|Craig Johnston||May 16, 1997 12:42 pm|
|Tom Jackson||Sep 26, 1997 12:30 pm|
|Tony Kimball||Sep 26, 1997 1:07 pm|
|Tom Jackson||Sep 27, 1997 8:40 pm|
|Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com||Sep 27, 1997 10:16 pm|
|Sean Eric Fagan||Sep 27, 1997 10:35 pm|
|Tony Kimball||Sep 28, 1997 3:21 pm|
|Tom||Sep 28, 1997 7:57 pm|
|Ben Bryan||Sep 28, 1997 8:49 pm|
|Tony Kimball||Sep 29, 1997 8:04 am|
|Tom||Sep 29, 1997 10:55 am|
|Tony Kimball||Sep 29, 1997 11:13 am|
|Kedar||Sep 29, 1997 11:27 am|
|John T. Farmer||Sep 29, 1997 11:08 pm|
|Tom||Sep 29, 1997 11:49 pm|
|Doug Russell||Sep 30, 1997 12:35 am|
|John T. Farmer||Sep 30, 1997 5:57 am|
|Tony Kimball||Sep 30, 1997 8:57 am|
|Narvi||Sep 30, 1997 1:02 pm|
|Subject:||Re: supermicro p6sns/p6sas|
|From:||John T. Farmer (jfar...@sabre.goldsword.com)|
|Date:||Sep 30, 1997 5:57:28 am|
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Tom said:
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?
That I don't know off the top of my head. I suspect that you're correct & they all are using patented sockets.
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?
Well actually, no. Digging, you find that the SOJ & pin-grid sockets originally used were either standard (JEDEC, etc.) or were "opened" by the original vendor in hopes of winning more design-ins. Most chip (& cpu's qualifies as chips) vendors that went their own way in socket formats disappeared or rapidly changed their tune.
Look at markets for embedded microprocessors, for example. The cpu market there is a "commodity market" with high volume users going to SMT components & almost everybody else going with more standard chip carriers.
Intel _does_not_ want the PC/workstation/desktop, etc. market to turn into a commodity market, which is what the socket-7 market has turned into. Intel does want fat profit margins, not tiny ones. They are not the first to do this, even in the computer biz. Read up on IBM and the PCM vendors (Plug-Compatible Manufacturer) during the late '60's and '70's. It took many lawsuits and megadollars of marketing & support for the PCM's to complete. What made the most difference though was the paradigm shift to the distributed PC & network environment.
As to Intel's reasoning for going to the Slot-1 SEC format, I agree there're _alot_ of good technical reasons for it. There're also alot of marketing/legal issues for it.
John (Who spent too much time reading Electronics & other rags in the 70's & early 80's)