Re: OT: Why Scott McNeally is not worried...
From: JF Mezei (jfmezei.spamnot_at_istop.com)
Date: 10/20/03
- Next message: Rick Dyson: "Product (PCSI) Info Question"
- Previous message: Rob Young: "Re: OT: Why Scott McNeally is not worried..."
- In reply to: Rob Young: "Re: OT: Why Scott McNeally is not worried..."
- Next in thread: Rob Young: "Re: OT: Why Scott McNeally is not worried..."
- Reply: Rob Young: "Re: OT: Why Scott McNeally is not worried..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:13:31 -0400
Rob Young wrote:
> You certainly don't see anyone lined up to migrate to Power, do you?
> Power systems are a high-performing high-dollar niche.
Since apple is using IBM Power chips now (instead of Motorola PowerPC as was
the case before), I don't think that they could be considered "high-dollar niche".
And apple is going for the desktop. IA64 doesn't even dare touch the desktop.
So if Sun had to choose between those two, it would be Power.
Now, factor in a 64 bit 8086 and things get a bit muddled.
At this point in time, Power probably has a big edge over the 8086 since it
allows more complex systems to be built for enterprise. Big question is
whether AMD (or Intel when it switches from IA64 to a 64 bit 8086) will add
"enterprise system" features to its 8086s to allow those large systems to be
built with 8086s. (think Tandem with lockstep).
Intel could go both ways. The "Digital" mentality would have Intel build
crippled 64 bit 8086s for desktop only, preserving the IA64 market for
expensive chips that need enterprise features.
Or Intel could bite the bullet and produce a killer 64 bit 8086 that could
really go from desktop to datacentre with both desktop and enterprise features
(perhaps in different versions of the chip but with same core).
If Intel chooses to preserve the expensive IA64, then AMD only needs to jump
into the fray and produce a 64 bit enterprise ready 8086 with all the features
needed for large systems.
- Next message: Rick Dyson: "Product (PCSI) Info Question"
- Previous message: Rob Young: "Re: OT: Why Scott McNeally is not worried..."
- In reply to: Rob Young: "Re: OT: Why Scott McNeally is not worried..."
- Next in thread: Rob Young: "Re: OT: Why Scott McNeally is not worried..."
- Reply: Rob Young: "Re: OT: Why Scott McNeally is not worried..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|