SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (164517)4/24/2002 3:46:34 PM
From: wanna_bmw  Respond to of 186894
 
Joe, Re: "chances are, MSFT will never get any return ont their investment from Itanium sales."

What do you base your "chances" on? Merced didn't generate many sales; therefore, McKinley won't generate many sales?? How could I argue with that kind of logic? <ggg>

The fact is that we know nothing about how McKinley will perform, and we haven't heard much of an update on how software development has been going. I assume that both things will become clear when Intel turns on the marketing engine. Who knows - maybe McKinley, and later Madison, will take the wind out of the x86-64 sales (I mean sails). Who needs an x86 patch for 64-bit when you have a *real* 64-bit solution that scales better, performs better, and has 10x the infrastructure support.

The only saving grace might be that Hammer will make a nice desktop part, as long as AMD can get the costs down.

wbmw



To: Joe NYC who wrote (164517)4/24/2002 3:48:44 PM
From: Elmer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Itanium has not contributed anything up to now, is not contributing anything currently, and chances are, MSFT will never get any return ont their investment from Itanium sales.

An equivalent argument could be made about hammer. Besides, you don't know what McKinley brings to the table so I think you're a bit premature in writing it off.

EP