Hi,
Given all the above discussion, it seems I should
focus on considering porting to x64 (AMD64/EM64T). To
get a better understanding of the how/which answers, I
would appreciate it if you guys can share any market
projections/insights you have in regards to the
penetration of these systems in 2006 and 2007.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to understand the
x64 support for Vista. I mean, would all x64 systems
be installed with a 64bit OS, or do you guys think
that, as today, most x64 systems will still be shipped
with 32 bit OS.
Do you have any insights in regards to the
configuration of x64 systems by major OEMs (HP, Dell,
etc.) and which OS are they going to put on the
system?
Thanks
“Roddy, Mark” wrote in
> message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Back to the original post - dead or not, the IA64
> installed base is so
> small that from a developer’s standpoint, other than
> idle curiosity, the
> only good reason to spend time and money on porting
to
> this platform is
> a customer paying for the NRE.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf
Of
> Tim Roberts
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:02 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: Re: [ntdev] Windows 64 bit porting - AMD
vs.
> Intel, Itanium
>
> Jan Bottorff wrote:
>
> >>I think you’re jumping to an unwarranted
conclusion
> here. The x64
> >>architecture is simply not as mature as the ia64
> architecture.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That’s a surprising statement. Everybody here is
> saying the IA64 is
> dead,
> >and a zillion dollars are being spent on x64
> processor R&D, but yet the
> IA64
> >is more mature?
> >
>
> Absolutely it is! Intel began work on the Itanium
in
> 1994, for gosh
> sakes. They demonstrated a 4-processor Itanium
system
> in mid-2000,
> although the first public release wasn’t until 2001.
> The AMD64 was
> announced in 2003, and the Intel EM64T in 2004.
> Itanium has simply been
> around for more years. Hence, “it is more mature”.
I
> didn’t say “it is
> more popular”, or “it has shipped more chips”,
neither
> of which is true.
>
> Remember, Intel still believes in the ia64. THEY
> don’t believe the
> Itanium is dead.
>
> >The question I’m wondering is WHY are there
multiple
> 64
> >processor IA64 systems, and very few 64 processor
> (only one that was
> pointed
> >out to me) x64 systems?
> >
> >
>
> It’s a simple matter of time. When you’re designing
> processors and
> systems, you design the commodity (single-processor)
> boards first. As
> you build up income from the commodity systems, you
> start investing in
> development of dual-processor systems, and then move
> on to more and more
> processors. The x64 systems are just too new –
> they’re just starting
> up that curve. The Itanium has a multi-year head
> start. Give it a year
> or two, and x64 will catch up, unless the Itanium
> suddenly catches on.
>
> –
> Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com