Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Feb 2006 13:34 UTC
Permalink for comment 97476
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Who else besides HPUX users could look forward to a chip that keeps reducing components and its support 32 bit applications as noted at:
http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2006/01/itanium-another-step-closer-to-d.....
Amazing.
1. HPUX is designed for PA-RISC and IA64, HP-UX users couldnt care less about x86 compatibility.
2. Discussed many times. Hardware x86 compatibility module was removed from Itanium die because software emulation is faster now, and this fact /being completely irrelevant to imaginary "Itanium death"/ is actually good for IA64.
Perhaps if they strip out enough functionality they can increase the caches to get decent performance to match the current breed of pentium4 chips
Goto spec.org and try to find chip faster than Itanium.