On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:40:31PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:19:35PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:25:12AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > Of the three points, I (as one of the folks involved with the BSD ports, > > > at least) am quite willing to grant that amd64 is worthy of special-case > > > treatment because of what it is, and where it's going. > > > > Do I really have to remind people that this was said of ia64, too? > > Not really the same. The ia64 was revolutionary, but at the same time > offloaded some of the hard work to the compiler. amd64 is an evolution > of the x86, so it's much easier to migrate to. > > Still, I don't know why ia64 hasn't worked out. I haven't heard of any > technical reason why it couldn't be mainstream. Seems that Intel/HP just > haven't bothered. One fairly large reason is cost. Do you know how much the bottom end Itantium costs? This many years later from the original release it is still around $1300. The bottom end amd64 is around $170 already and will likely be much cheaper in the future. Chris
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature