someone (someone@somewhere.com) on 2/25/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>Linus Torvalds (torvalds@linux-foundation.org) on 2/25/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>someone (someone@somewhere.com) on 2/25/09 wrote:
>>>
>>>IDC says x86 server revenue fell faster than the entire
>>>server market in Q4. Commodity server sales fell faster
>>>than mid range and much faster than high end.
>>
>>Umm. Hello? There's the obvious explanation for that
>>one, but I guess you don't want to hear it.
>>
>>But in case you do, I'll just mention it: large systems tend
>>to have much longer procurement procedures. Just
>>about every place I can think of lets managers make
>>discretionary buying decisions for things under about $5k,
>>so things like a few new workstations can easily get bought
>>on the spot. There's no need to do any strategic analysis.
>>
>>In contrast, buying a new big DB server might take a year or
>>two of just planning. That whole "how do I upgrade from
>>Alpha/VMS to Itanium/VMS" thread? Remember that one?
>>
>>Wouldn't you agree? Isn't this obvious?
>
>About 18 months ago IBM mainframe sales cratered, falling
>something like 50% YoY, in the 2 or 3 quarters before the
>last major platform upgrade (z9 to z10). That was during a
>period of sales growth across all server price segments.
>
>Here we are looking at the steepest drop off in server
>sales since the dot com bust AND just a quarter or two
>ahead of a major platform upgrade for IPF and its sales
>fall by 5% and you think that is a *bad* sign? Clearly you
>see only what you want to see.
>
>SPARC was well into new product cycles both for general
>purpose and CMT product lines in 2H08 and but its sales
>fell ~19% in Q4, even worse than x86. Your long procure-
>ment procedure theory sure didn't do any favors for Sun!
>
>Falling only ~5% under such conditions is IMO a sign
>of a great deal of market strength for IPF, certainly far
>more than x86, SPARC, (and probably Power too but IBM
>goes to great lengths to conceal changes in its overall
>Power sales in its financial reports so it is hard to tell).
>
>Let's turn this around and put you on the spot instead
>of Itanium. What is your criterion for success fo IPF?
>20% of server sales? Greater than x86? More than 50%?
>Taking every last dollar spent on servers? Come on, step
>up and be a man. Draw a line in the sand and make your
>agenda clear to all.
>
>I suspect if you answered that question *honestly* three
>years ago IPF would have already exceeded your criterion.

Why do you take IPF so personally?

To meet the Q3 schedule, Tukwila qualification should be well underway at major oem and sw parters. But there's very little information on the actual Tukwila silicon. That makes people wonder that has anyone actually seen it outside intel...