Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:30:47 -0500 (EST)
From: david@carrera.columbus.sgi.com (David Watters)
Message-Id: <9901191030.ZM37783@carrera.columbus.sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: dmanddmer <dmerchan@hiwaay.net>
        "Re: linus.linux.sgi.com" (Jan 19,  5:21am)
References: <369F8C88.39CC6B03@infopact.nl> 
	<199901151909.LAA23245@oz.engr.sgi.com> 
	<19990115225918.25643@uni-koblenz.de> 
	<199901160321.TAA11493@dm.cobaltmicro.com> 
	<36A40CBE.F55CA9F1@detroit.sgi.com> 
	<199901190519.VAA17644@dm.cobaltmicro.com> 
	<36A46AAE.16FDA4C9@hiwaay.net>
To: dmanddmer <dmerchan@hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: linus.linux.sgi.com
Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

On Jan 19,  5:21am, dmanddmer wrote:
> Subject: Re: linus.linux.sgi.com
> Personally, since SGI made the questionable decision to port to NT, I
> wish they would commit to AMD's processors instead of Intels.

SGI couldn't.  SGI had to replace so much of the IA/440xx chipset that there
had to be a prettty big agreement with Intel covering a lot of issues,
machines, processors, and markets to allow SGI to, for example, implement
the frontside bus in their own chipset.  Don't forget all those Co'op
marketing dollars too. -dong ^dong -dong ^^dong

> Porting to NT alone is probably not enough to save the company.  It
> didn't work for Intergraph.

Yeah, but Intergraph is lame so they had that working against them too. :)


-- 
David Watters         |                 Silicon*Graphics 
Systems Engineer      |                http://www.sgi.com/ 
Silicon Graphics, Inc.|    http://reality.sgi.com/davester/  (6/13/97) 
david.watters@sgi.com |  1.800.800.SGI1 (Sales) 1.800.800.4SGI (Support) 
DID 1.614.844.3820    |   http://www.nintendo.com/ (N64, the $130 SGI!)