On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, tom wrote: > Greets Net Llama; > > "Net Llama!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Since when is a P4 the same as IA64?? > > Isn't it? I've seen the progression of the hardware over the > years as this; > > 386-486 => 16 bit OS platforms/ 32 bit architecture > 586-686-P3 => 32 bit OS platforms/ 64 bit architecture
Sorry, no, i don't think so. THose are most definitely not 64 bit architecture. > P4- P5 - P6 => 64 bit OS platforms/ 128 bit architecture Earlier you were claiming P4 to be 64bit, now its somehow amazingly become 128bit? PLease show us your time portal so that we can all view this wonder of modern technology. Seriously, intel doesn't even have a 128bit archtiecture. > > http://cedar.intel.com/software/idap/media/pdf/LinuxQSG_Rev1.pdf > > I was under this impression that since 1999 when Intel > released information for the Itanium/Pentium 4 for the > purposes of linux community to build a P4 functioning kernel > and start application building. Itanium & P4 are _NOT_ the same thing, by a long shot. Intel has been trying to convince the world of that fact for quite a while, much to their own marketing detriment. > Wasn't it REDHAT introducing of a IA-64 coded OS that > worked on Pentium 4's before MS could produce for Windows > 2000 OS for the same machines big news years ago? No. Repeat after me, IA64 =! P4. > > And as I understand it, going from 32 bits to 64 bits > creates problems, and a OS developer has to start > from the ground all over again? For Itanium, yes, that's true, or at least the code has to be recompiled. I don't know enough about asembler to comment further. For AMD's upcoming 64bit chip, they claim it will be backward compatible. > Software like GCC, GLIBC, have problems especially > with 'int' 'long' and 'pointers', just to start with. I'm not following you here at all. > I was under the impression problems were caused when > compiled applications will crash by recieving unexpected > negative values when a value is greater and outside the > range of smaller bit 'holder'. > > Not all applications would crash and bomb, but I thought > it was a good idea to use 64 bit OS on a Pentium 4 or better, > which had 128 bit architecture to begin with. No, this is incorrect. > Wasn't there was a big push from Linux OS developers to > have clients with a minimum OS platform of a Pentium > instead of a 486 with Kernel 2.2.13 and the > move to Glibc 2.1.3 along those very same lines? Not that i've heard. > I think I remember grumbling from even this list > when its members frequented the Caldera mail list there > about eDesktop and it's minimum requirements a few years back. Caldera's last Server release required a PII or higher. Their desktop release had no such requirement, AFAIK. > We've moved away from the i386/i486, which had 16 bit > OS and applications, Linus and the other developers > people went to the Pentium which could handle the 32 bit > platform. I'm pretty sure that 386/486 were 32bit architecture. 286 *might* have been 16bit, but i'm not certain. > The linux/GNU community has dropped and moved away for some > time supporting GCC 2.91, GlibC 2.1.X, and the machines > that they used could compile could that was understood by > the Pentium 1-2-3's. But still all these machines are > all 32 bit OS running on them ( 64 architecture). Please reread what you just wrote, cause its incomprehensible to me. > P4 is big monster, with 128 bit architecture. The 64 bit OS Errr...no its not. Its 32bit. You sure you don't work for Intel Marketing? > is now required to drive it. A new, higher bit architecture > always requires a higher bit OS to drive it. Ummm...no. Please tell that to all the folks with P4's who have been happily running 32bit OS's. > IA-64 OS should be able to run on a half decently built and > quick 2.0GHz or better Pent 4 machine, single CPU or no. Try no. > This year we should see a new minimal equipment requirement, > a Pentium 4 as a minimum machine, with 256MB ram, when Linus > starts introduction of Kernel 2.6. ( say around 2.6.10 or so ). Huh? Where are you getting this stuff? Either i've been way, way, way out of the loop, or you're in some alternate reality. > Anyway, this is way, way, way off topic. If it was accurate it would be ontopic. > I am still under the opinion that M.C. simply has a CDROM > he burned that simply didn't burn quite right. I'm of the opinion that he's missing a few clues, but tha'ts a different thread entirely. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
