Good news for SPARC

In comp.unix.solaris Roger Marquis wrote:

The good news is that finally, after years of declining competitive
advantage, Sun is finally multi-sourcing the production of SPARC
processors.

This can only be good news for consumers as it paves the way for
faster, cheaper SPARC CPUs (still the fastest and most popular open
CPU architecture available).

I'm feeling giddy already.

-am © 2003

As reported in The Register (.uk)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33543.html:

The Nihon Keizai Shimbun is reporting that Sun and Fujitsu plan
to standardize their Unix server architectures and have a Fujitsu
subsidiary manufacture the gear. Both companies currently make
Sparc/Solaris servers, which would make combining their operations
a complementary move.

The good news is that finally, after years of declining competitive
advantage, Sun is finally multi-sourcing the production of SPARC
processors.

This can only be good news for consumers as it paves the way for
faster, cheaper SPARC CPUs (still the fastest and most popular open
CPU architecture available).

--
Roger Marquis
Roble Systems Consulting
http://www.roble.com/

Sheldon Simms wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:43:30 +0000, Roger Marquis wrote:


As reported in The Register (.uk)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33543.html:

The Nihon Keizai Shimbun is reporting that Sun and Fujitsu plan
to standardize their Unix server architectures and have a Fujitsu
subsidiary manufacture the gear. Both companies currently make
Sparc/Solaris servers, which would make combining their operations
a complementary move.

The good news is that finally, after years of declining competitive
advantage, Sun is finally multi-sourcing the production of SPARC
processors.

This can only be good news for consumers as it paves the way for
faster, cheaper SPARC CPUs (still the fastest and most popular open
CPU architecture available).


What exactly does "open" mean in this case?


I think it means not the captive of any one corporation.


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:43:30 +0000, Roger Marquis wrote:

As reported in The Register (.uk)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33543.html:

The Nihon Keizai Shimbun is reporting that Sun and Fujitsu plan
to standardize their Unix server architectures and have a Fujitsu
subsidiary manufacture the gear. Both companies currently make
Sparc/Solaris servers, which would make combining their operations
a complementary move.

The good news is that finally, after years of declining competitive
advantage, Sun is finally multi-sourcing the production of SPARC
processors.

This can only be good news for consumers as it paves the way for
faster, cheaper SPARC CPUs (still the fastest and most popular open
CPU architecture available).

What exactly does "open" mean in this case?

"CJT" wrote in message
...


Sheldon Simms wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:43:30 +0000, Roger Marquis wrote:


As reported in The Register (.uk)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33543.html:

The Nihon Keizai Shimbun is reporting that Sun and Fujitsu plan
to standardize their Unix server architectures and have a Fujitsu
subsidiary manufacture the gear. Both companies currently make
Sparc/Solaris servers, which would make combining their operations
a complementary move.

The good news is that finally, after years of declining competitive
advantage, Sun is finally multi-sourcing the production of SPARC
processors.

This can only be good news for consumers as it paves the way for
faster, cheaper SPARC CPUs (still the fastest and most popular open
CPU architecture available).


What exactly does "open" mean in this case?


I think it means not the captive of any one corporation.

Not true at all. Sun is already if not close to monopoly in the Sparc
market. I don't know how you define "open" but if you define it like this,
even Microsoft's Windows is "open"

Frank

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Sheldon Simms wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:43:30 +0000, Roger Marquis wrote:

This can only be good news for consumers as it paves the way for
faster, cheaper SPARC CPUs (still the fastest and most popular open
CPU architecture available).

What exactly does "open" mean in this case?

It means the opposite of proprietory. Intel's x86, contrary
to unimformed popular belief, is not an open archtecture.

For more details, see www.sparc.com, especially the FAQ.

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:55:00 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Sheldon Simms wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:43:30 +0000, Roger Marquis wrote:

This can only be good news for consumers as it paves the way for
faster, cheaper SPARC CPUs (still the fastest and most popular open
CPU architecture available).

What exactly does "open" mean in this case?

It means the opposite of proprietory. Intel's x86, contrary
to unimformed popular belief, is not an open archtecture.

I see. So although I can buy an x86 CPU from Intel, or AMD,
or Transmeta, or VIA, with SPARC I am somehow less bound to
one particular corporation (in some legal, if not practical,
sense)?

Godzilla wrote:

"CJT" wrote in message
...


Sheldon Simms wrote:


On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:43:30 +0000, Roger Marquis wrote:



As reported in The Register (.uk)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33543.html:

The Nihon Keizai Shimbun is reporting that Sun and Fujitsu plan
to standardize their Unix server architectures and have a Fujitsu
subsidiary manufacture the gear. Both companies currently make
Sparc/Solaris servers, which would make combining their operations
a complementary move.

The good news is that finally, after years of declining competitive
advantage, Sun is finally multi-sourcing the production of SPARC
processors.

This can only be good news for consumers as it paves the way for
faster, cheaper SPARC CPUs (still the fastest and most popular open
CPU architecture available).


What exactly does "open" mean in this case?



I think it means not the captive of any one corporation.


Not true at all. Sun is already if not close to monopoly in the Sparc
market. I don't know how you define "open" but if you define it like this,
even Microsoft's Windows is "open"

Frank



That's simply incorrect. See Rich Teer's post.

--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

"Godzilla" writes:

Not true at all. Sun is already if not close to monopoly in the Sparc
market. I don't know how you define "open" but if you define it like this,
even Microsoft's Windows is "open"


Microsoft claims (with a straight face!) that Windows in open, in contrast
to proprietary systems like Unix. They haven't found a way to claim they
are more open than Linux yet, but I'm sure they have a team of marketers
working on that problem even as I type this. There is no hurry, they have
other angles they are working these days (harping about the SCO stuff,
claiming Windows is more secure than Linux based on some unknown set of
data they claim to have)

--
Douglas Siebert

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning,
that's as good as they're going to feel all day" -- Frank Sinatra

Sheldon Simms wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:55:00 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:

It means the opposite of proprietory. Intel's x86, contrary
to unimformed popular belief, is not an open archtecture.


I see. So although I can buy an x86 CPU from Intel, or AMD,
or Transmeta, or VIA, with SPARC I am somehow less bound to
one particular corporation (in some legal, if not practical,
sense)?

Let's say I want to take my 32-bit application and turn it into
a 64-bit application. Let's say I have x86 right now and want
to move to the new 64-bit version of x86. (I need to buy some
machines to run this 64-bit app, of course.) What do I do?

Since x86 is not an open architecture whose future is guided
by a standards body, each company has its own set of proprietary,
competing extensions that do 64-bit. I can't just choose to
go forward with "the standard". There is none, so I have to
make a choice between standards. This sucks because it's not
just a choice -- it's a gamble. If I need 64-bit now, I have
to buy machines that might turn out not to be compatible with
whatever winds up being the dominant 64-bit successor to x86.
They may be pretty worthless in a year or two, and if so, I
not only have to get new machines, but I also have to re-tool
to build apps for that architecture instead.

Meanwhile, in the SPARC world, the 64-bit SPARC processors from
various manufacturers are all compatible with each other,
and I can (now that there are stable 64-bit compilers) build a
64-bit app that runs on all 64-bit SPARC chips.

The x86 world will eventually reach the point where it settles
on a 64-bit instruction set that works and is standard. But
it will be a de facto standard, and it will only reach that
point when the massively-strong market forces in the x86 world
force it to happen, providing the resources for one company
to reverse engineer another's architecture, for legal battles
to happen, and all that nonsense that would be unnecessary
with an open standard.

In the SPARC world, the 64-bit problem is already decided
and has already been decided for over 5 years. Certainly
this is partly due to the fact that there is more demand
for 64-bit machines in the SPARC world than in the x86 world,
but I don't have any doubt that the fact that it's
standards-based has made it an easier and faster process.

- Logan