<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_19_2138259</id>
	<title>Nvidia Waiting In the Wings In FTC-Intel Dispute</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261239780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The NY Times has a Bits Blog piece speculating on some of the fallout if the FTC prevails in its <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/16/1816245/US-FTC-Sues-Intel-For-Anti-Competitive-Practices">anti-competition lawsuit against Intel</a>. The Times picks out two among the 26 remedies proposed by the regulator, and concludes that they add up to <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/has-the-ftc-opened-the-door-for-the-great-chip-war/?ref=technology">Nvidia being able to license x86 technology</a>. This could open up 3-way competition in the market for combined CPU-graphics chips. There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence pointing to the possibility that Nvidia has been working on x86 technology since 2007, including the presence on its employment rolls of more than 70 former Transmeta workers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NY Times has a Bits Blog piece speculating on some of the fallout if the FTC prevails in its anti-competition lawsuit against Intel .
The Times picks out two among the 26 remedies proposed by the regulator , and concludes that they add up to Nvidia being able to license x86 technology .
This could open up 3-way competition in the market for combined CPU-graphics chips .
There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence pointing to the possibility that Nvidia has been working on x86 technology since 2007 , including the presence on its employment rolls of more than 70 former Transmeta workers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NY Times has a Bits Blog piece speculating on some of the fallout if the FTC prevails in its anti-competition lawsuit against Intel.
The Times picks out two among the 26 remedies proposed by the regulator, and concludes that they add up to Nvidia being able to license x86 technology.
This could open up 3-way competition in the market for combined CPU-graphics chips.
There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence pointing to the possibility that Nvidia has been working on x86 technology since 2007, including the presence on its employment rolls of more than 70 former Transmeta workers.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503088</id>
	<title>Re:Ugg...</title>
	<author>gedw99</author>
	<datestamp>1261309500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. There are many potential players in the market that will get involved once the licensing issues are removed.</p><p>The internet has become so important to the the world daily lives, and yet a huge percentage of it is dependent on a platforms that is monopolized. Thats very dangerous.</p><p>Stirring up this pot, will have huge unknown ramifications in the world of computing in general.<br>For example, ARM dual core CPUS are getting to the point of competing with Intel Atoms. This will put pressure on the ARM platform then if many more intel CPU and chipset producers exist.</p><p>Another aspect is the environment. More competition will allow many players to enter the market to build cpus and chipsets that use much less amps and volts. This is really so important now as electricity prices go up and up.<br>I remember reading that the high use of electricity is not in intels chips, but more in their chipset.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
There are many potential players in the market that will get involved once the licensing issues are removed.The internet has become so important to the the world daily lives , and yet a huge percentage of it is dependent on a platforms that is monopolized .
Thats very dangerous.Stirring up this pot , will have huge unknown ramifications in the world of computing in general.For example , ARM dual core CPUS are getting to the point of competing with Intel Atoms .
This will put pressure on the ARM platform then if many more intel CPU and chipset producers exist.Another aspect is the environment .
More competition will allow many players to enter the market to build cpus and chipsets that use much less amps and volts .
This is really so important now as electricity prices go up and up.I remember reading that the high use of electricity is not in intels chips , but more in their chipset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
There are many potential players in the market that will get involved once the licensing issues are removed.The internet has become so important to the the world daily lives, and yet a huge percentage of it is dependent on a platforms that is monopolized.
Thats very dangerous.Stirring up this pot, will have huge unknown ramifications in the world of computing in general.For example, ARM dual core CPUS are getting to the point of competing with Intel Atoms.
This will put pressure on the ARM platform then if many more intel CPU and chipset producers exist.Another aspect is the environment.
More competition will allow many players to enter the market to build cpus and chipsets that use much less amps and volts.
This is really so important now as electricity prices go up and up.I remember reading that the high use of electricity is not in intels chips, but more in their chipset.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502294</id>
	<title>Re:Ugg...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261246620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems you forgot ARM processors...this tiny, insignificant part of the market which, by now, perhaps ships more CPUs annually than Intel has ever produced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems you forgot ARM processors...this tiny , insignificant part of the market which , by now , perhaps ships more CPUs annually than Intel has ever produced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems you forgot ARM processors...this tiny, insignificant part of the market which, by now, perhaps ships more CPUs annually than Intel has ever produced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502220</id>
	<title>Intel's ill-gotten-gains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261244940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Intel effectively defrauded AMD of many billions of dollars in revenue. Intel should be forced to return those ill-gotten-gains to AMD and THEN be fined.
<br>
<br>
In the near future if AMD goes bankrupt (possible given their current uncertain situation) and Intel's unlawful actions could reasonably be considered to have led to the demise of their main competitor (AMD), Intel shouldn't be allowed to live with the benefits of their wrong-doing, namely a monopoly, and instead be forced to establish an equivalent competitor. The FTC may indeed be acting along these lines as Nvidia could possibly be a capable CPU producer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel effectively defrauded AMD of many billions of dollars in revenue .
Intel should be forced to return those ill-gotten-gains to AMD and THEN be fined .
In the near future if AMD goes bankrupt ( possible given their current uncertain situation ) and Intel 's unlawful actions could reasonably be considered to have led to the demise of their main competitor ( AMD ) , Intel should n't be allowed to live with the benefits of their wrong-doing , namely a monopoly , and instead be forced to establish an equivalent competitor .
The FTC may indeed be acting along these lines as Nvidia could possibly be a capable CPU producer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel effectively defrauded AMD of many billions of dollars in revenue.
Intel should be forced to return those ill-gotten-gains to AMD and THEN be fined.
In the near future if AMD goes bankrupt (possible given their current uncertain situation) and Intel's unlawful actions could reasonably be considered to have led to the demise of their main competitor (AMD), Intel shouldn't be allowed to live with the benefits of their wrong-doing, namely a monopoly, and instead be forced to establish an equivalent competitor.
The FTC may indeed be acting along these lines as Nvidia could possibly be a capable CPU producer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502562</id>
	<title>I'm still going my original guess for NVIDIA</title>
	<author>Akir</author>
	<datestamp>1261339500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still think they're using Transmeta's engineers to run x86 code on their GPUs so they can get Windows to run on systems with other ISAs for their CPU. ARM and POWER, anyone? It sounds much cheaper and simpler than doing the insane amount of testing needed to roll out a new chip, and you'd get the added benefit of accellerating your everyday applications without needing to recompile them for CUDA. Plus NVIDIA will have the advantage of being the first ones out there with SSE5. So BAM!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still think they 're using Transmeta 's engineers to run x86 code on their GPUs so they can get Windows to run on systems with other ISAs for their CPU .
ARM and POWER , anyone ?
It sounds much cheaper and simpler than doing the insane amount of testing needed to roll out a new chip , and you 'd get the added benefit of accellerating your everyday applications without needing to recompile them for CUDA .
Plus NVIDIA will have the advantage of being the first ones out there with SSE5 .
So BAM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still think they're using Transmeta's engineers to run x86 code on their GPUs so they can get Windows to run on systems with other ISAs for their CPU.
ARM and POWER, anyone?
It sounds much cheaper and simpler than doing the insane amount of testing needed to roll out a new chip, and you'd get the added benefit of accellerating your everyday applications without needing to recompile them for CUDA.
Plus NVIDIA will have the advantage of being the first ones out there with SSE5.
So BAM!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30578468</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is a Good Thing</title>
	<author>garg0yle</author>
	<datestamp>1262014320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, yeah - I get a kick from pointing out that IBM basically won the next-gen console wars the day they started, given that Big Blue contributes to the chipsets for all three consoles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , yeah - I get a kick from pointing out that IBM basically won the next-gen console wars the day they started , given that Big Blue contributes to the chipsets for all three consoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, yeah - I get a kick from pointing out that IBM basically won the next-gen console wars the day they started, given that Big Blue contributes to the chipsets for all three consoles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502592</id>
	<title>Re:Is x86 shit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261340220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are Microsoft and Windows the only reasons we haven't moved on? How hard would it be for them to target a different architecture? Linux seems to manage fine in this regard. Rewrite a bit of assembly and choose a different c compiler. Shouldn't be too hard right?</p></div><p>In Linux/BSD most projects are distributed as source code. Thus it is relatively easy to simply recompile most user software to run on a different CPU.</p><p>In Windows, of course, traditionally everything comes as a binary. To switch to another instruction set, users would have to either buy all new software, or run everything they've already invested in in a virtualized environment (with lower performance).</p><p>.NET, though, has kinda changed this around in recent years. With more and more software being written in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Windows gets a bigger and bigger set of easily cross-architecture software. All MS would have to do is port<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET itself. In the past, I have wondered if part of the plan for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET all along was to give MS a way to support non-x86 CPUs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are Microsoft and Windows the only reasons we have n't moved on ?
How hard would it be for them to target a different architecture ?
Linux seems to manage fine in this regard .
Rewrite a bit of assembly and choose a different c compiler .
Should n't be too hard right ? In Linux/BSD most projects are distributed as source code .
Thus it is relatively easy to simply recompile most user software to run on a different CPU.In Windows , of course , traditionally everything comes as a binary .
To switch to another instruction set , users would have to either buy all new software , or run everything they 've already invested in in a virtualized environment ( with lower performance ) ..NET , though , has kinda changed this around in recent years .
With more and more software being written in .NET , Windows gets a bigger and bigger set of easily cross-architecture software .
All MS would have to do is port .NET itself .
In the past , I have wondered if part of the plan for .NET all along was to give MS a way to support non-x86 CPUs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are Microsoft and Windows the only reasons we haven't moved on?
How hard would it be for them to target a different architecture?
Linux seems to manage fine in this regard.
Rewrite a bit of assembly and choose a different c compiler.
Shouldn't be too hard right?In Linux/BSD most projects are distributed as source code.
Thus it is relatively easy to simply recompile most user software to run on a different CPU.In Windows, of course, traditionally everything comes as a binary.
To switch to another instruction set, users would have to either buy all new software, or run everything they've already invested in in a virtualized environment (with lower performance)..NET, though, has kinda changed this around in recent years.
With more and more software being written in .NET, Windows gets a bigger and bigger set of easily cross-architecture software.
All MS would have to do is port .NET itself.
In the past, I have wondered if part of the plan for .NET all along was to give MS a way to support non-x86 CPUs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502832</id>
	<title>Re:Is x86 shit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261302420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are Microsoft and Windows the only reasons we haven't moved on?</p></div><p>yes</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are Microsoft and Windows the only reasons we have n't moved on ? yes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are Microsoft and Windows the only reasons we haven't moved on?yes
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30504212</id>
	<title>Re:Intel's ill-gotten-gains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261327980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AMD ain't goin bankrupt.  See, we have this wonderful thing called the stock market.  Anytime a company needs more money they have what's called a secondary offering.  And investors are more than happy to keep throwing good money after bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AMD ai n't goin bankrupt .
See , we have this wonderful thing called the stock market .
Anytime a company needs more money they have what 's called a secondary offering .
And investors are more than happy to keep throwing good money after bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMD ain't goin bankrupt.
See, we have this wonderful thing called the stock market.
Anytime a company needs more money they have what's called a secondary offering.
And investors are more than happy to keep throwing good money after bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503216</id>
	<title>Re:that's rich</title>
	<author>Machtyn</author>
	<datestamp>1261313460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's with all the opposite caps?  From their <a href="http://www.nvidia.com/" title="nvidia.com">website</a> [nvidia.com], it looks like the proper casing for nVidia is either nVIDIA or NVIDIA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's with all the opposite caps ?
From their website [ nvidia.com ] , it looks like the proper casing for nVidia is either nVIDIA or NVIDIA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's with all the opposite caps?
From their website [nvidia.com], it looks like the proper casing for nVidia is either nVIDIA or NVIDIA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503412</id>
	<title>Re:Intel's ill-gotten-gains</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1261318200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have legal precedent in this case: look up how the Feds went after United Shoe Machinery Company in the first half of the 20th Century. United Shoe was <i>notorious</i> for using its patent portfolio on shoe-machine machinery to drive out competitors, just as Intel is using its CPU and motherboard chipset patents to keep AMD/ATI at bay.</p><p>We could see Intel hit with a multi-billion dollar fine and be forced to share information on x86 CPU and motherboard chipset technology with AMD and nVidia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have legal precedent in this case : look up how the Feds went after United Shoe Machinery Company in the first half of the 20th Century .
United Shoe was notorious for using its patent portfolio on shoe-machine machinery to drive out competitors , just as Intel is using its CPU and motherboard chipset patents to keep AMD/ATI at bay.We could see Intel hit with a multi-billion dollar fine and be forced to share information on x86 CPU and motherboard chipset technology with AMD and nVidia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have legal precedent in this case: look up how the Feds went after United Shoe Machinery Company in the first half of the 20th Century.
United Shoe was notorious for using its patent portfolio on shoe-machine machinery to drive out competitors, just as Intel is using its CPU and motherboard chipset patents to keep AMD/ATI at bay.We could see Intel hit with a multi-billion dollar fine and be forced to share information on x86 CPU and motherboard chipset technology with AMD and nVidia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502460</id>
	<title>Re:Ugg...</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1261250880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the profit margin on those ARM CPUs?  How much does each individual chip sell for?  Oh, right, there's very little profits and the chips are dirt cheap...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the profit margin on those ARM CPUs ?
How much does each individual chip sell for ?
Oh , right , there 's very little profits and the chips are dirt cheap.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the profit margin on those ARM CPUs?
How much does each individual chip sell for?
Oh, right, there's very little profits and the chips are dirt cheap...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502328</id>
	<title>Re:Ugg...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261247640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There a ton more than just x86 parts on the market. Little endianness FTL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There a ton more than just x86 parts on the market .
Little endianness FTL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There a ton more than just x86 parts on the market.
Little endianness FTL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502304</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is a Good Thing</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1261246980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel x86.  Serving all of us since 1978.</p><p>There's no reason to believe that this is going to change.  Motorola's 68k never went anywhere, and PowerPC is dead.  IBM's Cell went nowhere.  AMD?  Well they make a clone, and have <a href="http://www.robabdul.com/amd-vs-intel-market-share-revenue.asp" title="robabdul.com" rel="nofollow">15\% versus 83\% marketshare, and one-fifth the revenue</a> [robabdul.com].  Cyrix?  Well they went belly up and got bought by NS, then Via.  We're talking scraps.  less than 2\% of the market here.</p><p>Oh yeah, and AMD is teetering into bankruptcy.  Primo competitive environment eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel x86 .
Serving all of us since 1978.There 's no reason to believe that this is going to change .
Motorola 's 68k never went anywhere , and PowerPC is dead .
IBM 's Cell went nowhere .
AMD ? Well they make a clone , and have 15 \ % versus 83 \ % marketshare , and one-fifth the revenue [ robabdul.com ] .
Cyrix ? Well they went belly up and got bought by NS , then Via .
We 're talking scraps .
less than 2 \ % of the market here.Oh yeah , and AMD is teetering into bankruptcy .
Primo competitive environment eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel x86.
Serving all of us since 1978.There's no reason to believe that this is going to change.
Motorola's 68k never went anywhere, and PowerPC is dead.
IBM's Cell went nowhere.
AMD?  Well they make a clone, and have 15\% versus 83\% marketshare, and one-fifth the revenue [robabdul.com].
Cyrix?  Well they went belly up and got bought by NS, then Via.
We're talking scraps.
less than 2\% of the market here.Oh yeah, and AMD is teetering into bankruptcy.
Primo competitive environment eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30522402</id>
	<title>Re:Why would NVIDIA do this though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261487100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What good is a GPU without a CPU to send work its way?</p><p>AMD make their own GPUs, Intel make their own GPUs, even VIA have their own GPUs.  Nvidia only make GPUs and are reliant on others to provide a CPU, whereas the significant x86 CPU makers all make GPUs as well.  Now do you see why Nvidia might be interested in making their own CPU, even if it does only end up being comparable to the Atom and VIAs chips?  If Nvidia has a CPU like that it could make an integrated computer that destroys Atom and VIAs chips in performance  because of their vastly superior GPUs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What good is a GPU without a CPU to send work its way ? AMD make their own GPUs , Intel make their own GPUs , even VIA have their own GPUs .
Nvidia only make GPUs and are reliant on others to provide a CPU , whereas the significant x86 CPU makers all make GPUs as well .
Now do you see why Nvidia might be interested in making their own CPU , even if it does only end up being comparable to the Atom and VIAs chips ?
If Nvidia has a CPU like that it could make an integrated computer that destroys Atom and VIAs chips in performance because of their vastly superior GPUs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What good is a GPU without a CPU to send work its way?AMD make their own GPUs, Intel make their own GPUs, even VIA have their own GPUs.
Nvidia only make GPUs and are reliant on others to provide a CPU, whereas the significant x86 CPU makers all make GPUs as well.
Now do you see why Nvidia might be interested in making their own CPU, even if it does only end up being comparable to the Atom and VIAs chips?
If Nvidia has a CPU like that it could make an integrated computer that destroys Atom and VIAs chips in performance  because of their vastly superior GPUs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30505806</id>
	<title>Re:Is x86 shit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261340400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're forgetting the bigger picture... x86 was made popular in the consumer market because of Microsoft, but now it's been around to long to just get rid of... There's something like 500,000 different unique applications all running on this architecture (windows only).  Do you have any idea how many years it would take to port all of those over to a new architecture?  The journey has already started but we've only made it about 5\% of the way toward true 64 bit applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're forgetting the bigger picture... x86 was made popular in the consumer market because of Microsoft , but now it 's been around to long to just get rid of... There 's something like 500,000 different unique applications all running on this architecture ( windows only ) .
Do you have any idea how many years it would take to port all of those over to a new architecture ?
The journey has already started but we 've only made it about 5 \ % of the way toward true 64 bit applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're forgetting the bigger picture... x86 was made popular in the consumer market because of Microsoft, but now it's been around to long to just get rid of... There's something like 500,000 different unique applications all running on this architecture (windows only).
Do you have any idea how many years it would take to port all of those over to a new architecture?
The journey has already started but we've only made it about 5\% of the way toward true 64 bit applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502410</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261249740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a 49 year old feminist grandmother I reject this license as it's caucasian male in nature and spirit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a 49 year old feminist grandmother I reject this license as it 's caucasian male in nature and spirit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a 49 year old feminist grandmother I reject this license as it's caucasian male in nature and spirit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490</id>
	<title>Is x86 shit?</title>
	<author>some\_guy\_88</author>
	<datestamp>1261251360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've been using this instruction set for years and years now. There's gotta be something better around by now. Is it ARM? Cell?</p><p>Are Microsoft and Windows the only reasons we haven't moved on? How hard would it be for them to target a different architecture? Linux seems to manage fine in this regard. Rewrite a bit of assembly and choose a different c compiler. Shouldn't be too hard right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been using this instruction set for years and years now .
There 's got ta be something better around by now .
Is it ARM ?
Cell ? Are Microsoft and Windows the only reasons we have n't moved on ?
How hard would it be for them to target a different architecture ?
Linux seems to manage fine in this regard .
Rewrite a bit of assembly and choose a different c compiler .
Should n't be too hard right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been using this instruction set for years and years now.
There's gotta be something better around by now.
Is it ARM?
Cell?Are Microsoft and Windows the only reasons we haven't moved on?
How hard would it be for them to target a different architecture?
Linux seems to manage fine in this regard.
Rewrite a bit of assembly and choose a different c compiler.
Shouldn't be too hard right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502652</id>
	<title>Re:Is x86 shit?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1261341420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We've been using this instruction set for years and years now. There's gotta be something better around by now. Is it ARM? Cell?</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, it's just the opposite.  There WERE plenty of better architectures in the early days of x86.  Today, x86 is just simply THE chip.  The one that's left, competing for the high-end, pushing economies of scale, being all things to all people, and most importantly, with a healthy ecosystem of competitors continually trying to one-up each other.</p><p>Everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown into x86, to try to increase performance on various tasks.  If there was a better chip out there, it would get integrated into x86 in no time.  FPUs come to mind.  x86-64 and SIMD instructions come to mind.  GPUs seem to be the next big deal, with AMD looking to have an x86-64 CPU in one socket and a GPU in the other...</p><p>In short, if anything better comes along, it will quickly get integrated to Intel/AMD/VIA CPUs, and then there once again won't be anything "better"...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been using this instruction set for years and years now .
There 's got ta be something better around by now .
Is it ARM ?
Cell ? Actually , it 's just the opposite .
There WERE plenty of better architectures in the early days of x86 .
Today , x86 is just simply THE chip .
The one that 's left , competing for the high-end , pushing economies of scale , being all things to all people , and most importantly , with a healthy ecosystem of competitors continually trying to one-up each other.Everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown into x86 , to try to increase performance on various tasks .
If there was a better chip out there , it would get integrated into x86 in no time .
FPUs come to mind .
x86-64 and SIMD instructions come to mind .
GPUs seem to be the next big deal , with AMD looking to have an x86-64 CPU in one socket and a GPU in the other...In short , if anything better comes along , it will quickly get integrated to Intel/AMD/VIA CPUs , and then there once again wo n't be anything " better " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been using this instruction set for years and years now.
There's gotta be something better around by now.
Is it ARM?
Cell?Actually, it's just the opposite.
There WERE plenty of better architectures in the early days of x86.
Today, x86 is just simply THE chip.
The one that's left, competing for the high-end, pushing economies of scale, being all things to all people, and most importantly, with a healthy ecosystem of competitors continually trying to one-up each other.Everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown into x86, to try to increase performance on various tasks.
If there was a better chip out there, it would get integrated into x86 in no time.
FPUs come to mind.
x86-64 and SIMD instructions come to mind.
GPUs seem to be the next big deal, with AMD looking to have an x86-64 CPU in one socket and a GPU in the other...In short, if anything better comes along, it will quickly get integrated to Intel/AMD/VIA CPUs, and then there once again won't be anything "better"...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502166</id>
	<title>that's rich</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1261243980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hah, <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1028703/nvidia-g84-g86-bad" title="theinquirer.net" rel="nofollow">that's</a> [theinquirer.net] <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-nvidia-gpu-defective-macbook,6477.html" title="tomshardware.com" rel="nofollow">rich.</a> [tomshardware.com] <br> <br>





It's not even <i>real</i> competition. NvIDIA's Chinese foundry'll just release another bad batch, the vendors' Indian and Filipino tech support will just tell their angry customers that it was the customers' fault and to fuck off, NvIdia'll exit the x86 market, and we'll be back to square one. I know this because I've dealt with HP's <i>Magandas</i> over this issue, and they had <i>no shame</i>.<br> <br>

Mods, meet my middle finger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hah , that 's [ theinquirer.net ] rich .
[ tomshardware.com ] It 's not even real competition .
NvIDIA 's Chinese foundry 'll just release another bad batch , the vendors ' Indian and Filipino tech support will just tell their angry customers that it was the customers ' fault and to fuck off , NvIdia 'll exit the x86 market , and we 'll be back to square one .
I know this because I 've dealt with HP 's Magandas over this issue , and they had no shame .
Mods , meet my middle finger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hah, that's [theinquirer.net] rich.
[tomshardware.com]  





It's not even real competition.
NvIDIA's Chinese foundry'll just release another bad batch, the vendors' Indian and Filipino tech support will just tell their angry customers that it was the customers' fault and to fuck off, NvIdia'll exit the x86 market, and we'll be back to square one.
I know this because I've dealt with HP's Magandas over this issue, and they had no shame.
Mods, meet my middle finger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30505450</id>
	<title>strings should be attached...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261337340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they hand more free goodies to NVidiots, they should ensure strings are attached - here you are, access to license and utilise x86 for a fixed period into the future, but you will now document your hardware fully, and provide it free to open source, so they are no longer reliant on your bug ridden, crash prone, binary blob drivers.<br>I can't believe the free pass this company gets here, given the black box nature of their offerings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they hand more free goodies to NVidiots , they should ensure strings are attached - here you are , access to license and utilise x86 for a fixed period into the future , but you will now document your hardware fully , and provide it free to open source , so they are no longer reliant on your bug ridden , crash prone , binary blob drivers.I ca n't believe the free pass this company gets here , given the black box nature of their offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they hand more free goodies to NVidiots, they should ensure strings are attached - here you are, access to license and utilise x86 for a fixed period into the future, but you will now document your hardware fully, and provide it free to open source, so they are no longer reliant on your bug ridden, crash prone, binary blob drivers.I can't believe the free pass this company gets here, given the black box nature of their offerings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502622</id>
	<title>Re:Is x86 shit?</title>
	<author>maccodemonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1261340700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have been quite a few different architectures, all supported by Microsoft and Windows.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA64" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA64</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Even though Microsoft abandon PowerPC long ago (XBox excluded), they still support IA64 to this day.</p><p>The biggest problem hasn't really been vendor support, but compatibility. PowerPC held Apple back for the longest time because users had no good solutions for running x86 Windows apps when needed, whereas now they have WINE and native booting. IA64, while having some x86 compatibility, does not have clear enough benefits for consumers, and generally runs existing apps slower.</p><p>Ironically enough, AMD pretty much killed IA64 and gave x86 a longer life when they came out with x86-64, thus cutting off Intel's attempts to replace x86. Smart business decision for AMD, but it hampered attempts to replace x86.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been quite a few different architectures , all supported by Microsoft and Windows.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA64 [ wikipedia.org ] Even though Microsoft abandon PowerPC long ago ( XBox excluded ) , they still support IA64 to this day.The biggest problem has n't really been vendor support , but compatibility .
PowerPC held Apple back for the longest time because users had no good solutions for running x86 Windows apps when needed , whereas now they have WINE and native booting .
IA64 , while having some x86 compatibility , does not have clear enough benefits for consumers , and generally runs existing apps slower.Ironically enough , AMD pretty much killed IA64 and gave x86 a longer life when they came out with x86-64 , thus cutting off Intel 's attempts to replace x86 .
Smart business decision for AMD , but it hampered attempts to replace x86 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been quite a few different architectures, all supported by Microsoft and Windows.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA64 [wikipedia.org]Even though Microsoft abandon PowerPC long ago (XBox excluded), they still support IA64 to this day.The biggest problem hasn't really been vendor support, but compatibility.
PowerPC held Apple back for the longest time because users had no good solutions for running x86 Windows apps when needed, whereas now they have WINE and native booting.
IA64, while having some x86 compatibility, does not have clear enough benefits for consumers, and generally runs existing apps slower.Ironically enough, AMD pretty much killed IA64 and gave x86 a longer life when they came out with x86-64, thus cutting off Intel's attempts to replace x86.
Smart business decision for AMD, but it hampered attempts to replace x86.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502720</id>
	<title>Dumb Blog, And Not At All Correct</title>
	<author>rsmith-mac</author>
	<datestamp>1261299780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose the NYT could be right, in the sense that they see NVIDIA getting an x86 license out of this in the same way that conspiracy theorists see that the Apollo 11 landings were filmed on a soundstage.</p><p>There's nothing about remedy 17 or remedy 18 that would lead to NVIDIA getting an x86 license directly from Intel. In short:</p><p>17: Intel has to license its chipset buses to other companies (e.g. NVIDIA) so that they can make chipsets for Intel's newest CPUs. NVIDIA only has an AGTL+ license for older Core 2 CPUs, they don't have one for DMI (low-end and mid-range Core i3/i5/i7) or QPI (high-end Core i7).</p><p>18: Intel can't get in the way of AMD's efforts to spin off their fabs in to Global Foundries. Up until AMD and Intel inked their own settlement, Intel intended to enforce provisions of AMD's x86 license that required them to do the vast majority of production in-house, which wasn't going to be possible if they spun-off their fabs.</p><p>The only way NVIDIA could end up with an x86 license out of this is that remedy 18 would allow VIA to transfer their x86 license, and in reality Intel has never fully acknowledged them having one. VIA only gets away with it because they have a couple of patents that are critical to Itanium, and those patents should be expiring soon.</p><p>So I don't know why the NYT is claiming that NVIDIA is going to get an x86 license out of this. This seems to be wild dreaming, or an attempt to generate traffic with ridiculous claims.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose the NYT could be right , in the sense that they see NVIDIA getting an x86 license out of this in the same way that conspiracy theorists see that the Apollo 11 landings were filmed on a soundstage.There 's nothing about remedy 17 or remedy 18 that would lead to NVIDIA getting an x86 license directly from Intel .
In short : 17 : Intel has to license its chipset buses to other companies ( e.g .
NVIDIA ) so that they can make chipsets for Intel 's newest CPUs .
NVIDIA only has an AGTL + license for older Core 2 CPUs , they do n't have one for DMI ( low-end and mid-range Core i3/i5/i7 ) or QPI ( high-end Core i7 ) .18 : Intel ca n't get in the way of AMD 's efforts to spin off their fabs in to Global Foundries .
Up until AMD and Intel inked their own settlement , Intel intended to enforce provisions of AMD 's x86 license that required them to do the vast majority of production in-house , which was n't going to be possible if they spun-off their fabs.The only way NVIDIA could end up with an x86 license out of this is that remedy 18 would allow VIA to transfer their x86 license , and in reality Intel has never fully acknowledged them having one .
VIA only gets away with it because they have a couple of patents that are critical to Itanium , and those patents should be expiring soon.So I do n't know why the NYT is claiming that NVIDIA is going to get an x86 license out of this .
This seems to be wild dreaming , or an attempt to generate traffic with ridiculous claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose the NYT could be right, in the sense that they see NVIDIA getting an x86 license out of this in the same way that conspiracy theorists see that the Apollo 11 landings were filmed on a soundstage.There's nothing about remedy 17 or remedy 18 that would lead to NVIDIA getting an x86 license directly from Intel.
In short:17: Intel has to license its chipset buses to other companies (e.g.
NVIDIA) so that they can make chipsets for Intel's newest CPUs.
NVIDIA only has an AGTL+ license for older Core 2 CPUs, they don't have one for DMI (low-end and mid-range Core i3/i5/i7) or QPI (high-end Core i7).18: Intel can't get in the way of AMD's efforts to spin off their fabs in to Global Foundries.
Up until AMD and Intel inked their own settlement, Intel intended to enforce provisions of AMD's x86 license that required them to do the vast majority of production in-house, which wasn't going to be possible if they spun-off their fabs.The only way NVIDIA could end up with an x86 license out of this is that remedy 18 would allow VIA to transfer their x86 license, and in reality Intel has never fully acknowledged them having one.
VIA only gets away with it because they have a couple of patents that are critical to Itanium, and those patents should be expiring soon.So I don't know why the NYT is claiming that NVIDIA is going to get an x86 license out of this.
This seems to be wild dreaming, or an attempt to generate traffic with ridiculous claims.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503742</id>
	<title>Go get a room, you two!</title>
	<author>Dzonatas</author>
	<datestamp>1261322400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NVidia and Intel have been at it for awhile, it's about time.</p><p>Somehow this supposed battle seems more wanted then they want to admit. What's the worse, they might join forces together?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NVidia and Intel have been at it for awhile , it 's about time.Somehow this supposed battle seems more wanted then they want to admit .
What 's the worse , they might join forces together ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NVidia and Intel have been at it for awhile, it's about time.Somehow this supposed battle seems more wanted then they want to admit.
What's the worse, they might join forces together?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502710</id>
	<title>Re:Why would NVIDIA do this though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261299660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because a full platform (CPU + GPU + Chipset) is *WAY* more lucrative, business wise, than just GPUs. Sure, it is risky, but NVidia's aspirations have always been to rule the world. Nvidia is currently running the risk of being completely marginalized. They lost Intel chipsets, AMD chipsets, and AMD is currently smoking them on the GPU front.</p><p>If you believe Nvidia's GPUPU story, then the majority of heavy processing will be on a GPU-like processor array. What is missing is a scalar control module to control the parallel processing array.  You could disagree with this view, but Sony shares this view (this is exactly what the Cell is), so does AMD<br>(its Fusion rumors) and so does Intel (Exoskeleton, Larrabee).</p><p>Now, as big as Nvidia's vision and ambition is, they are definitely not foolish enough to think that they can completely re-write Windows (or get Microsoft to support a new instruction set), the applications (including all of the games that made Nvidia so much money) and gain the market share to complete with Microsoft. This is where an X86 CPU rumor comes into play.</p><p>If Nvidia could use a fab partner to make the parts (i.e. TSMC, which is 40nm for its GPUs), and performance only needs to be Atom 330 levels (doesn't have to compete with the latest Core i7 parts or Phenom, remember the GPU-like processing array is for heavy lifting), then Nvidia has a pretty compelling story. The only issue in the matter is an X86 license.</p><p>There is the small matter of implementing the CPU, but the legal issues have always been prohibitive. I'd be stunned if Nvidia had the cajones to sink engineering resources into building an X86 CPU and gambling on the outcome of the AMD and FTC lawsuits. If they have Transmeta people, they could be doing the translation thing by implementing their mobile CPU (currently ARM based, but could be translation based) as a scalable part with low end, mid range, high end (where a high end is Atom 330 like performance), with only incremental effort to do X86 (not small, but certianly *way* smaller than a new CPU).</p><p>Who knows what is going to happen. I could be talking completely out of my ass. What I do know that Nvidia won't take the erosion of their market lying down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because a full platform ( CPU + GPU + Chipset ) is * WAY * more lucrative , business wise , than just GPUs .
Sure , it is risky , but NVidia 's aspirations have always been to rule the world .
Nvidia is currently running the risk of being completely marginalized .
They lost Intel chipsets , AMD chipsets , and AMD is currently smoking them on the GPU front.If you believe Nvidia 's GPUPU story , then the majority of heavy processing will be on a GPU-like processor array .
What is missing is a scalar control module to control the parallel processing array .
You could disagree with this view , but Sony shares this view ( this is exactly what the Cell is ) , so does AMD ( its Fusion rumors ) and so does Intel ( Exoskeleton , Larrabee ) .Now , as big as Nvidia 's vision and ambition is , they are definitely not foolish enough to think that they can completely re-write Windows ( or get Microsoft to support a new instruction set ) , the applications ( including all of the games that made Nvidia so much money ) and gain the market share to complete with Microsoft .
This is where an X86 CPU rumor comes into play.If Nvidia could use a fab partner to make the parts ( i.e .
TSMC , which is 40nm for its GPUs ) , and performance only needs to be Atom 330 levels ( does n't have to compete with the latest Core i7 parts or Phenom , remember the GPU-like processing array is for heavy lifting ) , then Nvidia has a pretty compelling story .
The only issue in the matter is an X86 license.There is the small matter of implementing the CPU , but the legal issues have always been prohibitive .
I 'd be stunned if Nvidia had the cajones to sink engineering resources into building an X86 CPU and gambling on the outcome of the AMD and FTC lawsuits .
If they have Transmeta people , they could be doing the translation thing by implementing their mobile CPU ( currently ARM based , but could be translation based ) as a scalable part with low end , mid range , high end ( where a high end is Atom 330 like performance ) , with only incremental effort to do X86 ( not small , but certianly * way * smaller than a new CPU ) .Who knows what is going to happen .
I could be talking completely out of my ass .
What I do know that Nvidia wo n't take the erosion of their market lying down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because a full platform (CPU + GPU + Chipset) is *WAY* more lucrative, business wise, than just GPUs.
Sure, it is risky, but NVidia's aspirations have always been to rule the world.
Nvidia is currently running the risk of being completely marginalized.
They lost Intel chipsets, AMD chipsets, and AMD is currently smoking them on the GPU front.If you believe Nvidia's GPUPU story, then the majority of heavy processing will be on a GPU-like processor array.
What is missing is a scalar control module to control the parallel processing array.
You could disagree with this view, but Sony shares this view (this is exactly what the Cell is), so does AMD(its Fusion rumors) and so does Intel (Exoskeleton, Larrabee).Now, as big as Nvidia's vision and ambition is, they are definitely not foolish enough to think that they can completely re-write Windows (or get Microsoft to support a new instruction set), the applications (including all of the games that made Nvidia so much money) and gain the market share to complete with Microsoft.
This is where an X86 CPU rumor comes into play.If Nvidia could use a fab partner to make the parts (i.e.
TSMC, which is 40nm for its GPUs), and performance only needs to be Atom 330 levels (doesn't have to compete with the latest Core i7 parts or Phenom, remember the GPU-like processing array is for heavy lifting), then Nvidia has a pretty compelling story.
The only issue in the matter is an X86 license.There is the small matter of implementing the CPU, but the legal issues have always been prohibitive.
I'd be stunned if Nvidia had the cajones to sink engineering resources into building an X86 CPU and gambling on the outcome of the AMD and FTC lawsuits.
If they have Transmeta people, they could be doing the translation thing by implementing their mobile CPU (currently ARM based, but could be translation based) as a scalable part with low end, mid range, high end (where a high end is Atom 330 like performance), with only incremental effort to do X86 (not small, but certianly *way* smaller than a new CPU).Who knows what is going to happen.
I could be talking completely out of my ass.
What I do know that Nvidia won't take the erosion of their market lying down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238</id>
	<title>Ugg...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261245240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm jaded enough to realize someone says so and so will be getting into the CPU market soon every few months. I've heard Creative and NVIDIA, probably some others I've forgotten. The thing that stands out to me is that VIA gave up. IBM gave up. Motorola gave up. Maybe the FTC can change things, but if they do it will probably break a few patent laws apart or force some fairly broad cross licensing agreements. Anything monetary is really just some fodder for the bankers to burn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm jaded enough to realize someone says so and so will be getting into the CPU market soon every few months .
I 've heard Creative and NVIDIA , probably some others I 've forgotten .
The thing that stands out to me is that VIA gave up .
IBM gave up .
Motorola gave up .
Maybe the FTC can change things , but if they do it will probably break a few patent laws apart or force some fairly broad cross licensing agreements .
Anything monetary is really just some fodder for the bankers to burn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm jaded enough to realize someone says so and so will be getting into the CPU market soon every few months.
I've heard Creative and NVIDIA, probably some others I've forgotten.
The thing that stands out to me is that VIA gave up.
IBM gave up.
Motorola gave up.
Maybe the FTC can change things, but if they do it will probably break a few patent laws apart or force some fairly broad cross licensing agreements.
Anything monetary is really just some fodder for the bankers to burn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502408</id>
	<title>Yeah, well see if they end up going through</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1261249620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The investment it takes to start up a new chip line is enormous. To some extent, CPU manufacturing is like the classic steel mill example in economics: The start up cost is so massive that monopolies become very hard to break once someone is has most of the market. This is true not just for chip manufacturing but even to individual classes of chips (such as x86 architecture). If I were running Nvidia right now I'd be very worried about entering a market with massive start up cost and where most buyers will continue to go to Intel simply by default.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The investment it takes to start up a new chip line is enormous .
To some extent , CPU manufacturing is like the classic steel mill example in economics : The start up cost is so massive that monopolies become very hard to break once someone is has most of the market .
This is true not just for chip manufacturing but even to individual classes of chips ( such as x86 architecture ) .
If I were running Nvidia right now I 'd be very worried about entering a market with massive start up cost and where most buyers will continue to go to Intel simply by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The investment it takes to start up a new chip line is enormous.
To some extent, CPU manufacturing is like the classic steel mill example in economics: The start up cost is so massive that monopolies become very hard to break once someone is has most of the market.
This is true not just for chip manufacturing but even to individual classes of chips (such as x86 architecture).
If I were running Nvidia right now I'd be very worried about entering a market with massive start up cost and where most buyers will continue to go to Intel simply by default.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502262</id>
	<title>Re:Ugg...</title>
	<author>bhtooefr</author>
	<datestamp>1261245600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VIA is still at it, they're just attacking the Atom end of the market, now. This is where they were before Atom came along, but they have been developing newer processors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VIA is still at it , they 're just attacking the Atom end of the market , now .
This is where they were before Atom came along , but they have been developing newer processors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VIA is still at it, they're just attacking the Atom end of the market, now.
This is where they were before Atom came along, but they have been developing newer processors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30506804</id>
	<title>Re:Is x86 shit?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1261305660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you know how much Microsoft has invested in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net?</p><p>Platforms that huge don't just rewrite themselves to run on ARM or another architecture.</p><p>Switching would probably cost Microsoft 100 billion or more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you know how much Microsoft has invested in .net ? Platforms that huge do n't just rewrite themselves to run on ARM or another architecture.Switching would probably cost Microsoft 100 billion or more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you know how much Microsoft has invested in .net?Platforms that huge don't just rewrite themselves to run on ARM or another architecture.Switching would probably cost Microsoft 100 billion or more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502160</id>
	<title>Wow.</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1261243680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does the remedy appear to be more harmful to AMD - an Intel competitor - than to Intel themselves?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the remedy appear to be more harmful to AMD - an Intel competitor - than to Intel themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the remedy appear to be more harmful to AMD - an Intel competitor - than to Intel themselves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30504822</id>
	<title>nVidia can't get 64-bit without AMD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261332300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I am an AMD stock holder. Even if nVidia could get a x86 license from Intel, they don't have access to the 64 bit information that Intel cross-licenses from AMD. I guess nVidia could build some nice Pentium class processors, but not much else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I am an AMD stock holder .
Even if nVidia could get a x86 license from Intel , they do n't have access to the 64 bit information that Intel cross-licenses from AMD .
I guess nVidia could build some nice Pentium class processors , but not much else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I am an AMD stock holder.
Even if nVidia could get a x86 license from Intel, they don't have access to the 64 bit information that Intel cross-licenses from AMD.
I guess nVidia could build some nice Pentium class processors, but not much else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503594</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is a Good Thing</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1261320600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Power is dead? Tell that to Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony, all of whom are using PPC chips of various kinds in their current generation consoles.</p><p>Cell is basically a PPC core with a bunch of specialist number-crunching coprocessors attached. And its by no means dead unless you consider the fact that a Cell CPU is found in every one of the 27 million and counting PS3 systems out there as being dead.</p><p>I will grant that PPC is dead as a desktop CPU with x86 being the only viable solution at this point for mainstream general purpose computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Power is dead ?
Tell that to Nintendo , Microsoft and Sony , all of whom are using PPC chips of various kinds in their current generation consoles.Cell is basically a PPC core with a bunch of specialist number-crunching coprocessors attached .
And its by no means dead unless you consider the fact that a Cell CPU is found in every one of the 27 million and counting PS3 systems out there as being dead.I will grant that PPC is dead as a desktop CPU with x86 being the only viable solution at this point for mainstream general purpose computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Power is dead?
Tell that to Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony, all of whom are using PPC chips of various kinds in their current generation consoles.Cell is basically a PPC core with a bunch of specialist number-crunching coprocessors attached.
And its by no means dead unless you consider the fact that a Cell CPU is found in every one of the 27 million and counting PS3 systems out there as being dead.I will grant that PPC is dead as a desktop CPU with x86 being the only viable solution at this point for mainstream general purpose computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503516</id>
	<title>Re:Ugg...</title>
	<author>blade.labs</author>
	<datestamp>1261319880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Motorola's chip division is now called Freescale semiconductor and their portfolio of 32bit processors is quite rich <a href="http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?nodeId=0162468rH3" title="freescale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?nodeId=0162468rH3</a> [freescale.com]. Granted, most of them are not suitable for a PC, but some are - and yes, they do run Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Motorola 's chip division is now called Freescale semiconductor and their portfolio of 32bit processors is quite rich http : //www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp ? nodeId = 0162468rH3 [ freescale.com ] .
Granted , most of them are not suitable for a PC , but some are - and yes , they do run Linux ; ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Motorola's chip division is now called Freescale semiconductor and their portfolio of 32bit processors is quite rich http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?nodeId=0162468rH3 [freescale.com].
Granted, most of them are not suitable for a PC, but some are - and yes, they do run Linux ;).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502484</id>
	<title>My cyrix processor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261251240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is getting rather dated. My Geode is a little dusty too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is getting rather dated .
My Geode is a little dusty too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is getting rather dated.
My Geode is a little dusty too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502270</id>
	<title>RFC 1149</title>
	<author>fred911</author>
	<datestamp>1261246020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What computer were you using at the turn of the century?</p><p>RFC 1149 - Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers.</p><p>Silly Doncha member??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What computer were you using at the turn of the century ? RFC 1149 - Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers.Silly Doncha member ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What computer were you using at the turn of the century?RFC 1149 - Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers.Silly Doncha member?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502578</id>
	<title>Why would NVIDIA do this though?</title>
	<author>Vigile</author>
	<datestamp>1261339920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I posted some of my thoughts on this topic here:</p><p><a href="http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=8143" title="pcper.com">http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=8143</a> [pcper.com]</p><p>Why would NVIDIA want to dive into such a complex product line when the GPU is becoming more and more important in general purpose computing anyway and that is obviously where their expertise is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted some of my thoughts on this topic here : http : //www.pcper.com/comments.php ? nid = 8143 [ pcper.com ] Why would NVIDIA want to dive into such a complex product line when the GPU is becoming more and more important in general purpose computing anyway and that is obviously where their expertise is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted some of my thoughts on this topic here:http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=8143 [pcper.com]Why would NVIDIA want to dive into such a complex product line when the GPU is becoming more and more important in general purpose computing anyway and that is obviously where their expertise is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502518</id>
	<title>BumP</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1261252020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's the profit margin on those ARM CPUs? How much does each individual chip sell for? Oh, right, there's very little profits and the chips are dirt cheap...</p></div><p>This is what I came to say.<br>If you look at the stocks of <a href="http://www.google.com/finance?q=armh" title="google.com">ARM</a> [google.com] &amp; <a href="http://www.google.com/finance?q=intel" title="google.com">Intel</a> [google.com], you'll notice a massive disparity in their trading volumes.<br>Intel sometimes trades more stock in an hour than ARM does in a day.<br>Yes ARM sells billions of chips, but the margins are barely there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the profit margin on those ARM CPUs ?
How much does each individual chip sell for ?
Oh , right , there 's very little profits and the chips are dirt cheap...This is what I came to say.If you look at the stocks of ARM [ google.com ] &amp; Intel [ google.com ] , you 'll notice a massive disparity in their trading volumes.Intel sometimes trades more stock in an hour than ARM does in a day.Yes ARM sells billions of chips , but the margins are barely there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the profit margin on those ARM CPUs?
How much does each individual chip sell for?
Oh, right, there's very little profits and the chips are dirt cheap...This is what I came to say.If you look at the stocks of ARM [google.com] &amp; Intel [google.com], you'll notice a massive disparity in their trading volumes.Intel sometimes trades more stock in an hour than ARM does in a day.Yes ARM sells billions of chips, but the margins are barely there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502308</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is a Good Thing</title>
	<author>A12m0v</author>
	<datestamp>1261247160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since we are still stuck with Unix 40 years later and still will be 40 years from now, I can see that we could be still stuck with x86 for a long time. To the Computer Science graduate, they are flawed designs, but in the real world they work and work good enough not to merit a costly change.</p><p>Yes there are CPU architectures, but are they significantly better to warrant a change? Even Apple after touting the merits of PowerPC succumbed to the x86 train. Even Intel tried multiple times to bring an alternative to its x86 line (iAPX, i860, i960, Itanium), but without success. RHEL abandoning Itanium is one more example. Sun offers x86 hardware in addition to its SPARC line, so does IBM and HP, and every other server vendor. There were a time when x86 was laughed at and not considered server-class. Now most servers and super computers use x86 processors.</p><p>In the Unix-haters handbook, the refer to the original Macintosh OS as a better OS with better GUI than Unix and X, now Mac OS X is Unix, and if you jailbreak and ssh into your iPhone you'll find a familiar Unix under all the eye candy. Most servers either run Unix or Linux, so does most super computers. All assumed flaws of the Unix architecture accounted for nothing in the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since we are still stuck with Unix 40 years later and still will be 40 years from now , I can see that we could be still stuck with x86 for a long time .
To the Computer Science graduate , they are flawed designs , but in the real world they work and work good enough not to merit a costly change.Yes there are CPU architectures , but are they significantly better to warrant a change ?
Even Apple after touting the merits of PowerPC succumbed to the x86 train .
Even Intel tried multiple times to bring an alternative to its x86 line ( iAPX , i860 , i960 , Itanium ) , but without success .
RHEL abandoning Itanium is one more example .
Sun offers x86 hardware in addition to its SPARC line , so does IBM and HP , and every other server vendor .
There were a time when x86 was laughed at and not considered server-class .
Now most servers and super computers use x86 processors.In the Unix-haters handbook , the refer to the original Macintosh OS as a better OS with better GUI than Unix and X , now Mac OS X is Unix , and if you jailbreak and ssh into your iPhone you 'll find a familiar Unix under all the eye candy .
Most servers either run Unix or Linux , so does most super computers .
All assumed flaws of the Unix architecture accounted for nothing in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since we are still stuck with Unix 40 years later and still will be 40 years from now, I can see that we could be still stuck with x86 for a long time.
To the Computer Science graduate, they are flawed designs, but in the real world they work and work good enough not to merit a costly change.Yes there are CPU architectures, but are they significantly better to warrant a change?
Even Apple after touting the merits of PowerPC succumbed to the x86 train.
Even Intel tried multiple times to bring an alternative to its x86 line (iAPX, i860, i960, Itanium), but without success.
RHEL abandoning Itanium is one more example.
Sun offers x86 hardware in addition to its SPARC line, so does IBM and HP, and every other server vendor.
There were a time when x86 was laughed at and not considered server-class.
Now most servers and super computers use x86 processors.In the Unix-haters handbook, the refer to the original Macintosh OS as a better OS with better GUI than Unix and X, now Mac OS X is Unix, and if you jailbreak and ssh into your iPhone you'll find a familiar Unix under all the eye candy.
Most servers either run Unix or Linux, so does most super computers.
All assumed flaws of the Unix architecture accounted for nothing in the real world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503668</id>
	<title>Re:Ugg...</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1261321380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Intel has less profit margin in their X86 processor division than IBM has in their S/390 mainframe division as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel has less profit margin in their X86 processor division than IBM has in their S/390 mainframe division as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel has less profit margin in their X86 processor division than IBM has in their S/390 mainframe division as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502580</id>
	<title>Re:Is x86 shit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261339920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just an instruction set.<br> <br>
The modern CPUs you call x86s use a non-x86 core with an instruction decoder bolted on to make it run the x86 instruction set. It has been that way since the Pentium Pro, the NextGen chips and the AMD K5.<br>
The AMD K5 in particular was pretty much identical to the Am29000 RISC processor. AMD just put a decoder on it and sold it as an x86.<br> <br>
CISC type instruction sets are considered to be the most optimal for code density (better cache and memory usage). So we pretty much have the best of both worlds. The instruction set is CISC so we get the memory benefits and the code is run as RISC via an instruction decoder which makes it easier to pipeline and for parallelism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just an instruction set .
The modern CPUs you call x86s use a non-x86 core with an instruction decoder bolted on to make it run the x86 instruction set .
It has been that way since the Pentium Pro , the NextGen chips and the AMD K5 .
The AMD K5 in particular was pretty much identical to the Am29000 RISC processor .
AMD just put a decoder on it and sold it as an x86 .
CISC type instruction sets are considered to be the most optimal for code density ( better cache and memory usage ) .
So we pretty much have the best of both worlds .
The instruction set is CISC so we get the memory benefits and the code is run as RISC via an instruction decoder which makes it easier to pipeline and for parallelism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just an instruction set.
The modern CPUs you call x86s use a non-x86 core with an instruction decoder bolted on to make it run the x86 instruction set.
It has been that way since the Pentium Pro, the NextGen chips and the AMD K5.
The AMD K5 in particular was pretty much identical to the Am29000 RISC processor.
AMD just put a decoder on it and sold it as an x86.
CISC type instruction sets are considered to be the most optimal for code density (better cache and memory usage).
So we pretty much have the best of both worlds.
The instruction set is CISC so we get the memory benefits and the code is run as RISC via an instruction decoder which makes it easier to pipeline and for parallelism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503094</id>
	<title>Re:Intel's ill-gotten-gains</title>
	<author>kubrick</author>
	<datestamp>1261309620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and back in the real world, what real restitution have Microsoft provided for violations equal to (if not worse than) Intel's?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and back in the real world , what real restitution have Microsoft provided for violations equal to ( if not worse than ) Intel 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and back in the real world, what real restitution have Microsoft provided for violations equal to (if not worse than) Intel's?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502182</id>
	<title>Competition is a Good Thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261244280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the long run getting multiple competitors in the CPU space is good.  The problem is trust busting worked when the competitors were slow moving oil companies or railroads, by the time this gets through the court system the market will be significantly different.  What computer were you using at the turn of the century?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the long run getting multiple competitors in the CPU space is good .
The problem is trust busting worked when the competitors were slow moving oil companies or railroads , by the time this gets through the court system the market will be significantly different .
What computer were you using at the turn of the century ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the long run getting multiple competitors in the CPU space is good.
The problem is trust busting worked when the competitors were slow moving oil companies or railroads, by the time this gets through the court system the market will be significantly different.
What computer were you using at the turn of the century?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30504360</id>
	<title>Re:Intel's ill-gotten-gains</title>
	<author>GeckoAddict</author>
	<datestamp>1261329000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't AMD just win a billion dollars from Intel in a lawsuit?  Maybe it's not the billions that they were 'defrauded', but it seems like that its seperate from any fines from the FTC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't AMD just win a billion dollars from Intel in a lawsuit ?
Maybe it 's not the billions that they were 'defrauded ' , but it seems like that its seperate from any fines from the FTC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't AMD just win a billion dollars from Intel in a lawsuit?
Maybe it's not the billions that they were 'defrauded', but it seems like that its seperate from any fines from the FTC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502220</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30578468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30505806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30504360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30506804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30504212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30522402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_2138259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2138259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30522402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2138259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30504212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30504360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2138259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30506804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30505806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2138259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503594
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30578468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2138259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502460
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502518
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2138259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2138259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2138259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30503216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_2138259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_2138259.30502720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
