[Info-vax] BOINC for VMS

[John Wallace]

On Apr 3, 2:35 am, Michael Kraemer <M.Krae... at gsi.de> wrote:
> David Froble schrieb:
>
> > seasoned_geek wrote:
>
> >> If GQ Bob would have pursued a criminal case against Intel when they
> >> were caught red handed stealing Alpha technology while they were a
> >> second source chip foundary, DEC would have owned Intel, IBM would
> >> have been buying CPUs from DEC along with every other PC vendor.
>
> > I think the problem with your idea is that GQ Bob would have ruined not
> > just DEC, but also Intel.
>
> The even bigger problem is, that there wasn't strong enough evidence
> intel had really "stolen" DEC's IP,http://news.cnet.com/Report-Intel-didnt-copy-Digital-chip/2100-1023_3...
>
> And there was intel's
> countersuit that DEC vice versa had infringed intel's patents,http://news.cnet.com/Intel-files-suit-against-Digital/2100-1001_3-202...
>
> > DEC did get a settlement with Intel worth 1.5 billion, I believe, and I
> > really don't know how much more any court would have awarded them, nor
> > how long it would be tied up in court such that the technology would be
> > way out of date by the time anything was finalized.
>
> > Do I think that DEC could have got a better deal?  Yes, I do, but that
> > doesn't mean such could have happened.
>
> Everybody won in that deal. Well, everybody except Alpha lovers.
> Both companies wanted to get rid of the chip.
>
> > If it would have been DEC that got Intel to partner with them, instead
> > of HP, DEC might still be in business, if they could have gotten some
> > decent management that believed in the company and had a bit of vision
> > for the future.  DEC was too focused on the past, from a business
> > perspective.
>
> In the early days, DEC indeed offered intel to partner with them,
> but intel wasn't interested. Maybe intel "smelled" that Alpha
> would eventually be a failure?
>
> > It's a bit like "most generals plan for the next war as if they're
> > fighting the last war".
>
>

The CNET (part owner: Intel) report was based largely around quotes
from Ashok Kumar of "analysts" Southcoast Capital. Below is a quote
CNET didn't print. With the benefit of hindsight, readers can draw
their own conclusions about whether the man had any *technical* idea
what he was talking about.

[quote]
"Besides the Windows compatibility issues, Southcoast's Kumar argues
that Alpha, while fast, isn't very efficient.

"The Alpha architecture does not meaningfully enhance the x86
architecture," he maintains. "So basically Intel would have to buy the
Alpha technology for $1.5 billion and essentially write it off. I
don't think Intel is as stupid as that."

Intel of course already has a 64-bit RISC architecture under
development in Merced, which it's codeveloping with Hewlett-Packard
for introduction in 1999."
[endquote]
from http://www.pcworld.com/article/5427/why_would_intel_want_digitalsquots_alpha.html

You could of course take the first two sentences of the quote and
replace Alpha by IA64, and they'd actually be more accurate than they
were, except you'd have to massively increase the amount of money
written off.

"The IA64 architecture does not meaningfully enhance the x86
architecture. Intel would have to spend $xbillion on IA64 technology
and essentially write it off. I don't think Intel is as stupid as
that".

Whether Kumar thinks Intel are stupid or not is largely irrelevant
anyway. The historical fact is that Intel in recent years is a one-
technology company, and that technology is x86. More specifically,
it's implementing ever more complex x86s by enhancing their chip
fabrication technologies. x86 hasn't got faster for years, you just
get more of them on one core. Outside the x86 sector, they haven't had
a significant commercial success for years, and even in the x86 sector
they have to resort to anti-competitive tactics to "motivate" the
system builders to stay with Intel rather than the alternatives.