linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: linus.linux.sgi.com]

To: dmanddmer <dmerchan@hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: linus.linux.sgi.com]
From: Chad Carlin <chad@sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:29:16 -0600 (CST)
Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
In-reply-to: <36A51517.A24C2BEB@hiwaay.net>
Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
The current mainstream memory offering is 70n/s and we are at 50n/s.  The 
memory is not proprietary - any manufacturer could buy it if their system could 
drive it fast enough! 

            Chad Carlin                 
            Silicon Graphics Inc.               
            chad@sgi.com 
            http://reality.sgi.com/chad

 

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, dmanddmer wrote:

->Btw, I heard a rumor that the memory in the VPC is custom or unique
->memory.  Is this true?  How much of the VPC, besides the obvious, is not
->industry standard?  If SGI is attempting solely to require customers to
->be able to buy any upgrades ONLY from SGI, then SGI has shot itself in
->the foot again.  It did not work for Apple, it didn't work for Unisys,
->it didn't work for Intergraph.  In short, it hasn't worked for anyone.
->
->David M.
--- Begin Message ---
To: dmanddmer <dmerchan@hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: linus.linux.sgi.com
From: david@carrera.columbus.sgi.com (David Watters)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:30:47 -0500 (EST)
Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
In-reply-to: dmanddmer <dmerchan@hiwaay.net> "Re: linus.linux.sgi.com" (Jan 19, 5:21am)
References: <369F8C88.39CC6B03@infopact.nl> <199901151909.LAA23245@oz.engr.sgi.com> <19990115225918.25643@uni-koblenz.de> <199901160321.TAA11493@dm.cobaltmicro.com> <36A40CBE.F55CA9F1@detroit.sgi.com> <199901190519.VAA17644@dm.cobaltmicro.com> <36A46AAE.16FDA4C9@hiwaay.net>
Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
On Jan 19,  5:21am, dmanddmer wrote:
> Subject: Re: linus.linux.sgi.com
> Personally, since SGI made the questionable decision to port to NT, I
> wish they would commit to AMD's processors instead of Intels.

SGI couldn't.  SGI had to replace so much of the IA/440xx chipset that there
had to be a prettty big agreement with Intel covering a lot of issues,
machines, processors, and markets to allow SGI to, for example, implement
the frontside bus in their own chipset.  Don't forget all those Co'op
marketing dollars too. -dong ^dong -dong ^^dong

> Porting to NT alone is probably not enough to save the company.  It
> didn't work for Intergraph.

Yeah, but Intergraph is lame so they had that working against them too. :)


-- 
David Watters         |                 Silicon*Graphics 
Systems Engineer      |                http://www.sgi.com/ 
Silicon Graphics, Inc.|    http://reality.sgi.com/davester/  (6/13/97) 
david.watters@sgi.com |  1.800.800.SGI1 (Sales) 1.800.800.4SGI (Support) 
DID 1.614.844.3820    |   http://www.nintendo.com/ (N64, the $130 SGI!) 


--- End Message ---
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>