1 Apr
2009
1 Apr
'09
3:15 p.m.
In article <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904011134221.27834 at slate.spiritone.com>,
"Zane H. Healy" <healyzh at aracnet.com> writes:
SGI ceased to be relavent when they stoped producing
MIPS-based
workstations.
SGI ceased to be relevant when they gave up trying to make graphics
products for PCs. NVidia and ATI ate their lunch by gobbling up all
the low to mid range demand for graphics, leaving only the very high
end visualization systems for SGI. That's enough to run a company,
but not enough to float a company the size of SGI at the time.
Had they ported IRIX to Itanium, they would have been
able to
differentiate themselves from the rest of the marketplace. Of course
we've seen how well that is working for Sun. :-(
This confuses SGI with a generic computing platform vendor. Of
course, one coudl argue that SGI confused itself for a generic
computing vendor.
SGI never made the transition to PCs. Once they gave up attempting to
do things for PC graphics, their talent was bled off by NVidia and ATI
and the end was already fortold by that time.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>