Dan, Re: They used to. If you think it doesn't matter that Intel apparenlty no longers offers a 64-bit server through any channel other than HP and Unisys, then that's what you've concluded, which is fine - we're all entitled to our opinions!
First, let's clear this up. Itanium CPUs showed up for a brief time on Pricewatch, but that doesn't mean that Intel sold these chips into the channel. Large OEMs such as HP often sell excess inventory into the channel, but that is very different than your claims of Intel selling chips here, and then giving up. It implies that Itanium 2 has lost value to Intel, and they no longer see a market where they once had. I think the reality is that Intel has never sold into the channel because there never was a market there. If you believe differently, then back it up, because yours is not the simplest explanation.
Re: The thing is that the justification for Itanium vs. established 64-bit server platforms like Sparc and Alpha was that a non-proprietary, very high volume, moderate cost platform would displace low volume, high cost, proprietary server platforms by achieving a critical mass of installed systems that lowered overall costs. AMD seems to have intercepted that strategy and is running with it, while Intel's 64-bit offering, so far, is just another low volume (two years of very low volume), high cost, proprietary server.
I understand your position, but I disagree in several respects. First, the market for RISC processors has grown over the past few years. The x86 market has grown faster, however, which is why it seems that x86 continues to take away market share. The reality, however, is that there is a multi-billion dollar market for high end solutions. The difference between Itanium and RISC is that Itanium is not proprietary, and it is much lower cost and higher volume going forward. The development of Itanium infrastructure extends across the industry, making it by the very definition an "industry standard". Itanium has already demonstrated performance and price/performance advantages over all other RISC products. Power4 still gives Itanium 2 a run for its money, but that will once again change once Madison launches. Even then, IBM will still tout the advantages of Power, since after all, it is their own technology, but you'll also see them slowly adopt Itanium architecture in more of their product lines. By the end of the year, they will have 2-way to 32-way Itanium 2 platforms, which overlaps their entire Power4 line of systems.
This will not affect the volume space, since as you say, the trend has always been towards high volume, moderate cost platforms. This isn't to say that Itanium 2 won't get here eventually, but I agree that it will not be in the short term.
And speaking of Opteron, I think we both agree on its potential, as well as the warm reception that AMD has received from the tier-3/4 vendors. I have no problem with Opteron, and in fact, I hope it succeeds to provide continued competitive pressure on Intel to deliver better products. I do not believe that Opteron is a threat to Itanium, however, since my position has always been that they service different markets. Opteron should take market share from Xeon, but how much will depend on whether AMD can match their performance with better brand recognition, better system features, more RAS, and some large OEM design wins.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
