phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/12/91)
I just saw an Am386(tm) running at 33 MHz. It ran flawlessly and even more interesting was when I put my finger on the package. I expected to get burnt but it was almost cold, nearly room temperature. At 33 MHz! Anyone want a 33 MHz laptop? If device temperature is related to reliability and lifetime, then the Am386(tm) should be good in these areas. (Am386 is a trademark of Advanced Micro Devices) (I do not speak for the company, this is only my personal opinion.) -- The government is not your mother. The government doesn't love you.
greg@infopls.chi.il.us (Greg Clawson) (03/20/91)
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > I just saw an Am386(tm) running at 33 MHz. It ran flawlessly and even > more interesting was when I put my finger on the package. I expected to > get burnt but it was almost cold, nearly room temperature. At 33 MHz! > Anyone want a 33 MHz laptop? > > If device temperature is related to reliability and lifetime, then the > Am386(tm) should be good in these areas. > > (Am386 is a trademark of Advanced Micro Devices) > (I do not speak for the company, this is only my personal opinion.) > > -- > The government is not your mother. > The government doesn't love you. Ok bud, I read this same message referring to the Am486(tm) as well. You must be working for (Am). It would be more creative for you to not copy the same message with alterations. And another thing, why should I buy a AMD product if there might be incompatibility problems? Btw, is Advanced Micro Devices the same company that makes the AMD i386 chip that Intel makes?
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (03/24/91)
In article <asm3y2w164w@infopls.chi.il.us> greg@infopls.chi.il.us (Greg Clawson) writes: |>phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: |> |>> I just saw an Am386(tm) running at 33 MHz. It ran flawlessly and even |>> more interesting was when I put my finger on the package. I expected to |>> get burnt but it was almost cold, nearly room temperature. At 33 MHz! |>> Anyone want a 33 MHz laptop? |>> |>> If device temperature is related to reliability and lifetime, then the |>> Am386(tm) should be good in these areas. |>> |>> (Am386 is a trademark of Advanced Micro Devices) |>> (I do not speak for the company, this is only my personal opinion.) |>> |>> -- |>> The government is not your mother. |>> The government doesn't love you. |> |>Ok bud, I read this same message referring to the Am486(tm) as well. |>You must be working for (Am). It would be more creative for you to not |>copy the same message with alterations. And another thing, why should I |>buy a AMD product if there might be incompatibility problems? |> |>Btw, is Advanced Micro Devices the same company that makes the AMD i386 |>chip that Intel makes? I think that accusation was unnecessary, since maybe he saw both the Am486 and the Am386....however, the Am486 is officially rumor. :-) The Am386 does NOT have ANY known compatibility problems. InfoWorld, PC Week, and Byte have all done extensive testing, and there are practically no differences in speed. And no compatibility problems (if it can run UNIX/386, Paradox/386, ACAD/386, and Windows in enhanced mode I don't see how it can possibly be incompatible). Byte and InfoWorld have the same parent company, so they might have had the same tests. And whatyou refer to as the AMD i386 *IS* the Am386. "i386" is a trademark of Intel Corporation and thus AMD cannot use that name. however, they may use "386". Brian /**************************************************************************/ /* I am NOT affiliated in any way with AMD. I just have a respect for a*/ /* company that has the balls to go against the monopoly that Intel has */ /* since Intel is ripping off consumers and the industry. */
tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Adam Goldberg) (03/25/91)
In article <27607@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: >In article <asm3y2w164w@infopls.chi.il.us> greg@infopls.chi.il.us (Greg Clawson) writes: >|>phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >|> >|>> I just saw an Am386(tm) running at 33 MHz. It ran flawlessly and even >|>> [stuff deleted] >|>> (Am386 is a trademark of Advanced Micro Devices) >And whatyou refer to as the AMD i386 *IS* the Am386. "i386" is a trademark >of Intel Corporation and thus AMD cannot use that name. however, they may >use "386". Interesting to note, Intel screwed up and only registered 'i386' as a trademark, but not '386'. With the 486, they've learned their lesson--the following are all Intel registered trademarks: 80486, i486, 486. An interesting analogy exists: Pharmaceutical's frequently are developed by one company, which sells it at a high price to recoup (supposedly) their initial investment in the R&D necessary to bring the product to market. Some time after the original (brand-name) medicine has been on the market, other companies manufacture and sell at a (much) lower price an equivalent (not identical) medicine. The differences are frequently different binding agents, or what-have-you. This causes the original company to lower their price, although not to the level of the generics. Take Motrin, for instance. Motrin is the brand name, and was developed by whoever developed it. After some time, several generic companies started producing their-named ibuprofen (note, the I is not capitalized) tablets for less. Motrin's price came down, and some people still take Motrin--although lots of people save money on the generics. I hope things work out that allows 'generic' computer components...I sure can't afford a 386 machine as it is now. But anyway, hooray for AMD! +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Adam Goldberg Bitnet: tabu6@ISUVAX.BITNET + + Iowa State University Internet: tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU + + H: (515) 233-5135 + "It's simple! Even a Pascal programmer could do it!" + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
tester@cmcl2.nyu.edu (L Testerville) (03/25/91)
tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Adam Goldberg) writes: >Interesting to note, Intel screwed up and only registered 'i386' as a >trademark, but not '386'. With the 486, they've learned their lesson--the >following are all Intel registered trademarks: 80486, i486, 486. ^^^^^ ^^^ Sorry, even Intel can't trademark NUMBERS. You possibly mean iAPX486, the 80486' official designation. >But anyway, hooray for AMD! Yes, let's all put our hands together for AMD. Bringing prices to a more reasonable level. Though still murderous at best, it doesn't come close to the genocide that Intel has reaped upon the x86 faithful... ;-) \\Lee
rcollins@altos86.Altos.COM (Robert Collins) (03/26/91)
In article <asm3y2w164w@infopls.chi.il.us> greg@infopls.chi.il.us (Greg Clawson) writes: >And another thing, why should I >buy a AMD product if there might be incompatibility problems? > I certainly don't work for AMD, but I have heard many things about the Am386. A year ago, I doubted very much that ANYBODY could clone the '386...and get it right. Today, I sing a different tune. Since you (the poster) have access to the same information I do, as in newspapers, trade magazines, etc. I won't bother to restate what has been printed in those sources. Likewise, from your statement I can assume that you have not read that information. If you had, you too would conclude that the Am386 will be 100% compatible with the '386. >Btw, is Advanced Micro Devices the same company that makes the AMD i386 >chip that Intel makes? Since Intel is the sole source of the '386, I think they would be very interested if anybody were making pirate copies of the i386. I hate to say this (especially on a public forum like this), but obviously the poster is not well informed, or does not keep up with current information. -- "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only." Mat. 4:10 Robert Collins UUCP: ...!sun!altos86!rcollins HOME: (408) 225-8002 WORK: (408) 432-6200 x4356
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/26/91)
greg@infopls.chi.il.us (Greg Clawson) writes: >Ok bud, I read this same message referring to the Am486(tm) as well. >You must be working for (Am). It would be more creative for you to not >copy the same message with alterations. And another thing, why should I What are you talking about? -- Sun PC-NFS: for the engineer who really want a Sun and got a PC.
tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Adam Goldberg) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar25.050646.8556@cmcl2.nyu.edu>, tester@cmcl2.nyu.edu (L Testerville) writes: >tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Adam Goldberg) writes: >>Interesting to note, Intel screwed up and only registered 'i386' as a >>trademark, but not '386'. With the 486, they've learned their lesson--the >>following are all Intel registered trademarks: 80486, i486, 486. > ^^^^^ ^^^ >Sorry, even Intel can't trademark NUMBERS. You possibly mean iAPX486, >the 80486' official designation. > >>But anyway, hooray for AMD! > What the heck do I know anyway. According to Intel advertisements I've seen, it sure does look like they've claimed a trademark for '486'. Though I could be wrong about 80486, though not i486. +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Adam Goldberg Bitnet: tabu6@ISUVAX.BITNET + + Iowa State University Internet: tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU + + H: (515) 233-5135 + "It's simple! Even a Pascal programmer could do it!" + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) (03/26/91)
tester@cmcl2.nyu.edu (L Testerville) writes: >Sorry, even Intel can't trademark NUMBERS. You possibly mean iAPX486, >the 80486' official designation. Not sure but I think they CAN do this within a specific context, e.g. for CPU chips. Which means someone can still use (and trademark) "486" for, say, a hamburger restaurant chain. -- /***************************************************************************\ / Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu \ \ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks / \***************************************************************************/
andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner) (03/28/91)
Pharmaceuticals drop in price when the original patent expires (after
seventeen years) and everybody can manufacture the drug. There was a
lot of publicity when this happened to Valium a few years back.
CPU designs, by contrast, are protected by trade secret, copyright, and
occasionally a process patent. There's no clock counting the days
until the inventor loses all rights, so you won't see the same dramatic
burst of competition and price drop in this field.
-=- Andrew Klossner (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) [UUCP]
(andrew%frip.wv.tek.com@relay.cs.net) [ARPA]proberts@disk.uucp (Phil Roberts) (04/02/91)
tester@cmcl2.nyu.edu (L Testerville) writes: >tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Adam Goldberg) writes: >>Interesting to note, Intel screwed up and only registered 'i386' as a >>trademark, but not '386'. With the 486, they've learned their lesson--the >>following are all Intel registered trademarks: 80486, i486, 486. > ^^^^^ ^^^ >Sorry, even Intel can't trademark NUMBERS. You possibly mean iAPX486, >the 80486' official designation. >>But anyway, hooray for AMD! >Yes, let's all put our hands together for AMD. Bringing prices to a >more reasonable level. Though still murderous at best, it doesn't come >close to the genocide that Intel has reaped upon the x86 faithful... >;-) > \\Lee This is not intended as a flame. I post it for informational purposes only. I have before me an Intel advertisement from the January 29 issue of PC Magazine. To quote from the ad: "486 is a trademark of Intel Corporation." Also where the number 486 appears in the ad the small TM trademark symbol follows the number. -- *************************************************************************** | Phil Roberts | Internet: proberts@disk.uucp |
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (04/03/91)
proberts@disk.uucp (Phil Roberts) writes: >I have before me an Intel advertisement from the January 29 issue of >PC Magazine. To quote from the ad: "486 is a trademark of Intel >Corporation." Also where the number 486 appears in the ad the small TM >trademark symbol follows the number. The TM symbol means only that someone has claimed trademark protection for the mark. It is not registered. In ruling that 386 is a generic reference not subject to trademark, the judge has implied, by extension, that 486 cannot be trademarked either. ----------- uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech