Linux Patch Pending To Fix Support For The Transmeta Crusoe CPU

[M.Bahr]

You mean this?

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2539492/intel-settles-patent-case-with-transmeta-for--250m.html

Intel ended up paying Transmeta for IP (and lots of money).

So, let me ask this - are you making stuff up?

Did you actually read the article before referring to it? It confirms my statement that intel had to pay a lot of money to transmeta for using their IP. I quote from the very same article:
"Under the agreement, Intel will pay Transmeta $150 million initially and $20 million in each of the next five years. In exchange, Intel will be granted a right to license Transmeta patents for use in future products."

[vladpetric]

PS: And yes i stand by my assessment. Transmeta's idea on "how to convert a stream of x86 instructions into parallel executable VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word) instructions." is indeed revolutionary. I quote the c't magazine here, one of the most renowned computer journals in Europe, confirming my statement by writing this:"Experts estimate that the performance of such a design could far exceed that of an Intel CPU."

Just because a lot of people buy in the hype, doesn't make it true.

If it were such a great idea, others would have done it as well, it really is as simple as that.

[vladpetric]

Did you actually read the article before referring to it? It confirms my statement that intel had to pay a lot of money to transmeta for using their IP. I quote from the very same article:
"Under the agreement, Intel will pay Transmeta $150 million initially and $20 million in each of the next five years. In exchange, Intel will be granted a right to license Transmeta patents for use in future products."

Again, you said "The real reason why transmeta had to pause development for a long time after initial products and finally gave up was due to intel choking them with x86 patents in court". And that never happened.

[cjcox]

Does Friday really spell the rescue of Crusoe? You just gotta love open source.

[M.Bahr]

This is your claim, quote from above:

"The real reason why transmeta had to pause development for a long time after initial products and finally gave up was due to intel choking them with x86 patents in court."

This never happened, AFAICT. So yeah, I claim that you are making stuff up.

Transmeta sued Intel, because Intel were infringing on their IP. Then Intel countersued. Eventually, Intel had to pay them ~250M

And? What is your point here? I already wrote that intel chocked transmeta in court due to x86 emulation. In fact intel even mentioned this incident themselves when they also threatened microsoft and qualcomm about x86 emulation some years ago. I think you are getting confused by your own arguments because you got gaps about the actual events..

[M.Bahr]

Just because a lot of people buy in the hype, doesn't make it true.

If it were such a great idea, others would have done it as well, it really is as simple as that.

Big big bullshit. You just don't want to admit, that you are wrong about the proper estimation of this technology. It was revolutionary at that time.

PS: i am tired and done with this nonsensical discussion. No matter what fact I refer to, some conceited person always seems to have something against it.

[vladpetric]

And? What is your point here? I already wrote that intel chocked transmeta in court due to x86 emulation. In fact intel even mentioned this incident themselves when they also threatened microsoft and qualcomm about x86 emulation some years ago. I think you are getting confused by your own arguments because you got gaps about the actual events..

My point is that you're making stuff up.

How exactly is it that Transmeta was choked in court, when:

* Transmeta release Crusoe in 2000, and Efficeon (the 2nd generation) in 2004.
* Lawsuits between Transmeta and Intel started in October 2006. By the time the lawsuits were settled (in favor of Transmeta ...), the company was a pure IP one (developing real IP, to be clear).

BTW, Crusoe (2000) had decent performance vs competition at the time (mostly because the Pentium 4 wasn't a good design, IMO). Efficeon (2004) - not so.

Oh, let me just add that wikipedia has a nicely presented history of Transmeta.

[vladpetric]

Big big bullshit. You just don't want to admit, that you are wrong about the proper estimation of this technology. It was revolutionary at that time.

Hurling insults around does exactly zero to prove any points (whether material or ad hominems).

BTW, I tend to know what I'm talking about. In fact, part of my research work has influenced the AMD Ryzen 3000 series.

[vladpetric]

Big big bullshit. You just don't want to admit, that you are wrong about the proper estimation of this technology. It was revolutionary at that time.

PS: i am tired and done with this nonsensical discussion. No matter what fact I refer to, some conceited person always seems to have something against it.

You really need to let the hate go.

[M.Bahr]

My point is that you're making stuff up.

How exactly is it that Transmeta was choked in court, when:

* Transmeta release Crusoe in 2000, and Efficeon (the 2nd generation) in 2004.
* Lawsuits between Transmeta and Intel started in October 2006. By the time the lawsuits were settled (in favor of Transmeta ...), the company was a pure IP one (developing real IP, to be clear).

BTW, Crusoe (2000) had decent performance vs competition at the time (mostly because the Pentium 4 wasn't a good design, IMO). Efficeon (2004) - not so.

Oh, let me just add that wikipedia has a nicely presented history of Transmeta.

I am not making stuff up but you are. It also becomes very clear, that you got logical fallacies in your reasoning. And you are ignoring important facts and conditions. Transmeta was a small company in comparison to intel. Their chips were quite expensive. In fact it was extremely difficult to compete against a big experienced, old and foremost rich corporation like intel. intel could generate much bigger margins with their chips.

Just because the Efficeon couldn't meet expectations doesn't mean the basic technology behind it was bad or would have already met it's limits genius. What kind of logic is this? That's like pointing to the world's first car and claiming :"Well look how slow this nonsense is. The horse is much faster. Let's forget about combustion engines. They got no future." This is the exact summary of your nonsensical statement.