<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_16_1816245</id>
	<title>US FTC Sues Intel For Anti-Competitive Practices</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260988020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Vigile writes <i>"And here Intel was about to get out of 2009 with only a modestly embarrassing year.  While Intel and AMD <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/12/1448216/Intel-and-AMD-Settle-Antitrust-Patent-Lawsuits">settled their own antitrust and patent lawsuits</a> in November, the FTC didn't think that was good enough and has <a href="http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=8133">decided to sue Intel for anti-competitive practices</a>. While the suits in Europe and in the US civil courts have hurt Intel's pocketbook and its reputation, the FTC lawsuit could very likely be the most damaging towards the company's ability to practice business as they see fit.  The official hearing is set for September of 2010 but we will likely hear news filtering out about the evidence and charges well before that.  One interesting charge that has already arisen: that Intel systematically changed its widely-used compiler to stunt the performance of competing processors."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vigile writes " And here Intel was about to get out of 2009 with only a modestly embarrassing year .
While Intel and AMD settled their own antitrust and patent lawsuits in November , the FTC did n't think that was good enough and has decided to sue Intel for anti-competitive practices .
While the suits in Europe and in the US civil courts have hurt Intel 's pocketbook and its reputation , the FTC lawsuit could very likely be the most damaging towards the company 's ability to practice business as they see fit .
The official hearing is set for September of 2010 but we will likely hear news filtering out about the evidence and charges well before that .
One interesting charge that has already arisen : that Intel systematically changed its widely-used compiler to stunt the performance of competing processors .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vigile writes "And here Intel was about to get out of 2009 with only a modestly embarrassing year.
While Intel and AMD settled their own antitrust and patent lawsuits in November, the FTC didn't think that was good enough and has decided to sue Intel for anti-competitive practices.
While the suits in Europe and in the US civil courts have hurt Intel's pocketbook and its reputation, the FTC lawsuit could very likely be the most damaging towards the company's ability to practice business as they see fit.
The official hearing is set for September of 2010 but we will likely hear news filtering out about the evidence and charges well before that.
One interesting charge that has already arisen: that Intel systematically changed its widely-used compiler to stunt the performance of competing processors.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462416</id>
	<title>e4.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259700240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>another special and sold in the win out; either the Whether you a nned to play Lay down paper The failure of guests. Some people</htmltext>
<tokenext>another special and sold in the win out ; either the Whether you a nned to play Lay down paper The failure of guests .
Some people</tokentext>
<sentencetext>another special and sold in the win out; either the Whether you a nned to play Lay down paper The failure of guests.
Some people</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461870</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh.</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1259698740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is no conspiracy: This is business. Business is inherently anti-competitive.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which is why there is regulation to keep the sociopathic asshats that run major corporations in line, so they compete like they're supposed to.</p><blockquote><div><p>If I'm competing with you, I want you out of the game, and just like in a video game, I will use combo attacks and drop-kick you right as you get up (repeatedly) to keep you from recovering until you throw the controller at me. That's just how the game is played.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, but if you cut the cord for my controller in the middle of the match, I'm going to be quite rightfully pissed. There are rules as to what you can and cannot do within the game, and breaking these rules through unethical means is not going to win you any friends. And in the game of business, you're going to get a lot worse than people getting angry at you if you get caught.</p><p>And most fighting games won't let you just constantly knock someone down while they're getting up like that, because trivial and unbreakable infinite combos may be fun while you're the one on top, but they ruin it for everyone else. Your analogy seems to have been even more apt than you had considered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no conspiracy : This is business .
Business is inherently anti-competitive.Which is why there is regulation to keep the sociopathic asshats that run major corporations in line , so they compete like they 're supposed to.If I 'm competing with you , I want you out of the game , and just like in a video game , I will use combo attacks and drop-kick you right as you get up ( repeatedly ) to keep you from recovering until you throw the controller at me .
That 's just how the game is played.Yes , but if you cut the cord for my controller in the middle of the match , I 'm going to be quite rightfully pissed .
There are rules as to what you can and can not do within the game , and breaking these rules through unethical means is not going to win you any friends .
And in the game of business , you 're going to get a lot worse than people getting angry at you if you get caught.And most fighting games wo n't let you just constantly knock someone down while they 're getting up like that , because trivial and unbreakable infinite combos may be fun while you 're the one on top , but they ruin it for everyone else .
Your analogy seems to have been even more apt than you had considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no conspiracy: This is business.
Business is inherently anti-competitive.Which is why there is regulation to keep the sociopathic asshats that run major corporations in line, so they compete like they're supposed to.If I'm competing with you, I want you out of the game, and just like in a video game, I will use combo attacks and drop-kick you right as you get up (repeatedly) to keep you from recovering until you throw the controller at me.
That's just how the game is played.Yes, but if you cut the cord for my controller in the middle of the match, I'm going to be quite rightfully pissed.
There are rules as to what you can and cannot do within the game, and breaking these rules through unethical means is not going to win you any friends.
And in the game of business, you're going to get a lot worse than people getting angry at you if you get caught.And most fighting games won't let you just constantly knock someone down while they're getting up like that, because trivial and unbreakable infinite combos may be fun while you're the one on top, but they ruin it for everyone else.
Your analogy seems to have been even more apt than you had considered.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461220</id>
	<title>Here we go again...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... for better or worse, right or wrong. Here's another N-year legal donnybrook for us to enjoy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... for better or worse , right or wrong .
Here 's another N-year legal donnybrook for us to enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for better or worse, right or wrong.
Here's another N-year legal donnybrook for us to enjoy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462506</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259700540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The end result of your philosophy is a society where one or two mafia-like power structures control everything, and everyone else is essentially slaves.  Whether those power structures are national governments or corporations the dynamic is much the same.  Granted that appears to be what a lot of people want.  Preservation of a free society requires limitations on the abuse of power.  The FTC part of that mechanism.</p><p>I write software that may be run on either Intel and AMD processors, so I need a compiler that works for both.  If Intel wants to be in both the compiler business and the microprocessor business, they can't intentionally design their compiler to sabotage AMDs microprocessor business.  If there are no limits on that sort of thing, then inevitably one company gets a near monopoly, uses its position to screw over everyone, and everything stagnates and we get poorer.  This dynamic is why many impoverished parts of the world are impoverished.  To the extent that we embrace that model, our economies will wind up in the toilet also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The end result of your philosophy is a society where one or two mafia-like power structures control everything , and everyone else is essentially slaves .
Whether those power structures are national governments or corporations the dynamic is much the same .
Granted that appears to be what a lot of people want .
Preservation of a free society requires limitations on the abuse of power .
The FTC part of that mechanism.I write software that may be run on either Intel and AMD processors , so I need a compiler that works for both .
If Intel wants to be in both the compiler business and the microprocessor business , they ca n't intentionally design their compiler to sabotage AMDs microprocessor business .
If there are no limits on that sort of thing , then inevitably one company gets a near monopoly , uses its position to screw over everyone , and everything stagnates and we get poorer .
This dynamic is why many impoverished parts of the world are impoverished .
To the extent that we embrace that model , our economies will wind up in the toilet also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The end result of your philosophy is a society where one or two mafia-like power structures control everything, and everyone else is essentially slaves.
Whether those power structures are national governments or corporations the dynamic is much the same.
Granted that appears to be what a lot of people want.
Preservation of a free society requires limitations on the abuse of power.
The FTC part of that mechanism.I write software that may be run on either Intel and AMD processors, so I need a compiler that works for both.
If Intel wants to be in both the compiler business and the microprocessor business, they can't intentionally design their compiler to sabotage AMDs microprocessor business.
If there are no limits on that sort of thing, then inevitably one company gets a near monopoly, uses its position to screw over everyone, and everything stagnates and we get poorer.
This dynamic is why many impoverished parts of the world are impoverished.
To the extent that we embrace that model, our economies will wind up in the toilet also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30465468</id>
	<title>Re:Not the worst thing Intel has done</title>
	<author>jeff4747</author>
	<datestamp>1259667120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you're giving a compiler away for free to leverage processor sales, why would you bother to optimize it for your competitor's processors?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because failing to optimize it for AMD was not what they did.</p><p>Failing to optimize is justified, in that you can not expect to put forth the effort for your competitors.</p><p>What they did was put forth effort to explicitly sabotage their competitors.  They could have just said "We're not optimizing for AMD" and gone on their merry way.  Instead, they added code to make any program built with their compiler run poorly on AMD chips.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're giving a compiler away for free to leverage processor sales , why would you bother to optimize it for your competitor 's processors ? Because failing to optimize it for AMD was not what they did.Failing to optimize is justified , in that you can not expect to put forth the effort for your competitors.What they did was put forth effort to explicitly sabotage their competitors .
They could have just said " We 're not optimizing for AMD " and gone on their merry way .
Instead , they added code to make any program built with their compiler run poorly on AMD chips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're giving a compiler away for free to leverage processor sales, why would you bother to optimize it for your competitor's processors?Because failing to optimize it for AMD was not what they did.Failing to optimize is justified, in that you can not expect to put forth the effort for your competitors.What they did was put forth effort to explicitly sabotage their competitors.
They could have just said "We're not optimizing for AMD" and gone on their merry way.
Instead, they added code to make any program built with their compiler run poorly on AMD chips.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463280</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1259659800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;One interesting charge that has already arisen: that Intel systematically changed its widely used compiler to stunt the performance of competing processors. I have to say, if I build a compiler, for myself and someone else uses it for themselves. I do not have to worry about them, seeing as I built it for me. If they offer it for free, then they have no responsibility to keep it friendly to anyone but themselves.</p><p>Seriously, in this case I hope Intel wins, because they have the right to do what they did....although price fixing is another issue altogether.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; One interesting charge that has already arisen : that Intel systematically changed its widely used compiler to stunt the performance of competing processors .
I have to say , if I build a compiler , for myself and someone else uses it for themselves .
I do not have to worry about them , seeing as I built it for me .
If they offer it for free , then they have no responsibility to keep it friendly to anyone but themselves.Seriously , in this case I hope Intel wins , because they have the right to do what they did....although price fixing is another issue altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;One interesting charge that has already arisen: that Intel systematically changed its widely used compiler to stunt the performance of competing processors.
I have to say, if I build a compiler, for myself and someone else uses it for themselves.
I do not have to worry about them, seeing as I built it for me.
If they offer it for free, then they have no responsibility to keep it friendly to anyone but themselves.Seriously, in this case I hope Intel wins, because they have the right to do what they did....although price fixing is another issue altogether.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30467316</id>
	<title>Re:AMD was robbed</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259675700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know how. It&rsquo;s called IBM. The ones that the Athlon technology came from. Every time Intel gets too strong, IBM helped AMD out. Which of course was, because it helped themselves. But not a bad thing for us too.</p><p>Your comment does not hit the core of the problem, though.<br>The core is, that Intel threatened to not sell chips to mainboard makers anymore, if they would make a board for the Athlon. I know this very well, because I tried to buy such a board. And even months after the chips were out, I only had the choice between two obscure Asian companies and a tiny German one. That German one strangely went bankrupt, two years later, and I bet the Asian ones were those Chinese knockoff companies who had nothing to lose anyway.</p><p>Oh, and the quality. Oh boy. I was able to reliably overclock cheap 533 MHz CPUs to 900 MHz. They ran for five years without trouble, before they were replaced. I saved a lot of money that way.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know how .
It    s called IBM .
The ones that the Athlon technology came from .
Every time Intel gets too strong , IBM helped AMD out .
Which of course was , because it helped themselves .
But not a bad thing for us too.Your comment does not hit the core of the problem , though.The core is , that Intel threatened to not sell chips to mainboard makers anymore , if they would make a board for the Athlon .
I know this very well , because I tried to buy such a board .
And even months after the chips were out , I only had the choice between two obscure Asian companies and a tiny German one .
That German one strangely went bankrupt , two years later , and I bet the Asian ones were those Chinese knockoff companies who had nothing to lose anyway.Oh , and the quality .
Oh boy .
I was able to reliably overclock cheap 533 MHz CPUs to 900 MHz .
They ran for five years without trouble , before they were replaced .
I saved a lot of money that way .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know how.
It’s called IBM.
The ones that the Athlon technology came from.
Every time Intel gets too strong, IBM helped AMD out.
Which of course was, because it helped themselves.
But not a bad thing for us too.Your comment does not hit the core of the problem, though.The core is, that Intel threatened to not sell chips to mainboard makers anymore, if they would make a board for the Athlon.
I know this very well, because I tried to buy such a board.
And even months after the chips were out, I only had the choice between two obscure Asian companies and a tiny German one.
That German one strangely went bankrupt, two years later, and I bet the Asian ones were those Chinese knockoff companies who had nothing to lose anyway.Oh, and the quality.
Oh boy.
I was able to reliably overclock cheap 533 MHz CPUs to 900 MHz.
They ran for five years without trouble, before they were replaced.
I saved a lot of money that way.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30466670</id>
	<title>Re:Read the FTC release</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1259671980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They did the same thing with Centrino. A Centrino system contained a Pentium M processor with an Intel chipset. Intel gave kickbacks to companies which used both, in order to apply for the Centrino label.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did the same thing with Centrino .
A Centrino system contained a Pentium M processor with an Intel chipset .
Intel gave kickbacks to companies which used both , in order to apply for the Centrino label .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did the same thing with Centrino.
A Centrino system contained a Pentium M processor with an Intel chipset.
Intel gave kickbacks to companies which used both, in order to apply for the Centrino label.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30467324</id>
	<title>Re:Not the worst thing Intel has done</title>
	<author>vakuona</author>
	<datestamp>1259675760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Intel does not have to optimise for AMD. Intel should not use its dominant position in the hardware market to influence other software to be slower on AMDs processors. Because software vendors are going to be using the same compiler to compile software that should run on AMDs processors, then they have a duty to play fair. Imagine if Microsoft purchased AMD, and "optimised" Windows to run better on AMD CPUs by ignoring instructions that are present on Intel CPUs whilst using the very same instructions on AMD CPUs. There would be an almighty uproar. It's pretty much the same thing Intel is doing here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel does not have to optimise for AMD .
Intel should not use its dominant position in the hardware market to influence other software to be slower on AMDs processors .
Because software vendors are going to be using the same compiler to compile software that should run on AMDs processors , then they have a duty to play fair .
Imagine if Microsoft purchased AMD , and " optimised " Windows to run better on AMD CPUs by ignoring instructions that are present on Intel CPUs whilst using the very same instructions on AMD CPUs .
There would be an almighty uproar .
It 's pretty much the same thing Intel is doing here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel does not have to optimise for AMD.
Intel should not use its dominant position in the hardware market to influence other software to be slower on AMDs processors.
Because software vendors are going to be using the same compiler to compile software that should run on AMDs processors, then they have a duty to play fair.
Imagine if Microsoft purchased AMD, and "optimised" Windows to run better on AMD CPUs by ignoring instructions that are present on Intel CPUs whilst using the very same instructions on AMD CPUs.
There would be an almighty uproar.
It's pretty much the same thing Intel is doing here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462804</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259658240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the FTC just pooped in its pants.  Seriously, there is no way they have a solid case on this.  NO WAY.  I just hear more tax payer money going to ridiculously overpriced trials with nothing to show on the other end of the donkey... not even a few digested corns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the FTC just pooped in its pants .
Seriously , there is no way they have a solid case on this .
NO WAY .
I just hear more tax payer money going to ridiculously overpriced trials with nothing to show on the other end of the donkey... not even a few digested corns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the FTC just pooped in its pants.
Seriously, there is no way they have a solid case on this.
NO WAY.
I just hear more tax payer money going to ridiculously overpriced trials with nothing to show on the other end of the donkey... not even a few digested corns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30466400</id>
	<title>Re:AMD was robbed</title>
	<author>modemboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259670600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What an uninformed post. AMD did not neglect their fabs. Hell they spent 2.5 billion building a new one in 2003 (Fab 36); and guess what, they still own nearly half of Global Foundries (spinoff) that is building a new fab in NY. They were consistently 6 months or so behind Intel when stepping down to a smaller process, which was faster than anyone else in the industry.<br>Hmm and I wonder why they would have to sell off their fabs after investing heavily in them, perhaps it is because they were not getting the returns they expected due to market manipulation?</p><p>
&nbsp; "AMD couldn't keep up with Intel's aggressive pricing because they simply could not produce competitive chips as inexpensively as Intel could."  That statement is just hilarious. For the time period we are talking about here, AMD chips were cheaper and faster than Intel's. No questions about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What an uninformed post .
AMD did not neglect their fabs .
Hell they spent 2.5 billion building a new one in 2003 ( Fab 36 ) ; and guess what , they still own nearly half of Global Foundries ( spinoff ) that is building a new fab in NY .
They were consistently 6 months or so behind Intel when stepping down to a smaller process , which was faster than anyone else in the industry.Hmm and I wonder why they would have to sell off their fabs after investing heavily in them , perhaps it is because they were not getting the returns they expected due to market manipulation ?
  " AMD could n't keep up with Intel 's aggressive pricing because they simply could not produce competitive chips as inexpensively as Intel could .
" That statement is just hilarious .
For the time period we are talking about here , AMD chips were cheaper and faster than Intel 's .
No questions about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an uninformed post.
AMD did not neglect their fabs.
Hell they spent 2.5 billion building a new one in 2003 (Fab 36); and guess what, they still own nearly half of Global Foundries (spinoff) that is building a new fab in NY.
They were consistently 6 months or so behind Intel when stepping down to a smaller process, which was faster than anyone else in the industry.Hmm and I wonder why they would have to sell off their fabs after investing heavily in them, perhaps it is because they were not getting the returns they expected due to market manipulation?
  "AMD couldn't keep up with Intel's aggressive pricing because they simply could not produce competitive chips as inexpensively as Intel could.
"  That statement is just hilarious.
For the time period we are talking about here, AMD chips were cheaper and faster than Intel's.
No questions about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461976</id>
	<title>Re:I especially like..</title>
	<author>jocabergs</author>
	<datestamp>1259699100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tend to concur, if you look at errors in console games vs. errors in PC games there is a huge difference.  A big chunk of this is because console games have 1 hardware configuration to plan for, test on and deploy for.  PC games on the other hand have a near limitless number of permutations to deal with in terms of hardware, which is why PC games are dying for the most part.  Optimizing cross platform is not an easy thing to do, its doable, but why should Intel have to develop optimizations for AMD?  Now, I'm not saying the market is in anyway working properly, personally I think if we developed much stricter standards and dismantled some of these monopolies we would be considerably better off.  I think that Intel having 80\% mkt share and Microsoft 95\% is ridiculous don't get me wrong, but this particular issue I kind of side with Intel on.  Aside from this issue I think we would be considerably better off with serious competition to MSFT and Intel, getting them under 50\% market share would significantly improve competition and I think regulatory agencies should consider breaking them up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to concur , if you look at errors in console games vs. errors in PC games there is a huge difference .
A big chunk of this is because console games have 1 hardware configuration to plan for , test on and deploy for .
PC games on the other hand have a near limitless number of permutations to deal with in terms of hardware , which is why PC games are dying for the most part .
Optimizing cross platform is not an easy thing to do , its doable , but why should Intel have to develop optimizations for AMD ?
Now , I 'm not saying the market is in anyway working properly , personally I think if we developed much stricter standards and dismantled some of these monopolies we would be considerably better off .
I think that Intel having 80 \ % mkt share and Microsoft 95 \ % is ridiculous do n't get me wrong , but this particular issue I kind of side with Intel on .
Aside from this issue I think we would be considerably better off with serious competition to MSFT and Intel , getting them under 50 \ % market share would significantly improve competition and I think regulatory agencies should consider breaking them up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to concur, if you look at errors in console games vs. errors in PC games there is a huge difference.
A big chunk of this is because console games have 1 hardware configuration to plan for, test on and deploy for.
PC games on the other hand have a near limitless number of permutations to deal with in terms of hardware, which is why PC games are dying for the most part.
Optimizing cross platform is not an easy thing to do, its doable, but why should Intel have to develop optimizations for AMD?
Now, I'm not saying the market is in anyway working properly, personally I think if we developed much stricter standards and dismantled some of these monopolies we would be considerably better off.
I think that Intel having 80\% mkt share and Microsoft 95\% is ridiculous don't get me wrong, but this particular issue I kind of side with Intel on.
Aside from this issue I think we would be considerably better off with serious competition to MSFT and Intel, getting them under 50\% market share would significantly improve competition and I think regulatory agencies should consider breaking them up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30477264</id>
	<title>Re:AMD was robbed</title>
	<author>Michael Meissner</author>
	<datestamp>1261081020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Intel had a period where they were focused elsewhere (IA-64), and AMD had come out with guns blazing.  However, eventually Intel did wake up, and AMD was slow in getting out the Barcelona chips to compete against the core5 chips.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel had a period where they were focused elsewhere ( IA-64 ) , and AMD had come out with guns blazing .
However , eventually Intel did wake up , and AMD was slow in getting out the Barcelona chips to compete against the core5 chips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel had a period where they were focused elsewhere (IA-64), and AMD had come out with guns blazing.
However, eventually Intel did wake up, and AMD was slow in getting out the Barcelona chips to compete against the core5 chips.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461560</id>
	<title>Well, duh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259697600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, a company that produces microprocessors also designed a compiler optimized to run best on that microprocessor? <i>It's a conspiracy!</i></p><p>These changes -- they improved the performance of the compiled applications when run on the microprocessor it was designed for, correct? Even if they intentionally and "maliciously" modified their compiler so that other microprocessor designs performed more poorly, what does it matter? Shouldn't those other microprocessor companies be releasing compilers for their respective designs as well?</p><p>It's not anti-competitive for Intel to tell other microprocessor companies to shove off and build their own. They've got no right to the compiler -- however pervasive its use. At worst, the end-user will see products being released with binaries compiled specifically for their processor architecture (just like Linux does now for kernels and many packages). At worst, the companies will need to invest in designing a compiler (as Intel has done). And if it's cost prohibitive, then maybe they'll look to something that's easy to modify and adapt to their needs, like gcc and its related umbrella of tools.</p><p>There is no conspiracy: This is business. Business is inherently <i>anti-competitive</i>. If I'm competing with you, I want you out of the game, and just like in a video game, I will use combo attacks and drop-kick you right as you get up (repeatedly) to keep you from recovering until you throw the controller at me. That's just how the game is played. (See slashdot, we can avoid car analogies!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , a company that produces microprocessors also designed a compiler optimized to run best on that microprocessor ?
It 's a conspiracy ! These changes -- they improved the performance of the compiled applications when run on the microprocessor it was designed for , correct ?
Even if they intentionally and " maliciously " modified their compiler so that other microprocessor designs performed more poorly , what does it matter ?
Should n't those other microprocessor companies be releasing compilers for their respective designs as well ? It 's not anti-competitive for Intel to tell other microprocessor companies to shove off and build their own .
They 've got no right to the compiler -- however pervasive its use .
At worst , the end-user will see products being released with binaries compiled specifically for their processor architecture ( just like Linux does now for kernels and many packages ) .
At worst , the companies will need to invest in designing a compiler ( as Intel has done ) .
And if it 's cost prohibitive , then maybe they 'll look to something that 's easy to modify and adapt to their needs , like gcc and its related umbrella of tools.There is no conspiracy : This is business .
Business is inherently anti-competitive .
If I 'm competing with you , I want you out of the game , and just like in a video game , I will use combo attacks and drop-kick you right as you get up ( repeatedly ) to keep you from recovering until you throw the controller at me .
That 's just how the game is played .
( See slashdot , we can avoid car analogies !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, a company that produces microprocessors also designed a compiler optimized to run best on that microprocessor?
It's a conspiracy!These changes -- they improved the performance of the compiled applications when run on the microprocessor it was designed for, correct?
Even if they intentionally and "maliciously" modified their compiler so that other microprocessor designs performed more poorly, what does it matter?
Shouldn't those other microprocessor companies be releasing compilers for their respective designs as well?It's not anti-competitive for Intel to tell other microprocessor companies to shove off and build their own.
They've got no right to the compiler -- however pervasive its use.
At worst, the end-user will see products being released with binaries compiled specifically for their processor architecture (just like Linux does now for kernels and many packages).
At worst, the companies will need to invest in designing a compiler (as Intel has done).
And if it's cost prohibitive, then maybe they'll look to something that's easy to modify and adapt to their needs, like gcc and its related umbrella of tools.There is no conspiracy: This is business.
Business is inherently anti-competitive.
If I'm competing with you, I want you out of the game, and just like in a video game, I will use combo attacks and drop-kick you right as you get up (repeatedly) to keep you from recovering until you throw the controller at me.
That's just how the game is played.
(See slashdot, we can avoid car analogies!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30465312</id>
	<title>That charge was conclusively proven years ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel's compiler generates both "SSE2+ optimized" floating point code and "plain vanilla, slow" floating point code.  Then at run-time, it uses the CPUID instruction to detect whether your CPU was manufactured by "Genu-ineI-ntel".  If it is, then it jumps to the fast code (at run time).  If it isn't, it jumps to the slow code.</p><p>This was proved a couple of years ago by reverse-engineering of the generated code.  Patching out the check, so that all machines use the fast code, gives vastly improved floating point performance on AMD's chips--often better than on Intel's own chips!  The obvious purpose of this "feature" (and the effect it actually has in practice) was to make Intel's CPU look good and make AMD's CPU look bad.  Intel's excuse for doing this (which was basically "our competitors might not implement our custom instruction sets 100\% perfectly, so its not safe to use them unless its definitely our chip") does not even pass the laugh test.  The whole thing was a blatant anti-competitive measure to try and make AMD and other competitors look bad on benchmarks.</p><p>I hope the FTC really takes them to the cleaners over that, and all of their other slimy business practices.  Sure we love to rail against Microsoft, but MS is definitely not the only dirty player in tech town.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel 's compiler generates both " SSE2 + optimized " floating point code and " plain vanilla , slow " floating point code .
Then at run-time , it uses the CPUID instruction to detect whether your CPU was manufactured by " Genu-ineI-ntel " .
If it is , then it jumps to the fast code ( at run time ) .
If it is n't , it jumps to the slow code.This was proved a couple of years ago by reverse-engineering of the generated code .
Patching out the check , so that all machines use the fast code , gives vastly improved floating point performance on AMD 's chips--often better than on Intel 's own chips !
The obvious purpose of this " feature " ( and the effect it actually has in practice ) was to make Intel 's CPU look good and make AMD 's CPU look bad .
Intel 's excuse for doing this ( which was basically " our competitors might not implement our custom instruction sets 100 \ % perfectly , so its not safe to use them unless its definitely our chip " ) does not even pass the laugh test .
The whole thing was a blatant anti-competitive measure to try and make AMD and other competitors look bad on benchmarks.I hope the FTC really takes them to the cleaners over that , and all of their other slimy business practices .
Sure we love to rail against Microsoft , but MS is definitely not the only dirty player in tech town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel's compiler generates both "SSE2+ optimized" floating point code and "plain vanilla, slow" floating point code.
Then at run-time, it uses the CPUID instruction to detect whether your CPU was manufactured by "Genu-ineI-ntel".
If it is, then it jumps to the fast code (at run time).
If it isn't, it jumps to the slow code.This was proved a couple of years ago by reverse-engineering of the generated code.
Patching out the check, so that all machines use the fast code, gives vastly improved floating point performance on AMD's chips--often better than on Intel's own chips!
The obvious purpose of this "feature" (and the effect it actually has in practice) was to make Intel's CPU look good and make AMD's CPU look bad.
Intel's excuse for doing this (which was basically "our competitors might not implement our custom instruction sets 100\% perfectly, so its not safe to use them unless its definitely our chip") does not even pass the laugh test.
The whole thing was a blatant anti-competitive measure to try and make AMD and other competitors look bad on benchmarks.I hope the FTC really takes them to the cleaners over that, and all of their other slimy business practices.
Sure we love to rail against Microsoft, but MS is definitely not the only dirty player in tech town.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462160</id>
	<title>US FTC happily sues Intel, but allows Microsoft...</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1259699580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to continue to do as they wish, buy whichever politician they want, file their taxes wherever they want, destroy whichever companies they want, push dangerous software out as they wish...hmm...yeah...yet another reason there is fading credibility in the entire US system...(a government FOR the company BY the company!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to continue to do as they wish , buy whichever politician they want , file their taxes wherever they want , destroy whichever companies they want , push dangerous software out as they wish...hmm...yeah...yet another reason there is fading credibility in the entire US system... ( a government FOR the company BY the company !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to continue to do as they wish, buy whichever politician they want, file their taxes wherever they want, destroy whichever companies they want, push dangerous software out as they wish...hmm...yeah...yet another reason there is fading credibility in the entire US system...(a government FOR the company BY the company!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461240</id>
	<title>Intel compiler not that good on their own parts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Duh, they stated they made a compiler to optimize performance on their chips, and if you jumped through enough hoops, it did -- I got tired of the hoops and quit using it for that reason alone.  They made no claims that I recall that their compiler was the best for all x86 parts.  If they munged it so it stank in AMD, because of the hardware differences, and didn't put in a switch for AMD, well, who says they had to, and who would have paid for that?</p><p>I like intel's parts, but not the company and their practices. Go figure.<br>This just sounds silly to me, it's not like intel's compiler had a compelling market share or was in general better and easier to use than say, DevStudio or GCC to mention some other extremes.  It wasn't even better on their own parts unless you compiled for a very specific one, as I recall.</p><p>Their other practices, they can go fry for as far as I care, but I wish AMD was making a more credible push too, despite the impediments intel has put in the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh , they stated they made a compiler to optimize performance on their chips , and if you jumped through enough hoops , it did -- I got tired of the hoops and quit using it for that reason alone .
They made no claims that I recall that their compiler was the best for all x86 parts .
If they munged it so it stank in AMD , because of the hardware differences , and did n't put in a switch for AMD , well , who says they had to , and who would have paid for that ? I like intel 's parts , but not the company and their practices .
Go figure.This just sounds silly to me , it 's not like intel 's compiler had a compelling market share or was in general better and easier to use than say , DevStudio or GCC to mention some other extremes .
It was n't even better on their own parts unless you compiled for a very specific one , as I recall.Their other practices , they can go fry for as far as I care , but I wish AMD was making a more credible push too , despite the impediments intel has put in the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh, they stated they made a compiler to optimize performance on their chips, and if you jumped through enough hoops, it did -- I got tired of the hoops and quit using it for that reason alone.
They made no claims that I recall that their compiler was the best for all x86 parts.
If they munged it so it stank in AMD, because of the hardware differences, and didn't put in a switch for AMD, well, who says they had to, and who would have paid for that?I like intel's parts, but not the company and their practices.
Go figure.This just sounds silly to me, it's not like intel's compiler had a compelling market share or was in general better and easier to use than say, DevStudio or GCC to mention some other extremes.
It wasn't even better on their own parts unless you compiled for a very specific one, as I recall.Their other practices, they can go fry for as far as I care, but I wish AMD was making a more credible push too, despite the impediments intel has put in the way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463806</id>
	<title>Re:also Mac OS X</title>
	<author>Zenzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1259661720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But intel doesn't want this. By doing this intel would be telling every software company that if they use an intel compiler they must ignore 20\% of the market. It will be very little time before a new compiler is used that can compile for all x86 again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But intel does n't want this .
By doing this intel would be telling every software company that if they use an intel compiler they must ignore 20 \ % of the market .
It will be very little time before a new compiler is used that can compile for all x86 again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But intel doesn't want this.
By doing this intel would be telling every software company that if they use an intel compiler they must ignore 20\% of the market.
It will be very little time before a new compiler is used that can compile for all x86 again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462008</id>
	<title>Re:I especially like..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259699220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So are saying that this CPU detection happens during compile-time instead of run-time?</p><p>Consider a software company who uses an AMD CPU in their build machines and sells to customers that uses Intel CPUs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So are saying that this CPU detection happens during compile-time instead of run-time ? Consider a software company who uses an AMD CPU in their build machines and sells to customers that uses Intel CPUs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are saying that this CPU detection happens during compile-time instead of run-time?Consider a software company who uses an AMD CPU in their build machines and sells to customers that uses Intel CPUs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461362</id>
	<title>AMD got good deal then</title>
	<author>postmortem</author>
	<datestamp>1259696700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Abvoiusly both parties (AMD, intel) knew that 'bigger' lawsuit is coming, so they quickly settled for 1.25Bil. Many were surprised why AMD settled for such 'low' amount. After all settlements are done, intel will still have the market share... and much less cash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Abvoiusly both parties ( AMD , intel ) knew that 'bigger ' lawsuit is coming , so they quickly settled for 1.25Bil .
Many were surprised why AMD settled for such 'low ' amount .
After all settlements are done , intel will still have the market share... and much less cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Abvoiusly both parties (AMD, intel) knew that 'bigger' lawsuit is coming, so they quickly settled for 1.25Bil.
Many were surprised why AMD settled for such 'low' amount.
After all settlements are done, intel will still have the market share... and much less cash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462044</id>
	<title>also Mac OS X</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259699280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also Mac OS X is essentially a vendor neutral x86 operating system which has been optimised for Apple hardware.</p><p>Except when Apple does it, the law backs up their right to prevent anyone running the OS on non-Apple hardware; when Intel does it, \_and\_ offers at least scant support for non-Intel CPUs, they're punished for not offering MORE support.</p><p>Intel's solution should be to rewrite their EULA to prevent people using their compiler on non-Intel CPUs. And call it the "Apple clause". And aggressively pursue the infinitesimal proportion of people who support use of Intel's compiler to target non-Intel CPUs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also Mac OS X is essentially a vendor neutral x86 operating system which has been optimised for Apple hardware.Except when Apple does it , the law backs up their right to prevent anyone running the OS on non-Apple hardware ; when Intel does it , \ _and \ _ offers at least scant support for non-Intel CPUs , they 're punished for not offering MORE support.Intel 's solution should be to rewrite their EULA to prevent people using their compiler on non-Intel CPUs .
And call it the " Apple clause " .
And aggressively pursue the infinitesimal proportion of people who support use of Intel 's compiler to target non-Intel CPUs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also Mac OS X is essentially a vendor neutral x86 operating system which has been optimised for Apple hardware.Except when Apple does it, the law backs up their right to prevent anyone running the OS on non-Apple hardware; when Intel does it, \_and\_ offers at least scant support for non-Intel CPUs, they're punished for not offering MORE support.Intel's solution should be to rewrite their EULA to prevent people using their compiler on non-Intel CPUs.
And call it the "Apple clause".
And aggressively pursue the infinitesimal proportion of people who support use of Intel's compiler to target non-Intel CPUs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461330</id>
	<title>Re:I especially like..</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1259696580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The compiler performed optimizations for x86, which work equally well on their competitors' CPUs.  However, the compiler was hard coded to not actually apply optimizations on non-Intel hardware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The compiler performed optimizations for x86 , which work equally well on their competitors ' CPUs .
However , the compiler was hard coded to not actually apply optimizations on non-Intel hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The compiler performed optimizations for x86, which work equally well on their competitors' CPUs.
However, the compiler was hard coded to not actually apply optimizations on non-Intel hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461974</id>
	<title>Unintended consequences...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259699100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It certainly can be argued that Intel was anti-competitive. But then again, there's no reason why AMD couldn't develop their own compilers instead of relying on Intel's.</p><p>The irony here is that once the government starts imposing rules that imposes conditions on what a company like Intel can or can't do it has the unintended consequence of making things more onerous for would-be competitors. If someone else wants to compete in this market they're going to be forced to spend a lot more time and money meeting all these requirements. Ultimately you end up in a situation where only those who are already established can thrive, in this particular case that means Intel. Then the government has to step in to prop up a competitor and regulate the monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It certainly can be argued that Intel was anti-competitive .
But then again , there 's no reason why AMD could n't develop their own compilers instead of relying on Intel 's.The irony here is that once the government starts imposing rules that imposes conditions on what a company like Intel can or ca n't do it has the unintended consequence of making things more onerous for would-be competitors .
If someone else wants to compete in this market they 're going to be forced to spend a lot more time and money meeting all these requirements .
Ultimately you end up in a situation where only those who are already established can thrive , in this particular case that means Intel .
Then the government has to step in to prop up a competitor and regulate the monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It certainly can be argued that Intel was anti-competitive.
But then again, there's no reason why AMD couldn't develop their own compilers instead of relying on Intel's.The irony here is that once the government starts imposing rules that imposes conditions on what a company like Intel can or can't do it has the unintended consequence of making things more onerous for would-be competitors.
If someone else wants to compete in this market they're going to be forced to spend a lot more time and money meeting all these requirements.
Ultimately you end up in a situation where only those who are already established can thrive, in this particular case that means Intel.
Then the government has to step in to prop up a competitor and regulate the monopoly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462192</id>
	<title>Won't Change A Thing</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1259699700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like all US Government actions against large technology companies, this won't change a thing.  There will be a dog and pony show for the public, followed by a relatively small bribe...err...fine, and business as usual for Intel.</p><p>This won't change a thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like all US Government actions against large technology companies , this wo n't change a thing .
There will be a dog and pony show for the public , followed by a relatively small bribe...err...fine , and business as usual for Intel.This wo n't change a thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like all US Government actions against large technology companies, this won't change a thing.
There will be a dog and pony show for the public, followed by a relatively small bribe...err...fine, and business as usual for Intel.This won't change a thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463102</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh.</title>
	<author>pigeon768</author>
	<datestamp>1259659200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wait, a company that produces microprocessors also designed a compiler optimized to run best on that microprocessor? <i>It's a conspiracy!</i> </p></div><p>The issue isn't that they designed a compiler that optimizes their processors <i>better</i>, it's that they designed their compiler to run the same code <i>worse</i> on AMD architectures.</p><p>A program compiled with ICC will (when you start the program) read the CPUID - if the CPUID contains the string "GenuineIntel" it executes one code path, if it contains "AuthenticAMD" it executes a different one. (This is in addition to necessary checks for things like the CPU flags saying it has support for CMOV, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, etc.)</p><p>The problem is that if you edit the executable in your favorite hex editor and swap the two strings, it will run 10-50\% faster on AMD CPUs and 9-33\% slower on Intel CPUs. The strings are the same length, so you don't even need to change any offsets or anything. (google for the exact procedure. it's possible I left out a step) It's a <i>completely</i> artificial check that serves no purpose other than to produce code which runs slowly on AMD CPUs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , a company that produces microprocessors also designed a compiler optimized to run best on that microprocessor ?
It 's a conspiracy !
The issue is n't that they designed a compiler that optimizes their processors better , it 's that they designed their compiler to run the same code worse on AMD architectures.A program compiled with ICC will ( when you start the program ) read the CPUID - if the CPUID contains the string " GenuineIntel " it executes one code path , if it contains " AuthenticAMD " it executes a different one .
( This is in addition to necessary checks for things like the CPU flags saying it has support for CMOV , MMX , SSE , SSE2 , SSE3 , etc .
) The problem is that if you edit the executable in your favorite hex editor and swap the two strings , it will run 10-50 \ % faster on AMD CPUs and 9-33 \ % slower on Intel CPUs .
The strings are the same length , so you do n't even need to change any offsets or anything .
( google for the exact procedure .
it 's possible I left out a step ) It 's a completely artificial check that serves no purpose other than to produce code which runs slowly on AMD CPUs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, a company that produces microprocessors also designed a compiler optimized to run best on that microprocessor?
It's a conspiracy!
The issue isn't that they designed a compiler that optimizes their processors better, it's that they designed their compiler to run the same code worse on AMD architectures.A program compiled with ICC will (when you start the program) read the CPUID - if the CPUID contains the string "GenuineIntel" it executes one code path, if it contains "AuthenticAMD" it executes a different one.
(This is in addition to necessary checks for things like the CPU flags saying it has support for CMOV, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, etc.
)The problem is that if you edit the executable in your favorite hex editor and swap the two strings, it will run 10-50\% faster on AMD CPUs and 9-33\% slower on Intel CPUs.
The strings are the same length, so you don't even need to change any offsets or anything.
(google for the exact procedure.
it's possible I left out a step) It's a completely artificial check that serves no purpose other than to produce code which runs slowly on AMD CPUs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30502954</id>
	<title>Re:AMD was robbed</title>
	<author>Klintus Fang</author>
	<datestamp>1261305960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in the Athlon days, AMD lacked the manufacturing capacity to control 50\% of the market.  If all their fabs were running at 100\% at that time, and every chip they made was being sold, the total number of chips sold wouldn't have been anywhere near 50\% of the market.

Intel doesn't actually have to do anything illegal or sleezy to stay ahead on market share.  The fact is that no matter how bad their chips might suck the big manufacturers like Dell et. al. will still have to use Intel chips in the majority of the machines they sell because AMD isn't physically capable of making enough.

That is the fine line AMD has to tread.  They have to constantly stay ahead in performance while slowly growing their market share and then use the profits to invest in increased manufacturing capacity.  It takes years to build a new plant afterall, and if you build too many too quickly, you'll end up with manufacturing capacity you cannot use and you lose tons of money because maintaining a microprocessor manufacturing plant is enormously expensive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the Athlon days , AMD lacked the manufacturing capacity to control 50 \ % of the market .
If all their fabs were running at 100 \ % at that time , and every chip they made was being sold , the total number of chips sold would n't have been anywhere near 50 \ % of the market .
Intel does n't actually have to do anything illegal or sleezy to stay ahead on market share .
The fact is that no matter how bad their chips might suck the big manufacturers like Dell et .
al. will still have to use Intel chips in the majority of the machines they sell because AMD is n't physically capable of making enough .
That is the fine line AMD has to tread .
They have to constantly stay ahead in performance while slowly growing their market share and then use the profits to invest in increased manufacturing capacity .
It takes years to build a new plant afterall , and if you build too many too quickly , you 'll end up with manufacturing capacity you can not use and you lose tons of money because maintaining a microprocessor manufacturing plant is enormously expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the Athlon days, AMD lacked the manufacturing capacity to control 50\% of the market.
If all their fabs were running at 100\% at that time, and every chip they made was being sold, the total number of chips sold wouldn't have been anywhere near 50\% of the market.
Intel doesn't actually have to do anything illegal or sleezy to stay ahead on market share.
The fact is that no matter how bad their chips might suck the big manufacturers like Dell et.
al. will still have to use Intel chips in the majority of the machines they sell because AMD isn't physically capable of making enough.
That is the fine line AMD has to tread.
They have to constantly stay ahead in performance while slowly growing their market share and then use the profits to invest in increased manufacturing capacity.
It takes years to build a new plant afterall, and if you build too many too quickly, you'll end up with manufacturing capacity you cannot use and you lose tons of money because maintaining a microprocessor manufacturing plant is enormously expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461406</id>
	<title>AMD was robbed</title>
	<author>byteherder</author>
	<datestamp>1259696880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back when AMD's microprocessors were the state of the art (Athlon), they should have had 50\% or more of the chip market. Intel only was able to preserve its market share through illegal means. Eventually, through the billions in extra profit they made, they were able to pull ahead in this technology race.

AMD was deprived of billions is profit which they could have used for more R&amp;D to make their chips more competitive today. I don't know how you restore a market where one player has been cheating illegally for a decade and now has a monolopy, but Good Luck FTC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when AMD 's microprocessors were the state of the art ( Athlon ) , they should have had 50 \ % or more of the chip market .
Intel only was able to preserve its market share through illegal means .
Eventually , through the billions in extra profit they made , they were able to pull ahead in this technology race .
AMD was deprived of billions is profit which they could have used for more R&amp;D to make their chips more competitive today .
I do n't know how you restore a market where one player has been cheating illegally for a decade and now has a monolopy , but Good Luck FTC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when AMD's microprocessors were the state of the art (Athlon), they should have had 50\% or more of the chip market.
Intel only was able to preserve its market share through illegal means.
Eventually, through the billions in extra profit they made, they were able to pull ahead in this technology race.
AMD was deprived of billions is profit which they could have used for more R&amp;D to make their chips more competitive today.
I don't know how you restore a market where one player has been cheating illegally for a decade and now has a monolopy, but Good Luck FTC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461972</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully this will free up Nvidia to compete</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1259699100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and this whole suit bodes well for Apple and other companies who need cheap and integrated, but can't deal with the shitfest we know as Intel Integrated. As you said 9400M while still being low-end is quite capable for most uses, even some light gaming. The though of seeing a move back to Intel graphics in the Macbooks is enough to make me ill. Almost as bad as when they dumped PPC and with it the Radeon 9250(?) on Mini and iBook and replaced it with an Intel 950- that was a bloodbath. I remember working at a major electronics store around 2002 and having the Intel rep always tell me how they were just on the cusp of a really bad ass integrated chipset that would blow away ATI and Nvidia. Well random Itel rep, we're still waiting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and this whole suit bodes well for Apple and other companies who need cheap and integrated , but ca n't deal with the shitfest we know as Intel Integrated .
As you said 9400M while still being low-end is quite capable for most uses , even some light gaming .
The though of seeing a move back to Intel graphics in the Macbooks is enough to make me ill. Almost as bad as when they dumped PPC and with it the Radeon 9250 ( ?
) on Mini and iBook and replaced it with an Intel 950- that was a bloodbath .
I remember working at a major electronics store around 2002 and having the Intel rep always tell me how they were just on the cusp of a really bad ass integrated chipset that would blow away ATI and Nvidia .
Well random Itel rep , we 're still waiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and this whole suit bodes well for Apple and other companies who need cheap and integrated, but can't deal with the shitfest we know as Intel Integrated.
As you said 9400M while still being low-end is quite capable for most uses, even some light gaming.
The though of seeing a move back to Intel graphics in the Macbooks is enough to make me ill. Almost as bad as when they dumped PPC and with it the Radeon 9250(?
) on Mini and iBook and replaced it with an Intel 950- that was a bloodbath.
I remember working at a major electronics store around 2002 and having the Intel rep always tell me how they were just on the cusp of a really bad ass integrated chipset that would blow away ATI and Nvidia.
Well random Itel rep, we're still waiting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30467718</id>
	<title>Re:I especially like..</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259678220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isnt all of it really. Sure, they ignored the feature flags.. but they also intentionally did not do other far more general optimizations, such as eliminating dead and/or redundant code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This isnt all of it really .
Sure , they ignored the feature flags.. but they also intentionally did not do other far more general optimizations , such as eliminating dead and/or redundant code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isnt all of it really.
Sure, they ignored the feature flags.. but they also intentionally did not do other far more general optimizations, such as eliminating dead and/or redundant code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461490</id>
	<title>Re:I especially like..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259697300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are some differences(3Dnow! is AMD only, SSE isn't present on some AMD chips, and a whole bunch of other minutia).<br> <br>

Thing is, though, chips declare which features they support: "flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae..." and who made them "vendor\_id: GenuineIntel/AuthenticAMD". Intel's compiler, though, was ignoring the feature flags if the vendor\_id was not "GenuineIntel". It would be silly to demand that intel support 3Dnow! or any other AMD-specific oddities, or demand that it ensure that the binaries it produces are equally well optimized for the precise architectural details of AMD's CPUs.<br> <br>

Blatantly ignoring the feature flags on non-intel CPUs, though, is another matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some differences ( 3Dnow !
is AMD only , SSE is n't present on some AMD chips , and a whole bunch of other minutia ) .
Thing is , though , chips declare which features they support : " flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae... " and who made them " vendor \ _id : GenuineIntel/AuthenticAMD " .
Intel 's compiler , though , was ignoring the feature flags if the vendor \ _id was not " GenuineIntel " .
It would be silly to demand that intel support 3Dnow !
or any other AMD-specific oddities , or demand that it ensure that the binaries it produces are equally well optimized for the precise architectural details of AMD 's CPUs .
Blatantly ignoring the feature flags on non-intel CPUs , though , is another matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some differences(3Dnow!
is AMD only, SSE isn't present on some AMD chips, and a whole bunch of other minutia).
Thing is, though, chips declare which features they support: "flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae..." and who made them "vendor\_id: GenuineIntel/AuthenticAMD".
Intel's compiler, though, was ignoring the feature flags if the vendor\_id was not "GenuineIntel".
It would be silly to demand that intel support 3Dnow!
or any other AMD-specific oddities, or demand that it ensure that the binaries it produces are equally well optimized for the precise architectural details of AMD's CPUs.
Blatantly ignoring the feature flags on non-intel CPUs, though, is another matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461234</id>
	<title>Re:I especially like..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a difference between not optimising for a competitors processor and deliberately making performance worse for a competitors processor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference between not optimising for a competitors processor and deliberately making performance worse for a competitors processor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference between not optimising for a competitors processor and deliberately making performance worse for a competitors processor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461558</id>
	<title>Intel's response</title>
	<author>parallel\_prankster</author>
	<datestamp>1259697600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/12/16/intel-responds-to-ftc-suit/" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/12/16/intel-responds-to-ftc-suit/</a> [wsj.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/12/16/intel-responds-to-ftc-suit/ [ wsj.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/12/16/intel-responds-to-ftc-suit/ [wsj.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462250</id>
	<title>AMD/ATI  FTW</title>
	<author>Keep Six</author>
	<datestamp>1259699880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I decided a few months ago to boycott nVidia and Intel because of their questionable business ethics, and because of their product naming schemes.  My life is so much easier now when researching new builds for sucktomers.  Heck , I won't even buy a mobo with an Intel chipset.  I know my dollars won't make a difference, but if everyone did it, hooboy...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I decided a few months ago to boycott nVidia and Intel because of their questionable business ethics , and because of their product naming schemes .
My life is so much easier now when researching new builds for sucktomers .
Heck , I wo n't even buy a mobo with an Intel chipset .
I know my dollars wo n't make a difference , but if everyone did it , hooboy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I decided a few months ago to boycott nVidia and Intel because of their questionable business ethics, and because of their product naming schemes.
My life is so much easier now when researching new builds for sucktomers.
Heck , I won't even buy a mobo with an Intel chipset.
I know my dollars won't make a difference, but if everyone did it, hooboy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462676</id>
	<title>Not the worst thing Intel has done</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1259701080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>One interesting charge that has already arisen: that Intel systematically changed its widely used compiler to stunt the performance of competing processors.</i> If you're giving a compiler away for free to leverage processor sales, why would you bother to optimize it for your competitor's processors? Intel's giving discounts to PC vendors that agree not to use AMD is much more anticompetitive!</htmltext>
<tokenext>One interesting charge that has already arisen : that Intel systematically changed its widely used compiler to stunt the performance of competing processors .
If you 're giving a compiler away for free to leverage processor sales , why would you bother to optimize it for your competitor 's processors ?
Intel 's giving discounts to PC vendors that agree not to use AMD is much more anticompetitive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One interesting charge that has already arisen: that Intel systematically changed its widely used compiler to stunt the performance of competing processors.
If you're giving a compiler away for free to leverage processor sales, why would you bother to optimize it for your competitor's processors?
Intel's giving discounts to PC vendors that agree not to use AMD is much more anticompetitive!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463842</id>
	<title>Current Intel C++ compiler question</title>
	<author>st3v</author>
	<datestamp>1259661900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does the current Intel C++ compiler (11.1) still cripple the binaries, where it generates separate code paths and uses one of them depending if a CPU is Intel or AMD?

I could not find a definitive answer while searching Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the current Intel C + + compiler ( 11.1 ) still cripple the binaries , where it generates separate code paths and uses one of them depending if a CPU is Intel or AMD ?
I could not find a definitive answer while searching Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the current Intel C++ compiler (11.1) still cripple the binaries, where it generates separate code paths and uses one of them depending if a CPU is Intel or AMD?
I could not find a definitive answer while searching Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461116</id>
	<title>Intel</title>
	<author>ArbitraryDescriptor</author>
	<datestamp>1259695800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our competitive practices aren't like your competitive practices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our competitive practices are n't like your competitive practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our competitive practices aren't like your competitive practices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463744</id>
	<title>I tend to avoid both Intel and nVidia</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1259661480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the exception of my EEE, which I don't really get a choice, I always go with AMD. I've never had issues with them, they're cheaper and quite frankly I'll never forgive Intel for introducing such shitty video cards into the PC market.
<br> <br>
I opt for ATI because it's supporting AMD but more importantly I was very impressed with my laptop's graphics card. I've had the laptop for sometime and it still performs well. It's the best video card I've had in a laptop by far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the exception of my EEE , which I do n't really get a choice , I always go with AMD .
I 've never had issues with them , they 're cheaper and quite frankly I 'll never forgive Intel for introducing such shitty video cards into the PC market .
I opt for ATI because it 's supporting AMD but more importantly I was very impressed with my laptop 's graphics card .
I 've had the laptop for sometime and it still performs well .
It 's the best video card I 've had in a laptop by far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the exception of my EEE, which I don't really get a choice, I always go with AMD.
I've never had issues with them, they're cheaper and quite frankly I'll never forgive Intel for introducing such shitty video cards into the PC market.
I opt for ATI because it's supporting AMD but more importantly I was very impressed with my laptop's graphics card.
I've had the laptop for sometime and it still performs well.
It's the best video card I've had in a laptop by far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461074</id>
	<title>I especially like..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259695680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like the complaint about the compiler.  After all, Intel should be required to optimize their compiler for their competitor.  To each according to his need...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the complaint about the compiler .
After all , Intel should be required to optimize their compiler for their competitor .
To each according to his need.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the complaint about the compiler.
After all, Intel should be required to optimize their compiler for their competitor.
To each according to his need...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30466738</id>
	<title>Re:I tend to avoid both Intel and nVidia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259672280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for my laptops, which have been usually employer-provided, I've bought only AMD processors for my x86 boxes for the last 12 years.<br>Why? Because they've been Good Enough for what my clients, most of my friends and I do.</p><p>The very first AMD box I built, a K6, still works, although it's been only a kid's toy for several years.</p><p>I continue to support them because, without AMD, Intel would be a monopoly in both body and spirit.</p><p>Now, with Nehalem finally sporting most or all of the features, 10 years after, that allowed AMD to remain competitive with Chipzilla, I might consider an Intel<br>setup for my next rig but I'm waiting for USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s to become more widely available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for my laptops , which have been usually employer-provided , I 've bought only AMD processors for my x86 boxes for the last 12 years.Why ?
Because they 've been Good Enough for what my clients , most of my friends and I do.The very first AMD box I built , a K6 , still works , although it 's been only a kid 's toy for several years.I continue to support them because , without AMD , Intel would be a monopoly in both body and spirit.Now , with Nehalem finally sporting most or all of the features , 10 years after , that allowed AMD to remain competitive with Chipzilla , I might consider an Intelsetup for my next rig but I 'm waiting for USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s to become more widely available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for my laptops, which have been usually employer-provided, I've bought only AMD processors for my x86 boxes for the last 12 years.Why?
Because they've been Good Enough for what my clients, most of my friends and I do.The very first AMD box I built, a K6, still works, although it's been only a kid's toy for several years.I continue to support them because, without AMD, Intel would be a monopoly in both body and spirit.Now, with Nehalem finally sporting most or all of the features, 10 years after, that allowed AMD to remain competitive with Chipzilla, I might consider an Intelsetup for my next rig but I'm waiting for USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s to become more widely available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30467646</id>
	<title>Onoz!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259677740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what they're saying is that Intel's compiler produces better code on Intel chips? And that GCC still does not care? And that billions of dollars are going to get spent, ultimately, not to improve compiler performance?</p><p>Hell, let's all sue SGI! MIPSpro CC won't produce any code AT ALL unless you run it on a Silicon Graphics machine. It's a travesty - where's the justice?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what they 're saying is that Intel 's compiler produces better code on Intel chips ?
And that GCC still does not care ?
And that billions of dollars are going to get spent , ultimately , not to improve compiler performance ? Hell , let 's all sue SGI !
MIPSpro CC wo n't produce any code AT ALL unless you run it on a Silicon Graphics machine .
It 's a travesty - where 's the justice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what they're saying is that Intel's compiler produces better code on Intel chips?
And that GCC still does not care?
And that billions of dollars are going to get spent, ultimately, not to improve compiler performance?Hell, let's all sue SGI!
MIPSpro CC won't produce any code AT ALL unless you run it on a Silicon Graphics machine.
It's a travesty - where's the justice?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463206</id>
	<title>HEAR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259659560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;The official hearing is set for September of 2010 but we will likely here news filtering out about the evidence and charges &gt;&gt;well before that.</p><p>Hmmm, it's "we will likely HEAR news...."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The official hearing is set for September of 2010 but we will likely here news filtering out about the evidence and charges &gt; &gt; well before that.Hmmm , it 's " we will likely HEAR news.... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;The official hearing is set for September of 2010 but we will likely here news filtering out about the evidence and charges &gt;&gt;well before that.Hmmm, it's "we will likely HEAR news...."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30471278</id>
	<title>EU hates US companies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261048260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh noes! Those terrible EU socialists is attacking our brave American companies again!</p><p>Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noes !
Those terrible EU socialists is attacking our brave American companies again ! Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noes!
Those terrible EU socialists is attacking our brave American companies again!Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463166</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh.</title>
	<author>Brian Stretch</author>
	<datestamp>1259659440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel's compiler treated any CPU that didn't report being GenuineIntel as an i386 instead of checking for the SSE, SSE2, etc flags like an honest company would have.  If you hacked the compiled code to skip the GenuineIntel flag test it magically performed MUCH faster on AMD hardware.</p><p>Given that end users have no control over which compiler a software developer uses, AMD users suffered artificially poor performance if their vendors either chose or were coerced into using Intel's compilers.</p><p>This is a very old issue.  Here is one glaring specific example from four years ago:<br>http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155593&amp;cid=13042922</p><p>Benchmark companies in particular just happened to favor Intel compilers.  Some of those benchmark makers were really, really shady:<br>http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010814\_Intel\_SysMark/010814\_Intel\_SysMark.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel 's compiler treated any CPU that did n't report being GenuineIntel as an i386 instead of checking for the SSE , SSE2 , etc flags like an honest company would have .
If you hacked the compiled code to skip the GenuineIntel flag test it magically performed MUCH faster on AMD hardware.Given that end users have no control over which compiler a software developer uses , AMD users suffered artificially poor performance if their vendors either chose or were coerced into using Intel 's compilers.This is a very old issue .
Here is one glaring specific example from four years ago : http : //yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 155593&amp;cid = 13042922Benchmark companies in particular just happened to favor Intel compilers .
Some of those benchmark makers were really , really shady : http : //www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010814 \ _Intel \ _SysMark/010814 \ _Intel \ _SysMark.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel's compiler treated any CPU that didn't report being GenuineIntel as an i386 instead of checking for the SSE, SSE2, etc flags like an honest company would have.
If you hacked the compiled code to skip the GenuineIntel flag test it magically performed MUCH faster on AMD hardware.Given that end users have no control over which compiler a software developer uses, AMD users suffered artificially poor performance if their vendors either chose or were coerced into using Intel's compilers.This is a very old issue.
Here is one glaring specific example from four years ago:http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155593&amp;cid=13042922Benchmark companies in particular just happened to favor Intel compilers.
Some of those benchmark makers were really, really shady:http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010814\_Intel\_SysMark/010814\_Intel\_SysMark.htm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30464094</id>
	<title>Re:Intel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259662860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All competitive practices are equal. Some are just more equal than others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All competitive practices are equal .
Some are just more equal than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All competitive practices are equal.
Some are just more equal than others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463652</id>
	<title>Re:Read the FTC release</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1259661060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Selling an Atom alone for more than the price of the same Atom bundled with a chipset</p></div><p>This never happened.  You're lying and you got modded insightful. Nice job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Selling an Atom alone for more than the price of the same Atom bundled with a chipsetThis never happened .
You 're lying and you got modded insightful .
Nice job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Selling an Atom alone for more than the price of the same Atom bundled with a chipsetThis never happened.
You're lying and you got modded insightful.
Nice job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461244</id>
	<title>Re:I especially like..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like the complaint about the compiler.  After all, Intel should be required to optimize their compiler for their competitor.  To each according to his need...</p></div><p>The allegation is their compiler can, but deliberately does NOT, apply optimization to code if it detects the processor is AMD.</p><p>This is analogous to video game consoles refusing to use generic memory sticks or hard drives. Of course, intel will try to claim it's more like trying to attach a sata drive to an IDE port, but we all know the instruction sets for X86 are standard across both chips.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the complaint about the compiler .
After all , Intel should be required to optimize their compiler for their competitor .
To each according to his need...The allegation is their compiler can , but deliberately does NOT , apply optimization to code if it detects the processor is AMD.This is analogous to video game consoles refusing to use generic memory sticks or hard drives .
Of course , intel will try to claim it 's more like trying to attach a sata drive to an IDE port , but we all know the instruction sets for X86 are standard across both chips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the complaint about the compiler.
After all, Intel should be required to optimize their compiler for their competitor.
To each according to his need...The allegation is their compiler can, but deliberately does NOT, apply optimization to code if it detects the processor is AMD.This is analogous to video game consoles refusing to use generic memory sticks or hard drives.
Of course, intel will try to claim it's more like trying to attach a sata drive to an IDE port, but we all know the instruction sets for X86 are standard across both chips.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461184</id>
	<title>Hopefully this will free up Nvidia to compete</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hopefully this will free up Nvidia to continue innovating in the integrated GPU arena. Intel's best attempt at competing against the year-old 9400M apparently only matches half of its performance at best. And wasn't Intel actively preventing Nvidia from competing for inclusion in the newest motherboard designs by failing to license certain Core iX chipset components?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this will free up Nvidia to continue innovating in the integrated GPU arena .
Intel 's best attempt at competing against the year-old 9400M apparently only matches half of its performance at best .
And was n't Intel actively preventing Nvidia from competing for inclusion in the newest motherboard designs by failing to license certain Core iX chipset components ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this will free up Nvidia to continue innovating in the integrated GPU arena.
Intel's best attempt at competing against the year-old 9400M apparently only matches half of its performance at best.
And wasn't Intel actively preventing Nvidia from competing for inclusion in the newest motherboard designs by failing to license certain Core iX chipset components?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461280</id>
	<title>EU I can understand...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU thing is just a protectionism tax...that I can understand. But this?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The company keeps their revenue positive, even though the global economy is only now seemingly recovering from the disaster of the past 12 months.</p> </div><p>We gotta put a stop to that shit right now!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU thing is just a protectionism tax...that I can understand .
But this ? The company keeps their revenue positive , even though the global economy is only now seemingly recovering from the disaster of the past 12 months .
We got ta put a stop to that shit right now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU thing is just a protectionism tax...that I can understand.
But this?The company keeps their revenue positive, even though the global economy is only now seemingly recovering from the disaster of the past 12 months.
We gotta put a stop to that shit right now!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461734</id>
	<title>Read the FTC release</title>
	<author>RalphBNumbers</author>
	<datestamp>1259698380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/intel.shtm" title="ftc.gov">FTC press release</a> [ftc.gov] says:</p><blockquote><div><p>"To remedy the anticompetitive damage alleged in the complaint, the FTC is seeking an order which includes provisions that would prevent Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition, or unfairly manipulate the prices of its CPU or GPU chips</p></div></blockquote><p>That sounds like a pretty direct strike against Intel's moves in the graphics market lately.  Selling an Atom alone for more than the price of the same Atom bundled with a chipset, trying to prevent Nvidia from making chipsets for their Nehalem CPUs, bundling their own GPU on the package of all of their low to mid range next generation CPUs, etc...</p><p>It should be interesting to see how Intel responds to this.  It's probably too late to make any major changes to Clarkdale/Arrandale before they ship, so on-package GPUs are definitely coming.  But imagine if Intel were required to sell bare dice at fair prices (surprisingly enough, packaging a die is one of the most expensive steps of chipmaking), so that others could do the same thing.  Imagine an intel chip with an on-package Nvidia or AMD GPU...</p><p>Sometimes I wonder if computers will always be built around motherboards as we know them.  As motherboards shrink, and we start seeing multiple dice on a single package even in low end consumer gear, could the motherboard eventually be replaced with one big multi-die package? It would certainly reduce size and bring part counts down, and I expect it would allow for lower power consumption and higher speeds as well (although, of course, it would make building your own as an enthusiast impractical).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FTC press release [ ftc.gov ] says : " To remedy the anticompetitive damage alleged in the complaint , the FTC is seeking an order which includes provisions that would prevent Intel from using threats , bundled prices , or other offers to encourage exclusive deals , hamper competition , or unfairly manipulate the prices of its CPU or GPU chipsThat sounds like a pretty direct strike against Intel 's moves in the graphics market lately .
Selling an Atom alone for more than the price of the same Atom bundled with a chipset , trying to prevent Nvidia from making chipsets for their Nehalem CPUs , bundling their own GPU on the package of all of their low to mid range next generation CPUs , etc...It should be interesting to see how Intel responds to this .
It 's probably too late to make any major changes to Clarkdale/Arrandale before they ship , so on-package GPUs are definitely coming .
But imagine if Intel were required to sell bare dice at fair prices ( surprisingly enough , packaging a die is one of the most expensive steps of chipmaking ) , so that others could do the same thing .
Imagine an intel chip with an on-package Nvidia or AMD GPU...Sometimes I wonder if computers will always be built around motherboards as we know them .
As motherboards shrink , and we start seeing multiple dice on a single package even in low end consumer gear , could the motherboard eventually be replaced with one big multi-die package ?
It would certainly reduce size and bring part counts down , and I expect it would allow for lower power consumption and higher speeds as well ( although , of course , it would make building your own as an enthusiast impractical ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FTC press release [ftc.gov] says:"To remedy the anticompetitive damage alleged in the complaint, the FTC is seeking an order which includes provisions that would prevent Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition, or unfairly manipulate the prices of its CPU or GPU chipsThat sounds like a pretty direct strike against Intel's moves in the graphics market lately.
Selling an Atom alone for more than the price of the same Atom bundled with a chipset, trying to prevent Nvidia from making chipsets for their Nehalem CPUs, bundling their own GPU on the package of all of their low to mid range next generation CPUs, etc...It should be interesting to see how Intel responds to this.
It's probably too late to make any major changes to Clarkdale/Arrandale before they ship, so on-package GPUs are definitely coming.
But imagine if Intel were required to sell bare dice at fair prices (surprisingly enough, packaging a die is one of the most expensive steps of chipmaking), so that others could do the same thing.
Imagine an intel chip with an on-package Nvidia or AMD GPU...Sometimes I wonder if computers will always be built around motherboards as we know them.
As motherboards shrink, and we start seeing multiple dice on a single package even in low end consumer gear, could the motherboard eventually be replaced with one big multi-die package?
It would certainly reduce size and bring part counts down, and I expect it would allow for lower power consumption and higher speeds as well (although, of course, it would make building your own as an enthusiast impractical).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461710</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh.</title>
	<author>byteherder</author>
	<datestamp>1259698260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There is no conspiracy: This is business. Business is inherently anti-competitive. If I'm competing with you, I want you out of the game, and just like in a video game, I will use combo attacks and drop-kick you right as you get up (repeatedly) to keep you from recovering until you throw the controller at me. That's just how the game is played. (See slashdot, we can avoid car analogies!)</i> <br> <br>

Let's make the car analogy... In Indy car racing, you are not allowed to smash into your opponent over and over again until his car is a smoking pile of metal and then run him over as he leaves the flaming wreckage. This is against the rules.<br> <br>

There are rules in business just as in car racing. Intel broke them. Now they have to face the music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no conspiracy : This is business .
Business is inherently anti-competitive .
If I 'm competing with you , I want you out of the game , and just like in a video game , I will use combo attacks and drop-kick you right as you get up ( repeatedly ) to keep you from recovering until you throw the controller at me .
That 's just how the game is played .
( See slashdot , we can avoid car analogies !
) Let 's make the car analogy... In Indy car racing , you are not allowed to smash into your opponent over and over again until his car is a smoking pile of metal and then run him over as he leaves the flaming wreckage .
This is against the rules .
There are rules in business just as in car racing .
Intel broke them .
Now they have to face the music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no conspiracy: This is business.
Business is inherently anti-competitive.
If I'm competing with you, I want you out of the game, and just like in a video game, I will use combo attacks and drop-kick you right as you get up (repeatedly) to keep you from recovering until you throw the controller at me.
That's just how the game is played.
(See slashdot, we can avoid car analogies!
)  

Let's make the car analogy... In Indy car racing, you are not allowed to smash into your opponent over and over again until his car is a smoking pile of metal and then run him over as he leaves the flaming wreckage.
This is against the rules.
There are rules in business just as in car racing.
Intel broke them.
Now they have to face the music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462320</id>
	<title>Re:AMD was robbed</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1259700060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reality would like a word with you. For AMD to have had 50\% or more market share, they would have had to build 50\% of the chips being sold. AMD has never had that kind of manafacturing capacity. In fact, one of the reasons why Intel is so successful is they have always invested heavily in their fabrication technology. Sure, Intel manipulated AMD out of sales. But the reason they were in a position to do so, was that AMD couldn't supply the volume of chips with the predictability to satisfy any of the major vendors. Regardless how good AMD's chips were in comparison to Intel's at the time, the major OEMs were still beholden to Intel. Intel was king for the simple fact that there was nobody else big enough to wear the crown.</p><p>AMD invested heavily in chip design in the 90s. They brought in a lot smart guys who worked on the Alpha, which heavily influenced the K8.  And they were doing well at the time. They did have some market segments sewn up. When they really failed, was when Intel pushed them into a price war. AMD couldn't keep up with Intel's aggressive pricing because they simply could not produce competitive chips as inexpensively as Intel could. And while I don't intend to absolve Intel of any wrongdoing in their part, I would like to put it in perspective... compared to the rest of the industry, AMD neglected their fabs. It wasn't market manipulation that ended their profitability, it was falling yields. Why do you think they eventually spun off Global Foundries?</p><p>Yeah, maybe had they made more money they would have been able to invest more heavily in their weak areas. But it's not like they demonstrated any interest in doing so at the time; it's not like credit and tech investment was hard to come by back then. It all seems a bit like 'speculative history' fiction. What would have happened if the Nazis hadn't put jet research on hold at the beginning of the second world war?! That's a very interesting question. But they did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reality would like a word with you .
For AMD to have had 50 \ % or more market share , they would have had to build 50 \ % of the chips being sold .
AMD has never had that kind of manafacturing capacity .
In fact , one of the reasons why Intel is so successful is they have always invested heavily in their fabrication technology .
Sure , Intel manipulated AMD out of sales .
But the reason they were in a position to do so , was that AMD could n't supply the volume of chips with the predictability to satisfy any of the major vendors .
Regardless how good AMD 's chips were in comparison to Intel 's at the time , the major OEMs were still beholden to Intel .
Intel was king for the simple fact that there was nobody else big enough to wear the crown.AMD invested heavily in chip design in the 90s .
They brought in a lot smart guys who worked on the Alpha , which heavily influenced the K8 .
And they were doing well at the time .
They did have some market segments sewn up .
When they really failed , was when Intel pushed them into a price war .
AMD could n't keep up with Intel 's aggressive pricing because they simply could not produce competitive chips as inexpensively as Intel could .
And while I do n't intend to absolve Intel of any wrongdoing in their part , I would like to put it in perspective... compared to the rest of the industry , AMD neglected their fabs .
It was n't market manipulation that ended their profitability , it was falling yields .
Why do you think they eventually spun off Global Foundries ? Yeah , maybe had they made more money they would have been able to invest more heavily in their weak areas .
But it 's not like they demonstrated any interest in doing so at the time ; it 's not like credit and tech investment was hard to come by back then .
It all seems a bit like 'speculative history ' fiction .
What would have happened if the Nazis had n't put jet research on hold at the beginning of the second world war ? !
That 's a very interesting question .
But they did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reality would like a word with you.
For AMD to have had 50\% or more market share, they would have had to build 50\% of the chips being sold.
AMD has never had that kind of manafacturing capacity.
In fact, one of the reasons why Intel is so successful is they have always invested heavily in their fabrication technology.
Sure, Intel manipulated AMD out of sales.
But the reason they were in a position to do so, was that AMD couldn't supply the volume of chips with the predictability to satisfy any of the major vendors.
Regardless how good AMD's chips were in comparison to Intel's at the time, the major OEMs were still beholden to Intel.
Intel was king for the simple fact that there was nobody else big enough to wear the crown.AMD invested heavily in chip design in the 90s.
They brought in a lot smart guys who worked on the Alpha, which heavily influenced the K8.
And they were doing well at the time.
They did have some market segments sewn up.
When they really failed, was when Intel pushed them into a price war.
AMD couldn't keep up with Intel's aggressive pricing because they simply could not produce competitive chips as inexpensively as Intel could.
And while I don't intend to absolve Intel of any wrongdoing in their part, I would like to put it in perspective... compared to the rest of the industry, AMD neglected their fabs.
It wasn't market manipulation that ended their profitability, it was falling yields.
Why do you think they eventually spun off Global Foundries?Yeah, maybe had they made more money they would have been able to invest more heavily in their weak areas.
But it's not like they demonstrated any interest in doing so at the time; it's not like credit and tech investment was hard to come by back then.
It all seems a bit like 'speculative history' fiction.
What would have happened if the Nazis hadn't put jet research on hold at the beginning of the second world war?!
That's a very interesting question.
But they did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462716</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences...</title>
	<author>Changa\_MC</author>
	<datestamp>1259658000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it is true that increased regulations are often a barrier to entry, thereby decreasing competition, that has nothing to do with this case.</p><p>The FTC is not adding a new rule, they are enforcing an old one.  And that rule can be summarized as: do not deliberately defraud your consumers in one market to make the competition look bad in another market  (in this case, market one: compilers, market 2: CPUs).</p><p>Any company that cannot stay within that rule will also not be capable of providing a benefit to the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is true that increased regulations are often a barrier to entry , thereby decreasing competition , that has nothing to do with this case.The FTC is not adding a new rule , they are enforcing an old one .
And that rule can be summarized as : do not deliberately defraud your consumers in one market to make the competition look bad in another market ( in this case , market one : compilers , market 2 : CPUs ) .Any company that can not stay within that rule will also not be capable of providing a benefit to the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is true that increased regulations are often a barrier to entry, thereby decreasing competition, that has nothing to do with this case.The FTC is not adding a new rule, they are enforcing an old one.
And that rule can be summarized as: do not deliberately defraud your consumers in one market to make the competition look bad in another market  (in this case, market one: compilers, market 2: CPUs).Any company that cannot stay within that rule will also not be capable of providing a benefit to the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461974</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30466670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30502954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30467718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30477264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30465468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30467324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30467316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30465312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30466400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30466738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30464094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1816245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30466670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30466738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30465312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30467324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30465468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30466400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30502954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30477264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30467316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461490
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30467718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30463806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30464094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30462716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1816245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1816245.30461240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
