[Info-vax] Poulson info from Dave Cantor

[Michael Kraemer]

John Wallace schrieb:

> Instead, look at the basic financial logic. Intel continue to have to
> pay for parallel (overlapping, competing, duplicating) x86-64  and
> IA64 development teams for the CPU core even though they now have
> massive overlap in the market they address. Those costs are doubtless
> passed on to the sole significant IA64 customer, HPQ, who also
> continue to have to pay for parallel Proliant and Integrity server
> development teams even though again there is substantial hardware
> overlap between Integrity and mid/high-end Proliant.

These "parallisms" are in fact in favour of Itanic.
With intel being a dedicated chip maker, development
and production certainly can share resources with
their mainstream x86 product. I guess a year's volume
of Itanic chips can be made in the lunch break
of some x86 fab.
This is in stark contrast to the Alpha.
DEC had to create and maintain everything from scratch,
and costs for that could not be shared with a mainstream
product.
So the economic reasoning for ditching Alpha in favour of
Itanic was and is still valid.