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: wanna_bmw who wrote (142873)	9/5/2001 9:18:49 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Compaq and Itanium aren't the only ones supporting Itanium. Wow, with the weight of the Itanic behind the Itanic, it can't help but sink. Very slightly more seriously, the main problem I have with the Itanic is that it killed so many other decent architectures before it ever shipped. Must be shipping in the hundreds now, though, so it's all better.

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (142873)	9/5/2001 10:52:03 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

IBM's Power4 will be larger and lower volume than their already humongous Power3. How can it be lower volume? It replaces two separate architectures (R6000 and AS400) It will have decidedly higher volume than either. How humongous is Power3?? I believe you are slinging it once again. THE WATSONYOUTH

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (142873)	9/5/2001 11:37:43 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Compaq and [HP] aren't the only ones supporting Itanium. It was nearly the entire industry, including IBM... Didn't IBM just drop AIX support for Itanium? Clearly having decided that it wasn't a suitable platform for a real enterprise solution. Amazing what you don't learn until the actual hardware is in house to test. Looks like they found out that getting decent performance from that weird heavily, heavily, optimization and compiler dependent architecture just isn't worth the trouble. The hard part is the software - Intel makes fussy, barely compliant hardware that makes life miserable for OS and application developers. AMD makes hardware that runs what the developers write - AMD doesn't make us throw out 15 years worth of developed software because it's just too hard for poor little Intel to develop performance compatible hardware. New boxes just keep getting cheaper and cheaper, but the cost replacing the installed base of software keeps getting more and more expensive.