StarDestroyer.Net BBS

His Divine Shadow wrote:Hmm, I've been told Palladium will be optional, an MS employee on another forum I remember also said that it will be optional and not mandatory.

Palladium is a component of TCPA, not the entire system. Microsoft saying that Palladium will be optional merely means that Palladium-equipped versions of Windows will allow users to run programs that haven't been signed and authorized by Microsoft. The Fritz chip, however, doesn't care if its instructions come from the operating system (Palladium) or the application software. Even if Palladium (the OS component) is disabled, the TCPA fritz chip will still respond to orders from application software for information repression services.

The difference between Intel and AMD chips with regard to TCPA is that the AMD TCPA hardware can be disabled but the Intel TCPA hardware cannot be controlled by the user in any way, shape or form.

Pu-239 wrote:Bah, AMD's Hammer will kill IA-64, since it's backward compatiable - I think they use the code-morphing stuff licenced from transmeta

Highly doubtfull, it'll only have an advantage where the old code is run, IA-64 will be far superior on newer applications and will become the standard, as usual Intel is leading the market in new technologies, AMD better get on board with that or be obsolete, personally I dislike the fact that they are extending the life of x86 further than is neccesary.

Hyperthreading is overrated, unless you do heavy multitasking or run multithreaded apps like photoshop.

Hyperthreading is not overrated when one considers the uses it has.

Just claiming it to be worthless and burying ones head in the sand will do no more good than it will do to close ones eyes on the chopping block.

phongn wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:

His Divine Shadow wrote:My current setup is an AMD, but Intel has really been taking back lost ground as of late and they have alot better chipsets and are more reliable, so thats what I'm getting for my next computer.

IA-64 stands to be very interesting too, and may finally kill x86

Bah, AMD's Hammer will kill IA-64, since it's backward compatiable - I think they use the code-morphing stuff licenced from transmeta.

IA64 contains a P5 core in it so it will execute older IA32 code, abliet not very fast.

Hammer natively runs IA32 code, none of this code morphing trickery is neccessary.

True, but it's clinging on to obsolesence, this might win it a few points during the crossover period, but in the long run IA-64/EPIC is superior to any x86 deriviative.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:Bah, AMD's Hammer will kill IA-64, since it's backward compatiable - I think they use the code-morphing stuff licenced from transmeta

Highly doubtfull, it'll only have an advantage where the old code is run, IA-64 will be far superior on newer applications and will become the standard, as usual Intel is leading the market in new technologies, AMD better get on board with that or be obsolete, personally I dislike the fact that they are extending the life of x86 further than is neccesary.

Businesses do not like having to upgrade to new versions that are not backward compatabile. If it won't read/write to/use the old data, it's not gonna happen. AMd is betting on that. Sure, you can sit here and say that x86 is gonna be dead in the business world in a couple years... then again, they've been saying that about COBAL since 1980. The fact is, business don't want to spend the time and money moving all their data to a new system (and that would include software) if they can keep it working with it's existing system/software. Yes, they do upgrades, but incrementaly, not all at once.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

phongn wrote:

Pu-239 wrote: Bah, AMD's Hammer will kill IA-64, since it's backward compatiable - I think they use the code-morphing stuff licenced from transmeta.

IA64 contains a P5 core in it so it will execute older IA32 code, abliet not very fast.

Hammer natively runs IA32 code, none of this code morphing trickery is neccessary.

True, but it's clinging on to obsolesence, this might win it a few points during the crossover period, but in the long run IA-64/EPIC is superior to any x86 deriviative.

Only one company has gotten away with a complete architecture change, and that's Apple (68k -> PPC) and were only able to do so because they owned the market completely (it also helped that the transition, at least for programmers, apparently wasn't too painful).

EPIC requires that your compiler be damned good to get the best performance. Furthermore, businesses will not like having to recode all of their software just to get something to work well, especially if there's an alternative that will be much less painful.

jegs2 wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Intel 8088, all the way. They have them running at a blazing fast 4.77MHz now.

I gotcha beat with my Zilog Z80A microprocessor, running at a screaming 3.58MHz...

My Musum has a old IBM prossesing unit , one of only three or four in the world. It can still run if I can be bothered to run an extention cable to the thing.

phongn wrote:Only one company has gotten away with a complete architecture change, and that's Apple (68k -> PPC) and were only able to do so because they owned the market completely (it also helped that the transition, at least for programmers, apparently wasn't too painful).

EPIC requires that your compiler be damned good to get the best performance. Furthermore, businesses will not like having to recode all of their software just to get something to work well, especially if there's an alternative that will be much less painful.

Either we stagnate or we change, change is good in that context, it'll happen, and Intel still has the holds on the most major enterprise contracts, so most important software will be IA-64 from the get-go.

LordChaos wrote:Businesses do not like having to upgrade to new versions that are not backward compatabile. If it won't read/write to/use the old data, it's not gonna happen

Oh I think it is gonna happen.

AMd is betting on that.

Yes, essentially capitalism working against development now and creating a bottleneck.
I hope they're wrong on this one, I don't like them obstructing development like this.

The fact is, business don't want to spend the time and money moving all their data to a new system (and that would include software) if they can keep it working with it's existing system/software. Yes, they do upgrades, but incrementaly, not all at once.

And they can keep their old software working, the final perfomance of IA-32 emulation is not set in stone either.

It'd be best for us all in the long run to support IA-64, it'd be shortsighted not to.

Why are you so against AMD's Hammer? You know, they can go to a pure IA64 architecture after it's been out for a while and there are enough apps for IA64, but in the interim it would be suicide.

His Divine Shadow wrote: Either we stagnate or we change, change is good in that context, it'll happen, and Intel still has the holds on the most major enterprise contracts, so most important software will be IA-64 from the get-go.

Wait, so I can't run my old games on Intel Processors two generations
from now?

Fuck that shit, man.

His Divine Shadow wrote:And they can keep their old software working, the final perfomance of IA-32 emulation is not set in stone either.

IA32 is not emulated. There is a P5 core onboard the Itanium: needless to say it's rather slow.

HDS, you are aware that it would be suicide NOT to have a chip capable of BOTH 32-bit and 64-bit processing? Especially during the 'interim' time period. Any business worth their salt won't arbitrarily switch to pure 64-bit at the drop of a hat when they'd have to re-code all their software specifically so that it will run on the new hardware. By that time, they would be dead in the water (or damn close from not being able to process orders) and then where would they be? Up shit creek w/o a paddel.....and with millions of dollars worth of new hardware they can't even use because of the lack of working software.

This is where the Clawhammer comes in. It runs BOTH 32-bit and 64-bit instructions so old software WILL work with the new hardware while they can pay for the software department to write the 64-bit software so when everyone DOES switch all the way to 64-bit only, they'll still be up and running like normal.

MKSheppard wrote:

His Divine Shadow wrote: Either we stagnate or we change, change is good in that context, it'll happen, and Intel still has the holds on the most major enterprise contracts, so most important software will be IA-64 from the get-go.

Wait, so I can't run my old games on Intel Processors two generations
from now?

Fuck that shit, man.

In two generations Intel may switch over to IA32 emulation rather than simply having a P5 core onboard.

I'd just like to know where I've said the new chips will only support IA-64?
Anyone? Because getting questions to statements I've never made is utterly confusing.

What I'm saying is that we should support IA-64's transition into becoming the new standard.

Crayz9000 wrote:Why are you so against AMD's Hammer? You know, they can go to a pure IA64 architecture after it's been out for a while and there are enough apps for IA64, but in the interim it would be suicide.

Because it's not good to put out multiple conflicting standards on the market, and just out of principle I disaprove of extending the life of x86.

Sure they can go pure IA-64 later, but I doubt that'll be easier later rather than sooner.

phongn wrote:

His Divine Shadow wrote:And they can keep their old software working, the final perfomance of IA-32 emulation is not set in stone either.

IA32 is not emulated. There is a P5 core onboard the Itanium: needless to say it's rather slow.

Maybe emulation would be a better idea then.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

phongn wrote:

His Divine Shadow wrote:And they can keep their old software working, the final perfomance of IA-32 emulation is not set in stone either.

IA32 is not emulated. There is a P5 core onboard the Itanium: needless to say it's rather slow.

Maybe emulation would be a better idea then.

Emulation would be even slower than putting an old Pentium core onboard.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

phongn wrote:

His Divine Shadow wrote:And they can keep their old software working, the final perfomance of IA-32 emulation is not set in stone either.

IA32 is not emulated. There is a P5 core onboard the Itanium: needless to say it's rather slow.

Maybe emulation would be a better idea then.

However doesn't the Transmeta emulate x86 in software and translates it on the fly to VLIW? Acceptable performance hit.

Then again IA64 wasn't designed from the ground up to do this.

Keep in mind that the Hammer is also intended for desktops, not just high-end workstations and servers. You are claiming intel is holding back progress, yet Intel is doing that by not retaining backward compatibility, holding back acceptance. Progress is useless if no one takes advantage of it. Also, 64 bit chips on high end systems is nothing new. You got Alpha chips (which HP dumped in favor of IA64) and Sun Sparc chips.

Pu-239 wrote:Keep in mind that the Hammer is also intended for desktops, not just high-end workstations and servers. You are claiming intel is holding back progress, yet Intel is doing that by not retaining backward compatibility, holding back acceptance. Progress is useless if no one takes advantage of it. Also, 64 bit chips on high end systems is nothing new. You got Alpha chips (which HP dumped in favor of IA64) and Sun Sparc chips.

No. HP used PA-RISC as their 64-bit chip. Digital (later acquired by Compaq) used the Alpha, and of course we know about the merger. The SPARC line is 64-bit, and PowerPC can be 64-bit as well.

phongn wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:Keep in mind that the Hammer is also intended for desktops, not just high-end workstations and servers. You are claiming intel is holding back progress, yet Intel is doing that by not retaining backward compatibility, holding back acceptance. Progress is useless if no one takes advantage of it. Also, 64 bit chips on high end systems is nothing new. You got Alpha chips (which HP dumped in favor of IA64) and Sun Sparc chips.

No. HP used PA-RISC as their 64-bit chip. Digital (later acquired by Compaq) used the Alpha, and of course we know about the merger. The SPARC line is 64-bit, and PowerPC can be 64-bit as well.

Doh! Forgot about PA-RISC.


On a side note, what are the major differences between HP-UX, VMS, Solaris, and Linux? Is VMS even a form of Unix? And what about Tru64? I thought HP used HP-UX?

Well it's a good thing that everyone's standardizing on linux, and they are at least binary compatible between identical architectures (the differences can be solved by packing in required libraries with the programs for boxed software, and installing them if missing like lots of windoze software, or statically compiling them). Then again, there really wasn't a proprietry UNIX for x86 except for SCO, aquired by Caldera, which got renamed to SCO.

phongn wrote:

His Divine Shadow wrote:

phongn wrote: IA32 is not emulated. There is a P5 core onboard the Itanium: needless to say it's rather slow.

Maybe emulation would be a better idea then.

Emulation would be even slower than putting an old Pentium core onboard.

Not neccesarily so, I was thinking of something like the process used by Transmeta, if one can call that emulation

Well, anyway I am not sure wheter I'll get a clawhammer of IA-64 CPU yet, we'll have to look at that when we actually got some CPU's to look at.

Pu-239 wrote:On a side note, what are the major differences between HP-UX, VMS, Solaris, and Linux? Is VMS even a form of Unix? And what about Tru64? I thought HP used HP-UX?

Too many differences to list, and I don't know many of them. VMS is not UNIX. Tru64 is another UNIX released by HP (as with HP-UX).

Then again, there really wasn't a proprietry UNIX for x86 except for SCO, aquired by Caldera, which got renamed to SCO.

Solaris has been available for x86 at various points in time.

His Divine Shadow wrote:Well, anyway I am not sure wheter I'll get a clawhammer of IA-64 CPU yet, we'll have to look at that when we actually got some CPU's to look at.

Considering that I doubt you run much, if any, software that's IA64 native you'd be better off getting an x86-64 chip. If IA64 wins, you can always get that later once the market finishes transitioning to it.

phongn wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:On a side note, what are the major differences between HP-UX, VMS, Solaris, and Linux? Is VMS even a form of Unix? And what about Tru64? I thought HP used HP-UX?

Too many differences to list, and I don't know many of them. VMS is not UNIX. Tru64 is another UNIX released by HP (as with HP-UX).

Then again, there really wasn't a proprietry UNIX for x86 except for SCO, aquired by Caldera, which got renamed to SCO.

Solaris has been available for x86 at various points in time.

Yeah, but I've heard it sucks. You can download it from Sun for 20 $