Microsoft officially cancels WinXP for Itanium

[Guest]

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

I guess it was long assumed anyways.

Microsoft nixes Windows XP for Itanium
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2005/0104micronixes.html

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> I guess it was long assumed anyways.
>
> Microsoft nixes Windows XP for Itanium
> http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2005/0104micronixes.html
>
> Yousuf Khan


Merced............

looks like "itanic" was the proper name for it afterall!! (and I think
that label is at least 5-yrs old).


goodbye Itanic.........only 16 yrs later. all for nothing.

the Itanic will keep the Sparc/Alpha/Mips/etc......(and probably
powerPC) company in the graveyard.


yep, RISC sure did destroy tha archaic CISC didn't it?

yep, VLIW sure did destroy that archaic RISC/CISC didn't it?


yep. x86 is dead. (of course SSE desimated x87 too!! - yep)


;-).



--
Oh! Death to Nancy
What is this taht I can see
Cold icy hands taking hold of me
for Death has come, you all can see.
Hell has open it,s gate to trick me.
Oh! Death, Oh! Death, can't you spare
me, over for another year!
I'll stuff your jaws till you can't talk
I'll blind your leg's till you can't walk
I'll tie your hands till you can't make a
stand.
And finally I'll close your eyes so you
can't see
I'll bring sexual death unto you for me.

B.T.K.


Oh, Anna Why Didn’t You Appear
T’ was perfect plan of deviant pleasure so bold on that Spring nite
My inner felling hot with propension of the new awakening season
Warn, wet with inner fear and rapture, my pleasure of entanglement, like
new vines at night
Oh, Anna, Why Didn’t You Appear
Drop of fear fresh Spring rain would roll down from your nakedness to
scent to lofty fever that burns within,
In that small world of longing, fear, rapture, and desparation, the game
we play, fall on devil ears
Fantasy spring forth, mounts, to storm fury, then winter clam at the end.
Oh, Anna Why Didn’t You Appear
Alone, now in another time span I lay with sweet enrapture garments
across most private thought
Bed of Spring moist grass, clean before the sun, enslaved with control,
warm wind scenting the air, sun light sparkle tears in eyes so deep and
clear.
Alone again I trod in pass memory of mirrors, and ponder why for number
eight was not.
Oh, Anna Why Didn’t You Appear

B.T.K.

 

[keith]

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

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 04:36:57 +0000, gaffo wrote:


> yep, RISC sure did destroy tha archaic CISC didn't it?

It did. ...ever look inside a modern "CISC" processor? ;-)


--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:39:07 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:

>I guess it was long assumed anyways.
>
>Microsoft nixes Windows XP for Itanium
>http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2005/0104micronixes.html
>

Hmm.. Anyone know if MS is canceling ALL Windows for Itanium, or just
the more desktop/workstation oriented Windows XP version? In other
words, are they going to continue supporting Windows Server 2003 (and
it's follow-ups) for Itanium?

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

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

This is just an announcement about cancelling the workstation oriented
Windows XP for Itanium, not the server-oriented Windows 2003. However,
now is the appropriate time to put Windows 2003 for Itanium on the
deathwatch.

Yousuf Khan

 

[keith]

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:10:59 -0500, Tony Hill wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:39:07 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I guess it was long assumed anyways.
>>
>>Microsoft nixes Windows XP for Itanium
>>http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2005/0104micronixes.html
>>
>
> Hmm.. Anyone know if MS is canceling ALL Windows for Itanium, or just
> the more desktop/workstation oriented Windows XP version? In other
> words, are they going to continue supporting Windows Server 2003 (and
> it's follow-ups) for Itanium?

Really, is there a difference? If Itanic is meant for servers (which it
wasn't), is WinBlows a reasonable platfor for that space? The people who
will put up with the shortcommings of Win, are the same ones who put up
with the shortcommings of x86.

The way I see it is Itanic struck the iceberg months ago. ...and perhaps
we're just starting to hear about the victims. It's not like this wasn't
predicted in this group *years* ago.

Let's see:

Intel 0 - .chips 3?
;-)

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

keith wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:10:59 -0500, Tony Hill wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:39:07 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I guess it was long assumed anyways.
>>>
>>>Microsoft nixes Windows XP for Itanium
>>>http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2005/0104micronixes.html
>>>
>>
>>Hmm.. Anyone know if MS is canceling ALL Windows for Itanium, or just
>>the more desktop/workstation oriented Windows XP version? In other
>>words, are they going to continue supporting Windows Server 2003 (and
>>it's follow-ups) for Itanium?
>

MS has contractual obligations to support those who have already
purchased W2K3 server for their Itanics. XP-64 for Itanic never
made it out of beta, so of course no copies were sold and no
support need ever be supplied.

>
> Really, is there a difference? If Itanic is meant for servers (which it
> wasn't),

Itanic *was* originally intended for workstations and mid to
high-end servers. Even if you don't remember that, just consider
the $20 Billion revenue Intel expected to reach by 2003. That
would have required on the order of 10 million chips and there is
no other market that big. Excepting the PC market, of course.



>is WinBlows a reasonable platfor for that space? The people who
> will put up with the shortcommings of Win, are the same ones who put up
> with the shortcommings of x86.



> The way I see it is Itanic struck the iceberg months ago. ...and perhaps

/s/months/years/ ????

> we're just starting to hear about the victims. It's not like this wasn't
> predicted in this group *years* ago.
>
> Let's see:
>
> Intel 0 - .chips 3?
> ;-)
>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <ldSEd.51623$8l.38746@pd7tw1no>, rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
says...
> keith wrote:

>
> >> Really, is there a difference? If Itanic is meant for servers
> >> (which it wasn't),

> Itanic *was* originally intended for workstations and mid to
> high-end servers. Even if you don't remember that, just consider
> the $20 Billion revenue Intel expected to reach by 2003. That
> would have required on the order of 10 million chips and there is
> no other market that big. Excepting the PC market, of course.

I should have said "meant _only_ for servers". I know people are going
to come unglued, but it *was* also intended to displace x86 on the
desktop, right about now.

> >is WinBlows a reasonable platfor for that space? The people who
> > will put up with the shortcommings of Win, are the same ones who put up
> > with the shortcommings of x86.
>
>
>
> > The way I see it is Itanic struck the iceberg months ago. ...and perhaps
>
> /s/months/years/ ????

Perhaps the iceberg was sighted years ago, but the helm froze? ;-)

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:06:31 -0500, Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote:

>In article <ldSEd.51623$8l.38746@pd7tw1no>, rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
>says...
>> keith wrote:
>
>>
>> >> Really, is there a difference? If Itanic is meant for servers
>> >> (which it wasn't),
>
>> Itanic *was* originally intended for workstations and mid to
>> high-end servers. Even if you don't remember that, just consider
>> the $20 Billion revenue Intel expected to reach by 2003. That
>> would have required on the order of 10 million chips and there is
>> no other market that big. Excepting the PC market, of course.
>
>I should have said "meant _only_ for servers". I know people are going
>to come unglued, but it *was* also intended to displace x86 on the
>desktop, right about now.

Nope, I'm still "glued".;-) I still distinctly recall the graphic which
showed the x86 relegated to STBs by 2005/6. Even accounting for any
slippage due to the Merced flop, it should have been well established in
the upper desktop space by now.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[keith]

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

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:12:45 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:06:31 -0500, Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <ldSEd.51623$8l.38746@pd7tw1no>, rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
>>says...
>>> keith wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >> Really, is there a difference? If Itanic is meant for servers
>>> >> (which it wasn't),
>>
>>> Itanic *was* originally intended for workstations and mid to
>>> high-end servers. Even if you don't remember that, just consider
>>> the $20 Billion revenue Intel expected to reach by 2003. That
>>> would have required on the order of 10 million chips and there is
>>> no other market that big. Excepting the PC market, of course.
>>
>>I should have said "meant _only_ for servers". I know people are going
>>to come unglued, but it *was* also intended to displace x86 on the
>>desktop, right about now.
>
> Nope, I'm still "glued".;-) I still distinctly recall the graphic which
> showed the x86 relegated to STBs by 2005/6. Even accounting for any
> slippage due to the Merced flop, it should have been well established in
> the upper desktop space by now.

Is it any wonder than M$ is bailing? I *knew* that M$ burried Itanic when
they came out behind AMD64, and told Intel to go scratch if they thought
M$ was going to do another x86-64 architecture.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:26:59 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:12:45 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:06:31 -0500, Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <ldSEd.51623$8l.38746@pd7tw1no>, rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
>>>says...
>>>> keith wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> Really, is there a difference? If Itanic is meant for servers
>>>> >> (which it wasn't),
>>>
>>>> Itanic *was* originally intended for workstations and mid to
>>>> high-end servers. Even if you don't remember that, just consider
>>>> the $20 Billion revenue Intel expected to reach by 2003. That
>>>> would have required on the order of 10 million chips and there is
>>>> no other market that big. Excepting the PC market, of course.
>>>
>>>I should have said "meant _only_ for servers". I know people are going
>>>to come unglued, but it *was* also intended to displace x86 on the
>>>desktop, right about now.
>>
>> Nope, I'm still "glued".;-) I still distinctly recall the graphic which
>> showed the x86 relegated to STBs by 2005/6. Even accounting for any
>> slippage due to the Merced flop, it should have been well established in
>> the upper desktop space by now.
>
>Is it any wonder than M$ is bailing? I *knew* that M$ burried Itanic when
>they came out behind AMD64, and told Intel to go scratch if they thought
>M$ was going to do another x86-64 architecture.

Well in the ref'd article they (M$) still appeared to be mumbling something
about IA64 for high end servers... and in that space, they don't have
anything else do they?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[keith]

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:58:31 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:26:59 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:12:45 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:06:31 -0500, Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <ldSEd.51623$8l.38746@pd7tw1no>, rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
>>>>says...
>>>>> keith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Really, is there a difference? If Itanic is meant for servers
>>>>> >> (which it wasn't),
>>>>
>>>>> Itanic *was* originally intended for workstations and mid to
>>>>> high-end servers. Even if you don't remember that, just consider
>>>>> the $20 Billion revenue Intel expected to reach by 2003. That
>>>>> would have required on the order of 10 million chips and there is
>>>>> no other market that big. Excepting the PC market, of course.
>>>>
>>>>I should have said "meant _only_ for servers". I know people are going
>>>>to come unglued, but it *was* also intended to displace x86 on the
>>>>desktop, right about now.
>>>
>>> Nope, I'm still "glued".;-) I still distinctly recall the graphic which
>>> showed the x86 relegated to STBs by 2005/6. Even accounting for any
>>> slippage due to the Merced flop, it should have been well established in
>>> the upper desktop space by now.
>>
>>Is it any wonder than M$ is bailing? I *knew* that M$ burried Itanic when
>>they came out behind AMD64, and told Intel to go scratch if they thought
>>M$ was going to do another x86-64 architecture.
>
> Well in the ref'd article they (M$) still appeared to be mumbling something
> about IA64 for high end servers... and in that space, they don't have
> anything else do they?

More like they're contractually obligated to make noise about IA64. You
really don't think they're serious abou tthis market, do you. Remember,
Unix/Linix is firmly entrenched there.

--
Keith

--
Keith