On mySimon: Samsung 55" LED TV
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 22 of 27:
Next »
« Previous
Yes they did.
Hardware without software is useless.

Potential customers for the Itanium have a huge software investment in their existing servers. The enterprise applications that run on those servers often cost more than the server that they run on. Backwards compatibility provides two important things, the ability to use existing x86 software that a customer has already invested in and a larger base of available applications. Any major organization interested in the Itanium server market already has servers running x86 software. Not being able to use their existing software raises the cost of the Itanium software to include all of the applications that they need to run their business, that makes the Itanium cost prohibitive in all cases except when the server is being used for a special purpose.

Intel did the correct thing in providing backward compatibility, they just did a poor job of it.

HP won't be kinda happy, they will be unhappy but will settle for it.

GCC? Nearly every comercial compiler on the market produces superior code to GCC. GCC is okay when you are writing open source applications when you don't expect any revenue or when you need to support so many processors where the support requirements for multiple processors exceed the gain from tighter code. However, the GCC one size fits all approach produces a inferior compiler; exactly NOT what you are claiming the Itanium and Intel needs.
Posted by: balsover   Posted on: 12/09/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

poor performance per dollar  ~doolittle~ | 12/07/05
Not really  Roger Ramjet | 12/07/05
and you had a fantastic compiler  balsover | 12/07/05
The idealized one  Roger Ramjet | 12/07/05
Then it is pointless, isn't it? Not such a great idea after all  balsover | 12/07/05
History lesson  Roger Ramjet | 12/07/05
Great Comments!  DemonX | 12/07/05
Well...  techboy_z | 12/07/05
The InHell mac  Roger Ramjet | 12/07/05
Mactel  jheine | 12/07/05
Actually...  techboy_z | 12/07/05
Partly true  Roger Ramjet | 12/07/05
Re. compile for speed  techboy_z | 12/07/05
In a perfect world...  balsover | 12/07/05
Remember the InHell iAPX432 ?  Steven J. Ackerman | 12/07/05
From the article you linked to  balsover | 12/07/05
A few comments on what is "good" architecture for the future  michael_t | 12/08/05
Always starts. . . . . . .  a.techno.geek | 12/07/05
What people don't get  Roger Ramjet | 12/07/05
Perhaps you are the one that is wrong  balsover | 12/07/05
Did they really blow it?  Roger Ramjet | 12/08/05
Yes they did.  balsover | 12/09/05
Thumbs up!  sys_engineer | 12/07/05
A better question  Roger Ramjet | 12/08/05
cost?  balsover | 12/09/05
Message has been deleted.  myfevertoy | 10/22/06
How a big company MISSES a good chance and conversely  michael_t | 12/08/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here