Text 3037, 83 rader
Skriven 2005-03-10 09:22:34 av Adam Flinton (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 3006 av John Oellrich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: IDE market consolidates some more...?
=================================================
From: Adam Flinton <adam@NOSPAM_softfab.com>

John Oellrich wrote:
> Adam,
>
> And just what is the penetration of Itanium? 200K units world wide and
> most of them running PA-RISC UNIX. Non-factor.

Indeed. Is that because it isn't a i386 descendant? AMD made their 64 bit chip
able to pretend to be a 32 bit i386 & look which is selling better.

> Your better snide remark
> would have had to do with Intel's ARM based CPUs at least there are tens
> of millions of them out there. Of course most are running WinCE. You are
> slipping.
>

Nope. That was going to be my second line of Intel CPU'es which aren't i386.

So now you've moved from everything is Windows/ix86 to "so long as it says
intel on the cpu & has some version of something made by MS which might be
called Win something then...".

& humorously you say I'm the one who's slipping. I'm not the one
slipping coz I'm not the one reaching.

I was starting with Itanium precisely because there is a brand new intel design
which coz everyone likes to live in the i386 vm won't go anywhere.


> And what 64 bit OS is prevalent, if not dominant, on x86, 32 or 64
> bits, boxes? Not Linux. There isn't a prevalent, let alone dominant one.

Well gee which OS is prevalent has exactly 0 to do with whether stuff running
on those chips is running "native".

WRT AMD-64 in terms of the OS which is prevalent on it as an AMD-64 (i.e.
natively) instead of a pseudo i386 which is a pseudo 286 which is etc. then
that is linux by far. I know Sun are trying with Solaris, but in terms of the
servers I have seen running on AMD-64 its nearly all gentoo.


> Windows 64 is still in release candidate stage.

&? Oh so when finally there is a "native" version of Windows for the
newer chips then finally you'll get a "native" OS rather than one pretending
the cpu is something else....so that means that right now if you're running
windows you are not running native. You are running on a pretend 386.

> And most apps still run
> better 32 bit on that platform. So using the lower common denominator
> makes a lot of sense in the real world.

Gee hasn't it always been the case. i586 is a hack on i386 which is a hack on
i286 which is a hack on...

> One could tweak it up to 686,
> but then there maybe issues where Intel and AMD instructions sets
> diverge slightly (SSE 3 vs. SSE 2, etc). But whether it is using the
> CPUs 32 bit or 64 bit instructions, it is still native. No emulation, no
> virtualization.
>

One minute you're whinging about how VM'es like java don't use everything
"natively" & then you're saying ah well coz windows doesn't support all X Y & Z
or coz you'd have to produce an intel PIII,PIV,Xeon-64, AMD32, AMD-64 etc
versions you really can't be bothered with running native anymore & thus you'll
settle for a lowest common denominator which is in essence an i386 VM.

Why bother with all these nice new shiny things on the PCU if nothing is goign
to be compiled to use them? Heck make a multi-ghz 386 & be done with it.

If you want to be running gentoo or bad with ports then fine otherwise you are
running in an x86 vm & you are already accepting the "well it's good enough & I
need it to work across a number of different chip architectures without
recompilation".

Well heck, where have I heard that before.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)