you...
Once again, Barrett did not choose Itanium and they rest of your post is too much rambling generalization to comment.
me...
That's not what I said, it looked to me as if this was an Otellini decision that was quickly scrapped.
One of the things that has been a hallmark of INTC's decision making process, even going back to the Grove days was the tendency to throw things at the wall and see what stuck. This was particularly noticeable as pertains to INTC's diversification efforts.
Why INTC ever got into something as remote as LCOS still baffles me. I assume someone said, yeah we can do CMOS, therefore we should be able to outdo TI and come up with something better than DLP. What they really should have been looking at was SONY and TOSHIBA who actually knew what was needed and brought the technology to fruition. Incidentally, SONY's XBR line of LCOS HDTCs are temporarily some of the best HDTVs on the market, but that's another story.
Anyway, that sort of decision making process was carried over into processor design with various groups throwing things at the wall and management choosing what looked best. This worked well when the design teams were truly differentiated. With the advent of idea smerging( my word) and NIH, INTC developed the equivalent of hemophilia due to incestuous idea inbreeding.
To prove that one only has to look at the idiocy of Itanium and netburst. To say INTC lost its way is a gross understatement. Otellini certainly has his job cut out.
