wbmw,
Pretty weak, Joe. The 'Droids used to come up with all sorts of good reasons why IPF is doomed (well, at least along the lines of architectural philosophy, or the steep ramp towards adoption, or the lengthy and expensive process of porting software....)
The argument in the past was that Itanium was not going anywhere (or that the market would not go where Itanium was going).
The results are in, and there is no need for further arguments. Itanium went nowhere, that's where it is, and that's where it is going to stay.
In the past, one had to argue that SGI management's bet of the company (or the shareholders equity) on Itanium was not a good idea. Today, the shareholders are already wiped out, so what is left to argue?
From the SGI management: "some of you (SGI shareholders) may not make it back from our Itanium quest, but that's the sacrifice we are willing to make".
All you have now is a weak argument about low volumes, which isn't factually correct, and doesn't even make sense outside of a bitter tongue-in-cheek perspective.
Not bitter, delighted if anything. First Opteron put Itanium in a cage, and next, Intel's own AMD64 processors will drive the stake (woodcrest) through Itanium's heart.
Joe
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
