Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 20:52:43 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: freebsd-ia64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Quick question ia64 vs amd 32/64 Message-ID: <20030516035243.4C0FA2A918@canning.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20030516024857.GB25123@sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jim Brown wrote: > * David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org> [2003-05-15 21:40]: > > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:56:09PM -0400, Michael J. Pelletier wrote: > > > 1) Which architecture is currently supported more Intel or AMD? > > > > Intel IA-64 > > > > > 2) Which architecture will be maturely supported first by FreeBSD? > > > > IMHO, AMD64. Note I am biased though. Today more committers have AMD64 > > boxes than IA-64, much less 6 mo. from now. The AMD64 platform has a > > much more common i386 architecture and can share i386's packages. > > > > > > > In your option which architecture is better and why? > > > > AMD64, but again I'm strongly biased and this question should be taken to > > chat@freebsd.org > > > > -- > > -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) > > You're probably better off getting infrom from Gartner or > Giga. They track stuff like that... They probably dont track FreeBSD kernel stability on the two respective platforms. The FreeBSD/amd64 is way more robust than FreeBSD/ia64 at the moment. This is probably because it is a far less complicated system to target and we can lean directly on the i386 code. Anyway, FreeBSD/amd64 hasn't been released yet so its a bit academic until then. But it is coming along at a very nice pace and there'll probably be an unofficial 5.1 ISO of it. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030516035243.4C0FA2A918>