BRAND MANAGEMENT Case No. 1 INTEL: BUILDING a TECHNOLOGY

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

BRAND MANAGEMENT Case No. 1 INTEL: BUILDING a TECHNOLOGY BRAND MANAGEMENT Case No. 1 INTEL: BUILDING A TECHNOLOGY BRAND INTRODUCTION Intel’s corporate branding strategy, which many credit for the company’s unparalleled success in the microprocessor industry during the 1990s, stemmed from a court decision. On March 1, 1991, District Judge William Ingram ruled that the “386” designation used by Intel for its microprocessor family was a generic description and could not be trademarked. Intel had been confident that the judge would rule in its favor, and the unexpected court decision effectively invalidated Intel’s current branding strategy. This decision allowed competitors to use Intel’s established naming scheme, which would have been disastrous. Intel’s response was to develop a trademark name for its processor family, the now- familiar “Pentium,” and launch a corporate branding campaign designed to make Intel the first name in processors. Both moves proved to be enormously successful. Intel became one of the leading companies in the PC boom, enjoying virtually unchallenged market leadership through the 1990s. Problems arose, however, as the PC industry slowed down in the early 2000s. Intel faced a future where the PC which represented the core of the company’s microprocessor business, was no longer the essential tool for the Information Age. Wireless telecommunications devices were becoming increasingly popular, and they required different types of processors. The company had spent over three decades building the most recognizable brand in the PC microprocessor industry. Intel’s challenge in the new century was to extend into innovative categories while maintaining the equity in the brand and its microprocessor leadership position. In response to this challenge, the 2006 Intel retooled its brand identity, restructured its brand architecture, and launched an entirely new branding campaign called “Intel. Leap Ahead.” COMPANY BACKGROUND Intel Corporation was founded in 1968 by Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore. Soon thereafter, Andy Grove joined the firm and later became President and Chief Executive Officer. Intel’s initial focus was the integration of large numbers of transistors into silicon chips to make semiconductor computer memory. In 1978, Intel introduced the 16-bit 8086 processor followed by the 8088, the 8-bit bus version of the 8086 in 1979. These microprocessors were the first of the Intel “x86” line of microprocessors. At the time, Intel faced competition from a number of companies, the most serious being Motorola with its 68000 microprocessor. In response, Intel launched a campaign to make the 8086/8088 architecture the standard in the emerging microprocessor market. A critical milestone was IBM’s selection in 1980 of the 8088 as the exclusive microprocessor architecture for its first personal computer. The success of the IBM PC placed Intel at the center of the personal computer revolution and established Intel’s x86 microprocessor architecture as the de factor industry standard. Intel continued to produce chips with improved performance over the next decade. Intel introduced the Intel 386 SX microprocessors, which became the backbone of IBM’s and other manufacturers’ growing PC lines and positioned Intel for its explosive growth over the next five years. In April 1989, the company introduced the next generation microprocessor, the Intel 486 processor. In 1990, Intel sold approximately 7.5 million 386 and 486 microprocessors. Intel’s 1990 revenue from 386 microprocessor sales alone was estimated at be $850 million. As of 1990, Intel had $3.9 billion in sales, representing a 360 percent growth in 10 years, and $650 million in earnings, representing a 570 percent growth in 10 years. Intel microprocessors were found in almost 80 percent of all IBM and IBM compatible machines. The company, one of the largest semiconductor manufacturers in the world, was recognized as the undisputed industry leader. THE MICROPROCESSOR INDUSTRY IN THE EARLY 1990s Since 1986, Intel had been the only supplier of 386 and 486 technology. A number of competitors, however, had announced intentions to market their own versions of Intel’s 386 and 486 microprocessors in the latter half of 1990. The most serious threat came from Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), who in October 1990 announced its own version of Intel’s then hottest product, the i386 SX, called the AM386. In January 1991, two small semiconductors firms, Chips and Technologies and NexGen Microsystems, announced their intentions to introduce 386-compatible chips within the year. Many competitors claimed that their 386 microprocessors would rival certain configurations of Intel’s i486 chip. Whatever their true technological capabilities, Intel knew these chips could be named “386” or “486” and that it could do nothing to prevent such naming. Intel’s Branding Issues In the late 1980’s, there was a significant shift in the general focus of the personal computer industry toward the mass-market, non-technical business, and home PC users. Recognizing this shift, Intel moved from a “push” strategy to more of a “pull” strategy and began to redirect a portion of its advertising efforts away from computer manufacturers to actual computer buyers. Until this time, the consumer’s choice of a personal computer was based almost exclusively on the manufacturer’s brand image, such as Compaq, Dell, or IBM. Consumers did not think about the components inside the computer. By shifting its advertising focus to the consumer, Intel hoped to create brand awareness for Intel and its microprocessors, as well as build brand preference for the microprocessor inside the PC. Intel still considered the Management Information Services (MIS) community to be its primary buyer, but also recognized the growing importance of the retail or “Circuit City” buyer, as a significant market segment and wanted a message that spoke directly to them. As the market and technology leader, Intel was always first to introduce a new generation of products and establish the name and value of the new technology to consumers. With competing products, carrying the same or similar names, however, it became increasingly difficult for Intel to differentiate its products from those of its competitors. As a result, consumers were confused about who made a particular generation of microprocessor and what level of performance to expect. Consumers were confronted with a product “alphabet soup” that made establishing a point of differentiation and a distinct brand identity for Intel products increasingly difficult. In June 1989, the company experimented with its first print campaign targeted to the consumer. The $5 million campaign promoted Intel microprocessors through its numbers - the 286 and 386. The initial ad was an oblique but attention-getting print ad and outdoor billboard that mimicked graffiti by spray painting over “286” and inserting “386 SX.” The tag line read, “Now get 386 system performance at a 286 system performance price.” Within months, buyers began asking for personal computers with the Intel 386 SX chip. In 1991, the 80386 SX became Intel’s best-selling chip ever, shipping approximately 8 million units. Intel’s graffiti ad campaign successfully had introduced the microprocessor to consumers, and market research indicated that an increasing number of consumers identified with 386 and 486 microprocessor technology. EVOLUTION OF INTEL’S BRANDING STRATEGY During the fall of 1990 and winter of 1991, Intel was involved in a trademark case with AMD to prevent their use of the “386” name in a new AMD microprocessor. A negative verdict would mean that in the future any competitor could market its products under the same marks used by Intel. It would also mean that any computer maker could call a machine “386” without regard to the manufacturer who supplied the chip. Concerned about the possible negative verdict and feeling a general need to clarify strategy, Dennis Carter, vice president of Intel’s Corporate Marketing Group, began developing an alternative branding strategy, although he planned to wait until the court’s ruling to decide whether or not to implement it. In March 1991, Intel did lose the “386” trademark case. It was now clear to Carter that Intel needed to change its branding strategy and knowing that AMD would begin selling its own version of the 386 microprocessor within the month, created a sense of urgency. Within a few days Carter proposed a new processor branding strategy to Intel’s executive office. The strategy recognized Intel’s status as an ingredient supplier to PC Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and consisted of three elements, combining both push and pull communication strategies: 1) the use of a logo based around the words “Intel Inside” to represent Intel processors used in PCs; 2) the use of coop marketing funds to share PC OEM advertising expenses; and 3) an Intel advertising program to build equity. The strategy was accepted and Carter immediately established a task force whose sole mission was to implement this new branding strategy. The task force’s first action was to raise awareness of the Intel brand name. They launched a new ad using the “Intel: The Computer Inside” slogan. This ad asked the reader, “Quick, do you know the first name in microprocessors?” showing a blank line in front of the numbers 486, 386 and 386 SX. Turning the page, the blanks were filled in with the word “Intel.” At the bottom of the ad was the Intel corporate logo with the slogan, “The Computer Inside” below it. The ad copy sought to assure the reader that purchasing a personal computer with an Intel microprocessor inside was a safe and technologically sound investment, providing “the power and compatibility to take you into the future.” The task force established a new branding system within a month of the court decision. The primary focus of the new strategy was the establishment of Intel as a brand, transferring the equity of “386” and “486” microprocessors to Intel, the company.
Recommended publications
  • Huawei: an Information and Communications Technology Company
    Journal of IT and Economic Development 10(1), 1-10, April 2019 1 Huawei: An Information and Communications Technology Company Walaa Alkhawajah Central Michigan University, USA [email protected], [email protected] Abstract This research paper gives an account of Huawei, a global leader in the provision of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) infrastructure and smart devices. Huawei has grown from a company that offered cheap smartphones in order to appeal to customers to a global leader in the smartphone industry by providing a brand that can compete with Apple and Samsung. The success of Huawei has been linked with the company’s capability to convert the world into a digital globe by providing safe, flexible, and open ICT infrastructure platform to industries and organizations. The company has therefore been able to attract customers from various countries worldwide. Huawei changed its business model of flooding the globe with unbranded and cheap phones and now produces high-quality and branded phones. Politics have hampered the company's growth in the US. However, in Sub-Saharan Africa, its growth has been remarkable as Africa is a high-quality network provider at a low cost. The Middle East is an imperative market as both a region and a growth driver. The massive growth has been attributed to the ambitious projects undertaken by Huawei. It has improved its competitive advantage by outsmarting the current technology by the development of 5G networks. The company has also achieved viable leadership through the rotation of its CEOs. It has been offering the best phones in the market through the provision of phones with high-quality cameras.
    [Show full text]
  • New California 100 Innovative Businesses
    New California 100 Innovative Businesses Selected from an initial group of over 400 nominees, the 2009 New California 100 Innovative Businesses list represents a broad cross-section of the most innovative and economically impactful companies in the state. Endorsed by the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, New California 100 companies are recognized here for their important contributions to the state economy. 3Prong Power Berkeley, CA www.3prongpower.com 3Prong Power is delivering enhanced Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) conversions for our customers. Their goal is to meet and expand the demand for PHEVs that has been seen nationwide, starting in the Bay Area. Ahern International Seeds San Diego, CA www.ahrenseeds.com Ahern International Seeds is a private company categorized under Seeds & Bulbs-Wholesale. This company strives to set new standards in the produce industry with improved disease resistance, virus resistance, yields, plant vigor and product appearance. They are an international seed company with years of technical experience, dependable customer service and an extensive line of high quality vegetable seeds. Airsis, Inc. San Diego, CA www.airsis.com AIRSIS, Inc. is a diversified technology company with a 10 year track record of providing innovative solutions to a wide range of customers. They have three main business lines: internet software development, remote asset management, and maritime solutions. They offer standard products, custom solutions, and engineering support. What links the three businesses is a common mission to apply technology solutions that help organizations perform more effectively. American Medical Bill Review Redding, CA www.ambr.com AMBR specializes in medical bill review and delivers the most effective medical cost containment services in the marketplace.
    [Show full text]
  • Prohibited Agreements with Huawei, ZTE Corp, Hytera, Hangzhou Hikvision, Dahua and Their Subsidiaries and Affiliates
    Prohibited Agreements with Huawei, ZTE Corp, Hytera, Hangzhou Hikvision, Dahua and their Subsidiaries and Affiliates. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 2 CFR 200.216, prohibits agreements for certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment from the following companies as a substantial or essential component of any system or as critical technology as part of any system. • Huawei Technologies Company; • ZTE Corporation; • Hytera Communications Corporation; • Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company; • Dahua Technology company; or • their subsidiaries or affiliates, Entering into agreements with these companies, their subsidiaries or affiliates (listed below) for telecommunications equipment and/or services is prohibited, as doing so could place the university at risk of losing federal grants and contracts. Identified subsidiaries/affiliates of Huawei Technologies Company Source: Business databases, Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., 2017 Annual Report • Amartus, SDN Software Technology and Team • Beijing Huawei Digital Technologies, Co. Ltd. • Caliopa NV • Centre for Integrated Photonics Ltd. • Chinasoft International Technology Services Ltd. • FutureWei Technologies, Inc. • HexaTier Ltd. • HiSilicon Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. • Huawei Device Co., Ltd. • Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd. • Huawei Device (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. • Huawei Enterprise USA, Inc. • Huawei Global Finance (UK) Ltd. • Huawei International Co. Ltd. • Huawei Machine Co., Ltd. • Huawei Marine • Huawei North America • Huawei Software Technologies, Co., Ltd. • Huawei Symantec Technologies Co., Ltd. • Huawei Tech Investment Co., Ltd. • Huawei Technical Service Co. Ltd. • Huawei Technologies Cooperative U.A. • Huawei Technologies Germany GmbH • Huawei Technologies Japan K.K. • Huawei Technologies South Africa Pty Ltd. • Huawei Technologies (Thailand) Co. • iSoftStone Technology Service Co., Ltd. • JV “Broadband Solutions” LLC • M4S N.V. • Proven Honor Capital Limited • PT Huawei Tech Investment • Shanghai Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • North American Company Profiles 8X8
    North American Company Profiles 8x8 8X8 8x8, Inc. 2445 Mission College Boulevard Santa Clara, California 95054 Telephone: (408) 727-1885 Fax: (408) 980-0432 Web Site: www.8x8.com Email: [email protected] Fabless IC Supplier Regional Headquarters/Representative Locations Europe: 8x8, Inc. • Bucks, England U.K. Telephone: (44) (1628) 402800 • Fax: (44) (1628) 402829 Financial History ($M), Fiscal Year Ends March 31 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Sales 36 31 34 20 29 19 50 Net Income 5 (1) (0.3) (6) (3) (14) 4 R&D Expenditures 7 7 7 8 8 11 12 Capital Expenditures — — — — 1 1 1 Employees 114 100 105 110 81 100 100 Ownership: Publicly held. NASDAQ: EGHT. Company Overview and Strategy 8x8, Inc. is a worldwide leader in the development, manufacture and deployment of an advanced Visual Information Architecture (VIA) encompassing A/V compression/decompression silicon, software, subsystems, and consumer appliances for video telephony, videoconferencing, and video multimedia applications. 8x8, Inc. was founded in 1987. The “8x8” refers to the company’s core technology, which is based upon Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) image compression and decompression. In DCT, 8-pixel by 8-pixel blocks of image data form the fundamental processing unit. 2-1 8x8 North American Company Profiles Management Paul Voois Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Keith Barraclough President and Chief Operating Officer Bryan Martin Vice President, Engineering and Chief Technical Officer Sandra Abbott Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer Chris McNiffe Vice President, Marketing and Sales Chris Peters Vice President, Sales Michael Noonen Vice President, Business Development Samuel Wang Vice President, Process Technology David Harper Vice President, European Operations Brett Byers Vice President, General Counsel and Investor Relations Products and Processes 8x8 has developed a Video Information Architecture (VIA) incorporating programmable integrated circuits (ICs) and compression/decompression algorithms (codecs) for audio/video communications.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic and Social Thought Volume 4 December 2017 Issue 4
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by KSP Journals Journal of Economic and Social Thought www.kspjournals.org Volume 4 December 2017 Issue 4 Disruptive firms and industrial change By Mario COCCIAa† Abstract. This study proposes the concept of disruptive firms: they are firms with market leadership that deliberate introduce new and improved generations of durable goods that destroy, directly or indirectly, similar products present in markets in order to support their competitive advantage and/or market leadership. These disruptive firms support technological and industrial change and induce consumers to buy new products to adapt to new socioeconomic environment. In particular, disruptive firms generate and spread path- breaking innovations in order to achieve and sustain the goal of a (temporary) profit monopoly. This organizational behaviour and strategy of disruptive firms support technological change. This study can be useful for bringing a new perspective to explain and generalize one of the determinants that generates technological and industrial change. Overall, then this study suggests that one of the general sources of technological change is due to disruptive firms (subjects), rather than disruptive technologies (objects), that generate market shifts in a Schumpeterian world of innovation-based competition. Keywords. Disruptive technologies, Disruptive firms, Radical innovations, R&D management, Competitive advantage, Industrial change. JEL. L20, O32, O33. 1. Introduction urrent economies show the advent of many technological advances in information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, etc. that generate C corporate, industrial and economic change (Arora et al., 2001; Henderson & Clark, 1990; Nicholson et al., 1990; Teece et al., 1997; Van de Ven at al., 2008; von Hippel, 1988).
    [Show full text]
  • 486 COMMON SOCKET IMPLEMENTATION by J
    486 COMMON SOCKET IMPLEMENTATION by J. Lombard, M. Lerman 1. Overview For additional information, please contact This document provides detailed information SGS-Thomson Microelectronics. Information in this document is subject to change without regarding the differences in pinouts between notification. The following documents were used SGS-THOMSON Microelectronics(ST) and Intel as references: Intel486 Microprocessor Family, 486 PGA devices and specifies electrical connections that allow a single motherboard AM486 Microprocessor Family System Design Consideration. Any functions not disclosed in the design to support all of the listed devices. This referenced documents are NOT covered by the implementation is intended to be a guideline to scope of this specification. eliminate conflicts due to pinout differences only. 2. CPU Features This common socket specification is intended to support the following devices: Each of the CPUs supported in this common socket specification is 486 bus compatible yet SGS-THOMSON ST486 DX2 CYRIX Cx486 DX2 has a unique set of features that impacts the device pinout. Table 2-1 lists the differences in SGS-THOMSON ST486 DX2V the CPU feature sets. SGS-THOMSON ST486 DX4V SGS-THOMSON ST5x86 CYRIX Cx5x86 INTEL i486 DX2 SL & WB Enhanced INTEL i486 DX4 AMD AM486 DX2 (Future SL & WB Enhanced) AMD AM486 DX4 (Future SL & WB Enhanced) Table 2-1. CPU Enhanced Features CPU VOLTAGE WRITE- SMM & POWER CORE CLOCK BACK MANAGEMENT CONTROL JTAG ST486DX2 5 V yes yes no no Cx486DX2 ST486DX2V 3.45V, 5V I/O yes yes no no Future AM486DX2 ST486DX4V 3.45V, 5V I/O yes yes 2x, 3x no Future AM486DX2 ST5x86 3.45V, 5V I/O yes yes 0.5x, 1x, 2x, 3x yes Cx5x86 Intel i486DX/DX2 SL & WB 5 V yes yes no yes Enh.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond MOV ADD XOR – the Unusual and Unexpected
    Beyond MOV ADD XOR the unusual and unexpected in x86 Mateusz "j00ru" Jurczyk, Gynvael Coldwind CONFidence 2013, Kraków Who • Mateusz Jurczyk o Information Security Engineer @ Google o http://j00ru.vexillium.org/ o @j00ru • Gynvael Coldwind o Information Security Engineer @ Google o http://gynvael.coldwind.pl/ o @gynvael Agenda • Getting you up to speed with new x86 research. • Highlighting interesting facts and tricks. • Both x86 and x86-64 discussed. Security relevance • Local vulnerabilities in CPU ↔ OS integration. • Subtle CPU-specific information disclosure. • Exploit mitigations on CPU level. • Loosely related considerations and quirks. x86 - introduction not required • Intel first ships 8086 in 1978 o 16-bit extension of the 8-bit 8085. • Only 80386 and later are used today. o first shipped in 1985 o fully 32-bit architecture o designed with security in mind . code and i/o privilege levels . memory protection . segmentation x86 - produced by... Intel, AMD, VIA - yeah, we all know these. • Chips and Technologies - left market after failed 386 compatible chip failed to boot the Windows operating system. • NEC - sold early Intel architecture compatibles such as NEC V20 and NEC V30; product line transitioned to NEC internal architecture http://www.cpu-collection.de/ x86 - other manufacturers Eastern Bloc KM1810BM86 (USSR) http://www.cpu-collection.de/ x86 - other manufacturers Transmeta, Rise Technology, IDT, National Semiconductor, Cyrix, NexGen, Chips and Technologies, IBM, UMC, DM&P Electronics, ZF Micro, Zet IA-32, RDC Semiconductors, Nvidia, ALi, SiS, GlobalFoundries, TSMC, Fujitsu, SGS-Thomson, Texas Instruments, ... (via Wikipedia) At first, a simple architecture... At first, a simple architecture... x86 bursted with new functions • No eXecute bit (W^X, DEP) o completely redefined exploit development, together with ASLR • Supervisor Mode Execution Prevention • RDRAND instruction o cryptographically secure prng • Related: TPM, VT-d, IOMMU Overall..
    [Show full text]
  • MICROPROCESSOR REPORT the INSIDERS’ GUIDE to MICROPROCESSOR HARDWARE Slot Vs
    VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 JANUARY 26, 1998 MICROPROCESSOR REPORT THE INSIDERS’ GUIDE TO MICROPROCESSOR HARDWARE Slot vs. Socket Battle Heats Up Intel Prepares for Transition as Competitors Boost Socket 7 A A look Look by Michael Slater ship as many parts as they hoped, especially at the highest backBack clock speeds where profits are much greater. The past year has brought a great deal The shift to 0.25-micron technology will be central to of change to the x86 microprocessor 1998’s CPU developments. Intel began shipping 0.25-micron A market, with Intel, AMD, and Cyrix processors in 3Q97; AMD followed late in 1997, IDT plans to LookA look replacing virtually their entire product join in by mid-98, and Cyrix expects to catch up in 3Q98. Ahead ahead lines with new devices. But despite high The more advanced process technology will cut power con- hopes, AMD and Cyrix struggled in vain for profits. The sumption, allowing sixth-generation CPUs to be used in financial contrast is stark: in 1997, Intel earned a record notebook systems. The smaller die sizes will enable higher $6.9 billion in net profit, while AMD lost $21 million for the production volumes and make it possible to integrate an L2 year and Cyrix lost $6 million in the six months before it was cache on the CPU chip. acquired by National. New entrant IDT added another com- The processors from Intel’s challengers have lagged in petitor to the mix but hasn’t shipped enough products to floating-point and MMX performance, which the vendors become a significant force.
    [Show full text]
  • Extensions to Instruction Sets
    Extensions to Instruction Sets Ricardo Manuel Meira Ferrão Luis Departamento de Informática, Universidade do Minho 4710 - 057 Braga, Portugal [email protected] Abstract. This communication analyses extensions to instruction sets in general purpose processors, together with their evolution and significant innovation. It begins with an overview of specific multimedia and digital signal processing requirements and then it focuses on feature detection to properly identify the adequate extension. A brief performance evaluation on two competitive processors closes the communication. 1 Introduction The purpose of this communication is to analyse extensions to instruction sets, describe the specific multimedia and digital signal processing (DSP) requirements of a processor, detail how to detect these extensions and verify if the processor supports them. To achieve this functionality an IA32 architecture example code will be demonstrated. To study the instruction sets supported by each processor, an analysis is performed to compare and distinguish each technology in terms of new extensions to instruction sets and architecture evolution, mapping a table that lists the instruction sets supported by each processor. To clearly identify these differences between architectures, tests are performed with an application example, determining comparable results of two competitive processors. In this communication, Section 2 gives an overview of multimedia and digital signal processing requirements, Section 3 explains the feature detection of these instructions, Section 4 details some of the extensions supported by IA32 based processors, Section 5 tests and describes the performance of each technology and analyses the results. Section 6 concludes this communication. 2 Multimedia and DSP Requirements Computer industries needed a way to improve their multimedia capabilities because of the demand for 3D graphics, video and other multimedia applications such as games.
    [Show full text]
  • Communication Theory II
    Microprocessor (COM 9323) Lecture 2: Review on Intel Family Ahmed Elnakib, PhD Assistant Professor, Mansoura University, Egypt Feb 17th, 2016 1 Text Book/References Textbook: 1. The Intel Microprocessors, Architecture, Programming and Interfacing, 8th edition, Barry B. Brey, Prentice Hall, 2009 2. Assembly Language for x86 processors, 6th edition, K. R. Irvine, Prentice Hall, 2011 References: 1. Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach, 5th edition, J. Hennessy, D. Patterson, Elsevier, 2012. 2. The 80x86 Family, Design, Programming and Interfacing, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall, 2002 3. The 80x86 IBM PC and Compatible Computers, Assembly Language, Design, and Interfacing, 4th edition, M.A. Mazidi and J.G. Mazidi, Prentice Hall, 2003 2 Lecture Objectives 1. Provide an overview of the various 80X86 and Pentium family members 2. Define the contents of the memory system in the personal computer 3. Convert between binary, decimal, and hexadecimal numbers 4. Differentiate and represent numeric and alphabetic information as integers, floating-point, BCD, and ASCII data 5. Understand basic computer terminology (bit, byte, data, real memory system, protected mode memory system, Windows, DOS, I/O) 3 Brief History of the Computers o1946 The first generation of Computer ENIAC (Electrical and Numerical Integrator and Calculator) was started to be used based on the vacuum tube technology, University of Pennsylvania o1970s entire CPU was put in a single chip. (1971 the first microprocessor of Intel 4004 (4-bit data bus and 2300 transistors and 45 instructions) 4 Brief History of the Computers (cont’d) oLate 1970s Intel 8080/85 appeared with 8-bit data bus and 16-bit address bus and used from traffic light controllers to homemade computers (8085: 246 instruction set, RISC*) o1981 First PC was introduced by IBM with Intel 8088 (CISC**: over 20,000 instructions) microprocessor oMotorola emerged with 6800.
    [Show full text]
  • Tamil Nadu Consumer Products Distributors Association No. 2/3, 4Th St
    COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 15 of 2018 In Re: Tamil Nadu Consumer Products Distributors Association Informant No. 2/3, 4th Street, Judge Colony, Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai- 600 047 Tamil Nadu. And 1. Fangs Technology Private Limited Opposite Party No. 1 Old Door No. 68, New Door No. 156 & 157, Valluvarkottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034 Tamil Nadu. 2. Vivo Communication Technology Company Opposite Party No. 2 Plot No. 54, Third Floor, Delta Tower, Sector 44, Gurugram – 122 003 Haryana. CORAM Mr. Sudhir Mital Chairperson Mr. Augustine Peter Member Mr. U. C. Nahta Member Case No. 15 of 2018 1 Appearance: For Informant – Mr. G. Balaji, Advocate; Mr. P. M. Ganeshram, President, TNCPDA and Mr. Babu, Vice-President, TNCPDA. For OP-1 – Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Advocate; Ms. Neha Mishra, Advocate; Ms. Aayushi Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Gopalakrishnan, Sales Head. For OP-2 – None. Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 1. The present information has been filed by Tamil Nadu Consumer Products Distributors Association (‘Informant’) under Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’) alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act by Fangs Technology Private Limited (‘OP- 1’) and Vivo Communication Technology Company (‘OP-2’) (collectively referred to as the ‘OPs’). 2. The Informant is an association registered under the Tamil Nadu Society Registration Act, 1975. Its stated objective is to protect the interest of the distributors from unfair trade practices and stringent conditions imposed by the manufacturers of consumer products. 3. OP-1 is engaged in the business of trading and distribution of mobile handsets under the brand name ‘VIVO’ and also provide marketing support to promote its products.
    [Show full text]
  • Intel Prepares MMX CPU Wave After Weak 1996, AMD and Cyrix Ready 1997 Counterstrike
    MICRODESIGN R ESOURCES SPECIAL REPORT Intel Prepares MMX CPU Wave After Weak 1996, AMD and Cyrix Ready 1997 Counterstrike by Michael Slater Nineteen ninety six was a remarkably successful one for Intel and a difficult one for its competitors. It was a quiet year for Intel in terms of new products, but the company nevertheless increased both its market share and its gross margin—thanks, in large part, to weak performances from AMD and Cyrix. (See list on page 14 for a summary of the key events of 1996 and pointers to Microprocessor Report’s coverage.) This year promises to be far more turbulent. Not only is Intel intro- ducing two major new product lines—P55C (officially, Pentium Processor with MMX Technology) and Klamath—but AMD and Cyrix will each launch their own next-generation processors, which will be more formi- dable competitors to Intel’s line. Intel is sure to do well despite the stepped-up challenge, but its dominance of the market is unlikely to be quite as complete in 1997 as in 1996. Intel Shifting into In 1996, Intel’s microprocessor lineup changed little. After the introduction High Gear of the 150- and 166-MHz Pentiums in January, the only new products were the 200-MHz Pentium and 150-MHz Mobile Pentium. The P55C would have been a great kicker for fall sales, but Intel apparently didn’t have the part ready in time. Intel began producing P55C processors in the late fall but chose not to announce the part until January in order to minimize the impact on the Christmas selling season.
    [Show full text]