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."