Print 28 comment(s) - last by Viditor.. on Feb 10 at 2:24 AM

Core Duo and Pentium D owners can now enjoy conferencing with up to 10 people

This is even more reason to buy an Intel Core Duo or Pentium D processor, right? Intel claims that versions of Skype 2.0 and higher will be able to support conference calls with up to 10 people only if you are using an Intel dual-core processor.

This feature takes advantage of multi-tasking capabilities using Intel's revolutionary new dual-core technology. Without impacting performance, you can make calls while simultaneously running programs such as email, word processing, multimedia applications, virus scan and more.

EETimes reports that even more Intel-specific optimizations are on the way:

The two companies are planning additional feature extensions and optimization of Skype for Intel’s dual-core processors, Skype said. Later this year, Skype will release video calling optimized for Intel dual-core technology, the company added.

So should AMD dual-core owners feel left out? Probably not. It's doubtful that many would be using Skype to conference with 10 anyway. And even if you would pursue the feature, I'm sure that there will be some hack/crack to enable the feature in the near future...

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Grr, unnecessary limitation on functionality
By psychobriggsy on 2/8/2006 1:53:02 PM , Rating: 3
I don't like it when artificial limitations are put on a product for marketing reasons when it harms the consumers using the product.

Either there is code in the latest Skype that will only enable features when a certain CPU is present (which is a nasty artificial limitation when it isn't related to actual CPU grunt, but to branding), or it will actually work on any CPU with the required grunt to do it and it isn't Intel Dual-Core only.

Thing is, the last Skype call I did sounded awful, with audio being dropped all over the place. The interface also sucks. This'll only anger some people who'll look at alternatives.

RE: Grr, unnecessary limitation on functionality
By Questar on 2/8/2006 2:07:30 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, Intel should put people and money on a project, just so another company can benefit.

How dare they make investments that AMD can't benefit from!!

By Ecmaster76 on 2/8/2006 2:25:37 PM , Rating: 3
Well considering they are in court for unfair competition practices, they ought to be careful about this kind of thing.

RE: Grr, unnecessary limitation on functionality
By tfranzese on 2/8/2006 3:25:50 PM , Rating: 3
There's a difference between optimizing and locking out the competition. That distinction is missed by fanboys.

RE: Grr, unnecessary limitation on functionality
By Viditor on 2/9/2006 5:41:47 AM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between optimizing and locking out the competition

Yes, but the rules are different when you have more than 50% of the marketshare (i.e monopoly). Then, even optimizing can be considered a "barrier to entry", which is illegal.

RE: Grr, unnecessary limitation on functionality
By Questar on 2/9/2006 9:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
Your false assumption is that greater than 50% of the market makes a monopoly.

By Viditor on 2/10/2006 2:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
Your false assumption is that greater than 50% of the market makes a monopoly

Yes and no...there are certainly cases where having greater than 50% of the market isn't considered a monopoly (for anti-trust purposes), but this is when the "barrier-to-entry" is very low (called "Natural Monopolies"). That is certainly NOT the case with a semiconductor manufacturer where the cost of Fabs is a HUGE barrier to entry.

The Supreme Court has defined monopoly power as the power to control prices or exclude competition. As a practical matter, such power is measured by the alleged monopolist's share of the relevant market. Absolute monopoly in the economic sense -- 100 percent of the market -- is a rare phenomenon, raising the question of how large a share a firm must possess to come within the statutory concept. Although there is no hard and fast rule, any market share of 50 percent or higher is sufficient to be of concern

“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki