Solaris 10 for AMD64 launch Nov 15th

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/10/29/HNsolarislaunch_1.html

Launched several quarters ahead of Microsoft Windows, despite starting
nearly two years later!

Yousuf Khan

--
Sending me email: if you can reply to this newsgroup posting, you will have
to go through an identity challenge-response system. Alternatively, you can
just send me email at ykhan at rogers dot com.
18 answers Last reply
More about solaris amd64 launch 15th
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

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

    > http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/10/29/HNsolarislaunch_1.html
    >
    > Launched several quarters ahead of Microsoft Windows, despite
    > starting nearly two years later!

    It's all about certificates. Solaris is not even a proper Unix, it
    doesnt have a Unix Certificate. On the other hand Windows Longhorn will
    have all the available Windows certificates. It takes time to properly
    certificate your software :).

    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    RusH wrote:
    > It's all about certificates. Solaris is not even a proper Unix, it
    > doesnt have a Unix Certificate. On the other hand Windows Longhorn
    > will have all the available Windows certificates. It takes time to
    > properly certificate your software :).

    Since when is Solaris not a proper Unix?

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

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

    > RusH wrote:
    >> It's all about certificates. Solaris is not even a proper Unix, it
    >> doesnt have a Unix Certificate. On the other hand Windows Longhorn
    >> will have all the available Windows certificates. It takes time to
    >> properly certificate your software :).
    >
    > Since when is Solaris not a proper Unix?

    Well, it doesnt have UNIX 2003 Certification - it was a joke :).


    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    RusH wrote:

    > It's all about certificates. Solaris is not even a proper Unix, it
    > doesnt have a Unix Certificate. On the other hand Windows Longhorn will
    > have all the available Windows certificates. It takes time to properly
    > certificate your software :).

    Which certificate in particular is that. It was my understanding that
    Sun is in compliance with all Unix standards. Solaris is based upon
    ATT's Unix 4.0 source code. A good starting point.

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

    RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl> writes:

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

    >> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/10/29/HNsolarislaunch_1.html
    >>
    >> Launched several quarters ahead of Microsoft Windows, despite
    >> starting nearly two years later!

    >It's all about certificates. Solaris is not even a proper Unix, it
    >doesnt have a Unix Certificate. On the other hand Windows Longhorn will
    >have all the available Windows certificates. It takes time to properly
    >certificate your software :).

    Solaris does have a Unix certificate. (Of course, currently shipping
    product was released well before the current [UNIX2003] standard so
    it couldn't possible have been compliant)

    Casper
    --
    Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
    to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
    Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
    be fiction rather than truth.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    RusH wrote:
    > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote :
    >> Since when is Solaris not a proper Unix?
    >
    > Well, it doesnt have UNIX 2003 Certification - it was a joke :).

    Okay, I've never heard of that one until now (been generally not following
    current Solaris for a couple of years). I assume that this is the lastest
    SVR and Posix compliance standards?

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

    On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:10:14 +0000 (UTC), RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl>
    wrote:
    >It's all about certificates. Solaris is not even a proper Unix, it
    >doesnt have a Unix Certificate. On the other hand Windows Longhorn will
    >have all the available Windows certificates. It takes time to properly
    >certificate your software :).

    *laff* Yesh, I guess we can't blame Microsoft for the delays they need
    to properly certified Longhorn for Windows 3.11, 95, 98, NT, 2K, ME
    and XP :pPpP

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

    RusH wrote:

    > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote :
    >
    >> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/10/29/HNsolarislaunch_1.html
    >>
    >> Launched several quarters ahead of Microsoft Windows, despite
    >> starting nearly two years later!
    >
    > It's all about certificates. Solaris is not even a proper Unix, it
    > doesnt have a Unix Certificate.

    True... But a successful OS in it's own right.

    > On the other hand Windows Longhorn will
    > have all the available Windows certificates.

    And it too, will have no unix certs....

    > It takes time to properly certificate your software :).
    >

    Who certifies Longhorn? Oh yeah... Microsoft does. Really means a lot to
    me... NOT!

    --

    ******************************************************************************
    Registered Linux User Number 185956
    FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004
    Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
    Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00!
    8:48pm up 22 days, 4:34, 5 users, load average: 3.03, 2.93, 2.77
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
    news:Xns9593157553E2ARusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...
    > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote :
    >
    > > http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/10/29/HNsolarislaunch_1.html
    > >
    > > Launched several quarters ahead of Microsoft Windows, despite
    > > starting nearly two years later!
    >
    > It's all about certificates. Solaris is not even a proper Unix, it
    > doesnt have a Unix Certificate. On the other hand Windows Longhorn will
    > have all the available Windows certificates. It takes time to properly
    > certificate your software :).
    >
    > Pozdrawiam.
    > --
    > RusH //
    > http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    > Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    > You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.


    If I own'd my own OS then I would def produce certificates too..
    Another selling point.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    U¿ytkownik RusH napisa³:
    >
    > It's all about certificates. Solaris is not even a proper Unix, it
    > doesnt have a Unix Certificate.


    Check http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/


    It seems Solaris is a VERY PROPER UNIX.
    I am sure Solaris 10 , after it is oficially launched, will be added to
    the register.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    news:SfmdnecnuJtkqhncRVn-iQ@rogers.com...
    > http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/10/29/HNsolarislaunch_1.html
    >
    > Launched several quarters ahead of Microsoft Windows, despite starting
    > nearly two years later!
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >

    It's been possible to download Windows XP Professional x64 Edition for ages.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx

    And I suspect that internally Win64 has apparantly been running on Alphas
    and
    Itaniums (maybe even MIPS R4000s) for years.

    Tom.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Tom" <tom.thornhill-REMOVETHIS@freenet.de> wrote in message
    news:4187f4c4$0$548$9b622d9e@news.freenet.de...
    |
    | "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    | news:SfmdnecnuJtkqhncRVn-iQ@rogers.com...
    | > http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/10/29/HNsolarislaunch_1.html
    | >
    | > Launched several quarters ahead of Microsoft Windows, despite starting
    | > nearly two years later!
    | >
    | > Yousuf Khan
    | >
    |
    | It's been possible to download Windows XP Professional x64 Edition for
    ages.
    |
    | http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx
    |
    | And I suspect that internally Win64 has apparantly been running on Alphas
    | and
    | Itaniums (maybe even MIPS R4000s) for years.
    |

    The structure for the Itaniums (IA64) and the Athlon 64 (x86-64) is
    completely different.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Hierophant" <nospam@duh.net> wrote in message news:s%Shd.17237$T_.3425@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > "Tom" <tom.thornhill-REMOVETHIS@freenet.de> wrote in message
    > news:4187f4c4$0$548$9b622d9e@news.freenet.de...
    > |
    > | "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    > | news:SfmdnecnuJtkqhncRVn-iQ@rogers.com...
    > | > http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/10/29/HNsolarislaunch_1.html
    > | >
    > | > Launched several quarters ahead of Microsoft Windows, despite starting
    > | > nearly two years later!
    > | >
    > | > Yousuf Khan
    > | >
    > |
    > | It's been possible to download Windows XP Professional x64 Edition for
    > ages.
    > |
    > | http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx
    > |
    > | And I suspect that internally Win64 has apparantly been running on Alphas
    > | and Itaniums (maybe even MIPS R4000s) for years.
    > |
    >
    > The structure for the Itaniums (IA64) and the Athlon 64 (x86-64) is
    > completely different.

    Yes, I know, as is the Alpha.

    But the Win64 kernel has run on all of them. They switched from Alpha to
    Itanium back in 1999.

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FOX/is_15_4/ai_55675956

    Interestingly the 64 bit Windows Server stuff still runs on Itanium - you can download it
    here for Itanium
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/ipf/default.mspx
    or here for x86-64
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/x64/trial/default.mspx

    but the desktop stuff seems to be x86-64 only
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx

    Tom.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tom wrote:

    > "Hierophant" <nospam@duh.net> wrote in message news:s%Shd.17237$T_.3425@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    >
    >>"Tom" <tom.thornhill-REMOVETHIS@freenet.de> wrote in message
    >>news:4187f4c4$0$548$9b622d9e@news.freenet.de...
    >>|
    >>| "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    >>| news:SfmdnecnuJtkqhncRVn-iQ@rogers.com...
    >>| > http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/10/29/HNsolarislaunch_1.html
    >>| >
    >>| > Launched several quarters ahead of Microsoft Windows, despite starting
    >>| > nearly two years later!
    >>| >
    >>| > Yousuf Khan
    >>| >
    >>|
    >>| It's been possible to download Windows XP Professional x64 Edition for
    >>ages.
    >>|
    >>| http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx
    >>|
    >>| And I suspect that internally Win64 has apparantly been running on Alphas
    >>| and Itaniums (maybe even MIPS R4000s) for years.
    >>|
    >>
    >>The structure for the Itaniums (IA64) and the Athlon 64 (x86-64) is
    >>completely different.
    >
    >
    > Yes, I know, as is the Alpha.
    >
    > But the Win64 kernel has run on all of them. They switched from Alpha to
    > Itanium back in 1999.
    >
    > http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FOX/is_15_4/ai_55675956
    >
    > Interestingly the 64 bit Windows Server stuff still runs on Itanium - you can download it
    > here for Itanium
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/ipf/default.mspx
    > or here for x86-64
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/x64/trial/default.mspx
    >
    > but the desktop stuff seems to be x86-64 only
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx
    >
    > Tom.
    >
    >
    I can't find the link right now, but there is a Windows XP Professional
    IA64 for Itanium processors also. People in the X64 forum have tried
    "updating" their version of X64 with the IA64 updates. Needles to say,
    they don't work!
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 21:58:43 +0100, "Tom"
    <tom.thornhill-REMOVETHIS@freenet.de> wrote:
    >
    >"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    >news:SfmdnecnuJtkqhncRVn-iQ@rogers.com...
    >> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/10/29/HNsolarislaunch_1.html
    >>
    >> Launched several quarters ahead of Microsoft Windows, despite starting
    >> nearly two years later!
    >>
    >
    >It's been possible to download Windows XP Professional x64 Edition for ages.
    >
    >http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx

    Yes, for a beta version. However the actual release version of XP for
    x64 seems to be quite some ways off.

    >And I suspect that internally Win64 has apparantly been running on Alphas
    >and
    >Itaniums (maybe even MIPS R4000s) for years.

    The Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC ports of Windows were never really
    full-fledged 64-bit OSes. More of a 32-bit OS running on 64-bit
    hardware with the odd extra thrown in here or there. Of course, all
    of those ports died out quite some time ago.

    Windows is available in a full-release version for IA-64 (Itanium),
    and it is a full-fledged 64-bit OS in every sense of the word.
    However that doesn't have much to do with Windows for x64 (aka
    AMD64/EM64T/x86-64). Similarly Solaris has been available as a
    full-fledged 64-bit OS for SPARC for a good bit of time (6 or 7
    years?)

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <q9sgo0tjlaucjob5tfib00k7iu5su0f4f8@4ax.com>,
    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> writes:
    >
    > The Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC ports of Windows were never really
    > full-fledged 64-bit OSes. More of a 32-bit OS running on 64-bit
    > hardware with the odd extra thrown in here or there. Of course, all
    > of those ports died out quite some time ago.
    >
    > Windows is available in a full-release version for IA-64 (Itanium),
    > and it is a full-fledged 64-bit OS in every sense of the word.

    Well, kind of. If you ignore that Microsoft have decided to stop
    porting any more of their applications to it, and many ISV's
    who ported their own applications have now ceased support for the
    platform. If you look at Microsoft's list of OEMs shipping 64-bit
    Windows, HP was the only one with any volume at all, and they
    recently announced they are ceasing production of Itanium workstations.

    > However that doesn't have much to do with Windows for x64 (aka
    > AMD64/EM64T/x86-64). Similarly Solaris has been available as a
    > full-fledged 64-bit OS for SPARC for a good bit of time (6 or 7
    > years?)

    Solaris was the first OS to be up and running on the Itanium
    emulators too (Solaris 7).

    --
    Andrew Gabriel
    Consultant Software Engineer
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 01:16:11 -0500, Tony Hill wrote:

    >>And I suspect that internally Win64 has apparantly been running on Alphas
    >>and
    >>Itaniums (maybe even MIPS R4000s) for years.
    >
    > The Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC ports of Windows were never really
    > full-fledged 64-bit OSes. More of a 32-bit OS running on 64-bit hardware
    > with the odd extra thrown in here or there. Of course, all of those ports
    > died out quite some time ago.

    I think he meant that the initial development of 64bit Windows port
    (destined for IA64) was done with Alphas before the first Itanium hardware
    showed up at Redmond. This apparently carried on even after Compaq dropped
    the Alpha port of W2K beta 2 (or was it beta 3?).

    Cheers
    Anton
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "AD." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:pan.2004.11.03.07.32.33.597973@privacy.net...
    > On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 01:16:11 -0500, Tony Hill wrote:
    >
    > >>And I suspect that internally Win64 has apparantly been running on Alphas
    > >>and Itaniums (maybe even MIPS R4000s) for years.
    > >
    > > The Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC ports of Windows were never really
    > > full-fledged 64-bit OSes. More of a 32-bit OS running on 64-bit hardware
    > > with the odd extra thrown in here or there. Of course, all of those ports
    > > died out quite some time ago.
    >
    > I think he meant that the initial development of 64bit Windows port
    > (destined for IA64) was done with Alphas before the first Itanium hardware
    > showed up at Redmond. This apparently carried on even after Compaq dropped
    > the Alpha port of W2K beta 2 (or was it beta 3?).

    Yeah exactly . They kept Alpha alive as a 64bit dev platform while they waited for
    Itaniums -

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FOX/is_15_4/ai_55675956

    And Win64 _could_ have run on the R4000 while they were waiting for Alphas,
    though I can't find any reference to that happening

    >
    > Cheers
    > Anton
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware x86 Solaris