On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 10:05:46PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, NetBSD Bob wrote:
> > 
> > Now, why would they want to do that if the Itanium thingy was all that
> > great?
> 
> It is not that great. They are about two years behind schedule, the
> performance of the chip is lousy, and I'm not sure they've even dubugged
> it properly yet. Intel are in *trouble* with the Itanium, and really needs
> that expertise.

What, again? 

Last time Intel bet the farm on a processor that sucked they had to
throw together something to sell quick or go under. Voila! The 
architecture we all today know and love as the x86 was born.

Merced^H^H^H^H^H^HItanium sucks so bad didn't HP admit that it would
suck and they went and spent the billion to bring out the next PA-RISC
chip? You know, the one they didn't want to make cause it was too
expensive? Did I hear that?
-- 
Kevin P. Neal                                http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/

"Nonbelievers found it difficult to defend their position in \ 
    the presense of a working computer." -- a DEC Jensen paper