() on 2/5/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>>Have you looked at the date when this article was written?
>>
>>Do you find it surprising that I would change my position when better
>>and more complete information becomes available that contradicts
>>my earlier held view?
>>
>
>And how exactly does the fact that
>an article was written in 2000 make
>any statements about how the i386,
>i486, and i586 were initially marketed
>less true? If anything they should be
>more even more reliable than
>statements made today, since now we
>have hindsight, as well as time
>futzing up our recollections.

Ok I see what you getting at. I misunderstood because
you accused me of saying something I didn't. Silly me.

You said:

"On page four, third paragraph down,
you are contradicting your current
position on a couple of topics.

Namely a discussion a few days ago
about which targets Intel marketed
processors (i386/i486/i586) at their
introduction."

In my article I wrote:

"Anyone with a bit of history under their belt
remembers how each new Intel processor generation
from the 80386 onwards was accompanied by industry
analysts pronouncements how it was a 'server chip',
it was 'overkill for the desktop PCs', users would
'never need the power of the new chip' etc. The
history lesson from that era is that Intel can drive
a new processor core to the mainstream remarkably fast,
especially if there is effective competition against
the previous generation."

Notice I didn't say Intel marketed each new core to
servers first, I said some "industry analysts" tended
to frame it that way because of the hoary old question
"what would anyone need all that somputing power for".
Intel drove the new cores into high end PCs because
that's where the volumes are.