Re: Portents of Itanium death

From: Fred Kleinsorge (my-last-name_at_stardotzko.dec.com)
Date: 06/09/03 

Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:27:27 GMT

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message
news:3EE4E2A8.7E10A6E3@istop.com...
> Fred Kleinsorge wrote:
> > going to do squat in the general purpose IA32 space - at least running
in
> > 64-bit mode. It isn't transparent either. Win64 instead of Windows XP.
> > New binaries for anything that needs to use the 64-bit space.
>
> The name of the game is whether one can run his existing windows programs
and
> access the huge wealth of available windows software. For Opteron, the
answer
> is YES. For IA64, the answer is NO.
>

No. The name of the game is what is the killer app that will cause the
*desktop* (user and developer) to pay a premium to go to x86-64. The wealth
of IA32 software will STILL run on IA32. Better. Faster. Cheaper.

> Furthermore, in the longer term, AMD has one chip to develop for both
desktop
> and servers. Doesn't matter if desktops are used mostly in 32 bit mode or
not.
>

It only helps them *if* there is a market for it's 64-bit identity. It
doesn't help them if it adds *any* cost to the 32-bit mode usage.

> But intel has two completely separate architectures to develop/maintain in
> parralel, with the 8086 having both desktop and server markets, and IA64
> having a small server niche.
>

Intel is a multi-billion $ money maker that dominated the market. They can
easily support IA64 and bring it along.

As an example. Windows NT did not compete well with Windows 3.x. Using
your logic, Microsoft should have scrapped it.

> Carly said that she was under pressure to streamline her product
offerings,
> and standardizing on IA64 was the "right thing to do". If Carly were the
head
> of Intel, the same logic would force her to standardize on the 8086 and
drop
> the rest.
>

Carly has said a lot of things, why only use the things you think you can
stretch the logic of? She also said stuff about the enterprise business.

> > In the server market, where AMD has targeted the chip - they have an
uphill
> > battle in just finding *one* system vendor to put their flagship
non-Windows
> > OS on it.
>
> Since there are only 3 enterprise vendors left with their own OS, 2 of
which
> have their own chips, it isn't fair to expect AMD to win that marketplace.
If
> AMD is aiming for mass markst/volume, they will want to get the wintel
> manufacturers such as Dell, Gateway etc, as well as perhaps IBM's wintel
division.
>

Let's see. Dell will ship Itanium. Hmmm. HP will ship Itanium. Hmmm
sounds like the #1 and #2 guys building those systems have decided.

Of the 3 you speak of, 2 have plans for Itanium. The other...

> **IF** HP were to announce today that it was abandonning IA64 and going to
> AMD, I think that Intel would have a 64 bit 8086 out the door VERY VERY
fast.
>

If the world stopped revolving we'd all fly off. Let's make dumb assertions
that somehow would satisfy our desired outcomes. If everyone stopped
selling Itanium, yes, Intel would stop building them. HP isn't everyone,
but it would certainly give Intel pause. However, HP isn't.

> If Dell is going to be making a few token IA64s, it isn't due to market
> demand, it is due to Intel pressures, perhaps in exchange for a better
deal on
> the volume 8086s.
>

If this announcement were about Opteron - you would be talking about the
dawn of a new day, the mass availability of it. Because you want Itanium to
fail, you have a different slant.

> For as long as Intel needs to artificially push IA64, and until there is
> natural demand from customers for IA64 stuff, the chip should be
considered on
> life support.
>

What baloney.

> > I keep thinking Sun will do it - but they are afraid to admit
> > SPARC is dead (and deal with the fallout).
>
> Sun has no problem insulting Microsoft because it doesn't depend on
Microsoft.
> But Sun buys stuff from Intel, so it has to be careful with its
relationship
> with intel.
>

Hah. They know the right thing to do it dump Sparc and go to an
alternative. Itanium won't do, because Solaris will then have to compete
head-to-head against IBM and HP. Which is why I suspect they secretly are
working on x86-64. But they can't say anything - because they can't panic
their SPARC base.

> > and market share position. Alpha was a nifty piece of technology - and
it
> > lost in the market place.
>
> You can't lose a race you didn't enter. Alpha was never allowed to
compete.

Hooey. You might disagree with everything that was done or call those doing
it incompetent, but those doing it were trying to compete.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AMD64 sales figures
    ... >>gave Intel the choice, support AMD's instruction set, or do without Windows. ... So the work for Itanium ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Security firm suggests Windows users switch to Macs
    ... to compete with Windows. ... I thought Apple's recent switch to Intel was mainly motivated by the ... possibilities not available in the Windows PC market place. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Intel Based Macs...?
    ... >>> enable a PPC PowerMac to boot the Intel version of Mac OS. ... >> logic boards on it, one which can boot Windows, and one which can boot ... the only thing different about the new MacTel machine will be the ...
    (comp.sys.mac.misc)
  • Re: Year of the Itanium
    ... Intel toasts Itanium's success by giving servers away ... Aptly dubbed "The Intel Itanium 2 Solution Challenge," the new program ... server and related services for up to 90 days for a gratis kit evaluation. ... If you're a software maker looking for volume sales, ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: IA64 and emulator performance
    ... Although I thought Intel had patented EPIC, ... The claim may be based in the fact that IA-64 ... However, Itanium proved to have minimal benefits for desktop CAD, ... People with supercomputing problems that fit really well onto Itanium, ...
    (comp.arch)