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 (107644)	8/21/2000 1:40:02 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Ratbert, <I'd like your opinion on this post of mine concerning EPIC and HP's relations with Intel> Sorry for the late response. I was "on vacation" for quite a while. Regarding your post, if I understand it correctly, you are saying that there are two parts to the VLIW key, and that HP is only giving one of them to Intel in the form of EPIC. That part is where much of the work is transferred from the silicon to the compiler. Yet this part is inadequate for self-modifying code, like run-time binding for scripts, or Java. The other part of VLIW is the run-time profiling, adaptation, and code morphing similar to that used by Transmeta. That part will be the secret to excellent performance on self-modifying code. However, that's the part which HP will keep to themselves in their PA-RISC chips. Am I correct? In any case, assuming there really is a "second part" to the VLIW key, I don't think HP will be holding that from Intel. HP is already committed toward massive migration from PA-RISC to IA-64. (Their support of PA-RISC will continue only because HP still has a sizable customer base in that area, and some of them may be reluctant to make the switch to IA-64.) If HP really wants to pull a fast one on Intel and the rest of the IA-64 crowd as you argue, I think HP will be headed down a path of self-destruction. I just don't think that's a sound business strategy. There are many reasons why HP joined up with Intel to push IA-64 in the first place, and with HP going full-steam ahead with Itanium and later McKinley, I just can't forsee HP backing out now, much less attempting a backstab. Tenchusatsu