Joe, Re: "I am completely puzzled at your refusal to acknowledge the obvious, which is that tye Yamhill project exists, that it involves adding 64bit capability to Intel's 32 bit processors, plan B if Itanium fails."
I guess it seems obvious to you. After all, we have two, whole accounts of it being mentioned - the first from a so-called employee that happened to get quoted from the Mercury Times (and subsequently reproduced at all the major news publications), and the second from an off-hand comment by an HP exec, that just happened to get exclusively captured by our favorite Internet Media Tabloid (oops, I mean second favorite - sorry, Mike).
Hold the press! This is breaking news!
So now that the cat is out of the bag, Joe, what does Intel gain by hiding it? Are they hoping that people don't read the news? Or maybe they are just hoping that if they ignore it, people will forget what they read.
Actually, it doesn't take a genius to realize that something doesn't add up. There is more here than meets the eye, yet you are willing to jump to the obvious conclusion.
That's because you just can't get over how great it is that Intel could have no faith in their own ISA, and the very notion that a Plan B exists confirms all of your preconceived beliefs. Therefore, you are now convinced that IA-64 will fail, and all the architectures that Intel managed to tumble in the process - Alpha, PA-RISC, maybe others - will leave plenty of room for AMD to corner the market.
Sound too good to be true, Joe?
Maybe that's because it is.
wbmw |
