I've seen pictures of tests of an IP Video solution on Itanium where they had something like 512 NICs in the back of the box.
The Itanium deployments were always narrow but they definitely do/did exist. I still run into the boxes fairly frequently. IA64 Windows is dead though. Thanks, Brian Desmond br...@briandesmond.com c - 312.731.3132 -----Original Message----- From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:mr...@ephrataschools.org] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:40 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Whining... In fear of taking this topic waaay of course... I used to contract for Intel, doing Bios Validation (for Linux) on Itanium "Big Sur" platforms. (Notice, not Itanium 2.) There was a version of Windows XP for Itanium. They lady doing the WHQL testing on it had a lot of fun doing it. (Ever see 127 USB devices plugged into the same root USB port?) It ran well, but not any better than a _much_ cheaper Pentium III of the time. So, yes. Itanium running Windows does work. Didn't Microsoft just announce that they won't be making any more versions of Windows for IA64? --Matt Ross Ephrata School District ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] Sent: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:26:22 -0700 Subject: Re: Whining... > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Michael B. Smith > <mich...@smithcons.com> > wrote: > > I believe (and it maps to my experience as well) that Brian uses "rogue" > as > > meaning "outside of established corporate standards". > > Since the dawn of the computer age, there have been corporate > standards, and there have been people finding ways around them in the > interests of actually getting work done. If you waved a magic wand > and made all that "rogue" stuff instantly disappear, you'd create > havoc just about everywhere. > > Again, you need all the pieces, both big and small. I'm sure you'd > never find a megacorp running their ERP system on PostgreSQL (not yet, > anyway). But for want of a nail... > > > Arguably, MS-SQL reached performance respectability with SQL 2000 ... > > Wasn't SQL 2000 still stuck on the 32-bit i386 architecture? > <checks Wikipedia> Oh, right, I forgot about IA-64. (Just like the > rest of the industry. ;-) ) I admit I've never even seen an IA-64 > box in person. How well does Microsoft's do on IA-64? Is it like > x86-64, where it was a red-headed stepchild for the first few releases > (i.e., yes, you could run it, but there was a ton of stuff that didn't > work right)? > > BTW, in response to another subthread: According to Wikipedia, > Microsoft rewrote most of the Sybase code for SQL 2000 (7.0). > > -- Ben > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
