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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 18:00 +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 | <BSYJs-g3-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233116 |
Michael Stone writes: > ...HP bought Compaq. Compaq bought HP and then renamed themselves HP. The name was all they really wanted, of course. HP had already spun off their instrumentation division (the real HP) as Agilent. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BSZ2N-Dz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233120 |
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:55:40AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Michael Stone writes: >> ...HP bought Compaq. > >Compaq bought HP and then renamed themselves HP. The name was all they >really wanted, of course. That's a strange way to position it, since HP gave Compaq shareholders HP shares (leading to 36% ownership by Compaq shareholders and 64% ownership by HP shareholders), HP's management was in charge of the resulting company, HP's employees got the lion's share of retention bonuses, and Compaq's (DEC's) legacy products were the ones that were quickly killed off. The entire deal was focused on the (dead-end) PC businesses, and the legacy architectures of both companies weren't given much attention. HP eventually spun off enterprise systems into its own company; maybe if they'd done that with both HPs and DECs assets back in 2002 (or if Compaq had left DEC alone) and Carly Fiorina had just kept the PC sales she was distracted by, the HP/DEC legacy lines could have done better. Or they might have still died--but they were certainly never going to succeed when owned by people who didn't care about them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 18:50 +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 | <BSZvQ-Nq-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233122 |
I guess I misremembered. After the merger they certainly *acted* as if Compaq management was in charge. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 18:40 +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 | <BSZm9-JM-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233116 |
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:39:10 -0400 Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote: ... > 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. Apparently POWER is having a bit of a resurgence lately due to its openness and non-x86ness: https://www.osnews.com/story/133093/review-blackbird-secure-desktop-a-fully-open-source-modern-power9-workstation-without-any-proprietary-code/ Of course, Raptor seems to be a tiny player, and it's hard to see how they'll get any traction since the pricing isn't very competitive, apparently at least in part due to the chicken-and-egg market share problem, but it's an exciting development to watch. Celejar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BT0Lf-1HR-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233123 |
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 01:35:42PM -0400, Celejar wrote: >Apparently POWER is having a bit of a resurgence lately due to its >openness and non-x86ness: > >https://www.osnews.com/story/133093/review-blackbird-secure-desktop-a-fully-open-source-modern-power9-workstation-without-any-proprietary-code/ > >Of course, Raptor seems to be a tiny player, and it's hard to see how >they'll get any traction since the pricing isn't very competitive, >apparently at least in part due to the chicken-and-egg market share >problem, but it's an exciting development to watch. That doesn't do much for IBMs bottom line. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 21:00 +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 | <BT1xD-1X7-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233116 |
>>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.
I think the performance of the Opteron would have been
sufficient to make it quite successful even if limited to 32bit.
And Microsoft took its time before releasing a version of Windows for
amd64, so most of the machines sold between 2003 and 2005 were running
in 32bit mode, AFAICT.
So I think the marketing impact of Opteron's support of the new amd64
ISA during the 2003-2005 window was more important than the technical
impact. But you're right that 64bit support was really becoming
important right around that time: PAE was not as satisfactory a solution
(which is why AMD went ahead with amd64: the situation was becoming
untenable).
> 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.
They could have survived a few years more, definitely. But SGI only had
a good presence in supercomputers and computer graphics which were
pretty small markets where the CPU didn't matter that much, so it was
very costly for them to have to keep developing new top-of-the-line
processors additionally to top-of-the-line GPUs and interconnects.
They were already financially in poor health and they needed to start
designing their systems around someone else's CPU.
DEC was even worse because they didn't actually own any particular
segment of the market (besides from the VMS segment which was not
getting very many new customers) and PCs running Pentium Pros (and
successors) were taking over the workstation market.
In retrospect maybe DEC and SGI should have merged and then partnered
with AMD (as you note above some of DEC's processor design team indeed
ended up at AMD on the Opteron project), but I think it would have taken
a crapload of foresight and/or faith to do that.
[ Not sure what part HP could have played there, I wasn't very familiar
with their products (beside drooling over the idea of a 2MB L1 cache,
that is). ]
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 22:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BT2Do-2O4-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233132 |
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 03:50:56PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: >In retrospect maybe DEC and SGI should have merged and then partnered >with AMD (as you note above some of DEC's processor design team indeed >ended up at AMD on the Opteron project), but I think it would have taken >a crapload of foresight and/or faith to do that. Yeah, the biggest thing they lacked was faith in their own products. I remember being in meetings with SGI folks explaining how the future was going to be windows on ia64, and immediately wondering who our new supplier would be. The argument was always financial, but in reality the problem was misallocation of resources, not lack of resources. (I guess after billions of dollars thrown away on failed strategies the problem does become a lack of resources, but it didn't start out that way.) They would have had to become smaller and more focused, and big companies don't shrink easily.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 09:50 +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 | <BSR5g-48N-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233068 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Du, 14 mar 21, 15:17:39, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > 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). Apple seems to be doing quite well with the M1. Apparently it has a few custom instructions to speed up x86 emulation. They also have the benefit of controlling the software and now also the hardware stack. There's already work in progress to port Linux mainline (and consequently Debian) to the Apple M1 :) Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 16:30 +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 | <BSXkl-7Y5-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233089 |
>> 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).
> Apple seems to be doing quite well with the M1.
But that's not a CPU that runs amd64 code: the amd64 code is executed on
it by software emulation rather than by hardware emulation. And indeed,
Intel could have developed an efficient software emulation of amd64 for
its Itanium which could have been more efficient than its own
hardware emulator.
[ Similarly, at some point in time, DEC's Alpha was claimed to be the
fastest processor to run i386 code, via its software emulation. ;-) ]
Apple has a lot of experience in that kind of emulation (having done it
for the transition from Motorola's 68K to PowerPC, then again from
PowerPC to i386, and now from amd64 to ARM (notice they relied on
hardware emulation for the i386 to amd64 transition)).
But note that they only do emulation for applications AFAIK, which is
easier than doing a "full" emulation that lets you run an actual OS
(like `qemu` does).
> There's already work in progress to port Linux mainline (and
> consequently Debian) to the Apple M1 :)
Since the M1 implements the ARM instruction set, I don't think there's
much work to do here, indeed (most likely the hardest part is to fight
Apple's opaqueness).
Last I heard Debian works on the M1 already :-), but its Emacs package
doesn't :-(
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 17:40 +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 | <BSYq5-7S-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233113 |
Stefan Monnier wrote: > > There's already work in progress to port Linux mainline (and > > consequently Debian) to the Apple M1 :) > > Since the M1 implements the ARM instruction set, I don't think there's > much work to do here, indeed (most likely the hardest part is to fight > Apple's opaqueness). > > Last I heard Debian works on the M1 already :-), but its Emacs package > doesn't :-( Graphics is currently the blocker. Framebuffer works, but getting the GPU working beyond that will probably be fun for someone. https://asahilinux.org/2021/03/progress-report-january-february-2021/ contains lots of useful info. -dsr-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 23:10 +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 | <BT3zs-3mh-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233113 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Lu, 15 mar 21, 11:19:55, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Last I heard Debian works on the M1 already :-), but its Emacs package > doesn't :-( No surprise considering Emacs is itself a full OS :p (sorry, could not resist) Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 23:20 +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 | <BT3J8-3pC-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233140 |
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:08:51AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 15 mar 21, 11:19:55, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > Last I heard Debian works on the M1 already :-), but its Emacs package > > doesn't :-( > > No surprise considering Emacs is itself a full OS :p > Yeah, but it could really do with a decent text editor :-p > (sorry, could not resist) > (neither could I) Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-16 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 | <BTd5L-Hs-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233140 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:08:51AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 15 mar 21, 11:19:55, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > Last I heard Debian works on the M1 already :-), but its Emacs package > > doesn't :-( > > No surprise considering Emacs is itself a full OS :p > > (sorry, could not resist) https://www.informatimago.com/linux/emacs-on-user-mode-linux.html :-) Cheers - t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-15 03:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BSL9v-qK-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233039 |
2021-03-14 7:19 GMT-04:00, The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm>: > 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? Perfect explanation. Also very good all those additional contributions from the others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 12:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BSx6y-x7-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233034 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Du, 14 mar 21, 16:19:45, Susmita/Rajib wrote: > 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? Because the architecture was created by AMD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#AMD64 Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 12:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BSx6y-x7-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233034 |
On 14/03/2021 07:49, Susmita/Rajib wrote: > 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? Because AMD was first in developing what is now known as amd64; at the time Intel was pursuing its non-i386-compatible architecture ia64. Later it also implemented the same architecture as AMD, but the name was stuck. I believe the i in i386 and similar stands for Intel, and yet several other companies also made i386 chips. -- Eduardo M KALINOWSKI eduardo@kalinowski.com.br
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BSxge-A7-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233034 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
As a direct response to your subject, I quote "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?" Because the currently successful Intel architecture (core, etc) is (more or less) a copy of AMD's. The history goes roughly like this: Intel designed a 64 bit architecture to replace their aging 32 bit line of *86 processors (386 and followers), which thei called Itanium [1]. As sometimes happens with such technology jumps, it was too ambitious and its market acceptance was a bit disappointing (this happened to Intel a couple of times in its history, whenever it tried to break out of its compatibility treadmill [2]. It is interesting to see how they have become themselves victims of the very technological lock-in they take advantage of). Anyway: AMD saw its opportunity window and came up with a far more conservative 64 bit architecture which was much more backward compatible, the AMD64, also sometimes called x86-64 [3]. Basically, they had the instruction set and wider (64 bit) registers and... much more of them (something which was known to be a weakness in the x86 32 bit family). To keep AMD from eating all of their lunch, Intel had to follow, so that's why they copied an architecture from AMD who copied it from Intel :-) Well, more or less. Follow the links below for the whole, long story. And oh, Linux ran on Itanium, too. Linus Torvalds didn't like that architecture, which he called "Itanic" (although I think others came up with that name). Cheers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_processors#32-bit_processors:_the_non-x86_microprocessors [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64 - t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BSxpT-Dy-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233034 |
it's Historical I'm old, I was there I'm old, so I don't remember the details On 3/14/21 3:49 AM, Susmita/Rajib wrote: > 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? AMD was the first on the market with 64bit hardware. (I was an early adopter) Packages and Kernels were named "amd64" to indicate they were compatible vs the 32bit versions *it's not a good thing to change names... a gazillion things would be affected. > > Could I be educated in this regard please? > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 13:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BSxzB-GM-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233044 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 04:25:38AM -0700, Peter Ehlert wrote: [...] > AMD was the first on the market with 64bit hardware. (I was an early > adopter) Well, nearly. Itanium Merced was 2001 [1] (althoug you wouldn't buy /that/ as a private person), DEC Alpha was even 1992 [2]; it was the first 64 bit hardware which ran Linux. The first AMD64 aka x86-64 was the Opteron, from AMD, 2003 [3]. But yes, it was (if you ignore for a moment the second-hand alphas) the first us mere mortals could, you know, buy. Cheers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium#Itanium_(Merced):_2001 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_Alpha [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opteron - t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-03-14 20:00 +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 | <BSE81-4zO-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #233047 |
> Well, nearly. Itanium Merced was 2001 [1] (althoug you wouldn't buy
> /that/ as a private person), DEC Alpha was even 1992 [2];
FWIW And MIPS was there even a bit earlier with their R4000 (tho the
software support for it only appeared some years later: they first
wanted to have an installed base to which to deploy the software), which
I believe was the first 64bit microprocessor.
IIRC the claim back then was that adding 64bit support to the R4000 was
rather cheap (it increased the die area by a few percents only, and
64bit adds were still fast enough not to slow down the overall chip's
frequency).
The same must have been true for the Opterons (except that the increase
in die area much have been even much smaller since the CPU itself had
become a much smaller part of the overall die because of the
incorporation of things like the memory controller and the L1 and L2
caches).
So it was a great move on the part of AMD: cheap to implement but with
an enormous marketing impact.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web