>
> > Now, if they were to add features to their system which did not exist
> > from any other vendor, then that would be *really* proprietary.
>
> I disagree with that. If we were to do something and not tell anyone
> else how to do it, then it would be proprietary. If we added a feature
> and it didn't exist from anyone else for lack of them wanting to do it,
> I wouldn't call that proprietary.
I can agree with that, provided you make the tools/docs/specs
etc... available for other to implement then I wouldn't consider it
propriatary either.
> > What makes the Alpha systems proprietary, I guess "commercial level"
> > would be a more apropos description, is that is has things like
> > EEPROMs.
> >
> > Hmmm, maybe it just comes down to the fact that no matter how fast
> > Intel/AMD get their CPUs, at the heart of the matter is that PCs are
> > just toy computers. The basic architecture hasn't changed in over 20
> > years, they were never designed to be enterprise-level machines, and
> > the design just basically lacks a lot of nice features that other
> > systems like Sun, Dec, HP, and IBM design in to the overal
> > architecture from the beginning.
>
> Sure, and it wasn't until Linux that people started taking x86 hardware
> seriously (even now, some people don't). I know people that hate x86 because
> it has the ability to run DOS, and others hate it because it can also
> run Windows.
I don't hate x86 at all, though I do dislike the way that some things are
implemented. I can't agree with your statement about Linux making people
take x86 seriously...although we always don't like to admit it, NT was
actually doing fairly well on x86 several years ago (I'm talking in market
share and new-implementations etc...). I'm sure Linux has helped that, but
I don't think it solely responsible.
> I *like* x86 because of the broad range of hardware that falls under
> "x86". A (large) handful of CPUs, at least a dozen physical formats
> from AT to PC104 to SBC, hundreds of motherboards, thousands of cards.
> And it's all relatively inexpensive as compared to more enterprise-based
> platforms. I remember Sun coming out with the Ultra 5 for under $5k thinking
> it was going to take over the desktop. It's a nice machine, but x86
> was already below that price.
The price is amazing for what you are getting, and because of that we're
willing to put up with it's limitations. FWIW, Sun has now put out a
sub-1k system, the sun blade 100 (I think that's its name).
> There's still some brain-dead stuff in x86, and hopefully moving
> to something like Itanium or Sledgehammer will start to solve those
> problems while keeping the "openness" of what's in the x86 market today.
Now that attitude I find highly annoying. There have been alternatives out
there for years and people have chosen to look the other way. Do you
really think Itanium is going to be a fresh start? Think about the fact it
still has to run x86 code, and must be able to run HP-UX! You don't think
there's going to be any left overs from IA32 and PARisc in there?
The fact that many people think Intel, the company who has saddled them
with these limitations for the past 20 years, is magically going to
produce a clean design that is also mostly backwards compatible never
stops amazing me. I suppose it's the Intel marketing machine at work, and
they learned that from the best (MS that is...).
As for sledgehammer I must admit I know little about it, however my
understanding is that it's a set of 64-bit extensions to an existing
32-bit CPU?
--rdp
--
Rich Payne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alphalinux.org
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
