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: Joe NYC who wrote (109020)	8/30/2000 4:44:18 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Joe, Q3 2001 is a little too early for McKinley. <eom>

To: Joe NYC who wrote (109020)	8/31/2000 12:56:51 AM
From: Rob Young	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Jozef and Tench, Tench when you admit that you are "very worried" about Foster overshadowing Itanium it isn't much of a stretch to assume Foster could make for a much stronger database engine. After all, we should see "Son-of-Xeon" clocking 1.1 - 1.4 GHz in a short timeframe. Xeon "stuck" in the 700-800 MHz range. At 1.2 GHz , that is considerably faster than Itanium, it has higher bandwidth than Itanium.. that leaves very little to the imagination as far as how it would stack up against Itanium re: tpmC. Putting a twist (and dipping the toe ever so slightly in the rhetoric pond) and focusing on Itanium strength? What would it be stronger at versus Willamette or Foster? One thing and one thing only... here it is from the legend himself Paul DeMone: " What's wrong with a hand-coded RC5 kernel for [Itanium] benchmarketing purposes? Think of it as the Dhrystone MIPS of the 21st century ;-)" Couldn't have said it better myself. But he is quite a bit more qualified than I am to comment on such matters. Rob

To: Joe NYC who wrote (109020)	8/31/2000 1:04:03 AM
From: Rob Young	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Jozef, " At this point, with Merced pushed to Q1 2001 and with McKinnley scheduled for Q3 2001, wouldn't it make sense to just scrap Merced? Instead of calling it a product, why to not continue to call it a pilot and sell it very cheaply to developers / OEMs in order to build support for McKinnley?" This very topic has been kicked around in another forum. You won't see it "scrapped" at all. It would expose their flank to a host of lawsuits , many from their own partners. What they will do (if they do indeed take this tact) is they will push it out another quarter and another... never officially killing it and always presenting it as "just around the corner." That was a good read of the situation in my opinion. Personally? I don't see it doing well at all. The OSes are still struggling along , will they be "ready" for pilot? Don't know. The compilers? VERY raw indeed from what I gather, I don't see them being well at all. That is my cursory read... hey maybe they somehow get much better in 3 months. We shall see! Rob