> Remember GPul ...

I purposely ignored this reference the first time you gave it, but as you keep coming back with it, I'll react:
It's actually a good example, as the cut-down POWER4 with added AltiVec was not the server chip POWER4 anymore, but the desktop/workstation chip PPC970. So why do you think a cut-down PowerEN with added AltiVec or VMX128 would still be a PowerEN (remember, "EN" means "Edge of Network") and not something else with a new name, especially since what makes the PowerEN a PowerEN and differentiates it from other chips with the very same cores is what's on the chip *besides* the PPC cores, i.e. the on-chip peripherals that make the PowerEN a hybrid networking/server chip? And that's not even taking into account that adding AltiVec or VMX128 to what's currently the A2 core would make it something else than the A2 core.
To summarize: If you remove most of the on-chip peripherals from the PowerEN chip, you have no PowerEN chip anymore, but a new chip that happens to be based on the same A2 cores (refer to Power BQC for another chip that is based on A2 cores but is no PowerEN). And if you went even further adding AltiVec or VMX128 to what's known as the A2 core, it wouldn't be the A2 core anymore.
And all that removing and adding things from/to chips and cores wouldn't change anything in the devkits that had already been shipped before with, say, a PowerEN chip with AltiVec-less A2 cores, same way existing POWER4 machines didn't magically turn into PPC970 machines.
It may be, as minator suggests, that the Durango devkits have the existing PowerEN chip with AltiVec-less A2 cores (I don't believe that though). And it may very well be that IBM is about to take the A2 core, add an AltiVec or VMX128 unit to it, put several of those new cores together with some glue logic and on-chip peripherals suited for gaming consoles and voila, have the chip for Microsoft's new console. However, calling such new chip a 'PowerEN chip with added AltiVec/VMX128' is pure nonsense.