←back to thread

331 points giuliomagnifico | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bigstrat2003 ◴[] No.45377613[source]
I remember at the time thinking it was really silly for Intel to release a 64-bit processor that broke compatibility, and was very glad AMD kept it. Years later I learned about kernel writing, and I now get why Intel tried to break with the old - the compatibility hacks piled up on x86 are truly awful. But ultimately, customers don't care about that, they just want their stuff to run.
replies(5): >>45377925 #>>45379301 #>>45380247 #>>45385323 #>>45386390 #
zokier ◴[] No.45377925[source]
It is worth noting that at the turn of the century x86 wasn't yet so utterly dominant yet. Alphas, PowerPC, MIPS, SPARC and whatnot were still very much a thing. So that is part why running x86 software was not as high priority, and maybe even compatibility with PA-RISC would have been a higher priority.
replies(3): >>45378981 #>>45379383 #>>45379735 #
Spooky23 ◴[] No.45379383[source]
The writing was on the wall once Linux was a thing. I did alot of solution design in that period. The only times there were good business cases in my world for not-x86 were scenarios where DBAs and some vertical software required Sun, and occasionally AIX or HPUX for license optimization or some weird mainframe finance scheme.

The cost structure was just bonkers. I replaced a big file server environment that was like $2M of Sun gear with like $600k of HP Proliant.

replies(2): >>45380533 #>>45384639 #
1. michaelt ◴[] No.45380533{3}[source]
And by ~2000 there were also increasingly viable x86 offerings in CAD, 3D and video editing.

You had AutoCAD, you had 3D Studio Max, you had After Effects, you had Adobe Premiere. And it was solid stuff - maybe not best-in-class, but good enough, and the price was right.