you dont get it. they would lose hardly any volumes. regular people would still upgrade on the basis they do now. they dont give a damn if performance is not improving as it should be. do you really think that ordinary people upgrade because of performance? no they dont. they see new os is out, or wife need a new laptop with better features, then they get new system. just how big is the percantage of enthusiastic users that upgrade for performace gains with every introduction of new cpus? very small.
ok, so you´re saying Intel would spend same/more money on R&D as they do now with amd gone

if you do you´re pretty naive...
i do, but that doesn´t change anything about vista being earlier if there was competition. just dont say they were working on security issues and DRM because that´s BS. vista is late because MS doesnt have to answer any competition.
ok, you get your point. there are areas where monopoly might be better solution. but in case you didnt notice we are speaking about competition in Desktop PCs processors. in case you really believe that this market is better off with monopoly than once again...
THERE WOULD BE NO POSSIBLE ROAD INTO NEW AREAS WITHOUT COMPETITION. just because we still run on x86 doesnt mean its caused by a competition. what kind of logic is that? and you said it dozen of times in this forum. intel has more developing teams and huge economic background. they surely can take ventures into new areas. amd is one who should play it safe.
Bookmarks