News Focus
News Focus
icon url

mmoy

01/18/07 1:54 PM

#78540 RE: Windsock #78538

> The system could have been jury rigged so that it would run
> Task Manager

That would be one mean trick.

The Task Manager queries all kinds of important process and system structures for data. I'd have a hard time imagining that
someone could jury-rig that. A minimalist system in safe-mode,
yes. But that still implies that Windows booted.

Someone could, of course, just put up a screenshot of a running
system. But why bother?

Are we talking about K8L or 65 NM here? I actually wandered in
without knowing which functionality you guys were talking about.
icon url

The Duke of URL

01/18/07 2:42 PM

#78542 RE: Windsock #78538

In the early days, at an AMD press conference in San Francisco circa 1985 (?), there were more AMD attorneys in the audience than there were AMD representatives on the stage.

They choose their words, VERY carefully.
icon url

j3pflynn

01/18/07 8:27 PM

#78546 RE: Windsock #78538

Windsock - That's one of the silliest things I've heard.
icon url

CombJelly

01/18/07 10:18 PM

#78549 RE: Windsock #78538

"Not correct. It means that Task Manager was running and that is all. "

Let me get this straight. You are claiming they were running a Windows application, more of an applet actually, without Windows? Is this what you are trying to say here? Really? You aren't pretending or anything?

You do realize this is a pretty silly suggestion, don't you?

Besides, Task Manager was showing loads on each processor. So there was more than just Task Manager.

"Deception has always been AMD's game "

Ho ho. AMD has never gone to the lengths of being deceptive as Intel. I remember one IDF where they were demonstrating a fast clocked P4. 4GHz, I believe. There was a dummy box on the table, but under the table was a water-cooled, highly overclocked system, not an air cooled, production ready processor like they were pretending.

And how many times has Intel claimed they gained market share where it was later proven they actually lost market share? Or the way they kept moving flash around so you couldn't compare quarter to quarter numbers and figure out whether flash was losing money or not?