JoeUser Forums
I’m looking forward to not running into the 2 gigabyte limit anymore on development.
Other name for IA64=expensive junk
Even supercomputers aren't using it. http://www.top500.org/stats/list/36/procfam
The Cell architecture shows more promise than IA64 ever did, and outside of the PS3 its been pretty well ignored also.
I'll upgrade to 64bit Win7 when the opportunity comes. I have a Pentium D 3.2ghz Machine running Win-7 32 with a NVIDIA GS 8800 graphics card.
I can run mass effect, Sins, SC2, Farcry 2, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Crysis etc.
It works perfectly for what I want to do with it. Do I want Sins or other applications to be written in 64 bit? You better believe I do! Once the market transfers over, and there is a product that is 64 bit that I want, I'll upgrade, not before however. I've got too many student loans to try to pay back first. 
Well, in june 2004, there was 84 itanium system in the top 500, one being in the second position... and it have decline since... Windows server 2008 was the last windows system to support the itanium, like Ubuntu LTS 10.04 or red hat 5... in fact, only HP OS continue to support it...
It was not junk... performance was (very ) poor only in 32 bit mode... but 64 bit was very fast... It doesn't matter how good the IA64 architecture is, customers want to run their existing applications, most of which are compiled for x86 and don't come with source code. That leaves you with emulation, which i doubt Intel could make faster than native... Intel can't move to a new architecture because they are held back by all the millions of closed source applications out there.
simply remember that x86 architecture is from 1978 !!! All the new thing are only extension from these original x86... not really something who can lead to top performance due to the backward compatibility... these extension are something like the option for a car... usualy, option make a car better but it become a time that option will not be enough and that a new type of car will be needed... since 1978, the following extension was added to x86 architecture : x87, IA-32, P6, MMX, SSE, SSE2, x86-64, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE5, AVX .
Anyway, history repeat itself... intel have launch the first real 32 bit processor 1981 with a new architecture called iAPX 432... customer have not like it because it was incompatible with the 8086... one year later, the 80286 was released... a x86 architecture with a 32 bits extension...
The first time that consumer was able to choose between 32 bits and real 64 bits was in 1989...
We now had two very powerful chips that we were introducing at just about the same time: the 486, largely based on CISC technology and compatible with all the PC software, and the i860, based on RISC technology, which was very fast but compatible with nothing. We didn't know what to do. So we introduced both, figuring we'd let the marketplace decide. ...
Well, we already know the choice of the marketplace : the 486 !!! And the i860 was not bad :
All of the buses were at least 64 bits wide. The internal memory bus to the cache, for instance, was 128 bits wide. Both units had thirty-two 32-bit registers, but the FPU used its set as sixteen 64-bit registers. Instructions for the ALU were fetched two at a time to use the full external bus. The IEEE and Intel referred to the design as the "i860 64-Bit Microprocessor". Intel i860 instructions acted on data sizes from 8-bit through 128-bit. The graphics unit was unique for the era. It was essentially a 64-bit integer unit using the FPU registers as eight 128-bit registers. It supported a number of commands for SIMD-like instructions in addition to basic 64-bit integer math. Experience with the i860 influenced the MMX functionality later added to Intel's Pentium processors.
Yes, a 64 bits processor was released by intel in the same time that the 486...
In conclusion, several time in the computer history, customer was given the chance to choose new architecture who have can evolve further that actual processor... problem of new architecture is that it is not compatible with previous one... in all case, customer have choose the solution with the less performance but the more compatibility... in almost all the case, it is customer who have stop progress... pretty sure that the next generation of processor will be some x86-128 in place of a real fully 128 processor...
I get the feeling I got myself into another endless conversation. I...need to go...err...water some plants (what, it's winter? Why doesn't anyone tell me these things? 
)
I'm quite happy to run it Draginol. Do you want to post one to me?
You talk about things you have no knowledge of.
IA-64 was an attempt by intel to ditch x86 with:
1. A faster architecture (x86 is over 20 years old)
2. An architecture only they have the patents to make (with x86 they are legally bound to cross licensing deal with AMD, via, and one more company IIRC). Granting intel a pure monopoly.
However, AMD then extended x86 to 64bit (not that difficult, original x86 was 8bit, intel then extended to to 16 bit, then to 32 bit) and it overtook the market instead. (this is pretty much AMD's only innovation).
IA64 was not compatible with existing software and required everything to be ported over and recompiled, it was completely new and unsupported, more expensive, and not backwards compatible. Intel started it out in the SERVER market btw, not even making it available for home use, so it was ALSO very very expensive... and it is still around under the name itanium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium
IA = intel architecture.
uh, actually IA64 is strictly speaking superior to x86... it is very expensive, and intel has let it fall behind in terms of technology because it has mostly failed. But it has many clear and strong advantages... But I wouldn't buy it.
It is expensive, it is a monopoly grab ploy, it is many thing... but it isn't junk.
Well, i was learning computer at the University ( analyst-programmer ) when you was only a baby !!! x-86 architecture is from 1978, long before you was even born...
By the way, my post are saying similar thing that yours...
A other detail, x86-64 is not really a architecture but more a compilation mode... based on what is common with the AMD64 architecture and the EMT64 architecture...Compilers produce binaries that are compatible with both, compatible with the subset of x86-64 that is common to both AMD64 and Intel 64... a few of the difference :
- Intel 64's BSF and BSR instructions act differently when the source is 0 and the operand size is 32 bits. The processor sets the zero flag and leaves the upper 32 bits of the destination undefined.
- Intel 64 lacks some model-specific registers that are considered architectural to AMD64. These include SYSCFG, TOP_MEM, and TOP_MEM2.
- Intel 64 allows SYSCALL and SYSRET only in long mode (not in compatibility mode). It allows SYSENTER and SYSEXIT in both modes.
- AMD64 lacks SYSENTER and SYSEXIT in both sub-modes of long mode.
- Near branches with the 66H (operand size) prefix behave differently. Intel 64 clears only the top 32 bits, while AMD64 clears the top 48 bits.
- AMD processors raise a floating point Invalid Exception when performing an FLD or FSTP of an 80-bit signalling NaN, while Intel processors do not.
- etc
Well, these difference are not really important for user Joe... not really important for people using a specific OS along generic compilator... but in case of programming high end embeded system in assembler code, programmer need to know these specific...
I get the feeling I got myself into another endless conversation.
Well, it is simply a discussion... i have my point of view, you have yours... your view is more at the consumer level, mine more at the technical level... different view don't mean that one is right and the other is wrong... i have simply begin post in these topic because of the original post who imply that dev cannot use more of 2gb ram unless consumer move to windows 7 64 bit... the original post is at the technical level a "lie"... you don't need Windows 7 64 bit for use more that 2gb, you don't need a windows 64 bit OS to use more that 2gb... That a dev make a post like this make me thing about propaganda...
True enough. I am aware of most technical detail but if something never impacts the consumer market at all I'm not interested.
Back to the subject at hand: Upgrading. Anything from 1978 most likely wouldn't be an upgrade... 
Civ V is actually the closest I've gotten to something making me want to upgrade my PC.. but, truth be told, it mostly makes me want Firaxis to optimize the damnthing better. There's no obvious reason why it should be such a system hog...
Well, we are back to the egg-kip problem already post before... something can impacts the consumer market only if consumer have interest in it...
To be honest, at the consumer level, i am a little like the majority here... if something work, why try something new... but when i review the history at the technical level, i understand why soft dev or/and hard dev have some cold feet about jumping to something new... it is the industry who put a lot of money in research/development... when it fail or when consumer don't accept it, it is them who loose a lot money...
As consumer, i will be happy to have software optimized only for 64 bits... i have already some, in fact, a few year ago, i have move to a workstation with xp pro x64 because of one single software, a 3D software... but if i was a dev, specialy a game dev, i will not make the jump to 64 bits only, too much early for this, need to wait that more customer move to 64 bits OS...
And yet I know more then you, go figure.
Also, I am amazed that you were going to the university at age 16. Because thats how old you were when I was born according to our profiles (which include age). Tell me, which university was offering an "analyst-programmer" course in 1984
Erm... AMD64 was adopted because of the easy upgrade path. Cell was adopted because a company was willing to put it in consumer goods. Itanium was never offered in any consumer goods, so how could the consumer be interested?
Well, i have wrote "baby" and not "newborn"... unless you think that at 2 yo, somebody is not more a baby... in my country, you are a baby until 3 yo, when you begin go to school...
Tell me, which university was offering an "analyst-programmer" course in 1984
First year was 1987-88... at the FUNDP ( faculte universitaire notre Dame de la Paix ) Namur Belgium... at these time, informatic was a sub scection of science-mathematique... have made only the graduat part ( 2 year )... and not the license part ( who is 4 year more )... after this, have made a A2C electro-mech, a B2 weapons technician, leadership training in Germany, radar technic in Holland, sonar technic in France, rocket technic in US Houston, etc... around 7 year ago, i have follow a formation of garden architec... these year, i was mainly busy with exams, for qualify for a top course IT Netwerk specialist planned for next year... with luck, end 2011, i will be a Microsoft certified profesionel with a Cisco CCNA level 1 to 4 and ECDL ( European Computer Driving License ) diploma...
About knowing moree that me or not, i don't care... have wrote several time that i am a "jack of all trade"... somebody who know a little of everything but specialist in nothing...
By the way, about your comment related to the Itanium IA-64 being for for server... AMD64 was first for Opteron who are server processor... EMT64 from Intel was first for Xeon who are server processor... about server processor not being available for home use, it is not true... by example, my home computer have two Xeon quad core...
Yes, and AMD64 was also in the Athlon 64, which I owned the first two versions of. EM64T is AMD64. Intel just couldn't admit to using AMD tech. Heh.
Consumers don't need to have interest in it. Microsoft and the OEMs just need to start pushing x64 as the baseline on any machine that supports it and keep x86 to only preinstalls on machines that can't. It's something long overdue, honestly. Virtually all desktop systems sold for several years now have been x64 capable.
Have I been buying PCs for that long now? I could swear that it's only just a few years that the new commodity hardware is 64-bit. But I have to admit that it's been a decade or more since getting a new PC changed from a fun, self-indulgent thing to a tedious chore.
Cell processor are only the natural evolution of the "Power" processor who was used long time ago in the Apple computer... a cell processor have a core with the power architecture and specialized coprocessor element...
And cell processor are not rare... you find then in some video processing card, in some blade server, in HDTV able to decode 48 mpg video stream for create the thumb video of each channel on the main screen, ...
Cell architecture is a good one... and the playstation implementation is good too... in fact, proffesional use the PS3 too... Terrasoft Solutions is selling 8-node and 32-node PS3 clusters with Yellow dog linux... Cluster of PS3 are a very cheap alternative to the supercomputer blade... The Astrophysicist Dr. Gaurav Khanna use this method for the black hole calculation...
If you have interest, take a look at http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/JackDongarra/PAPERS/scop3.pdf ... using several PS3, you can build a supercomputer with a one time cost less that a apple MAC PRO..
Good point.
Best regards,
Steven.
Well, as today, in any computershop that i know, new computer are with Windows 7 and 64 bit ready... The last computer that i have install for somebody was so... but the customer have ask XP because one of the software that he was using for year don't yet exist for x64 and crash with Vista or Win7... result, the guy have pay around 130 euro more for a XP 32 bit OS...
Now, with Linux OS, it was not a problem... linux 64 bit was out before the AMD processor ( spec was already public )... people from Linux have move very fast to 64 bit because their application ( who are open source ) was recompiled for 64 bit in a very short time...
In my case, i use Linux for "professional" work... and Windows XP Pro x64 for game... Windows 7 is not a option because a bunch of my old game will not run... professional software survive a long time, they update with each technical evolution... but game support is usually stopped after a few month... if a new OS appear, the software ( game ) is not updated for these new OS because support is stopped...
A other thing, you need to see the large picture... the worldwide picture... x64 is already enough present in north America and Europe... but on Asian , African, Russian continent, south America continent, there is numerous system who are not x64 capable... there, only people with enough high class can buy the modern material...
A interesting tools... http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-200911-201010 ... seem that Windows 7 have already a good yearly increase... i bet that win7 will be the OS version who will kill XP ( killing Vista first ) if enough time is given... for region like Africa or Asia, the trend is not so strong but with time, result will be identical... XP is dying, and it is replaced with Win7...
But why move to win7 now when win8 is already planned for 2011-2012 !!! A game who have his dev stage who begin today for win7 will be obsolete when released because of win8 !!! OS life cycle become shorter that the game development time !!! Really wish a good LTS ( long time suport ) windows version...
Damn straight, just the thought of a reinstall seems an epic hassle
It took me 30 minutes, start to finish, with my fresh custom computer, installing win 7 64bit. No choices didn't make sense, I didn't have to look up anything. No drivers were required to make something function. In fact, the only driver I needed to install was the graphics driver (well, and direct X drivers along with the first game). In my opinion, it's one of the strong selling points of the OS.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
Stardock Forums
Sins Forums
WinCustomize Forums
Elemental Forums