Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!
From: JF Mezei (jfmezei.spamnot_at_istop.com)
Date: 02/11/04
- Next message: JF Mezei: "Re: PSION, another Digital"
- Previous message: Tux Wonder-Dog: "Help needed - Hobbyist license, etc"
- In reply to: Rob Young: "Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!"
- Next in thread: Rob Young: "Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!"
- Reply: Rob Young: "Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 05:51:01 -0500
Rob Young wrote:
> Here's the basic problem. Were you aware that Intel actually writes a heap of
> drivers for Windows? And that when Windows XP was being launched, both Intel
> and Microsoft helped out some hardware vendors by assisting them with driver
> writing?
How much are drivers specific to a motherboard ? When I buy Windows, does it
come with all possible drivers for all possible motherboards ? I realise that
people like Compaq loved to have their own proprietary drivers for keyboards
etc. But this wasn't necessary.
if the AMD 64 buit 8086 can run 32 bit Windows out of the box, just like a
Dell box can, then as a start, AMD doesn't need to fund a rewrite of Windows.
Now, compare AMD with Digital: AMD has every intention to push and market its
chip. Digital had every intention to prevent Alpha from being marlketed and
competing head to head against Intel's 8086. Microsoft is therefore much mroe
likely to work with AMD to get Windows running on the AMD 8086.
Furthermore, with Linux running on 64 bit machines, including the 64 bit 8086,
you can bet your <part of anatomy> that Microsoft will also want a version of
Windows , at least for servers, to run on it. (The different between now and
then is that Linux is taken very seriously now).
> It will Intel's deep pockets that will get Win64 off the
> ground on x86-64. Will you be shocked if Win64 for x86-64 is still a
> beta 6 months from now?
But Microsoft already has the experience from its port of Windows to Alpha. So
porting the current version of window to the 64 bit 8086 shouldn't be that big
a project for Microsoft.
> Secondly, Fister says Itanium = Xeon in cost in a few years.
3 years is very long in CPU years. It could very well be a garage sale,
liquidation of the last batch of IA64s that are sold at a loss. It could very
well be that Intel has decided it will lose money in the long term to support
this bloated and expensive chip. Or it could be that XEON will be dead in 3
years and a new, far cheaper version of the 80-86 will be out on the market.
So while IA64 may come down in price to the levels of the last batch of Xeons,
it would still not be competitive with the products available at that time.
The problem with IA64 is that all the promises are made relative to today, not
relative to what will be available at that time. If IA64 lags today, it will
lag in 3 years. If IA64 is expensive today, it will be expensive in 3 years.
> at all. Intel has billions and is making billions:
>From its 8086 line, and Intel isn't about to jeoperdize those billions by
cannabalising is 8086 line to push a dead end bloated expensive architecture.
Intel needs to have a chip that is easy to upgrade and make faster and which
it can achieve faster than AMD or other competitors.
> I will bet that if they can make the x86 ISA pig fly, they will
> make Itanium fly AND will throw the proper hundred million dollar
> chunks in the correct directions to ensure it is successful.
The thing is that the 8086 is like a feather whereas the IA64 is like an
anvil. Which one is easier to make fly ? Which one costs less to lift to
higher altitude/speed ?
> HP must
> be excited to see high-end server costs come down to the Xeon level
> (they make bucks on VMS services and NSK services). IBM and Sun
> aren't nearly as excited.
HP is excited at having yet another excuse to provide to customers "wait
another 3 years, IA64 will e better by then". People didn't laugh at Merced.
We knew how painful it had been for Intel to produce that junk. We were then
told to wait for McKinley which would be what Intel had truly intended IA64 to
be. So now, there are no longer any reason for customers to give Intel a
break. Are current IA64 offerings TODAY what Intel wanted IA64 to be, or must
we wait another 3 years before we see what Intel really wants IA64 to be ?
Sorry, but HP must stand on its own with whatever Intel offers TODAY. If HP
starts telling its customers to wait hold off on purchases for anyther 3 years
until IA64 is really ready for prime time, guess what will happen to HP's
business computing unit ?
And in 3 years, assuming IA64 is still alive, will you be telling customers
about that great promise from Intel that 3 years from then (6 from now), Intel
intends to deliver an IA64 that also makes coffee ?
- Next message: JF Mezei: "Re: PSION, another Digital"
- Previous message: Tux Wonder-Dog: "Help needed - Hobbyist license, etc"
- In reply to: Rob Young: "Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!"
- Next in thread: Rob Young: "Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!"
- Reply: Rob Young: "Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
