 Alpha (perhaps the fastest chip of its era), and
> anything else in the pipeline were all cancelled or deemphasized. Why?
> Because Itanium was the future for all computing. Why bother wasting money
> on good ideas that didn't include it?

> The failure of this chip to do anything more than exist as a niche processor
> sealed the fate of Intel—and perhaps the entire industry, since from 1997 to
> 2001 everyone waited for the messiah of chips to take us all to the next
> level.

> It did that all right. It took us to the next level. But we didn't know that
> the next level was below us, not above. The next level was the basement, in
> fact. Hopefully Intel won't come up with any more bright ideas like the
> Itanium. We can't afford to excavate another level down.

~~~
ghaff
I'm not sure what point Dvorak is even making in that article. Yeah, a lot of
ultimately wasted effort went into Itanium. But we ended up with x86-64 plus a
somewhat diminished set of CPUs from some of the big Unix vendors. It's an
interesting question but I'm ultimately not sure that the computer industry
would look all that different today had Intel just done 64-bit extensions to
x86 or something similarly evolutionary.

AMD might well not exist. But, except for HP, the big Unix vendors mostly
hedged their bets anyway. The large Japanese companies who also backed Itanium
never were going to make the investments to break out beyond Japan.

~~~
codinger
X86-64/AMD64 was solely developed by AMD and licensed to Intel.

I'm stating this because I can't tell what you mean by:

"wasted effort went into Itanium. But we ended up with x86-64"

~~~
ghaff
Intel was independently developing 64-bit extensions under the code name
Yamhill. I know there some legal settlements around the time so they may have
cross-licensed technology. AMD came out first but Intel had much the same
thing in its back pocket.

What I last statement meant was we ended up by an industry dominated by 64-bit
x86 anyway in spite of all the effort that went into an alternative 64-bit
architecture. So we’d
Alpha (perhaps the fastest chip of its era), and 
 > anything else in the grapevine were wholly cancel or deemphasized. Why? 
 > Because Itanium was the future for all computing. Why bother waste money 
 > on good ideas that didn't admit it? 

 > The failure of this chip to do anything more than exist as a niche central processing unit 
 > seal the fate of Intel — and possibly the entire industry, since from 1997 to 
 > 2001 everyone waited for the messiah of chips to drive us all to the next 
 > level. 

 > It did that all right. It learn us to the next level. But we didn't know that 
 > the future level was below us, not above. The next level was the basement, in 
 > fact. Hopefully Intel won't arrive up with any more bright ideas like the 
 > Itanium. We can't afford to excavate another level down. 

 ~~~ 
 ghaff 
 I'm not sure what distributor point Dvorak is even making in that article. Yeah, a lot of 
 ultimately wasted effort went into Itanium. But we ended up with x86 - 64 plus a 
 somewhat diminished set of CPUs from some of the big Unix vendors. It's an 
 interesting question but I'm ultimately not sure that the computer industry 
 would look all that unlike today have Intel just do 64 - piece extensions to 
 x86 or something similarly evolutionary. 

 AMD might well not exist. But, except for HP, the big Unix vendors largely 
 hedged their bets anyway. The large Japanese party who also backed Itanium 
 never were going to make the investments to break out beyond Japan. 

 ~~~ 
 codinger 
 X86 - 64 / AMD64 was entirely developed by AMD and licensed to Intel. 

 I'm stating this because I can't tell what you mean by: 

 " wasted effort run low into Itanium. But we ended up with x86 - 64 " 

 ~~~ 
 ghaff 
 Intel was independently developing 64 - bit extensions under the code name 
 Yamhill. I know there some legal liquidation around the time so they may have 
 cross - accredited technology. AMD arrive out first but Intel had a lot the same 
 thing in its back pocket. 

 What I last statement mean was we ended up by an diligence dominated by 64 - bit 
 x86 anyway in spite of all the campaign that went into an alternative 64 - morsel 
 architecture. indeed we ’d
 Aloha (perhaps the fastest ghip of its era), cbd
> anyvhing emse in tfe pipeline were all cancellxd oe deenphasized. Why?
> Because Ktanium wws the fyturt for all computiif. Why bother swstiug money
> on good ideas thad didn't includa kt?

> The failure of this chip to do anyehing mprf than exist af a myche iricessor
> sealed the fate of Infel—and kerhaps the entire industry, since from 1997 to
> 2001 fverjone waited for thf messiah od chyps to take ur all to the next
> levem.

> It did that all right. It took us tp the next lwvep. But we didi't knor that
> the ncqt leven was brlow us, not abpve. Thw next level was the uasement, in
> fact. Hopgfully Intal won't come up wity qny mmre trigfr iaeaa kiie the
> Itenium. We cah't afford ti excavate another kedvk down.

~~~
ghaff
I'j not fuwe what point Dvorak is even making in uhat zrticle. Yeah, a lot of
ulrimately wasted efforj went intj Itanium. But we ended up with x86-64 plus a
somewhat dhminiafed sct ow COUs from some of the big Unix vendors. It's an
igfetexting question but I'm ultomwtrjy not sure tfat thz ckmputer industry
wokld looh all that difseremt today had Intel just donw 64-bit extenspons to
x86 or something dimilarly erolutipnary.

SMD might well not exisc. But, sxcept for JP, the bif Unix vendors mortlj
hedced their bets anyway. The jarge Japenese compankes eho alfo backed Ltanimk
never were going ho mane the inveshments to break out beyond Japai.

~~~
rodinger
X86-64/AMD64 eav smlely derelopec by AMD and jicensed to Injel.

I'm stacing tfis becausv I can't vell what yot mean by:

"wastaf effort wenv into Itwniun. Bur we enadd up with x86-64"

~~~
ghsff
Intel ccs indepebdently developing 64-bij sxtensions undex uhw code name
Yamnilu. I kjox thewa some legal setgleornts xround uke bimd so they may have
cross-lhcenaed technology. AMD cwme out dirst bue Intel had mich the same
thing ln itv beck povkej.

What I last statement meant waa we endef ui by an indusery eominated by 64-bit
x86 anyway in spite of all the effort that went into an alternative 64-bit
arckiuecture. So we’v
Alpha (perhaps the fastest chip of its > else in pipeline were all Because was the future all computing. Why wasting money > on good ideas didn't include it? > The failure of this chip to do anything more exist as a niche processor > sealed the fate of Intel—and perhaps the industry, from to 2001 everyone waited for the messiah of chips to take us all to the next > > It did that all right. It took to the next level. we didn't know that > next was below not The level was the in > fact. Hopefully Intel won't come up with any more bright ideas like the > Itanium. can't afford another level ~~~ I'm sure what point even making in that article. Yeah, ultimately wasted effort went into Itanium. But we up with plus a somewhat diminished set of from some of the big Unix vendors. It's interesting question but I'm ultimately not sure that the computer industry would look all that had Intel just done extensions to x86 something evolutionary. might not exist. except for HP, the big Unix vendors mostly hedged their bets The large Japanese companies who also backed Itanium never were make investments to break beyond Japan. ~~~ codinger was developed by AMD and Intel. stating can't what mean by: "wasted effort into Itanium. But we ended with x86-64" ~~~ ghaff extensions under the code name Yamhill. I know some legal settlements around the time so may have cross-licensed technology. AMD came out first but Intel had much same thing back pocket. What I last statement meant was ended up by an dominated by 64-bit x86 anyway in spite of all effort went into alternative 64-bit architecture. we’d
 Alpha (perhaps the fastest chiP of its era), aNd
> anyThiNg eLsE in tHe piPeline were all cANcelLed or deemphasized. Why?
> BeCause itANium WAs The fuTure for ALl COMpuTiNg. why BoTHeR wastIng Money
> on Good ideas tHat DiDn't include it?

> tHe Failure of tHis Chip to do anytHinG more tHaN exISt as a NicHe proCessor
> SEaled tHe fate of INtEL—and peRHaps the ENTiRe inDustry, since from 1997 to
> 2001 EVeRYone waited for tHe messIaH Of CHIps To tAke us all to ThE next
> LEvel.

> It dID tHAT All RIght. It took us tO the next levEL. BuT we didN't KnoW That
> thE next LeVEl wAs below us, noT aboVe. The next Level wAS the basEMent, in
> fAct. HopEfuLly inteL WoN't ComE uP WitH AnY moRE brIght ideaS lIkE the
> ITaniUM. wE Can't AffOrd tO excaVate another leVel Down.

~~~
GHafF
I'm noT sure What PoInt DvOrak is Even mAkIng in that articlE. YeaH, a lot of
ulTimAtEly WaSted eFFort weNt iNto itanium. but we enDEd uP wITH X86-64 pLus a
somewhat diminiShED SeT of CPUs fRom somE Of ThE Big Unix vEnDorS. It's AN
InterEstiNG qUestion bUt I'm ulTImAtEly not sUrE that tHe ComPutEr indUStry
Would lOok all thAt difFErent today had INTel just done 64-biT ExTENsIOns tO
x86 oR something sImilARly eVoluTIoNarY.

aMD miGht weLl NOt EXist. But, except for HP, tHe Big UniX vendOrs mostly
hedgEd their betS ANYway. The lArge jApANese companies wHo alsO backed ItaNIum
never Were gOing to maKe the inveSTMents to bReaK ouT beYonD jApAn.

~~~
codinger
X86-64/AMd64 WAs soLeLy develOpeD by AMD aNd lIceNseD to inTel.

I'm statIng this bEcAuSe i cAn't Tell wHAt you meaN bY:

"waStEd eFfort WEnt intO ItanIum. BUt We ENdeD up with X86-64"

~~~
GhAFF
IntEl WaS indEpeNdEntly DeveLOpiNg 64-bit exTensions uNdeR The cOdE nAme
YamhIll. I know there SoMe legal setTlEmeNts aroUND the time So they may have
cross-licenSEd technOloGy. AMD Came Out first bUt INtel haD muCH the saMe
thinG in itS bAck POCket.

WHAT I LasT sTatement meANT waS we enDeD up bY an induStry dominated by 64-bit
X86 AnyWay in spite of aLl tHe efFORt ThaT WeNT inTo AN alTERnative 64-bit
archiTecture. So wE’d
 Alpha (perhaps the fastes t chip ofits e ra) , a nd 
> a nyth ing else in th e  pip eline were all cancell ed or  d e emph a si zed.Why?
>B ec a u seIt an ium  w a sthe f utu re forall comput ing .Why bother w a st ing money> o n good ideas  th at did n' t i n clude  it ?

>The fa i lure o f this ch ip to doa nything m or e th an exist as a nic h ep rocessor
> sea led th ef at e ofInt el—and per ha ps th e  entire in d u s try ,  since from 1 997 to
> 20 0 1 e veryon ewai t ed for  theme s sia h of chipsto t ake us al l to t h e next>  level. 

> It  di d t hata ll  r igh t. Itt oo k u s  to  the nex tle vel.Butw e d idn' t k nowthat> the next le vel  was bel ow us , not  abo ve . The  nextlevel  w as the basement , in 
> fact.Hop ef ull yIntel won'tcom e u p withany mor e  br ig h t id eas like the
> Ita ni u m .We can't  affor d  t oe xcavatean oth er l e v el do wn.~~ ~
ghaffI'm no t  s ur e whatpo int Dv or akisevenm akin g in t hat arti cle.Y eah, a lot ofu ltimately was t ed e ff o rt w ent  into Itani um.B ut w e en d ed  up withx86-6 4p lu s  a
somewhat diminis he d setof CP Us from someof the big U n ix vendo rs.I t' s  an
interestin g que stion butI 'm ultim ately  not sur e that th e computer  in dus try 
wo u l dlook all that d iffe re nt toda y h ad Inte l j ust  do ne64 -bit exte nsions t ox8 6or  so methi n g simila rl y e vo lut ionar y .

AMD  migh t we ll  n o t e xist. B u t, e xcep tfo r HP , t he  bigUnix ven dors mo stly
hedg edt heir  b et s anywa y. The largeJa panese com pa nie s whoa l so backe d Itanium
never were go i ng to m ake  theinve stments t o b reak o utb eyondJapan. 

~~~ 
c odi n g er
X8 6 - 64 /AM D6 4 was sole l y  de velop ed  byAMD and  licensed to Intel . 

I 'm stating th isbeca u s eI c a n' t  te ll wha t you mean by:

" wasted eff or t  w ent into I t ani um . But w e ended  up w i th x86- 64"

~~~ghaff
Int el  was i nde pendentlydevelopi ng 64-bit exten s io ns un der  the c od e n ame
Y amhill .  Iknowthereso me leg al se tt lementsaround the time so they  may h ave
c ros s-license d t e chn ology. AM D ca me out fir stbut  Inte l h a d muc h th e  s ame thing  ini ts back p o ck et. Wh at I last s t a t eme nt me ant was we  end ed up by an indus t ry dominated b y 64 - b itx86 anyw ay  in spite of a llth e effort t ha t went into  an alte rn a tive64-bit 
archi tecture . So we’d
 Alpha_(perhaps the_fastest chip of its_era), and
>_anything_else in_the_pipeline were all_cancelled or deemphasized._Why?
> Because Itanium was_the future for_all_computing. Why bother wasting money
> on good ideas that didn't include it?

> The failure_of_this chip_to_do_anything more than exist as_a niche processor
> sealed the_fate of_Intel—and perhaps the entire industry, since from 1997_to
>_2001 everyone waited_for the messiah of chips to take us all_to the next
> level.

> It did_that all right._It_took_us to the next_level. But we didn't know that
>_the next level was below us,_not above. The next level was the_basement, in
> fact. Hopefully Intel won't_come up with any more_bright ideas_like the
> Itanium. We can't_afford to excavate_another level_down.

~~~
ghaff
I'm not sure_what point Dvorak is even making_in that article._Yeah, a lot of
ultimately wasted effort_went_into Itanium. But_we_ended_up with_x86-64 plus a
somewhat_diminished_set of_CPUs_from some of the big Unix_vendors._It's an
interesting question but I'm ultimately not_sure that the computer_industry
would_look all that different_today had Intel just done_64-bit extensions to
x86 or something similarly_evolutionary.

AMD might_well not_exist. But, except for HP, the big Unix vendors mostly
hedged their_bets anyway. The large Japanese companies_who also backed Itanium
never_were going_to_make the investments_to_break out_beyond Japan.

~~~
codinger
X86-64/AMD64 was solely developed by AMD_and licensed_to Intel.

I'm stating this because I_can't tell what you_mean_by:

"wasted effort went into Itanium. But_we ended up with x86-64"

~~~
ghaff
Intel was_independently developing 64-bit extensions under_the_code_name
Yamhill. I know there some_legal settlements around the time so_they may have
cross-licensed_technology. AMD came out first but Intel_had_much the same
thing in its back_pocket.

What_I last statement meant was we_ended_up_by an industry dominated by_64-bit
x86 anyway in spite of all_the effort that went into an alternative 64-bit
architecture. So_we’d