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 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | "Susmita/Rajib" <bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 12:10 +0100 |
| Subject | [?] 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 | <BSwNc-qD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
While Intel PCs are also 64bit processors? For instance, my current laptop is Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15ISK 80XH01FKIN 15.6-inch Laptop (6th Gen Core i3-6006U/4GB/2TB/Integrated Graphics), a 64bit processor. It can't be that intellectuals, technocrats and cognitive elites involved in the development of this complete OS+packages could be misplaced in their perceptions. This is impossible. So why such naming? Could I be educated in this regard please?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 12:30 +0100 |
| Subject | 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 | <BSx6x-x7-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233034 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2021-03-14 at 06:49, Susmita/Rajib wrote: > While Intel PCs are also 64bit processors? Because of the history of the processor microarchitectures involved. The x86 processor line (32-bit and older) was, to the best of my knowledge, originally an Intel thing. Before i386 (where the 'i' may stand for Intel, I'm not sure), there was 286, and other things earlier than that; if my memory just offhand is accurate, the oldest one was probably called 8086. After i386, you have 486, 586, and 686; current Debian 32-bit packages are actually compiled against the 686 baseline, not 386 as such. Intel owns the patents for the 32-bit x86 CPU architecture, and licenses them to other companies for a price. AMD is one of those other companies; that's how AMD is allowed to create 32-bit x86 CPUs. When 64-bit came along, rather than extending the x86 line, Intel started from scratch and designed an entire new CPU architecture. That got called ia64, and it never caught on; it eventually failed in the marketplace, except possibly in very limited market segments. when Intel created a 64-bit architecture (called ia64), it turned out to be a developmental dead end and failed in the marketplace. At around the same time, AMD created a 64-bit CPU architecture which extended the x86 line, and was backwards compatible with existing software. That got called amd64, and is also sometimes called x86_64, or other names in addition. It caught on, and became so successful that Intel abandoned its ia64 approach and started making amd64 CPUs itself. AMD owns the patents for the 64-bit amd64 CPU architecture, and licenses them to other companies for a price. Intel is one of those other companies; that's how Intel is allowed to create 64-bit amd64 CPUs. Or, put briefly: because AMD created the underlying design for how that type of CPU works, even if Intel is the one making the specific CPU model in question. Does that make sense? -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BSxge-A7-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233039 |
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 07:19:25AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2021-03-14 at 06:49, Susmita/Rajib wrote: > > > While Intel PCs are also 64bit processors? > > Because of the history of the processor microarchitectures involved. > > The x86 processor line (32-bit and older) was, to the best of my > knowledge, originally an Intel thing. Before i386 (where the 'i' may > stand for Intel, I'm not sure), there was 286, and other things earlier > than that; if my memory just offhand is accurate, the oldest one was > probably called 8086. After i386, you have 486, 586, and 686; current > Debian 32-bit packages are actually compiled against the 686 baseline, > not 386 as such. > > Intel owns the patents for the 32-bit x86 CPU architecture, and licenses > them to other companies for a price. AMD is one of those other > companies; that's how AMD is allowed to create 32-bit x86 CPUs. > > When 64-bit came along, rather than extending the x86 line, Intel > started from scratch and designed an entire new CPU architecture. That > got called ia64, and it never caught on; it eventually failed in the > marketplace, except possibly in very limited market segments. > when Intel created a 64-bit architecture (called ia64), it turned out to > be a developmental dead end and failed in the marketplace. > > At around the same time, AMD created a 64-bit CPU architecture which > extended the x86 line, and was backwards compatible with existing > software. That got called amd64, and is also sometimes called x86_64, or > other names in addition. It caught on, and became so successful that > Intel abandoned its ia64 approach and started making amd64 CPUs itself. > > AMD owns the patents for the 64-bit amd64 CPU architecture, and licenses > them to other companies for a price. Intel is one of those other > companies; that's how Intel is allowed to create 64-bit amd64 CPUs. > > > Or, put briefly: because AMD created the underlying design for how that > type of CPU works, even if Intel is the one making the specific CPU > model in question. > That is an excellent summary. The only thing I would add is that Intel, an effort to not appear completely buffoonish, does not refer to amd64. They might use x86_64 more commonly now (I'm not certain), but for a quite some time they used the designation "em64t" (standing for something like "ehananced memory 64-bit something or other"). Occasional references to em64t can be found in some places. It refers to the same thing: amd64 <-> x86_64 <-> em64t. It was a bitter pill to swallow for Intel that they, as the originators of the x86 architecture could have been so far off when it came to the development of the successor 64-bit architecture. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 16:50 +0100 |
| Subject | 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 | <BSBa9-2Rj-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233042 |
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. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BSxpT-Dy-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233039 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Du, 14 mar 21, 07:19:25, The Wanderer wrote: > > When 64-bit came along, rather than extending the x86 line, Intel > started from scratch and designed an entire new CPU architecture. That > got called ia64, and it never caught on; it eventually failed in the > marketplace, except possibly in very limited market segments. > when Intel created a 64-bit architecture (called ia64), it turned out to > be a developmental dead end and failed in the marketplace. As far as I recall from articles at the time, there were good reasons to use the opportunity of the transition from 32 to 64 bits to create a completely new architecture. Apparently the x86 architecture has some significant deficiencies, which probably explains why it's now being challenged more and more by ARM (comparable performance at a fraction of the power consumption). Regardless of the merits (or not) of the ia64 architecture, Intel simply tried to force the industry to follow its lead, at significant additional costs (see RAMBUS), but the industry chose amd64 instead. In hindsight, it probably would have been wiser for Intel to make the transition to ia64 as smooth as possible and charge higher costs later, with AMD out of the game. Fortunately for us (consumers) they were overconfident. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 15:00 +0100 |
| Subject | 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 | <BSzrH-1Ne-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233046 |
Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote: > On Du, 14 mar 21, 07:19:25, The Wanderer wrote: >> When 64-bit came along, rather than extending the x86 line, Intel >> started from scratch and designed an entire new CPU architecture. >> That got called ia64, and it never caught on; it eventually failed in >> the marketplace, except possibly in very limited market segments. >> when Intel created a 64-bit architecture (called ia64), it turned out >> to be a developmental dead end and failed in the marketplace. > As far as I recall from articles at the time, there were good reasons > to use the opportunity of the transition from 32 to 64 bits to create > a completely new architecture. > Regardless of the merits (or not) of the ia64 architecture, Intel > simply tried to force the industry to follow its lead, at significant > additional costs (see RAMBUS), but the industry chose amd64 instead. IA64 (Itanium) was completely incompatible with the installed i386 base. The first CPUs had a (very slow) compatibility layer, assisted by software, so you could run your "legacy" 16bit/32bit applications. Also the CPU was designed so that many complexities where delegated into the compiler to create the most optimal code but the compilers at the time where not up to the task, greatly hampering the new architecture. Intel envisioned IA64 to be the go to processor for centralized server-based loads, whereas the i386 was for your on-the-desk PC. (Just like at the start of the IBM PC it was enivsioned as a kinda-smart terminal for the mainframe. The SysRq-Key is the last remnant of that legacy.) Note: when IA64 was designed (starting in 1994 at HP) we where nowhere near the limits of the 32bit i386 architecture with RAM and frequency, so it made sense, somewhat. 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. Dnd when AMD then presented their AMD64 architecture that could run legacy 8bit/16bit/32bit code as fast as the new code, allowing for a smooth transition, the nickname "Itanic" for IA64 became true: It had been dead on arrival. S° -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 20:20 +0100 |
| Subject | [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 | <BSErn-4Vt-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233055 |
> IA64 (Itanium) was completely incompatible with the installed i386 base.
> The first CPUs had a (very slow) compatibility layer, assisted by
> software, so you could run your "legacy" 16bit/32bit applications.
The original plan/claims was that the support for legacy i386
application would be "just as fast". This never materialized
(unsurprisingly: it's easy to make a CPU that can run efficiency several
slightly different instruction sets (ISA), like your average amd64 CPU which
can run applications using the amd64 ISA, the i386 ISA, the 80286 ISA
or the 8086 ISA, more or less; but it's much harder to make a CPU that
can run efficiently very different ISAs).
> Also the CPU was designed so that many complexities where delegated into
> the compiler to create the most optimal code but the compilers at the
> time where not up to the task, greatly hampering the new architecture.
More specifically, it depended on solving problems against which
compiler writers had banged their heads for several decades already (and
it is still on going). Worse: it was based on "old new ideas", IOW it
as trying to solve the problems that were already started to disappear
but was set o bump into new problems that were already starting
to appear.
The name Itanic came from the fact that it seemed likely (even quite
early on, meaning a long time before the name "Itanium" was announced)
to several (most?) knowledgeable CPU designers to lead to a monumental
failure ;-)
> Note: when IA64 was designed (starting in 1994 at HP) we where nowhere
> near the limits of the 32bit i386 architecture with RAM and frequency,
> so it made sense, somewhat.
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).
> 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).
> Dnd when AMD then presented their AMD64 architecture that could run
> legacy 8bit/16bit/32bit code as fast as the new code, allowing for a
> smooth transition, the nickname "Itanic" for IA64 became true: It had
> been dead on arrival.
To make matters worse, the IA64 arrived very late to the market (IIRC
something like 3 years later than planned).
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 09:20 +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 | <BSQCd-3Z3-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233068 |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: >> Note: when IA64 was designed (starting in 1994 at HP) we where nowhere >> near the limits of the 32bit i386 architecture with RAM and frequency, >> so it made sense, somewhat. > 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. >> 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). 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. 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). And SPARC: after being bought by Oracle, the end was more or less directly clear. >> Dnd when AMD then presented their AMD64 architecture that could run >> legacy 8bit/16bit/32bit code as fast as the new code, allowing for a >> smooth transition, the nickname "Itanic" for IA64 became true: It had >> been dead on arrival. > To make matters worse, the IA64 arrived very late to the market (IIRC > something like 3 years later than planned). 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. Grüße, S° -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 10:10 +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 | <BSRoC-4uu-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233087 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:15:10AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote: [...] > 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). MIPS had its chance to become the unified architecture for high-end workstations [1]. Until it was bought up by Silicon Graphics (SGI). Which, on the one hand was bitterly needed by MIPS, because they needed that cash injection, and by SGI, because they depended on the MIPS architecture. On the other hand, though, all other workstation developers, in fierce competition with SGI, didn't want /that/ dependency and went to look for/make other architectures (Power, Alpha, PA, you name it). So on the one hand, we might have, these days, been running on MIPS; on that other hand, we wouldn't have ARM, and -- who knows, soon, Risc-V. And Linus Torvalds wouldn't have had this cool stint at Transmeta. But that is a totally different kettle of fish. Or is it? > -- > Sigmentation fault. Core dumped. :-) Reminds me of an error message somewhere deep in TeX's or METAFONT's bowels (sorry, from memory, therefore imprecise) asking for "...someone to fix me fix me". Cheers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Computing_Environment - t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 11:20 +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 | <BSSul-56y-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233091 |
tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:15:10AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote: >> 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). > MIPS had its chance to become the unified architecture for high-end > workstations [1]. Until it was bought up by Silicon Graphics (SGI). > Which, on the one hand was bitterly needed by MIPS, because they > needed that cash injection, and by SGI, because they depended on the > MIPS architecture. > On the other hand, though, all other workstation developers, in fierce > competition with SGI, didn't want /that/ dependency and went to look > for/make other architectures (Power, Alpha, PA, you name it). > So on the one hand, we might have, these days, been running on MIPS; > on that other hand, we wouldn't have ARM, and -- who knows, soon, > Risc-V. And Linus Torvalds wouldn't have had this cool stint at > Transmeta. But that is a totally different kettle of fish. 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. If this rumor is true and IBM had acted differently, the PC ecosystem today would also look quite differently. Grüße, Sven. -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 12:10 +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 | <BSTgJ-5BO-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233093 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
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. Cheers - t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 12:40 +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 | <BSTJL-5Ld-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233095 |
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. Having had a 68k would have been awesome. No stupid memory segmentation, 32bit instructions and internal address size, 24bit external address size. Imagine a PC with 4GB adressable memory space in 1980. S° -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 13:00 +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 | <BSU38-5SG-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233096 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:34:42PM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote: [...] > Having had a 68k would have been awesome. No stupid memory segmentation, So were Z8000, NS32K and many others. The horrible segmentation thing on the '86 were the tribute to backward compatibility, which is the price you pay for market dominance :-) > 32bit instructions and internal address size, 24bit external address size. > > Imagine a PC with 4GB adressable memory space in 1980. Yup. Cheers - t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 13:20 +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 | <BSUmt-6ew-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233096 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
> > > No stupid memory segmentation, > IMHO segmentation was a good idea originally. You could have separate segments for code and data and since 286 it is possible to protect them (AFAIK segments were also used to separate user-space and kernel-space) But with the advent of virtual memory (386), they have become an obsolete legacy. Intel is full of such things: hardware context switching, some old MMX instructions, I/O ports, real mode: nobody needs all of that in 2021, but it exists and occupies place in "intel development manual"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 14:00 +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 | <BSUZc-6rO-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233096 |
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:34:42 +0100 Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> wrote: > 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. > > Having had a 68k would have been awesome. No stupid memory > segmentation, 32bit instructions and internal address size, 24bit > external address size. > > 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. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| 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-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233099 |
On Monday 15 March 2021 08:53:46 Joe wrote: > On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:34:42 +0100 > > Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> wrote: > > 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. > > > > Having had a 68k would have been awesome. No stupid memory > > segmentation, 32bit instructions and internal address size, 24bit > > external address size. > > > > 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. No it wouldn't, and we had it by the late '80's with the advent of 68040 abd 68060 accellerator boards for the Amiga's. But that flat memory model and poor production QC doomed it. Any program could make a missfire and write into another programs memory space, crashing the whole Mary Ann. Then Commode-door brought out a 68060 board for the 4000's. Major failure because that $1600, 4 square inches of pcb, had every electrolytic capacitor installed in reverse polarity. Too damned compact to be easily fixed, but I did two of them anyway. Yup, I am a card carrying CET. What else could I do? 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 17:50 +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 | <BSYzM-bl-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233103 |
Gene writes: > No it wouldn't, and we had it by the late '80's with the advent of > 68040 abd 68060 accellerator boards for the Amiga's. But that flat > memory model and poor production QC doomed it. Any program could make > a missfire and write into another programs memory space, crashing the > whole Mary Ann. Starting in '82 the 68010 added virtual memory and virtualization suport. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 19:20 +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 | <BSZYR-1cD-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233117 |
On Monday 15 March 2021 12:40:51 John Hasler wrote: > Gene writes: > > No it wouldn't, and we had it by the late '80's with the advent of > > 68040 abd 68060 accellerator boards for the Amiga's. But that flat > > memory model and poor production QC doomed it. Any program could > > make a missfire and write into another programs memory space, > > crashing the whole Mary Ann. > > Starting in '82 the 68010 added virtual memory and virtualization > suport. But by then the amiga design was frozen until the funeral. 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 | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| 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-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233117 |
>> No it wouldn't, and we had it by the late '80's with the advent of
>> 68040 abd 68060 accellerator boards for the Amiga's. But that flat
>> memory model and poor production QC doomed it. Any program could make
>> a missfire and write into another programs memory space, crashing the
>> whole Mary Ann.
> Starting in '82 the 68010 added virtual memory and virtualization suport.
[ I can't remember any discussion of virtualization for that.
Back then this only existed on things like IBM mainframes and noone in
the workstation-and-lower markets cared about it, AFAIK. ]
Note that this is only true in the sense of "wifi ready" (a laptop that
came without any wifi card but maybe with an antenna in the bezel): the
68010 was a very minor improvement of the 68000 which just fixed some
blunders that were making it (almost) impossible to provide support for
virtual memory. You needed additional help (like an MMU) in order to
get virtual memory on the 68010 and that usually ended up very costly in
terms of performance.
Virtual memory only became vaguely usable with the 68020 (and then
actually usable on the 68030).
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 16:10 +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 | <BSX10-7S1-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233099 |
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:53:46PM +0000, Joe 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. More. Memory was often the largest line item back then, and ordinary mainframes couldn't afford much of it. The Cray 2 was a game-changer in the supercomputer space with its 1Gbyte memory capacity. Mostly those were bought by three letter agencies, but some really large corporations and universities with very generous donors got one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web