Is Itanium the first 64-bit casualty?

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/...nterwin_1.html

Yousuf Khan

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

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

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 07:54:12 GMT, (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...ium_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??

(Yousuf Khan) wrote in
om:

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/...nterwin_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

In article ,
Warren Spencer 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.

"Nate Edel" wrote in message
...
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan 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

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

del cecchi wrote:

"Nate Edel" wrote in message
...

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan 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 .

"AD." 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

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