You are probably right. I was just getting at it (Itanium) being cleaner. HP has to back Itanium, they've abandoned other chips. IBM is in the enviable position of being big enough to make chips, buy chips, etc.
And yes overtime as new things age they get crufty and cluttered, but usually the backwards compatible one will be even more cluttered. Anyhow, it will be an interesting next few years in the 64 bit computing space. My guess is Linux will have to keep getting an infusion from IBM and HP to develop on 64 bit as most Linux developers aren't commonly going to have access to 64 bit kit, which is also probably why Sun steped away and reupped it's Unix play willing to let IBM and HP foot the bill of getting it to scale up. > -----Original Message----- > From: Fargusson.Alan [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 11:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IBM stops Linux Itanium effort > > That depends on what you mean by better. Leaving out backwards > compatibility makes for a cleaner design at first, but then the new design > becomes the legacy over time, and the clean design becomes yet another > cluttered design. > > My opinion is that Intel is going to have a hard time getting everyone > converted to Itanium. I suspect that the AMD 64 bit chips will have a > much easier time attracting vendors once it is actually available. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Ware [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:22 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IBM stops Linux Itanium effort > > > Oh, I agree with you. I just meant from a sheer engineering standpoint > not > being backward compatible usually leads to a better new product. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alan Altmark [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 8:51 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: IBM stops Linux Itanium effort > > > > On Thursday, 02/13/2003 at 08:37 CST, Ryan Ware <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > I do like Intel's approach of brand new, not backward > > > compatible. Backwards compatible is another phrase for compromise. > > > > The phenomenal success of S/360, S/370, S/370-XA, S/370-ESA, S/390, > > zSeries has been attributed directly to the architected ability of each > > new generation to run the programs written for the preceding > generations. > > Protection of customer investement is a powerful marketing tool. > > > > Alan Altmark > > Sr. Software Engineer > > IBM z/VM Development
