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 *