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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (111909)	9/30/2000 4:02:59 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tench, Funny you should mention that, because it wasn't until Windows 95 when 32-bit applications started becoming popular. And when was the 386 introduced? 1988? You are just proving my point. 386, 486 and even Pentium were successful even without a serious software support. (I don't count DOS extenders, and Win3.x). All this happened when there actually was a need for 32 bit software. There is much less of the need for 64 bit software now compared to need for 32 bit software back in 1988 - 1995 How will it happen "fairly quickly"? "Build it and they will come" won't work fast enough. What is AMD doing to build a critical base of x86-64 apps? Forget x86-64. Hammer family will be the best 32 bit processors. They will be based on a new core that will take the best of the K7 core and fix things that the first team didn't have time to fix, plug some holes, add some tweaks, add what's needed. On top of it, they will throw in x86-64. How is AMD going to avoid repeating the failure of 3DNow? Athlon is a success. It happens to have 3DNow, which is a failure. Pentium MMX was a success, even though MMX is a failure. Piii is a success, even though SSE is a failure. Hammer will be a success regardless of x86-64. It will start from an established based of 90% plus x86 processors out there. Itanium is starting from zero. What do you think is more challenging, starting from zero % market share with an incompatible processor or starting from the top of the 90% plus mainstream market with a compatible processor? Joe

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (111909)	9/30/2000 2:20:54 PM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Ten Re:"And when was the 386 introduced? 1988?" The 386 was introduced in 1885 and the first 386 system was introduced by Compaq. The introduction by Conpaq was a big deal because in the past, IBM claimed the "firsts". Intel did not do chipsets in those days so it took much longer to ramp a new generation processor. Compaq was totally pissed when the Pentium generation processor was introduced by Intel along with a chipset and even a motherboard. Even a 2d tier player like Packard Bell or a screwdriver shop could market a system quickly. This eliminated the need for a serious technology resource that Compaq had used in the past to get a 1 year lead in the market and obtain premium prices.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (111909)	9/30/2000 10:44:46 PM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 186894

Ten - in addition to the other responses to your post, I would like to add one - CPQ co-developed a version of Windows just so they would have an OS that made SOME use of the 386 capabilities - it was called Windows 386. It was available at CPQ's launch. I was so impressed that I bought one of the CPQ boxes as soon as I could - I think I got one of the first 1000 made. The Windows 386 product did 2 things better than the 16 bit versions - it allowed "virtual machines" for the DOS processes, which both improved performance and reliability, and it had much better drivers - disk performance for example sucked the doors off of 286 machines. I had a 20 MHz 286 machine at the same time as I bought my 16 MHz 386, and the 386 was WAY faster at almost everything. That was an example of a point solution that provided buyers with a reason to pay the extra bucks for new technology. Even though it was a long time (although not as long as you suggest, maybe 18 months) before a lot of 32 bit enabled apps appeared, that single step in the OS drove rapid acceptance of CPQ's model - which in turn drove very rapid displacement of 286 machines. BYW all of the 32 bit extensions, as well as 32 bit driver support and a much improved virtual machine architecture, were available in Windows 3.0, which was 1989 if memory serves...