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

[David Froble]

Kerry Main wrote:
> 
>> -----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

Kerry, you got your vision of reality, but I distinctly remember that even after 
AMD's CPUs hit the market, Intel was resisting following, and AMD was gaining 
market share.  Only when the specter of losing the x86 market smacked Intel over 
the head did they conform.

And yes, Intel really want the itanic to take over, and it just might have done 
so, except for AMD's x86-64.  It was never about how quickly the itanic showed 
up.  It was about x86 or itanic, and the users quickly decided to keep x86.  I 
also remember Microsoft using AMD to implement weendoze 64, and praising AMD.