Intel hasn't only been concentrating on making x86 live forever. They also have Itanium (Now Itanium 2), their clean slate 64 bit CPU design. They wanted everyone to move to that as the new 64 bit future of computing. Unfortunately for them, it's never sold all that well. AMD recognized that while the market values innovation, it values compatibility even more--so Opteron/AMD64 has been a great success. Intel responded late with the inferior EMT64 which will probably be successful only because it sports the Intel logo. In an ideal world, we'd all be running DEC's fantastic Alpha chip which Compaq (Now HP) allowed to die. AMD wisely incorporated part of that technology, Hypertransport, in their chips. I'd read great things about IBM's new generation Power chips but apparently, they couldn't get the heat/power consumption down. A few years ago, that might have been OK but things are increasingly moving to mobile platforms today and do everything laptops. You can't have your sexy PowerBook hooked up to an extension cord so sayonara IBM, hello Intel. I don't think anyone would have predicted the longevity of the x86 platform but look at how long things like COBOL have survived. If moving to new computer technology were as simple as say remastering vinyl records to CDs it would be different. Moving working code to an entirely new architecture is a lot harder and riskier. As long as you can get better performance from faster versions of the same platform, there's little incentive to switch. Of course, IBM is now betting that their new Cell processor will be the next great thing. From the Playstation to a workstation--I suppose stranger things have happened.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken