HP withdraws Itanium workstations

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20040923180613.html

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
37 answers Last reply
More about withdraws itanium workstations
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:19:12 -0400, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:
    >
    >http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20040923180613.html
    >

    Hmm.. interesting quote:

    "It is unclear how, if at all, workstation software for Itanium-based
    systems will evolve in future, if other makers of computers decide to
    withdraw Itanium 2-based workstations."


    Uhhh... doesn't it kind of require that there ARE other companies
    making Itanium 2-based workstations before they can be withdrawn?!
    SGI doesn't sell any, IBM doesn't, Dell doesn't, Sun sure as hell
    doesn't...

    So, umm.. does ANYONE sell an Itanium workstation?

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Somebody must be for Intel to say they are having record Itanium sales.

    "Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:7bl7l01pk7jom3arligi9ffpi4rv2gmffj@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:19:12 -0400, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    > wrote:
    > >
    > >http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20040923180613.html
    > >
    >
    > Hmm.. interesting quote:
    >
    > "It is unclear how, if at all, workstation software for Itanium-based
    > systems will evolve in future, if other makers of computers decide to
    > withdraw Itanium 2-based workstations."
    >
    >
    > Uhhh... doesn't it kind of require that there ARE other companies
    > making Itanium 2-based workstations before they can be withdrawn?!
    > SGI doesn't sell any, IBM doesn't, Dell doesn't, Sun sure as hell
    > doesn't...
    >
    > So, umm.. does ANYONE sell an Itanium workstation?
    >
    > -------------
    > Tony Hill
    > hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20040923180613.html

    Strange.

    http://h71016.www7.hp.com/dstore/SubFamMatrix.asp?ProductLineId=433&FamilyId=1324
    http://h71016.www7.hp.com/dstore/SubFamMatrix.asp?ProductLineId=431&FamilyId=1474

    I don't see what makes the rx1600-2 unfit as a workstation.

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Grumble wrote:

    > Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20040923180613.html
    >
    >
    > Strange.
    >
    > http://h71016.www7.hp.com/dstore/SubFamMatrix.asp?ProductLineId=433&FamilyId=1324
    >
    > http://h71016.www7.hp.com/dstore/SubFamMatrix.asp?ProductLineId=431&FamilyId=1474
    >
    >
    > I don't see what makes the rx1600-2 unfit as a workstation.
    >

    http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/infolibrary/whitepapers/rx4640_2600_1600_wp_FINAL_4-14-04.pdf

    "The Integrity rx1600-2, rx2600-2, and rx4640-8 servers do not deploy
    AGP graphics bus technology."

    RM
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Judd wrote:
    > Somebody must be for Intel to say they are having record Itanium
    > sales.

    Well, Itaniums can be either workstations or servers. This makes it look
    like there may only be a server market left for Itanium now.

    Yousuf Khan
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > Judd wrote:
    >
    >>Somebody must be for Intel to say they are having record Itanium
    >>sales.
    >
    >
    > Well, Itaniums can be either workstations or servers. This makes it look
    > like there may only be a server market left for Itanium now.
    >

    At least some who might have been characterized as workstation customers
    will be buying (and have been buying) "servers."

    The products that HP continues to offer compete more directly with white
    box rack-mounted "servers" that can be used as is or hooked up into a
    Beowulf cluster. For someone who might be scaling up to a cluster, the
    rack-mounted version makes more sense to begin with.

    RM
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:HP_4d.251270$mD.189058@attbi_s02...
    > Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > > Judd wrote:
    > >
    > >>Somebody must be for Intel to say they are having record Itanium
    > >>sales.
    > >
    > >
    > > Well, Itaniums can be either workstations or servers. This makes it look
    > > like there may only be a server market left for Itanium now.
    > >
    >
    > At least some who might have been characterized as workstation customers
    > will be buying (and have been buying) "servers."
    >
    > The products that HP continues to offer compete more directly with white
    > box rack-mounted "servers" that can be used as is or hooked up into a
    > Beowulf cluster. For someone who might be scaling up to a cluster, the
    > rack-mounted version makes more sense to begin with.
    >

    So it's just a server product now? Boy did Intel screw this one up. The
    costs aren't too prohibitive. I wonder why it just didn't take? There is
    decent enough reason to need 64-bit at the workstation level. Desktop PCs
    just don't matter in terms of 64-bit right now. Workstations you would
    think would have taken to it. Intel must have some serious marketing issues
    going on.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    > Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >
    >> Judd wrote:
    >>
    >>> Somebody must be for Intel to say they are having record Itanium
    >>> sales.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Well, Itaniums can be either workstations or servers. This makes it
    >> look like there may only be a server market left for Itanium now.
    >>
    >
    > At least some who might have been characterized as workstation customers
    > will be buying (and have been buying) "servers."
    >
    > The products that HP continues to offer compete more directly with white
    > box rack-mounted "servers" that can be used as is or hooked up into a
    > Beowulf cluster. For someone who might be scaling up to a cluster, the
    > rack-mounted version makes more sense to begin with.
    >
    > RM
    >
    Without a volume desktop market, I think the Itanium will probably go
    the way of the 860.

    http://www.cs.utk.edu/~ghenry/isug.ps
    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Judd wrote:
    > "Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:HP_4d.251270$mD.189058@attbi_s02...
    >
    >>Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >>
    >>>Judd wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Somebody must be for Intel to say they are having record Itanium
    >>>>sales.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Well, Itaniums can be either workstations or servers. This makes it look
    >>>like there may only be a server market left for Itanium now.
    >>>
    >>
    >>At least some who might have been characterized as workstation customers
    >>will be buying (and have been buying) "servers."
    >>
    >>The products that HP continues to offer compete more directly with white
    >>box rack-mounted "servers" that can be used as is or hooked up into a
    >>Beowulf cluster. For someone who might be scaling up to a cluster, the
    >>rack-mounted version makes more sense to begin with.
    >>
    >
    >
    > So it's just a server product now? Boy did Intel screw this one up. The
    > costs aren't too prohibitive. I wonder why it just didn't take? There is
    > decent enough reason to need 64-bit at the workstation level. Desktop PCs
    > just don't matter in terms of 64-bit right now. Workstations you would
    > think would have taken to it. Intel must have some serious marketing issues
    > going on.
    >
    >
    >
    If you want a 64 bit workstation, you can buy Opteron, SPARC, or POWER.
    You don't need an unproven Itanium.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Judd wrote:
    > So it's just a server product now? Boy did Intel screw this one up.
    > The costs aren't too prohibitive. I wonder why it just didn't take?
    > There is decent enough reason to need 64-bit at the workstation
    > level. Desktop PCs just don't matter in terms of 64-bit right now.
    > Workstations you would think would have taken to it. Intel must have
    > some serious marketing issues going on.

    Most programming work is probably done on workstations rather than servers.
    So without Itanium workstations, there can't be many Itanium server apps
    made.

    Yousuf Khan
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message
    news:10l95ahkp3jmvfa@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > So it's just a server product now? Boy did Intel screw this one up. The
    > costs aren't too prohibitive. I wonder why it just didn't take? There is
    > decent enough reason to need 64-bit at the workstation level. Desktop PCs
    > just don't matter in terms of 64-bit right now. Workstations you would
    > think would have taken to it. Intel must have some serious marketing
    > issues
    > going on.
    >

    They are not abandoning 64b workstation. The artical states that they are
    making this move because demand has shifted to Intels EMT64 Xenon's. The
    only part that gets me is that HP still isn't making any workstations based
    on the Opteron/AFX.

    Carlo
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Carlo Razzeto wrote:
    > They are not abandoning 64b workstation. The artical states that they
    > are making this move because demand has shifted to Intels EMT64
    > Xenon's. The only part that gets me is that HP still isn't making any
    > workstations based on the Opteron/AFX.

    If they had announced that they are replacing Itanium workstations with
    Opteron workstations, then there would be hell to pay with Intel. Here they
    are being diplomatic and stating that they are replacing one Intel product
    with another.

    Yousuf Khan
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:41549B3E.2050103@prodigy.net...
    > Judd wrote:
    > > "Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > > news:HP_4d.251270$mD.189058@attbi_s02...
    > >
    > >>Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Judd wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>Somebody must be for Intel to say they are having record Itanium
    > >>>>sales.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>Well, Itaniums can be either workstations or servers. This makes it
    look
    > >>>like there may only be a server market left for Itanium now.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>At least some who might have been characterized as workstation customers
    > >>will be buying (and have been buying) "servers."
    > >>
    > >>The products that HP continues to offer compete more directly with white
    > >>box rack-mounted "servers" that can be used as is or hooked up into a
    > >>Beowulf cluster. For someone who might be scaling up to a cluster, the
    > >>rack-mounted version makes more sense to begin with.
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > So it's just a server product now? Boy did Intel screw this one up.
    The
    > > costs aren't too prohibitive. I wonder why it just didn't take? There
    is
    > > decent enough reason to need 64-bit at the workstation level. Desktop
    PCs
    > > just don't matter in terms of 64-bit right now. Workstations you would
    > > think would have taken to it. Intel must have some serious marketing
    issues
    > > going on.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > If you want a 64 bit workstation, you can buy Opteron, SPARC, or POWER.
    > You don't need an unproven Itanium.

    Opteron is proven? Ridiculous comment seeing how it's come long after IA64.
    Sparc and Power I agree with but their costs are prohibitive.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:54:11 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
    wrote:
    >
    >"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    >news:7bl7l01pk7jom3arligi9ffpi4rv2gmffj@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:19:12 -0400, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    >> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20040923180613.html
    >> >
    >>
    >> Hmm.. interesting quote:
    >>
    >> "It is unclear how, if at all, workstation software for Itanium-based
    >> systems will evolve in future, if other makers of computers decide to
    >> withdraw Itanium 2-based workstations."
    >>
    >>
    >> Uhhh... doesn't it kind of require that there ARE other companies
    >> making Itanium 2-based workstations before they can be withdrawn?!
    >> SGI doesn't sell any, IBM doesn't, Dell doesn't, Sun sure as hell
    >> doesn't...
    >>
    >> So, umm.. does ANYONE sell an Itanium workstation?
    >
    >Somebody must be for Intel to say they are having record Itanium sales.

    How so? It's been fairly widely published that the Itaniums sales are
    mostly from HP's servers and SGI's high-end HPC systems. Neither of
    these are in any way workstations.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:oldcl0t363sl60mdtg7hio3msh8jrkjlqq@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:54:11 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
    > wrote:
    > >
    > >"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    > >news:7bl7l01pk7jom3arligi9ffpi4rv2gmffj@4ax.com...
    > >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:19:12 -0400, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    > >> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20040923180613.html
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Hmm.. interesting quote:
    > >>
    > >> "It is unclear how, if at all, workstation software for Itanium-based
    > >> systems will evolve in future, if other makers of computers decide to
    > >> withdraw Itanium 2-based workstations."
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Uhhh... doesn't it kind of require that there ARE other companies
    > >> making Itanium 2-based workstations before they can be withdrawn?!
    > >> SGI doesn't sell any, IBM doesn't, Dell doesn't, Sun sure as hell
    > >> doesn't...
    > >>
    > >> So, umm.. does ANYONE sell an Itanium workstation?
    > >
    > >Somebody must be for Intel to say they are having record Itanium sales.
    >
    > How so? It's been fairly widely published that the Itaniums sales are
    > mostly from HP's servers and SGI's high-end HPC systems. Neither of
    > these are in any way workstations.
    >

    To the tune of 100,000+... I don't believe that.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Judd wrote:
    > Opteron is proven? Ridiculous comment seeing how it's come long
    > after IA64. Sparc and Power I agree with but their costs are
    > prohibitive.

    x86 isn't proven?

    Yousuf Khan
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Judd wrote:
    >> How so? It's been fairly widely published that the Itaniums sales
    >> are mostly from HP's servers and SGI's high-end HPC systems.
    >> Neither of these are in any way workstations.
    >>
    >
    > To the tune of 100,000+... I don't believe that.

    Well, the statement is that 100,000+ Itanium processors were "shipped".
    There was no mention of them actually being sold. Might be a lot of systems
    lent out to developers.

    Yousuf Khan
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:<upOdnRYNXPwmusjcRVn-tQ@rogers.com>...
    >
    > Most programming work is probably done on workstations rather than servers.

    That is not true. Most of the development on VMS and HP-UX atleast is
    done by telnet or remote X connections. HP has also never shipped
    workstations as developer packages, they have shipped rx2600 servers
    for that purpose.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<41549572.1090502@prodigy.net>...
    > >
    > Without a volume desktop market, I think the Itanium will probably go
    > the way of the 860.

    While ofcourse anything can happen. Comparisons with 860, 960 or other
    earlier attempts with Itanium are not really valid. 860 went nowhere
    and had no impact at all and the difference in investments with
    Itanium are huge. Intel realized in 1997-2000 that Itanium would not
    be a desktop product. If that was not OK, they would have dropped it
    in 2000-2001. Since then they have marketed it as a high-end product
    and unless Intel will get in financial trouble I guess they will
    continue with Itanium.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Judd wrote:
    > "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    > news:41549B3E.2050103@prodigy.net...
    >
    >>Judd wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:HP_4d.251270$mD.189058@attbi_s02...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Judd wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Somebody must be for Intel to say they are having record Itanium
    >>>>>>sales.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Well, Itaniums can be either workstations or servers. This makes it
    >
    > look
    >
    >>>>>like there may only be a server market left for Itanium now.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>At least some who might have been characterized as workstation customers
    >>>>will be buying (and have been buying) "servers."
    >>>>
    >>>>The products that HP continues to offer compete more directly with white
    >>>>box rack-mounted "servers" that can be used as is or hooked up into a
    >>>>Beowulf cluster. For someone who might be scaling up to a cluster, the
    >>>>rack-mounted version makes more sense to begin with.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>So it's just a server product now? Boy did Intel screw this one up.
    >
    > The
    >
    >>>costs aren't too prohibitive. I wonder why it just didn't take? There
    >
    > is
    >
    >>>decent enough reason to need 64-bit at the workstation level. Desktop
    >
    > PCs
    >
    >>>just don't matter in terms of 64-bit right now. Workstations you would
    >>>think would have taken to it. Intel must have some serious marketing
    >
    > issues
    >
    >>>going on.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>If you want a 64 bit workstation, you can buy Opteron, SPARC, or POWER.
    >>You don't need an unproven Itanium.
    >
    >
    > Opteron is proven? Ridiculous comment seeing how it's come long after IA64.
    > Sparc and Power I agree with but their costs are prohibitive.
    >
    >
    I believe I read that more Opteron processors were sold THIS QUARTER
    than Itaniums in all time.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:44:44 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:HP_4d.251270$mD.189058@attbi_s02...
    >> Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >> > Judd wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>Somebody must be for Intel to say they are having record Itanium
    >> >>sales.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Well, Itaniums can be either workstations or servers. This makes it look
    >> > like there may only be a server market left for Itanium now.
    >> >
    >>
    >> At least some who might have been characterized as workstation customers
    >> will be buying (and have been buying) "servers."
    >>
    >> The products that HP continues to offer compete more directly with white
    >> box rack-mounted "servers" that can be used as is or hooked up into a
    >> Beowulf cluster. For someone who might be scaling up to a cluster, the
    >> rack-mounted version makes more sense to begin with.
    >>
    >
    >So it's just a server product now? Boy did Intel screw this one up. The
    >costs aren't too prohibitive. I wonder why it just didn't take? There is
    >decent enough reason to need 64-bit at the workstation level. Desktop PCs
    >just don't matter in terms of 64-bit right now. Workstations you would
    >think would have taken to it. Intel must have some serious marketing issues
    >going on.

    I don't recall who posted this originally, several months ago, but
    "decertification" sounds kinda final:
    http://www.ptc.com/partners/hardware/current/itanium_letter.htm

    Err, PTC is a pretty important supplier of workstation apps... like
    Pro/Engineer. I can make a guess at where this policy comes from: many
    software vendors got badly burned by some of the workstation ports to
    Risc6K, Alpha, etc. a few years ago. Basically the volume was tiny, income
    didn't even come close to covering the cost of buying the hardware and the
    majority of customers were happy with x86 based performance... which in
    some cases caught up with the workstation's within a matter of months
    anyway.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Judd wrote:
    >> Opteron is proven? Ridiculous comment seeing how it's come long after IA64.
    >> Sparc and Power I agree with but their costs are prohibitive.

    Did it come that long after IA64? The number of Opterons that have
    been shipped so far outstride the number of IA64 that the number of
    actual work hours the Opteron had proven itself in has got to be way
    higher than IA64.
    --
    L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
    Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:41:00 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
    wrote, in part:
    >"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    >news:oldcl0t363sl60mdtg7hio3msh8jrkjlqq@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:54:11 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
    >> wrote:

    >> >Somebody must be for Intel to say they are having record Itanium sales.

    >> How so? It's been fairly widely published that the Itaniums sales are
    >> mostly from HP's servers and SGI's high-end HPC systems. Neither of
    >> these are in any way workstations.

    >To the tune of 100,000+... I don't believe that.

    It should be noted that an Itanium server, unlike an Itanium
    workstation, may contain more than one CPU.

    Thus, the fact that these rackmount servers have a high dollar cost is
    balanced out.

    John Savard
    http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:39:06 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
    wrote, in part:
    >"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >news:41549B3E.2050103@prodigy.net...

    >> If you want a 64 bit workstation, you can buy Opteron, SPARC, or POWER.
    >> You don't need an unproven Itanium.

    >Opteron is proven? Ridiculous comment seeing how it's come long after IA64.
    >Sparc and Power I agree with but their costs are prohibitive.

    Itaniums certainly aren't "unproven" in the sense that there's any doubt
    about whether or not the chips *work*.

    In fact, I would be rather surprised if both the Itanium and Opteron
    architectures haven't been quite well benchmarked.

    What, then, could be "unproven" about the Itanium?

    I think what the poster means is this: the Opteron uses the architecture
    of Intel's Pentium, with some extensions tacked on. So it inherits the
    "proven" nature of the architecture of Intel's 80386 chip. Proven to run
    Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 and Windows 98 and Windows Millenium Edition
    and Windows NT 3.5 and Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 and Windows XP
    and simply gazillions of applications for them.

    Compared to that, the Power PC is unproven, since the closest thing to a
    major platform it is found in is something called a Macintosh... you may
    have heard of it.

    The trouble, of course, is with such high standards for what constitutes
    a "proven" architecture, we would probably all still be using Z-80s.

    John Savard
    http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    John Savard wrote:
    > On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:39:06 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
    > wrote, in part:
    >
    >>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >>news:41549B3E.2050103@prodigy.net...
    >
    >
    >>>If you want a 64 bit workstation, you can buy Opteron, SPARC, or POWER.
    >>>You don't need an unproven Itanium.
    >
    >
    >>Opteron is proven? Ridiculous comment seeing how it's come long after IA64.
    >>Sparc and Power I agree with but their costs are prohibitive.
    >
    >
    > Itaniums certainly aren't "unproven" in the sense that there's any doubt
    > about whether or not the chips *work*.
    >
    > In fact, I would be rather surprised if both the Itanium and Opteron
    > architectures haven't been quite well benchmarked.
    >
    > What, then, could be "unproven" about the Itanium?
    > I think what the poster means is this: the Opteron uses the architecture
    > of Intel's Pentium, with some extensions tacked on.

    Way off base. The Opteron and Pentium architectures
    differ like Antarctica and Hawaii. For that matter,
    the P4 and Pentium architectures differ just as much.
    Things have changed a *lot* since the Pentium.

    > So it inherits the
    > "proven" nature of the architecture of Intel's 80386 chip. Proven to run
    > Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 and Windows 98 and Windows Millenium Edition
    > and Windows NT 3.5 and Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 and Windows XP
    > and simply gazillions of applications for them.
    >
    > Compared to that, the Power PC is unproven, since the closest thing to a
    > major platform it is found in is something called a Macintosh... you may
    > have heard of it.

    And just what do you think IBM is doing with all
    the processors in the Power line that they don't
    sell to Apple ? You don't think big iron from
    IBM is a "major platform" ?

    > The trouble, of course, is with such high standards for what constitutes
    > a "proven" architecture, we would probably all still be using Z-80s.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    news:ROSdnY_0BtgvyMvcRVn-rA@rogers.com...
    > Judd wrote:
    > > Opteron is proven? Ridiculous comment seeing how it's come long
    > > after IA64. Sparc and Power I agree with but their costs are
    > > prohibitive.
    >
    > x86 isn't proven?
    >

    Are we talking 64bit?
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
    message news:4156d638.249093517@news.singnet.com.sg...
    > Judd wrote:
    > >> Opteron is proven? Ridiculous comment seeing how it's come long after
    IA64.
    > >> Sparc and Power I agree with but their costs are prohibitive.
    >
    > Did it come that long after IA64? The number of Opterons that have
    > been shipped so far outstride the number of IA64 that the number of
    > actual work hours the Opteron had proven itself in has got to be way
    > higher than IA64.
    > --
    > L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    > If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
    :)
    > Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    > If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    > But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

    Chrysler sold a lot of K-cars. That doesn't mean they were more reliable
    than Mercedes Benz's.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:50:48 -0600, Judd wrote:

    >
    > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    > news:ROSdnY_0BtgvyMvcRVn-rA@rogers.com...
    >> Judd wrote:
    >> > Opteron is proven? Ridiculous comment seeing how it's come long
    >> > after IA64. Sparc and Power I agree with but their costs are
    >> > prohibitive.
    >>
    >> x86 isn't proven?
    >>
    >
    > Are we talking 64bit?

    Doesn't really matter much. It's a *small* extension on IA32. ...one
    that Intel didn't dare go for to try to (once again) segment the market.
    Intel should have stuck with its bread-n-butter. It doesn't do well
    outside its corner. AMD has now horned in ot the bread and has a good
    chance of taking the butter too.

    --
    Keith
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Judd wrote:
    > Chrysler sold a lot of K-cars. That doesn't mean they were more
    > reliable than Mercedes Benz's.

    I got some news for you about Mercedes Benz's as well, they are about as
    reliable as K-cars. :-)

    Somebody on the F1 newsgroup put it humourously, "European cars are just
    road jewelery". Meaning they look great, cost a lot, and are extremely
    delicate. :-)

    Yousuf Khan
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Judd wrote:
    > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    > news:ROSdnY_0BtgvyMvcRVn-rA@rogers.com...
    >> Judd wrote:
    >>> Opteron is proven? Ridiculous comment seeing how it's come long
    >>> after IA64. Sparc and Power I agree with but their costs are
    >>> prohibitive.
    >>
    >> x86 isn't proven?
    >>
    >
    > Are we talking 64bit?

    I don't know, maybe we are, nothing was explicitly stated. One of the
    advantages of having a dual 32/64-bit personality is that if you're
    considered proven on 32-bit, when people do decide to go 64-bit on you,
    you're much further along the proven path there too.

    Yousuf Khan
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Judd wrote:
    > "The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
    > message news:4156d638.249093517@news.singnet.com.sg...
    >
    >>Judd wrote:
    >>
    >>>>Opteron is proven? Ridiculous comment seeing how it's come long after
    >
    > IA64.
    >
    >>>>Sparc and Power I agree with but their costs are prohibitive.
    >>
    >>Did it come that long after IA64? The number of Opterons that have
    >>been shipped so far outstride the number of IA64 that the number of
    >>actual work hours the Opteron had proven itself in has got to be way
    >>higher than IA64.
    >>--
    >>L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    >>If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
    >
    > :)
    >
    >>Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    >>If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    >>But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
    >
    >
    > Chrysler sold a lot of K-cars. That doesn't mean they were more reliable
    > than Mercedes Benz's.
    >
    >
    Mercedes Benz sold a lot of cars based on the perception they were more
    reliable than K-cars. That doesn't necessarily mean they were.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > Judd wrote:
    >
    >>Chrysler sold a lot of K-cars. That doesn't mean they were more
    >>reliable than Mercedes Benz's.
    >
    >
    > I got some news for you about Mercedes Benz's as well, they are about as
    > reliable as K-cars. :-)
    >
    > Somebody on the F1 newsgroup put it humourously, "European cars are just
    > road jewelery". Meaning they look great, cost a lot, and are extremely
    > delicate. :-)
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >
    >

    Oops, I see you beat me to it.
    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >Judd wrote:
    >>> How so? It's been fairly widely published that the Itaniums sales
    >>> are mostly from HP's servers and SGI's high-end HPC systems.
    >>> Neither of these are in any way workstations.
    >>>
    >>
    >> To the tune of 100,000+... I don't believe that.
    >
    >Well, the statement is that 100,000+ Itanium processors were "shipped".
    >There was no mention of them actually being sold. Might be a lot of systems
    >lent out to developers.

    Or shipped to a distributor somewhere, only to be returned on a
    stock-rotation some time later... 8)
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    news:7pidnZ4kk-OlE8jcRVn-rA@rogers.com...
    >
    > If they had announced that they are replacing Itanium workstations with
    > Opteron workstations, then there would be hell to pay with Intel. Here
    > they are being diplomatic and stating that they are replacing one Intel
    > product with another.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >

    Like HP idn't have as much to lose with Itainium? Well perhaps not, they got
    what they wanted out of it... Still, it's not like HP doesnt' have an
    interest in the chip.

    Carlo
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    CJT wrote:
    >> I got some news for you about Mercedes Benz's as well, they are
    >> about as reliable as K-cars. :-)
    >>
    >> Somebody on the F1 newsgroup put it humourously, "European cars are
    >> just road jewelery". Meaning they look great, cost a lot, and are
    >> extremely delicate. :-)
    >>
    >> Yousuf Khan
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Oops, I see you beat me to it.

    The more, the merrier.

    This one guy I used to work with scrimped and saved and bought himself a
    Mercedes SLK convertible. Says it's one of the worst cars he's ever owned.

    Yousuf Khan
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    >> Without a volume desktop market, I think the Itanium will probably go
    >> the way of the 860.

    > While ofcourse anything can happen. Comparisons with 860, 960 or other
    > earlier attempts with Itanium are not really valid. 860 went nowhere
    > and had no impact at all and the difference in investments with
    > Itanium are huge. Intel realized in 1997-2000 that Itanium would not

    ah, OK, how about the i432? iirc Intel was pretty firmly committed
    to that path as well.

    > be a desktop product. If that was not OK, they would have dropped it
    > in 2000-2001. Since then they have marketed it as a high-end product
    > and unless Intel will get in financial trouble I guess they will
    > continue with Itanium.

    that would be stupid unless they thought they could make it pay;
    smart business is ego-less. at this point, there has to be a lot of
    questioning within Intel about whether it'll ever all pay off.

    for instance, montecito sounds pretty decent, but if it has to wait
    for 65 nm in order to be even vaguely manufacturable, well, that's a problem.
    personally, I think ia64 will be most profitable to business authors who
    will endlessly discuss what went wrong.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:15:02 +0000, Mark Hahn wrote:

    >>> Without a volume desktop market, I think the Itanium will probably go
    >>> the way of the 860.
    >
    >> While ofcourse anything can happen. Comparisons with 860, 960 or other
    >> earlier attempts with Itanium are not really valid. 860 went nowhere
    >> and had no impact at all and the difference in investments with
    >> Itanium are huge. Intel realized in 1997-2000 that Itanium would not
    >
    > ah, OK, how about the i432? iirc Intel was pretty firmly committed
    > to that path as well.

    Actually, Intel was never "firmly" committed to the iAPX-432. It was born
    a dog and died a quick and silent death. ...unlike Itanic that did not
    die a quick and silent death. ;-)

    >> be a desktop product. If that was not OK, they would have dropped it
    >> in 2000-2001. Since then they have marketed it as a high-end product
    >> and unless Intel will get in financial trouble I guess they will
    >> continue with Itanium.
    >
    > that would be stupid unless they thought they could make it pay;
    > smart business is ego-less. at this point, there has to be a lot of
    > questioning within Intel about whether it'll ever all pay off.

    Sunk money deoesn't have to pay off. It's already sunk. The question is
    whether it will pay off in the future, and if there is a better place to
    put *future* resources. Water/dam/over.

    > for instance, montecito sounds pretty decent, but if it has to wait
    > for 65 nm in order to be even vaguely manufacturable, well, that's a problem.
    > personally, I think ia64 will be most profitable to business authors who
    > will endlessly discuss what went wrong.

    Hmm, a PHB inspired processor to teach the next generation of PHBs how to
    do things. ...Interesting. ;-)

    --
    Keith
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware Hewlett Packard Workstations