tfp wrote:Seriously? Why would you think this leaves Itanium with no place in Intel's product line?
Because he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about and he ignore-lists those who do.
tfp wrote:Last time I checked x86 didn't run on the OSes that HP sells with Itanium, HP is pretty much the only real seller right now of Itanium systems.
HP-UX and OpenVMS run natively on Itanium now. HP made the deliberate choice to port those OSes to Itanium despite obviously having the option of porting them to x86. Those OSes aren't dead. They are alive and well and HP is doing its best to keep them that way. In fact, OpenVMS 8.4 released today. It includes, among other things, support for HP's hypervisor and other such goodies intended to try and further dissuade HP's customers from going the x86 emulation route.
Since HP and Intel jointly developed the Itanium specifically for this market (it was the replacement for the HP-owned DEC Alpha and HP' s homegrown PA-RISC), I'm sure that Intel is legally precluded from unilaterally terminating Itanium development & support. There is no real technical place for it, for sure, but that hasn't been the point of the architecture for quite some time now, at least since Madison.
Shining Arcanine, as usual, completely misses the entire point of the platform: to secure HP's server and support sales. This is not a high-volume market, to be sure, but it's an incredibly lucrative one. If you worry about the sustainability of the entire endeavor I'd consider SPARC to be the canary in the mine. I'm sure it'll go before Itanium will. Wait for it to be announced as officially dead before you start carving the tombstone for Itanium.
tfp wrote:Also just like everyone that talks about how hard it is to migrate off of x86 to something else that applies for mainframes like POWER, Z or Itanium to x86.
It's a lot of effort for absolutely no real benefit, unless you are running specific types of systems. Of course, if you're running those types of systems you were never on x86 to begin with. You needed an industrial-strength robust and flexible OS and X86 didn't have anything like that until relatively recently. So if you were seriously into straight business enterprise you were on IBM mainframes and it was never about compute performance to begin with. If you were less serious or had other considerations as well it was about numerous other proprietary enterprise systems.In general, it was about robustness, flexibility/scalability and transactional throughput. Bitvector went over all this already, I'm essentially just restating what he said in different terms.
Ignoring the inherent difficulties of porting between the architectures, there's a severe institutional aversion to x86. I'm the youngest, by far, in my area and everyone still treats x86 like a toy. There are a few who are interested in linux, and there are a few who are interested in virtualization. But that all happens on the periphery. The core of what we do remains entirely on enterprise-level systems. We have no intention of doing anything else and every attempt to move us away from it (of which there are plenty) is strenuously resisted.
The crazy thing is that Shining Arcanine has switched to predicting the demise of x86 to now predicting its ascendancy.