Dear Mr. DeMone

This brings to memory some older threads where it was discussed if Intel planned to bring IA64 to the desktop as an x86 substitute, but the general consensus was that those weren't Intel's plans at that moment.

Maybe my memories are wrong, could you please say if my recollections are true?

Regards

Paul DeMone (pdemone@igs.net) on 6/25/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 6/17/03 wrote:
>---------------------------
>> This article deals with the history of
>>x86, the complexity introduced by the instruction set, as well as several attempts
>>to supplant x86 as the desktop architecture and a discussion of the theory that
>>IPF is intended to replace x86 on the desktop.
>
>Shessh, I wonder if this guy read it. ;-)
>
>http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-1020498.html?tag=fd_lede2_hed
>
>"So someday, the Itanium processor family has the opportunity to cross over with
>our IA-32 line and take a large part of that segment."
>
>"People who think that Itanium is "niched up" in the high-end forever because of
>the size of the die or the power are wrong."
>
>"But that it is a leap you shouldn't make, to say that the only benefit of Itanium is
>the 64-bit physical addressing. It is a cleaner sheet of paper. It works around
>some of the deficiencies that people have historically pointed out (with IA-32
>chips)"
>
>"I guarantee you that the IA-32 product line lives for a long time yet. The coolest
>facet of it is the threaded technology. We have some virtualizing technology
>coming."
>
>"So we had compatibility mode in hardware in the first members of the Itanium
>family, and what we have come to show you is that we have been working on
>something else. It is a software environment that can progress with the evolution
>of the components."