Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Apr 2010 18:29 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Permalink for comment 417162
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-09-23
I don't think it was ever supposed to be a replacement for the x86 platform, if it had been, Intel would have been pushing it into the market much harder.
Itanium was mainly introduced to compete with other high-end non-x86 platform like MIPS, Alpha, PA-RISC and so on. Now, that Itanium has pushed all of them out of the market, Intel can abandon Itanium and has a cleaned-up processor market.
Intel has the same attitude towards backwards compatibility like Microsoft. Or how do you explain that even the latest x86 processors (I don't know about amd64 though) still have that much-hated A20 gate.
Adrian