Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EricRR who wrote (107143)	8/7/2000 12:10:54 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

>>And even in 2003 about 5 or 6 times as many IA 32 servers are expected to ship as IA 64 servers. When you consider how many servers Sun ships vs. Intel based (small fraction), and how well Sun is doing (and Intel based servers), that is probably outstanding! Thanks for that article. Tony BTW, did you think IA32 was going away? Grove said about 2 years ago it would overlap IA64 by 10 years or so.

To: EricRR who wrote (107143)	8/7/2000 8:55:02 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

RatByte - Re: "a Dataquest projection chart of server shipments used by Intel's chipset partner serverworks. inqst.com It show no Itaniums systems in 2000, and about 100,000 systems in 2001" Now - if you knew how many Intel 460GX chip sets - and their next generation chips set for IA64, you could ADD them to the SERVERWORKS numbers and THEN probably get an estimate of Merced/ITanium and McKinley server sales in the next few years. Your problem, RatByte, is that you haven't been given the Big Picture ! Paul