On 2/28/2011 9:43 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
That's probably a bit of an optimistic interpretation, given how they
allowed AMD to dominate for so long all the way into the profitable
server segment (i.e. Oracle recommended Opteron rather than Xeon).
Itanium was more of the sensible parallel diversification line you
have in mind, which was buried for more mundane backwards
compatibility reasons.
I believe it was buried on technical grounds as an alternate parallel
attempt that happened to dead-end, as much as for backwards
compatibility reasons. Itanium was better termed Itanic as in
"Titanic". While the chip contained many interesting technologies, the
whole added up to something that even the best compilers seemed to get
very little real value from.
--
Jess Holle
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java
Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
