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: Dan3 who wrote (138311)	6/27/2001 8:46:44 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, <There are fewer and fewer jobs that can't be done by one or two processor standard high volume servers.> Take a look at the TPC-C results for clustered servers: (Performance) tpc.org (Price/Performance) tpc.org What kinds of servers dominate the charts here? That's right, 4-way and 8-way Intel-based systems. Even the price/performance charts are led by the same kinds of servers. Why don't you see any clustered 1-way and 2-way servers in these charts, even in the price/performance category? Now tell me, why is AMD targeting Sledgehammer for 4-way and 8-way SMP if no one really needs it? Tenchusatsu

To: Dan3 who wrote (138311)	6/27/2001 11:32:52 PM
From: Tony Viola	Respond to of 186894

Dan, >>There are fewer and fewer jobs that can't be done by one or two processor standard high volume servers. So Sun must be the short of the century? TV

To: Dan3 who wrote (138311)	6/28/2001 10:12:58 AM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 186894

Dan - re: Alpha NT... According to Compaq people at the time, there were about 10,000 Alpha NT licenses a year being sold - not big volume but a lot more than 100. Almost all of those were sold to large accounts on big servers. The Windows 2000 version for Alpha might have sold more. But the real value would have been a 64 bit version - the version being sold was a 32 bit port which gave no advantage to Alpha's 64 bit architecture. Microsoft had a version of the 64 bit OS running in summer of 1999 - Ballmer demonstrated it on stage at one event, showing that database performance was more than 10 times better than the 32 bit version (since it allowed large in-RAM databases). If that development had continued, MSFT would have had a 64 bit OS out last year on Alpha. That would have allowed the development of 64 bit specific Windows applications, most importantly MS SQL, which would have prepared the way for the Itanium products and built awareness for the value of 64 bit in Microsoft's traditional market. MSFT had nothing to do with the decision to drop Alpha NT and were plenty pissed when it happened - apparently with no warning from CPQ. They already had beta versions of the Win2K for Alpha code out with developers - I had the bits myself, they were a part of the standard Beta distribution. At the time, I suspected that the decision was actually a move on Compaq's part to delay the completion of MSFT products for Itanium since that would have created a competitor to Alpha using volume hardware. They gave up the portion of their Alpha business which ran NT in order to get an extra year in the market for the rest of the Alpha business. Looking back I still think that may have been the main justification.