Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:29:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, kdrobnac@mission.mvnc.edu Subject: Re: Intel Merced FreeBSD??? Message-ID: <199908271229.IAA35280@lakes.dignus.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990826233048.20866A-100000@mission.mvnc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kenny Drobnack <kdrobnac@mission.mvnc.edu writes: > > Lately i have seen a lot of speculation as to what will happen when the > Intel Merced comes out. Will people wait 12-18 months for a 64 bit > Windows (that's the amount of time I keep hearing it will take them to get > Win2000 running on it) or will they just buy it and pop Linux onto it > right away? If the majority of the people opt for option #2, it may mean > Linux will finally get a huge edge over M$! > While Linux is a great OS, and I like seeing M$ have some > problems, I would even more like to have the assurance of being able to > run FreeBSD on 64 bit architecture. Is there any port planned to that > system? Has anyone even mention it? Also, will the lib/compat end up > having a linux32 and a linux64 directory so it can run both old Linux apps > and new? First - let me point out that FreeBSD already runs on the Alpha, so there's some 64-bit experience. Second - SCO and HP will be rolling out their UNIX variants with the Merced release. Perhaps some people will buy a Merced for that reason. But - for "Intel to hit it big" - they need Merced to become the next consumer architecture. Since they are continuing with plans for the IA32 line (what x86 got renamed to with the advent of IA64, nee' merced) they are hedging their bets. I don't believe they are convinced themselves that Merced will be the answer to their dreams... Also, recall that Intel launched Merced development when the idea was "bigger/faster is better." Last year's sudden reversal of that idea (i.e. Celeron as the answer to the AMD challenge) meant that bigger was better is not (at this moment) the right answer. Intel's requisite shift to lower-priced offerings likely was a contributing cause to all of the Merced slips. So - what Intel is facing is a chicken-and-egg problem. They need to sell a lot of these things, but will need Windows to do that. Microsoft won't bother with a Windows port until there is a significant market need for it (I point to the abandoned PPC and Alpha Windows ports as examples.) Microsoft needs a "business quality" version of Windows, which it claims is Windows/2000. That version of Windows could benefit from a 64-bit port, if for marketing only; but I don't think it would result in the volume of sales Intel is looking for. And - let me add - Intel has been down this path before (the i860) - and didn't see the success it wanted (although the i860 is popping up in some interesting places now...) I suppose what this "rant" is all about is that I'm not convinced Merced is the "chip of the future" that we all need to be worried about. I'm taking a "wait-and-see" attitude. [Also, since Microsoft has been working closely with Intel regarding Merced for several years now, and has yet to do anything `serious' - I believe they are taking the same "wait-and-see" approach. Likely while telling Intel otherwise.] That doesn't mean I think we shouldn't have a FreeBSD port; I would considering buying a Merced box if there was one (although, I don't have an Alpha box, so maybe it would never get past "consider".) - Dave Rivers - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908271229.IAA35280>