Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Apr 2010 18:29 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Windows Ah, Intel's IA-64 architecture. More commonly known as Itanium, it can probably be seen as a market failure by now. Intel consistently failed to deliver promised updates, and clock speeds have lagged behind. Regular x86-64 processors have already overtaken Itanium, and now Microsoft has announced that Windows Server 2008 R2 is the last version of Windows to support the architecture.
Thread beginning with comment 417162
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Sad
by toast88 on Mon 5th Apr 2010 21:20 UTC in reply to "Sad"
toast88
Member since:
2009-09-23

It's sad to see IA64 dying. It was intended as a replacement of the old x86 but due to stubbornness and inertia on behalf of software developers and users, it newer make it.

I don't think it was ever supposed to be a replacement for the x86 platform, if it had been, Intel would have been pushing it into the market much harder.

Itanium was mainly introduced to compete with other high-end non-x86 platform like MIPS, Alpha, PA-RISC and so on. Now, that Itanium has pushed all of them out of the market, Intel can abandon Itanium and has a cleaned-up processor market.

Intel has the same attitude towards backwards compatibility like Microsoft. Or how do you explain that even the latest x86 processors (I don't know about amd64 though) still have that much-hated A20 gate.

Adrian

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Sad
by bhtooefr on Mon 5th Apr 2010 22:49 in reply to "RE: Sad"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

Although it didn't push SPARC or POWER out of the market...

(Then again, AMD64 did that.)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Sad
by nt_jerkface on Tue 6th Apr 2010 01:41 in reply to "RE: Sad"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


I don't think it was ever supposed to be a replacement for the x86 platform, if it had been, Intel would have been pushing it into the market much harder.


Well part of the original appeal of moving away from x86 meant that Intel could sell chips that AMD couldn't clone. AMD threw a monkey wrench into that plan with x64 which had backwards compatibility and addressed the main shortcoming of x86 on the server which was 32 bit addressing. So Intel had to build their own x64 chips to remain competitive which then cut into their own Itanium sales.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Sad
by smitty on Tue 6th Apr 2010 02:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Sad"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Well part of the original appeal of moving away from x86 meant that Intel could sell chips that AMD couldn't clone. AMD threw a monkey wrench into that plan with x64 which had backwards compatibility and addressed the main shortcoming of x86 on the server which was 32 bit addressing. So Intel had to build their own x64 chips to remain competitive which then cut into their own Itanium sales.

I think that's an often overlooked point. Intel really wanted to freeze AMD out of the market entirely by moving everyone to an instruction set that AMD couldn't legally copy. That opened up a window for AMD, though, to come up with an improved x86 architecture while Intel was still trying to get IA64 right, and the success of the original Athlon64 showed that there wasn't any real benefit to leaving x86, at least for the majority of the market.

Edited 2010-04-06 02:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2