> Second, it is this difference from x86 that I think is justification
> enough to focus on Itanium rather than x86-64.
> I'm not sure exactly how
> x86-64 works, but it seems to me that it's simply the standard x86
> architecture expanded to 64 bits.
With several enchancements, yes.
> Isn't time we kill the x86? It's been around too long. I'm not sure how
> the Itanium looks, and I'm no Intel freak, but a change would be nice.
> We should begin moving in the direction of RISC (or at least VLIW).
Itainium is EPIC.
> is our chance. Focus main development on Alpha and Itanium (ideally,
> major focus should be put on UltraSPARC and PPC, too), and leave the
> x86-64 porting to people who actually care.
As for killing the x86, that's a battle for the industry to decide. What
happens if and when either Intel can't make Itainium work or sell ? Intel
is the one taking the big risk here, by creating a new arcitecture. I have
no problem with Sparc or PPC support, they are tested over a period of
years. But I for one am not willing to wager alot of time and effort on
Intel's new platform when it seems they're breaking their own losing streak
record daily.
This is not a kill the x86 discussion, nor am I willing to partake in one.
Certainly the architecture is tired, no doubts there. Certainly there are
better architectures. However, FreeBSD is an i386/x86 and Alpha OS the way
things stand now. The x86-64 Hammer architecture is the next step in the
x86 series, since Intel will soon end their involvement of the x86 line
(they might as well stop now the way P4s are looking).
If you want to work on the Itainium production, that's fine, my interest is
in the Hammer because I believe legacy support is what drives the market.
If that wasn't true, we wouldn't still be using the x86 today.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
