4 ms·

I worked on a project with machines that used the pa-risc cpus. The importance of optimized compilers can’t be understated (and math libraries) which made thos

I worked on a project with machines that used the pa-risc cpus. The importance of optimized compilers can’t be understated (and math libraries) which made those machines really shine. My understanding was the Itanium (which basically replaced pa-risc in hp Unix machine lineup) never got the compiler support to realize the architectures strengths, so everyone looked to the safer bet in 64bit computing. It’s hard to compete with the scale of x86. Like software I feel the industry tends toward one architecture (the more people use the architecture the better the compilers the more users ...) Even Apple abandoned PowerPC chips.

xscott 7y ago
If anyone stood a chance to compete against x86, I'd think Intel would be it :-)
- kjs3 7y ago
  But Intel failed here with the same mistake they've made many times before: the people who actually buy Intel kit basically want a faster 8088/80386/Pentium, not a novel, cleaner, sexier new architecture. See: iAXP432, i860, i960Mx and recently Itanium. Linux Torvald has an interesting take on this (whether or not you agree): https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/x86.html https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/x86.html
  - xscott 7y ago
    I think Linus is very focussed on the stuff he cares about, and that shows by his complaint about PAE, which is pretty invisible to use userland folk. > the people who actually buy Intel kit basically want a faster 8088/80386/Pentium My company is small fries compared to most folks, but what we really wanted at the time was cheaper DEC Alphas.
    - kjs3 7y ago
      I think Linus is very focussed on the stuff he cares about I think he'd be the first to agree with that. PAE, which is pretty invisible to use userland folk Perhaps, but the original conversation is about architecture, and PAE was a pretty grungy architectural wart, and the sort of thing that's very visible to the OS folks (as you say, what Linus cares about). we really wanted at the time was cheaper DEC Alphas There were 'cheap' Alphas: the 21066/21068 like in the Multia. But they were dogs; to be cheap, they had to give up big cache and wide paths to main memory. Expensive system support level stuff was required for fast Alphas (complex support chipsets, 128-bit wide (later 256-bit) memory buses). More commodity inertia would have fixed that over time, but they never got there. Intel on the other hand was way down the road reaping commodity benefits, and it ran the software commodity folks wanted.
      - xscott 7y ago
        > Perhaps, but the original conversation is about architecture, and PAE was a pretty grungy architectural wart, and the sort of thing that's very visible to the OS folks (as you say, what Linus cares about). I suspect if he was into writing compilers (or graphics, or numerics, or ...), some of the other grungy architectural warts of x86 might annoy him too.
        kjs3 7y ago
        I suspect if you read the linked thread, you'd see exactly what he thought. He was at Transmeta at the time, and isn't exactly unfamiliar with what compiler writers get annoyed with. You may or may not agree with what he says, but he has a cogent, interesting perspective.
        xscott 7y ago
        Ahh, I only read the one post. My bad.
        xscott 7y ago
        Well, I read the rest of his comments. There are little tidbits which are good observations, but mostly I continue to think he just disregards things which aren't in his field of interest. If I was more cynical, I might think he wanted the continuance of x86 specifically because he was working at Transmeta.
kragen 7y ago
> so everyone looked to the safer bet in 64bit computing. Itanic was the safer bet in 64-bit computing. It just sucked. Intel didn't switch to AMD64 until underdog AMD was already eating their lunch. Today there are probably more aarch64 CPUs being sold every month than amd64 CPUs (including Intel's).

xscott 7y ago

If anyone stood a chance to compete against x86, I'd think Intel would be it :-)

kjs3 7y ago
But Intel failed here with the same mistake they've made many times before: the people who actually buy Intel kit basically want a faster 8088/80386/Pentium, not a novel, cleaner, sexier new architecture. See: iAXP432, i860, i960Mx and recently Itanium. Linux Torvald has an interesting take on this (whether or not you agree): https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/x86.html https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/x86.html
- xscott 7y ago
  I think Linus is very focussed on the stuff he cares about, and that shows by his complaint about PAE, which is pretty invisible to use userland folk. > the people who actually buy Intel kit basically want a faster 8088/80386/Pentium My company is small fries compared to most folks, but what we really wanted at the time was cheaper DEC Alphas.
  - kjs3 7y ago
    I think Linus is very focussed on the stuff he cares about I think he'd be the first to agree with that. PAE, which is pretty invisible to use userland folk Perhaps, but the original conversation is about architecture, and PAE was a pretty grungy architectural wart, and the sort of thing that's very visible to the OS folks (as you say, what Linus cares about). we really wanted at the time was cheaper DEC Alphas There were 'cheap' Alphas: the 21066/21068 like in the Multia. But they were dogs; to be cheap, they had to give up big cache and wide paths to main memory. Expensive system support level stuff was required for fast Alphas (complex support chipsets, 128-bit wide (later 256-bit) memory buses). More commodity inertia would have fixed that over time, but they never got there. Intel on the other hand was way down the road reaping commodity benefits, and it ran the software commodity folks wanted.
    - xscott 7y ago
      > Perhaps, but the original conversation is about architecture, and PAE was a pretty grungy architectural wart, and the sort of thing that's very visible to the OS folks (as you say, what Linus cares about). I suspect if he was into writing compilers (or graphics, or numerics, or ...), some of the other grungy architectural warts of x86 might annoy him too.
      - kjs3 7y ago
        I suspect if you read the linked thread, you'd see exactly what he thought. He was at Transmeta at the time, and isn't exactly unfamiliar with what compiler writers get annoyed with. You may or may not agree with what he says, but he has a cogent, interesting perspective.
        xscott 7y ago
        Ahh, I only read the one post. My bad.
        xscott 7y ago
        Well, I read the rest of his comments. There are little tidbits which are good observations, but mostly I continue to think he just disregards things which aren't in his field of interest. If I was more cynical, I might think he wanted the continuance of x86 specifically because he was working at Transmeta.

kragen 7y ago

> so everyone looked to the safer bet in 64bit computing. Itanic was the safer bet in 64-bit computing. It just sucked. Intel didn't switch to AMD64 until underdog AMD was already eating their lunch. Today there are probably more aarch64 CPUs being sold every month than amd64 CPUs (including Intel's).