Failure: IA64 is still going strong, with HP and Intel pushing it everywhere they can.
BTW, how much of the server market is occupied by Itanium right now? The CPU architecture itself means little to me so long as the compiler works out the nasty bits.
Isowin: To much modular structure makes it obsolete fast.
Supply and demand determines when hardware becomes obsolete. Nothing else. The Kodak mini-servers I used to use at work had dual 400Mhz Xeon processors when a single 3Ghz P4 was state of the art, but the company kept right on selling those old systems for $5,000 each, because they considered them adaquate as a photo processing station.
I hate Kodak.
Speelgoedmannetje: Did you actually knew that the Atari Jaguar contains as CPU only a M68000 clocked at 13 mhz and 2Mb memory, doing approximately the same as a high-end 486 (clocked at 66-100 Mhz) with 16Mb memory?
The CPU is only a bridge between the core processors, Tom and Jerry. It really doesn't do anything. Jeff Minter once said it was only good for reading the joypad ports. :-)
Minator: How did you measure this?
Sorry I don't have a reference, but someone once wrote several programs to do basic math, and had both the assembly and AMOS sources available, doing the same basic calculations. AMOS is obviously slow, but not as slow as I had imagined it would be. It was a real eye-opener given that I grew up with the C64 and ABasic, which was as slow as programming could be. AMOS was quite impressive, and showed me that sacrificing speed for usability is perfectly feasable and the way of the future.
I'd expected compiled languages to be obsolete by the year 2000. Things are moving slower than I'd expected.
There are plenty of CPU independant languages out there BTW: Perl, Python, Squeak etc.
None of them are structured well enough for serious programming. I've used plenty of Perl, and it is a joke, thank you. PHP isn't that great, either, but at least it's easy and makes sense.
I'm a C and Java person, mostly.
The problem is if you try to get into the x86 market with Eyetech or Genesi's volumes you'll have zero sales due to the price difference.
Hmm... a modern x86 machine that only runs AmigaOS, or a outmodeled PowerPC that only runs AmigaOS... that's a tough one.
Please note that the CPU isn't the only problem -- there's the chipset, as well. The AmigaOne needs registered memory, too, doesn't have SerialATA...
This puts you up against Microsoft: Game over.
Yeah, yeah. I'm sure Windows users are all stubling over themselves to buy an Amiga. Microsoft isn't the only company that uses x86, you know.
Read up on Sony's Cell architecture, there's nothing like that anywhere right now.
Any good references on Cell? I'm still confused as to whether the Cell chip does graphics or if it's just a muticored CPU. Most of the stuff I find on Cell is just hype.
What about Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft? They are all planning to use PowerPC.
Yes, but they don't use the desktop-class CPUs used in computers, they use the embedded versions to cut costs. MIPS powers the PS2, and SH4 powered the Dreamcast. Neither of those CPUs are known for awesome desktop performance. Apple still gets the prime cut by default, limiting supply of "top tier" PowerPC chips to everyone else, while there are still plenty of low-end PowerPC chips to go around.
BTW, to those who don't believe there's any innovation left go read "The future of computing" series I wrote
The fear that all good ideas have been exhausted is nothing new. I'm just concerned that people don't use the technology that we already
have intelligently enough, before moving on to the next big thing. I consider myself an interface designer, and it amazes me how people continue to ignore good design over an impending fad.
I like those kinds of articles, so I'll read some later.
The idea is to combine multiple technologies in a single box to create something completely new.
I tend to lean away from hardware altogether. Good design, new standards, and a solution to bridge the CLI and GUI would be a big help. I don't really care if the CPU can mutiprocess or if your next motherboard will have HD audio built-in. Usability is a mess on modern computers.
Cymric: Please, no more closed systems where the only thing you can upgrade is the memory or the CPU. At least not for desktop PCs.
They integrate because it's cost effective. What else do you want to upgrade on your motherboard? A plug-in southbridge upgrade wouldn't sell because it would cost too much as a module, and most any new connections, like SerialATA or Gigabit Ethernet, can be added with a PCI card.
Even in my own PC, the only cards I have are my ATI card and Audigy. I have no use for PCI expansion since it's all built-into the mobo. I criticize he AmigaOne because it costs more money but offers no benifits over x86 machines, not because it isn't a ultra-supercomputer.
Cymric: You are happy with your aging iMac, but are not with your PC
A common snipe amongst Mac users. It might have something to do with the fact Macs have very few games. When it comes to regular, mundane computing, even an old Pentium will suffice. It's entertainment that really pushes a computer to its limits. Windows machines are designed for games, so the upgrade itch is stronger.
I would never buy an iMac, just because I don't believe in throwing out an
entire computer when I want something better. I'd rather upgrade a bit at a time rather than all at once. The fact that the PC became so popular is proof that most people want that, too, and are often willing to trade the supposed benefits of quality proprietary design for the sake of choice. The IBM PC was hardly a technical marvel when it was introduced. Technology isn't everything.
People are not testing performance of new hardware on regular applications: posting a 1% increase in responsitivity is simply neither sexy nor marketable.
That depends on the market. It really bugs me when Intel releases a new CPU that's 5% faster than AMD in some benchmarks, and costs twice as much, and then hoards of people are screaming that AMD has lost it and Intel is the King of CPU Manufacturers. Video cards are also where mere percentages will throw an industry into chaos.
Now, given that my current P4 cost me $400 for a mobo, CPU, and memory, and runs circles around the G3 AmigaOne, that's pretty significant.
Their number is so ridiculously small that I will happily use what I have for at least another year, and quite possibly two.
Oh, at least a year! God forbid if I have to use THIS piece of junk for more than TWO YEARS! :-D
Upgrading every 6 months is pretty crazy, but being forced to use a Mac for 5 years before you can afford to buy a new one for $1500-$2000 is a bit extreme, too. An upgrade schedule of $500 every one or two years is reasonable if you want a decent machine.
Jettah: Standard hardware. There ain't no such a thing! Keep that in mind.
So, if you make a PCI card today, it won't work in a motherboard made next year? The whole point of a standard is compatibility.
Having dealt with a LOT of HTML and CSS as of late, I can tell you all about bad standards! :pissed:
