JF Mezei wrote:

> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>>and at least the small server market. Itanic will be relegated to a niche
>>product. Intel won't be able to cross-subsidy Itanic from Yamhill profits
>>because of price pressure from Hammer.
>>
>
> Intel has been able to use the slim profits it makes on the 8086s to subsidize
> the decade long development of IA64.  There is no reason that it can't
> continue to do that. In fact, Intel's financials are probably structures in a
> long term ability to subsidize IA64's development without Wall Street really noticing.
>
>
>>Except I would expect that very few customers will actually want to move from
>>their current architectures to Itanic unless they can see a benefit or are
>>forced.
>>
>
> While IA64 is definitely a downgrade for Alpha users, what about those on
> PA-Risc and MIPS (Tandem) Will that chip not provide an improvement ?
>
> Remember that all that is left on Alpha is VMS whose future has yet to be
> announced. Tru64 remains on Alpha anyways, so no migration will occur from
> Alpha to IA64 , it is more likely to happen from Alpha to Sparc for those customers.
>
>
>
>>I hope that HP is now looking at porting all it's OSs to HAMMER/YAMHILL since
>>that is the only way it could possibly obtain the savings you posit for
>>Itanium.
>>
>
> Carly has made big time commitments to IA64, including forcing Compaq to
> prematurely murder Alpha. I do not think that she will back down, and she will
> push ahead full speed. Don't underestimate her.


After the HP vote, and the revelations of her activities, and the outcome of the
Hewlett suit, I doubt too many will underestimate her.


> Even with HP only using IA64, IA64 will have higher sales than Alpha. And
> Alpha survived for over a decade. Grated Alpha had the technology to be fast,
> whereas Intel still has to find a way to impress folks with IA643's performance.
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *