Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Interesting reading here, and very common-sense. Itanium may be the next
casualty in the 64-bit wars, when Itanium was the one that caused the 64-bit
wars to start in the first place.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/25/26enterwin_1.html

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

>Interesting reading here, and very common-sense.

Pretty much lacking on the factual side, and nothing new in the rest
of it.

Why'd you cross-post so widely?

Followups away from comp.arch.

-- greg
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 07:54:12 GMT, lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) wrote:

>>Interesting reading here, and very common-sense.
>
>Pretty much lacking on the factual side, and nothing new in the rest
>of it.

Yes, I'm curious why he mentioned none of the known hard facts. I guess
the ones like this
http://www.ptc.com/partners/hardware/current/itanium_letter.htm didn't want
to be held up as examples of the iNfidel.:) "Decertification" sounds
kinda serious coming from a major workstation software vendor. I wonder
how long before customers umm, decertify 32-bit only x-86 systems.

>Why'd you cross-post so widely?
>
>Followups away from comp.arch.

RD&H?

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
> Interesting reading here, and very common-sense. Itanium may be the next
> casualty in the 64-bit wars, when Itanium was the one that caused the 64-bit
> wars to start in the first place.

Errr... hype about Itanium may have brought the interest from the Unix world
to the destkop, but Dec and Sun both came closer to getting Alpha and
UltraSparc on the desktop than Intel's come to putting Itanic there.

The 64-bit war for the desktop is still a non-starter; right you can either
get software without consumer hardware (Windows for Itanic) or consumer
hardware without a mass-market OS (x86-64).

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Wanted: One .Sig-quote. Must work cheap."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

bbbl67@ezrs.com (Yousuf Khan) wrote in
<ur6Dc.4$6sE1.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>:

>Interesting reading here, and very common-sense. Itanium may be the next
>casualty in the 64-bit wars, when Itanium was the one that caused the
>64-bit wars to start in the first place.
>
>http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/25/26enterwin_1.html
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

Perhaps this is the first case of a processor acting as a catalyst: The
Itanium sparked the 64-bit-for-consumer trend, but isn't actually going to
take part in it ;-)

ws
--
Warren Spencer
Senior Software Engineer
The Associated Press
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <9516A4D51wspenceraporg@216.168.3.30>,
Warren Spencer <wspencer@ap.dontspamme.org> wrote:
>
>Perhaps this is the first case of a processor acting as a catalyst: The
>Itanium sparked the 64-bit-for-consumer trend, but isn't actually going to
>take part in it ;-)

Yer whaa?

It was INTENDED to do that - back in 1994, it was intended to replace
x86 in the consumer market by 2001 - but NO WAY did it have a significant
influence on it. The trend was due to the passage of time, involving
Moore's law and Gates's law (bloatware expands at 60% per annum), and
the main chips that started 64-bit use by consumers were the SPARC
and PowerPC. And they didn't have much influence on that market.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:23s6r1xcjn.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
> > Interesting reading here, and very common-sense. Itanium may be the
next
> > casualty in the 64-bit wars, when Itanium was the one that caused
the 64-bit
> > wars to start in the first place.
>
> Errr... hype about Itanium may have brought the interest from the Unix
world
> to the destkop, but Dec and Sun both came closer to getting Alpha and
> UltraSparc on the desktop than Intel's come to putting Itanic there.
>
> The 64-bit war for the desktop is still a non-starter; right you can
either
> get software without consumer hardware (Windows for Itanic) or
consumer
> hardware without a mass-market OS (x86-64).
>
> --
Or you can get both, Apple G5. duh.

del cecchi
 

cjt

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
440
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

del cecchi wrote:

> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
> news:23s6r1xcjn.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
>
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Interesting reading here, and very common-sense. Itanium may be the
>
> next
>
>>>casualty in the 64-bit wars, when Itanium was the one that caused
>
> the 64-bit
>
>>>wars to start in the first place.
>>
>>Errr... hype about Itanium may have brought the interest from the Unix
>
> world
>
>>to the destkop, but Dec and Sun both came closer to getting Alpha and
>>UltraSparc on the desktop than Intel's come to putting Itanic there.
>>
>>The 64-bit war for the desktop is still a non-starter; right you can
>
> either
>
>>get software without consumer hardware (Windows for Itanic) or
>
> consumer
>
>>hardware without a mass-market OS (x86-64).
>>
>>--
>
> Or you can get both, Apple G5. duh.
>
> del cecchi
>
>

64 bit really isn't useful for typical (or even most atypical) desktops,
anyway.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <23s6r1xcjn.ln2@mail.sfchat.org>, archmage@sfchat.org
says...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
> > Interesting reading here, and very common-sense. Itanium may be the next
> > casualty in the 64-bit wars, when Itanium was the one that caused the 64-bit
> > wars to start in the first place.
>
> Errr... hype about Itanium may have brought the interest from the Unix world
> to the destkop, but Dec and Sun both came closer to getting Alpha and
> UltraSparc on the desktop than Intel's come to putting Itanic there.
>
> The 64-bit war for the desktop is still a non-starter; right you can either
> get software without consumer hardware (Windows for Itanic) or consumer
> hardware without a mass-market OS (x86-64).
>
If "mass market" == Windows, sure. Linux runs AMD64 quite well. SuSE
9.1 is running on an Opteron quite happily at home.

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Nate Edel wrote:

(snip)

> The 64-bit war for the desktop is still a non-starter; right you can either
> get software without consumer hardware (Windows for Itanic) or consumer
> hardware without a mass-market OS (x86-64).

There is Windows (2003 server, I believe) for x86-64.

There is even a free 1 year evaluation version available.

-- glen
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:iihEc.130267$HG.98476@attbi_s53...
> Nate Edel wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > The 64-bit war for the desktop is still a non-starter; right you can
either
> > get software without consumer hardware (Windows for Itanic) or consumer
> > hardware without a mass-market OS (x86-64).
>
> There is Windows (2003 server, I believe) for x86-64.
>
> There is even a free 1 year evaluation version available.
>
> -- glen

Not a released product, just a beta. And it is for AMD64 - apparently it
doesn't work with the Intel flavour yet. (lack of IOMMU hardware?)

Peter
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:34:17 -0500, del cecchi wrote:

> Or you can get both, Apple G5. duh.

Exactly what 64bit capabilities does Panther have? That's just a question,
I don't really know :)

I was under the impression that Apple won't have a 'proper' 64bit OS
until Tiger (10.4) early next year.

Cheers
Anton
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"AD." <me@privacy.net> writes:

> Exactly what 64bit capabilities does Panther have? That's just a
> question, I don't really know :)

Certainly not a 64-bit memory model.

> I was under the impression that Apple won't have a 'proper' 64bit
> OS until Tiger (10.4) early next year.

Which was just previewed yesterday at Apple's WWDC 2004. Apple will
be going to an LP64 model in "Tiger":

http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/64bit.html

Apple's development tools also have support for "Fat Binaries":
allowing for both 32- and 64-bit instructions in the same
executable. I've heard it mentioned that the binary format would also
allow different architecture code (e.g., both PowerPC and x86) in the
same binary as well.

So we'll have UltraSPARC, 'AMD64' and PowerPC as the most popular
64-bit platforms?

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips del cecchi <dcecchi.nojunk@att.net> wrote:
> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
> > The 64-bit war for the desktop is still a non-starter; right you can
> > either get software without consumer hardware (Windows for Itanic) or
> > consumer hardware without a mass-market OS (x86-64).
>
> Or you can get both, Apple G5. duh.

Well, you can kinda-sorta get the OS on the G5, as others have noted. And
Apple, while consumer hardware, is only kinda-sorta in the mass-market game.
Even within the Apple market, are the G5s down throughout the line yet, or
are they just the top-end model?

The educational-priced Sun Blade 100 was under $1000 well before the G5s
shipped, and Solaris 9 personal licenses are free. That doesn't make Solaris
on UltraSparc (or the UDB/Multia Alphas, long long ago) any more of a
mass-market 64-bit platform.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Wanted: One .Sig-quote. Must work cheap."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Nate Edel wrote:
> (snip)
> > The 64-bit war for the desktop is still a non-starter; right you can either
> > get software without consumer hardware (Windows for Itanic) or consumer
> > hardware without a mass-market OS (x86-64).
>
> There is Windows (2003 server, I believe) for x86-64.
> There is even a free 1 year evaluation version available.

Unless it's shipped quite recently when I wasn't looking, it's still a
beta/pre-release version of the software.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Wanted: One .Sig-quote. Must work cheap."
 

rush

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
214
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote :

> I suppose if you write bad enough code, you need that much linear
> memory for essentially parallel tasks. But typical applications
> don't.

Its not the code, its data.


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Warren Spencer <wspencer@ap.dontspamme.org> wrote:
> Perhaps this is the first case of a processor acting as a catalyst:
> The Itanium sparked the 64-bit-for-consumer trend, but isn't actually
> going to take part in it ;-)

Interesting way of looking at it, I'll admit.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Nate Edel <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote:
> Well, you can kinda-sorta get the OS on the G5, as others have noted.
> And Apple, while consumer hardware, is only kinda-sorta in the
> mass-market game. Even within the Apple market, are the G5s down
> throughout the line yet, or are they just the top-end model?

Does AIX which runs on Power4 chips work on the G5?

Yousuf Khan
 

cjt

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
440
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

RusH wrote:

> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote :
>
>
>>I suppose if you write bad enough code, you need that much linear
>>memory for essentially parallel tasks. But typical applications
>>don't.
>
>
> Its not the code, its data.

Precisely.
>
>
> Pozdrawiam.


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On 2004-06-30, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
>
> Does AIX which runs on Power4 chips work on the G5?

Not yet, but IBM plans to support AIX on the BladeCenter JS20 (ppc970) in
the third quarter of 2004. Don't know if that means it will run on
apple/non-ibm machines..



-jf
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:26:07 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Tony Hill wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:52:23 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>I suppose if you write bad enough code, you need that much linear
>>>memory for essentially parallel tasks. But typical applications
>>>don't.
>>
>>
>> Not bad code, just LOTS of graphics. Eye candy and graphics seems to
>> be what sells in video games for the most part, so I expect that we'll
>> see the data set for games continue to expand at a rather prodigious
>> rate.
>>
>
>Sure, but that stuff doesn't need a linear address space. Segments
>work just fine.

Segments? Ya mean like PAE?!?! Not a chance in hell! Do this the
*RIGHT* way, ie 64-bit flat linear address space, not some
ugly-as-all-hell kludge!

64-bit may not be NEEDED to get more than 2GB (3GB in some cases) of
memory space, but it's the RIGHT way to do it. All the other
solutions are way more trouble than their worth.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <MPG.1b4b7080294c8bd898969c@news.individual.net>,
Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>In article <23s6r1xcjn.ln2@mail.sfchat.org>, archmage@sfchat.org
>says...
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
>> > Interesting reading here, and very common-sense. Itanium may be the next
>> > casualty in the 64-bit wars, when Itanium was the one that caused the 64-bit
>> > wars to start in the first place.
>>
>> Errr... hype about Itanium may have brought the interest from the Unix world
>> to the destkop, but Dec and Sun both came closer to getting Alpha and
>> UltraSparc on the desktop than Intel's come to putting Itanic there.
>>
>> The 64-bit war for the desktop is still a non-starter; right you can either
>> get software without consumer hardware (Windows for Itanic) or consumer
>> hardware without a mass-market OS (x86-64).
>>
>If "mass market" == Windows, sure. Linux runs AMD64 quite well. SuSE
>9.1 is running on an Opteron quite happily at home.

The Debian port appears to be up and running as well. (ie, actually
usable, with a relatively simple install, rather than the install from
hell of a month or two ago). It's a pure-64 bit port -- if you want to
run 32 bit binaries then you'll need to install a 32-bit Debian in a
chroot. (Fortunately, debootstrap makes this a one-liner).

Phil



--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:06:51 +0100, phil@kantaka.co.uk (Philip
Armstrong) wrote:
>In article <MPG.1b4b7080294c8bd898969c@news.individual.net>,
>Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>If "mass market" == Windows, sure. Linux runs AMD64 quite well. SuSE
>>9.1 is running on an Opteron quite happily at home.
>
>The Debian port appears to be up and running as well. (ie, actually
>usable, with a relatively simple install, rather than the install from
>hell of a month or two ago). It's a pure-64 bit port -- if you want to
>run 32 bit binaries then you'll need to install a 32-bit Debian in a
>chroot. (Fortunately, debootstrap makes this a one-liner).

That's the last of 'em then. It looks like EVERY major Linux
distribution has managed to beat Microsoft to market with a usable
AMD64/x86-64 operating system (at least as long as you don't count
Slackware as a "major distribution", which most people don't these
days). SuSE, RedHat, Mandrake, Gentoo, Turbolinux and now Debian are
all out there now. Debian's distribution is still in the "unstable"
stream, but those who know Debian should know that Debian "unstable"
is roughly equivalent to pre-SP1 release of Windows rather than a beta
version.

Ohh, and FreeBSD and OpenBSD also have full support for AMD64 as well.
Kind of makes you wonder just what the heck is taking MS so long?!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:fts5e0536f09o7c2cj6g0no6jomnvre9u2@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:06:51 +0100, phil@kantaka.co.uk (Philip
> Armstrong) wrote:
> >In article <MPG.1b4b7080294c8bd898969c@news.individual.net>,
> >Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> >>>
> >>If "mass market" == Windows, sure. Linux runs AMD64 quite well. SuSE
> >>9.1 is running on an Opteron quite happily at home.
> >
> >The Debian port appears to be up and running as well. (ie, actually
> >usable, with a relatively simple install, rather than the install from
> >hell of a month or two ago). It's a pure-64 bit port -- if you want to
> >run 32 bit binaries then you'll need to install a 32-bit Debian in a
> >chroot. (Fortunately, debootstrap makes this a one-liner).
>
> That's the last of 'em then. It looks like EVERY major Linux
> distribution has managed to beat Microsoft to market with a usable
> AMD64/x86-64 operating system (at least as long as you don't count
> Slackware as a "major distribution", which most people don't these
> days). SuSE, RedHat, Mandrake, Gentoo, Turbolinux and now Debian are
> all out there now. Debian's distribution is still in the "unstable"
> stream, but those who know Debian should know that Debian "unstable"
> is roughly equivalent to pre-SP1 release of Windows rather than a beta
> version.
>
> Ohh, and FreeBSD and OpenBSD also have full support for AMD64 as well.
> Kind of makes you wonder just what the heck is taking MS so long?!

What is taking them so long? Answer = Intel! If 64-bit was such a big deal
for consumers, we would be looking at Itanium Workstations. 64-bit = not
big deal = why MS hasn't pushed it very hard. Wait for Intel's 80+ percent
market share to join in and then release something for OEM's to sell their
i64 and AMD64 systems. It's a very smart business move.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Warren Spencer wrote:
> bbbl67@ezrs.com (Yousuf Khan) wrote in
> <ur6Dc.4$6sE1.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>:
>
>
>>Interesting reading here, and very common-sense. Itanium may be the next
>>casualty in the 64-bit wars, when Itanium was the one that caused the
>>64-bit wars to start in the first place.
>>
>>http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/25/26enterwin_1.html
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>
>
> Perhaps this is the first case of a processor acting as a catalyst: The

No, quite definitely not the first. Plenty of architectures out there
that died a quiet death and were resurrected in another form for other
markets. :)

> Itanium sparked the 64-bit-for-consumer trend, but isn't actually going to
> take part in it ;-)

Much as I hate to say it : I think the Alpha did, NT was first ported
the Alpha/MIPS/PowerPC. IA-64 came much later. In practice I only saw
NT on Alpha actually in production, which is why I didn't say MIPS. :/

Worth noting that DEC did initially point Alpha at Embedded and low
end workstation space, and they continued their spasmodic efforts to
push it at the desktop for a long time.

Alpha appears to have had quite a large "Open Source" user base for a
long time, but that doesn't really count as consumer. However a lot of
that 64bit clean push was accomplished with Alphas, and that lowered
the barrier of entry for vendors of 64bit gear.

Cheers,
Rupert