[rescue] Compaq Proliant 8000
mcguire at neurotica.com
Thu Apr 29 13:41:53 CDT 2004
On Apr 29, 2004, at 2:10 PM, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>>> The i860 was one of Intel's attempts to get away from x86, but it
>> It failed? They sold a metric buttload of them, and they were used
>> in all sorts of applications. Same with the i960. Same with about
>> 5-10 other architectures.
> It failed perhaps because it had enough problems that it didn't make
> it in its target market. Of course, are we really sure what Intel was
>> Saying it "failed" because it never became their biggest seller is
>> like saying every other model of car from Ford "failed" because it
>> didn't out-sell the Escort.
> Probably depends on how you view it. I don't think Intel really was
> targeting the embedded market, but that seem to be the only place it
> a success.
I just have a hard time looking at at product which sold huge numbers
of units and saying it "failed".
Perhaps this is just a matter of the redefinition of the term
"failed" to mean "didn't replace x86"...which it wasn't designed to do
in the first place!
Intel has built a LOT of processors and processor architectures, many
of which had nothing to do with x86, were never designed to compete
with x86, and were highly successful products...and some of those
non-x86-related Intel architectures are *still* quite successful...Take
the 8051 microcontroller for example, circa 1980. It is shipping today
in excess of *one million chips per DAY*.
Do we call it a failure, though, because Microsoft didn't port
Windows to it and you can't buy whiz-bang plastic desktop computers
based on them in WalMart?
Dave McGuire "PC users only know two 'solutions'...
Cape Coral, FL reboot and upgrade." -Jonathan Patschke
More information about the rescue