From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200202270928.g1R9S8P04900@cbe.ericsson.se>
From: Bengt Kleberg <eleberg@cbe.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: [9fans] compilers - was GUI toolkit for Plan 9
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:28:08 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 57c964f2-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025


> Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
> From: Mike Haertel <mike@ducky.net>


> Intel will live to regret this.

Last time (yesterday, but I am unable to find the link) I read about
'new' chips (ie 64-bit chips for general purpose computing) the
conclusion was:
Alpha: very good, but but dead since the new owner Intel will not
develop it.
Mips: good, but but dead since it has been re-targeted for
embedded/games.
PowerPC: good, but dead since it is already too complex
Sparc: middeling, but dead since Sun does not have the money to develop
next generation
Itanium: the only game in town (apart from what AMD will/might do, if
they can afford)

So, basically, Intel might regret it, but they will be the only one alive.


> The idea that "hardware/software co-design" is Good has to rank
> among the great fallacies of computer science and the computing
> industry in the last two decades.  It may allow elegant solutions
> to isolated problems, but problems are never isolated.  Eventually
> either the hardware or the software will need to be replaced, and
> the more cross-dependencies there are the harder this will be.
> Economically it's also really stupid: you are limiting your customers
> to the *intersection* of those who like your hardware and those who
> like your software.

Lets assume that Intel limits its customers to 1. This one beeing
Microsoft. Do you still think that all other customers will continue to
stay away?


bengt