Dave McGuire wrote:
> 
>   What I find infuriating about this is the damned suits at Compaq (and
> everywhere else, it seems) seem to be under the impression that
> processor architecture is a BUSINESS DECISION.

The design per se, not. The decision which one available you take, is.
The big question is which priorities you set.

>   Where do these morons get off with this bullshit?

Because they are not measured by how the company is doing in ten
years, but by next quarter's revenues. 

The Q started as PC sales company. That business is not one that is
used to long term customer relations. And what is there in customer
relations to "big box" customers has been stressed sometimes. (I had
good experience with Q service staff in the last year, YMMV.)

The PC business seems to have been bad lately. Add to that uncertainty
within the Alpha customer base, who demand long-term commitments, and
you are set up for desaster. I am Alpha biased, but not even I was
sure they mean their "Alpha offensive". Lately, I came to believe
them. Until today. The Q sales rep presented us big, shiny roadmaps 
including EV8 a few months ago. So much to that.

>   INTEL: GET A CLUE.  YOU ARE HOLDING THE ENTIRE COMPUTER INDUSTRY BACK
> WITH YOUR SUIT-PROMOTED BAD DESIGNS.  Learn from the failure of the P4!

They got a clue. They bought the competition and go on selling their
crappy design. It's not really about solutions, it's about shareholder
value. And as long as they make sure they dominate the market, they
can sell whatever they like, at a profit.  

The easy way to ensure people _do_ buy your stuff is to make the
relevant management aware that only you can provide what they need
(i.e. what you want to sell). Let the technicians scream and get
ulcers, they (normally) do not sign off buying decicions.

Don't shout. Vote with your pocket. The sales figure tells them.

Wolfgang Rupp