Interesting read about upcoming K9 processors

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 05:49:44 +0000, Dean Kent wrote:

I am finding it harder and harder to believe that Intel said anything about
replacing x86 with IA-64 in the 1996 and beyond timeframe (might have said

For all.

Who really gives a ****.:-)

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 05:49:44 +0000, Dean Kent wrote:

I am finding it harder and harder to believe that Intel said anything about
replacing x86 with IA-64 in the 1996 and beyond timeframe (might have said

Hell, I saw it predicted in 1979, Now that I've removed the group I read
from this crossposted rediculous thread, have at it.:-)

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Wes Newell wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 05:49:44 +0000, Dean Kent wrote:


I am finding it harder and harder to believe that Intel said anything about
replacing x86 with IA-64 in the 1996 and beyond timeframe (might have said


For all.

Who really gives a ****.:-)


My sentiments exactly! This dead horse has been beat so much there's
nothing left to bury! Probably nothing the buzzards could subsist on
either!!

Hank Oredson wrote:
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
.rogers.com...
Hank Oredson wrote:
But the fact that I think these things is probably rather
uninteresting, since I cannot produce any actual
documents that say the specific things I think will be true ;-)

Well, now the historical documents have been produced.


Where are they?

Read the rest of the thread(s).

Yousuf Khan

In article ers.com,
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Patrick Schaaf wrote:
Would it be plausible that initially, Hyperthreading (two threads) was
invented so one IA-32 and one IA-64 process could share the processor
at the same time, different decoders feeding the same trace cache and
execution resources?

It's possible but we have no way of knowing that right now. Anyways, that
would sound more like dual-processing than Hyperthreading.

That is understating the case. No, that hypothesis is not plausible.

Hyperthreading is so intimate that it would be foul to implement for
two architectures as different as x86 and IA64. The sane approach
would be two separate CPUs with a shared Lx cache on the same die.
I have hypothesised that a FUTURE Intel design may be a Crusoe-like
one where two logical CPUs could be x86 and IA64, but even then I
suspect that it won't run both at once.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
rs.com...
Hank Oredson wrote:
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
.rogers.com...
Hank Oredson wrote:
But the fact that I think these things is probably rather
uninteresting, since I cannot produce any actual
documents that say the specific things I think will be true ;-)

Well, now the historical documents have been produced.


Where are they?

Read the rest of the thread(s).


I found no documents, nor any URLs to documents.

If there are other threads, whast are they?

I only read one of the groups this troll was cross posted
to, so perhaps those documents were in some other group?

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net

You're not going to find any viable links in this thread because all
that are participating, or throwing their 2 cents worth in, are either
"armchair quarterbacks" or "**** house lawyers", or whatever you want to
call them, and none of them really know their ass from a hole in the
ground!!!

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 04:17:33 +0000, Dean Kent wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 08:55:56 +0200, Jan Vorbrüggen wrote:

Ah so... If an application I bought yesterday doesn't work today, it's
*my* fault? I don't think IBM became a giant with that attitude.

Well, that isn't the only reason IBM became a giant.

Actually, Dean, yes it is. SOftware that's lost its source decades ago
still runs. Software rules enterprise hardware, not the other way around.
I'm really surprised, given your background that you don't understand
simple reality. IBM's FS was still-born precisely because backwards
compatablility is far more important than hardware.



There were a bunch of
salespeople, and some rather draconian contracts before the anti-trust
lawsuits.

Oh, Pkease Dean! This all stopped dead with the '56 consent decree.
Neither of us were in the business (I was almost ready for kindergarten
and I doubt you were alive_ when this was entered into.

I can recall when I worked at ADP in 1978/79 that IBM threatened
to cancel the lease and yank the 370/155 if the 3203 printers were
replaced with a competitors.

There was obviously far more to it than that. The OEMI interface was a
standard long before (see above). Printers were not part of the system.
Yes, I'm calling you misinformed (benefit of the doubt given, reluctantly).

I left there in 1980, and when I went back
they had replaced the entire system with one from a company called
Magnuson (or something to that effect). Needless to say, they were
*not* happy with IBM tactics.

The allowable "tactics" were well laid out by the '56 consent decree.

I also recall some interesting
interactions when Amdahl sold them a half-meg memory upgrade. IBM
refused to allow Amdahl to touch the box, and IBM would not touch the
Amdahl unit - so our system programmer had to hook everything up.

My bet is that the box was leased. Otherwise you were free to have anyone
blow it up. Yes, there were *many* problems with add-on memory. Some
understood, some not so. In any case GM doesn't warrant a Ford engine in
thier cars. If you blow the tranny, too bad.


Yeah, IBM has always been your friend. ;-).

Has always worked for me! ;-)

You really believe they care? Why don't they patch Win2K without
having to sign up for a XPish license agreement? Come on! What's with
the XP license anyway? Yes, and next year you'll rent the OS. ...good
plan this "security" is.

Hmm. At my job we 'rent' the OS we run today from IBM - I think it is
called zOS. Perhaps that is why IBM became a giant, too? ;-).

I know you dropped out of the groups for a while. Perhaps you were having
a lobotomy? IBM hasn't been able to force *anyone* to lease since the
'56 consent decree. If your management chooses to lease, then it's their
business decision. M$ will force everyone to "rent" their OS. Indeed
their data will no longer belong to them, if you believe the license
agreements. No, you're being "disingenuous" again Dean.

--
Keith

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 09:45:32 +0100, Ken Hagan wrote:

Keith wrote:

Then you really don't have a clue about this market.
These logos and the ability to claim compatability mean
*everything* to the market.

Am I part of that market?

If you have to ask that question, then no you certainly are not.

Speaking as a customer, I don't care whether it has some silly logo
on it. I *know*, from bitter experience, that I can buy graphics cards
from the likes of ATI or nVidea, put them on a Win2K or XP system,
and be unable to boot up because the driver faults.

That's the point. You are *not* M$'s customer. They don't sell to the
common folk like us. You get whatever they package to the company that
sells the box. You take the logo (and all that goes with it) because
everyone else does. Yes, the market (and by extension the marketeers)
really do care. You're forced to go along, as long as you use M$ products
(for which you are *not* the customer).

OK, I'm a developer so I'm using the debug kernel, but so should they be
-- where "they" are both "whoever wrote the driver" and "whoever gave it
the shiny logo". The fact that *clearly* *neither* have tried it on a
sufficiently wide range of PCs (I expect it is motherboard- dependent,
or something) tells me all I need to know about the Device Driver Tax.

I haven't a clue what you're rambling on about here.

Off the top of my head, I know of annoying but less serious problems
with Creative sound cards and just about anything from HP. (The latter
appear to sub-contract their driver writing, which may be relevant.)
Presumably this "certified" hardware does work on the vast majority of
systems. However, so does non-certified hardware. The logo isn't giving
us anything new.

Again, you aren't M$'s customer. Try working for an IHV sometime and see
how high you jump when M$ shouts. You really are naieve.

I'm also using the latest service pack, which may not have been around
at the time of certification, but whilst that may excuse the vendor and
WHQL, it hardly praises the team at MS who produce service packs and it
does point to a fundamental flaw in the certification process.

I don't think anyone is accusing M$ of being competent, only that they
make the rules.

When was the last time you saw a HPaQ/Dell/IBM/whatever
(non-whitebox) that didn't have a "designed for Win" logo.

The logo costs a few thousand (small beer for a major manufacturer) so
yes, it's a while since I saw a vendor of mainstream hardware who wasn't
displaying the logo. It probably comes out of the marketing budget and
is a relatively good return on investment in that sense.

You really are naieve. The cost of the qualification isn't the point.
It's the fact that you must follow the rules to even be considered. M$'s
rules. OTOH, I was a great fan when M$ ruled ISA out.

For more obscure hardware, the logo compliance would only cover
things
like "doesn't prevent booting up or hibernation" and "superficially
appears to let the demo app access the device without blue screening".
There's little point in getting the logo and for the (usually small)
companies concerned, the few thousand quid just isn't worth it. The
customers' purchasing decisions are based on very different criteria.

You really ought to sell some hardware into this segment sometime. You'll
see the process a tad differently.

--
Keith

Hank Oredson wrote:
Where are they?

Read the rest of the thread(s).


I found no documents, nor any URLs to documents.

If there are other threads, whast are they?

I only read one of the groups this troll was cross posted
to, so perhaps those documents were in some other group?

You didn't read the these archival webpages from 98 and 99?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1998/10...ield_to_split/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1998/10...ter_to_extend/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/04..._ia64_roadmap/

Basically, these are the examples of why the perception that Intel had said
that IA-64 would be replacing IA-32 sooner rather than later.

Yousuf Khan