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>]

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.