Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #233034 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Susmita/Rajib" <bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-03-14 12:10 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-03-15 14:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 69 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
[?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems "Susmita/Rajib" <bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com> - 2021-03-14 12:10 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-03-14 12:30 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2021-03-14 12:40 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2021-03-14 16:50 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-14 12:50 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-14 15:00 +0100
[OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-14 20:20 +0100
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-15 09:20 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-15 10:10 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-15 11:20 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-15 12:10 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-15 12:40 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-15 13:00 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 13:20 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-03-15 14:00 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-03-15 15:00 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2021-03-15 17:50 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-03-15 19:20 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-15 20:30 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 16:10 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-15 20:30 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 22:50 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Christian Groessler <chris@groessler.org> - 2021-03-15 23:20 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-16 08:20 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-03-15 14:40 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-15 15:00 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-15 15:10 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-03-15 15:10 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2021-03-15 15:10 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-15 15:50 +0100
Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-15 16:00 +0100
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-15 16:10 +0100
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 17:50 +0100
Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-15 20:40 +0100
Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-15 20:50 +0100
Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-03-15 22:00 +0100
Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-15 22:30 +0100
Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 23:10 +0100
Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-16 00:10 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 17:40 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2021-03-15 18:00 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 18:20 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2021-03-15 18:50 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 18:40 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 20:10 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-15 21:00 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 22:10 +0100
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 09:50 +0100
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-15 16:30 +0100
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-15 17:40 +0100
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 23:10 +0100
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 23:20 +0100
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-16 09:20 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 03:30 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-14 12:30 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> - 2021-03-14 12:30 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-14 12:40 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2021-03-14 12:50 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-14 13:00 +0100
[OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-14 20:00 +0100
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 17:30 +0100
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-03-16 13:30 +0100
Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Martin Smith <tech@smithproductions.co.uk> - 2021-03-16 14:30 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-03-14 13:20 +0100
[?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems "Susmita/Rajib" <bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com> - 2021-03-14 13:40 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems "Susmita/Rajib" <bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com> - 2021-03-14 15:20 +0100
[?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems "Susmita/Rajib" <bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 05:10 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-15 11:50 +0100
Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 14:40 +0100
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 20:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BT14B-1NY-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233099 |
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: > On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:34:42 +0100 Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> wrote: >> Imagine a PC with 4GB adressable memory space in 1980. > I can. It would have cost as much as a mainframe to make full use of it. I don't say to put it in, only to have a flat 32bit address range. Just like the current 64bit systems don't have 16 Exabyte of memory in them. (I still vividly remember using memmaker and manual ordering the drivers in config.sys and autoexec.bat to shave another 2KB from the lower memory so the IPX driver would fit so Doom would run.) S° -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 22:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BT3g6-30G-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233128 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Lu, 15 mar 21, 20:24:56, Sven Hartge wrote: > > (I still vividly remember using memmaker and manual ordering the drivers > in config.sys and autoexec.bat to shave another 2KB from the lower > memory so the IPX driver would fit so Doom would run.) For me it was Warcraft :) And for some game (possibly also Warcraft) I had to pretend having a sound card by listing the driver in config.sys, otherwise it wouldn't even start. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christian Groessler <chris@groessler.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 23:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BT3J8-3pC-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233138 |
On 3/15/21 10:47 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 15 mar 21, 20:24:56, Sven Hartge wrote: >> (I still vividly remember using memmaker and manual ordering the drivers >> in config.sys and autoexec.bat to shave another 2KB from the lower >> memory so the IPX driver would fit so Doom would run.) > For me it was Warcraft :) > > And for some game (possibly also Warcraft) I had to pretend having a > sound card by listing the driver in config.sys, otherwise it wouldn't > even start. For me it was "Worms". And I was using QEMM and Quarterdeck Manifest to get maximal memory in the lower 640k. regards, chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-16 08:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BTc9H-9D-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233142 |
Christian Groessler <chris@groessler.org> wrote: > On 3/15/21 10:47 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: >> On Lu, 15 mar 21, 20:24:56, Sven Hartge wrote: >>> (I still vividly remember using memmaker and manual ordering the drivers >>> in config.sys and autoexec.bat to shave another 2KB from the lower >>> memory so the IPX driver would fit so Doom would run.) >> For me it was Warcraft :) >> And for some game (possibly also Warcraft) I had to pretend having a >> sound card by listing the driver in config.sys, otherwise it wouldn't >> even start. > For me it was "Worms". > And I was using QEMM and Quarterdeck Manifest to get maximal memory in > the lower 640k. Ooooh, look at Mr Fancy here, cheating with 3rd party products to get ahead :) I'll throw in the special "maximise XMS memory boot disk" I had for Comanche because that game just *hated* emm386.exe but without EMM, stuff like "LOADHIGH" to push drivers into the UMB was not available and I was too lazy to add another branch to my already convoluted config.sys boot menu. S° -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 14:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BSVBU-6U0-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233095 |
On Monday 15 March 2021 07:05:02 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote: > > [...] > > > Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC > > in 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble > > M68k CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not be > > in competition with the mainframes the PC was supposed to interface > > with primarily. > > Too lazy to research now, but it sounds credible, yes. > > > If this rumor is true and IBM had acted differently, the PC > > ecosystem today would also look quite differently. > > Or the Z8000. Absolutely. 8086 was, architecturally, the worst > possible choice at that time. > That, IIRC was a new, super shiny, thing from zilog. No experience with it, but if it was as unreliable as the z-80, was, I'm not sorry it failed. The Z-80 had an instruction that swapped the foregrund/background register sets. But it only worked on odd hours of the day. And had no way of testing if the command had worked without sacrificing 1 of the three registers. in both sets. When I finally got schmardter and wrote a test loop to check it, called zilog, and it was out of their 90 day warranty. They would not replace it. I should have called them and got a sample, but I'm honest and told them the truth. I never again used a zilog chip in anything. I was then on a small town AM/FM radio stations budget, developing an Automatic Transmitter System for a temperature picky fm transmitter that really ought to have been replaced, starting with the brand label on the front panel. This was in 1980, and the late 70's saw many Ma and Pa small town broadcasters severely impacted by trying to replace aging tube transmitters with early solid state versions before the tech was mature enough to be as dependable as the tube models. It took another ten years before the semi failure rates went below that of electrolytic capacitors. Now design rule violations by the gear makers are responsible for a good share of the failure bugs. But they are a distant part of the list, well behind electrolytic caps whose technology has not been seriously improved in a hundred years now. Even Tesla has put money into new versions, and come up short or they would be in his cars replaceing the lithium and dangerous batteries right now. > Cheers > - t Take care and stay safe and well, Tomas. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 15:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BSVVg-70u-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233100 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:31:05AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 15 March 2021 07:05:02 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC > > > in 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble > > > M68k CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not be > > > in competition with the mainframes the PC was supposed to interface > > > with primarily. > > > > Too lazy to research now, but it sounds credible, yes. > > > > > If this rumor is true and IBM had acted differently, the PC > > > ecosystem today would also look quite differently. > > > > Or the Z8000. Absolutely. 8086 was, architecturally, the worst > > possible choice at that time. > > > That, IIRC was a new, super shiny, thing from zilog. No experience with > it, but if it was as unreliable as the z-80, was, I'm not sorry it > failed. The Z-80 had an instruction that swapped the [...] I take that back. Z8000 was a 16 bit data/24 bit address thing; it did have a segmented architecture, so it wasn't as "clean" as I remembered it. At that time I was just a little student, so my "experience" with that stuff was to drool over design articles in the usual magazines (EE, AFAIR). Cheers - t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 15:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BSW4W-7iZ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233104 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:02:12AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: [...] > Snerk. We all did that back in the day, Tomas. that and similar magazines > were this 8th grade graduates electronics education. Do they still exist > today? Retired now, so the subs expired. Some of them: https://www.ee.com/ Cheers - t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 15:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BSW4W-7iZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233104 |
On Monday 15 March 2021 09:53:40 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:31:05AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Monday 15 March 2021 07:05:02 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM > > > > PC in 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also > > > > availble M68k CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it > > > > would not be in competition with the mainframes the PC was > > > > supposed to interface with primarily. > > > > > > Too lazy to research now, but it sounds credible, yes. > > > > > > > If this rumor is true and IBM had acted differently, the PC > > > > ecosystem today would also look quite differently. > > > > > > Or the Z8000. Absolutely. 8086 was, architecturally, the worst > > > possible choice at that time. > > > > That, IIRC was a new, super shiny, thing from zilog. No experience > > with it, but if it was as unreliable as the z-80, was, I'm not sorry > > it failed. The Z-80 had an instruction that swapped the > > [...] > > I take that back. Z8000 was a 16 bit data/24 bit address thing; it > did have a segmented architecture, so it wasn't as "clean" as I > remembered it. At that time I was just a little student, so my > "experience" with that stuff was to drool over design articles > in the usual magazines (EE, AFAIR). > > Cheers > - t Snerk. We all did that back in the day, Tomas. that and similar magazines were this 8th grade graduates electronics education. Do they still exist today? Retired now, so the subs expired. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 15:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BSW4W-7iZ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233100 |
Gene writes: > That, IIRC was a new, super shiny, thing from zilog. No experience > with it, but if it was as unreliable as the z-80, was, I'm not sorry > it failed. The Z-80 had an instruction that swapped the > foregrund/background register sets. But it only worked on odd hours > of the day. And had no way of testing if the command had worked > without sacrificing 1 of the three registers. in both sets. I used lots of Z80s and had good luck with them. I wrote an OS for my first Z80 homebrew computer that used register swapping to service interrupts and print in the background. It worked quite well. Most applications used only one register set, though, due to the need for Intel compatibility. My first Unix machine was an Onyx with a Z8000 running System III. The 8 inch disk got flaky after about ten years but other than that it was quite reliable. Odd architecture, though. I would have preferred 68k. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 15:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BSWHD-7vP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233095 |
>> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC in
>> 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble M68k
>> CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not be in
>> competition with the mainframes the PC was supposed to interface with
>> primarily.
> Too lazy to research now, but it sounds credible, yes.
I'm sure there have been several different factors and it's hard to know
which were more important (often the more personal and less technical
factors are the more important ones in those areas, but the hardest to
track down and verify). Another important factor (linked to pragmatic
constraints of overall production cost and availability of all the
various components at particular dates) made it important to use an 8bit
interface between the CPU and the system (which arguably also ensured it
was no threat performancewise to the rest of IBM's linup).
That's another reason why they went with the 8088 rather than the 8086,
and also another reason why they went with Intel rather than Motorola,
since the 68008 wasn't available yet.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 16:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BSWRk-7ze-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233108 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:45:15AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC in > >> 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble M68k > >> CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not be in > >> competition with the mainframes the PC was supposed to interface with > >> primarily. > > Too lazy to research now, but it sounds credible, yes. > > I'm sure there have been several different factors and it's hard to know > which were more important (often the more personal and less technical > factors are the more important ones in those areas, but the hardest to > track down and verify). ISTR that the Big Iron and the small stuff factions whithin IBM were in fierce competition at the time. That's why the idea seemed plausible to me. [...] Another important factor (linked to pragmatic > constraints of overall production cost and availability of all the > various components at particular dates) made it important to use an 8bit > interface between the CPU and the system (which arguably also ensured it > was no threat performancewise to the rest of IBM's linup). > That's another reason why they went with the 8088 rather than the 8086, > and also another reason why they went with Intel rather than Motorola, > since the 68008 wasn't available yet. ...the outcome was surely that of multiple factors. IBM was a complex beast at the time! Cheers - t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 16:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BSX10-7S1-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233087 |
>> Indeed. Also, they wanted to move away from the i386 instruction set
>> so as not to be bothered by pre-existing licensing agreements with
>> AMD, and thus making sure there'd be no competing implementation. The
>> IA64 architecture was quite complex, and there are reasons to believe
>> that complexity was seen as a virtue (makes it easier to get more
>> patents and keep competitors out).
> HP then also poured additional stuff into the architecture to make
> migration from PA-RISC easier. I imagine this also made stuff vastly
> more complex.
It has all the signs of a "design by committee" were you get the union
of all the ideas, indeed :-(
But I think for such a thing to get the time and funding needed to get
to production, there needs to be a commitment to the idea that such
complexity is good.
> I think, IBM is big enough and old enough and established enough with
> POWER that a "young whippersnapper" like Intel is no real danger to them
> in their own enclosed Mainframe walled garden. I believe Apple moving
> away from PowerPC did more damage to IBMs aspirations in that market.
Agreed.
> For the others: they where either on board from the start (like HP),
> where already dead (like DEC/Compaq) or slipping into the embedded
> market (like MIPS).
I didn't want to imply that they would have survived (that slice of the
CPU market was shrinking fast anyway: after the Pentium Pro, they were
not noticeably faster than PCs any more and the market was too small to
keep financing the development of leading CPUs, especially since for
high-end machines all the value was in the interconnect rather than the
CPUs anyway), but the IA64 was explicitly the end of it for them (and
that happened long before the first IA64 CPU was available).
> And SPARC: after being bought by Oracle, the end was more or less
> directly clear.
But that took place much later: the IA64 buzz that killed Alpha/PA/MIPS
was in the 90s whereas Oracle bought SPARC in 2009.
> Indeed. The German computer magazine c't had many interesting articles
> about the IA64 architecture and also quite early painted its dark
> future, because of ever slipping sales figures, performance problems,
> the failure to deliver on made promises and the increasing pressure of
> the i386/amd64 architectures.
>From a purely technical perspective, it's hard to understand how Intel
managed to pour so much energy into such an obviously bad idea.
The only explanations seem all to be linked to market strategies.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 17:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BSYzM-bl-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233112 |
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:03:59AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: >From a purely technical perspective, it's hard to understand how Intel >managed to pour so much energy into such an obviously bad idea. >The only explanations seem all to be linked to market strategies. They just had too much easy money coming in from the windows/x86 desktop monopoly. It took years before they really had to justify in a critical way the money they were spending.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 20:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BT1eh-1R0-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233112 |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > From a purely technical perspective, it's hard to understand how Intel > managed to pour so much energy into such an obviously bad idea. The > only explanations seem all to be linked to market strategies. This history repeats for Intel on several fronts: Look at the Netburst Pentium 4 desaster, which as scrapped as soon as the Israel division showed their improved concept based on the P3, which ran laps around the P4 while at the same time using far less power and had a bigger yield. Or the discussion about ECC for desktop devices. Intel argues "not needed", which is, if you follow the Rowhammer issues, not true. AMD just does it and it works. Then there was FB-DIMM back in the 2008s. Nice idea, just, again, too expensive and disconnected from the market in the end. And all in all the rather slow improvments on the CPU fronts, the piecemeal 5% increases sold as "big achievements" every year, while at the same time all improvements turned out to be major security problems. I personally am really glad that AMD got their stuff together again and with their ZenX-Architectures showed Intel how it is done. What AMD now needs is a hit in the low, lower and ultra-low power segment. Grüße, S° -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 20:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BT1nX-1U6-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233130 |
Sven Hartge wrote: > Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > > > From a purely technical perspective, it's hard to understand how Intel > > managed to pour so much energy into such an obviously bad idea. The > > only explanations seem all to be linked to market strategies. > > This history repeats for Intel on several fronts: > > Or the discussion about ECC for desktop devices. Intel argues "not > needed", which is, if you follow the Rowhammer issues, not true. AMD > just does it and it works. Intel knew that their argument was bull: they owned the market and needed ways of subdividing their CPUs to fit every price point. Turning off ECC support was one of those ways. That strategy started with the 80486, when they brought out a cheap version called the 80486SX which lacked a floating point unit. The SX has the floating point unit, it was just turned off. Worse: purchasing the 80487 math coprocessor to enable floating point support... the 487 was a full 486, that turned off the original. > Then there was FB-DIMM back in the 2008s. Nice idea, just, again, too > expensive and disconnected from the market in the end. Intel wanted more pricing points. > I personally am really glad that AMD got their stuff together again and > with their ZenX-Architectures showed Intel how it is done. > > What AMD now needs is a hit in the low, lower and ultra-low power > segment. They've got the low and lower parts now: 35W and 15W 4000-series APUs, from the Renoir design. Stefan and I were just talking about how you can't buy one with a normal motherboard right now because they are entirely allocated to systems integrators. AMD is selling 100% of production. They don't have any 7W or lower parts, but those things aren't very interesting compared to ARM64 architecture, where Qualcomm and Apple and any number of smaller shops are doing great things in the tablet and phone space. -dsr-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 22:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BT2tH-2vz-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233131 |
Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> writes: > Intel knew that their argument was bull: they owned the market > and needed ways of subdividing their CPUs to fit every price > point. Turning off ECC support was one of those ways. > That strategy started with the 80486, when they brought out a > cheap version called the 80486SX which lacked a floating point > unit. The SX has the floating point unit, it was just turned > off. Initially, yes. A panic move when AMD brought out their 40 MHz 386. It worked, got popular and later on the 486SX was manufactured separately with a smaller die and no floating point. As for the ECC support in Ryzen CPUs, as I understand it it's a bit of a mess. Sure the CPUs support it but if it's not validated by motherboard manufacturers, how do you know it actually works reliably?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 22:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BT2WJ-2Ug-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233134 |
Anssi Saari wrote: > Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> writes: > > As for the ECC support in Ryzen CPUs, as I understand it it's a bit of a > mess. Sure the CPUs support it but if it's not validated by motherboard > manufacturers, how do you know it actually works reliably? ... by trying it out and reporting the results to others, and reading their results and reporting your confirmation. This isn't a thing that the motherboard manufacturer can put in by accident. Anyway. If you need ECC support, you buy an EPYC server and get registered ECC support. If you would like to have ECC as a feature, you get a Ryzen board that's reported to work, and you get unbuffered ECC for one-bit correction and two-bit reporting. Then you overclock it to generate RAM errors, and it shows up in your system log. Then you bring it back down to normal speed. At last report: normal desktop Ryzens (nothing with a G suffix unless it also has a PRO marking) on any ASrock, most ASUS, and some Gigabyte motherboards will support this. To the best of my current knowledge, no MSI motherboards. -dsr-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 23:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BT3zr-3mh-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233136 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Lu, 15 mar 21, 17:21:39, Dan Ritter wrote: > > At last report: normal desktop Ryzens (nothing with a G suffix > unless it also has a PRO marking) Do you have a reliable source for the lack of ECC support in G suffix processors? And why would it work for PRO processors instead? I think it's unlikely AMD has 2 different cores for PRO and non-PRO, it's more likely it either works for both or neither. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-16 00:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems |
| Message-ID | <BT4vv-3UK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233139 |
Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 15 mar 21, 17:21:39, Dan Ritter wrote: > > > > At last report: normal desktop Ryzens (nothing with a G suffix > > unless it also has a PRO marking) > > Do you have a reliable source for the lack of ECC support in G suffix > processors? > > And why would it work for PRO processors instead? > > I think it's unlikely AMD has 2 different cores for PRO and non-PRO, > it's more likely it either works for both or neither. https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X570%20Taichi/index.asp#Specification I'm going to omit a bunch of details: AMD Ryzen series CPUs (Vermeer) support ... ECC & non-ECC, un-buffered memory* - AMD Ryzen series CPUs (Matisse) support ... ECC & non-ECC, un-buffered memory* - AMD Ryzen series APUs (Renoir) support ... ECC & non-ECC, un-buffered memory* - AMD Ryzen series CPUs (Pinnacle Ridge) support ... ECC & non-ECC, un-buffered memory* - AMD Ryzen series CPUs (Picasso) support non-ECC, un-buffered memory* * For Ryzen Series CPUs (Picasso), ECC is only supported with * PRO CPUs. The first APUs are the Raven Ridge, 2200G and 2400G, which aren't even supported on the current motherboards The next are Picassos, 3200G and 3400G, there's an explicit statement that only the PRO versions support ECC. The current ones are Renoir, 4000 series, and I haven't got a reliable source that they are ECC only on the PRO -- but I strongly suspect it. It's not the cores that differ between the PROs and non- -- it's the I/O chiplet. -dsr-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 17:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BSYq5-7S-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233087 |
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 10:44:00AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: >The Wanderer wrote: >> It caught on, and became so successful that Intel abandoned its ia64 >> approach and started making amd64 CPUs itself. > >Which was unfortunate as the x86 architecture needed to die. Moving to ia64 would have been much, much worse. Luckily it was unlikely to have ever happened once people got to touch actual silicon. On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 02:50:10PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: >So it was a great move on the part of AMD: cheap to implement but with >an enormous marketing impact. It had much more than a marketing impact, because x86 was a PITA for more than 2GB of RAM and that was getting cheap and becoming a common problem by 2003. Switching to opteron for 8G or 16G servers was a huge win vs x86, with better scaling for multiprocessor configurations. (These were becoming more common as well, and intel was still using an old (obsolete?) flat SMP bus whereas AMD arrived on the scene with a far superior NUMA architecture based on hypertransport--designed in partnership with what was left of the old DEC alpha team.) It was simply the right product at the right time. On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 03:17:39PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> But years passed and the i386 architecture got better and better, >> including stuff like MMX, SSE and AVX was incorporated, IA64 couldn't >> really keep up. > >The IA64 architecture was a resounding success in one area tho: it >killed most of the competition that was coming from "above" (at least >DEC's Alpha, SGI's MIPS, HP's PA, and it likely sped up the demise of >Sun's SPARC, I don't think it had much impact on POWER or PowerPC, OTOH) >and thus helped open up the server (and supercomputer) market for Intel >(and AMD). Yes--SGI, HP, & DEC (Compaq then HP) all preemptively killed off their CPU lines based on the promises made for ia64. When ia64 turned out to be late and the performance turned out to be disappointing, it was too late to revive their previous architectures and recapture the customers that had already abandoned ship for x86 & later amd64. It worked out really well for intel, and really badly for everybody else. On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:15:10AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote: >Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: >> The IA64 architecture was a resounding success in one area tho: it >> killed most of the competition that was coming from "above" (at least >> DEC's Alpha, SGI's MIPS, HP's PA, and it likely sped up the demise of >> Sun's SPARC, I don't think it had much impact on POWER or PowerPC, >> OTOH) and thus helped open up the server (and supercomputer) market >> for Intel (and AMD). > >I think, IBM is big enough and old enough and established enough with >POWER that a "young whippersnapper" like Intel is no real danger to them >in their own enclosed Mainframe walled garden. I believe Apple moving >away from PowerPC did more damage to IBMs aspirations in that market. IBM didn't want to just be a mainframe manufacturer, they really wanted to amortize the costs for those CPUs against multiple product lines. They actually made a good number of high end computing sales for a few years by being the only player left standing, until amd64 just became too compelling. They still have some very large deployments, but their overall market share is not what they'd hoped for. >For the others: they where either on board from the start (like HP), >where already dead (like DEC/Compaq) or slipping into the embedded >market (like MIPS). At the time ia64 was announced alpha & MIPS processors were in some of the largest and most sucessful systems in the world. With further development they could have remained there, but their management was convinced that ia64 was going to have an unbeatable performance advantage and that they couldn't compete with the R&D money intel was pouring in. With hindsight it's clear that neither was true but these decisions were made in the late 90s and intel hadn't yet run into the brick wall of making the compiler magic actually work. The architecture that was in the worst shape was PA-RISC--which is why HP had gone in with Intel on ia-64 in the first place. (And, of course, the alpha had no future once HP bought Compaq.) Also with hindsight, even if ia64 had been successful this strategy would have destroyed the companies because it was premised on the idea that even if they were all selling the same computers they'd somehow be able to keep their margins and lock customers in with proprietary OSs or some other proprietary magic. The industry went in a very different direction and preferred open software architectures, and that probably would have been true even with a successful ia64. HPaq & SGI bet on the wrong horse in every way. The cloud revolution of the 2010s might have unfolded very differently if some of the high performance architectures from the late 90s could have hung on long enough for the linux convergence to offer them a way out of the unix wars. (Or, they might have kept the unix wars going. Who knows.) Instead, people are only now trying to break out of the monoculture by pushing what was 25 years ago one of the least successful and least capable of the RISC architectures (ARM) into the high-performance realm, for lack of other options in a space utterly dominated by amd64.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web