5 ms·
I think it's fair to say that any time Windows, Microsoft, or .Net are mentioned here, your unwillingness to consider them is pretty well implied.
by icey 16y ago
I think it's fair to say that any time Windows, Microsoft, or .Net are mentioned here, your unwillingness to consider them is pretty well implied.
- rbanffy 16y agoCall me consistent. There is a deeper reason to that: I like diversity. Windows is about an x86, IBM-PC-based world. Now, with WP7, they, again, try to standardize hardware in order to commoditize it for their software. That's not healthy in the long run. Consider our PCs compared to their GPUs. PCs are a very standardized platform, with little variation allowed between different models. The average PC of 2010 is only a couple times faster than the average PC of 2005. Now, compare the average GPU of 2005 to the average GPU of 2010. The reason it happens is because GPUs are a widely diverse bunch. A couple years back, we were building number crunchers (we still are) out of x86s. Now, we build them out of GPUs. The day a GPU standard emerges is the day evolution will be tamed to a much more "market friendly" pace. We all lose.
- kenjackson 16y agoWindows desktop runs on the AMD64 platform as well as Itanium. It used to run on some other platforms like Alpha. Windows Embedded runs on ARM and SH, in addition to x86. I just find it funny that the same people who will make this sort of complaint, will then use Apple products that have an order of magnitude less diversity.
- rbanffy 16y ago> Windows desktop runs on the AMD64 platform as well as Itanium No. It doesn't. AMD64 is an extension of x86 and Itanium support for XP was dropped in 2005. The last Windows to support Itanium was 2003 server. And NT ran fine on Alpha - I used it. But it doesn't now and has't for a long time. It's funny that what spells death of a mainstream platform is not when that platform is discontinued, but when Microsoft discontinues its Windows support. We live under Microsoft's grip. If WP7 becomes dominant and Microsoft decides to drop ARM support, dead it will be.
- kenjackson 16y agoI think you're wrong on several counts: 1) While AMD64 is an extension of x86, the result in exploiting it is largely new architectural guidelines (things like different calling conventions for common calls) and one of the reasons why every major OS has an AMD64 version of the OS which distinct from their x86 version. 2) Windows Server 2008 R2, released in retail about one year ago, support Itanium. That's the last version to support Itanium. But still has standard MS support, so you can get hot fixes for it for the next 10 years. 3) Millions, if not billions of ARM processors are shipped every year OUTSIDE of mobile phones. There is no mobile phone, no matter how dominant, that could kill ARM simply by moving to a new architecture.
- xpaulbettsx 16y agoThe last Windows to support Itanium is Windows 2008 R2 and Windows 7, and Server 2008 / Vista ran on Itanium too.
- runjake 16y agoPaul, I hate to disagree with you, I always enjoy your comments, but Wikipedia says (and it may be wrong) that while 2008 supported IA-64, both Vista and W7 do not support IA-64.
- xpaulbettsx 16y agoAh, actually you might be right. Well fwiw it exists, we just don't sell it.
- kenjackson 16y agoIn reality though you don't sell any version of Windows for Itanium. You just offer to sell them. :-)
- xpaulbettsx 16y agoOn a tertiary note, every once in awhile I have to debug through optimized IA-64 assembly, it hurts my brain - if you think understanding x86 or amd64 is hard, try an ISA where every instruction has like 20 side-effects... I try to avoid it as much as humanly possible