Re: Sun to use AMD Opteron - announcement expected Monday

From: jlsue (jefflsxxxz_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 12/02/03 

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:41:50 GMT

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:01:42 -0500, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>
wrote:

>
>"jlsue" <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:j4c9sv4fugbh2e2ouakd55idqa85odmoum@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:05:28 GMT, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote:
>>
>> >jlsue wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:27:19 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
>> >> <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >The crux of the matter as I see it is:
>> >a) in June 2001 Compaq said to its customers, 'Everything we/Digital told
>> >you about Alpha is wrong. It isn't a leading cpu, it isn't capable of
>having
>> >any life beyond the next couple years, it does not and can't have a
>25-year
>> >life span. My god, what were we thinking? Our cpu designers aren't up to
>the
>> >challenge. Intel can do anything we do better - even if they don't steal
>it
>> >from us. That we don't do much if anything to market Alpha has nothing to
>do
>> >with our decision. Oh, and BTW, were going to screw our partner -
>Samsung -
>> >while we're at it.'
>>
>> That's not what I heard.
>
>You've already demonstrated that your hearing is significantly impaired -

And your's is hopelessly skewed.

>and that your ability to compensate for this by paying attention to what
>others have heard is nil.

I've heard what they've said. I've also separated what's really known
(i.e., fact) from what they believe (i.e., opinion).

>
>John isn't even guilty of exaggeration. Let's examine his assertions one by
>one:
>
>1. "Everything we/Digital told you about Alpha is wrong."

Well, I've never denied that digital/compaq made statements that they
changed their minds on. I don't think that's been any part of my
discussion... so I guess trying to drum up support for something I never
said is a tad wasteful of my time.

>
>2. "It isn't a leading CPU."

"Leading CPU" has many dimensions, of which performance is only one. You
have, at least, a) performance, b) market penetration, c) price, d) ISV
support, e) revenue, and f) profit.

If they felt it was failing in one or more of these areas, depending on
their business goals, they it should be within their business management
perview to change the company direction. I will concede that the
announcement and handling may not have been the most effective in getting
that word out, if this is the case.

>
>3. "It isn't capable of having any life beyond the next couple years."

IA64 has experienced delays. IIRC, most Alpha implementations experienced
some pretty serious delays as well. Assuming/predicting that Alpha would
have delivered perfectly, and comparing that to a reality-based view of how
IA64 delivered isn't exactly a fair comparison.

In any case. I don't recall them saying it wouldn't have a life beyond a
couple of years. I'm sure that some may have interpreted it that way, but
when I heard the announcements, I didn't.

>
>4. "It does not and can't have a 25-year life span." Well, not if all
>development is cut off by its 12th year - but that was the *only* obvious
>obstacle.

Sure, if you ignore market forces, current developments, business goals,
etc.

>[snip the rest... mostly a bunchy of inuendo and vendetta-based accusations]

>
> What I heard was that the difference in
>> performance was not worth the continued investment, in the opinion of the
>> management at CPQ. That's their job to make those decisions. While I may
>> not always like the outcome, and while there may always be two (or more)
>> other possible paths to take, the management chose to go another way. I
>> was just as peeved about the loss of Alpha, but I've realize that it's
>just
>> another small bump in the road of life.
>
>Right - I'm sure that's just how the American Indians feel about the many
>broken treaties that our government made with them. And there's certainly
>no point in rehashing any of that *now*: it's all in the past - move on.

When you start making up crazy parallels, it's obvious reasoning goes out
the window, Whatever.

>>
>> But Bill's statements seemed to say that Sun's investment in SPARC wasn't
>> intended to make it a performance leader (and it isn't a performance
>> leader), but just keep it alive.
>
>No, that's not what any competent (and honest) reader of my statements would
>have brought away from them.

Nice mouth. You just can't seem to get it through your head they you've
spewed so much stuff out there, that some people may view your statements
differently than you intended - the fact that you have to trivialize those
views with such negative mischaracterizations must make others besides me
wonder where your head is really at. Or even question YOUR intentions and
honesty.

>
>Of *course* Sun was trying to make its SPARC architecture a performance
>leader: it simply failed in the attempt. And it has been aggressively
>trying - witness its active research into OoO, SMT, asynchronous chip
>components, and the like.

But, the point is that they didn't invest enough to actually DELIVER on
these pursuits. It's not as if any of this was impossible to do,
considering that other companies have delivered working architectures based
on them. But they didn't commit enough to the endeavor to actually provide
something that their customers could benefit from.

>
>Now it's taking steps to rectify the situation - by winding down the
>disappointing implementation and concentrating on an existing more
>successful one (SPARC64) plus a promising new one (Niagara).

And CPQ announced their business plan was to get out of their own chip
architecture business and invest, instead, in another vendor's
architecture. The decision could be very valid, based on a belief that the
performance will be industry-leading (eventually, and there have been
delays), without having to incur all the direct costs.

>
> Certainly folks who really wanted SPARC
>> (and Sun) to shine could complain just as vehemently that Sun made a bad
>> decision not to push SPARC to the limits and make it a leader.
>
>For someone so quick to criticize JF for supposedly suggesting motivation
>without having the slightest clue about what *actually* went on inside the
>company, you're awfully quick to do so yourself. Exactly what evidence do
>you have that Sun made any decision not to push SPARC's performance as hard
>as it could?
>

And this from a guy who accused me of being dishonest for misrepresenting
what he said. This is so ironic it almost makes me laugh out loud.

Nowhere, NOWHERE in my quoted text do I even attempt to suggesting Sun's
motivation. I don't even care what went on within Sun, I'm merely
discussing how CUSTOMERS could view the actions in the same light as you
and JF are for CPQ/HPQ.

>>
>> But judging from this discussion, it appears that they have not pursued an
>> investment strategy that would make SPARC a performance leader.
>
>Your judgement is, as usual, incompetent. Please point to any portion of
>this discussion that suggests *any* investment strategy that Sun has taken
>in its support of SPARC (other than the recent one to concentrate on exactly
>those SPARC variants that *do* promise better performance), let alone a
>strategy that *consciously* failed to place a premium on performance.

I'm merely looking at the results. Many in here have shown that SPARC has
not kept up well. And IIRC you even stated that it was good enough, at
good price points. I'm not trying to draw this down into a comp.arch
discussion. It's a customer perception discussion.
>
> Opting
>> instead to just make it "good enough" to get by.
>
>Yet another imputation of motivation by someone utterly unqualified to make
>it. The fact that Sun's current SPARC *does* happen to be good enough to
>get by hardly proves that this is all Sun was aiming for.

I didn't say that they were "aiming for" this. I said that their business
investment strategy apparently allowed for it. I'm not even saying that
this is a mistake, because I don't necessarily think it is one.

>
> And apparently that
>> strategy is considered valid by some, so I'm just trying to understand the
>> logic that allows Sun's strategy, but not CPQ's.
>
>If you're really trying to understand, you're clearly incompetent. If
>you're not actually having such difficulty understanding, you're a liar (and
>a shill as well).
>

Ah well. In the wonder universe of Bill Todd, everyone who doesn't agree
with him is incompetent, lying, etc. Such a sad place to live.

--- jls
The preceding message was personal opinion only.
I do not speak in any authorized capacity for anyone,
and certainly not my employer.
(get rid of the xxxz in my address to e-mail)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whither VMS?
    ... And why should HP care, they're not involved in antitrust issues. ... Power is essentially proprietary in the enterprise server business, ... Plus, AFAIK it's not Sun which develops and makes Sparc CPUs, ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Sun to use AMD Opteron - announcement expected Monday
    ... it has absolutely no business making claims about industry standard or "commodity". ... On the other hand, IA64 may be ... When Sun ... made Solaris available on the 8086, did it spell the doom of Sparc? ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Sun to use AMD Opteron - announcement expected Monday
    ... >> not to invest in Sparc to keep up. ... >not to promote Alpha and the systems on it to make even better use of their ... Put on your business hat for a minute. ... I've lost essentially nothing in the investment. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Canadian Scientists Warn Of New Ice Age
    ... The media have warned of impending climate changes for at least the last ... Both funds are closed to further investment. ... But without government action on climate change, some business analysts ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Why unemployment could hit 14%
    ... Maybe the biggest of these problems is that economics is really a branch ... But the boss controls how the spoils of the business are divided ... The problem with profit seeking investment, ...
    (sci.econ)