Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel Businesses Hardware

Intel Opens Its Front-Side Bus 185

Posted by kdawson
from the engineers-rampant-on-a-field-azure dept.
vivin writes "The Inquirer is reporting that Intel has opened up its FSB. Intel did this during IDF 07. What this means is that you can plug non-Intel things into the Intel CPU socket. The article says 'This shows that Intel is willing to take AMD seriously as a competitive threat, and is prepared to act upon it. In addition to this breaking one of the most sacred taboos at Intel, it also hints that engineering now has the upper hand over bureaucracy.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Opens Its Front-Side Bus

Comments Filter:
  • Not the first time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:55AM (#18852915) Homepage Journal
    This isn't the first time socket sharing has occured

    The old Socket 7 [wikipedia.org] used to fit Intel and AMD and Cyrix.
    Hell, it can even house socket 5 cpus!

    Back then it wasn't a big deal to upgrade a CPU.

    All the companies started changing sockets at a frantic pace and made a simple CPU update essentially mean a whole machine.

    A new motherboard for the new socket but it also has new memory footprint as well so that gets replaced, and the PCIx slot won't fit my agp card.
    • by mwvdlee (775178)
      It's actually still one of the things that's keeping me from upgrading.

      I'd like more memory, but that would mean a new motherboard (it currently has all the memory installed it can take). Since I don't want to upgrade my CPU yet, it means buying a motherboard that won't let me upgrade my CPU if I want to in a few years.
    • by dsginter (104154) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:22AM (#18853175)
      This isn't the first time socket sharing has occured

      IIRC, the socket-7 issue was not that Intel *wanted* others to use the technology, but rather that their license agreements with various other manufacturers allowed the rest of the industry to use it.

      The only reason that Intel is opening up their FSB this time around is because they will be forced to use HyperTransport [zdnet.com] if they *don't* open it up (a royalty-free deal, to boot).

      Their already using AMD64 and with AMD's new processors showing promise, Intel are really scratching and clawing here. I don't have the knowledge to pick a bus based on merit but, from what I've read, Hypertransport is better. Can anyone with experience here chime in?

      Do we want Hypertransport or Intel's bus? What about licensing?
      • by julesh (229690) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @09:40AM (#18854999)
        I don't have the knowledge to pick a bus based on merit but, from what I've read, Hypertransport is better. Can anyone with experience here chime in?

        Do we want Hypertransport or Intel's bus? What about licensing?


        HT can run with approximately twice the number of transfers per second per pin as current-generation Intel FSBs. HT is also more readily expandible to use more pins, because it's an autonegotiating variable-width bus, similar to PCI-express. It also wastes fewer pins on control signals. HT is clearly the best, technologically.

        Licensing wise, HT is licensed "royalty-free" for an annual fee. I don't believe the fee is particularly large. Many chip producers have already licensed it and will license modules to connect your own chip design to it for very small fees. Such modules exist on some modern FPGAs. This is not currently true of the Intel FSB spec.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jeff DeMaagd (2015)
        I don't think Intel would be forced to use HyperTransport. They are easily big enough that they can make their own point-to-point interconnect and not worry about the rest of the industry. Intel is or was working one, I think it was supposed to be introduced with the Penryn chips.

        I really don't think it would necessarily be heads-and-shoulders better than Hypertransport though.
    • by Stonent1 (594886)
      I can't see AMD benefiting much from this. Their processors are too different electrically. AMD has an integrated memory controller on the processor, and Intel puts that in the chipset. AMD would have to completely start from scratch with a new CPU to make anything of this. I'm not saying they won't try but it would just stretch their resources much thinner.
      • by jsoderba (105512)
        Intel is finally getting an on-chip memory controller with Nehalem [tgdaily.com]. Nehalem will succeed the Core 2 chip family towards the end of 2008. Nehalem follows the Penrym 45nm shrink under Intel's new achitecture->die shrink->new architecture cycle.
    • by jsoderba (105512)
      This has actually changed a bit. Core 2 runs on the same LGA775 socket as the late model Pentium 4/D. AMD's AM2+ and AM3 chips will run in the AM2 socket, but you miss out on the new features in the newer sockets: better power management in AM2+, DDR3 memory in AM3 (AM3 processors have both DDR2 and DDR3 controllers integrated).
  • by pzs (857406) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:59AM (#18852949)
    I hope so. Every time I have to upgrade my machine I have to spend an hour on the web working out the 700 different kinds of processor I can buy and what type of socket I need to support them.

    I had an AMD Duron 800MHz that I tried to replace with an Athlon 1300MHz which should have been supported, but created a nifty column of smoke when I plugged it in. Anything that reduces that likelihood is good in my book.

    Peter
    • by c_forq (924234)
      I too ran into this problem. Bought a new motherboard which should have been compatible with all of my existing parts, but when I got the motherboard it would not boot. Come to find in the 80 page manual written in poor English a tiny line about "Revision A of Willamette chips will not work on this motherboard." No reason listed, and not found anywhere in any of the reviews or forums I looked at.
    • by evilviper (135110)

      Will this make it less confusing?

      No it won't.

      Every time I have to upgrade my machine I have to spend an hour on the web working out the 700 different kinds of processor I can buy and what type of socket I need to support them.

      Those days have long since passed. Socket 939 CPUs work in 939 motherboards. AM2 chips work in AM2 motherboards, etc. The socket A days had the occasional unpleasant compatibility surprises, but with decent quality motherboards, any chip would work, though perhaps at a slightly lowe

  • by BenJeremy (181303) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:06AM (#18853025)
    >> 'This shows that Intel is willing to take AMD seriously as a competitive threat, and is prepared to act upon it.'

    I'm not sure how much sense this statement really makes. If they take AMD as a serious threat, wouldn't they WANT AMD to be forced to continue using their own bus? AM2 was probably a misstep, given the performance drops, giving intel the upper hand, but now they are willing to let AMD play in their sandbox - it helps AMD more than it hurts them.

    I'm not complaining about the move, I just found the article a bit sparse on details and the statement at odds with common sense. Is it fully open, or does it require licensing? What is AMD's take on this news? How much re-work will be required to move AMD's processor cores to the intel bus? Will they gain performance or lose it in the translation?

    Lots of questions that the Inquirer seems to totally ignore in what may be a significant development in the battle of the big boys.
    • by zappepcs (820751)

      Lots of questions that the Inquirer seems to totally ignore in what may be a significant development in the battle of the big boys.
      Yes, like how long will it take before the AMD chips 'just seem to not perform as well as the Intel chips?' on the Intel FSB.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Disoculated (534967)
      If Intel had a chipset that both AMD and Intel could use, and AMD used it, they would gain a great deal. Like selling more chipsets to motherboard manufacturers and getting a piece of even AMD systems, dictating the future of the bus, memory, and form factors. Plus, even if there wasn't an actual performance benefit (and there probably would be since Intel would have made the design, and have that intelligence in-house), they could easily give the impression that running Intel chips on Intel hardware was
    • by mulvane (692631)
      It allows AMD to play on INTEL sold chipsets again. You have to think that the chipset market plays a pretty big role in the scale of things income wise also. And even though it lets AMD play on the same grounds, it also leaves intel as an upgrade option to an AMD processor in the future. This could steal away from AMD specific chipsets being sold. Also, this could leave intel into a spot where they could just up and change the FSB one day with little notice to AMD to have an answer back i the short term le
    • About the competition aspect, if AMD were to move over onto the intel bus, then suddenly anyone can swap amd/intel processors at will. A bad analogy: Washing machines If washing powder A needs washing machine type 1, and washing powder B needs machine type 2, then everyone with machine 1 or 2 is tied to a manufacturer. This is good if your machines are better than your opponents, but not if your washing powder is, because people can't easily switch. Instead, if both powders work with the common machine, t
    • by Visaris (553352) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:39AM (#18853317) Journal
      I'm not complaining about the move, I just found the article a bit sparse on details and the statement at odds with common sense. Is it fully open, or does it require licensing? What is AMD's take on this news? How much re-work will be required to move AMD's processor cores to the intel bus? Will they gain performance or lose it in the translation?

      Intel is not trying to open their bus up to AMD. That is not at all the goal. First of all, access to the the Intel bus requires a license. I'm not sure Intel would even grand AMD one for a sane price. Second of all, AMD would in no way want Intel's bus. As has been the hot topic of discussion for over a year, AMD's HT (HyperTransport) point-2-point links are faster both in terms of bandwidth, and latency than Intel's FSB. HT uses less pins than Intel's bus, and HT devices are simpler, cost less, and use less power. HT is a pretty neat and effective technology. Intel's FSB on the other hand, is much the same as it was around 10 years ago. To answer your question, AMD would take a massive hit by going to Intel's POS bus. It's funny, ATM, AMD has the better bus/platform and Intel has the better core. No one here seems to realize that AMD would never be willing to throw out their main advantage right now... AM2 isn't the issue. The issue is HT. Hell, even IBM announced that Power7 will use AMD's HT links. No one will be dropping HT for the POSFSB any time soon.

      Intel/AMD are only opening their sockets/buses in an attempt to get third party developers to make FPGAs, JAVAics, and other accelerators. AMD has had some luck with this, and one can buy co-processors that drop into an AMD socket today. Intel is trying to get the same benifits, but I don't really see the point until Intel can get CSI working and drop the antiquated FSB.
      • by DrDitto (962751)
        The HT technology is better, but the way it is used for cache coherence is pretty lousy and inefficient. Every cache-to-cache transfer (used to communicate data from one processor to another) results in stale data being sent from DRAM to the processor as well as the correct current data being sent from one processor to another. That is an entire wasted DRAM access and data response. On the other hand, Intel FSB has a sane bus-based snoopy protocol that does not result in unnecessary data responses.
        • by ppanon (16583)

          On the other hand, Intel FSB has a sane bus-based snoopy protocol that does not result in unnecessary data responses.

          That works fine for a few processors (4) if you put in a really big cache. However it fails to scale as well as HT in a machine with more processors and NUMA, when you have a workload that's god good localization.
          • by DrDitto (962751)
            I agree that a bus has scalability limits. But in AMD's coherence protocol, even with fast HT links and NUMA structure, every miss requires an entire system-wide snoop (just like Intel). The difference is that AMD also always fetches data from DRAM on every transaction.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by evilviper (135110)

      AM2 was probably a misstep, given the performance drops, giving intel the upper hand,

      That's just wrong. AM2 was simply AMD switching to DDR2 RAM. It didn't cause a performance drop, just no immediate performance improvement over socket 939 with DDR, and there's nothing they could have done to change that, except trying to force manufacturers around the world to produce faster DDR RAM.

      Even with the higher latency of DDR2, AMD still has a much faster bus, and lower latency, than Intel. And even if the oppo

      • "That's just wrong. AM2 was simply AMD switching to DDR2 RAM. It didn't cause a performance drop, just no immediate performance improvement over socket 939 with DDR"

        No i'm pretty sure it's right, AM2 did have some performance drops when it first came out (compared to 939), but this is to be expected as DDR2 has a high latency hit compared to mediocre speed improvements, 533+/- FSB of DDR2 compared to 400 FSB of DDR but double the latency. It is only with going to 800FSB speed DDR2 and beyond that AM2 will s
  • by jack455 (748443) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:07AM (#18853039)
    Back in the late 80's or early 90's couldn't you swap out processor's? I admit I didn't know much back then but I thought that was how AMD and Cyrix got started, on boards meant for Intel CPU's.

    And by CPU, I DON'T mean the case and everything inside :)

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by TheUni (1007895)

      And by CPU, I DON'T mean the case and everything inside :)


      Yea, that'd be the "modem".
      • by Gospodin (547743)

        No, that's the "hard drive".

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by MBGMorden (803437)
          "Hard drive" was the common one back when I was doing tech work as a student in college.

          It was kinda amusing one day we were sitting in the office and some professor comes in frantic that "Somebody stole my hard drive!!!?!?!?!".

          We were all sitting there thinking "What person is gonna take the time and effort to open up the machine and take the hard drive? This guy must have secret flux capacitor plans on there or something.". We get to his office and the whole computer is gone . . .
    • In those days, Intel's sales reps would hand out free technical reference manuals that had the complete specs to the CPU bus interface.

      You could get fun add-ons like the Weitek 3167, which was a floating-point coprocessor for the 386 that was several times faster than Intel's 80387.

    • with the socket5/6/7 boards you could use any compatible processor. I routinely had MI and MII cores in my Socket [Super] 7 motherboards. I switched to K6-2 by the end before I got my first Athlon.

      Tom
    • Back in the late 80's or early 90's couldn't you swap out processor's?

      Even before then. I remember using an IBM PC-XT in which my dad had swapped out the stock Intel 8088 CPU with a faster-running NEC V20.
      • by Nethead (1563)
        Those V20s were great. I did rework a VIC-20 to use a 4MHz 65C02P4 once but that really didn't turn out that useful.
    • by evilviper (135110)

      Back in the late 80's or early 90's couldn't you swap out processor's? I admit I didn't know much back then but I thought that was how AMD and Cyrix got started, on boards meant for Intel CPU's.

      Yup, that's how they got started... Right before Intel sued them.

      Because of Intel's second-supplier contract with IBM, AMD earned the right to continue using Intel's existing (Socket 7) board, but not future boards, which was the birth of the Athlon and Slot A (later Socket A) boards.

      Cyrix did a little patent-tradin

  • Honest question: can someone explain how this means that Intel is taking AMD as a serious threat? The only way I see this benefitting Intel is if people are buying Intel motherboard because they can then go with a cheaper third party processor. Is that it, or is there something I'm missing? Is there really a large enough market out there for this kind of thing to warrant opening the FSB? How many people would really buy a cheaper processor thinking that they'll "upgrade" to an intel later?
    • by mhall119 (1035984)

      Honest question: can someone explain how this means that Intel is taking AMD as a serious threat?

      More precisely, Intel is taking AMD's HyperTransport seriously. AMD has already made HyperTransport available to other hardware manufacturers to build add-on chips for specialized processing or whatever else. Think of it like the Cell processor, only you and mix and match different "cells" and each "cell" is designed for a specific task (video encoding/decoding, encryption, compression, etc), making it much fa

  • by dfenstrate (202098) <{dfenstrate} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:15AM (#18853107)
    I've bought Intel motherboards (and of course processors) for my last three computers, and they've been pretty rock solid.

    Perhaps they think it wise to sell products that can be used even if their competitor gets a few bucks- until today didn't they effectively yield the floor for AMD motherboards to other companies?
  • by vadim_t (324782) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:24AM (#18853185) Homepage
    Example: Intel opens up FSB. Motherboard manufacturers tell AMD: making boards for multiple socket types is a pain and decreases profits. Why don't you make a CPU for the Intel socket instead? Intel of course will make sure to design it so that it's great for an Intel CPU and suboptimal for an AMD one.

    The other companies probably don't worry Intel much. VIA might make something, but I highly doubt they could manage to make anything that'd take any significant market from Intel, given what they've been releasing.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tomstdenis (446163)
      Hypertransport is an open protocol. People would rather design hardware for HT then the Intel FSB from what I can tell (given there is already one FPGA accelerator for 939-pin sockets).

      But that raises the same point. The open socket could be used for something other than a processor. Like another FPGA accelerator.

      Tom
      • by julesh (229690)
        Hypertransport is an open protocol.

        Actually, HT isn't open. It's licensed royalty free to members of a consortium who have to pay annual membership fees.

        Of course, the fact that they don't pay any per-device royalties means they can sublicense that tech to you (e.g. by including it on an FPGA) really cheaply.
    • by Visaris (553352)
      Again, AMD will never switch to Intel's FSB. Intel's bus is slower, hotter, and larger (in terms of pin count). Please go google for HyperTransport and do some research. I think you'll see that HT is one of AMD's strongest technologies and Intel's FSB is one of their weakest. There it no way AMD would trow away a major advantage over their competitor, and further, there is no way AMD would allow their socket future to be controlled by a competitor. The idea is so far from reality, I don't even see why
      • Not only that, but why are they continuously modded +5 Informative/Insightful? It boggles the mind, really.
  • by jimicus (737525) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:29AM (#18853223)
    Way back when, there used to be a real benefit to upgrading your 133MHz PC to 200MHz and it was easy to do so just by changing the CPU.

    TBH, these days, for general desktop use I don't think that benefit's there any more. If you want to see a real benefit, you're best off replacing the CPU with something drastically faster. This may well involve a new motherboard and possibly new memory.

    Alternatively, you upgrade the more sensible way - look at your computer needs, look to see what's causing a bottleneck currently and upgrade that. Much more cost-effective than just replacing a CPU and hoping you see a benefit.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tttonyyy (726776)

      Way back when, there used to be a real benefit to upgrading your 133MHz PC to 200MHz and it was easy to do so just by changing the CPU.

      Quite - though as a percentage that was a significant upgrade.

      In the days when every MHz counted, we all clawed to be at the cutting edge because upgrading really made a noticeable difference (not just to games, but the speed of everyday activities). Now the effect is less noticeable except in games as a FPS increase or the ability to turn on extra effects.

      I remember a lecturer at Uni asking us if we thought that the 200MHz CPU speeds of the time would increase, citing Moore's Law and questioning whether

      • by pipatron (966506)
        I think progress goes slightly faster in your universe than in our.
      • by memfrob (157990)

        256-core processors running with core clock speeds of 100GHz? I'm pretty sure it won't help my word processor live spell-check any quicker[...]

        Wait until you see the minimum system requirements for Microsoft Word 2017...

      • by julesh (229690) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @10:04AM (#18855341)
        Give it ten years and what will we have? 256-core processors running with core clock speeds of 100GHz?

        100GHz is probably pushing it. You'll note that we haven't seen a huge increase in clock speeds recently, but rather continuing increases in instructions per cycle. I'd guess we'll reach a plateau somewhere around the 10GHz mark.

        Moore's Law will soon hit a much more fundamental law: physics. You can't keep shrinking transistors like they are at the moment; it was predicted that we'd reach the limit years ago (yes, I too remember the advent of 200MHz desktop processors, and thinking they couldn't get much faster), but the fact we haven't so far doesn't mean we won't. Moore's Law demands a shrinking by a factor of 1.4 every 18 months. We're currently on 45nm. This gives us the following trend:

        end 2008 - 32nm
        start 2010 - 22nm
        end 2011 - 16nm
        start 2013 - 12nm
        end 2014 - 8nm
        start 2016 - 6nm
        end 2017 - 4nm

        4 nanometres is only 38 atomic radii of silicon. It seems unlikely that a transistor this small could be produced. Therefore, as long as we continue to use silicon transistors (and no promising alternative that solves this issue exists right now) we will see the end of Moore's Law within the next 10 years. I'm sure of it.

        And an end of Moore's Law will not only slow GHz increases, but also will slow the adoption of larger numbers of cores, because without shrinking transistors the only way to increase number of cores is by having a larger die size, which is more expensive and requires larger chip size, which requires larger system board size, which requires larger case size, which consumers don't like.
        • by julesh (229690)
          I wrote:

          4 nanometres is only 38 atomic radii of silicon.

          Correction: It's the Van der Waals radius that's important, not the atomic radius. A 4nm length of crystalline silicon will contain just 19 atoms. Seems even more unlikely we'll get there now.
          • by Angstroem (692547)
            Even if they manage to build a 19-atoms transistor, I figure that leakage will turn out to be a way bigger problem than it is already today.

            There was a time when (almost) all that counted was the switching power. These days leakage power is coming close, from a certain temperature on it becomes even dominant. Now imagine how this picture will look like at 4nm when no significant fabrication technology change happens.
            • I think when we get to this limit we can just increase the value range of bits from 0/1 to 0/1/2.

              See? Already a 50% improvement in processing power.
        • And an end of Moore's Law will not only slow GHz increases, but also will slow the adoption of larger numbers of cores, because without shrinking transistors the only way to increase number of cores is by having a larger die size, which is more expensive and requires larger chip size, which requires larger system board size, which requires larger case size, which consumers don't like.

          I have a better idea. How about software developers end the code BLOAT! (I'm looking at you Microsoft and Symantec) What ever
        • by einhverfr (238914)
          Well, we did hit one limit some time ago due to the frequency of light used in the lithography of the IC's. However, this was solved by going to higher frequency light and mirrors instead of lenses.

          I agree with you-- fairly soon we are going to be into areas where quantum effects and simple atomic size are going to be problems. Barring a fundamental change in technology (some sort of single electron transister), I suspect you are right.
    • by Nimey (114278)
      That depended on whether your motherboard had the jumpers to set CPU multiplier, voltage, and FSB speed. Kind of like today, but it now depends on what your chipset and BIOS can handle.

      Ah, the bad old days.
  • FPGAs, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by labreuer (950633) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @08:09AM (#18853683) Homepage
    This opening of the front side bus also means that you'll be able to plug FPGAs into it [embedded.com], which could be very cool. One way to solve the gigahertz slowdown is to specialize hardware: think co-processor that can be reconfigured in seconds to fit the particular task at hand, like video encoding.
  • by straponego (521991) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @08:35AM (#18854037)
    ...is not that AMD wants to be on Intel motherboards, though perhaps they wouldn't mind that. It's that AMD has already opened THEIR bus and sockets to non-AMD devices. The idea is that people will come up with specialized CPUs or FPGAs for tasks at which they can cream general purpose CPUs. Encryption, HPC, etc. It's a good idea, it's going to happen, but it might not matter much to the average user, at least at first.

    And yes, the bus speed matters. I've seen neural net tests in which Woodcrest, for example, does much better at 1333MHz using four cores than you'd see at 1066MHz. That's the same architecture except for bus speed. AMD's memory bandwidth is still better, though they lag in other areas.

    I don't know whether, or how much, you'll see that bus bandwidth matter in the typical slashdotter workload (games).

    • by LWATCDR (28044)
      Actually there are already companies that make socket 940 FPGAs. Just what you could do with a quad socket 940 motherboard.
      How fast would a neural net run if you coded it into one or more FPGAs and had a few dual core cpus feeding them data?
      It does open up some interesting options.
    • Just FYI, nForce 860i SLI for LGA775 uses HyperTransport Link between north and south bridge. So, essentially you have Intel system that uses AMD HT bus :)
    • by joe_bruin (266648)
      I don't know whether, or how much, you'll see that bus bandwidth matter in the typical slashdotter workload (games).

      When your motherboard comes with an extra HT socket into which you will be able to plug in an "acceleration coprocessor" (read: GPU/Physics processor), you'll see the value of bus bandwidth. PCI-Express is already fully utilized on high end video cards (for burst traffic), and the latency does not allow a pcie device to be used as a coprocessor, just a batch processor of relatively large jobs
  • by suv4x4 (956391) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @08:49AM (#18854277)
    "This shows that Intel is willing to take AMD seriously as a competitive threat, and is prepared to act upon it. In addition to this breaking one of the most sacred taboos at Intel, it also hints that engineering now has the upper hand over bureaucracy."

    When they have to spell it out for you what their actions supposedly "hint" at, you know you're reading quite a silly PR spin on the matter.
  • So now that Intel's flagship is head and shoulders ahead of what AMD is making, now they're going to be swell guys and open up their FSB specification?

    Some encouragement of competition. "We'll complete as long as we're winning."

    I wonder if other companies will decide to get into the desktop CPU markets and use this as a starting point.
  • In addition to this breaking one of the most sacred taboos at Intel, it also hints that engineering now has the upper hand over bureaucracy

    No decisions involving that much money are left to engineers.

    Engineers are the people who say, "You know what would be cool?" and then lay out an idea. The bean counters study it, perform an analysis, and then decide if there is money in it. If there is, then the idea is given a green light. If not, no matter how cool the idea is - it gets buried.

    Remember, we'r

    • Don't have been counters in management positions. A lot of people doing management are CS grads these days. That said, even they would (or should) not make a bad business decision just because it sounds cool.
  • How useful is this really? Intel has opened an FSB that they intend to replace with CSI in the next 18 to 24 months. Does this "opening" include CSI as well, or will anyone who accepts this be stepping into rapidly obsolete technology?
    • When speaking of CSI shouldn't that be:

      "Does this "opening" include CSI as well, (pause for dramatic effect, put on sun glasses)....or will anyone who accepts this be stepping into rapidly obsolete technology?" BAHWAAAAAAAaaa.

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...