Re: Intel Itanium's very survival in doubt - inquirer article
From: John Smith (a_at_nonymous.com)
Date: 06/29/04
- Next message: Tom Linden: "RE: Intel Itanium's very survival in doubt - inquirer article"
- Previous message: Lee: "Re: Volume shadowing between FC Storage at different sites, and the allocation class"
- In reply to: Dave Gudewicz: "Re: Intel Itanium's very survival in doubt - inquirer article"
- Next in thread: Barry Treahy, Jr.: "Re: Intel Itanium's very survival in doubt - inquirer article"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:11:53 -0400
Dave Gudewicz wrote:
> At a recent LUG meeting (April 2004) our featured speaker from Intel
> had other things to say wrt Itanium/64-bit extensions/Xeon and other
> alphabet soup. Itanium IS Intel's chip for the high-end. That's was
> the gospel according to Intel. Was the Feb. 04 IDF announcement
> confusing (aka did Intel screw this up?) Yep. Was it
> misinterpreted? See previous answer.
>
> Has Itanium been slow, no very slow, to ramp up? Yep. Has the slope
> of this ramp changed post Merced? Looked like it from the #s we were
> shown.
>
> Now can all this change? Sure. Has it? Not yet near as I can tell.
On the bright side of other chips....
Soon HP will be able to advertise that OpenVMS runs on more cpu
architectures than Linux ;-)
- Next message: Tom Linden: "RE: Intel Itanium's very survival in doubt - inquirer article"
- Previous message: Lee: "Re: Volume shadowing between FC Storage at different sites, and the allocation class"
- In reply to: Dave Gudewicz: "Re: Intel Itanium's very survival in doubt - inquirer article"
- Next in thread: Barry Treahy, Jr.: "Re: Intel Itanium's very survival in doubt - inquirer article"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|