Itanium

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
Win2K is definately a better operating system than Windows has been in the past.

I've been using it at work and it has been rock solid and much better than every other MS Windows OS ever made... With one exception that really is more of an issue with VIA than it is with the software.

I would have to reccomend the upgrade to Win2k for anyone who is presently running Win9x or WinNT. The only complaints that I do have with it is that it's made the DOS command promt funky and that it's a memory/hard drive eating monster.

As for the Itanium, it sounds like the server chip that everyone has been wanting for years. :)

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
 

mpjesse

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
7,214
0
25,810
6
Well, GENIUS, FYI people have tested it. Maybe you should pay a little more attention to recent benchmarks on other websites. You know, not everything is on Tom's website. And, believe it or not GENIUS, board makers care about how much space a chip takes up. The more space it takes, the more engineering and money they have to spend. Another thing, GENIUS, a big CPU means a big heatsink- which will spiral the cost of a heatsink/fan. Got it, GENIUS?


-MP Jesse
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
1) I really don't want to go into the whole thing again, but no one bloody gives a hoot about how much Itanium and it's supporting hardware will cost because it's a server chip and anyone who can't afford it won't be needing it in the first place. And anyone who does complain about the price really only proves that they are poor. Since poor people don't run servers, they simply don't count. :p

2) I haven't gone searching for reviews on the Itanium because frankly it's more a curiosity to me than anything else since I KNOW I won't be able to afford it. I, as are many other people in this world, am poor. So I really don't NEED TO KNOW RIGHT THIS SECOND how well it performs. And besides, I never trust revies on engineering samples. I wait for the actual production unit, as any intelligent person who takes hardware seriously would.

3) I know I'm a genius. :) And I'm sure so does everyone else. So you don't have to make it so obvious or else other people might start to get jealous. The last thing I need is to be a genius AND popular. Then I'd never have time for ANYTHING. :)

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
 

Grizely1

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
7,810
0
30,780
0
"I need one too, so I can bash the head-in of the person who made this thread so unreadable."

LOL! That was seroiusly funny. I wonder who it was that made this thread the way it is........ :wink:
 

Grizely1

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
7,810
0
30,780
0
I quote things so freakin' retards like you know who I am replying to. Before I started everyone (including you) were like "I NEVER SAID THAT" and stuff. Just a little help for you people still in Grade 3. :smile:
 

mpjesse

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
7,214
0
25,810
6
Well, when Sledgehammer and Itanium start competing you can guarantee that corporations are going to care about cost. And you can bet that AMD's solution to IA64 will be cheaper.

Look, my point to my last post was that you don't have to be such an ass to make a point. So quit with the sarcasim and insults.

-MP Jesse
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
For about 50% of the server market, performance will be the ONLY issue. For another 30% of the server market, a balance of performance vs. price will be the issue. The remaining dinky 20% will be the only ones that really care about price. And those are the ones likely to be using dual P3-733s with IDE RAID or something similarly cheap but effective anyway, so they wouldn't be likely to consider either the Sledgehammer or the Itanium. Anyone can correct me if my figures are wrong.

Frankly, the server market is absolutely nothing like the PC desktop market. People don't care about price. They care about providing the highest possible bandwidth and speed to their users, end of story. At least this is according to a friend of mine who has worked as both a military and civilian network admin, which is where I get the majority of my information from regarding servers since he's dealt with just about everything under the sun. (No puns intended.)

And as for insults and sarcasm, if they hadn't been deserved I wouldn't have used them. :p

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
 

mpjesse

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
7,214
0
25,810
6
That's BS. I'm a technology consultant for the Dept. of Defense/Dept. of the Army. Each unit or division is given a budget to go buy- and now-a-days the budgets are VERY small. Servers and computers are low on the tree in terms of priority for the Army. That makes the budget EVEN smaller. Hell, half the damn military is still running on P166's from Gateway and Micron, and get this- they're all running WinNT 4. The military DOES care about the price of technology- and they go for the cheapest bidder. And the way it looks right now, Intel will not be the cheapest bidder.

-MP Jesse
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS