> Intel has a long history of sucking, and other people stepping in to force them to get better. Their success has been accident and intervention over and over.

If one can take popular histories of Intel at face value, they have had enough accidental successes, avoided enough failures, and outright failed so many times that they really ought to know better.

The Itanium wasn't their first attempt to create an incompatible architecture, and it sounds like it was incredibly successful compared to the iAPX 432. Intel never intended to get into microprocessors, wanting to focus on memory instead. Yet they picked up a couple of contracts (which produced the 4004 and 8008) to survive until they reached their actual goal. Not only did it help the company at the time, but it proved essential to the survival of the company when the Japanese semiconductor industry nearly obliterated American memory manufacturers. On the flip side, the 8080 was source compatible with the 8008. Source compatibility would help sell it to users of the 8008. It sounds like the story behind the 8086 is similar, albeit with a twist: not only did it lead to Intel's success when it was adopted by IBM for the PC, but it was intended as a stopgap measure while the iAPX 432 was produced.

This, of course, is a much abbreviated list. It is also impossible to suggest where Intel would be if they made different decisions, since they produced an abundance of other products. We simply don't hear much about them because they were dwarfed by the 80x86 or simply didn't have the public profile of the 80x86 (for example: they produced some popular microcontrollers).

Windows NT also originally targeted a non-x86 CPU from Intel, the i860.