Re: Intel misses Itanium sales (...SGI moved just over 1,000 boxes...)
From: John-Paul Stewart (jpstewart_at_binaryfoundry.ca)
Date: 03/01/05
- Next message: clusardi2k_at_aol.com: "Re: cin >> std::min -->No operator ">>" matches these operands"
- Previous message: clusardi2k_at_aol.com: "Re: cin >> std::min -->No operator ">>" matches these operands"
- In reply to: arie van schutterhoef: "Intel misses Itanium sales (...SGI moved just over 1,000 boxes...)"
- Next in thread: Tim Cutts: "Re: Intel misses Itanium sales (...SGI moved just over 1,000 boxes...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:11:02 -0500
arie van schutterhoef wrote:
>
> that "SGI moved just over 1,000 boxes to take 4 per cent of the market".
Is that 1000 computers = 4% of Itanium-based computers? Or is that 1000
computers = 4% of Itanium CPUs?
IIRC, somewhere (but I'm not sure where) I saw stats that showed SGI
wasn't near the top in number of Itanium-based _computers_ sold, but was
in the five for number of _CPUs_ shipped. A single 256 CPU Altix is
counted as _one_ system by some statisticians and considered equivalent
to a 1 or 2 CPU system from another vendor.
- Next message: clusardi2k_at_aol.com: "Re: cin >> std::min -->No operator ">>" matches these operands"
- Previous message: clusardi2k_at_aol.com: "Re: cin >> std::min -->No operator ">>" matches these operands"
- In reply to: arie van schutterhoef: "Intel misses Itanium sales (...SGI moved just over 1,000 boxes...)"
- Next in thread: Tim Cutts: "Re: Intel misses Itanium sales (...SGI moved just over 1,000 boxes...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
