Robert Myers wrote:
> chrisv <chr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>> > If you don't get the way in which I am bright, and I am,
>>
>> You're just too smart for us, man.
>>
>> After all, no one else figured-out that we'd all be better-off if it
>> not for AMD, since they drained Intel of resources that otherwise
>> would have allowed them to do IA64 right.
>>
>> No one else figured-out that the world really hasn't realized massive
>> cost and performance gains, directly attributable to the Intel/AMD
>> competition and the success of AMD64.
>
>You're stuck in a mental rut. Who cares if PC's go 50% faster?
It's price/performance that is the "bottom line". So, "who cares" if
Intel has no serious competition, so are allowed to feed us
overpriced, mediocre products?
We care. The world cares. Sheesh.
>The problems are elsewhere.
What "problems" are you referring to? The "problems" you find
technically interesting, or the "problems" the real world faces,
trying to get the job done in the most efficient manner?
>So, no, your insight doesn't impress me.
>Even were Itanium and NetBurst the worse architectures, we'd be making
>more fundamental progress by continuing to struggle with the problems
>they create.
Says you. That's absurd, says me.
For a few academics, the challenge of making a k00l-enough compiler to
make IA64 kick ass may be very interesting. Meanwhile, the hundreds
of millions of PC users are making *real* progress with great products
like the C2D.
You might say "maybe in the long run we'd be better-off with the kool
compiler technology". I would respond "maybe not". Maybe it's a
complete dead-end, like Netburst (which, in hindsight, was a *really*
bad idea). Maybe, when CPU's with 64 cores are being made, IA64 will
look to be similarly wrong-headed.
>(snip)
>In any case, I''m *really* tired of hearing about it. You're like a
>broken record.
Well, the issue of "how terrible it is that we are locked in to X86"
keeps coming-up.
|
