From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) Subject: Re: 486SXs as Unix Iron? Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:16:01 GMT
In <id.UO3V.B44@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.223245.5045@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> I always love it when people tell me what I 'apparently' think; mostly
>> because they're invariably so laughably wrong.
>Fred, I can flame with the best of them. If you like to flame about what you
>think I said, go ahead. Do it without me. I'll make one more attempt to get
>my point across, then I'll let you go it alone.
>> If they hadn't started out this stupid little game of trying to kill
>> competitors in the first place, they wouldn't have needed to set up a
>> FAB line, PERIOD.
>Since there is obviously a market for chips that are cheaper than the 486
>and faster than the 386, would you have preferred that Intel stay out of
>that market completely?
Since the cost of the DX and SX parts *as initially developed* were
pretty close to the same, why excuse the predatory pricing on the SX?
Why not wonder why they didn't simply lower the DX price if they were
that hot to compete, instead?
Yeah, I know they did the 'clever business' thing. Doesn't mean I
have to like it. Or give them my money for it.
-- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ============================================================================== Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.