Hi Paul,
Your name is shockingly familiar...are you an analyst by chance? Have I met you in NY sometime???
Anyhow, back to NetFrame and Intel/Alpha....as far as the Paine Webber (PW) report is concerned, PW is partially right. For now, the economies of scale are tipped in Intel's favor. The problem that I have and probably many other "techies" have with CISC chips is the inherent design/performance issues that they have vs. the RISC chips.
The reason you don't see as many RISC chips now dates back to when Intel/Motorola and other chip makers were deciding on whether CISC or RISC was the way to go. Back then (older technology), the CISC was substantially cheaper (the margins were even greater than today!) and required far less cooling. The RISC chips of old needed liquid cooling or even liquid hydrogen cooling to run at super computer speeds. So the chip makers opted for CISC. even though RISC was superior in performance. Today, the RISC chip is STILL superior and will remain so even though the CISC chip has come a long way.
I'm not saying the CISC chip will die, but there are performance ceilings involved with a CISC chip vs. the RISC chip. While I'm not an engineer or chip engineer, I feel that I have a decent fundamental grasp of CISC vs. RISC. I obtain my views through industry magazines, actual salesperson/engineers for both Tricord AND NetFrame, and industry specs on computing machines out there currently. All it takes is a I/O or Processor computing time test between RISC and CISC and you'll see which chip is superior.
While you address DEC as not being able to pump money into a losing business, I think that the technology market now requires a "new generation" chip, and this chip is the Alpha. as for intel's alliance with microsoft. LEt's not forget that Microsoft NT has alliances with the Digital Alpha chip.... Check out the performance specs with Microsoft NT/Alpha vs. NT/Intel. Hardly even a competitive comparison. I consider this comparison something akin to the "Dream Team" vs. Zimbabwe!
You mention economics/break-even points. There is always a learning curve in the beginning of every great product. Microsoft wasn't accepted right away, nor is the Alpha. It's something new. Don't expect everyone to accept it with open arms just yet. Go talk to an IS manager some time. Perhaps maybe even your own company. In this age of "Network Computing", I/O and computing speed means everything. I just set up our NT server here. Yes...I am an analyst, but I love dabbling in computers on the side (which is why I feel I know a bit on this subject of CISC/RISC). Let me remind you that the fastest Web Server Search engine on the net right now runs on a RISC chip!
Also, I base my theory on RISC/CISC based on my own experiences with Tricords, NetFrames and Alphas. I've played with them all. I've sold them (in the past). I've talked with their engineer's openly and frankly. I've talked with the customers that bought from me (or the opposing company). And it's this last aspect of my research that tells me the most about the limitations of CISC chips...to draw an analogy you can soup up a regular Hyundai engine (CISC) only so far...but my modified RX-7 III (CISC) will still rip it up :)
Also, don't always believe what you read from everyone, heck, not even me! :) PW has some great analysts, but take it with a grain of salt. Do your own readings into the workings of CISC/RISC and get back to me ;) sorry for the long response Paul, but I feel a bit verbose in the mornings.... |
