| |
| ▲ | Tsiklon 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think Itanium was a remarkable success in some other ways. Intel utterly destroyed the workstation market with it. HP-UX, IRIX, AIX, Solaris. Itanium sounded the deathknell for all of them. The only Unix to survive with any market share is MacOS, (arguably because of its lateness to the party) and it has only relatively recently went back to a more bespoke architecture | | |
| ▲ | cryptonector a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | Absolutely not. Sun destroyed itself and Solaris, not Intel. The others were even more also-rans than Solaris. | |
| ▲ | icedchai 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'd argue it was Linux (on x86) and the dot-com crash that destroyed the workstation market, not Itanium. The early 2000s was awash in used workstation gear, especially Sun. I've never seen anyone with an Itanium box. | | |
| ▲ | phire 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | While Linux helped, I'd argue the true factor is that x86 failed to die as projected. The common attitude in the 80s and 90s was that legacy ISAs like 68k and x86 had no future. They had zero chance to keep up with the innovation of modern RISC designs. But not only did x86 keep up, it was actually outperforming many RISC ISAs. The true factor is out-of-order execution. Some RISC contemporary designs were out-of-order too (Especially Alpha, and PowerPC to a lesser extent), but both AMD and Intel were forced to go all-in on the concept in a desperate attempt to keep the legacy x86 ISA going. Turns out large out-of-order designs was the correct path (mostly OoO has side effect of being able to reorder memory accesses and execute them in parallel), and AMD/Intel had a bit of a head start, a pre-existing customer base and plenty of revenue for R&D. IMO, Itanium failed not because it was a bad design, but because it was on the wrong path. Itanium was an attempt to achieve roughly the same end goal as OoO, but with a completely in-order design, relying on static scheduling. It had massive amounts of complexity that let it re-order memory reads. In an alternative universe where OoO (aka dynamic scheduling) failed, Itanium might actually be a good design. Anyway, by the early 2000s, there just wasn't much advantage to a RISC workstation (or RISC servers). x86 could keep up, was continuing to get faster and often cheaper. And there were massive advantages to having the same ISA across your servers, workstations and desktops. | | |
| ▲ | chasil 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Bob Colwell mentions originally doing out of order design at Multiflow. He was a key player in the Pentium Pro out of order implementation. https://www.sigmicro.org/media/oralhistories/colwell.pdf "We should also say that the 360/91 from IBM in the 1960s was also out of order, it was
the first one and it was not academic, that was a real machine. Incidentally that is one of the
reasons that we picked certain terms that we used for the insides of the P6, like the
reservation station that came straight out of the 360/91." Here is his Itanium commentary: "Anyway this chip architect
guy is standing up in front of this group promising the moon and stars. And I finally put my
hand up and said I just could not see how you're proposing to get to those kind of
performance levels. And he said well we've got a simulation, and I thought Ah, ok. That shut
me up for a little bit, but then something occurred to me and I interrupted him again. I said,
wait I am sorry to derail this meeting. But how would you use a simulator if you don't have a
compiler? He said, well that's true we don't have a compiler yet, so I hand assembled my
simulations. I asked "How did you do thousands of line of code that way?" He said “No, I did
30 lines of code”. Flabbergasted, I said, "You're predicting the entire future of this
architecture on 30 lines of hand generated code?" [chuckle], I said it just like that, I did not
mean to be insulting but I was just thunderstruck. Andy Grove piped up and said "we are not
here right now to reconsider the future of this effort, so let’s move on"." |
| |
| ▲ | tyingq 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the idea there is that it's less direct. Intel's lack of interest in a 64-bit x86 spawned AMD x64. The failure of Itanium then let that Linux/AMD x64 kill off the workstation market, and the larger RISC/Unix market. Linux on 32 bit X86 or 64 bit RISC alone was making some headway there, but the Linux/x64 combo is what enabled the full kill off. |
| |
| ▲ | seabrookmx 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | HP-UX was one of the most popular operating systems to run on Itanium though? | | |
| ▲ | icedchai 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | HP was also one of the few companies to actually sell Itanium systems! They were also the last to stop selling them. They ported both OpenVMS and HP-UX to Itanium. | | |
| ▲ | tyingq 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, largely because they made it difficult for customers to stay on PA-RISC, then later, because their competitors were dying off...and if you were in the market for stodgy RISC/Unix there weren't many other choices. |
|
|
|
|
