<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="0.92" xml:base="http://groups.apu.edu/awg">
<channel>
 <title>AWG - Hardware</title>
 <link>http://groups.apu.edu/awg/taxonomy/term/20/0</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>How soon do you adopt emerging standards?</title>
 <link>http://groups.apu.edu/awg/node/199</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Interesting IBM developer works article: &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;h4&gt;&lt;a title="read article" target="_blank" href="http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-spec10/?ca=dgr-lnxw01SpecAdoption"&gt;Standards and specs: Early adopters&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h4&gt;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Follow the pitfalls and perks that come from adopting a standard before it becomes one&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;This is a rather hardware focused standards article, but there are some valid lessons to be gained.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;blockquote&gt;   &lt;p&gt; Remember that standardization is about interoperability first and foremost. If competitiveness between prospective partners in a standardization effort sinks the standard, everybody loses. &lt;br /&gt;   &lt;/p&gt; &lt;/blockquote&gt; &lt;p&gt;Which is why open standards are so important.&amp;nbsp; There is a great difference between industry standards and open standards.&amp;nbsp; Industry standards are lead by companies who form loose partnerships with eachother when developing new product lines with the desire for interoperability.&amp;nbsp; Open standards are those lead by independent standards bodies, usually with open participation and vendor independence.&amp;nbsp; This doesn't mean that open standards sometimes don't suffer the results of vendor competition, if they are implemented inconsistently (thus breaking the standard for advantage).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Anyway, good article.&amp;nbsp; I attempted once, to explain the difference between &lt;a title="See Open Standards vs. Open Source" target="_blank" href="http://home.apu.edu/~jjanssen/architecture/OpenSource_vs_OpenStandards.html"&gt;Open Standards and Open Source&lt;/a&gt;, which may provide some relevant background to this topic.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:05:46 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Xeon vs. Opteron Performance Benchmarks</title>
 <link>http://groups.apu.edu/awg/node/28</link>
 <description>&lt;a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/03/1713228"&gt;Xeon vs. Opteron Performance Benchmarks&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;i&gt; QuickSand writes "Anand got his hands on some of Intel and AMD's enterprise processors including 4MB L3 Xeons, and put them to the test. Results were a little varied as 4-way Opteron systems seemed to fare the best, although dual Xeon configurations almost always beat dual Opterons. The exact &lt;a href="http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982"&gt;benchmarks are here&lt;/a&gt;." &lt;/i&gt; &lt;a href="http://slashdot.org/"&gt;slashdot.org&lt;/a&gt;

I haven't followed hardware in a while, but it seems to me from reading AnandTech's article, that AMD Opteron's bus speed and performance, especially considering the clockspeed, smokes Intel's Xeon.</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:54:36 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
