Yamhill confirmed?

[Derek Baker]

http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech.asp?v=12/24

--
Derek

[The little lost angel]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:03:27 -0000, "Derek Baker"
<me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech.asp?v=12/24

I don't see anything there even remotely related to a baked yam cake,
much less a Yamhill.... :/

Am I missing something?

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

[Derek Baker]

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
message news:3fea51f3.30452568@news.pacific.net.sg... On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:03:27 -0000, "Derek Baker" <me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech.asp?v=12/24 I don't see anything there even remotely related to a baked yam cake, much less a Yamhill.... :/ Am I missing something?

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13330

--
Derek

[Derek Baker]

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
message news:3fea51f3.30452568@news.pacific.net.sg... On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:03:27 -0000, "Derek Baker" <me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech.asp?v=12/24 I don't see anything there even remotely related to a baked yam cake, much less a Yamhill.... :/ Am I missing something?

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=6025

--
Derek

[George Macdonald]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 09:33:08 -0000, "Derek Baker"
<me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote inmessage news:3fea51f3.30452568@news.pacific.net.sg... On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:03:27 -0000, "Derek Baker" <me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech.asp?v=12/24 I don't see anything there even remotely related to a baked yam cake, much less a Yamhill.... :/ Am I missing something?http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13330

Ah, now it's getting juicy. I *do* hope that Robert Manetta is having a
very Happy Christmas.:-P

To reiterate previous posts, personally I find Hans de Vries' reasoning on
the 64-bitness of Prescott http://www.chip-architect.com/ quite convincing.
In the first article, the apparent presence of two register files with only
one of the two having flag bits is umm, particularly striking.

It could even be that the delay in Prescott is due to dithering on when to
announce its 64-bitness or even to do with how to effectively hide it...
until the strategic moment.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[Yousuf Khan]

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:75jmuvso69tvh0d8rc7mjm2391f4vvs8ka@4ax.com...http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13330 Ah, now it's getting juicy. I *do* hope that Robert Manetta is having a very Happy Christmas.:-P

Oops, just as we thought Intel were confirming the existence of Yamhill,
they're denying it again. They took the original Investor's Business Daily
article down (though all of the reprints of it still exist).

Same article, except updated:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13330

Yousuf Khan

[Ed]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:10:46 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in messagenews:75jmuvso69tvh0d8rc7mjm2391f4vvs8ka@4ax.com...http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13330 Ah, now it's getting juicy. I *do* hope that Robert Manetta is having a very Happy Christmas.:-POops, just as we thought Intel were confirming the existence of Yamhill,they're denying it again. They took the original Investor's Business Dailyarticle down (though all of the reprints of it still exist).Same article, except updated:http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13330 Yousuf Khan

Isn't that the same Intel guy who talked of Intel's Online Service that
never took off?

Ed

[George Macdonald]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:10:46 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in messagenews:75jmuvso69tvh0d8rc7mjm2391f4vvs8ka@4ax.com...http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13330 Ah, now it's getting juicy. I *do* hope that Robert Manetta is having a very Happy Christmas.:-POops, just as we thought Intel were confirming the existence of Yamhill,they're denying it again. They took the original Investor's Business Dailyarticle down (though all of the reprints of it still exist).Same article, except updated:http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13330

This is getting confusing - updated?... that's what I saw before posting
above. Obviously my point is that there is umm, fumbling at Intel and it
appears that Mr. Manetta dropped a clanger.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[Yousuf Khan]

"Ed" <nobox@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mbgpuvcme8io4lnoa39phh0qfcd2kmorv5@4ax.com... Isn't that the same Intel guy who talked of Intel's Online Service that never took off?

Don't know, never heard of that.

Yousuf Khan

[Yousuf Khan]

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:0tipuvgfm3cefsp2dafc8le653jbd7dksd@4ax.com...Same article, except updated:http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13330 This is getting confusing - updated?... that's what I saw before posting above. Obviously my point is that there is umm, fumbling at Intel and it appears that Mr. Manetta dropped a clanger.

Oh, okay, then that article must've been updated even before I checked back
with it. The original article didn't have that update in it.

Yousuf Khan

[Guest]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 09:47:08 -0000, "Derek Baker" <me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote inmessage news:3fea51f3.30452568@news.pacific.net.sg... On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:03:27 -0000, "Derek Baker" <me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech.asp?v=12/24 I don't see anything there even remotely related to a baked yam cake, much less a Yamhill.... :/ Am I missing something?http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=6025


Well, sincerely I hope that they're not going to release any x86-64 hybrid thing... the AMD approach
is more than enough.. Intel shouldn't follow AMD into this one, it would be a failure because Intel
already knows that IA64 is the real future. Some rumors already stated that Intel scheduled IA64 on
desktop by 2006/2007 ... but now that AMD put an x86-64 CPU on the market Intel needs to keep up
with it and release a 64bit capable CPU for desktop users, so it needs to speed things up a lot in
their R&D labs... BUT their major issue is that x86-64 would be the worst approach both technically
and to the public in general. It would make them follow AMD, although yes, in the long run Intel
might be able to set x86-64 standard and put AMD back into a niche market with sub-standards BUT
that would put IA64 project and investments in danger as well and that's not what Intel could afford
so easily, it could even end with Intel resources halved in the long run for such a big mistake...

Intel has IA64 resources already. Intel could integrate IA64 and IA32 into a single package. They
could manage to release dual-core and dual IA64/IA32 hybrid capable CPUs.. I can't believe that they
really decided to commit suicide and trash tons of money on developing another x86-64 architecture..
I mean, yeah, surely they got some x86-64 specs and prototypes even before AMD but it would have
been a big mistake to extend x86 architecture any further.. The new EPIC based IA64 it's very
complex yes BUT it is the way to go.

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3t7cvvk4tmg4j5f88fg6p5jfj65m22b36k@4ax.com>,
geno_cyber@tin.it says... On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 09:47:08 -0000, "Derek Baker" <me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote inmessage news:3fea51f3.30452568@news.pacific.net.sg... On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:03:27 -0000, "Derek Baker" <me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote: >http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech.asp?v=12/24 I don't see anything there even remotely related to a baked yam cake, much less a Yamhill.... :/ Am I missing something?http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=6025

You know Geno, most computer literate people know how to limit
their line length. So I'll assume... Well, sincerely I hope that they're not going to release any x86-64 hybrid thing...

Me too! I have some money in AMD stock! ;-)
the AMD approach is more than enough..

Agreed!
Intel shouldn't follow AMD into this one,

I agree. They might make money! I'd rather AMD make that money!
it would be a failure because Intel already knows that IA64 is the real future.

They've "known" this for ten years, but somehow haven't been able
to convince others.
Some rumors already stated that Intel scheduled IA64 on desktop by 2006/2007

....only five years late. Yawn!
... but now that AMD put an x86-64 CPU on the market Intel needs to keep up

....in x86 land, which they have no announced plan for.
with it and release a 64bit capable CPU for desktop users,

Gee, you must not have studied the failures of others. "It's
*EVOLUTION* stupid" (revolution doesn't cut it in business).
so it needs to speed things up a lot in their R&D labs...

You're a fool! You don't think Intel has the best? ...and
that's not enough? There is a big fault in this logic!
BUT their major issue is that x86-64 would be the worst approach both technically and to the public in general.

I suppose you think Linux goes against the US Constitution too?
It would make them follow AMD,

Good. Humility can be a good thing. Intel should have led AMD
into 64-bit x86, but they were to proud of their Itanic.
Humility is good. The opposite...
although yes, in the long run Intel might be able to set x86-64 standard and put AMD back into a niche market with sub-standards

"substandard" by who's measure? Yours? Good grief gert!
BUT that would put IA64 project and investments in danger

Good. Management should always be in danger.
as well and that's not what Intel could afford

Who cares. They made their bed. Lie in it.
so easily, it could even end with Intel resources halved in the long run for such a big mistake...

Good! That's the punishment for arrogance and bad decisions (and
squared for both in one).


You like rambling meaningless run-on sentences, eh? Intel has IA64 resources already.

....and have for ten years. So? Noone else seems to care too
much, other than a look-see.
Intel could integrate IA64 and IA32 into a single package.

Umm, you haven't been following the program, have you?
They could manage to release dual-core and dual IA64/IA32 hybrid capable CPUs..

They could, but that's not the program. Again, you aren't
following the script.
I can't believe that they really decided to commit suicide and trash tons of money on developing another x86-64 architecture..

I can't believe they didn't follow history and give up on IA64
five years ago. They have enough corporate memory to remember
the disaster of iAPX432, though the boom-times of x86 may have
dimmed that memory. IBM did a similar boondoggle in the early
'70s (known as 'FS') and pumped a $Billion('70 dollars) down the
drain before they listened to their customers and killed the
program.
I mean, yeah, surely they got some x86-64 specs and prototypes even before AMD

Who/what? What the hell are you yammering on about?
but it would have been a big mistake to extend x86 architecture any further..

Nonsense! How many times has /360 been extended successfully?
How many times more? Are you a kid?
The new EPIC based IA64 it's very complex yes BUT it is the way to go.

Says one nutcase. You *might* have been right *five* years ago.
It's abundantly clear that the promises haven't been kept and
likely never will be. The competition hasn't kept still and
there are still technological issues with IA64 that have not been
answered since they were brought up ten years ago.

--
Keith

--
Keith

[Tony Hill]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 01:57:41 GMT, geno_cyber@tin.it wrote:Well, sincerely I hope that they're not going to release any x86-64 hybrid thing... the AMD approachis more than enough.. Intel shouldn't follow AMD into this one, it would be a failure because Intelalready knows that IA64 is the real future. Some rumors already stated that Intel scheduled IA64 ondesktop by 2006/2007 ... but now that AMD put an x86-64 CPU on the market Intel needs to keep upwith it and release a 64bit capable CPU for desktop users, so it needs to speed things up a lot intheir R&D labs... BUT their major issue is that x86-64 would be the worst approach both technicallyand to the public in general. It would make them follow AMD, although yes, in the long run Intelmight be able to set x86-64 standard and put AMD back into a niche market with sub-standards BUTthat would put IA64 project and investments in danger as well and that's not what Intel could affordso easily, it could even end with Intel resources halved in the long run for such a big mistake...

The IA64 project is already in danger! This is a project that has
been on-going for 10 years now and has cost Intel billions of dollars,
and what have they got to show for it? Last numbers suggest that they
might manage to sell 20,000 Itanium systems this year. For
comparison, they will sell somewhere on the order of 2 million Xeon
systems.
Intel has IA64 resources already. Intel could integrate IA64 and IA32 into a single package. They

Intel HAS integrated IA64 and IA32 onto a single package!
could manage to release dual-core and dual IA64/IA32 hybrid capable CPUs..

You mean like what they are doing with the Itanium2 right now? Fat
load of good it's doing them, the designs just don't work well
together and their IA32 performance still stinks. They might get
around to improving this, but that will involve throwing even more
money at Itanium.

The simple fact of the matter is that IA32 is Intel's bread and
butter. It is the ONLY part of the company that makes money. Not
only has Itanium been bleeding red ink for years, every other branch
of the company loses money as well.

There's something to be said about sticking to what you're good at.
I can't believe that theyreally decided to commit suicide and trash tons of money on developing another x86-64 architecture..I mean, yeah, surely they got some x86-64 specs and prototypes even before AMD but it would havebeen a big mistake to extend x86 architecture any further.. The new EPIC based IA64 it's verycomplex yes BUT it is the way to go.

Why is it the way to go? Remember one VERY important thing here:
Software is expensive, hardware is cheap.

IA64 breaks software compatibility, AMD64 (aka x86-64) does not. That
means that IA64 is expensive, and AMD64 is cheap. And what does that
expensive new instruction set buy us? So far, not much. Despite
their extremely high SPEC scores, pretty much all of the impressive
results of the Itanium have come directly from through a lot of money
at the supporting infrastructure rather than from the instruction set
itself.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Felger Carbon]

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote
in
message news:3fea51f3.30452568@news.pacific.net.sg... On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:03:27 -0000, "Derek Baker" <me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech.asp?v=12/24 I don't see anything there even remotely related to a baked yam
cake, much less a Yamhill.... :/ Am I missing something?

You're missing two things. First, Yamhill is a small Oregon town,
just west of Beaverton which in turn is just west of Portland.
Beaverton is where the Tektronix factory is, and Intel had/has a small
development group based in Yamhill.

Second, Yamhill is the birthplace of (Paul?) Krugman, the NYT
columnist/economist.

Sorry about the long delay in replying. ;-)

[chrisv]

geno_cyber@tin.it wrote:
Well, sincerely I hope that they're not going to release any x86-64 hybrid thing... the AMD approachis more than enough.. Intel shouldn't follow AMD into this one, it would be a failure because Intelalready knows that IA64 is the real future.(snip)

Once again, Geno, you demonstrate your crippling illogic. Right down
the line. Wrong. It's quite amazing, really. For example, above,
they "know" no such thing, obviously. They may hope it. They may
even think it. They MAY even be right. But they sure as HELL don't
know it. Fool.

The rest of your post is equally insipid.

[gaf1234567890]

geno_cyber@tin.it wrote in message news:<3t7cvvk4tmg4j5f88fg6p5jfj65m22b36k@4ax.com>... On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 09:47:08 -0000, "Derek Baker" <me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote: ... their R&D labs... BUT their major issue is that x86-64 would be the worst approach both technically and to the public in general. ...


Why would it be the "worst approach to the general public" to be able
to run software they already own (without resorting to emulation)? The
general public doesn't run instruction sets, they/we run applications.
Those applications represent just as large an investment as the
hardware on which they run.
... that would put IA64 project and investments in danger as well and that's not what Intel could afford so easily ...

Itanium loses money right now. So isn't that like saying Intel can't
afford to not lose money ?? The only "investment" aspect of IA64 is
that if it did succeed, there would be no IA64 competitor for several
years (if ever), and they would eliminate their current competition.
Above and beyond that, everything else is a sunk cost at this point.
... it could even end with Intel resources halved in the long run for such a big mistake...

Or they could just view IA64 as HP's proprietary mini-computer chip
and run that business at break even, while x86 chugs along as it
always has.
... I can't believe that they really decided to commit suicide and trash tons of money on developing another x86-64 architecture ...

Why would it be suicide? Intels whole business model is about staying
on the forward edge of manufacturing technologies and capacity, and
using that to leverage the CPU business. It's all about the fabs. The
instruction set of whatever chips they produce should justifiably be
dictated by the market.

Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that "form follows
function". While this is usually true, in the case of the Itanium, you
really don't see the evidence of "function" yet. It's just not THAT
superior to x86 or x86-64 when it comes to the things that really
matter.

[Yousuf Khan]

"G" <gaf1234567890@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7eb1fbe.0401060635.7590a56@posting.google.com... Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that "form follows function". While this is usually true, in the case of the Itanium, you really don't see the evidence of "function" yet. It's just not THAT superior to x86 or x86-64 when it comes to the things that really matter.

Actually the whole Itanium argument is based around exactly the opposite,
"function follows form". The biggest adherents to Itanium seem to be the
ones that have fallen in love with its form, its concepts. They love it so
much that they think function will follow without a question.

Yousuf Khan