By: anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com), August 10, 2014 9:03 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Brett (ggtgp.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 10, 2014 2:21 pm wrote:
> Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 10, 2014 2:21 am wrote:
> > Now you are out of your depth. Even dead Itanium is going to last for at least 5-6
> > years. Such live bodies as SPARC and esp. Power will be around for much longer.
>
> Zombies do not count, Freescale is still selling Motorola 68000 chips for Gods sake.
> IBM still sells a 64bit upgrade to the ancient 360 mainframe, which has pretty good performance.
>
> The IBM POWER division is losing billions, it has to expand into/create the high end ARM server
> market or get shut down.
What's the reasoning for this crazy idea?
How would the POWER business model, that you say is unsustainable, become sustainable if it was switched to a new, unproven, and incompatible ISA?
At this point, if IBM is to persist with custom high end server CPU design, they seem far better in continuing with the OpenPower push.
> Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 10, 2014 2:21 am wrote:
> > Now you are out of your depth. Even dead Itanium is going to last for at least 5-6
> > years. Such live bodies as SPARC and esp. Power will be around for much longer.
>
> Zombies do not count, Freescale is still selling Motorola 68000 chips for Gods sake.
> IBM still sells a 64bit upgrade to the ancient 360 mainframe, which has pretty good performance.
>
> The IBM POWER division is losing billions, it has to expand into/create the high end ARM server
> market or get shut down.
What's the reasoning for this crazy idea?
How would the POWER business model, that you say is unsustainable, become sustainable if it was switched to a new, unproven, and incompatible ISA?
At this point, if IBM is to persist with custom high end server CPU design, they seem far better in continuing with the OpenPower push.
