Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected? - VMS

This is a discussion on Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected? - VMS ; Guess what architecture that /Intel 64/ is... http://www.intel.com/technology/arch...licon/intel64/ (Conniving bastards take AMD's innovations and call it "Intel 64"! That itself is enough to make me buy AMD64 chips.) -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 61

Thread: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

  1. Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?


    Guess what architecture that /Intel 64/ is...

    http://www.intel.com/technology/arch...licon/intel64/

    (Conniving bastards take AMD's innovations and call it "Intel 64"!
    That itself is enough to make me buy AMD64 chips.)

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  2. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    > http://www.intel.com/technology/arch...licon/intel64/
    >
    > (Conniving bastards take AMD's innovations and call it "Intel 64"!
    > That itself is enough to make me buy AMD64 chips.)


    I have bought only AMD chips for PC's for years and I only buy Alphas
    for OpenVMS. Titanic was a chip the industry never needed.


  3. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    This makes you wonder whether the "investment" in new Itanium systems is any
    more appropriate than buying new or refurbished Alpha systems.

    They could be as obsolete as each other in a couple of years... the moral of
    this story is to stick with what you know.... Alpha !

    So who out there at HP is developing VMS for Intel 64?

    Or is it a swiss company?

    DT




    "yyyc186" wrote in message
    news:1186755185.762202.53090@i38g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
    >> http://www.intel.com/technology/arch...licon/intel64/
    >>
    >> (Conniving bastards take AMD's innovations and call it "Intel 64"!
    >> That itself is enough to make me buy AMD64 chips.)

    >
    > I have bought only AMD chips for PC's for years and I only buy Alphas
    > for OpenVMS. Titanic was a chip the industry never needed.
    >




  4. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    On Aug 10, 8:22 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > Guess what architecture that /Intel 64/ is...
    >
    > http://www.intel.com/technology/arch...licon/intel64/
    >
    > (Conniving bastards take AMD's innovations and call it "Intel 64"!
    > That itself is enough to make me buy AMD64 chips.)
    >


    It looks like it's Intel architecture.

    There doesn't seem to be anything there that Intel hasn't at least
    alluded to before. back in May, here in c.o.v., I noted the
    following:

    : The Penryn road map shows 45nm 2007, 32nm 2009 and 22nm 2011. The
    : scuttlebutt about the Larrabee many-core project seems to point to
    : IA with x86

    So, it's 2007 and they've announced 45nm and more fully described some
    of the evolutionary tweaks. Where's the news?

    I'm not a chip-head, but what I read about the Larrabee makes me think
    it'll be Itanium-type technology that can run x86-64 instructions.
    Will you be shocked then, too?


  5. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    On 08/10/07 14:29, Doug Phillips wrote:
    > On Aug 10, 8:22 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> Guess what architecture that /Intel 64/ is...
    >>
    >> http://www.intel.com/technology/arch...licon/intel64/
    >>
    >> (Conniving bastards take AMD's innovations and call it "Intel 64"!
    >> That itself is enough to make me buy AMD64 chips.)
    >>

    >
    > It looks like it's Intel architecture.
    >
    > There doesn't seem to be anything there that Intel hasn't at least
    > alluded to before. back in May, here in c.o.v., I noted the
    > following:
    >
    > : The Penryn road map shows 45nm 2007, 32nm 2009 and 22nm 2011. The
    > : scuttlebutt about the Larrabee many-core project seems to point to
    > : IA with x86
    >
    > So, it's 2007 and they've announced 45nm and more fully described some
    > of the evolutionary tweaks. Where's the news?
    >
    > I'm not a chip-head, but what I read about the Larrabee makes me think
    > it'll be Itanium-type technology that can run x86-64 instructions.
    > Will you be shocked then, too?


    Kinda. They tried it 6-7 years ago, but it was slow. Making x86-64
    run acceptably fast on ia64 would cost a *lot* of transistors, which
    would either boost the size and cost, or reduce L3 cache and slow
    down the CPU.

    Do you have a link to that road map? My reading indicates that
    Larrabee is an x86-64 multi-core CPU+GPU.

    One thing I did notice in my reading is that Tukwila (the Itanium
    after Montvale, which is a tweak of Montecito) will have the same
    CPU core interconnect (named CSI, Common System Interconnect, and
    similar to AMD's Hyper-Transport) that Nehalem (a Xeon successor)
    will have.

    Maybe that's what you are thinking of.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  6. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    >
    > Guess what architecture that /Intel 64/ is...
    >
    > http://www.intel.com/technology/arch...licon/intel64/
    >
    > (Conniving bastards take AMD's innovations and call it "Intel 64"!
    > That itself is enough to make me buy AMD64 chips.)


    It appears that HP's overall plan was even more dastardly than we had first
    imagined.

    Perhaps as early as 1998, HP was planning the demise of the DEC Legacy platforms
    and their host OS, OpenVMS, even if that meant tens of billions of investor
    dollars getting pumped down the Itanic drain.

    The Alphacide was merely a ruse to distract the VMS community from the larger
    plan. It now appears there never was an intent to continue VMS past Itanic. HP's
    intent was to supplant VMS with UX and the only way to do that was to eliminate
    VMS's operating platforms: first Alpha as a condition of the Compaq merger, now
    Itanic, apparently the hidden part of agenda.

    Unless a port to EMT64 is forthcoming, this could very well sound the final
    death knell for OpenVMS. If Itanic ends up in Davy Jones's locker, that's it for
    VMS. No one has even expressed any reluctance to change course in mid-stream at
    full speed, regardless of public "commitments". (Remember: the VMS roadmap is
    many things, but has never been intended to be construed as a commitment.)

    I wonder if there would be cause for the SEC or some other group to investigate
    any of this...?

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

  7. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    On Aug 11, 11:22 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/10/07 14:29, Doug Phillips wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Aug 10, 8:22 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > >> Guess what architecture that /Intel 64/ is...

    >
    > >>http://www.intel.com/technology/arch...licon/intel64/

    >
    > >> (Conniving bastards take AMD's innovations and call it "Intel 64"!
    > >> That itself is enough to make me buy AMD64 chips.)

    >
    > > It looks like it's Intel architecture.

    >
    > > There doesn't seem to be anything there that Intel hasn't at least
    > > alluded to before. back in May, here in c.o.v., I noted the
    > > following:

    >
    > > : The Penryn road map shows 45nm 2007, 32nm 2009 and 22nm 2011. The
    > > : scuttlebutt about the Larrabee many-core project seems to point to
    > > : IA with x86

    >
    > > So, it's 2007 and they've announced 45nm and more fully described some
    > > of the evolutionary tweaks. Where's the news?

    >
    > > I'm not a chip-head, but what I read about the Larrabee makes me think
    > > it'll be Itanium-type technology that can run x86-64 instructions.
    > > Will you be shocked then, too?

    >
    > Kinda. They tried it 6-7 years ago, but it was slow. Making x86-64
    > run acceptably fast on ia64 would cost a *lot* of transistors, which
    > would either boost the size and cost, or reduce L3 cache and slow
    > down the CPU.
    >


    The times, they have a-changed.

    > Do you have a link to that road map? My reading indicates that
    > Larrabee is an x86-64 multi-core CPU+GPU.
    >


    The road map I referred to was Penryns. I haven't seen Larrabee in a
    road map yet, but maybe I haven't dug deeply enough. There was an
    overview given at by Intel where some facts were made public. Google
    Intel +Larrabee.

    Intel has coined the term "Many-Core" (or "Mini-Core", depending on
    how you hear it) to describe their Terra-scale project, of which
    Larrabee is part, and the "hints" are that the designers are learning
    as much (if not more) from the IA work as the x86. After all, each new
    chip is really just a proving ground for the next generation, isn't
    it?

    Intel has long expressed the desire to have a unified architecture
    rather than many competing ones like now; they thought that would be
    Itanium, but the market didn't agree.

    > One thing I did notice in my reading is that Tukwila (the Itanium
    > after Montvale, which is a tweak of Montecito) will have the same
    > CPU core interconnect (named CSI, Common System Interconnect, and
    > similar to AMD's Hyper-Transport) that Nehalem (a Xeon successor)
    > will have.
    >
    > Maybe that's what you are thinking of.
    >


    No. That's not what I was thinking of.


  8. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    In article <46BE1A5C.7B848897@spam.comcast.net>, David J Dachtera wrote:
    [...]
    >It appears that HP's overall plan was even more dastardly than we had first
    >imagined.
    >
    >Perhaps as early as 1998, HP was planning the demise of the DEC Legacy platforms
    >and their host OS, OpenVMS, even if that meant tens of billions of investor
    >dollars getting pumped down the Itanic drain.
    >
    >The Alphacide was merely a ruse to distract the VMS community from the larger
    >plan. It now appears there never was an intent to continue VMS past Itanic. HP's
    >intent was to supplant VMS with UX and the only way to do that was to eliminate
    >VMS's operating platforms: first Alpha as a condition of the Compaq merger, now
    >Itanic, apparently the hidden part of agenda.


    Is there a smiley missing here? :-)
    [...]

  9. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    David J Dachtera wrote:
    > It now appears there never was an intent to continue VMS past Itanic.


    I've seen public statements that the work done for the Itanium port
    makes future ports easier, and even that HP _expects_ to port to other
    architectures in the future -- that's just the way things go: whole new
    sets of CPU architectures/technology arise in the industry every decade
    or so.

    > HP's
    > intent was to supplant VMS with UX and the only way to do that was to eliminate
    > VMS's operating platforms: first Alpha as a condition of the Compaq merger, now
    > Itanic, apparently the hidden part of agenda.


    There's a fatal flaw in this logic: HP-UX runs on Itanium too, so
    eliminating Itanium would eliminate the HP-UX platform too. Better find
    a better hypothesis. :-)

  10. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:17:04 -0700, Keith Parris
    wrote:

    > There's a fatal flaw in this logic: HP-UX runs on Itanium too, so
    > eliminating Itanium would eliminate the HP-UX platform too. Better find
    > a better hypothesis.


    I imagine that it would not be too difficult to port HP-UX to another
    platform


    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  11. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?


    "Tom Linden" wrote in message
    newsp.tw10bwnqhv4qyg@murphus.linden...
    > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:17:04 -0700, Keith Parris
    > wrote:
    >
    >> There's a fatal flaw in this logic: HP-UX runs on Itanium too, so
    >> eliminating Itanium would eliminate the HP-UX platform too. Better find
    >> a better hypothesis.

    >
    > I imagine that it would not be too difficult to port HP-UX to another
    > platform
    >


    And that Big-Endian platform would be?




  12. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    On 08/14/07 09:39, Tom Linden wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:17:04 -0700, Keith Parris
    > wrote:
    >
    >> There's a fatal flaw in this logic: HP-UX runs on Itanium too, so
    >> eliminating Itanium would eliminate the HP-UX platform too. Better
    >> find a better hypothesis.

    >
    > I imagine that it would not be too difficult to port HP-UX to another
    > platform


    I think it would be simpler to harden & add features to Linux (both
    kernel and userland).

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  13. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    On 08/14/07 10:21, FredK wrote:
    > "Tom Linden" wrote in message
    > newsp.tw10bwnqhv4qyg@murphus.linden...
    >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:17:04 -0700, Keith Parris
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> There's a fatal flaw in this logic: HP-UX runs on Itanium too, so
    >>> eliminating Itanium would eliminate the HP-UX platform too. Better find
    >>> a better hypothesis.

    >> I imagine that it would not be too difficult to port HP-UX to another
    >> platform
    >>

    >
    > And that Big-Endian platform would be?


    Most processors are big- or bi-endian. The only processor families
    that I can find which is only little-endian are Intel's 8* series
    (and "clones", of course).

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  14. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?


    "Ron Johnson" wrote in message
    news:VClwi.131195$BX3.82037@newsfe13.lga...
    > On 08/14/07 10:21, FredK wrote:
    >> "Tom Linden" wrote in message
    >> newsp.tw10bwnqhv4qyg@murphus.linden...
    >>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:17:04 -0700, Keith Parris
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> There's a fatal flaw in this logic: HP-UX runs on Itanium too, so
    >>>> eliminating Itanium would eliminate the HP-UX platform too. Better find
    >>>> a better hypothesis.
    >>> I imagine that it would not be too difficult to port HP-UX to another
    >>> platform
    >>>

    >>
    >> And that Big-Endian platform would be?

    >
    > Most processors are big- or bi-endian. The only processor families
    > that I can find which is only little-endian are Intel's 8* series
    > (and "clones", of course).
    >


    Golly. OK. So should it be POWER? Or SPARC? That HP-UX ports to?




  15. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:33:17 -0700, FredK wrote:

    > Golly. OK. So should it be POWER? Or SPARC? That HP-UX ports to?


    I was only thinking about the technical aspect, having myself ported
    similar styled Unix (BSD4.x) a couple of times before.

    But you are quite right they really don't have any options. It would
    appear HP really did bet the farm on IA64. X86 doesn't have support
    beyond the
    byte swap instructions?

    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  16. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?


    "Tom Linden" wrote in message
    newsp.tw2c4utdhv4qyg@murphus.linden...
    > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:33:17 -0700, FredK wrote:
    >
    >> Golly. OK. So should it be POWER? Or SPARC? That HP-UX ports to?

    >
    > I was only thinking about the technical aspect, having myself ported
    > similar styled Unix (BSD4.x) a couple of times before.
    >
    > But you are quite right they really don't have any options. It would
    > appear HP really did bet the farm on IA64. X86 doesn't have support
    > beyond the
    > byte swap instructions?
    >


    Yup. That is my point. Without reviving Alpha or PA RISC and going back
    into the FAB business to stay competetive - HP-UX needs to use Itanium *or*
    one of HPs competetors chips. SPARC which is well on its way to the grave.
    Or POWER - noticed how IBM appears to be hiding how much they make/lose on
    the chip business? It is very, very expensive to maintain the ability to
    design and FAB your own chips with cutting edge processes.

    For various degrees of difficulty and performance - VMS "could" run on any
    of the 64-bit chips out there... at a considerable expense and time cost.




  17. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    Keith Parris writes:

    >David J Dachtera wrote:
    >> It now appears there never was an intent to continue VMS past Itanic.


    >I've seen public statements that the work done for the Itanium port
    >makes future ports easier, and even that HP _expects_ to port to other
    >architectures in the future -- that's just the way things go: whole new
    >sets of CPU architectures/technology arise in the industry every decade
    >or so.


    In the process of porting from VAX to Alpha, they designed Alpha VMS to be
    very easy to port to something else. It worked, too. Alpha and Itanium
    VMS are built from a common source with relatively few architecture
    specific modules/pieces of code. It's not unreasonable to port VMS to
    something else in the future - IF HP actually wanted to. IF.

  18. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:38:59 -0700, FredK wrote:

    >
    > "Tom Linden" wrote in message
    > newsp.tw2c4utdhv4qyg@murphus.linden...
    >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:33:17 -0700, FredK wrote:
    >>
    >>> Golly. OK. So should it be POWER? Or SPARC? That HP-UX ports to?

    >>
    >> I was only thinking about the technical aspect, having myself ported
    >> similar styled Unix (BSD4.x) a couple of times before.
    >>
    >> But you are quite right they really don't have any options. It would
    >> appear HP really did bet the farm on IA64. X86 doesn't have support
    >> beyond the
    >> byte swap instructions?
    >>

    >
    > Yup. That is my point. Without reviving Alpha or PA RISC and going back
    > into the FAB business to stay competetive - HP-UX needs to use Itanium
    > *or*
    > one of HPs competetors chips. SPARC which is well on its way to the
    > grave.
    > Or POWER - noticed how IBM appears to be hiding how much they make/lose
    > on
    > the chip business? It is very, very expensive to maintain the ability to
    > design and FAB your own chips with cutting edge processes.


    The economy of scale is better for IBM than it would have been with Alpha.
    The i- and p- series both enjoy the same chip, and the core is shared with
    z-series, I believe. Just out of curiosity when the pitch was being made
    to
    go with Alpha I am sure that these people were smart enough to be able to
    project
    the future costs of maintaining a competitive architecture, and as I
    recall,
    NT was the convincing factor. It would seem to me that any kind of
    seasoned
    management would see how risky that was particularly since, I am sure they
    were
    likewise able to estimate the reduction to the customer base would ensue.
    I met
    some of those folks years ago, and they certainly weren't Rubes.

    Not sure how the economics would have shaken out, had DEC gone fabless.

    Of course, you know my viewpoint, whatever was built should have been
    backward
    compatible with 32bit VAX just as IBM has done with z

    >
    > For various degrees of difficulty and performance - VMS "could" run on
    > any
    > of the 64-bit chips out there... at a considerable expense and time cost.
    >
    >
    >




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  19. RE: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Ron Johnson [mailto:ron.l.johnson@cox.net]
    > Sent: August 14, 2007 1:15 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?
    >
    > On 08/14/07 09:39, Tom Linden wrote:
    > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:17:04 -0700, Keith Parris
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> There's a fatal flaw in this logic: HP-UX runs on Itanium too, so
    > >> eliminating Itanium would eliminate the HP-UX platform too. Better
    > >> find a better hypothesis.

    > >
    > > I imagine that it would not be too difficult to port HP-UX to another
    > > platform

    >
    > I think it would be simpler to harden & add features to Linux (both
    > kernel and userland).
    >
    > --


    And how would you propose that HP do this when it does not own or control the kernel?

    Regards


    Kerry Main
    Senior Consultant
    HP Services Canada
    Voice: 613-592-4660
    Fax: 613-591-4477
    kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    (remove the DOT's and AT)

    OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.




  20. Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?

    In article ,
    "Main, Kerry" writes:
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: Ron Johnson [mailto:ron.l.johnson@cox.net]
    >> Sent: August 14, 2007 1:15 PM
    >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    >> Subject: Re: Intel marginalizing Itanium even faster than expected?
    >>
    >> On 08/14/07 09:39, Tom Linden wrote:
    >> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:17:04 -0700, Keith Parris
    >> > wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> There's a fatal flaw in this logic: HP-UX runs on Itanium too, so
    >> >> eliminating Itanium would eliminate the HP-UX platform too. Better
    >> >> find a better hypothesis.
    >> >
    >> > I imagine that it would not be too difficult to port HP-UX to another
    >> > platform

    >>
    >> I think it would be simpler to harden & add features to Linux (both
    >> kernel and userland).
    >>
    >> --

    >
    > And how would you propose that HP do this when it does not own or control t=
    > he kernel?


    One needn't own the kernel to make their own release. HP-UX is not
    Linux compatable now so why would it matter if the replacement flavor
    of Linux was not compatable with others? Of course, they could always
    forget about Linux and go with BSD where they are truly free to do
    whatever they wish. And they can even keep their significant additons
    proprietary if they want. Just like HP-UX. :-)

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast