The InfoWorld Test Center evaluates the performance of Microsoft’s new 64-bit platform, assesses its usefulness for IT today, and reveals what’s in store for tomorrow.
WinServer 2k3 & SQL Server 2k on Itanium: Impressive but incomplete
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
if you really need 64 bit computing, go with the big boys who have had 10 years of experience in it. For database, go with Oracle or DB2. For OS, go with Solaris, AIX, HPUX. For now, avoid Linux and Windows. If you can live with the limitations of Windows and Linux on a 64-bit system, chances are you don’t have to waste money on a 64-bit system.
Linux has had an alpha port for ages, so all the issues you have when porting to 64bit have been solved a long time ago. I really do not think that you will run into trouble running linux on 64bit hardware.
I know Linux has ports for a variety of systems, but since a GNU/Linux system is extremely dependant on GLibc surely the number of systems Linux is available on is limited by the number of systems GLibc is available on. I only bring it up because I have this vague recollection of GLibc dropping support for a number of platforms because there were no developers available. Perhaps Alpha is one of them.
What limitations does Linux have on 64-bit? Lots of IT news sites report that Linux 2.6 is somehow the first Linux to be 64-bit, it is not. Wasn’t there a working Alpha port as far back as ’93? Thats a good chunk of time, again – what limitations? If there are any, educate me.
Until there is .NET framework W2K+3 isn’t usefull for web… hmmm…
Very interisting viewpoint i must say…
>”Linux has had an alpha port for ages, so all the issues you have when porting to 64bit have been solved a long time ago. I really do not think that you will run into trouble running linux on 64bit hardware.”
What is your point?? windows nt also had an alpha port for ages. In fact, i think the nt kernel was originally developed on the alpha before being ported to x86 (Dave Cutler came from digial).
i think the nt kernel was originally developed on the alpha before being ported to x86
i9/960, I think you’ll find (then MIPS).
Until there is .NET framework W2K+3 isn’t usefull for web…
It’s going to be interesting to see how well MS can get .NET to perform on IA64. Certain architectural considerations make it difficult…
A quote:
[Quote]
In particular, the lack of a 64-bit version of the .Net Framework make the new platform unsuitable for virtually any applications aside from massive in-memory databases and ultra-precise floating point calculations
[/Quote]
Did intel include a secret 128 bit fpu in itanium, or does the author just don’t know what he is talking about??
Martin Tilsted
Windows NT on Alpha was 32-bit…
Linux on Alpha is 64 bit…
Linux:
1) MIPS
2) Alpha
3) POWER/PPC
4) AMD x86-64
5) I2
6) ULTRA-SPARC
Most OSS applications can be compiled and will run on the 64bit systems; I’m guessing around 80%. A lot of games and non-critical applicatons haven’t be made 64bit clean yet.
Windows:
1) Alpha: 32bit only
2) SPARC: 32bit only
3) PPC: 32bit only
4) AMD x86-64: in beta
5) I2: released but not fully optimized yet
Also, the 64bit ports are not fully finished and are missing much of the support normally found in the 32bit versions; such as CD/DVD burning, DirectX, .NET, and Windows Media Player. And good luck finding any 3rd party software/drivers that’ll run on these systems.
Oracle 10g seems to run pretty nicely on Win2003/64…
http://www.supercomputingonline.com/article.php?sid=4791
And I’m not trying to start a TPC-C FUDwar, by the way.
Sorry, I forgot that Windows also ran on the 32bit MIPS systems.
I miss Windows NT 3.51… It ran on the Alpha, MIPS, SPARC, and PPC processors; then, MSFT drop support for everthing but Alpha & x86 with Windows NT 4.0. Followed by support for Alpha in Windows 2K. Windows was faster on everything when compared to the x86 (486 & P1) of the day.
I’m not sure what MSFT is going to do when Intel drops the x86 line in 2008. They’ll be left with AMD’s x86-64 or I2; since MSFT only supports systems for about 3 years, all the x86 fans will need to purchase new computers around 2010.
And if MSFT has it’s way with DRM, they also have to but new computers in 2006 (Longhorn will on run on DRM approved hardware and no current hardware is DRM approved). Also note that it wont be a simple mother board upgrade, DRM is going to require a special Video & Sound card; MSFT wants to have all buffers secure so no unauthrized program can grab the data.
Linux has had an alpha port for ages, so all the issues you have when porting to 64bit have been solved a long time ago.
There are 64-bit cleanliness issues with a number of open source applications, most notably XFree86. Many of XFree86’s drivers are not 64-bit clean in 24bpp mode, and will simply crash the X server if you attempt to use them.
“Also, the 64bit ports are not fully finished and are missing much of the support normally found in the 32bit versions; such as CD/DVD burning, DirectX, .NET, and Windows Media Player. And good luck finding any 3rd party software/drivers that’ll run on these systems. ”
Same for linux. DVD burning is even difficult on any plateform supported by linux.
I wonder, who well does the sus for 64 bits works ? ODes anyone everused it here ?
SUSE & Red Hat are both partners with IBM and IBM is mostly pushing servers. Thus, the XFree86 drivers arn’t a problem since the server only runs the Xfree86 client and not the server (I love X windows and their naming convention… X Server runs on the user’s computer and X Client runs on the Applicatoin Server).
I’m sure IBM has made sure all the drivers are aviable for their hardware. The only problem with this is: IBM doesn’t care if every driver out there is 64bit clean since most of the hardware is compatable with their hardware.
Now that Linux is moving towards the 64bit desktop, I expect more drivers/applications to be made 64bit clean.
Why??? Why would they charge more for the same software, just recoded?