friend with Windows 98. It works perfectly for him.

Now I'm suffering from Windows decay. I right click on my computer and I wait nearly a MINUTE for the right click menu to come up. After using Windows so long the computer has slowed down to the point that it is nearly unusable.

The same for my third computer, a 450 mhz P3. It used to run great, and now it doesn't.

On the other hand, the PowerBook G4 is a dream.

The truth is, PC's ARE that bad. There are a few people who are lucky and happen to have JUST the right hardware set so that XP never crashes. And there are some people who are unlucky enough to have Macs that screw up a lot (generally, G5 owners, as the G5's tend to have problems for some reason). But the MAJORITY of Macs are stabler, and the MAJORITY of Windows PC's crash a lot.

[carbonmotion]

No, YOU'RE just lucky. Trust me on this. You're VERY lucky. I have several PC's and two Macs. One Mac is a G3 Pismo, the other is a 1 GHz G4 PowerBook, both running Panther, both laptops. The Pismo crashes a bit (once every week or two), but hey, it's unsupported hardware.
My main Windows computer runs fairly well, but its getting slower all the time. At 2.6 GHz it's fairly fast. And it's a fancy Sony VAIO. It screws up once in awhile, forcing a restart.

My previous desktop (which I still have) was a 900 mhz Celeron running Windows XP Pro. I should call it a 900 mhz Crasheron. When I installed Windows XP (previously had 98, did not upgrade but installed XP on another partition), it was completely screwy whenever I played the game Bridge Commander. I got the Windows XP driver for my graphics card, and all was good for a time. Then it started crashing every half hour. Not just crashing- Blue Screen of Deathing me. I thought BSOD's were gone in XP, but nope, I got the BSOD 2.0, with revised fonts and left-aligned.

Crash crash crash, every half hour. It told me the graphics card got caught in an infinity loop, while I was only browsing in Internet Exploiter!
After I let my parents use the computer, IE became filled with spyware and adware and viruses.

I finally replaced the graphics card and bought a new one, and donated the graphics card to a friend with Windows 98. It works perfectly for him.

Now I'm suffering from Windows decay. I right click on my computer and I wait nearly a MINUTE for the right click menu to come up. After using Windows so long the computer has slowed down to the point that it is nearly unusable.

The same for my third computer, a 450 mhz P3. It used to run great, and now it doesn't.

On the other hand, the PowerBook G4 is a dream.

The truth is, PC's ARE that bad. There are a few people who are lucky and happen to have JUST the right hardware set so that XP never crashes. And there are some people who are unlucky enough to have Macs that screw up a lot (generally, G5 owners, as the G5's tend to have problems for some reason). But the MAJORITY of Macs are stabler, and the MAJORITY of Windows PC's crash a lot.

I have sexual feelings for my powerbook because i love it so much :D

[carbonmotion]

I have sexual feelings for my powerbook because i love it so much :D I'm not serious ofcourse.

[Kagetenshi]

Prometheus (my Titanium Powerbook G4) performs many of the functions of a significant other, including keeping me warm on the long winter nights.

~J

[jxyama]

screw benchmarks, cause they are a poor measure of real world productivity.

amen to that!

i'd say benchmarks are for those who have nothing to do and can afford to sit there and compare how long machines would take to do a task they won't be doing! :D

[g3ski]

If AMD wants to one up Intel right away, they should go with the following naming system

400 series

600 series

800 series

Makes that 300, 500, 700 look like yesterdays news!

It's hard enough for most people to even being to figure out why the Compaq Presario 300 with a 60GB HD, nVidia FX video card, and x amount of ram, y amount of ports is better than say the Dell Dimension 8100 with a radeon card, and x, y, z. Or Should they get the Gateway X800. Then add in a 300, 500, or 700 series processor. At least currently Mhz/Ghz is a sort of benchmark for the layperson that makes some sense, kinda like horsepower in cars, but these new number will just be more nonesense to most people. In the end most people will just open up Consumer's Reports and then talk to the guys at Best Buy, CompUSA and get whatever has the best "rating". Anything over 2Ghz pretty much does the trick for most users anyway. Unless of course you need the Radeon XT with 256MB of ram and at least an 800Mhz front-side bus, 1GB of Ram, PCI and PCI Express, 8X AGP, and let's not forget the audigy sound card, firewire and usb ports, and controllable fans....all to get an extra few fps in UT2004 :p

[jxyama]

i had a terrible time with dell.com. i'm not the super tech geek, but i know enough to shop intelligently...

the problem i encountered on dell website is that it was very, very difficult to figure out whether or not i'm getting a good deal or not. there were so many different configurations of CPU, speed, RAM, optical drives, video cards, HD, OS, bundled apps, etc. etc. etc. all with different prices and any time you changed an option, you were simply given another price - i could not tell at all whether it was a better deal or not!

i'm quite biased, but i do like the simplicity of apple.com. choose a model. only a few selections and BTO options within each - but all of them are clearly labeled and prices make sense...

obviously, for other people, getting the best bargain isn't really an issue - they pick a pre-built and be done with it. but to me, it was frustrating to know where price differences came from and try to figure out how to get the optimal combination of price/features...

intel's naming scheme change will add even more to this problem... fortunately, i personally won't be buying a dell (or any PC, if i could help it) anytime soon. :D

[ClimbingTheLog]

This could be read as a sign that Intel spies have a good handle on Apple's liquid-cooled PowerMac plans we've been hearing about. If they're about to get their Asses handed to them in September, with say a 6GHZ PowerMac, maybe they're backpedaling now in defense.

See, Apple has a big advantage over Intel - they make the whole system.

There is no way Intel could get their manufacturers to build liquid-cooled systems for them in that timeframe. Moreover, the manufacturers wouldn't spend the money because their margins are too low.

Let's see if Apple can manage not to blow this one.

[zync]

Now I'm suffering from Windows decay. I right click on my computer and I wait nearly a MINUTE for the right click menu to come up. After using Windows so long the computer has slowed down to the point that it is nearly unusable.

The same for my third computer, a 450 mhz P3. It used to run great, and now it doesn't.

On the other hand, the PowerBook G4 is a dream.

The truth is, PC's ARE that bad. There are a few people who are lucky and happen to have JUST the right hardware set so that XP never crashes. And there are some people who are unlucky enough to have Macs that screw up a lot (generally, G5 owners, as the G5's tend to have problems for some reason). But the MAJORITY of Macs are stabler, and the MAJORITY of Windows PC's crash a lot.

Yeah, what's up with that? I used to think it was always me. PCs get incredibly slow after you've had them for a little while. Brand new they're fast as hell and about a month later, after you've gotten some media on that baby it's half as fast as it used to be...My XP PCs never crash but they all slow down. My old Dell laptop ::shudders:: (i got it as a free upgrade from a company I was working for for doing a little work) at 300MHz and 128MB of ram used to run XP really quickly actually. And then, before I reformatted and reinstalled, it was slow, and I mean slow. I always put two menus in the taskbar when I install XP, Music and Desktop (which let's you browse the entire computer/network from the taskbar). The last times I clicked on Desktop took about 20 seconds for the menu to pop up instead of the .5 second it used to take!

I think what it boils down to is the way windows uses it's swap file. I was thinking this same type of thing was just slowing down my PowerBook, but the problem is what I like to call 10.3.2 :). Anyway, the fact that 10.3.3. improved my system speed and response time (except for HD speed XBench tells me :() kind of tells me that you should be able to boost your speed again in XP. Disk defrag helps a little, but really nothing brings the speed back unless you reinstall. And it's not because I had programs that would leave junk in the registry, because I would clean my registry. Windows Decay is a real problem, consult your doctor.


Oh and bring on a 6GHz PowerMac! Maybe I'll be ready to finally get a G5? Damn I hope so!

[Snowy_River]

Yeah, what's up with that? I used to think it was always me. PCs get incredibly slow after you've had them for a little while. Brand new they're fast as hell and about a month later, after you've gotten some media on that baby it's half as fast as it used to be...My XP PCs never crash but they all slow down. My old Dell laptop ::shudders:: (i got it as a free upgrade from a company I was working for for doing a little work) at 300MHz and 128MB of ram used to run XP really quickly actually. And then, before I reformatted and reinstalled, it was slow, and I mean slow. I always put two menus in the taskbar when I install XP, Music and Desktop (which let's you browse the entire computer/network from the taskbar). The last times I clicked on Desktop took about 20 seconds for the menu to pop up instead of the .5 second it used to take!

I think what it boils down to is the way windows uses it's swap file. I was thinking this same type of thing was just slowing down my PowerBook, but the problem is what I like to call 10.3.2 :). Anyway, the fact that 10.3.3. improved my system speed and response time (except for HD speed XBench tells me :() kind of tells me that you should be able to boost your speed again in XP. Disk defrag helps a little, but really nothing brings the speed back unless you reinstall. And it's not because I had programs that would leave junk in the registry, because I would clean my registry. Windows Decay is a real problem, consult your doctor.


Oh and bring on a 6GHz PowerMac! Maybe I'll be ready to finally get a G5? Damn I hope so!

I've come across this problem many times. However, I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of what the issue is. For people who have Windows machines, I regularly suggest reinstalling the OS once every 12-18 months. (I had one person - a Windows user - who didn't believe that I had had Mac OS 8.6 on my old 3400 for four years without upgrading or reinstalling.)

[GFLPraxis]

I've come across this problem many times. However, I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of what the issue is. For people who have Windows machines, I regularly suggest reinstalling the OS once every 12-18 months. (I had one person - a Windows user - who didn't believe that I had had Mac OS 8.6 on my old 3400 for four years without upgrading or reinstalling.)

It's known as Windows decay...
It starts getting noticeable after about 6 months with 98, and 9 with XP, on average, but depending on what you do with your computer.

Why?

You install the tiniest of programs on a Windows computer. Some data is added to the registry, some data added to the windows folder, sometimes some is added to the system or system32 folder, shortcuts are added on your start menu and desktop, DLL's are scattered everywhere...

There is so much data scattered all over the hard drive that its scary. Open Start, click Run, and type Regedit. Open a couple of those +'s. Wow.
Even when you uninstall some information usually remains in the registry and windows folder. So the longer you use it, the more bloated Windows gets. The more bloated it gets, the more info it has to keep track of. The more info to keep track of, the slower. Windows just has a crappy design. DUMP THE REGISTRY!

I love Mac...even though my 500 mhz G3 PB is a lot slower than my 700 mhz Pentium 3 laptop (probably thanks to OS X being G4 optimized), it keeps running, and actually getting FASTER with each update, as opposed to slower and loaded down. And my 1 GHz PB is WOWing fast...

[Mav451]

funny how an Intel thread inevitably seems to end up as a Mac vs. PC thread :p

One word. JV16 Powertools. :)

[zync]

It's known as Windows decay...
It starts getting noticeable after about 6 months with 98, and 9 with XP, on average, but depending on what you do with your computer.

Why?

You install the tiniest of programs on a Windows computer. Some data is added to the registry, some data added to the windows folder, sometimes some is added to the system or system32 folder, shortcuts are added on your start menu and desktop, DLL's are scattered everywhere...

There is so much data scattered all over the hard drive that its scary. Open Start, click Run, and type Regedit. Open a couple of those +'s. Wow.
Even when you uninstall some information usually remains in the registry and windows folder. So the longer you use it, the more bloated Windows gets. The more bloated it gets, the more info it has to keep track of. The more info to keep track of, the slower. Windows just has a crappy design. DUMP THE REGISTRY!

I love Mac...even though my 500 mhz G3 PB is a lot slower than my 700 mhz Pentium 3 laptop (probably thanks to OS X being G4 optimized), it keeps running, and actually getting FASTER with each update, as opposed to slower and loaded down. And my 1 GHz PB is WOWing fast...

Yeah though it seems to do it even if you periodically clean the registry, and remove unneeded files...

[bumfilter]

I have a Dell Inspiron 8500 and it booted twice as quick as my 1.25Ghz 15" Powerbook. At first it was annoying, I always thought the Dell is soo much quicker. But when you close the lid of the Powerbook, open it up again, the computer is ready to go, with the Dell it was always a wait. As discussed, with Windows, after a while things slow down. Doesn't happen with the Mac, it just keeps the same speed as it always did. I used to think I would never switch from a PC but I'm so glad I did. It's hard to explain what the difference is, in fact I'm not exactly sure why I prefer my mac, all I know is I wouldn't buy another PC.

Regards the naming issue, I think it would be best to take all the numbers out. My friend works in a rather large PC shop (PC World in the UK). All he gets is how people don't understand, 1.7M, 3.06HT, 120Gb, 256Mb, 64Mb graphics, etc etc. They should just have three different configurations:

"Average home dude", "kickass", "super-kickass".

[Kagetenshi]

Maybe we should switch to the flop rate as a performance indicator.

~J

[GFLPraxis]

Maybe we should switch to the flop rate as a performance indicator.

~J

You know, I've always thought the same thing. Hertz makes no sense- its the clock speed, not the actual speed of the processor. We should have been using flops all along.

[zync]

I have a Dell Inspiron 8500 and it booted twice as quick as my 1.25Ghz 15" Powerbook. At first it was annoying, I always thought the Dell is soo much quicker. But when you close the lid of the Powerbook, open it up again, the computer is ready to go, with the Dell it was always a wait. As discussed, with Windows, after a while things slow down. Doesn't happen with the Mac, it just keeps the same speed as it always did. I used to think I would never switch from a PC but I'm so glad I did. It's hard to explain what the difference is, in fact I'm not exactly sure why I prefer my mac, all I know is I wouldn't buy another PC.

Regards the naming issue, I think it would be best to take all the numbers out. My friend works in a rather large PC shop (PC World in the UK). All he gets is how people don't understand, 1.7M, 3.06HT, 120Gb, 256Mb, 64Mb graphics, etc etc. They should just have three different configurations:

"Average home dude", "kickass", "super-kickass".

I agree. The only thing I don't like is how the PB automatically sleeps, it's annoying when you are DLing something and want to close your laptop, but other than that it's awesome. I use that feature all the time!

I like the idea of using FLOPS for numbering, however, I think the idea of using descriptions for the system would be great for laymen....

[bumfilter]

Yeah, I always wondered why it always slept, aparantley it's because most of the heat dissapation only works when the computer lid is open. Closing it would cause it to overheat and that ain't good!

I think they should implement a standard way of describing things, then people could judge processors etc on their own merits rather than, this number is bigger than that one.

Obvisouly I didn't think the pro's and con's of that through, so you get what I mean?!

[zync]

Yeah, I always wondered why it always slept, aparantley it's because most of the heat dissapation only works when the computer lid is open. Closing it would cause it to overheat and that ain't good!

I think they should implement a standard way of describing things, then people could judge processors etc on their own merits rather than, this number is bigger than that one.

Obvisouly I didn't think the pro's and con's of that through, so you get what I mean?!

Yeah I've considered the heat dissipation issue, but if you hook up a keyboard and mouse it'll stay running....doesn't make sense to me...

You know, after thinking this through, I think they should just list the information about the processor, etc. and let the consumer figure it out on their own. Consumers should make educated purchases and not just buy whatever the salesman tells them to. Certainly sales people should be learned about the product though, and the information given by the companies should be truthful. In this way if you get screwed you have no one to blame but yourself!

[thatwendigo]

You know, I've always thought the same thing. Hertz makes no sense- its the clock speed, not the actual speed of the processor. We should have been using flops all along.

Amen! We need some kind of real performance indicator, and clock speed has been misleading for some time.

Maybe there ought to be some kind of indutry group that sets baseline performance standards for different aspects of computers. We could group them into, say, five categories - Integer, Vector, Disk, Graphics, and Storage. Individual components could be rated on a scale against a flat basic unit, and then systems could have a composite score that tells people plainly what their machine is best at.

With our luck, MS would buy the process out, though. :rolleyes:

[bumfilter]

You mean, kind of like the Energy Ratings we have on white goods? Don't know if it's used in the US, or even in Europe but in the UK we have a grading system that tells us how energy efficient the device is. It had pretty colours so average joe can understand it too.

[Kagetenshi]

Yeah I've considered the heat dissipation issue, but if you hook up a keyboard and mouse it'll stay running....doesn't make sense to me...

It seems like a human-interface issue to me. It's immensely annoying to have to figure out whether or not my Compaq laptop is on or off when the top is closed; having the computer not run while closed without external hookups makes it quite unabmiguous what state the computer is currently in at any given time. Not to mention the fact that it gives you a simple, intuitive way to put your computer to sleep, winning over those people who might otherwise just shut their computers down all the time because that's all they know (it took me a year or two to catch on to sleep, because I'd been so used to what things had been like before it).

All in all, benefits of sleeping when lid is closed > drawbacks, IMO. Making it an option might be nice, but then it might confuse the issue.

~J

[zync]

It seems like a human-interface issue to me. It's immensely annoying to have to figure out whether or not my Compaq laptop is on or off when the top is closed; having the computer not run while closed without external hookups makes it quite unabmiguous what state the computer is currently in at any given time. Not to mention the fact that it gives you a simple, intuitive way to put your computer to sleep, winning over those people who might otherwise just shut their computers down all the time because that's all they know (it took me a year or two to catch on to sleep, because I'd been so used to what things had been like before it).

All in all, benefits of sleeping when lid is closed > drawbacks, IMO. Making it an option might be nice, but then it might confuse the issue.

~J

I didn't really address it in my post but yes, I agree the drawbacks are less than the benefits. And yes there is a problem with the computer being on and someone not knowing but it's really not that hard to open the lid....I do like how Apple doesn't waste power on an idiot light to let you know the computer is on (on PowerBooks, not desktops), however when the lid is closed and the computer is to stay on the led on the front face could light on it's lowest setting and not modulate so you know that it's on when the lid is closed....also I was hoping for an option when I originally looked in help documents....they could implement it where you do something like hit both shift keys twice and then a transparent thing pops up like when you change the brightness signaling that the computer is set to stay on when you close the lid as long as you close it within the next five seconds or something....this would be highly useful in certain situations...

[Snowy_River]

It's known as Windows decay...
It starts getting noticeable after about 6 months with 98, and 9 with XP, on average, but depending on what you do with your computer.

Why?

You install the tiniest of programs on a Windows computer. Some data is added to the registry, some data added to the windows folder, sometimes some is added to the system or system32 folder, shortcuts are added on your start menu and desktop, DLL's are scattered everywhere...

There is so much data scattered all over the hard drive that its scary. Open Start, click Run, and type Regedit. Open a couple of those +'s. Wow.
Even when you uninstall some information usually remains in the registry and windows folder. So the longer you use it, the more bloated Windows gets. The more bloated it gets, the more info it has to keep track of. The more info to keep track of, the slower. Windows just has a crappy design. DUMP THE REGISTRY!...

That's the same explanation I've heard before. However, it fails in one simple way. I've monitored systems that have a handful of apps loaded immediately after installing Windows, and nothing else. The computers are used for basic office purposes (some of them not even hooked to a network or the internet - no spyware, etc., can get in). Still, these computers slow down. By your explanation, they should slow down when things are first installed, but not thereafter. This, however, hasn't been my experience.

While it may be true that installing more things will hasten the onset of "Windows Decay", I suspect that it is not the core issue. It may be one of many, but I have this nagging feeling, after dealing with it in numerous different machines, that it is something that is truly systemic, and something in Windows is core to the problem, not having to do with any other applications. I'd bet that if you never installed any other applications after the OS, you'd still experience "Windows Decay".

[zync]

That's the same explanation I've heard before. However, it fails in one simple way. I've monitored systems that have a handful of apps loaded immediately after installing Windows, and nothing else. The computers are used for basic office purposes (some of them not even hooked to a network or the internet - no spyware, etc., can get in). Still, these computers slow down. By your explanation, they should slow down when things are first installed, but not thereafter. This, however, hasn't been my experience.

While it may be true that installing more things will hasten the onset of "Windows Decay", I suspect that it is not the core issue. It may be one of many, but I have this nagging feeling, after dealing with it in numerous different machines, that it is something that is truly systemic, and something in Windows is core to the problem, not having to do with any other applications. I'd bet that if you never installed any other applications after the OS, you'd still experience "Windows Decay".

I agree. My experiences are the same...

[GFLPraxis]

I agree. My experiences are the same...

You're probably correct. I wonder what causes it...
Gate's Law: Every 18 months, the speed of your computer halves...

Maybe it's not a problem with Windows itself? Maybe it's a feature! It's designed to 'encourage' users to 'upgrade' their computers for their own good!

[Snowy_River]

You're probably correct. I wonder what causes it...
Gate's Law: Every 18 months, the speed of your computer halves...

Maybe it's not a problem with Windows itself? Maybe it's a feature! It's designed to 'encourage' users to 'upgrade' their computers for their own good!

Actually, I've sometimes wondered if there isn't an element of planned obsolescence going on here. Given some of MS other business practices, I wouldn't put it past them. Maybe that's one of the reason why they don't want to pass their source code around...

[davecuse]

http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,91385,00.html?SKC=mobile-91385

First we hear about them renaming chips to the 3 series, 5 series and 7 series... Now they're actually inside of BMW? :rolleyes:

Let me make this very very clear, the absolute last thing that I want inside my new sports car is Microsoft. Imagine cruising down a winding back road and all of the sudden you get a BSOD :eek:

[carbonmotion]

http://alienware.com/system_pages/area-51m.aspx

some kid in my lecture sits two rows down from me with that thing. It's so loud i think even the prof notices it and he's at the podium 15 rows up... This kids swagers this puke green pos around like some phallic symbol. On the inside, he has it all modded out to looked like jaguar. Did i mention the nano-second battery life so he has to plug it into the wall and convinetly make a trip line across the isle for anyone trying to get in or out? ...yeah, i dont like those alienware pos....

[GFLPraxis]

http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,91385,00.html?SKC=mobile-91385

First we hear about them renaming chips to the 3 series, 5 series and 7 series... Now they're actually inside of BMW? :rolleyes:

Let me make this very very clear, the absolute last thing that I want inside my new sports car is Microsoft. Imagine cruising down a winding back road and all of the sudden you get a BSOD :eek:

Oh no! The car crashed!

[davecuse]

Intel should come out with a line of processors called the Hemi, because what is a Hemi anyway? Does anyone really know? Also I think they should have a guy with a bullhorn saying "Sunday Sunday Sunday, Jimmy uses his HEMI computer!"

Ahh the beauty of marketing...

[Mav451]

I'll admit I'm a bit guilty of doing the Jaguar/Panther theming bit myself (check out aquaxp.com or aqua-soft.org for an example of sites dedicated to this); but this is on my DESKTOP. A laptop cannot be self-built, and it is usually 2-3g's a pop. Its a bit odd that he does this when he easily could have gotten a Pbook in the same price range.

Alienware is made for gamers, so i hope that he is still gaming with it too.

[windowsblowsass]

Intel should come out with a line of processors called the Hemi, because what is a Hemi anyway? Does anyone really know? Also I think they should have a guy with a bullhorn saying "Sunday Sunday Sunday, Jimmy uses his HEMI computer!"

Ahh the beauty of marketing...
HEMI is a company that frequently made high end motors for chryslers sports cars (ie roadrunner) and stock cars in the 70s then recently they decided buy the name stick it on a normal motor make a **** load of money

[zync]

Intel should come out with a line of processors called the Hemi, because what is a Hemi anyway? Does anyone really know? Also I think they should have a guy with a bullhorn saying "Sunday Sunday Sunday, Jimmy uses his HEMI computer!"

Ahh the beauty of marketing...


Actually HEMI is not just a marketing term :) I believe it arose during the 70's to denote a special high performance head for mopar V8's....

Here's some info I found for you....

The term HEMI references the hemispherical
combustion chambers in the engine's heads.
The chamber design puts the intake/exhaust
valves in-line, rather than side-by-side. This
allows for better flow of air through the head.
The spark plug in the center of the chamber
creates a better ignition of the fuel/air. Both
of these major aspects help make hemi-type
engines produce more efficiency and power.

While Mopar is not the only company to have
used a hemi-type engine, they have been the
most successful at mass-producing them for
the general public (and for the racing scene)

[thatwendigo]

Actually HEMI is not just a marketing term :) I believe it arose during the 70's to denote a special high performance head for mopar V8's....

Here's some info I found for you....

The Hemi engines were, in fact, hemispherical combustion chambered big-block V8s, in general. My personal favorite out of the line is the 440 hemi that one could, say, slot into a '72 Barracuda and have a stock 500 horsepower. :D

[zync]

The Hemi engines were, in fact, hemispherical combustion chambered big-block V8s, in general. My personal favorite out of the line is the 440 hemi that one could, say, slot into a '72 Barracuda and have a stock 500 horsepower. :D


Yes! Definitely! :D

[bcsimac]

I just think it is dead funny. The average consumer is going to be so confused and so is the average pc salesman. Now we can only hope this helps Apple in some way. LOL!

[iLilana]

does it really matter what intel calls their chips?

[cr2sh]

does it really matter what intel calls their chips?
If you don't see this as a symptom of greater issues at Intel, then no.. maybe it wouldn't matter.

[Urdam]

I agree