Intel did the same thing... |
||
 Ret. Mar Ikioi Intel has done the same thing, successfully, for years. Let's say they create a "new" 1Ghz chip. Their old chip was 300Mhz. Did you ever wonder how they also release cheaper 500Mhz and 750Mhz chips at the same time? Simple, they sell the 1Ghz chip to you, but hardwired to underclock at the slower speed, and at a cheaper price. AMD did not follow that route as strictly as Intel did. This is why overclockers loved using Intel, because, even at the high end, Intel still played it safe, and underclocked the chips below their absolute maximum speeds. Thus, you could safely overclock an Intel, because you could at least get a 20% speed increase (or much more if you had a chip that was purposefully underclocked to sell cheaper) without much risk. On the other hand, though I don't know how true it is today, you couldn't overclock an AMD very much, because you really got what you paid for, and overclocking put the CPU into the red. Whereas, overclocking an Intel put it closer to the red, not in it. Microsoft is basically trying to compete with Linux here. They are never going to adopt GPL, but they will adopt the equivilant of feature limitted shareware. Pay a little, get a little, pay more, and we'll give you more. Actually, that's a smart business move on their part. But, considering that a limitted version of Windows makes a linux desktop all that much more benefitial, this is also a boon to Linux. It's really a win-win for everyone. MS gets into the ultra low price PC market (which was before usually a "no operating system installed" market), and Linux gets a free ride by competing for free as in beer loving users against a handicapped Windows. It looks like MS wants to compete with the ultra cheap Linux on its own turf... not realizing it is coming to it like a one armed man to a juggling contest. :) Replies:
|
||
| CyberArmy::Forum v0.6 Generated In 0.01561 seconds |
2005-05-14 23:51:21