From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by neteng.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id HAA31155 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:39:31 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id HAA64294 for linux-list; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:38:34 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from dataserv.columbus.sgi.com (dataserv.columbus.sgi.com [169.238.139.130]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via SMTP id HAA68024 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:38:32 -0800 (PST) mail_from (david@carrera.columbus.sgi.com) Received: from carrera.columbus.sgi.com by dataserv.columbus.sgi.com via ESMTP (951211.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH1502/930416.SGI) id KAA22488; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:38:29 -0500 Received: (from david@localhost) by carrera.columbus.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id KAA23239; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:30:47 -0500 (EST) 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 "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> X-Mailer: Z-Mail-SGI (3.2S.3 08feb96 MediaMail) To: dmanddmer 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!)