Timeline for Why did DEC develop Alpha instead of continuing with MIPS?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2020 at 22:07 | comment | added | David Tonhofer | @ShadowRanger I aggree! I should have said "nobody was worried about x86" (which was perceived as running out of steam) but (as a counterpoint) people were worried about IA64. Sorry for the unclarity (Amazingly, nobody was ever worried about i860). | |
| Dec 9, 2020 at 13:46 | comment | added | ShadowRanger | @DavidTonhofer: Well, IA-64 isn't x86 (IA-64 == Itanium, another almost dead architecture), so that doesn't invalidate the original quote. People were worried about other Intel products, but not x86. | |
| Dec 9, 2020 at 12:36 | comment | added | Walter Mitty | The future's not ours to see. Lo que sera, sera. | |
| Dec 8, 2020 at 22:51 | comment | added | David Tonhofer | "nobody was worried about x86 dominating high end computing" Actually at some point in the late 90s all the popular "Business IT" magazines started to have covers about how IA-64 would take over the world real soon now, leaving dead Alphas, Sparc, PA_RISC, ARM, Motorola, and RS6000 in its wake. It was pretty outrageous. Wads of cash must have been hitting the editorial offices. | |
| Dec 8, 2020 at 14:09 | comment | added | RonJohn |
"would have been like a vineyard giving up on making their own wine". I think you've got the analogy backwards. Should be "would have been like a winery giving up on growing their own grapes."
|
|
| Dec 8, 2020 at 1:05 | history | answered | wrosecrans | CC BY-SA 4.0 |