Intel Itanium now officially put to gravy

>>60351144
RIP in pieces.

>>60351144
Wait, what? I thought Itanium died years ago

>>60351233
It still had some HP left

>>60351144
>>Press 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF to pay respects
kek

The story I've always heard is that Itanic never became what it was meant to because the design assumed that the compiler could handle instruction re-ordering, and it turned out that that's basically impossible to do at compile-time instead of at run-time.

>>60351233
They tried to take it out back and shoot it, but there was a lawsuit where some Big Enterprises who'd bought Itanium systems said that their contracts promised support for X number of years, so Intel had to keep making them. I think this is also why HP kept making HP-UX for IA-64, even after MS and Oracle dropped support. Shit, even NetBSD doesn't bother with IA-64 anymore.

File: the lesson Itanium taught Intel.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>60351144
0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Rip in piss

01000110

>>60351317
/thread

>>60351317
Very underrated post.

File: Itanic.jpg (104KB, 672x371px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 672x371px

>>60351144

Fuck AMD and their backward compatible architecture.

Intel was gonna save the modern computer by forcing everyone to switch to 64bit programs, and supporting hardware. Instead 15+ years later and the default download for Firefox is still 32bit.

>>60351144
0b1111
What systems are even going to be shipping with it? HP seems to be moving off of it themselves at this point.

>>60351144
>Those insanely optimistic growth figures
Over forty BILLION dollars in sales in 2001? To put that into perspective, actual revenue was closer to 27 billion for the whole company that year. I think they missed the mark.

>>60352930
Itanium was backwards compatible too, dipshit.

>>60352930
fuck amd and their walmart level shit teir hardware


shills laping that shit up fuck them fuck coupon cutting computer users im sick of the hodgepdoge fuck them all

>>60352930
>and the default download for Firefox is still 32bit.
Yes. That is a totally sane default. There are few benefits to a 64 bit browser. For those of us old enough to remember, there were benchmarks back in the day when 64 bit XP looked promising comparing performance between 64 bit and 32 bit applications. Some, like web browsers, actually performed slightly WORSE because they don't actually take advantage of the benefits but they do suffer from the slightly increased overhead.

>>60352930
>the default download for Firefox is still 32bit
Looks like you didn't install Gentoo. Sad!

On my system the only 32-bit applications are some parts of GCC and Wine needed for 32-bit compatibility and… duh… skype-bin because Microsoft can't into 64 bit :DDDD

>>60353082
>being this cucked

the only ones still using 32bit are the windows babbys and their games

>>60352985
It was 9/11 to blame. Osama bin Laden literally killed Itanium, the soaring bird of computing freedom!

>>60352930
*nix in general (including OSX) does not have this problem :^)

>>60353201
The projection is strong with this one.

>>60353302
Honestly it's just such a long time ago that I personally switched over to 64bit that it's weird to hear Windows users to even consider 32bit as being a serious contender. Even macOS switched over in 2011.

>>60353522
Again, 64 bit is just completely irrelevant to most end users. The RAM limit could easily be bypassed as well. Most end users will never, ever touch a task that has benefited from being 64 bits and web browsing is DEFINITELY one of those tasks. Unless you're using your browser to crunch some pretty big numbers, in which case you need a bullet to the brain, not a 64 bit browser.

>>60353522
It's just a number. A lot of applications don't stand to benefit from 64-bit and all it does is bloat your binaries and make them incompatible with older systems for no reason.

>>60353650
on x86, 64-bit code IS relevant because x86_64 provides more registers and can produce a significant speedup. On other 32/64 architectures like PPC and SPARC the 32-64 switch wasn't that relevant because 32-bit modes already had plenty of registers available. In fact, 64-bit PPC and SPARC systems kept all their usermode applications 32-bit to reduce impact on the cache. On x86, the benefits of 64-bit outweigh though.

>>60353650
you haven't taken a look at how much memory modern-day browsers waste, do you?

File: Your+bait+is+bad+and+you+should+feel+bad.png (4KB, 622x626px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 622x626px

>>60352930

>>60353792
Look, we had this discussion twelve years ago when this was a thing. There's no advantage to a 64 bit web browser. This has been benchmarked and I'm not going to dig it out for a late comer to the party.
>>60353802
>RAM
You haven't been paying attention to the discussion, have you?

>>60353901
Enjoy your 32-year old technology then, I guess

>>60354273
You do realize 64-bit computing has been around for as long as x86 itself, right?

>>60353901
>There's no advantage to a 64 bit web browser
b-but muh waterfox is teh fastestest

>>60354355
There were no 64-bit CPUs in 1976. Alpha emerged in the 90s.
In any case, it's 2017 and there is no 64-bit for (You)

>>60353792
>In fact, 64-bit PPC and SPARC systems kept all their usermode applications 32-bit to reduce impact on the cache. On x86, the benefits of 64-bit outweigh though.

Linux has the x32 ABI to solve this problem. It's a subset of the 64bit ABI that strictly uses 32bit pointers so you can make "64bit" software that is effectively 32bit.