Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

OS FOR THE ITANIUM!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 24, 2001 4:17:49 AM

just saw on Ace's: <A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/#N25000428" target="_new">Windows/Itanium Betas to Ship Soon</A>

in related news: Microsoft will make available Dos 1.1 for the very backward compatible x86-64 Clawhammer.

"OMFG the clawhammer can run my old code very fast, excellent!" - Bill Gates.

"AMD/VIA...you <i>still</i> are the weakest link, good bye!"

More about : itanium

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2001 11:55:25 AM

was there a point to that post? aside from itanium is goig to totaly suck on any 32bit app and as of far good luck trying to find 64 bit apps aside froma os or two.

Computer Shop owner and Head tech.
May 25, 2001 12:59:26 AM

Blade, could you spread your cheeks? showing us your ass is not good enough.

Itanium is a true 64bit process, WTF would you run 32bit apps on it? GG moron.

Dont get your panties in a bunch cause there are hundreds of 64bit applications available from Sun, Sgi, Alpha, and IBM to name a few. your a [-peep-] moron indeed!

We are running turbolinux on our itanium atm, its doing CFD on marspace as I post this message.it takes weeks to complete on a single 32bit CPU and should only takes a few days on itanium (hasnt completed yet, tomorrow or sometime tonite it will be done). sure we can run the same model on a origin3800 w/ 512 processors or more and complete same model in hours but a huge cost difference.

SGI will be offering Itanium servers and northwood workstations in 4Q2001. motherboards, books, driver CD's, custom printed boxes are ramped up in production.

Time is money and cutting that kind of time off projects is where Itanium pays for itself.

Side note, we are a single copy of running IRIX on 512 processors. this is a world record atm, and was achieved only this month. we are pushing for 1024 next month (actually sometime next week)

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5405523.html?tag=m...
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2001 2:08:56 AM

what a nice show of verbal diahria. itanium HA! will like there p-4 be slower. and true 64bit with out native 32 will kill it in every area but your super linux and sun crap. since i would never demote my self to useing such crap it would suck more for me then them. tons of them sure there are so what. only people that will get much outa it are beos linux and unix. i could care less since i use windows. and the hammer is 64bit 32bit dual die so yes it true 64 bit and 32 bit. if u want only and limited 64 bit sure itanium good fr you fro picking the limited crap like pentium and linux to name only 2. if you can get away with only using 64bit everything and use that [-peep-] then find it will be good for you however for me its crap and the hammer will be much better fro me not that it wont spank itanium with a later verson anyways but hay.

Computer Shop owner and Head tech.
May 25, 2001 3:11:27 AM

Probably Novell or Cisco will make 64 bit for server.
May 25, 2001 9:48:23 AM

Any idea why Cisco would have interest in 64 bit (intel) processors?

-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
May 25, 2001 5:46:49 PM

AHAHAAHA, Blade. thanks for spreading your ass cheeks got a much better view that time.

Some things you obviously are clueless too.

1. AMD dropped EV6 bus and went with NUMA licensed from SGI rated at 1.6Gb per sec. (inferior already)
2. Hammer is SMP on a chip, dual 32 bit cores witch is NOT a true 64 bit processor. hence good at 32bit apps.
3. All apllications will have to be recompiled for Hammer
4. hammer has no OS atm. you get to base your [-peep-] UP flame on a "software simulator" running on a 1.1Ghz Athlon.

Did you have this same negative stance towards moving to 32bit? im sure you hated leaving 16bit or 8bit.

Blade your no shop owner, let alone a tech. more like a jackass upset with duron inferiority complex spewing crap like a staff infected zit.

You have no business owning a computer let alone working on one. not to knock your english skills but YOU SUCK hardcore and should consult mavis beacon. If your not a native english speaking person, I understand and appoligize for ragging your lack of skills.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2001 7:10:38 PM

Novell NetWare 6 is not going to be 64 bit.

In a world without fences, who needs Gates?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2001 8:15:19 PM

i would like to know where you read your info first off where did you ever read its dual 32bit HA! its a 64 bit 32 bit core. EV6 never heard about that but i do know that current band is 2.1gigs and the new quad pumped bus is 6.2 still i wonder wherer you get your info.i realy dont understand why you think i had a problem moving tword 32 bit. i never said i didnt want it to happen. this was a totaly miss informed post. duron inferiority? well i never said i even liked value chips. i dont waist time in value crap.

Computer Shop owner and Head tech.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2001 8:34:49 PM

just to add to my post im am however agenced buying a processor that cant do [-peep-] with my current apps. itanium will be good for servers running 64bit but hammer will be good for that and end users that dont have a fully compatable 64bit system. and so far i dont know one person that has 64bit anything on there system yet.

Computer Shop owner and Head tech.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2001 8:40:44 PM

umm, the reason we had no problem moving to 32 bit is because it ran 16 bit fine. I've run dos 4.0 on a 286, then later on a 386. I then went to dos 5 and win 3.1, and it would have run windows 95 albeit VERY slowly. The Itanic won't do that. Try running any version of windows currently available on Itanic, and your just screwed. The Hammer will run any crap today fast, and it will run 64 bit tomorrow fast. The Itanic will run 32 bit SLOW, and 64 bit fast.
Which sounds reasonable?
Also saying "All apllications will have to be recompiled for Hammer" is dummer than crap. AMD is making hammer x86 compatible. What does that mean, your small mind asks? It means that Hammer will be able to run 32 bit no problem from the start, while Intel will be the one running the emulator.

Another note. Blade obviously knows more about bandwidth than you, as you said, "NUMA licensed from SGI rated at 1.6Ghz per sec." Ghz is not the proper measure Blade said that it was rated at 2.1 Gb per second, there's a BIG difference.

One final note: FUGGER, your English SUCKS as bad Blades, and you ain't no tech. Your spelling ain't worth nothing either.

Aklein



Life is hard...Live with it.
May 25, 2001 9:16:51 PM

Still a Dork...talk about a loser

96.3 % of Statistics are made up.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2001 10:07:21 PM

Bah, Windows (NT) has already done 64-bit. In the 3.51 days it supported Alpha (and IIRC SPARC or some other 64-bit platform.) This support disappeared in 4.0, apparently from a lack of interest and sales, although Windows NT/Alpha still has something of a following. We'll see how Microsoft finds the 64-bit waters this time around.

And yes, fugger, there are many 64-bit platforms out there, most of them taking years to gain a decent package of software. Alpha is probably the most mature, as its been around for nearly 10 years, and still has never netted more than limited penetration. 64-bit != instant success.


(And AMDMELTDOWN, try to keep the mouth frothing to a minimum. Your Itanium will also run DOS 1.1! :)  )
May 25, 2001 11:49:49 PM

I'm with blade on this one.

I don't think my company is going to run out and replace everything from MS office to Excell, to PRO-Engineer, to Autocad...and 2 dozen others...etc, etc, etc, etc just to get an itainium 64bit processor. JEEZ that would be so stupid!

And I own about 200 programs (mostly games) that im not about to make obsolete just yet.

AMD is the way to go. And I'll tell you why, ...it will take an evolution to get to 64bit. With AMD, people can get 64 bit processing, then as programs migrate to 64bit (and that will take time) people will eventually feel comfortabe with 64bit only processing. By that time AMD will be where they need to be in regard to 64bit only.

But to try and jump to it all at once like intel is doing is almost as stupid as fugger. Seems fugger is the one whos ass cheeks are spread open here. I hope he doesn't run a business. ...can u say bankrupt? LOL.



I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bud on 05/25/01 05:52 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 26, 2001 12:13:52 AM

http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/partners/isv.html

This topic was about "OS for Itanium" or "I have no use for Itanium so I will flame it to death"?

Chew on those Itanium apps for awhile.

Ok so you have no use to Itanium now, but the rest of the world does. get a clue pal the world does not revolve around your game playing ass.

"Im with blade on this one" Bud is obviously Blades ssecond account. GG

No one is making anything obsolete, your clueless to the new technology and the benifit for 64bit. I didnt see CRAMP all over Alpha with their 64bit processor and what runs on it. yet your here whining like a 4 year old without your tricycle. face is BUD, one day you will get a bigger bicycle cause that tricycle just is not cutting anymore.

"im with blade on his one" your playing games WTF you even thinking about a Itanium. you cannot afford one. you have no use for one yet your opinion is based on Blade! rag it into the ground some more asswipe, show us that you are superior to Intel Engineers and your secretly working on a true 128bit processor that is geared for 32bit apps.

AMD lemmmings are getting more pathetic as the minutes roll by.

Intanium is here, deal with it.
May 26, 2001 12:35:22 AM

"there is no coding diffenrence between the Itanium and Hammer"

Actually, there's a rather large difference. The 64-bit instruction sets for the two are completely different. Software written for IA64 (Itanium's 64-bit instructions) will only work on an IA64 CPU. Software written for x86-64 (Hammer's 64-bit instructions) will only work on an x64-64 CPU.

"both can run Windows XP-64bit but it's just that Hammer is faster"

Microsoft's 64-bit Windows has been built using IA64. They currently have no plans to support x86-64. Thus, the Hammer will not be able to run 64-bit Windows at all. It will still be able to run 32-bit Windows (Windows 2000, etc), but what's the point in buying a 64-bit CPU for a much greater price and then running 32-bit software on it?

If we were to compare the Itanium and the Hammer both running a 32-bit OS, then sure, the Hammer would be faster. But again, why would anyone run a 32-bit OS for a 64-bit CPU (Itanium) when a 64-bit OS is available? They wouldn't. As far as comparisons go, if you want to compare Windows performance, you will be comparing 64-bit Windows with the Itanium to 32-bit Windows with the Hammer. That won't be much of a contest.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 26, 2001 12:41:20 AM

64bit processors are not for home users blade.

"One final note: FUGGER, your English SUCKS as bad Blades, and you ain't no tech. Your spelling ain't worth nothing either."

Ok, Mavis Beacon what did I mispell? zitt has 2 t's? give me a break loser. "ain't"? wtf you get that from?

Blade does not know [-peep-] about bandwidth, nor do you. SGI has NUMA specs posted. find the press room you will see that AMD has licensed NUMA1 architecture specificly for Hammer. Now go over to AMD and you will see that Hammer will not use EV6 (Blade was clueless to what EV6 even was dipshit)instead go with NUMA licensed from SGI.

I love these stupid [-peep-] AMD lemmings who don't know [-peep-] yet try to flame the most stupid angles and split every hair without considering what they are actually saying.

You have no idea how Hammer will run. no one does yet. maybe you should go play with that software simulator some more. AMD should have went with macromedia canned demo, cheaper and more beliveable.

Once again, what part of x86 did you not understand in the Hammer product description? yet your ready to say how well it x86 software performs on 64bit applications. BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT X86 [-peep-] PLATFORM JACKASS. were talking about a true 64bit OS and true 64bit application.

"The Hammer will run any crap today fast, and it will run 64 bit tomorrow fast." first off the Hammer is not out today, the hammer has no OS today, the Hammer is mystic scribblings on white papers till the plant gets converted to .13 micron. so that means everything you posted about Hammer to be complete bullshit.
May 27, 2001 2:51:37 AM

FUGGER:"your playing games WTF you even thinking about a Itanium. you cannot afford one."

I pulled down 80 Grand last year, and that doesn’t include my wife's income....maybe you did better? Please, tell us...Sure, you run a business I'll bet...heheh. And your going to replace 15 Pro-Engineer stations at oh...uhhh 10,000/seat to get 64 bit processing...that is WHEN PTC actually has 64-bit programs...heheheh. Yeah, run out and switch over smart guy. You can afford it...big successful business man that you are.....heh

Fugger:"This topic was about "OS for Itanium" or "I have no use for Itanium so I will flame it to death"?"

I Well now...I may have a use for Itainum, even right away, IF it could run backwards compatible. But according to you it won't. So I will buy a Hammer first. And I may even go back to building INTEL Pentium machines someday....That is, when the price performance ratio gets parallel with AMD's price performance. Or when Intel TRULY has something I (or anybody for that matter), could want in technology. But since PII 2nd level cache there's been nothing revolutionary
about pentium that AMD does not ALSO have. INTEL........yaaaawwwnnnnn.

Yeah, I like my PII400 and my PIII600. But I've got much more horsepower and a better cost on my Athlon 800's 850's 1000's and 1200's.

That's right...I've built many an Intel machine. How many AMD'S did you build last year Mr Know it all?

Personally I hope you don't get banned....You're comic relief. And since I've got the mouth of a long shoreman, your 5th grade vernacular doesn't bother me a bit.

Hell, you're probably some scrawny hermorphadite, loud mouth, girl beater...And I'd no doubt bash your moronic, wimpy, faggoty, cock smoking face in if you said those thing to my face. Hell, I just kicked some guys ass the other day for talking like that in front of my daughter. I sure wouldn't spare your weasley, pole smoking, ass.

See.....I can talk like that too. Does it make me any smarter than you?...nope.
Like I said, you're only comic relief around here. ASK ANYBODY.

People even start threads entirely about you and what a
complete retard you are. Well you wanted fame? right?. Well
you got it...But why you'd want to be known as an abrasive,
annoying, child molesting, faggot though is beyond me...lolol

But, hey if it floats your boat....go for it.
Looking forward to see your next ranting...as I can always use a good laugh.





I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
May 27, 2001 4:22:17 AM

1) Provide links. I find it very hard to believe that AMD would <i>downgrade</i> the bus when bandwidth is getting more critical. Your credibility hit zero long ago, so you'll have to show solid proof.

2) Hammer is a 64-bit CPU, with full 64-bit registers and instructions for handling them. The registers are extended the same way 16-bit registers got extended in the transition from 286 to 386. See <A HREF="http://www.x86-64.org/" target="_new">http://www.x86-64.org/&lt;/A> for more details.

Your bit on this was blatant BS. Either you didn't even bother to read up, or you decided the facts were just too damaging to your cause. Your credibility just hit a negative point.

3) Hammer offers a 32-bit "compatibility mode"--and it starts up in a backwards compatibility mode, just like the current 32-bit x86 CPUs do. After the BIOS passes control to the bootsector code, either the bootsector code or the O/S kernel can bootstrap it up to 32-bit or 64-bit. Once in 64-bit mode, the Hammer can provide a "backwards compatible" 32-bit sub-environment, much like virtual-8086 mode on 32-bit x86 CPUs. It can also still provide virtual-8086 mode, btw. The only apps that would have to be recompiled are the few 32-bit user-level apps that get too intimate with the system internals (same thing happened with apps under virtual-8086 mode).

Oh, and the IA64 isn't too great in this regard either. What was your point anyways?

4) Fair enough, score one for Intel. But Linux (my primary O/S) will fully support it when it comes out. I honestly do not care about Windows; Microsoft O/S's are little more than toys in any event.

Kelledin

bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2001 4:43:58 AM

I have to aplaud Intel for having the guts to introduce a true 64-bit processor. It will be YEARS before all the software gets sorted out to the point that it will be practicle for a PC, but someone had to do it. Imagine if we were still using 16-bit processores and OS's, or even 8-bit? Technology has to advance somewhere. By trying to support both, AMD is simply dragging out the process. Now, it I REALLY WANTED a 64-bit processor next year, I would be stuck with AMD in the short term. But if I wait 5 years to go to 64-bit, AMD's 32-bit compatability will be pointless by then.
Intel is going to loose a lot of initial sales by having a 64-bit-only processor, but in the long run, things look good for them.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2001 5:25:27 AM

well i never said it wasnt a good chip or that it wouldnt be a good one in a few years. but amd is going the step rout they alreayd have the plan for 32bit hammer 32bit 64bit hammer and pure 64bit when more apps take advantage. i sure want 64bit also but i dont have one 64bit app. after 64bit os more populer in the main streem you wont find me with 32bit processors.

Computer Shop owner and Head tech.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2001 5:44:31 AM

I agree with Crashman -- it's about time to start getting beyond x86. Intel has always done the backwards-compatible thing (as far as PC processors) and I, too, am glad that they're designing this (with Hewlett-Packard) from the ground up. A few years ago, when I learned a little x86 assembly language programming, I was astonished at the number of little hardware-level gotchas that exist due to backwards compatibility.

I'm no fan of Intel's (typing this on a 500 MHz K6-2 and piecing together a 1.33 GHz Athlon) but I think this is a smart move, in the long run.

"Arte es vida"
May 27, 2001 6:16:57 AM

Crashman -- Well said. Let me add a couple points. It is good for consumers that AMD and Intel take different approaches, which allows more choices for everyone. Ultimately, the market will decide which approach, the incremental one or the bold, radical one, will be the victor. One of the two may suffer somewhat down the road, but it's great for consumers. The real beauty is that we (the consumers) DO NOT have to take sides. Since PC hardware and software are routinely outdated in a year or two, we (the consumers) can do no wrong as long as we employ the strategy of what make most sense in the next year or two. Let them fight it out, and we go with the victor.

My second point is that it is quite logical why Intel and AMD take different approaches. Intel is the leader with dominant market position. It is up to Intel to push the industry to a new direction. On the other hand, AMD, being much smaller, needs to grab as many as customers as it can. The easiest way to do that is backward compatibility. It will be foolhardy for AMD to set radical direction changes since it will be more difficult to round up support (e.g. 3DNow). In the meantime, it will be foolish for Intel to sit on the sideline and let others set the future direction. Therefore, both approaches make sense.

**Spin all you want, but we the paying consumers will have the final word**
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2001 10:51:23 AM

hi meltdown, your name on a post alone, virtually guarantees a huge number of replies. its amazing how your post about OS compatability has turned into convoluted chip trashing. but perhaps the most disturbing thing is the lack of any links to backup peoples claims (yours the exception)



<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&..." target="_new"> maybe everybody needs this link </A>



however, we all start at the end and finish at the begining
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2001 3:38:33 PM

I might be missing something here, but who the hell cares about 64 bit for the desktop ? The way I see it, 64 bit has only some practical purpose for some very specific scientific apps/ number crunshing/ *huge* data warehouses, etc.

Comparing the transition from 16 to 32 bit with the transition from 32 to 64 is a skewed one. When we went from 8086 to the 386 (im deliberately omitting the 286) we did not only gain 32 bit registers and busses, but also, and much more importantly, we got protected mode processing, and we got multi tasking support. That was way more important than the 32 bits. Now, the 286 also sort of supported this with 16 bits, but required a hard boot to switch from protected mode to real mode, thereby eliminating the possibility to run both old and new apps. Thats why protected mode on the 286 was rarely or never used (corrections are welcome if I'm mistaken, it has been some time)..

Anyway, my point is.. 64 bit is really not much of an issue for the desktop for a very long time to come. It doesnt offer us anything more than an enormous memory addressing range, and a new awkward IA64 VLIW instuction set that is absolutely not guaranteed to perform better than x86.

Or does anyone here really expect to have Terrabytes of memory in 5 years ? Gigabytes.. yes, maybe. Terrabytes harddisk also perhaps.. but we really dont need 64 bit for our games, flask, word whatever.

Thats why I expect both the Itanium and the hammer to find their markets. Itanium on dedicated servers only, running a 64 bit OS and 64 apps only, especially applications that seem to benefit from the VLIW architecture. Hammer on the other hand, will be found primarely on the desktop, in workstations and in general purpose servers, competing there with 32 bit P4/5/6's.. running 32 and 64 bit versions of Windows / Unix / beOS and hopefully even Mac OS X one day.

I know Raystonn.. microsoft hasnt said it yet, but im pretty sure they *will* support the x86-64. Why would they give this market segment to Unix only ?

To get back to this Itanium vs Hammer thing.. they will hardly compete. Hammer will be found in market niches were Itanium doesnt have a chance (workstations, workgroup servers, ..) because of its cost and lack of 32 bit support. Itanium wil be found in high end, specific servers were it will compete against Suns, IBM's and the like. Maybe Hammer will also compete somewhat in that area, but I dont think it was AMDs primary market..

---- Owner of the only Dell computer with a AMD chip
May 27, 2001 9:26:16 PM

~ Side note, we are a single copy of running IRIX on 512 processors. this is a world record atm, and was achieved only this month. ~

Ho-hum... Pixar (makers of Toy Story etc) has bought some real 64bit machines totalling 2000 * UltraSPARC III processors and 4 terabytes of memory.

<A HREF="http:// www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2001-04/sunflash.2001042... " target="_new">http:// www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2001-04/sunflash.2001042... </A>

This is real 64bit processing for a real business. Believe me, it is not that hard to write distributed code for a controlled environment. However, observing Fugger's posts he obviously has difficulting writing anything.

<font color=blue> The Revolution starts here... as soon as I finish my coffee </font color=blue> :eek: 
May 28, 2001 12:51:38 AM

Errr...NT 4 actually did support the Alpha. I know, because I loaded it on an old AXP150 (the Jensen POS, all EISA and 540MB SCSI drives. Playing with power!)

Win2K was originally planned to support the Alpha as well, but those plans got scrapped a little while before launch. The last release candidate for the Alpha is still floating around on the web...not legally of course :wink: .

Btw, I scrapped the NT installation on that AXP150 and put Digital UNIX on that mofo. Much happier with a <i>real</i> O/S on that thing, kthx...

Kelledin

bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
May 28, 2001 12:53:32 AM

I wonder if INTEL will wait for AMD to introduce 64/32-bit first? Then, after people start slowly getting 64-bit apps INTEL could introduce their 64-bit hardware and be a superstar.....And to that end, if AMD anticipated this they could delay their 64/32-bit hardware in order to force
INTEL’s hand and blow their strategy...which would make us, the consumer wait....but I don't think they care about us anyway. ...Just some musing.



I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
May 28, 2001 2:12:58 AM

Intel has worked on its 64 bit processor long before AMD came up with the 32/64bit strategy. Itanium was supposed to come out in 1999, when AMD was concentrating on the release of Athlon so it could compete in the 32bit arena. Well, there were a lot of delays and problems for Itanium (many times it's referred as Itanic as in Titanic), which gave AMD a chance to catch up. So what we have now is certainly not by Intel's design.

In any way, the software work for x86/64bit will NOT work the Intel IA64, and vice versa. So ultimately, only one approach will prevail. Intel has money and muscle behind its approach, while AMD has the x86 inertia and compatibility in its corner. It will be fun to see how it comes out.

**Spin all you want, but we the paying consumers will have the final word**
!