Rudedog and Rich E.,
Although, I do not like to respond to posters who do not give their real names, I am compelled to make exception. Your excellent analysis and reply to my post rudedog, commands a response from me.
Yes, I am sure that there are many technical complexities involved with getting the Merced chip to the market in 1999, however, I was confused, as I am sure others were too, by the way the announcement was made. It just seemed strange to me that all of a sudden Intel should find itself needing a 6 month delay. I just don't think that Intel is not in better control of development projects, as the way this announcement might imply.
As I wrote Paul E. on Saturday, "With Intel finalizing the acquisition of the DEC Alpha FAB last month,.... and the requirement that Intel must now support the manufacturing of Alpha chips for DEC/CPQ for some time into the future,...... and with maybe the attractiveness of prolonging the 32 bit word architecture, (Xeon, Deschutes and additional mid-range Servers) into a higher price range and for a prolonged period of time, why not cut near term capital spending, and delay Merced, so as to improve near term earnings ?????"
This is still my hypothesis as to why Intel made the announcement of the delay. I note that Intel will now have the luxury of time for a more complete development of Merced prior to formal introduction. In addition, the delay in Merced will allow time for both MSFT and Intel to resolve their difficulties with the FTC, before they commit to a path that the government, (in its stupidity), might find doesn't give competitors a chance.
Jules
|
