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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tecate78732 who wrote (257595)	12/27/2008 2:36:42 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

If you REALLY know Intel people they will tell you that Intel had no intention of just pushing Itanium, that is a load doodoo put forth by competitors and sensational journalism, Intel had a roadmap for years for x86, there was no an end. right.....lol vanshardware.com processor.com Intel Makes 64-Bit About-Face 64-Bit Extensions For 32-Bit, x86 Server Processors Available Soon After publicly denying for years that it had any plans to offer 64-bit extensions for its 32-bit processors, Intel made an about-face at IDF (the Intel Developer Forum) in San Francisco last month.

To: tecate78732 who wrote (257595)	12/27/2008 2:56:02 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

re:If you REALLY know Intel people they will tell you that Intel had no intention of just pushing Itanium I was red book access on Itanium from 1997 until 2001, and also involved with a large OEM vendor in roadmap discussions with Intel around the importance of desktop sales to deliver the volume for 'the tipping point'. The strategy was exact and explicit. It was a long term vision, but the goal was to put x86 out to pasture by 2010. NetBurst through Tejas was to maintain the desktop 32 bit market (especially commercial) through the transition. Intel had sound business reasons to do that - they had no requirement to cross license IA64, and if they were aggressive with ISVs, they could demonstrate the value of 64 bit not only for servers (where Alpha, MIPS, Power and others had already shown traction) but also for ordinary desktops. I still have NDA slide decks describing the importance of the 'volume play', complete with anticipated share numbers. The goal in 1999 was to have a majority of new PCs be IA64 based by 2005. If Microsoft and ISVs with the most popular desktop apps had IA64 versions, and the vendors talked up 'end of life' of 32 bit (which they did), more and more small vendors would be compelled to go 64 bit. Those that did not (and legacy apps) would be served by emulation. It was a win for everybody, except maybe the end customers. The irony is that the shift in share in the volume segment happened almost exactly as Intel predicted - except it was X64, not IA64.