>Also, I suspect that a bad economy is going to be good
>for cheaper platforms in the long run. Yes, sales drop
>off, but on the other hand you'll also see just continued
>pressure for people to simply convert to cheaper boxes.
>

That may depend on how long the downturn will be. In the next few quaters, people probably would just buy replacements, and freeze new projects. So you probably get across board volume shrink, with the relative shares among architecturs remain roughly constant.

If there's no signs of upturn by next year, converting to cheapter boxes could happen.


>The same way netbooks are likely to cannibalize laptops
>more in a down economy where a cheap netbook is
>picked over a more high-end laptop, that same way I suspect
>that you're going to find places that just decide to go
>with a cheap x86 server (possibly one they already had:
>I'm not saying that this will be a sales uptick for x86),
>instead of moving up to something fancier.

Not going to happen. Just saw Toshiba laptop for $369 at local Fry's, 15.4" wxga/2GB/160GB/pentium DC. Nobody is even looking at the netbooks.



>
>In contrast, people who buy x86 and Sparc (and to a lesser
>degree POWER) tend to have a lot more flexibility. They
>aren't, for example, fighting an EOL of PA-RISC machines.
>
>More flexibility = more freedom = more volatility. Both in
>timing and in size of the drop.
>
>But again, there's the other side of the coin. That more
>volatile drop is also paired with a more volatile uptick.
>x86 simply grows bigger too. Especially if you look at
>volume rather than just revenue - and volume matters,
>because it is volume that drives all those nice
>networking effects.
>

Could it be that server consolidation has started to take its toll? The investment into virtualization is really a double-edged sword.



>>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.
>
>Be a man? I'm not the one avoiding the issue.
>
>But seriously, my success requirement for IPF used to be
>that they actually get a thriving and lively development
>community with good workstations that were competitive
>from that standpoint. That never happened. Yes, there were
>workstations, and some people even called them "good", but
>those people were on some serious drugs and/or had lost
>their hearing due to age or exposure to other IPF machines.

That's hilarious. But you do have to pity those who were exposed.


>So now? What can happen to convince me there's life in
>that old dog? Honestly, it needs to actually be technically
>better than something else. Not "last in the heap". Faster,
>cheaper, more capable.
>
>Until that happens, IPF can't get any new market.
>
>Sure, it can continue to get the HP-PA and Alpha/VMS sales,
>and outside of that, it can even continue to grow with the
>market (and by that I don't mean "in lock-step, quarter
>by quarter" - that's not how anything works).
>

If what people said on this board wrt Intel's investment in IPF is true, then Intel seems to be pursuing strange strategic goals with IPF. God knows what they are.



> ..
>Of course, as explained, I think IPF has already lost all
>the really interesting luster people tried to give
>it, so that success is really more of a "most improved"
>kind of accolade, but dang, it would be something glorious
>for IPF to see even just once.
>
>And the sad part is, Intel definitely can do it. I
>obviously think Itanium is a horribly failed architecture
>from a technical standpoint, but Intel should be able to
>just use its clearly superior process to just overpower
>IBM on that front.
>

Many on this board had said "EPIC sucks" one way or another.
People wished IPF well, but...