atom feed19 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-hardwareRe: supermicro p6sns/p6sas
FromSent OnAttachments
Craig JohnstonMay 16, 1997 12:42 pm 
Tom JacksonSep 26, 1997 12:30 pm 
Tony KimballSep 26, 1997 1:07 pm 
Tom JacksonSep 27, 1997 8:40 pm 
Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.comSep 27, 1997 10:16 pm 
Sean Eric FaganSep 27, 1997 10:35 pm 
Tony KimballSep 28, 1997 3:21 pm 
TomSep 28, 1997 7:57 pm 
Ben BryanSep 28, 1997 8:49 pm 
Tony KimballSep 29, 1997 8:04 am 
TomSep 29, 1997 10:55 am 
Tony KimballSep 29, 1997 11:13 am 
KedarSep 29, 1997 11:27 am 
John T. FarmerSep 29, 1997 11:08 pm 
TomSep 29, 1997 11:49 pm 
Doug RussellSep 30, 1997 12:35 am 
John T. FarmerSep 30, 1997 5:57 am 
Tony KimballSep 30, 1997 8:57 am 
NarviSep 30, 1997 1:02 pm 
Subject:Re: supermicro p6sns/p6sas
From:Tom (to@sdf.com)
Date:Sep 29, 1997 11:49:07 pm
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-hardware

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, John T. Farmer wrote:

The reason for AMD & Cyrix _not_ making a slot-1 is the same reason that they don't make socket-8 cpu's, namely, patents. Intel holds patents on both socket-8 and slot-1. Want to bet that they have/will have a patent on the slot-2 architecture also?

Which is probably what everyone has been doing already. What kind of socket does the Alpha 21164 use? How about the PowerPC 750? How about the UltraSparc? How about the R10000? How many of these socket types are patented?

Ah, for the days when socket formats/designs were open, set by industry coalitions or organizations. When manufactours designed a "closed" socket & watched their design-in wins drop...

Huh? For CPU sockets? Manufactures always just built what they need. Besides CPU design has changed a lot. I agree with Intel's motivation to go to a SEC. It provides a package which is easier to cool for a start. Is there a "standard" SEC style design that Intel could have used instead of coming up with slot 1?