[Info-vax] [OT] Portable operating systems, was: Re: PowerX Roadmap -

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf
> Of David Froble via Info-vax
> Sent: 21-Sep-16 1:04 PM
> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> Cc: David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com>
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] [OT] Portable operating systems, was:
Re:
> PowerX Roadmap -
> 
> Johnny Billquist wrote:
> 
> > The 64bit AMD extensions are not really comparable to what
> we're
> > talking about here. And it only really became a success as
Intel
> also
> > decided to adopt it.
> 
> That's not exactly how it happened.  AMD's 64 bit was
successful,
> and if Intel hadn't adopted it, they would have lost the x86
> market.  Even after AMD's stuff hit the market, Intel was
> resisting.  Finally someone at Intel decided that if they
didn't
> conform, they were toast.
>

That's not exactly how it happened ..

:-)

Intel wanted the next industry PC standard to be IA64, because
then AMD and any other chip vendor would have had to license
using it.

However, Intel has always had parallel Engineering projects
underway as a means to switch if one project falls behind.

That's what happened when realistic IA64 releases showed up about
4-5 years later than originally expected. Fortunately for Intel,
they had parallel X86-64 projects running in parallel with IA64
and could move the X86-64 chips to the forefront.

One can only wonder what would the tech world look like today if
Intel was not infected with the NIH virus and had instead dropped
IA64 when it picked up all the rights to Alpha.

Ah well ..

Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com