←back to thread

331 points giuliomagnifico | 2 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 #
drewg123 ◴[] No.45380247[source]
It didn't help that Itanium was late, slow, and Intel/HP marketing used Itanium to kill off the various RISC CPUs, each of which had very loyal fans. This pissed off a lot of techies at the time.

I was a HUGE DEC Alpha fanboy at the time (even helped port FreeBSD to DEC Alpha), so I hated Itanium with a passion. I'm sure people like me who were 64-bit MIPS and PA-RISC fanboys and fangrirls also existed, and also lobbied against adoption of itanic where they could.

I remember when amd64 appeared, and it just made so much sense.

replies(3): >>45380466 #>>45381576 #>>45381749 #
1. antod ◴[] No.45381576[source]
Wasn't much of the Athlon designed by laid-off DEC Alpha engineers that AMD snapped up? Makes sense that AMD64 makes sense to an Alpha fanboy :)
replies(1): >>45381795 #
2. kjs3 ◴[] No.45381795[source]
Yeah...look up Jim Keller. And AMD basically recycled the later Alpha system bus as the K7 bus to the extent there was very short lived buzz about having machines that could be either x86-64 or Alpha.