Re: end of Intel?

On 22/02/2025 1:35 pm, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 01:01:49 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
 

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>
>
https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/20/intel_carveup/
>
https://siliconangle.com/2025/02/18/silver-lake-set-buy-majority-stake-intels-altera-programmable-chip-business/
>
Intel has tried so many things that failed. DRAM, bubble memory, CISC,
RISC, ARM, EUV, and now Altera.
>
All they ever did successfully was x86, basically the ancient 8008 (or
maybe 4004) architecture.
>
>

>
They used to be very good at making chips, till they fell on their faces at
the 10-nm node.
>
A generally unpleasant outfit to deal with.
>
Cheers
>
Phil Hobbs

 x86 was a primitive dog of an architecture that Intel applied a ton of
complexity and process to. RISC makes more sense, and Intel is behind
on process now.
 Imagine a CPU that allows stack overflow to punch a hole in code
space. Imagine executing data.
 Intel was a branch of The Traitorous Eight, a founding member of the
treacherous Silicon Valley culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitorous_eight
William Shockley wasn't an attractive character, and he alienated the treacherous eight by persisting with an ill-chosen line of research.
Fairchild Semiconductor was remarkably productive and spawned a number of very successful companies - Intel and National Semiconductor and later Linear Technology come to mind.
The move fast and break things culture has its weaknesses, but Silicon Valley is one of its success stories.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney