G
Guest
Guest
This thought has no basis in the real worl but wanted to see what some other people thought. Does anyone else think that Microsoft might have played a role in the sinking of the Itanic? I know Intel has it's problems... but they really botched it on this one. The Itanium sounded great when I first heard about it (albeit well out of my price range) and perhaps it still might be, but it's arrival in March is a loooooooong long time over due. I remember reading about it almost a year ago (or perhaps over a year ago... so long ago I can't remember) and thinking that it was pretty interesting that it was set to debue almost a year ahead of a 64bit windows operating system. "How great" I thought this might give a chance to other OS's, like Linux and BeOs who I believe are/were already ready for a 64bit architechure, to get a hold on this market before Microsoft. Looking back... would Microsoft let this happen?! Microsoft practically exists today because of intel. Sure they make some software for the Mac and AMD now does a decent job of supplying Windows to people, but when I think Microsoft I think Intel. I can't imagine that a 32bit architechure will remain for many more years to come. Although it has become questionable in the recent past whether Intel will continue to be the leader of desktop processors and a trailblazer into the futre, they have been in the past (and for quite some time). Surely the Itanium will not be a desktop processor (at least for more than a handful), but, despite AMD's efforts with the Hammer, the Itanium could/could have paved the way for future mainstream 64bit processors and Microsoft would have missed out on an OS for it... and possibly not being able to compete once another was established well into the future.
Paranoia? Excuses for Intel? Maybe?
Long, full of spelling errors an typos... definately... lazy
DeSilentio
Paranoia? Excuses for Intel? Maybe?
Long, full of spelling errors an typos... definately... lazy
DeSilentio