Flash VP moves on...

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040913/idwk.ob8-k.html

gb

solaris on ipf:

i view it as a nice to have. not necessary and certainly not sufficient.

having solaris on ipf would make things happen faster but it will happen inevitably anyway.

imo sparc is toast...and not merely due to ipf.

gb

for all of the focus on xbox and it competitors i know of very few families who own a game console or intend to buy one.

gb

idf presentations posted at intel.com. some appear to be protected by password to the attendees only but some come up without it...at least so far.

gb

nice platform(s)...

waaay to many sockets for a 15% share...

socketA, 754, 939, 940 spread across how many chipsets and motherboard combos?

validation nightmare.

gb

re: amd warning...

when was the last time they warned?

gb

i'm sure the amd contingent will point out the lack of soi at 65nm as a certain harbinger of doom for intel.

gb

dan3: re racks of opterons

can you share with us what function these opteron servers perform? i assume they're running linux? how are they configured with memory? what applications are they running? is everything 64bit? what is remaining at 32 bit (for now)?

gb

i disagree with most of that post.

no biggie.

gb

bobs10:

specific to the hp itanium embracement:

itanium was the joint creation of hp and intel when they decided to join their next generation efforts. iirc, intel already had some vliw ideas and in return for hp committing their product line combined the two efforts more along the lines that hp was pursuing which weren't that different.

it's no surprise therefore that hp continues to look at it to replace the alpha and tandem that they've acquired as well as their own pa/risc which itself was a blend of apollo and hp ideas.

gb

I wonder how long their particular readership would have put up with a constant reference to "flopteron". Curious how the story of Sun only shipping 490 Opteron servers in Q1 managed to escape their notice. After all they seem to carefully watch Gartner's numbers for IPF.

i'm increasing just finding inq to be too childish to bother reading. vole, itanic, flopteron,...it's just wearing thin.

as to their pounding of intel vs amd it's just more stirring the pot. not as much fun tweaking amd as the big dog.

gb

in my experience server users don't do chip upgrades to their servers. especially since the server couldn't be validated until long after it shipped for the newer processor. they do add additional processors of the original type if the server can accommodate them.

gb

this article first ran the day after anand did his call. about 2 weeks ago iirc.

dunno why it's rerun now.

gb

XP64 Home?

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17963

with the name change to xppro x64 makes me wonder if xphome x64 will trail even later.

gb

End of the line for HP's Alpha

By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
http://news.com.com/2100-1006-5315546.html

Story last modified August 18, 2004, 5:35 PM PDT

Hewlett-Packard will release its final Alpha processor on Monday, the beginning of the end for a chip dynasty that never was.

Sears to offer Brillian LCOS:

http://news.com.com/Sears+launches+consumer+electronics+line/2100-1041_3-5315119.html?tag=nefd.top

another article in Forbes also mentioned Best Buy as offering LCOS from Philips:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2004/06/15/cx_af_0615lcos_ii.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=

might be fun to go down to the store and least see what intc is missing on this year.

maybe next year...

gb

petz

isn't the sparc codebase big endian? if so it might weight against using it vs the little endian x86 base.

gb

on a more basic level:

don't you think amd knows more about fab bring up than a bunch of posters on an investor board?

even i'm willing to give them a break there. if they say 65 in fab36 i'll take them at their word.

gb

the decision for a go ahead for "plan b" was made in spring of 1999.

gb

sgolds:

i assume you saw that alpha, nonstop and storage were hp's enterprise downside whoppers...

or are you just "stirring the pot"?

gb

smooth: intel has a bunch of depreciated 130nm fabs to use so that's one possibility.

as for displacement: it's only displacement if it was remotely possible that someone might have bought the $1500 system in the first place. it sounds like intel is providing a new entry point appropriate to the disposable income levels prevalent in that country but with what we would feel is sub par performance.

it wasn't so long ago that i was running a 50Mhz 486, 1Ghz is quite a step up from that. i'm currently happily running winxp on a p3-850 on a intel810 motherboard. by comparison i went down to my daughter's school to test out her new website on the imacs down there and was astonished as to how incredibly slow they were. it wasn't just the internet connection, even moving things around on the screen was painful. my guess is the little machines will do ok by comparison.

finally, it's possible that a one or two chip solution for this entry point might consume all the silicon in the box and when combined with low end peripherals and locally inexpensive labor might well produce a low cost pc profitably.

who knows...

gb

smooth: intel doesn't sell systems...

gb

bobs: channel inventory

intel specifically responded to a question to that effect in the q2cc. intel was holding the inventory at that time. channel was clean.

gb

alan81

all i remember is that when intel intro'd atx "everyone" said they would stay with the good old at box forever.

gave the press something to write about every day for a year and a half.

gb

i believe nvda was unwilling to pay for a bus license.

gb

with integrated graphics apparently "good enough" for most folks thereby consuming the midrange i wonder if there is profitable room for both nvidia and ati unless pc volumes pick up substantially.

otoh, i really hope this means that those 130nm fabs will now fill to ramp grantsdale.

gb

volume of parts.

high performance, boutique stuff doesn't usually pay the bills. it does help figure out how/what to implement for the volume midrange which does pay the bills.

can't live on champagne alone...

gb

it's all about volume...

gb

apparently intel's integrated graphics is doing well enough to be blamed by nvda for their poor latest quarterly results in the midrange. they also blamed the grantsdale recall for stalling their higher end stuff as well.

the relevance to intel is that if grantsdale integrated graphics is doing better than expected then it will be a fine thing to fill those 130nm fabs with.

gb

dunno...send them a note?

gb

NEC adopts INTC cpus for mainframes and drops own mfg:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/infoimaging/2004/08/03/infoimagingbhsuper_2004_08_02_JIJI_000...

Redflag commercial linux compiled with INTC compiler:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040803/35379_1.html

gb

624MHz Intel® Bulverde

one of the xscale family members...

gb

the dma refresh wasn't a bad approach considering the cost of the available memory controller chips available at the time.

i don't remember anyone complaining about the memory controller at the time i bought my ibm pc in 1983.

gb

the original 8088 was only a 5Mhz chip. 4.77 wasn't much of an underclock.

i believe the compaq portable (scarcely a laptop!) was built on the 8086 which did come at higher frequencies.

gb

it was a 5Mhz 8088 clocked at 4.77Mhz...

amd and eventually siemens, nec and fujitsu were potential second sources of 8088 and 8086 but i don't believe ibm actually used any but a few amd parts.

otherwise i agree...

gb

mth was sdram only. no ddr capability ever.

gb

upc: enuf already!

intel sometimes makes systems which they sell to oems. oems then participate as part of the evaluation by having their customers try them out for a time and either buy them or return them after the evaluation time is over. the oems then do with the evaluation systems that are returned however they want including selling them as refurbs.

you're being...difficult...

gb

doesn't stream. "buffers" for ever...

i'm behind a linksys wrt54g on comcast. never have any problems with any webcasts.

gb

i'd put my money on ibm. especially after seeing the phoenix bios mention. ibm+phoenix had a surepath bios a few years back.

gb