If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ketil Malde writes: | | I think most of HP's IA64 sales also are going to the scientific | computing segment. And while the commercial customers may be more | worried, it depends on what HP replaces IA64 with; I'm not sure people | would object strongly to Superdomes with Opterons or 64-bit Xeons, for | instance. If your first sentence is true, HP's IA64 lines are in worse trouble than even I thought they were. No, I don't think people would object, but that's not my point. It is the time to revalidate and the loss of confidence - both are more of an issue in the commercial arena. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
#145
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ketil Malde writes: | | I think most of HP's IA64 sales also are going to the scientific | computing segment. | | If your first sentence is true, HP's IA64 lines are in worse trouble | than even I thought they were. | | I guess I should emphasize that I'm just guessing - I know about a few | Superdomes that do number crunching (which anyway is what IA64 is good | at). Are there any numbers; anywhere? Almost certainly, but HP are unlikely to disclose them :-) HP effectively consigned the academic and technical marketplaces to limbo over a decade ago, and are a bit player in HPC. The number crunching SuperDomes I know of were special deals to try to promote them in those areas. I have not heard of many 'normal' sales. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Tony Hill wrote:
It's not really their problem and they don't really have a solution. There are lots of old, badly written applications that just won't run at all in WinXP... and MS doesn't really care. Can't say I blame them for that. Sometimes it's just time to move on. They seem to have made a very reasonable attempt at retaining backwards compatibility (not that they had much choice)... |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 07:23:40 GMT, "Dean Kent"
wrote: So, it would appear that even in 1996 the concept was not to eliminate x86 entirely, in 1997 it was publicly stated that IA32 would be around for some time after Y2K, and in 1998 it was publicly stated that IA64 would not be on the desktop for at least another 3.5 years from *today*. This despite the recollections of a few who are certain that Intel had more nefarious plans early on... Uhh, it's called spin.:-) The fact you or I can't find the docs/pages to confirm the "recollections" does not mean they did not exist. Nefarious is your term but I did see a roadmap which showed x86 relegated to mostly STBs by 2005... after a steady year by year decline in PCs. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 08:55:56 +0200, Jan Vorbrüggen wrote:
Then Intel doesn't truely care about backwards compatability (which was my point). Humbug. They don't want to be held back by _accidental_ backward compatibility, which is a big difference. Ah so... If an application I bought yesterday doesn't work today, it's *my* fault? I don't think IBM became a giant with that attitude. Are you really buying that crap? MS's marketing? No. But I can read about the effects of their recent patches, not only to the base operating system. You really believe they care? Why don't they patch Win2K without having to sign up for a XPish license agreement? Come on! What's with the XP license anyway? Yes, and next year you'll rent the OS. ...good plan this "security" is. -- Keith |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 16:33:24 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 07:23:40 GMT, "Dean Kent" wrote: So, it would appear that even in 1996 the concept was not to eliminate x86 entirely, in 1997 it was publicly stated that IA32 would be around for some time after Y2K, and in 1998 it was publicly stated that IA64 would not be on the desktop for at least another 3.5 years from *today*. This despite the recollections of a few who are certain that Intel had more nefarious plans early on... Uhh, it's called spin.:-) The fact you or I can't find the docs/pages to confirm the "recollections" does not mean they did not exist. Nefarious is your term but I did see a roadmap which showed x86 relegated to mostly STBs by 2005... after a steady year by year decline in PCs. The charts I saw were Itanic to exceed x86 sales by 2003 and by '05 x86 was relegated to the dust-bin of embedded losers. ...and that was in 1997ish. There was some discussion about this in AFC a few weeks ago (I'm not the only one remembering such). -- Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Harddisks: Seek, Read, Write, Read, Write, Slow ? | Marc de Vries | General | 7 | July 26th 04 02:57 AM |
AMD Processors - HELP! | Sseaott | Overclocking AMD Processors | 1 | June 15th 04 09:13 AM |
AMD Processors - HELP! | Sseaott | AMD x86-64 Processors | 0 | June 15th 04 03:33 AM |
Please Read...A Must Read | Trini4life2k2 | General | 1 | March 8th 04 12:30 AM |
Seagate SATA 120GB raw read errors | Kierkecaat | General | 0 | December 16th 03 02:52 PM |