Text 3074, 292 rader
Skriven 2005-03-10 16:55:28 av John Oellrich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 3037 av Adam Flinton (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: IDE market consolidates some more...?
=================================================
From: "John Oellrich" <john@oellrich.us>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_05D8_01C52591.F6A6CF60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Adam,
The P4, like the AMD CPUs, also effectively run the x86 instruction set = on
top of a RISC core. But it is a non-issue, as there is no other = instruction
set other than x86 to write to unlike the Itanium. Its = native instruction set
is largely PA-RISCish and then the x86 = instruction overlay is so poorly done
that it has made the chip all but = a non-starter.
My point was the ARM chips were essentially a non-argument, but at least = they
have a solid presence, unlike the Itanium.
You are confusing being non-native with not using full-width = instructions and
registers. The 32 bit instructions/registers of the A64 = are native. There is
no emulation or virtualization being done to = support this (at least no more
than is done with the 64 bit = instructions). WinXP or Linux running 32 bit on
the A64 is still native.
I don't know where you are coming up with "386 VM" for running 32 bit = apps.
The 386 VM was for running 16 bit apps in all there segmented = glory.
--=20
john
john@oellrich.us
"Adam Flinton" <adam@NOSPAM_softfab.com> wrote in message =
news:42301161$1@w3.nls.net...
John Oellrich wrote:
> Adam,
> =20
> And just what is the penetration of Itanium? 200K units world wide =
and=20
> most of them running PA-RISC UNIX. Non-factor.
Indeed. Is that because it isn't a i386 descendant? AMD made their 64=20
bit chip able to pretend to be a 32 bit i386 & look which is selling =
better.
> Your better snide remark=20
> would have had to do with Intel's ARM based CPUs at least there are =
tens=20
> of millions of them out there. Of course most are running WinCE. You =
are=20
> 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=20
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=20
slipping coz I'm not the one reaching.
I was starting with Itanium precisely because there is a brand new =
intel=20
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=20
> 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=20
running on those chips is running "native".
WRT AMD-64 in terms of the OS which is prevalent on it as an AMD-64=20
(i.e. natively) instead of a pseudo i386 which is a pseudo 286 which =
is=20
etc. then that is linux by far. I know Sun are trying with Solaris, =
but=20
in terms of the servers I have seen running on AMD-64 its nearly all =
gentoo.
> Windows 64 is still in release candidate stage.=20
&? Oh so when finally there is a "native" version of Windows for the=20
newer chips then finally you'll get a "native" OS rather than one=20
pretending the cpu is something else....so that means that right now =
if=20
you're running windows you are not running native. You are running on =
a=20
pretend 386.
> And most apps still run=20
> better 32 bit on that platform. So using the lower common =
denominator=20
> makes a lot of sense in the real world.=20
Gee hasn't it always been the case. i586 is a hack on i386 which is a=20
hack on i286 which is a hack on...
> One could tweak it up to 686,=20
> but then there maybe issues where Intel and AMD instructions sets=20
> 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=20
> virtualization.
>=20
One minute you're whinging about how VM'es like java don't use=20
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=20
PIII,PIV,Xeon-64, AMD32, AMD-64 etc versions you really can't be=20
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=20
goign to be compiled to use them? Heck make a multi-ghz 386 & be done=20
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=20
good enough & I need it to work across a number of different chip=20
architectures without recompilation".
Well heck, where have I heard that before.
Adam
------=_NextPart_000_05D8_01C52591.F6A6CF60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Adam,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The P4, like the AMD CPUs, also effectively run the x86 instruction =
set on=20
top of a RISC core. But it is a non-issue, as there is no other =
instruction=20
set other than x86 to write to unlike the Itanium. Its native = instruction set
is=20
largely PA-RISCish and then the x86 instruction overlay is so poorly = done
that=20
it has made the chip all but a non-starter.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My point was the ARM chips were essentially a non-argument, but at =
least=20
they have a solid presence, unlike the Itanium.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You are confusing being non-native with not using full-width =
instructions=20
and registers. The 32 bit instructions/registers of the A64 are =
native.=20
There is no emulation or virtualization being done to support this (at = least
no=20
more than is done with the 64 bit instructions). WinXP or Linux running = 32
bit=20
on the A64 is still native.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't know where you are coming up with "386 VM" for running 32 =
bit apps.=20
The 386 VM was for running 16 bit apps in all there segmented = glory.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>-- <BR>john</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href=3D"mailto:john@oellrich.us">john@oellrich.us</A></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Adam Flinton" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:adam@NOSPAM_softfab.com">adam@NOSPAM_softfab.com</A>> = wrote
in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42301161$1@w3.nls.net">news:42301161$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>John=20
Oellrich wrote:<BR>> Adam,<BR>> <BR>> And just what is =
the=20
penetration of Itanium? 200K units world wide and <BR>> most of =
them=20
running PA-RISC UNIX. Non-factor.<BR><BR>Indeed. Is that because it =
isn't a=20
i386 descendant? AMD made their 64 <BR>bit chip able to pretend to be =
a 32 bit=20
i386 & look which is selling better.<BR><BR>> Your better snide =
remark=20
<BR>> would have had to do with Intel's ARM based CPUs at least =
there are=20
tens <BR>> of millions of them out there. Of course most are =
running WinCE.=20
You are <BR>> slipping.<BR>><BR><BR>Nope. That was going to be =
my second=20
line of Intel CPU'es which aren't i386.<BR><BR>So now you've moved =
from=20
everything is Windows/ix86 to "so long as it <BR>says intel on the cpu =
&=20
has some version of something made by MS which <BR>might be called Win =
something then...".<BR><BR>& humorously you say I'm the one who's=20
slipping. I'm not the one <BR>slipping coz I'm not the one =
reaching.<BR><BR>I=20
was starting with Itanium precisely because there is a brand new intel =
<BR>design which coz everyone likes to live in the i386 vm won't go=20
anywhere.<BR><BR><BR>> And what 64 bit OS is prevalent, if not =
dominant, on=20
x86, 32 or 64 <BR>> bits, boxes? Not Linux. There isn't a =
prevalent, let=20
alone dominant one.<BR><BR>Well gee which OS is prevalent has exactly =
0 to do=20
with whether stuff <BR>running on those chips is running =
"native".<BR><BR>WRT=20
AMD-64 in terms of the OS which is prevalent on it as an AMD-64 =
<BR>(i.e.=20
natively) instead of a pseudo i386 which is a pseudo 286 which is =
<BR>etc.=20
then that is linux by far. I know Sun are trying with Solaris, but =
<BR>in=20
terms of the servers I have seen running on AMD-64 its nearly all=20
gentoo.<BR><BR><BR>> Windows 64 is still in release candidate =
stage.=20
<BR><BR>&? Oh so when finally there is a "native" version of =
Windows for=20
the <BR>newer chips then finally you'll get a "native" OS rather than =
one=20
<BR>pretending the cpu is something else....so that means that right =
now if=20
<BR>you're running windows you are not running native. You are running =
on a=20
<BR>pretend 386.<BR><BR>> And most apps still run <BR>> better =
32 bit on=20
that platform. So using the lower common denominator <BR>> makes a =
lot of=20
sense in the real world. <BR><BR>Gee hasn't it always been the case. =
i586 is a=20
hack on i386 which is a <BR>hack on i286 which is a hack =
on...<BR><BR>> One=20
could tweak it up to 686, <BR>> but then there maybe issues where =
Intel and=20
AMD instructions sets <BR>> diverge slightly (SSE 3 vs. SSE 2, =
etc). But=20
whether it is using the <BR>> CPUs 32 bit or 64 bit instructions, =
it is=20
still native. No emulation, no <BR>> virtualization.<BR>> =
<BR><BR>One=20
minute you're whinging about how VM'es like java don't use =
<BR>everything=20
"natively" & then you're saying ah well coz windows doesn't =
<BR>support=20
all X Y & Z or coz you'd have to produce an intel =
<BR>PIII,PIV,Xeon-64,=20
AMD32, AMD-64 etc versions you really can't be <BR>bothered with =
running=20
native anymore & thus you'll settle for a lowest <BR>common =
denominator=20
which is in essence an i386 VM.<BR><BR>Why bother with all these nice =
new=20
shiny things on the PCU if nothing is <BR>goign to be compiled to use =
them?=20
Heck make a multi-ghz 386 & be done <BR>with it.<BR><BR>If you =
want to be=20
running gentoo or bad with ports then fine otherwise <BR>you are =
running in an=20
x86 vm & you are already accepting the "well it's <BR>good enough =
& I=20
need it to work across a number of different chip <BR>architectures =
without=20
recompilation".<BR><BR>Well heck, where have I heard that=20
before.<BR><BR>Adam</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_05D8_01C52591.F6A6CF60--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|