"Although none of the major chip analysts have actual numbers, due to the difficulty of tracking so many phones on the market, all you have to do is look at the list of phones in the Wikipedia entry for Snapdragon, Qualcomm's brand of ARM-based processors, to see how ubiquitous Qualcomm is."
You have sources with actual concrete numbers? Or something newer (that article is 18 months old).
Edited: Here's a link showing Mediatek alone shipped 220 million processors in 2013 and expects that number to grow significantly in 2014.
I've found some other articles which I've bookmarked. But it's really difficult to find what I've read, or even bookmarked a few months ago. Remember, it's really been just since about 2010 that Qualcomm has been heavily making and selling SoCs. When TI dropped out, Qualcomm scooped up their share, which, by itself was fairly big. So I've got another article that says they're the Intel of mobile processors, etc. but other than articles from 2011-2013, I can't find numbers, just statements as to their position.
Most of Mediateks processors go into dumb phones and feature phones. Much of Marvel's production ends up in SSD controlers, etc. without knowing where these chips actually go, we can't form an opinion of how they matter. So we've got to look further into what those sales are for. Some are for the automobile and truck industry. Many are for other consumer electronics. These are generally lower end chips. Much are for embedded processing. None of this impacts smartphones. Or tablets.
So, last year, they were about 1.14 billion smartphones sold, assuming that all were really what we would think of as smartphones today. About 275 million tablets. That's about 1.42 billion devices in the categories we're talking about. Add another 400 million feature phones and dumb phones, and we get over 1.8 billion devices. Looking at that, Mediateks sales don't look so significant. But likely many of their sales don't end up in any of these devices, so that makes them even smaller. Same thing for Marvel, another big maker of the second rank.
You're really reaching there... the variability is beyond insane, not just small. Your telling me that all those Iphones were all perfectly calibrated for the tests (those IOS users are so disciplined...) and you have to baby the little Android phones to make them work as well?
Were are YOU getting your information about how IOS versus Android users ran these test? Hypothesis is not reality, is it?
Isn't it possible that multi-tasking/memory management is just broken down and you see the result of that... Hey, my scenario is as worth while as yours.
I'm not reaching at all. If you have an iPhone or iPad, try it. Turn on some apps that you know will work in the background, such as gps apps, audio measuring apps, etc., and do a test. You'll be surprised at how bad those numbers will come out.
What I'm saying, which you would have understood if you read carefully, is that having apps on in the background significantly affects performance testing. On iOS, turning the phone off completely and turning it back on eliminates any running apps. But on Android, that isn't necessarily the case, depending on the apps that were running. It's pretty simple to understand.
The whole point to it is the multitasking model, as I did said, didn't i?
It seems that you REALLY want to believe that what you saw tells the entire story. Ok, if it makes you happy.
Competitive in performance, but power efficiency is undetermined, hence my skepticism. I suspect that Apple isn't inspired by anything other than the level of the GPU, and even then, probably not worried about the tradeoffs that Nvidia had to make to get that performance.
It's hard to say. But in a tablet the power envelope is greater, so it doesn't matter as much.
Please for the love if god can someone inform the author that citing yourself is the height of egotism and doesn't add any credibility to any assertions that are being made. In fact it just leads to the proposition the author is saying "this is right and factual because I said so".
Apart from that the first part was quite interesting.
Surely the real winner here will be Nvidia. The K1 Denver seems to have the only viable pre-throttled single-core performance to challenge Apple. Not sure how well it does outside of a tablet though.
Then again Android licensees don't ship many iPhone-class devices that warrant Snapdragon 8xx processors so probably not an issue.
Someone give me a few reasons why Apple has not purchased Qualcomm yet?
Apple buys companies that can improve their (Apple's) technology. They don't buy companies with inferior tech. Given that Apple seems to have a better chip design crew than Qualcomm's, why buy Qualcomm? Need anymore reasons?
I found the citations and break-out quotations to be highly exaggerating of the situation actually described in the linked articles.
For example "the company's own Exynos chips were plagued by serious design defects" - that simply isn't the case. It had a weaker GPU than the A8 (and not much weaker at the same resolution). If it was plagued you wouldn't expect it to ship successfully in millions of devices.
Historically Samsung hasn't used its Exynos chips because they only had a certain amount of them to use, to they targetted them at certain markets (especially ones that like the number 8). Luckily one of its major customers has diversified its suppliers...
If you follow the link you'll find that the Exynos Galaxy S4 was indeed defective. It's not just a matter of it being slower than the Snapdragon version. It didn't become a huge story because a) it only shipped outside the U.S. b) Samsung's problems are not newsworthy.
"Samsung hasn't used its Exynos chips because they only had a certain amount of them to use"? What?
Samsung uses as many Exynos as it can itself (QCOM CDMA/4G being the main reason it couldn't use them globally before), and it sells as many as it can make to other parties, including Chinese phone makers. Samsung is a major ARM chip manufacturer, and Exynos is simply the brand it applies to the generic parts it prints in its fabs. Had Samsung been using that brand before the iPhone, iPods would have used "Exynos" chips.
Samsung just began running into problems when they tried to compete against a dedicated design team (Apple's team is made up of people from PA Semi/XScale/StrongARM/DEC, who have been designing, not just printing, ARM chips as long as its been around). Exynos doesn't use a very sophisticated design compared to custom Qualcomm/Krait and Apple/Swift-Cyclone ARM chips.
If you add Oppo, One Plus, Meizu, Huawei and Xiaomi - the number one smart phone manufacturer in the tiny Chinese market ,and some other brands, that gives Qualcom at least 54% of the world market for smartphones to develop for, assuming Samsung don't use any of Qualcom's processors for models other than the S6 - which they do in spades. Gee, I wonder if they will manage to turn a profit or be able to afford to develop new processors with such low sales.
An article not even worth the paper it's printed on - oh, that's right!
Almost zero of them use high end processors, even less use high end 64 bit processors.
Most of the 54% marketshare you tout, use low to mid range processors because most of that 54% are low to mid range phones.
A fact you conveniently ignore like so many others.
That's not what I said. Do you even understand what quotation marks mean?
What I said was that TI are a small player in the chip making industry. They achieved a lot of volume with Nokia but never had the resources of Qualcomm or Intel. Puzzlingly, you've then listed a series of dud products that never sold in significant volumes to back up your argument.
Wait, you're telling me that TI's OMAP failed because a series of flop products from Google/Samsung/Amazon/Palm/BBery, and subsequently ran out of interest in further risking investment to build a stream of competitive chips that Android licensees failed to make into competitive, profitable products?
Well I'm glad you finally learned something from reading an AI article RichL!
I remember way back when Intel released a chip that had some severe math problems that would show up at some of the worst times. Intel had to recall a lot of chips. At the time, Apple was still on the 68xxxx platform, and everybody was breaking out the champagne. I see that happening here as well.
"It simply doesn’t make sense why Samsung continually uses it’s [sic] own, poorly optimized chips instead of chips from a company dedicated to making CPUs. The Snapdragon 600 and 800 have received nothing but praise for performance, power consumption, and efficiency. Samsung’s Exynos 5 Octa has, well … not."
In addition to the hardware bus controller flaws in the 2013 Exynos Galaxy S4 reported by Anandtech as noted in the article, you can google "Exynos flaw" to get lots of stories about that "Samsung Exynos flaw leaves many Galaxy devices wide open" affecting the Galaxy S2, S3; Note, Note 2 & 10.1; Galaxy Tab 2, Galaxy Player and even the Galaxy Camera. Basically everything they put it into in 2012:
Alephzain describes the security flaw as a “huge mistake” by Samsung and he says “the security hole is in kernel, exactly with the device /dev/exynos-mem”. He goes on to discuss the implications of the flaw: “The good news is we can easily obtain root on these devices and the bad is there is no control over it. RAM dump, kernel code injection and others could be possible via app installation from Play Store. It certainly exists many ways to do that but Samsung give an easy way to exploit. This security hole is dangerous and expose phone to malicious apps. Exploitation with native C and JNI could be easily feasible.”
What absolute bullshit. Even without Samsung, there's more than enough Android manufacturers around to keep Qualcomm's APs profitable. Qualcomm gets paid whether the manufacturer makes a profit or not. Around 350 million non-Samsung Android devices were sold last year and that doesn't even include non-Android devices that also use Snapdragon. That's a healthy market for Qualcomm.
Yes there are lots of non-Samsung Android phones, and QCOM does indeed get paid for its components whether or not the manufacturer turns a profit.
However, it doesn't get paid if the Android maker is in China and decides not to pay for Qualcomm IP (which you see the company notes quite prominently in its own, latest earning statements as a serious problem it faces), and when all those thousands of low volume Android licensees / AOSP users crank out low end products using budget chips, Qualcomm doesn't make enough money to warrant investing in state of the art APs that can compete with a company that brings in so much money it can give away $100 billion to its shareholders and still have $150 billion left over. That's what happened to TI and Nvidia, and pretty much what happened to PowerPC. It's called a pattern.
So really, the only "absolute bullshit" is really just your ignorant comment.
If you find a minor typo, you can report it to get it corrected. Rushing to the comments to post it is against AI's commenting policy because it doesn't add anything to the conversation and just makes you look like a bitter, petty person with nothing of value to contribute. Speaking of which, lets look at what you wrote, because it is terrible....
These articles are getting worse with each iteration.
DED has for some time in his articles been trying to portray Samsung processors as rubbish. Once again, he references his own previous and outdated article to 'prove' his point.
No, the article cites third party benchmarks from credible sources. Every generation of Exynos has been far behind Qualcomm's Snapdragon. And if you stop to think about it, that's part of the reason why Samsung uses its direct competitor's chips instead of its own. Which is embarrassing both to Samsung and to the point you are trying to make here.
Claiming that Samsung's own Exynos processor will be significantly lower in performance than Qualcom's 810 is an amazing feat of prescience, since the Samsung S6 looks like it will feature the unreleased and un-benchmarked Exynos 7420.
Or really its just common knowledge. There's a citation linking to Anandtech where they point out that Samsung shipped egregiously dysfunctional Eyxnos parts and then pretended like nothing happened and did nothing to address it, just like Google's approach to Android. You don't need to be "prescient" to understand that Samsung is not leading AP design. It doesn't even have a design license for ARM. It's just printing work developed elsewhere, to use on its "carrier friendly, good enough" products and to sell to Chinese manufacturers making budget phones.
The already released Samsung Note 4 comes in two variants - one with Samsung's own Exynos 5433 64-Bit processor, running in 32 bit mode - probably because 64-bit lolipop isn't out yet - and Qualcom's Snapdragon 805. In Benchmarks, the Exynoss 5433 variant seems to outperform the Snapdragon 805
Wrong, Samsung doesn't have a 64-bit processor yet. It has a chip using an ARMv8 instruction set, but it runs as a 32-bit chip and that's why it's marketed as a 32-bit chip. It has nothing to do with "Lolipop," and when it gets lollipop it will still be a 32-bit device running 32-bit Android. You then cite benchmarks without a source, and without any context. How convenient! What are you demonstrating? Two numbers grabbed you out of the ether, from unknown testers using a platform that Samsung has an established track record for exploiting.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">The link provided is to DED's own earlier article. Referencing your own wild speculation which is predicated on Apple ignoring Qualcomm patents, giving the impression the link is an authoritative source, is disingenuous at best.</span>
Apple does not develop it's own GPUs, they use Imagination PowerVr products.
That's less true than saying Samsung doesn't develop its own Exynos. Because Samsung's Exynos is generic ARM cores, while, for example, Anandtech recently wrote that Apple's A8X uses a customized variant of IMG's GPU cores with a configuration that doesn't even exist as a product from IMG. Apple has a design license for ARM and IMG. Samsung has a manufacturing license for ARM and ARM Mali. So you are wrong here too.
Completely ignoring the possibility of Using Samsung's Exynos processors of course.
If you add Oppo, One Plus, Meizu, Huawei and Xiaomi - the number one smart phone manufacturer in the tiny Chinese market ,and some other brands, that gives Qualcom at least 54% of the world market for smartphones to develop for, assuming Samsung don't use any of Qualcom's processors for models other than the S6 - which they do in spades. Gee, I wonder if they will manage to turn a profit or be able to afford to develop new processors with such low sales.
Oppo's U3 uses a generic MediaTek AP, not QCOM. Others use 805. One Plus uses an outdated/budget 801. Meizu uses Samsung Exynos chips, or MediaTek to save money. Huawei uses some higher end QCOM chips (mostly lower end) but its not even in the top 5 in volume Xiaomi uses cheap versions of QCOM chips.
Samsung + Apple = >50% of QCOM's revenues. All the examples you gave undermine your opinion/hope.
An article not even worth the paper it's printed on - oh, that's right!
I can't remember the last time you left a comment that contributed anything interesting to the conversation. Virtually everything you just posted is absolutely, demonstrably wrong. And posted with such over the top arrogance. You don't know what you are talking about.
Comparing Qualcomm to TI is more bullshit. The writing was on the wall for TI for a long time. Their support to manufacturers was abysmal and their chips often caused product delays. They were never one of the big players and couldn't get up with the competition. Even staunch allies like Nokia were trying to move away from TI's OMAP chips when the iPhone landed in 2007.
Your opinion of TI makes it curious why Google and Samsung would select TI's OMAP as their processor of choice for the 2012 Galaxy Nexus. And Google Glass, and the Nexus Q.
What were they thinking if TI was already out of business and nobody used their products?!? Also: all those Amazon Kindle products, like the Kindle Fire HD that Android fans were adoring. And all of those BlackBerry Playbook / BBX releases. And the Palm Pre and Pre 2 before that.
And the Nokia N9. Motorola Droid 2 ">Qualcomm is a profitable (and increasingly profitable) company. They could afford to develop Snapdragon in 2007 when the smartphone market was just taking off. They can certainly afford to develop new Snapdragon chips in the current smartphone market.</span>
QCOM's quarterly profits have been pretty flat since 2012 (the last 8 quarters). Developing a chip in 2007 was a simpler, cheaper task that in 2015. There was no real market for advanced APs when the iPhone appeared.
It doesn't matter how much money Apple puts into chip development as Apple aren't selling their chips to anyone else. Qualcomm is competing against everyone else selling mobile ARM chips on the open market and Qualcomm is king right now. Also, please remember that mobile ARM chips aren't just used in Android smartphones. Even if Android collapsed tomorrow, Qualcomm would have enough business to stay afloat for some time.
That's like saying Apple had no problems getting Mac PowerPC chips back in 2005 because Freescale and IBM were making PPC game console chips. You keep forgetting that chips have an audience. Nvidia hopes to make chips for cars, but that's only because it can't sell valuable chips for phones anymore. Having a product doesn't mean you have a buyer, but not having any buyers makes it hard to risk investment in sophisticated products you can't actually sell in volume. Also, you're developing this theory that Apple doesn't compete with or participate in the chip market. Abandon it, it makes you look stupid every time you pull it out and wave it around.
Ultimately, you're interpreting the pattern wrong - high-end mobile ARM sales aren't collapsing, it's just that no-one on the open market can compete with Qualcomm. Qualcomm has created itself a virtual monopoly.
QCOM has a monopoly with its patents, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it can't currently sell many expensive chips to anyone outside of Apple and Samsung because there isn't a demand for expensive high end APs from all those low end commodity phone makers. Without Samsung, it loses a big chunk of its market, and most of its Snapdragon market.
Just because you hate to agree doesn't mean you have to make up an insane contradiction of reality and keep repeating it.
I'd like to ask the Mods if it is OK to make an ad hom against a Sock Puppet ... it appears OK for the Sock Puppet ...
I can't believe how ridiculous the above seems when you see written out :???:
Um, I'm missing something here, aren't I?
See the blue highlighted responses made by @Corrections in the posts preceding yours. @Corrections is a Sock Puppet for DED -- where he is allowed to attack and denigrate anyone who challenges DED's agenda or version of the facts.
When he sticks to the facts, I appreciate DED's writing as much as anyone. But when he goes off on a rant, or attacks the legitimate disagreements of other posters (using an alias) ... it sullies the whole reason for the article and destroys the discussion.
I can understand giving an author some freedom to express his biases and his agenda in an article. But I do not believe that gives the author the right to anonymously attack those who disagree in the discussion portion of the thread. Normally, after a few of these @Corrections attacks in a thread, I will just move on to another article or another web site. Sometimes, though, I will complain (like this post) in the hopes that the Editors at AI will clean this up -- it does not meet the otherwise high standards of AI discussions.
Re champing vs chomping, I see it's been abused enough within the last few years that chomping is winning through sheer volume of misuse. So, in a 64-bit world, it appears champing has been usurped.
Re champing vs chomping, I see it's been abused enough within the last few years that chomping is winning through sheer volume of misuse. So, in a 64-bit world, it appears champing has been usurped.
Champing is a nearly archaic word that is not really used anywhere but in the original version of the idiom. "Chomping" is also considered an acceptable version (it means virtually the same thing) and is more accessible because most people what Chomping actually means.
Nostalgic attachment doesn't make modern spelling "abuse" of the language or incorrect.
"Chomping" is also considered an acceptable version
Yes, I thought that's what I implied in my followup.
Quote:
Nostalgic attachment doesn't make modern spelling "abuse" of the language or incorrect.
First, I hold no nostalgic attachment. Language evolves and that's a good thing. Second, my characterization as "abuse" was meant in the same vein as the rest of my post i.e. as a light-hearted jab. Third, even if I were serious (which, given the forum, one would hope not to find serious posts on as flippant a topic as this) whether this could be considered abuse is merely opinion. You have a right to yours and I to mine. Thank you for sharing yours. Can we move on now? :-)
Well I'm glad you finally learned something from reading an AI article RichL!
I've learned many, many things from reading AI. It's only your articles that I find misleading to the point of being worthless. It doesn't help that you defend them with insults under a pseudonym.
Comments
I've found some other articles which I've bookmarked. But it's really difficult to find what I've read, or even bookmarked a few months ago. Remember, it's really been just since about 2010 that Qualcomm has been heavily making and selling SoCs. When TI dropped out, Qualcomm scooped up their share, which, by itself was fairly big. So I've got another article that says they're the Intel of mobile processors, etc. but other than articles from 2011-2013, I can't find numbers, just statements as to their position.
Most of Mediateks processors go into dumb phones and feature phones. Much of Marvel's production ends up in SSD controlers, etc. without knowing where these chips actually go, we can't form an opinion of how they matter. So we've got to look further into what those sales are for. Some are for the automobile and truck industry. Many are for other consumer electronics. These are generally lower end chips. Much are for embedded processing. None of this impacts smartphones. Or tablets.
So, last year, they were about 1.14 billion smartphones sold, assuming that all were really what we would think of as smartphones today. About 275 million tablets. That's about 1.42 billion devices in the categories we're talking about. Add another 400 million feature phones and dumb phones, and we get over 1.8 billion devices. Looking at that, Mediateks sales don't look so significant. But likely many of their sales don't end up in any of these devices, so that makes them even smaller. Same thing for Marvel, another big maker of the second rank.
I'm not reaching at all. If you have an iPhone or iPad, try it. Turn on some apps that you know will work in the background, such as gps apps, audio measuring apps, etc., and do a test. You'll be surprised at how bad those numbers will come out.
What I'm saying, which you would have understood if you read carefully, is that having apps on in the background significantly affects performance testing. On iOS, turning the phone off completely and turning it back on eliminates any running apps. But on Android, that isn't necessarily the case, depending on the apps that were running. It's pretty simple to understand.
The whole point to it is the multitasking model, as I did said, didn't i?
It seems that you REALLY want to believe that what you saw tells the entire story. Ok, if it makes you happy.
I can't believe how ridiculous the above seems when you see written out :???:
Not just uncool, but useless.
It's hard to say. But in a tablet the power envelope is greater, so it doesn't matter as much.
I thought that was humour! Liked it.
Then again Android licensees don't ship many iPhone-class devices that warrant Snapdragon 8xx processors so probably not an issue.
Someone give me a few reasons why Apple has not purchased Qualcomm yet?
Apple buys companies that can improve their (Apple's) technology. They don't buy companies with inferior tech. Given that Apple seems to have a better chip design crew than Qualcomm's, why buy Qualcomm? Need anymore reasons?
I found the citations and break-out quotations to be highly exaggerating of the situation actually described in the linked articles.
For example "the company's own Exynos chips were plagued by serious design defects" - that simply isn't the case. It had a weaker GPU than the A8 (and not much weaker at the same resolution). If it was plagued you wouldn't expect it to ship successfully in millions of devices.
Historically Samsung hasn't used its Exynos chips because they only had a certain amount of them to use, to they targetted them at certain markets (especially ones that like the number 8). Luckily one of its major customers has diversified its suppliers...
If you follow the link you'll find that the Exynos Galaxy S4 was indeed defective. It's not just a matter of it being slower than the Snapdragon version. It didn't become a huge story because a) it only shipped outside the U.S. b) Samsung's problems are not newsworthy.
"Samsung hasn't used its Exynos chips because they only had a certain amount of them to use"? What?
Samsung uses as many Exynos as it can itself (QCOM CDMA/4G being the main reason it couldn't use them globally before), and it sells as many as it can make to other parties, including Chinese phone makers. Samsung is a major ARM chip manufacturer, and Exynos is simply the brand it applies to the generic parts it prints in its fabs. Had Samsung been using that brand before the iPhone, iPods would have used "Exynos" chips.
Samsung just began running into problems when they tried to compete against a dedicated design team (Apple's team is made up of people from PA Semi/XScale/StrongARM/DEC, who have been designing, not just printing, ARM chips as long as its been around). Exynos doesn't use a very sophisticated design compared to custom Qualcomm/Krait and Apple/Swift-Cyclone ARM chips.
Can it get much worse? Absolute bullshit:
If you add Oppo, One Plus, Meizu, Huawei and Xiaomi - the number one smart phone manufacturer in the tiny Chinese market ,and some other brands, that gives Qualcom at least 54% of the world market for smartphones to develop for, assuming Samsung don't use any of Qualcom's processors for models other than the S6 - which they do in spades. Gee, I wonder if they will manage to turn a profit or be able to afford to develop new processors with such low sales.
An article not even worth the paper it's printed on - oh, that's right!
Almost zero of them use high end processors, even less use high end 64 bit processors.
Most of the 54% marketshare you tout, use low to mid range processors because most of that 54% are low to mid range phones.
A fact you conveniently ignore like so many others.
That's not what I said. Do you even understand what quotation marks mean?
What I said was that TI are a small player in the chip making industry. They achieved a lot of volume with Nokia but never had the resources of Qualcomm or Intel. Puzzlingly, you've then listed a series of dud products that never sold in significant volumes to back up your argument.
Wait, you're telling me that TI's OMAP failed because a series of flop products from Google/Samsung/Amazon/Palm/BBery, and subsequently ran out of interest in further risking investment to build a stream of competitive chips that Android licensees failed to make into competitive, profitable products?
Well I'm glad you finally learned something from reading an AI article RichL!
I remember way back when Intel released a chip that had some severe math problems that would show up at some of the worst times. Intel had to recall a lot of chips. At the time, Apple was still on the 68xxxx platform, and everybody was breaking out the champagne. I see that happening here as well.
Not good folks!
186 + 100 = 286
286 + 100 = 386
386 +100 = 486
486 + 100 = damn, let's just call them Pentium.
Um, I'm missing something here, aren't I?
So what? The article is comparing the Snapdragon 810 against an as-yet-unknown Exynos chip as options for the S6.
Regarding your concerns over whether Samsung's Exynos track record of flaws is exaggerated:
Here's an Android fansite commenting on Samsung's Exynos in 2014 products ("Samsung, please use Qualcomm chips more often | Pocketnow"):
"It simply doesn’t make sense why Samsung continually uses it’s [sic] own, poorly optimized chips instead of chips from a company dedicated to making CPUs. The Snapdragon 600 and 800 have received nothing but praise for performance, power consumption, and efficiency. Samsung’s Exynos 5 Octa has, well … not."
In addition to the hardware bus controller flaws in the 2013 Exynos Galaxy S4 reported by Anandtech as noted in the article, you can google "Exynos flaw" to get lots of stories about that "Samsung Exynos flaw leaves many Galaxy devices wide open" affecting the Galaxy S2, S3; Note, Note 2 & 10.1; Galaxy Tab 2, Galaxy Player and even the Galaxy Camera. Basically everything they put it into in 2012:
Alephzain describes the security flaw as a “huge mistake” by Samsung and he says “the security hole is in kernel, exactly with the device /dev/exynos-mem”. He goes on to discuss the implications of the flaw: “The good news is we can easily obtain root on these devices and the bad is there is no control over it. RAM dump, kernel code injection and others could be possible via app installation from Play Store. It certainly exists many ways to do that but Samsung give an easy way to exploit. This security hole is dangerous and expose phone to malicious apps. Exploitation with native C and JNI could be easily feasible.”
Sigh. That would be "champing" even in a 64-bit world.
See the blue highlighted responses made by @Corrections in the posts preceding yours. @Corrections is a Sock Puppet for DED -- where he is allowed to attack and denigrate anyone who challenges DED's agenda or version of the facts.
When he sticks to the facts, I appreciate DED's writing as much as anyone. But when he goes off on a rant, or attacks the legitimate disagreements of other posters (using an alias) ... it sullies the whole reason for the article and destroys the discussion.
I can understand giving an author some freedom to express his biases and his agenda in an article. But I do not believe that gives the author the right to anonymously attack those who disagree in the discussion portion of the thread. Normally, after a few of these @Corrections attacks in a thread, I will just move on to another article or another web site. Sometimes, though, I will complain (like this post) in the hopes that the Editors at AI will clean this up -- it does not meet the otherwise high standards of AI discussions.
Re champing vs chomping, I see it's been abused enough within the last few years that chomping is winning through sheer volume of misuse. So, in a 64-bit world, it appears champing has been usurped.
Champing is a nearly archaic word that is not really used anywhere but in the original version of the idiom. "Chomping" is also considered an acceptable version (it means virtually the same thing) and is more accessible because most people what Chomping actually means.
Nostalgic attachment doesn't make modern spelling "abuse" of the language or incorrect.
Yes, I thought that's what I implied in my followup.
First, I hold no nostalgic attachment. Language evolves and that's a good thing. Second, my characterization as "abuse" was meant in the same vein as the rest of my post i.e. as a light-hearted jab. Third, even if I were serious (which, given the forum, one would hope not to find serious posts on as flippant a topic as this) whether this could be considered abuse is merely opinion. You have a right to yours and I to mine. Thank you for sharing yours. Can we move on now? :-)
Well I'm glad you finally learned something from reading an AI article RichL!
I've learned many, many things from reading AI. It's only your articles that I find misleading to the point of being worthless. It doesn't help that you defend them with insults under a pseudonym.