This is too forgiving of intel in this case. It has a name. They just don't use it. "Sockets Supported: FCLGA2011". It's not like this is poorly named. It's not even true.
It's because naming products is done by the marketing dept. Sometimes they decide to increase a "major" version number for a product that is a rehash of a previous line just to confuse people and sell more units.
People believe "bigger number" = better, and marketing teams exploit that.
At least with CPUs, I believe the the retail product names are deliberately confusing by design so that you as a consumer get confused (and mislead) into buying older models, whose sales tend to stagnate when newer models are released. (Newer models are of course, obscenely priced to differentiate them). A somewhat aware tech consumer what like to buy the latest affordable model they can. But if you can't easily identify the latest model or the next best one after it, they will often end up purchasing some older model with similar name.
That kind of deliberate ambiguity also backfires, though.
"My computer is too slow. I know it's an i9 -- whatever that means. But all these new ones are also i9s. You'd think they'd have something newer than that in the past 5 years.
Oh well. I guess I can't get something better than what I have, so I'll just have to wait until something better comes along."
This results not in moving old products out of warehouses, but instead in moving zero products at all.
This is too forgiving of intel in this case. It has a name. They just don't use it. "Sockets Supported: FCLGA2011". It's not like this is poorly named. It's not even true.
It's because naming products is done by the marketing dept. Sometimes they decide to increase a "major" version number for a product that is a rehash of a previous line just to confuse people and sell more units.
People believe "bigger number" = better, and marketing teams exploit that.
At least with CPUs, I believe the the retail product names are deliberately confusing by design so that you as a consumer get confused (and mislead) into buying older models, whose sales tend to stagnate when newer models are released. (Newer models are of course, obscenely priced to differentiate them). A somewhat aware tech consumer what like to buy the latest affordable model they can. But if you can't easily identify the latest model or the next best one after it, they will often end up purchasing some older model with similar name.
That kind of deliberate ambiguity also backfires, though.
"My computer is too slow. I know it's an i9 -- whatever that means. But all these new ones are also i9s. You'd think they'd have something newer than that in the past 5 years. Oh well. I guess I can't get something better than what I have, so I'll just have to wait until something better comes along."
This results not in moving old products out of warehouses, but instead in moving zero products at all.
you know, there are two hard problems in computer science...
For today's lucky ten thousand, the joke is that
> There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things, off-by-one errors.
I thought there were 3 difficult problems: naming things, cache invalidation, , and off by one errors. concurrency
the concurrency twist got a laugh out of me, I've seen this joke a zillion times but never the concurrency bit
Why do people say that, when the number one hardest problem is making good abstractions?
Because it’s a “famous” (in our circles) quote. You might prefer this one:
> There’s two hard problems in computer science: We only have one joke and it's not funny.
There are at least one more joke:
"There is 10 kinds of people, those who can read binary and those who can't."
Personally I prefer the cache invalidation one.
> "There is 10 kinds of people, those who can read binary and those who can't."
I like the continuation (which requires knowledge of the original): “And those who didn’t expect this joke to be in base 3”.
Names abstract things.
You explained one thing but introduced another needing explanation.
https://xkcd.com/1053/