> It didn't take off because of economies of scale and Intel not really wanting to introduce a big x86/x64 competitor. Intel invested heavily into Itanium, and

> It didn't take off because of economies of scale and Intel not really wanting to introduce a big x86/x64 competitor. Intel invested heavily into Itanium, and the 90s started seeing the deaths of competing processor architectures in part because of how hyped up the Intel Itanium was getting. It was intended to be the 64-bit version of x86, hence the abbreviation IA-64. AMD was the one who created what we now know as x86-64, and my understanding is that Microsoft more or less forced Intel to implement AMD's x86-64 specification. In its later years (let's say by 2010, since that's the midpoint of Itanium's life as a shipping product, but I don't have any clear dates as to when the shift happens), it does seem to be that Intel was reluctant to continue supporting Itanium. But that was definitely not the case beforehand.