5 ms·
I'd be cautious about the use of "We Can't Save It" in the title of this article. This industry has a history of big players losing steam and then making big c
by jasoneckert 6y ago
I'd be cautious about the use of "We Can't Save It" in the title of this article. This industry has a history of big players losing steam and then making big comebacks.
- mhh__ 6y agoThat and if you asked 20 years ago what CPUs our desktops will be running, not only would Intel not necessarily have been a popular answer (Many compiler books were written around that time, giving us a guess as to what the academic groupthink was, and they generally treat x86 as a weird ISA soon-to-be obsolete or dead) but Intel's main architectural competitor (ARM) might not've even been mentioned at all.
- kristopolous 6y agoThe answer would have likely been SuperH and Transmeta, both way dead. Things change fast.
- Decade 6y agoI would not have guessed SuperH, but I did not use Dreamcast or Jornada. 32-bit CPU with 16-bit instructions seems weird. VLIW had a lot of hype. DSPs had already proven it, and Itanium, Transmeta, and various embedded processors were using it. As a mostly Mac-user back then, I liked PowerPC, and POWER3 was leading the way to 64-bit, but I wasn’t expecting PCs to switch to PowerPC. The RISC systems had not all been executed in the face of the not-yet-released threat of Itanium. I was expecting the diversity to continue, for cross-architecture programming to be the rule and not the exception.
- kllrnohj 6y agoIncluding Intel themselves, who came back from the Pentium 4 Prescott design disaster, late dual-core support, and late x86_64 support. And then promptly ate everyone's lunch with the Core 2 Duo and ruled unchallenged for a decade.
- badRNG 6y agoAnd, of course, including AMD.
- mrtweetyhack 6y agoAnd Apple
- kristopolous 6y agoI read the dying headline and all it says to me is "buy more Intel stock".