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 (257604)	12/27/2008 4:31:06 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Not sure what point you are trying to make. With a shift to 64 bit being driven by all the major players, and with Itanium as Intel's only 64 bit offering, there can be no doubt that Intel intended to have IA64 as their mainstream desktop offering as that transition happened. You don't need to be an 'insider' to figure that out... the whole of press coverage for the 5 years leading to summer of 2004 tells the story. I'm sure that since the launch of Opteron, and the shift from Itanium to Core, the staffing would reflect reality, which is X86 for the foreseeable future. But prior to 2004, Intel publicly had NO X86-64 roadmap. If Microsoft planned to end-of-life 32 bit apps, as they have stated many times, Intel would have been imprudent to have any other plan than IA-64 for the desktop.