Slashdot Mirror


Alpha Lives! But Who Will Market It?

chriton writes "The Inquirer is running articles about HP's and new "Marvel" server which will arrive Tuesday, Jan 14th and the expectation that HP will try to keep it's performance quiet. Not because it's bad like Itanic I, but because it's too good! It's built on Alpha EV78 processors connected by a switched fabric and promises blazing performance. "Marvel has, apparently some rollickingly good benchmarks that HP wants to underplay, just in case people start comparing the performance of the Alpha Marvel architecture with the Itanium 2 it also sells, and perhaps more importantly, the SuperDome machines." Alpha offers the kind of choice and competition the processor market will sorely miss when it goes. The FTC was sleeping when they allowed HP to acquire it."

245 comments

  1. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'd try, but I wanna wait till it comes out in at least beta form.

    (DA du CH)

    oh, and FP!

    - cornjchob

  2. Re:First Post by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    Not if HP/CPQ/DEC won't sell it.

  3. Second post by Knife_Edge · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I will personally market it, Hemos.

  4. Marvel should use what they own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have Spider-Man, Hulk, Wolverine, and all the other X-Men, using Alphas in the comic books. An endorsement from Professor X might be enough to get me to buy one. "Look! Cerebro is now 100 times more powerful thanks to this Alpha!"

    1. Re:Marvel should use what they own by Catcher80 · · Score: 0

      I can see it now.. "Not even Magneto nor Apocalypse can get us now!"

      --
      I sell out to The Man every day.
    2. Re:Marvel should use what they own by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah, more like, "this processor is so fast, it's computations have gone faster than the speed of light, thus sending us all back in time!"

      Scary.

    3. Re:Marvel should use what they own by pnkfelix · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      You know, that's pretty funny.

      The article above is trying to save the Alpha processor.

      While this page is trying to save Alpha Flight.

      We obviously need to get Wolvie to do a guest appearance at HP. That will stir things up for sure.

      --
      arvind rulez
    4. Re:Marvel should use what they own by ericvids · · Score: 2, Funny

      See, it's the processor that travelled at the speed of light, not us, so it was _the processor_ that got sent back in time.

      Hmmm, so that explains why the Alphas were superior in the past...

      --
      Pet peeve: Profane people propagating perfunctory pedantry.
    5. Re:Marvel should use what they own by cylcyl · · Score: 1

      Actually, they already do. It's called Alpha Flight. Although I think they canned it due to poor performance :)

  5. Intel. not HP by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1, Informative

    Intel acquired Alpha, not HP. Now it was clearly in order to prep decpaq for acquisition by HP, but that's beside the point.

    The Alpha engineers were given the choice to work on Itanic for Intel or to hit the road. Kind of like their worst nightmare...

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Intel. not HP by Tuzanor · · Score: 5, Informative

      no, compaq sold alpha technology to intel, but they still had it for themselves and were still selling alphas. When HP bought compaq, they inherited the alpha line.

    2. Re:Intel. not HP by Burdell · · Score: 5, Informative
      Incorrect. Intel licensed some of the Alpha technology (and bought the fab that Compaq used for their Alpha CPUs), but Digital, then Compaq, and now HP owns the Alpha. This is not an unexpected release; all along Compaq and HP have said they were committed to one more full generation of Alpha CPUs (the EV7 generation). Supposedly, the third generation Itanium will incorporate some of the Intel licensed Alpha technology, and then it is supposed to "catch up" with the Alpha (so there would be no EV8 generation).

      IIRC, some of the associated technologies like the switching architecture and some of the NUMA features were not licensed but held by Compaq for their Itanium servers (to give them an edge).

    3. Re:Intel. not HP by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

      What nightmare? They went to work for AMD, and are helping to put out Sledgehammer(?).

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    4. Re:Intel. not HP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Intel bought the rights to the Alpha processor, but the FTC saw this move to stomp out competition in the processor market. The FTC required the processor to be licensed to a few other companies, including (now HP), and Samsung among others (I don't remember the full list anymore).

    5. Re:Intel. not HP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoot forgot to mention this: Note that Intel, unlike Microsoft, complies with government requests.

    6. Re:Intel. not HP by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2

      And when Intel bought StrongARM, the architects left to found a startup called Alchemy, and created a great little MIPS-based processor core. Since then AMD bought Alchemy, so it must be like old home week at AMD. :-)

    7. Re:Intel. not HP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Correct to a point. Intel did buy the Alpha design team. All those engineers and developers are Intel employees now.

  6. Marvel? Switched Fabric? by DarthWiggle · · Score: 3, Funny
    Maybe they should call it the "Spider-Man"... *groan*

    /me whistles his way into the night...

  7. EV78? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, and I'm still using an EV5 :)

    1. Re:EV78? by rainman31415 · · Score: 0

      wuss. i use a beowulf cluster of 286's...50000 nodes. lemme see your precious EV5 take that! mine comp can kick your comp's ass...he he he

      rainman

    2. Re:EV78? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, it is EV7 - 8 processor systems. EV79 is the follow up.


      spec_fp will kick ass on EV7, spec_int will just be impressive.

  8. Re:What's the point? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Spoken like a true guy who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    Companies are buying servers from Sun, IBM (their non-Intel ones), SGI, even Apple in about the same numbers that they ever were, adjusted for the total market decline. (In other words, if 1 out of 10 servers sold in 1997 was Sun, then about 1 out of 10 sold today would still be a Sun.)

    There's plenty of market out there for non-Dell, non-Intel, non-Microsoft servers.

    --

    I write in my journal
  9. Last few stories by Amsterdam+Vallon · · Score: 0, Troll

    I see an HP icon, an AOL icon, and a Linux penguin, and lots of positive minded talk.

    It's not 1999 anymore, people. HP is a has-been, AOL is slowly finishing off their downspiral into the toilet of the ISP world, and "Linux" is as taboo for a businessman to say as "fire" is in a movie theater.

    --

    Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
    1. Re:Last few stories by TeknoHog · · Score: 2
      > "Linux" is as taboo for a businessman to say as "fire" is in a movie theater.

      Nice analogy! Once a businessperson gets a clue about Linux (it's known to have happened), it may well open the floodgates.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Last few stories by Spruce+Moose · · Score: 1

      Which would presumably put out the fire.

    3. Re:Last few stories by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

      I dunno, I'd imagine that Linux would equal $$$ to a business man.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    4. Re:Last few stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOOOH! Oooh! Don't forget *BSD! It's dying too you know!

    5. Re:Last few stories by sirPaul · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with all of that except "HP is a has-been." HP has been around since what, the 1930s? They've got assloads of money/assets, and enough R&D spending to think up all sorts of neat shit. They might not be in the best shape since the Agilent spin-off and the Compaq aquisition, but they're going to remain one of the most important technology companies for quite some time to come.

      --


      -pB
    6. Re:Last few stories by Aquillion · · Score: 1
      And above those is the black-and-white Einstein icon for science. Give it up, people! Science is dead and Einstein's general theory of relativity hasn't been news for ages.

      We need to change the focus of the site to football or something. Computers are just too 1999.

      (New logo: "News for Jocks?")

    7. Re:Last few stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around forever ... R&D ... think up neat shit ...

      Sounds like Bell Labs! Lucent! You know the one: stock's in the gutter, barely hanging on?

      Yup, HP in five years.

    8. Re:Last few stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HP's not the same company it once was. When I graduated as an electrical engineer many years ago, HP was one of the companies EEs really wanted to work for. Since then they have driven or sold off much of their talent. The new HP is more of a marketing company than a technology company and wants to be like Dell. Today it would take quite an above average salary for me to even think about working for them.

    9. Re:Last few stories by Proc6 · · Score: 2

      At least while the "give away the printer, sell the ink" scam holds.

      --

      I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

    10. Re:Last few stories by geniusj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Football is dead.. Slam ball is the future.

    11. Re:Last few stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or "you need a special screwdriver to open HP PC boxen". serious hp crap.

    12. Re:Last few stories by classzero · · Score: 1

      Whoever called this post a troll should loose their mod privaladges

    13. Re:Last few stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did. He loosed them on that post.

      If you do no understand this, please return to elementary school.

    14. Re:Last few stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean by loose their privalages? What is a privalages anyway? I'd prefer it if that moderator would lose their privileges.

  10. We use some alphas at work by SirTwitchALot · · Score: 5, Informative

    and while they're great machines that perform well, they're very limited. It's difficult for us to get many of the applications that we use for the Alpha, and if the app is available, the vendor usually provides poor support for it. Sure you can compile OS software on the alpha, but the commercial world overwhelmingly uses traditional closed software. HP decided to stop production of the Alpha because they had a competing product (pa/risc) that was in higher demand. They even plan to eventually lose PA/RISC in favor of itanium, as the article mentions. As far as price goes, one of our clients purchased a wildfire gs320 because of the low price. They found that while it offers acceptable performance, it's very difficult and expensive to find the expertise needed to properly maintain this equipment. We run a primarily Sun shop not because it's necessarily the best, but because it's what everyone else runs, and thus easier to maintain and cheaper in the long run.

    --
    Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script.
    1. Re:We use some alphas at work by vondo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you know for sure that the demand for PA-RISC is higher than for Alpha (generally)? I'm not arguing, just questioning. In my field (high energy physics) we never went in for PA-RISC. Alphas were the greatest thing ever, until Lintel took over on the $/FLOP pricepoint.

      The Alpha is still an amazing CPU line, just not cost effective compared to Intel anymore. But completely different markets, I realize.

    2. Re:We use some alphas at work by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It seemed like there was only a short period of time where Alpha was cost effective compared to Intel, the rest of the time up until maybe three years ago, Alpha was often simply a heck of a lot faster and that performance was only needed in niche markets compared to today's desktop market.

      Now, Alpha is just expensive. It is too bad as my Alpha is still running very strongly after five years of use.

      It also took a little while for me to find an Intel based system that was faster all around AND was more reliable - I found that in an oldish XEON. I've even had a 166MHz Alpha UDB running NT - while its all-out CPU performance benchmarks were poor, its UI latency (time from clicking a button to displaying a result, such as a file list or dialog box) was still better than PIIIs twice as fast.

    3. Re:We use some alphas at work by Merlynnus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Now, Alpha is just expensive. It is too bad as my Alpha is still running very strongly after five years of use.


      Expensive, yet. Prohibitively expensive? No. We sourced pure number crunching machines about a year ago. Out of the competitors for a $300k CDN contract, Alpha (Compaq at the time) hands down. For pure single-processor number crunching, you still can't beat them. If your app can handle MPP, then of course you can't beat linux clusters...
    4. Re:We use some alphas at work by cballowe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We also use Alphas at work -- I love the GS series, I'm happy with the ES and DS series, but the GS series is some damn nice hardware.

      I've got reliable sources at HP that tell me to watch for the ES47 and ES80 series boxen as well as the GS1280. All of them should smoke the current EV68 series Alphas. The product line overall is very impressive. The pure scalability of the EV7 architechture is most impressive.

      Take a look at this Document from HP and try to keep yourself from drooling.

    5. Re:We use some alphas at work by vondo · · Score: 2, Informative
      It seemed like there was only a short period of time where Alpha was cost effective compared to Intel, the rest of the time up until maybe three years ago, Alpha was often simply a heck of a lot faster and that performance was only needed in niche markets compared to today's desktop market.


      For us it was waiting for Linux to reach a certain maturity and then realizing that it had. There was also the issue of g77 versus DEC's f77 which exagerated the performance difference.

    6. Re:We use some alphas at work by jpetts · · Score: 5, Informative

      It seemed like there was only a short period of time where Alpha was cost effective compared to Intel, the rest of the time up until maybe three years ago, Alpha was often simply a heck of a lot faster and that performance was only needed in niche markets compared to today's desktop market.

      But the cost effectiveness which you are talking about doesn't appear to factor in stability. Alpha machines running OpenVMS were rock, absolutely rock solid. We had a machine running Oracle on OpenVMS/Alpha that was not rebooted for three years, and never once showed ua a single problem. It just ran and ran and rad, and it ran FAST, too. I for one will miss the low admin burden of those Alpha/OpenVMS/Oracle boxes...

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    7. Re:We use some alphas at work by cballowe · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Wildfires have not given me any reliability problems. The serial console subsystem is a glorious thing. ESC-ESC-scm sometime -- it's a lower level than the system console.

      Beyond that, if you don't need an 8way or bigger box, the ES45 (or watch for the ES47 based on the EV7 series processor in the coming weeks) is probably a better bang for the buck proposition. Also the ES80 will be an 8-way ES series -- the notes I have suggest that it will be significantly cheaper. It's also been suggested that if one is spec'ing new systems now, budgeting for the GS80 and acquiring an ES80 when they're released is probably a better option.

    8. Re:We use some alphas at work by inode_buddha · · Score: 2

      A guy I know in school works at the regional CitiGroup office, and he says they're using a system like that. Yes, it's a very solid setup. It's nice to know that your mortgage bank has good taste in equipment, especially after making another payment...

      --
      C|N>K
    9. Re:We use some alphas at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the task requires lots of communication between nodes

    10. Re:We use some alphas at work by arivanov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      PA-RISC brings better support revenue. The support contracts are much higher for similar services. It is also more popular with telcos, banks, etc - people who buy and pay support contracts. On the contrary Alpha has been popular in the engineering market which usually does not even like paying for extended warranties. There are exemptions to this rule like older Nortel softswitches, BT, etc but they are not that many.

      Overall, in the big wide world performance does not really matter when it comes to revenue in the big iron (unix or mainframe) market. What matters is the services and recurring revenue.

      IBM has understood this long ago. HP understood it a while ago. DEC and then Compaq never caught up. And payed the ultimate price. Having better chips it lost to the people having a better (more profitable) business model

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    11. Re:We use some alphas at work by forringer · · Score: 1
      I know this is off topic (also my first post) but, if you are using g77 for scientific work, I suggest you switch to to Intel's fortran compiler for linux. It is faster and is missing some of the bugs of g77. It is also free for educational/non-profit work.

      I made the switch when doing work for my Ph.D. thesis (nuclear physics).

      Here is the link: Intel.com

    12. Re:We use some alphas at work by SirTwitchALot · · Score: 1

      Well in my line of work (automotive outsourcing) You can't even buy licenses for many of our products (unigraphics, catia) for Alpha. The reason, I have been told, is because there is not enough demand. This is what I am using to base the statement I made above.

      --
      Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script.
    13. Re:We use some alphas at work by Best_Username_Ever · · Score: 1

      The installed base of OpenVMS on Alpha is still huge, it's just that Compaq/HP are not making an effort to sell it anymore. Both companies have been focusing more on Linux/Unix/Windoze. VMS is also being ported to Itanium, the first boot of VMS on Itanium is expected in the next month or so.

    14. Re:We use some alphas at work by BJH · · Score: 1

      I've even had a 166MHz Alpha UDB running NT ... its UI latency ... was still better than PIIIs twice as fast.

      Sorry to nitpick, but there were no PIIIs at 333MHz. I believe they started at 500MHz.

    15. Re:We use some alphas at work by psamuels · · Score: 1
      Well in my line of work (automotive outsourcing) You can't even buy licenses for many of our products (unigraphics, catia) for Alpha.

      Hmm, I could have sworn Catia V4 was available for Tru64. Naturally V5 is not, but then again V5 on Unix is a mere afterthought anyway. I don't know anything about UGS. For other needs in the automotive world, I know MSC and LSTC both support Alpha for at least some products.

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
  11. Re:how can hp use alpha tech? by uncleFester · · Score: 4, Informative

    Compaq sold it to intel before the merger.

    marvel was already in the works before the HpaQ merger, and it would really make little sense to take a chip all the way to fab w/o at least running SOME of them to try and recoup some cost.

    Plus it will probably give Intel a good idea of which components of Marvel to rape for the next gen of the (t)Itanic.

    I was a very short-lived DecpaQ Tru64 admin, but have to admit I fell in lust for the OS and architechure. Our alphas ran superb for their age and the obscene obese demands our Oracle DBA inflicted upon them. Nary a whimper. I still think it's mildly criminal Compaq threw away the horsepower farm simply because they were too stupid to market the things properly.

    --
    -'fester
  12. Samsung? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So samsung purchased alpha rights years ago and were selling chips they still doing so?

    The should crank them out and own the market.

    1. Re:Samsung? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try English next time.

  13. Hmm by buulu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's built on Alpha EV78 processors connected by a switched fabric and promises blazing performance.
    ...[Marvel] So good, in fact, that our friend Jenny tells us the following: "If HP still believed the Alpha chip was worth the candle, rather than being cosy with its friends at the Intel Corporation, and marketed it properly, it might render all other server platforms into carbonised bread, otherwise known as toast".
    But that will never happen. My sources claim that HP realises the EV7 is a fantastic chip and wants to stop potential buyers of the HP Itanium servers from buying EV7 instead.
    And, we understand, the HP suits have now laid down a diktat saying that not one Alpha benchmark will be released until the Itanium platform(s) is/are faster.
    Jenny told us that her friends at HP who understand such things, think this could be a very long time coming.
    And she also said that quite a lot of people inside the corporation wondered why the senior execs wanted to "shoot itself in the foot" by driving potential Alpha customers to the competition.

    1. Re:Hmm by silentbozo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a rational world, management would own up to their mistakes (whoops, Alpha IS better than Intel) and work to make things right. When I was in a business simulations class (we were grouped into teams, and our "yearly" decisions as to the mix of funds devoted to r&d, marketing, production amounts, pricing, etc. for each of our respective companies, were fed into a sim every week), my team made the mistake of trying to eliminate an existing product line in favor of a more profitable "premium" product.

      While it was more profitable, the market was actually bigger in the more mature market - something that none of the teams had taken into account. However, because our team invested heavily into reducing production costs (retooling, R&D into improving production efficiency and unit quality, strategic partnership with suppliers) we were able to shift some of our capacity back into the "classic" product, price it lower than the competition, and royally kick ass in the simulated market in the following year.

      What does this have to do with HP? Well, if you have a superior product, one that will dominate for a pretty good while, and you have the sole source for it, WTF would you want to sell an inferior, lower-margin commodity product in direct competition with a whole boatload of competitors? I mean, isn't that what is killing SGI? The fact that they're trying to compete in the commodity market, but without a superior selling point (either tech, or price), they're getting hammered.

      Florina was death to HP. I'm going to miss their R&D and their printer line when they go under, and only can hope that HP's board members never sit on any other company's boards in the future. Well, any company except maybe Microsoft...

    2. Re:Hmm by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2
      The reason why HP favors the itanium is because they spent billions of dollars co-creating it with Intel. Intel only owns half of it. HP also donated their PA-RISC technology towards the project. They want a return on their investment.

      If the alpha and x86 dies and Itanium becomes the defacto standard then the sky is the limit in regards to profits for HP! It is rumoured that Intel and HP paid AMD to make the clawhammer slower then their chips on purpose to help make HP's dream a reality.

      IF Dell, Gateway, and IBM were smart they would convince intel to kill the itanium project and market the alpha's instead. The OEM's in return could make servers with them and pay Microsoft to continue developing Windows2k for it. Linux is already their and the gcc is fully optimized for it. If Microsoft would port all there server apps then it might have a chance. Whats also cool about Alpha NT is the that it came with full x86 emulation that was really fast. If Linux and Microsoft's core server apps are there then other vendors would adopt to it. After compaq refused to pay Microsoft, the alpha then lost all commercial support.

      Itanium is a nightmare to develop compilers for and therefor has terrible performance is is majorly overclocked just to be competive with x86 chips. It really sucks.

      I have a cd-rom with Windows200 beta3 for the alpha so the code is already there and can easily be implemented. With intel behind alpha they could get all the profits rather then share with HP. Intel would make twice as much money!

      HP will always be bigger then other pc makers if itanium lasts because they would get a huge profit per pc sold.

      Its this competitive spirit that killed os/2. All the oems feared IBM. Now they should fear HP with their Itanium. By switching to alpha, everyone but HP wins.

    3. Re:Hmm by jcr · · Score: 2

      Florina was death to HP. I'm going to miss their R&D and their printer line when they go under

      My HP prediction: a rapid decline, ending with Agilent buying their assets from the receiver just to get the H/P name back.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:Hmm by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The reason why HP favors the itanium is because they spent billions of dollars co-creating it with Intel. [...] They want a return on their investment.
      So you're basically saying that HP management doesn't understand the concept of "sunk costs"?

      The fact that they've already spent billions of dollars on it doesn't necessarily mean that continuing to push it is the best business decision. Sometimes you have to realize that you made a bad choice, and write off the investment. Otherwise you may just lose many billions more.

    5. Re:Hmm by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2
      I've noticed lately that Agilent is deemphasizing their old slogan, "innovating the HP way". Maybe they are trying to distance themselves from the HP fiasco. At this point, the HP name has lost most of its value, and people who buy Agilent products know this.

      When they announced the spinoff, it was immediately obvious to almost everyone I know that the wrong part of the company was getting the HP name.

    6. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of executives make this mistake. I doubt HP's management is any different.

    7. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is rumoured that Intel and HP paid AMD to make the clawhammer slower than their chips on purpose to help make HP's dream a reality.
      Talk about unsubstantiated nonsense! Any links, by chance? BTW, Clawhammer and Itanium 2 are not competitors, AMD's server-level chip is Sledgehammer.
    8. Re:Hmm by pantoniades · · Score: 1

      Well, if you have a superior product, one that will dominate for a pretty good while, and you have the sole source for it, WTF would you want to sell an inferior, lower-margin commodity product in direct competition with a whole boatload of competitors? well, there is still the applications porting issue - there are few sections of the market where there is enough software available for the alpha to "kick ass" without getting a bunch of ISVs to back the platform. That said, with the excellence of DEC engineering and the excellence of debian alpha alphas make awesome mysql servers or LAMP boxes.

    9. Re:Hmm by new500 · · Score: 1

      . . . .

      At this point, the HP name has lost most of its value

      That sadly may be true for a long long time. Whatever the merits, corporate in - fights always smell bad. I personally think the opaque manoeuvering of product lines is in no small part a consequence of the scraps of last year, as an organsation which has seen too much turmoil finds itself again. Sure that's hardly an iota of the true story, but IMO for anyone with any feeling, the name *Hewlett - Packard* , as opposed to the two lettered logo, hasn't lost an ounce of respect. At least by dropping their full original name, The New HP isn't tarnishing fonder memories.

    10. Re:Hmm by haggar · · Score: 2

      Your wish is partially fulfilled: Rick Beluzzo worked for HP, and havily pushed for NT and against HP-UX ("UNIX is dead"-mantra by Beluzzo).

      That got them into a lot of trouble, and the scars the feel still today. Their giving in to Intel (with Itanium (yeah, yeah, they developed most of it, so what, they're still hanging up on PA-RISC) is an echo of that past, painful blow.

      Rick moved on to SGI and had the same mantra... and we know how good that did to SGI. SGI never really recovered from their attempt to produce intel-based NT workstations. They hemorraged shitloads of money and royally messed up their focus. SGI will never recover from that blow, and it had to sell Cray research to Tera in order to fish for some cash.

      And Rick Beluzzo moved on, to Microsoft! Many thought he was on MS's payroll all along. I won't say anything one way or the other, I leave it to the reader to come to his/her own conclusions. Point in case, Mr. Beluzzo is not at all that dangerous to MS as it was to HP and SGI, even though it's not clear what the heck he's doing.

      --
      Sigged!
    11. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      No, but it does mean admitting to the world you screwed up...

    12. Re:Hmm by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and losing more billions of dollars is less painful than that. :-)

  14. Maybe if they ran Ninnle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should use the latest Alpha port of Ninnle Linux!

  15. Re:What's the point? by Chagrin · · Score: 1

    Don't feed the trolls.

    --

    I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation

  16. Re:What's the point? by MyHair · · Score: 2

    The only significant computer purchases made these days by businesses and consumers alike contain the words "Dell", "Intel", and "Microsoft".

    Somebody better tell that to IBM--fast.

  17. Alpha rules. by MisterQ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Indeed, now let me see. I could buy a PA-Risc... (Not!), or an IBM/Motorola Chipped thingie (Small market, bounded technology), or a Sparc box - small market bounded technology, arrogant supplier, single source.

    Or I could buy an Alpha. A commitment of at least a Decade of support (What was I using 10 years ago, and what land fill is it in now..) A proven track record of meeting or beating the promises on performance.

    Oh no, wait. I'll get an itanic. What you mean they are only available in limited quantities, and at vastly inflated prices. Oh, and the ones that everyone is raving about aren't going to me around for another 2-3 years. Hey, it takes that long to get orders through purchasing, who is worried...

    And what's that. Adaptive partitioning within the box, (dynamically changable SMP and Clustering). Clustering that is more than Me and a standby mini-me. Couldn't be? When dod they get that working...

    Note that the new Alpha moves the ES40/ES45 range out to GS (Big MF) nomenclature...

    The one saving grace, is that scuttlebutt says that based on the intel thef acquisition of Alpha, that post-Madison Itanics will actually look more like an Alpha than a traditional Intel.

    More things to file in my "I told you so" list, for later...

    1. Re:Alpha rules. by binaryDigit · · Score: 2

      IBM/Motorola Chipped thingie (Small market, bounded technology)

      Uh, POWER/PowerPC is "bounded" and "small market" but yet Alpha is not? Bounded by what? Clock speed? How is POWER bounded but Alpha not? Are you saying that POWER is going to soon hit some performance/clockrate wall? Even if you are talking pure clockrate, IBM has been able to crank out quite powerful cpu's that run at slower clocks.

      A commitment of at least a Decade of support

      Hey, IBM STILL supports OS/2, are you saying that they are likely to just drop support for POWER and leave their customers high and dry? I don't get where you make your comparisons? Sure PA-RISC is obviously dead end and SPARC leaves a lot to be desired performance wise, but "single source" for SPARC? Sun doesn't even make the chips, how is that single source compared to Alpha? Who else produces Alphas, are you including Intel?

    2. Re:Alpha rules. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PowerPC are the heart of the most sold line of RISC desktop machines (i.e. Macs). POWER4 is actually the fastest processor out there. So bounded my a$$.

      Sun like MIPS does not produce their chips. They just make the design and have several sources do the implementation, USIII is actually a nice chip. Which manages to beat hands down Itanium, in real life. Not with handcoded FP benchmarks like the Itanium II.

      And Alphas are produced also by Samsung and API (Alpha Processor International). In fact Alphas share of the market has always been smaller than any of the above (PowerPC, Sparc, or even PA-RISC)

    3. Re:Alpha rules. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Hey, IBM STILL supports OS/2,

      Hey, IBM is a Business Machine company. They probably still support the time clocks they were making in 1957 and the Photocopiers and Typewriters they were making in 1973 if you're a big Business and want to sign the support contract.

    4. Re:Alpha rules. by binaryDigit · · Score: 2

      Hey, IBM is a Business Machine company. They probably still support the time clocks they were making in 1957 and the Photocopiers and Typewriters they were making in 1973 if you're a big Business and want to sign the support contract.

      Hey IBM is a COMPANY and they won't support anything that is not worth their while to support. Supporting OS/2 even though they bleed (and have always bled) money from it shows a lot more than simply just some customers out there willing to sign support contracts. I know that money was still the primary reason they supported it (not directly of course), but it still shows a lot of commitment on their part as many companies would have dropped support long ago (and by support I'm talking more than just a person to cry to on the other end of the phone).

      Plus, my statement was in reference to the original poster saying something to the effect that Alpha will be support 10 years into the future and somehow equating that to having a leg up on some of it's other processing breatheren.

    5. Re:Alpha rules. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that OS/2 bleeding ended years ago when they stopped developing and marketing it.

      In the here-and-now, legacy support contracts are very profitable. How much "support" do you think they actually provide to customers who have been running the same setup for 10 years?

  18. Reminds me of compaq.... by tcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yey, 500th post, on a subject I like :)

    I remember when Compaq bought the Alpha technology. I was invited to a demo for their new workstation machine, that was back in the late 90s, I remember the workstation they were demoing in front of everyone, nice audience, people that worked on the movie Titanic were there to explain how they used the alpha technology to render those huge datasets, manipulate large 3d models, etc etc...

    They were so EVASIVE when people would specifically ask them to compare the Alpha Workstation to intel workstation. I mean everything looked professionnal up to that precise moment. Why on earth are you getting yourself in so much trouble to advertise your alpha workstation, invite people to costly hotel floor, serve them good food, etc, if you don't want to address the PRIMARY concern of your target audience? What "non-alpha" people (new customers) want to know is why would they go alpha if it's not for the proprietary software?

    (In this case, Lightwave was one of the tools and it was cross-platform, every Lightwave users KNEW that the alpha crushed the PC in rendering, so hiding this fact looked very suspicious for this small portion of the people that were there. Then you add the fact they they didn't want to give any comparing numbers, being evasive and all. The only positive thing they mentionned is the FX32 emulator and the fact that they could run non-native software like photoshop in their alpha workstation. Now who the hell would buy a workstation like this if it doesn't show any appeal outside from the people that already know about it? If you say "3x faster rendering, only 1.5x the price" now there's an apeal! They didn't! How on earth are they going to gain sufficient marketshare with mouth-to-ear strategy, where amiga, for example, failed. With a CPU R&D buisness, you need a LOT of sales to cover you expenses, they had a bomb on their hands, and while I understand that they had to play nice with Intel, they could have thrown the bomb at intel instead of blowing up with it.

    This is another situation where Money and Monopoly is bad for evolutions and revolutions, try to find ONE SINGLE alpha user that bitched about the architecture (before it got left out dying, obviously), make a percentage (you'll probably get something close to 0%), then compare that percentage with Intel users. Not that Intel technology is bad, but it sure isn't revolutionnary, heck I'm still waiting to get that 7505 chipset board with 2 2.8Ghz Xeon on it, everything is back order or N/A yet. If compaq would have had a clue, I'd have a box probably 4x more powerful today with win2k support and good driver support for about the same price... shame.

    --
    --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
    1. Re:Reminds me of compaq.... by wfrp01 · · Score: 2

      I don't think it's quite right to characterize the Alpha as being dead or dying. Alpha is just a brand name. The engineers who worked on it live on. Don't be surprised to see a lot of the Alpha's better architectural features resurface elsewhere.

      --

      --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
    2. Re:Reminds me of compaq.... by Durinia · · Score: 2
      The engineers who worked on it live on.

      ...and most of them work for Intel now... (at least the architects)

    3. Re:Reminds me of compaq.... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 3, Informative

      Last I heard, the important Alpha guys ended up at AMD or in small companies. I remember hearing that some or all of the DEC engineers working on StrongArm refused to move to Intel when Intel aquired that cpu, and that Intel had to move some people from the, geez, i810 or something similarly not StrongArm-ish into the StrongArm project.

      At some point, I thought the important Alpha folks went to Nexgen, which was bought (directly or indirectly) by AMD.

      I'd really like to have a more detailed and more accurate picture of who went where, but it's bedtime for me. Maybe someone else would like to elaborate.

      -Paul Komarek

    4. Re:Reminds me of compaq.... by wfrp01 · · Score: 2

      I'd really like to have a more detailed and more accurate picture of who went where

      Me too. Just because the know-how survives, doesn't mean it will ever see the light of day. I had it in my head that a lot of these guys were now working on Itanium - but I have no idea why I think that..

      I'm not so worried about the existing Alpha technology disappearing as I am about the potential for less competition to slow the pace of innovation. If a bunch of these guys have gone over to AMD, I would be very relieved to know it.

      --

      --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
    5. Re:Reminds me of compaq.... by Durinia · · Score: 2

      Intel actually purchased the Shrewsbury, MA Alpha EV8 design team (and facility). How many people left, I'm not sure, but I know several of the lead designers are still there (like Joel Emer, who's worked for 4 companies without ever changing his desk...) and that they're working on Itanium now.

    6. Re:Reminds me of compaq.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The teams are surprisingly, largely intact.

    7. Re:Reminds me of compaq.... by dmforcier · · Score: 1

      >
      > If compaq would have had a clue, I'd have a box probably 4x more powerful today with win2k support and good driver support for about the same price... shame.

      Ever consider that the *real* problem here might be Microsoft not producing an Alpha binary any more?

      --
      You can't take the sky from me!
  19. Re: Limited software for Alpha by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I bet Alpha still has a larger software base than Itanium.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  20. it is sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As an engineer that worked on EV7 it is sad to see such a wonderful machine fall by the way-side. When the SPEC numbers do come out not only will all the world will see that Alpha is again the world's fastest processor, but that Marvel systems scale linearly. We'll all eventually go over to Intel, which a lot of us aren't looking forward to, and hope not to get laid off

    1. Re:it is sad by dmp95 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Alpha has long been the best RISC chip, and probably best overall chip on the market. What may be more sad isn't just the loss of the Alpha, but the loss of innovation that DEC was responsible for. Ethernet, major SCSI improvements, Alpha, RDB, DLT and clustering a'la VMS. Many people don't realize how far ahead DEC was on their products. The quality of engineering that DEC put into its products may never be seen again. DEC would acutally specify that Seagate should change the RPM of the DEC drives they manufactured, so the vibration frequency would be better for the longevity of the drives. (Not to mention the cooling, power, etc...) DEC systems worked and worked well. People without DEC experiences may not realize the level of engineering and quality that went into DEC products. (Of course, having DEC personel with an office in the back of your computer room didn't hurt, but DEC's incredible customer service organization is worth another post entirely :-) Which brings me back to the clustering. Why is it that Linux or 2000 doesn't have the incredible clustering capabilities of OpenVMS? (This is rhetorical, I know about the ci and ssi stuff for Linux on source forge and I know how DEC (West) held back on moving their full clustering to NT because of pressure from Microsoft. They actually had NT and Alpha systems running Digital Clusters for Windows, but wouldn't release it.) Why can't we have a real distributed lock manager like VMS with a single system image on a cluster that isn't a total kludge? It is 2003 for Christ sake. Did I mention that Unix was orginally coded for a DEC PDP???? Sure DEC stuff was expensive, but as I learned, it was worth every penny. Hardware is a minor part of TCO, and DEC hardware kicked ass. Then Compaq bought DEC and managed to ruin themselves and DEC. What a bunch of mangement morons. Now HP, a bunch of bigger management morons, will kill the remaining legacy of DEC. Too bad the families lost the lawsuit to stop the merger. The burying of the EV7 is the final nail in DEC's slow death. So long EV7, so long VMS clusters, so long world-class engineering... The only hope left is IBM, the only company left with the true R&D strength, but I'm not betting on that no matter how much they tout Linux in ads.

    2. Re:it is sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a stupid buttfucker, aren't you.

      electrical engineer maybe, computer scientist? no fucking way. and that's always been alpha's problem. designed by engineers who can cook cucumbers (bonus prize for knowing what i'm referring to here ;) but who honestly have nfi what a computer actually spends its time doing.

    3. Re:it is sad by Jester99 · · Score: 1

      Somewhat OT, but anywho:

      A minor correction to the above list. While DEC's been a great innovator, ethernet was actually the responsibility of Xerox PARC in the late '70s. (They had just invented the laser printer, and needed a cable that could deliver the data to it fast enough from more than one machine.)

  21. Alas, poor Alpha.....I knew ye by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    Alpha never seems to "make it" after all these 11 years, and still it seems doomed.....and two of the three operating systems introduced with it are NOT the choice of the data center, and the third dropped Alpha support! Maybe we should start a folk legend about "The Curse of the Alpha!"

    Anyway, a cool kick-butt chip, it was....and if we ever see the benchmarks on this latest generation, I'll bet it still is. Too bad on this planet technical excellence and superiority of function and performance don't determine success in the marketplace.

  22. Alpha Lives! But Who Will Market It? by silvaran · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Linux Lives! But Who Will Market It?

    OK, granted, Linux is free, but it hasn't had a lot of direct mainstream publicity. A lot of stuff that's been heard about Linux has been through the Linux community itself, and the media (notoriety et al), not through marketing. I believe that administrators who are sufficiently educated will help bring this to the market, just as OS afficionados have helped to bring Linux to the market. Alpha has a loyal following, much like Linux, and while marketing will help the Alpha, without it doesn't mean that the Alpha won't gain more foothold in the server market.

    1. Re:Alpha Lives! But Who Will Market It? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Alpha has a loyal following. Unlike software, however, it requires a big expensive centralized foundry to produce the chips, and a big expensive engineering team to put them together.

      There won't be groups of hackers contributing new microcode to the Alpha core in 2005. There probably will be hackers contributing new code to the Linux kernal.

    2. Re:Alpha Lives! But Who Will Market It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck modded this offtopic? MODERATORS ON CRACK!

  23. Sad but true by cluge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Alpha's have always had awesome specs, hell I think slashdot started on a UDB (early alpha unit, small compact case, built in sound). The alpha processor has long been one of the best performing and worst marketed main processors in the history of computers.

    The fact is that DEC wasn't in a posistion to market it, and when they COULD have sold the chip to use in apples (instead of PPC) they declined (morons). Compaq bought DEC and had NO clue what the hell to do. It took them almost 2 years to wrap their head around the fact that the alpha servers where the only profitable product they had. (See service support contracts and high margins for the high end alphas). By then it was too late, they were working on the merger with HP.

    No HP's here, and doesn't want to compete with it's own inferior equipment. Lines are being drawn and you can bet that the superiour technology of the alpha will again suffer. Remember that the EV78 is an OLD alpha design and it still kicks ass. Compaq basically stopped developing the alpha series AGES ago. (the EV8 was supposed to be out early last year according to one of the early compaq alpha ropadmaps)

    Too bad the alpha is dead. It is taking years for intel and IBM to come up with a chip that comes close to alpha performance. Good thing that they are competing against old alpha designs and the EV8 has been killed. Otherwise those darn pesky spec numbers would have been embarassing.

    cluge

    --
    "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
    1. Re:Sad but true by bitfoam · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who wants to run missions critical apps on an Alpha processor? No wonder it can't sell! If it's really good and been around that long, it should be at least a Beta processor by now... ;-)

    2. Re:Sad but true by evilviper · · Score: 2
      Too bad the alpha is dead. It is taking years for intel and IBM to come up with a chip that comes close to alpha performance. Good thing that they are competing against old alpha designs and the EV8 has been killed. Otherwise those darn pesky spec numbers would have been embarassing.

      As I said last time the Alpha was a /. story, it is still the processor in the #2 & #3 fastest systems in the world. Not to mention that it seems to have more, faster, positions on the list of the top 500 supercomputers than ony other processor.

      http://www.top500.org/

      Everyone seems to be ignoring power requirements and heat output when talking about processors. Sure, anyone can make a processor that is faster than anything else, but you may have to soak it in liquid nitrogen just to keep it cool.

      Fast processors are easy... COOL processors that are faster for their heat output is where the market goes.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Sad but true by binaryDigit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      it is still the processor in the #2 & #3 fastest systems in the world

      You have to be careful bringing up the SC lists. Keep in mind that those machines are multi-cpu. It takes 4096 1.25ghz alphas to hold #2/#3, it takes 8192 POWER3's, but they're only running at 375mhz, so which processor is "superior"? #5 is 2304 Xeons (I assume P4), is the Xeon superior to Alpha since for half the processors you get 80% of the performance?

      Not making any statements about superiority here, just saying that the top500 list isn't exactly the best indicator.

    4. Re:Sad but true by binaryDigit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      when they COULD have sold the chip to use in apples (instead of PPC) they declined (morons)

      I've never heard this, do you have any links to articles that talk about this? I don't know that I'd go as far as calling them "morons", without knowing the details, but if Apple were looking for something along the lines of their deal with IBM/Mot, I could see how DEC wouldn't want to get into such a intimate deal. Plus the monikor "morons" has to be reserved for Motorola and their handling of RISC and the cpu market in general. Makes any blunder that DEC made look small chips in comparison.

    5. Re:Sad but true by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Like I JUST SAID. Processor power verses heat output, and the power required, is what makes a processor good for high-performance mainframes.

      Price is a pretty low priority in most cases.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Sad but true by dmp95 · · Score: 1

      DEC's marketing group was always thought of a mornons and idiots, but that is being nice. Marketing at DEC was FUBAR...

    7. Re:Sad but true by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2
      Processor power verses heat output,
      is basically a linear factor for all processors, unless you can find a processor that is radiating one heck of a lot more RF than the others.

      OK, it's a joke. I know what you meant. But power consumption is only a relatively minor factor in the purchase decisions for massively parallel supercomputers. The main criterion is Gflops/dollar.

    8. Re:Sad but true by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Fast processors are easy... COOL processors that are faster for their heat output is where the market goes.


      You know, I was at Best Buy last night and noticed some people were admiring the new PCs out there in their plastic cases with all the gloss and whatnot.

      I didn't see anybody asking how much heat they put out. I didn't see anybody caring.

      Hell, I haven't seen anybody on the hardware sites clamoring for parts that run cooler. Sure it's a concern. A secondary concern. Even in big rendering pools it's a secondary concern.

    9. Re:Sad but true by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful
      is basically a linear factor for all processors

      That is absolutely NOT TRUE. If nothing else, you can compare the heat from a (say) Intel, 1GHz Processor, with that of the earliest 1GHz processor.

      But power consumption is only a relatively minor factor in the purchase decisions

      Gee, thanks for telling me. And here I was thinking that a company might be willing to pay a few bucks more for a system that consumed a fraction of the power, while performing just as well, thus lowering their Total Cost Of Ownership, and making the lower-power machine a much better value. What was I thinking? You're right, I'm sure you'd never TCO in a corporate meeting.

      The main criterion is Gflops/dollar.

      If that was the case, there wouldn't be anything even resembling mainframes, as they would need a large ammount of space and heavy-duty cooling systems for all of their AMD Duron processors.
      When you have one computer in your house, it can run very hot without causing real problems. When you have hundreds of processors in a rack the size of a small closet, you need something that runs incredibly cool, while giving you good performance.

      That must be why Google's setup is so famous, because they are doing the same thing as everyone else, and disregarding the issue of heat.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    10. Re:Sad but true by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Well of course home users don't care about the heat... They're almost all going to exclusively run Windows on those machines too... Does that prove that professional sites use Windows on everything?

      Anyone setting up a large group of servers that doesn't care about the heat, is either an idiot, or lives some place so cold that they aren't paying to cool their systems.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:Sad but true by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2
      It most certainly IS true, unless you've come up with some revolutionary new way to circumvent the laws of physics. You said "processor power versus heat output." A procesor that consumes thirty watts puts out about 102 BTUs of heat per hour. A processor that consumes 60 watts will put out about 205 BTUs of heat per hour. As I said, unless you can find some exotic way to radiate a lot of power as RF energy instead of heat, there's a linear relationship.
      And here I was thinking that a company might be willing to pay a few bucks more for a system that consumed a fraction of the power, while performing just as well,
      When buying supercomputers (which is what I was talking about, if you'd actaully bothered to read what I wrote), that's almost never an option.
      If that was the case, there wouldn't be anything even resembling mainframes, as they would need a large ammount of space and heavy-duty cooling systems for all of their AMD Duron processors.
      This shows a remarkable lack of understanding as to what a mainframe is. Get half a clue some time. Mainframes aren't known for having exceptionally high-performance processors; these days often an inexpensive desktop machine can outperform them on pure number crunching. Mainframes, however, have one heck of a lot more I/O bandwidth than a desktop machine, which is why they're better suited to running high-end database applications, transaction processing, and such.

      If you want heavy-duty number crunching, you don't want a mainframe, you want a supercomputer.

      That must be why Google's setup is so famous, because they are doing the same thing as everyone else, and disregarding the issue of heat.
      Presumably this statement was intended to be sarcastic? I must be dense because I don't understand what you're getting at, or how it relates to the discussion.
    12. Re:Sad but true by evilviper · · Score: 2
      physics. You said "processor power versus heat output." A procesor that consumes thirty watts puts out about 102 BTUs of heat per hour.

      I was refering to processor performance, not power input. I thought I made that rather clear.

      Get half a clue some time. Mainframes aren't known for having exceptionally high-performance processors;

      Nor did I say they were known for their performance. Certainly their IO is a big seller, although mainframes usually DO indeed have very good performance.

      these days often an inexpensive desktop machine can outperform them on pure number crunching.

      That must be an incredibly cheap, or incredibly old mainframe to which you are refering.

      I must be dense because I don't understand what you're getting at, or how it relates to the discussion.

      Google uses comodity PC parts... hence the lowest price/flop which is what you are claiming every company does.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    13. Re:Sad but true by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2
      That must be an incredibly cheap, or incredibly old mainframe to which you are refering.
      Nope. I'm referring to IBM's state-of-the-art Z-series mainframes.
  24. Re:What's the point? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only significant computer purchases made these days by businesses and consumers alike contain the words "Dell", "Intel", and "Microsoft".

    Yeah, those 12 brand-new IBM P-series 630 servers we have sitting in our server room waiting to be installed must be an illusion.

    You don't actually work in the tech industry, do you?

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  25. some one please buy the tech from HP by f00zbll · · Score: 1

    It is really a shame to loose alpha architecture to Intel and HP. Some one please buy the tech and give it a real shot in the market place.

  26. The FTC is not a technical group. by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They don't make technical decisions regarding the merits of a platform. Quit making inane, clueless comments implying that the FTC would have had some reason to prevent the merger because of the Alpha.

  27. in honor by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

    NetBSD 1.5.2 (XJ6) #2: Tue Oct 29 21:04:19 EST 2002
    xxxxx@alpha:/usr/src/sys/arch/alpha/compile/XJ6
    D igital AlphaPC 164 400 MHz

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  28. Sure, lets get the money... by IcEMaN252 · · Score: 1

    Its a nice idea, but there is a major product. Its a product that competes, and may actually be better, than what HP / Intel are offering. They want to quash the platform. So how much do you think it will cost to buy it off them?

    Personally, I'd rather invest my dozen Powerball jackpot winnings elsewhere.

    --
    CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
  29. Re:What's the point? by paranoic · · Score: 3, Funny

    The only significant computer purchases made these days by businesses and consumers alike contain the words "Dell", "Intel", and "Microsoft".

    Othwise known as DIM

  30. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opteron and Linux will be the death of proprietary UNIX machines.

    In two years, Sparc and POWER will be in the same place Alpha is right now. Sorry.

  31. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    > Alpha Lives! But Who Will Market It?

    Uh.. well, I guess I've got some time on thursday after uni.

  32. I'll sell you 100 XTs by SHEENmaster · · Score: 2

    for a dollar. You pay shipping and handeling charges of course.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  33. Re: Limited software for Alpha by Oswald · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm completely O-fucking-T here, but look at what Slashdot moderation comes down to. This person expresses their one-line, unsubstantiated opinion (never claiming to be doing anything more--no offense to you, TeknoHog), and because he appears to be on the side of the angels, BOOM, +4 Insightful. This is stupid; what good does viewing at +3 or higher do with ridiculous moderation like this? (Well, it will save you seeing this post, I guess ;)

  34. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not? He racked up some good karma doing it, while all you did was waste a post.

    One of you is an idiot. Can you get who it is?

  35. Re:What's the point? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

    Yeah, people have been saying that same thing since, what, the late 1970's? I'm sure it's going to happen, like, any minute now.

    --

    I write in my journal
  36. Re: Limited software for Alpha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has gcc, what more could you want?

  37. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You for got the other half DIM-WITs :p

  38. Re: Limited software for Alpha by ctr2sprt · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    And Itanium has much greater vendor support. Not saying much, since Alpha has only slightly more vendor support than OS/2.

  39. A platform NEEDS THE SUPPORT by The+B · · Score: 0

    Yes, support for applications, standardized integration is important.

    1. Re:A platform NEEDS THE SUPPORT by Kourino · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Servers mostly run Unix. "Tru 64" is still out there somewhere. The Linux 2.5 kernel just got a bunch of patches fixing up stuff on Titan/Marnel architectures. (I wanna know who was the lucky bastard who got to work on that :3 ) Applications recompile on compatible platforms. What's your point?

      Not to sound too militant, but come on. It's not like the past decade of development for these machines has just suddenly disappeared. Unlike the machines themselves on the market, sadly.

  40. A good buy for some tech company? by XBL · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What if some company, for example Red Hat bought the Alpha technology. Just think how a premier hardware architecture could be marketed along with Linux, which has huge growth potential.

    If Linux is to totally dominate, Linux vendors need to come up with some better hardware.

    1. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      I know! I know! VA name-ending-of-the-quarter could buy Alpha and use it to revive their sagging brand.

      Or Corel could throw together a NetWinder II that runs on Alpha.

    2. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2
      Red Hat doesn't have anywhere NEAR the resources needed to start building state-of-the-art (or even nearly-s.o.t.a.) microprocessors.

      Not to mention that HP wants Alpha to dry up and blow away, since it competes with their home-grown stuff. If it weren't for contractual obligations, they'd drop it in a New York minute.

      Nice dream, though.

      At the moment it looks like the only way that mainstream processors are going to move to a (slightly) less ugly architecture is if AMD succeeds with the Hammer parts (Athlon 64 and Opteron). At least they've managed to increase the number of general registers.

    3. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      CPU R&D is *really* expensive. That's probably why Intel doesn't seem to do much CPU R&D and sticks mainly to manufacturing (note: Itanic arch came mainly from HP, StrongArm and XScale came from other outside sources). It takes very special companies to support this cost, and there aren't many that want to stay in the CPU R&D business anymore (much less get into it).

      A large part of the reason GNU/Linux is doing so well compared to other UNIX and UNIX-like systems today is that it runs well on cheap *commodity* hardware. Nobody is going to be impressed if GNU/Linux runs better than WIntel on really expensive equipment. Not to say that people aren't impressed by GNU/Linux running on the IBM S390 for its own sake. =-)

      It's not even clear that people *want* better hardware. After all, better hardware has been losing to cheaper hardware for at least 5 years now. It is suprisingly hard to explain to someone why adding an $1800 (or $5400 full-retail) cpu card to a Compaq ES40 is better than buying a new Athlon XP or P-IV since many of the costs aren't easy to account for. But the sysadmins using the scalable ES40 know just how much easier that machine is to care for (esp. remotely) than a uniprocessor $1800 commodity x86 box.

      -Paul Komarek

      -Paul Komarek

    4. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by thaWhat · · Score: 1

      Hot damn! that's a great idea. Are you listening mr. RedHat? Look what Microshaft did. The m$ mouse the ecks-bocks; Why not something more relevant to the target market? Enterprise redhat on an alpha. an os that rocks on a platform that rocks. I mean,consider (he said gushingly ;) linux, apache, alpha. IIS on wintel sux (personal experience) but apache/linux on an alpha? canvas your local computer store! `got an ev7 alpha motherboard yet? ... I'll be back when you do' C'mon guys! we lost the amiga, we lost os/2. one can be explained as an accident, two is unfortunate. three? that can only be negligence! (my apologies to oscar wilde)

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb.
    5. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by Luminous+Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      CPU R&D is *really* expensive. That's probably why Intel doesn't seem to do much CPU R&D and sticks mainly to manufacturing [...]
      Intel spends approximately 15% of their revenue on R&D (it is not clear how much is used specifically for CPU R&D). What makes you say that "Intel doesn't seem to do much CPU R&D"? On a side note, would you count compiler research as CPU R&D?
      note: Itanic arch came mainly from HP [...]
      The Itanic joke is getting old, Itanium 2 is now competitive, especially in floating point applications. Do you have any evidence that HP was more involved in the design of IA-64 than Intel?
    6. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by rseuhs · · Score: 2
      You got it completely reversed: CPU R&D is not necesserily expensive but it requires brains.

      Intel has lots of money but not really much R&D brains. So they buy it from somewhere else.

    7. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      CPU R&D is *really* expensive. That's probably why Intel doesn't seem to do much CPU R&D and sticks mainly to manufacturing (note: Itanic arch came mainly from HP, StrongArm and XScale came from other outside sources).

      StrongArm came from DEC. And, by the way, the whole StrongArm team quit when Intel bought the technology.

    8. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My comment about Intel's level of CPU R&D was meant one of two ways:

      1) They do lots but have little new to show for it.
      2) They don't bother doing much since their slowly evolving x86 cores seem to earn them a whole lot of money.

      Intel obviously has some great engineers holding that stupid x86 arch together. That anyone has ever gotten any speed from that ISA is remarkable. But Intel hasn't come up with any new *and* good designs for quite some time. The Itanic has been hyped for many, many years and has only managed to pull even with existing RISC cores (many of which are less expensive and lower power). As you said, "Itanium 2 is now competitive". Finally, Itanic is the only really new-ish cpu thing Intel has done in recent years.

      Furthermore, everything I've read about the Itanic over the last five or so years suggests that HP was responsible for the bulk of Itanic's design. I don't have any percentages, as Intel wouldn't release them if they knew what they were anyway. I've read articles suggesting that Intel gagged HP about their role in the design of "Intel's" chip.

      Overall, I'm not impressed by the R&D of Intel, a company whose R&D budget is probably larger than MIPS' gross revenue.

      -Paul Komarek

    9. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by sutekh137 · · Score: 1

      What about Apple? How hard would it be to port OSX to the Alpha architecture, or is Alpha stuff just too expensive to try to build a full software/hardware solution from scratch?

      I just started drooling when I thought of a Powerbook with an Alpha chip (probably a true pipe-dream considering power consumption, no?) in it...must...clean up...saliva...

      JoeK

    10. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      If Linux is to come up with better hardware, Microsoft will have to do it first. Linux gets installed on so many systems because a lot of people get fed up with Windows and install Linux over it (or beside it). If they need to buy an entirely new machine to run Linux, a machine that costs considerably more, they will be inclined not to choose Linux. After all, it would "cost more." Linux can be successful because it runs well on cheap hardware.

      That said, I would absolutely love to see more support for the Alpha architecture among the Linux distros; it just doesn't seem to get the same attention that the inferior x86 gets.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    11. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 2

      Do you have any evidence that HP was more involved in the design of IA-64 than Intel?

      No evidence, but I remember reading this back in the day when they were being designed. The Itanium (Merced) was the Intel designed chip, while Itanium II (McKinley) was more on the HP side. HP had been doing 64 bit chips for some time, and had expertise. It showed in the performance boost Itanium II vs original. Most of the bickering on who did what was years ago, so hard to find something today.

    12. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by GreatBallsOfFire · · Score: 0

      StrongArm came from DEC, and I'm not sure but I think so did Xscale.

    13. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      StrongArm came from DEC, but isn't it a derivative of the Arm? The Xscale is also a derivative of the Arm, IIRC. And the Arm can be traced back to the BBC Micro, which was evidently constructed for a television series about computers.

      -Paul Komarek

    14. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by BJH · · Score: 1

      Er... no. The BBC Micro ran on a 6502, not an ARM. I guess you're thinking of the Archimedes.

    15. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      You are correct, I meant the Archimedes. At least, I meant Archimedes after I'd read enough to find out I'd made a mistake. ;-) Thanks for the correction.

      I finally learned where the name "ARM" comes from:

      ARM = Acorn RISC Machine

      -Paul Komarek

    16. Re:A good buy for some tech company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came across an i860 datasheet dated '89 (the processor, not the new mobos), and considering that in addition to being a coupla times faster than x86, having 32 registers, and onboard 3d video support, it may very well have less to do with Intel's R&D coming up with great new designs than the fact that Marketing doesn't *WANT* new designs, new designs involve risk, when x86 is proven daily to have the momentum to make lots of $$$ with minimal upkeep, and c'mon every company, including HP, Intel, and Microsoft are in it for the MONEY, not for the advancement of humanity or something, for christs sake.

      -- Vranash

  41. article by zogger · · Score: 2

    --was just reading an article on this very subject.

    A big investment bank sorta disagrees, at least on the linux aspect addressed here.

  42. OS problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The problem with Alphas is not the CPU/hardware, it's the OS. Since the begining, the OS was badly designed and tested. Things were so bad around 1994/95 that you can't reliably restore a tar backup. The OS crash at last once a week. At that time we switched to another vendor (IBM/AIX, less performance, more costly, very reliably on both hard/soft). We are still using AIX, and paying about three times more for the same SPECbench than Sun/HP, and we are happy. No crashes.

    1. Re:OS problems by Heavy+Machinery · · Score: 1

      The can be ONLY ONE OS to rule them : VMS (marketed now as OpenVMS but the "Open" is slient)

      VMS is 25 years old now and is still the best most stable and secure OS there is.

      Check out the presentation refered to in the original Enquirer article refered to at the start of this thread.
      (http://h40043.www4.hp.com/events/wonderl and/ppt_p raes_vormittag/NigelBarker_OpenVMS-Strategy.pdf)

      Otherwise go to www.compaq.com/openvms

      Get an old alpha off EBay and get the free hobbyist VMS licenses from http://www.montagar.com/hobbyist/index.html

      You won't look back!

    2. Re:OS problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about back in the days when DECs Unix was called OSF/1, but Digital Unix/Tru64 Unix ver. 4.0 and 5.0 are rock solid. One major reason for the merger was to buy Tru64s clustering technology and port it to HP-UX.

  43. I really don't want to say this but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it seems like Alpha is dying...

  44. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check it



    word

  45. Dec Alpha by meatplow · · Score: 1

    I love my DEC Alpha 500PC164. Too bad the only thing that will run on it is Debian.
    ---Not that Debian doesn't ROCK !.

    If I could only get X running. I'll send $5 bucks to anyone who can point me to a driver for the video card.

    "VGA compatible controller: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. AccelGraphics AccelECLIPSE (rev 03)"

    Has anybody ever got one of the bad boys ? or more importantly.. every got one to run any distro of *nix with X. This thing runs great, but I wouldn't mind to see it with a GUI :)

    Meatplow.

    1. Re:Dec Alpha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Dude, buy a Matrox Millenium 4 MB video card($10 on ebay?). That thing's got PC BIOS emulation and your system should run fine with it, mine does. Also, there's a Gentoo port for Alpha in the works, I'm running 1.4_rc2 on mine.

      -

    2. Re:Dec Alpha by Dahan · · Score: 4, Informative
      I love my DEC Alpha 500PC164. Too bad the only thing that will run on it is Debian.

      Hmm, what's wrong with it? Why won't it run OpenVMS, Tru64, or NetBSD?

    3. Re:Dec Alpha by meatplow · · Score: 1

      The card has 32 MB on it. It was a SUPER DUPER card for what the original purpose was. --Holywood graphics on ALPH WinNT. The card was REALLY expensive, so I feel like I should get a GUI running on it if it kills me.

    4. Re:Dec Alpha by meatplow · · Score: 1

      Open VMS - never tried it. But I will now (thx)

      Tru64 - Would LOVE to try it, but it's not FREE and don't have a license. I couldn't find one either. |):

      I could not get NetBSD to run.

      Thanks for the OPEN VMS tip. I'll be trying that
      one soon.

      (please keep the tips and advise rolling in. Any of you guys run the panda boxes ? How were they ??)

      Meatplow

    5. Re:Dec Alpha by Heavy+Machinery · · Score: 2, Informative

      Follow the link Dahan just gave you:
      http://www.tru64unix.compaq.com/noncommercia l-unix /

      for the hobbyist Tru64 licenses.

      But, who needs Tru64 when there is VMS? If you want to try out a public access VMS account on the Internet, check out the "Deathrow" cluster (yup, VMS had true clustering decades before Micrsoft claimed to be able to do it) at:
      http://deathrow.vistech.net/

      -Chris

    6. Re:Dec Alpha by Dahan · · Score: 2
      Well, the hobbyist Tru64 license isn't free, although it's pretty cheap: $99--that's cheaper than Windows! Still, I do think it's a bit pricey for someone who just wants to tinker around and see what Tru64 can do.

      P.S. to meatplow: I too have a 500MHz AlphaPC 164, and it's running NetBSD 1.6... dunno why it didn't work for you, 'cuz it should...

    7. Re:Dec Alpha by slittle · · Score: 1

      If you're used to *nix, VMS will be like plucking your eyes out with a blunt toothpick.

      --
      Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
    8. Re:Dec Alpha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAICT, these are Evans & Sutherland chipsets ... there are no open source drivers for them. You may, however, be able to do something with it in framebuffer mode, but I can't find any reference to this being done on Alpha.

    9. Re:Dec Alpha by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      I may be asleep here, but am I missing something? My 533 MHz 164 Alpha runs Red Hat 7.3 perfectly. X, KDE, Gnome, gimp, xfig, LaTeX, ... (of course, sendmail, apache, etc.) anything I have tried to use works. OK, I have not tried cups yet. (I don't recall what kind of video card I have - sorry.)

    10. Re:Dec Alpha by Schifter · · Score: 1

      I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm pretty damn sure there isn't an x11 driver for that card.

      Also, I'm not sure about the PC164 board, but some other PCI Alpha systems are very particular about the display boards you can use in them. The only board I can guarantee will work, and has an x11 driver, is a #9 GXE64Pro, which were sold new with Alphas at one point in the mid-nineties. You should be able to check around and find some other boards that will work, as the #9 board is probably very difficult to find, and, of course, has no 3D acceleration.

      The video board you have is an Evans & Sutherland (previously Accelgraphics) with a Mitsubishi 3DPro chipset. A similar board was sold by Diamond Multimedia (FireGL 4000). The cards are often available on ebay in the $15 to $50 range.

  46. Re:it is sad-Frozen dreams. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those engineers who like to reminess here's some Alpha documentation to wander through.

  47. Re:First Post by Peterus7 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    What is the craze with first posts and stuff? *sigh*

    Hmm... So, what do animals of each species have to pay half a million bucks to get their genome imprinted on a limited edition cd-r? Hmm, they should advertise that in the rainforest...

  48. Re:What's the point? by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    Q3 2002 results are in: "IBM was the star of the quarter" quoted here

    The computerworld article goes on to say of total server market for Q3
    IBM 32%
    HP 24.5%
    Dell 7.7%
    Sun 12.6%

    Read the article for Intel-based server breakdown, and Unix server breakdown

  49. Re: Limited software for Alpha by inode_buddha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll second that; I have to wonder how many Alphas Cray actually bought, because last I heard they use LOTS of them... Let's not forget that stuff like that is favorite equipment at some large government labs and agencies, mainly for engineering and visualization work.

    --
    C|N>K
  50. Re:What's the point? by christophersaul · · Score: 1

    Yes, I must pop out and tell all those 1000s of customers all over the world to ditch all their Suns and IBMs and invest millions in some unproven chipset that doesn't even properly exist yet. At the same time they really ought to start using an operating system with minimal enterprise features, support, software and scalability.

    However, if in a couple of years they need some cheap, expendable boxes that aren't mission critical - a farm of web server for example, I wouldn't be suprised if they'd choose Linux running on Opterons.

  51. FTC sleeping by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2
    The FTC was sleeping when they allowed HP to acquire it.
    If HP hadn't acquired Compaq, Alpha would still be just as dead. In fact, quite probably more dead. The FTC has screwed up on allowing many acquisitions, but I don't think this was one of them.

    On the other hand, I think HP was incredibly stupid to buy Compaq. What a brilliant plan: "There's no money to be made on commodity PCs, so we'll buy another PC vendor that's in a world of hurt. We'll still lose money on each one, but we'll make it up on volume." I'm pretty sure it's dragging them down, but they can play all sorts of accounting tricks to make it look OK on the books.

    1. Re:FTC sleeping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      'And she also said that quite a lot of people inside the corporation wondered why the senior execs wanted to "shoot itself in the foot" by driving potential Alpha customers to the competition.'

      No, HP never does *that*.

      I miss the old HP, the HP Way and the grand lady of Computation and Instrumentation, which seems more like a corporate raid in progress these days.

      "Invent", arrogant outsiders at the helm and clueless marketing types will never replace the good old-fashioned focus on customer satisfaction, truly exceptional engineering and delivering products that work as intended for years after reaching their support obsolescence. Even so, that did not cause HP to lose sales; it helped generate incremental sales because the products just worked so well.

      Perhaps the HP management needs to revise all the corporate signage again from "Invent" to "Repress".

      Bill and Dave we miss you both.

  52. I don't kow if you are emotionally attached to .. by haggar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..the Alpha CPU, but I'm sure many are attached to Linux. As a small aside, know that RedHat Linux Advanced Server will have an important role in the undoing of the Alpha vs. Itanium II.

    You might be surprised now, but in a couple of months you'll know why I said this.

    --
    Sigged!
  53. good god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why were you running Linux on that thing, especially back in 1994? Its problems are well documented. The Alpha also can real operating systems such as OSF/Digital Unix/Tru64 and OpenVMS, and Windows NT also used to be supported (and I guess BSD also works, but thats almost as bad as linux).

    Just goes to show, there's no such thing as free beer.

  54. Quite wrong by JohnZed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're utterly misinformed on all counts. The best (1ghz, 3MB cache) Itanium2 lists for under $8,000 (see http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/shop.cgi?actio n=Enter&thispage=011003002001_B567007P.shtml&order _id=!ORDERID!) for a quote, or just search for itanium2 pricing). The best current Alpha (1.25 ghz ev68 for the ES45) will cost you $17,000, plus the huge premium that you pay on the server itself. For pricing details, you have to download compaq's crappy alpha configuration utility (http://h18003.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/acu/index.h tml) for Windows.

    Meanwhile, you can check out the SpecFP base of 1019 for the Alpha and 1427 for the Itanium and figure out the price/performance for yourself. If you're more of an integer performance kind of guy, go to SPEC's web page and note that the standard 3.0 ghz Pentium IV (at, what, $750 on a bad day?) beats up the Alpha on integer performance.

    As for partitioning, HP-UX on PA-RISC and AIX on POWER4 both offer far superior (and more mature) dynamic partitioning capabilities and workload management.

    It is also ridiculous to say that POWER processors are a niche market. AIX on POWER has 30% of the unix market while Tru64 on Alpha has a mere 10%, by revenue. The exact same POWER chips are also used in IBM's iSeries (aka AS/400) line, further increasing their penetration.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the EV7 will be a bad processor, but I can't stand it when people malign perfectly fantastic chips (POWER and Itanium) with no information to back up those claims.

    1. Re:Quite wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pentium IV is a 32-bit procesor.. What would its benchmarks shape up to be when dealing with 64 bit integers?

    2. Re:Quite wrong by pmz · · Score: 2

      ...Itanium2 lists for under $8,000...The best current Alpha (1.25 ghz ev68 for the ES45) will cost you $17,000...

      Find me a person who actually pays those prices, and I'll show you a fool. Anyone who knows how to buy hardware doesn't usually buy it from the vendor's on-line store at the vendor's MSRP! High-end salespeople are almost always willing to fudge prices to get a sale--hell, just asking for a quote (especially with the economy now) will make a salesperson piss themselve with joy (oh boy, a potential sale!).

      You really can't know the true price of either the Itanium or the Alpha until you call someone and price out a specific system.

  55. Don't forget Samsung by DABANSHEE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Samsung has full right to manufacture & develop Alphas, no matter what Intel or HP do.

    1. Re:Don't forget Samsung by Eric+Smith · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yeah, too bad they're not doing it.

      Before Samsung, Mitsubishi had an Alpha license. That went nowhere also.

    2. Re:Don't forget Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I will tell you for a fact that they will not do anything what-so-ever with it. I was told straight up that if I had delivered my plan 6 months prior, that they would've jumped on it, but that they'd already signed an agreement with HP to stop fabbing the chip at a pre-determined date. This was about 6 months ago.

  56. A brief history of alphas (and thier troubles) by pantherace · · Score: 5, Informative
    I have been a supporter of alphas for a while. When I got the first alpha I could play on it was highly superior to anything else. (The University had for it's high performance computing a 16-way mips) and several persons got 533MHz alphas, when they were the first chip >500MHz. Originally NT ran on them. It was stable. (Primarily because DEC rewrote most of the important parts themselves for alpha) and fx86! was wonderful-ran x86 code the fastest at the time.

    Then DEC kind of died. They didn't seem to market. The tech was good, but no marketing, and some issues. Before the compaq merger, DEC sold StrongARM, and all it's fabs (aging) to intel, in return Intel was supposed to fab the next generation alpha chips, and was prevented by the FCC/court (or a combination) from aquiring alphas (due to anti-trust, not that that mattered to the DOJ when they did...) Intel did not fab the next generation (21164@smaller process and 21264s) of alphas. They claimed that they couldn't because the chip was too complex. (There is no evidence that they ever did, and this was just before the compaq merger)

    Compaq acquires DEC. It takes it's time, but releases 21264s (fabed mostly by Samsung, and some supposedly by IBM), They branch off the alpha tech to API (Alpha Processor Incorperated) which sets the EV7 (21364 = (21264 core w/improvements + RAMBUS controller) development back. (additionally, MANY alpha engineers were hired by AMD when DEC was merging, and the EV6 bus (and many other tech goodies) were licenced to AMD (Slot A was originally an Alpha slot) for inclusion in Athlons (who still run on an Alpha bus)

    Compaq decides to inhouse the developers again and sets EV7 back more. (EV8 is reportedly mostly on schedule) Then Compaq decides to sell the alpha tech (or much of it) to Intel (DOJ apparently doesn't care about anti-trust at this point) and cancels EV8 (which was reported to include Hyper-threading, multiple cores on a die, Onboard Memory controller (like the ev7) (pretty much every "cool" thing Power4, Intel, and AMD were planning on having.)...and was due out this year) EV7 is phenominally behind schedule. Finally EV7 makes an appearance, or will (asuming the article is accurate) as basically an EV6 core with tweaks and a RAMBUS memory controller onboard the chip (256-bit dual channel, so it actually isn't a POS like many RAMBUS inmplentations. (for comparison some RDRAM implementations have been 16-bit, many currently are still that or 32-bit)

    Now, Alpha is slowly slipping, but currently (aside from Power4) the only chip holding it's own against Intel/AMD. (based on a several year old core at that) The EV7 will be the last generation of alphas, without all of the features the EV8 would have had (and probably the performance crown for a LONG time)

    (compiled from memory, it is 1:30, and post errors/debates as responses)

    1. Re:A brief history of alphas (and thier troubles) by atspink · · Score: 1

      Oh boy, someone writes at least a page of complete crap and get 5: informative??? Having worked on what he is trying to talk about, I can flatly say he doesn't have a clue. I don't think there is even one thing in his post that is correct.

    2. Re:A brief history of alphas (and thier troubles) by jayratch · · Score: 1

      heh.. 'tis the nature of moderation. Moderator points don't grant omniscience, therefore inevitably anything that is long and wordy will be modded up as interesting or informative regardless of content, unless patently obvious as offtopic or troll.

    3. Re:A brief history of alphas (and thier troubles) by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      This pdf document seems to support some of the comments you dismiss. " EV7 (21364 = (21264 core w/improvements + RAMBUS controller" - page 4 of the pdf file. "RAMBUS memory controller onboard the chip (256-bit dual channel, so it actually isn't a POS like many RAMBUS inmplentations" - pages 5-7. Etc. on the hardware. We know "Slot A was originally an Alpha slot" is true. From this German language web page (translated) "A 200 MHz system bus based on the protocol from alpha EV6 processor" supports "(additionally, MANY alpha engineers were hired by AMD when DEC was merging, and the EV6 bus (and many other tech goodies) were licenced to AMD" in the post about which you say "I don't think there is even one thing in his post that is correct."

      I hate to call anyone a troll and some comments in the post might be wrong, but your credibility is pretty low (and yes, I did look at your scores and strong karma is not one of your strengths).

  57. Geek Museum by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Someday there will be a grand museum of clealy superior technology that failed in the market anyhow (CSTTFMA).

    In it you will see the Amiga, OS/2, and the Alpha.

    Hopefully we *won't* also see Linux there :-)

    1. Re:Geek Museum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and Betamax too

    2. Re:Geek Museum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm quite sure that we won't see Linux in such a museum, because there is no superior technology in Linux.Well, maybe superior to DOS, Win3.x, Win 95, 98 but not superior to real operating systems like the commercial unices, BSD, MacOS X or WindowsXP. Linux is only good in copying good technology - developed by others. What will they copy if they killed all the technical superior unices like IRIX, Solaris etc? I really hope they will be a bit more innovative in the future

    3. Re:Geek Museum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someday there will be a grand museum of clealy superior technology that failed in the market ... Hopefully we *won't* also see Linux there

      No you wont see Linux in there, because it's clearly not superior to many other Unix like operating systems.

      AC

    4. Re:Geek Museum by smash · · Score: 2
      Someday there will be a grand museum of clealy superior technology that failed in the market anyhow (CSTTFMA). In it you will see the Amiga, OS/2, and the Alpha. Hopefully we *won't* also see Linux there :-)
      Well you damn well won't see windows there, thats for sure :P

      smash.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    5. Re:Geek Museum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. can you IMAGINE the licensing costs for the exhibit??? ;p

  58. rollickingly??? by wakeboard · · Score: 1

    rollickingly? I had to look that one up, but its still used in the wrong context

  59. Re:What's the point? by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1
    Dim! Consernation! Uproar!

    (reference to a Inspector Dim of the Yard, from a Monty Python sketch)

  60. end of line already announced by DZign · · Score: 3, Informative
    If I remember correct about 2 months ago HP announced the end of life for the Alpha
    (in about 2-3 years I believe).


    So what does this news mean ? Just trying to sell
    some more alphas ? How long will they support this system ?

    1. Re:end of line already announced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So what does this news mean ?

      Presuming you mean the news about good EV7 performance, it means Compaq was correct when they decided to continue with EV7 even though in the longer term they will be moving VMS to Itanium.

      Just trying to sell some more alphas ?

      The goal is to have VMS on the fastest possible system. The plan was that that would be EV7 for a while, until Itanium catches up.

      How long will they support this system ?

      Their standard is that they will support a system for at least five years after they stop selling it. They say they will continue to sell Alpha as long as there is a demand, but at least until 2006. If customers keep buying new Alphas (likely until Itanium catches up), they will sell the new ones. As for the 5 year support after sales end, that might be a bit misleading, as they still support machines sold 20 years ago (although at a steep price).

      If it is not obvious, some of us have been following this rather closely :-)

  61. Re:Quite wrong^2 by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I were to believe that everything was as simple as you make it, my conclusion would be that I need an Itanium 2 + Pentium IV + PA-RISC or POWER4 to have an overall better machine than an Alpha Server. Is that what you meant? Incidently, the reason the Alpha 21264 has 3 integer units (providing integer scores that dominate Itanic integer scores) is to keep the 2 fp units fed. I'm not an expert on the Itanic architecture, but I'm led to wonder if the Itanic integer units are capable of providing all of the array indexing and loop-counting chores needed for many floating-point numerical anaylysis algorithms. I'd really like to know an answer to this, since the Itanic appears so unbalanced when looking at SPEC scores alone.

    Furthermore, you're comparing prices on processor cards for different systems using full retail price. Have you ever bought this kind of equipment? I know I've never paid full retail price when I have. And you don't need to use Compaq's pricing utility -- just get the model number and search with google like you probably did for th Itanic board. Unfortunately, for the cpu board (KN610-EB) you're describing, there aren't many links. Another problem is that the price you quote for the Alpha board includes additional cpu licenses for Tru64 (for the KN610-EB) or VMS (not sure -- KN610-EC?). I don't see anything at the link you provide which states that the price includes a Windows or HP-UX license (and don't kid yourself, you'll need a license).

    It's not clear why you mention the 3MB cache on the Itanium. The EV67 boards (KN610-BA, for instance) for the ES40 Model II (which is old) have 8MB cache, and the EV68 board (KN610-EB, for instance) have 16MB of cache (note that these are the big L3 caches for Alphas, not on-chip like I think the Itanium is). Also, it's not clear to me that the processor boards include the same functional components -- do you know that they do (you already seem to have missed the OS license issue)?

    You haven't provided the price for the systems, nor stated their default configurations. This is certainly important when making a comparison. You'll also want to compare memory prices, since ram for these servers sometimes has a special form factor and costs a bundle. Again, never use list prices for any of this stuff, as you can occasionally halve the price with a bit of negotiation. That goes for cars and good office chairs, too.

    -Paul Komarek

  62. SPEC CPU2000 by Luminous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    CINT2000 and CFP2000 results from the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation website.

    AlphaServer ES45
    1250 MHz
    SPECint2000 = 928
    SPECint_base2000 = 845
    SPECfp2000 = 1365
    SPECfp_base2000 = 1019

    CINT2000
    CFP2000

    HP server rx5670 (Itanium 2)
    1000 MHz
    SPECint2000 = N/A
    SPECint_base2000 = 807
    SPECfp2000 = 1431
    SPECfp_base2000 = 1431

    CINT2000
    CFP2000

    Dell Precision WorkStation 530 (Xeon)
    2800 MHz
    SPECint2000 = 957
    SPECint_base2000 = 921
    SPECfp2000 = 887
    SPECfp_base2000 = 878

    CINT2000
    CFP2000

    1. Re:SPEC CPU2000 by Luminous+Coward · · Score: 1

      The 3.06 GHz Hyper-Threaded Pentium 4 performs even better than the Xeon I listed.

      Dell Precision WorkStation 350 (Pentium 4)
      3067 GHz
      SPECint2000 = 1130
      SPECint_base2000 = 1085
      SPECfp2000 = 1103
      SPECfp_base2000 = 1092

      CINT2000
      CFP2000

  63. The FTC Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Man, just how useless is the FTC? They allow merger after merger and what does it accomplish? Less competition, less jobs, and higher prices.

    My cable bill reflects this, as I am now paying more because AT&T bought Media One. I'm sure that I will see another hike now that Comcast has purchased AT&T's cable unit. I'm tired of funding the mergers of these asshole corporations.

    We're going to hell in a hand basket.

    1. Re:The FTC Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not delude yourself into thinking that the merger is killing the Alpha technology. Compaq already publicly announced that it was phasing out the alpha in favor fo the Itanium. There were many years of phase-out, but it was going to happen. HP for its part had indicated that it wanted to phase-out PA-RISC in favor of Itanium (they have vested some of their technology into it).

      So without the merger, the plan was to ditch the alpha technology in favor of Itanium. With the merger the plan remained intact. The only difference is that instead of having two companies use the Itanium to replace their existing workstations, one big company will.

    2. Re:The FTC Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your cable bill is going to be increased. That you can count on.

  64. LOL by rve · · Score: 2

    I think Red Hat is a couple of orders of magnitiude too small for that :)

    There is a reason why there are only about half a dozen companies in the world that can afford to develop high end CPUs

  65. Official from HP: Alpha *SUCKS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    proof

    "Itanium arch has 40% fewer memory ops and 30% fewer branches than Alpha"

    stupid, stupid slashdot fuckers. it's people like you who are ruining the US economy. well, keep it up, i'm not a dumb yankee!

    i do feel sorry for the 0.01% of americans with their brains switched on, though :(

  66. Re: Limited software for Alpha by lobsterGun · · Score: 1
    Were it not for the following simple reasons, I'd mod you down:
    1. I don't have any mod points.
    2. there is no moderation option for 'the truth hurts'


    I jest.

    I used to mod down posts like the one you were talking about. But apparently the meta-masses didn't like my style and I don't get mod points any more. I still meta-mod, and mods like the ones you refer to get rated appropriatly, but its like trying to hold back the ocean.

    My Advice: Go read kuro5hin.org. It's like slashdot, but brainier.
  67. Apple, obviously... by alispguru · · Score: 2

    Imagine how fast OS X would be if it were ported to Alpha! Apple could dump Motorola, annoy IBM and its installed base, and continue a tradition of adopting elegant hardware and staying with it until it marginalized itself in the marketplace!

    Just in case anyone was unclear on the above... ;-)

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
    1. Re:Apple, obviously... by ScubaS · · Score: 1

      well, if FreeBSD is ported to Alpha, they don't have much to do in terms of porting.

    2. Re:Apple, obviously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but annoying your userbase and developerbase by making them lose backward compatiblity (or writing an AWESOME Motorolla System Emulator in Software), and recompile/develop/troubleshoot for an entirely new platform doesn seem like a smart idea, esp considering the number of programs still needing porting to OSX.

  68. Picking a few nits... by glenmark · · Score: 2
    It's built on Alpha EV78 processors connected by a switched fabric and promises blazing performance.

    EV78? Not likely. I seriously doubt that EV8 has even taped out yet. Marvel servers are powered by EV7 processors. EV78 will be a die-shrink version of the EV7 (don't recall the timeline for its appearance - probably about a year and a half).

    --
    *** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
    1. Re:Picking a few nits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      EV8 will never tape out. And the die shrink is EV79. EV79 is well beyond tape out.

    2. Re:Picking a few nits... by glenmark · · Score: 2
      EV8 will never tape out. And the die shrink is EV79. EV79 is well beyond tape out.

      The reference to EV8 was a typo on my part. Meant to say EV78. (Of course, EV8 will live on in a forthcoming iteration of IA64. I'm sure that the folks at Intel were quite pleased to get there hands on Alpha technologies and engineers, given that their own staff can't seem to build a decent 64-bit processor to save their lives.)

      Just did some digging on HPaq's website and found references to EV79. I supposed they changed nomenclature somewhere along the line and I missed it. (Are you sure that EV79 has taped out? Seems early.)

      Anyway, my original point remains: Marvel runs on EV7, not EV78 as indicated in the original posting.

      --
      *** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
    3. Re:Picking a few nits... by trilliwig · · Score: 1

      EV79 = EV7 microarchitecture on the CMOS9 process. Historically the numbers have matched up on each new generation. EV6 came out on the CMOS6 process; the shrink EV67 was on the CMOS7 process. However, so much time passed between EV6 and EV7 that EV7 is actually on the CMOS8 process, with the shrink EV79 on the CMOS9 process. So the usage of the term EV78, while a bit odd, is not really incorrect.

    4. Re:Picking a few nits... by glenmark · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks for the clarification...

      --
      *** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
  69. HP's treatment of the Alpha is suicide. by emil · · Score: 2

    I might have been convinced to support the merger if Carly Fiorina had publicly committed to producing EV8 because it was the right thing to do for DEC customers.

    Because this was not done, HP proves that they have little to no interest in their customers in general, and the merger was undertaken to inflate Carly's bonus.

  70. Re: Limited software for Alpha [OT] by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 2

    Then there are those who get moderated up by plagiarizing...

  71. Alpha speed history? by irritating+environme · · Score: 0, Troll

    Anyone got any measurements on the last publicly tested Alpha?

    And while we're at it, back in the days of Comp Sci undergrad circa 1993 or 1994 and 66MHz 486s, there was a prototype Alpha running at 333Mhz, a jaw-dropping figure at the time. I doubt Intel even had a 150Mhz prototype at the time.

    Pure RISC processors should be able to run at high megahertz advantages since their simplified instruction set lacks a microcode decode step and doesn't have quite as many multicycle instructions, should be able to more easily do branch prediction, etc. But at some point RISC MHz fell well behind the CISC behemoths of AMD and Intel. Anyone know why this really isn't the case anymore?

    Yes, I *KNOW* MHz doesn't necessarily mean faster, read the fact I'm a CS major above. But my question is why the simplified architectures of RISC chips no longer produce a brute MHz advantage over the CISC chips. I didn't get an answer for this last time in the MIPS story(the moronic moderator Trolled me, my only troll on my record).

    --


    Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
    1. Re:Alpha speed history? by Kourino · · Score: 1

      Heh, the mod trolled you again.

      I recall reading something about the Alpha architecture that made it difficult to extend it past 1 GHz at the time. I'll see if i can dig it up again and post it.

  72. insightful? by small_dick · · Score: 2

    And how does someone who uses the word "BOOM" to make a point get modded up as "Insightful"?

    --


    Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
    See my user info for links.
    1. Re:insightful? by Oswald · · Score: 1

      So you see my point.

  73. Here is my Alpha running Debian .. by UltraWide · · Score: 1

    A tribute to Alpha ..

    I have worked with both VAX and Alpha since 94 and have been an employee of Digital Equipment Coorp
    I think it is sad that the EV8 did not make it out of the lab .. it was an architecture that made a grown man cry ..

    I managed to get an Alpha when I left for another company and here is the bootlog =)

    ea.e9.f4.e8.e7.e6.e5.e4.
    Digital AlphaStation 500/266 Console V7.0-10
    built on Mar 17 1999 at 19:01:03

    CPU 0 booting

    (boot dka0.0.0.9.0 -flags 0)
    block 0 of dka0.0.0.9.0 is a valid boot block
    reading 165 blocks from dka0.0.0.9.0
    bootstrap code read in
    base = 156000, image_start = 0, image_bytes = 14a00
    initializing HWRPB at 2000
    initializing page table at 148000
    initializing machine state
    setting affinity to the primary CPU
    jumping to bootstrap code
    aboot: Linux/Alpha SRM bootloader version 0.7
    aboot: switching to OSF/1 PALcode version 1.22
    aboot: booting from device 'SCSI 0 9 0 0 0 0 0'
    aboot: valid disklabel found: 3 partitions.
    aboot: loading uncompressed vmlinuz...
    aboot: loading compressed vmlinuz...
    aboot: segment 0, 2824888 bytes at 0xfffffc0000310000
    aboot: zero-filling 249560 bytes at fffffc00005c1ab8
    aboot: starting kernel vmlinuz with arguments ro root=/dev/sda1 console=ttyS0
    Linux version 2.2.18pre21 (root@faure) (gcc version 2.95.2 20000220 (Debian GNU/Linux)) #1 Wed Nov 22 05:08:09 CST 2000
    Booting GENERIC on Alcor variation Alcor using machine vector Alcor from SRM
    .
    .
    .

    --
    I really HAD another userid .. I promise!
    1. Re:Here is my Alpha running Debian .. by Kourino · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why, but it makes me happy to see that :)

      I just got my first Alpha about a month ago, used on Ebay. A 533 MHz EV56 that'll take up to a gig of RAM. It now runs Debian 3. SRM, I love it. The EFI+ELILO on Itanium is finally at the same stage. I'm determined not to make this my last EV* machine. It must've been a great ride, working for DEC with Alpha ...

      I'm still convinced that someone should start a movement to bring back the Alpha, and make it huge and unignorable. Sigh. ;_;

  74. Re:Quite wrong^2 by JohnZed · · Score: 2

    Actually, I was suggesting that you should look at your problem domain and realize that you can trash the alpha's price/performance and raw performance for either float-intensive or integer-intensive calculations.

  75. Re:Quite wrong^2 by JohnZed · · Score: 2

    Oops, mod that down, please, I hit submit by accident. I wanted to mention that the Itanium2 actually has 4 integer units, so it's not a simple FP/integer imbalance that leads to its disappointing integer performance. Rather, the IA-64 instruction set relies on the compiler to detect parallelism and present it explicitly to the processor (EPIC = explicitly parallel instruction computing). The scientific-type codes used in specFP are easier to analyze and parallelize than those in specINT. The compiler makes an incredible difference in IA-64, and as these mature, the architecture will dramatically improve its performance. Look at the jump from 1170 to 1430 in sepcFP when switching from HP's (fairly good) compiler to Intel's (very good) one.

    We shouldn't imagine that IA-64 is just for float, however. If you look at real, commercial software benchmarks (like http://sap.com/benchmark), you can see that a 4-way Itanium 1 ghz handily beats a 4-way 1 ghz Alpha (no scores posted for newer Alphas) on the SAP benchmark, which is certainly not floating point code.

    As for retail pricing, I agree that people don't pay full price. However, they're likely to get similar discounts from both intel/hp and alpha/hp, so this is irrelevant. Knock 30% of each price in your head if you want.

    Still, my original point stands. If you have primarily integer/commercial code, IA-32 provides superior price performance over the Alpha. If you have primarily float/scientific code, IA-64 provides superior price/performance over the Alpha.

  76. Re:Quite wrong^2 by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

    I guess that's why I responded. The Alpha primary market has been research, though Compaq tried to make noise about its server potential. As a researcher that does a lot of computation, I have no code that ignores half of my cpu. Thats why I like the Alpha, and why our lab group is stunned by the way a 667MHz Alpha performs as well as a P-IV at double or nearly triple the speed.

    Big caches, big bandwidth, big memory (which is the real reason we're using them), and well-designed for numerical codes. I'm happy to defend the Alpha for the "corner" of the research market it does best -- numerical and statistical code. The only people I've met who argue performance/dollar for the Itanium got their Itanium for free.

    -Paul Komarek

  77. Re: Limited software for Alpha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And whining about moderation gives you +4 insightful.

    Sheesh.

    Give Taco and the crew a break, will ya?

  78. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In the cited article we find these two gems at the bottom:

    HP led all vendors with 337,084 servers shipped during the quarter. Dell moved 214,847, IBM shipped 161,190, and Sun shipped 61,457.

    IBM, however, led in revenue, with $3.4 billion. HP followed with $2.6 billion. Sun sold $1.3 billion, and Dell rounded out the top four vendors, with $814 million.

    Translation for the MBA impaired: HP offers the best and most popular computers at the lowest price in the industry. If you want the biggest bang/$$ go HP not IBM.

  79. Reflections on Hardware. by oconnorcjo · · Score: 2

    I have read most of the the major threads on this article and they essentially revolve around the idea that Alpha cpu's are so damn fast and reliable and it is a shame that it will die. It is hard for me to sympathize when my 900 Mhz AMD machine can run everything I need (and a whole lot more). When my AMD machine's CPU is more powerful than any Mainframe sold in the 80's, I just can't get all that excited about a really well designed CPU that is dying. Sure some things need more horse power and if it is important, they can buy rediculously expensive hardware to give them the cycles but the day is nearing when cycles and hardware mean less and less and application compatibility, support, and price mean everything.

    --
    I miss the Karma Whores.
  80. Nice Chip... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But irrelevant if they don't make it consumable by the masses. Hell, even the elite won't be able to get their hands on one.

  81. anti-trust by EelBait · · Score: 1

    HP has stated that PA-RISC will be replaced by Itanic no matter how bad that chip performs. And, after acquiring Alpha while gobbling up Compaq, we all know that chip is dead. So, in the RISC world all that is left is Sun Sparc and IBM PowerPC/POWER chips. I really liked the Alpha, but I'm really starting to like the POWER4 chip.

  82. PowerPC 970 Cometh by tjstork · · Score: 1


    I always wanted an Alpha but could never afford one. Instead, I'll have to hope that Apple does the smart thing and puts a 64 bit PowerPC 970 into a next generation of desktop Macs. 64 bits is something every consumer would want.

    --
    This is my sig.
  83. MODERATORS ON CRACK!!! by AnonymousCowheard · · Score: 1


    Can you moderators understand that you are degrading slashdot by slandering legitimate questions?

    This is a good question that was modded down as troll:

    [WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CLOCK AND PERFORMANCE SCALABILITY OF RISC DESIGN]?

    Why do all the moderators become employed to prevent actual trolls and by the concept of moderation the moderators become trolls themselves?

    You few moderators that received mod-points, be warned because your actions are cosmic events that will NEVER be erased!

    --

    But I'm sure you already Gnu that.
    1. Re:MODERATORS ON CRACK!!! by irritating+environme · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Man.

      My previous attempt at this question on the new 700Mhz MIPS chip was a Score -1 Troll, as opposed to this Score 0 Troll.

      I think the moderators are all bitter, bitter Apple fanatics.

      --


      Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
  84. Oracle RDB != Oracle by lukme · · Score: 1

    Digital's relational database (RDB) was sold to oracle hence Oracle RDB. It is different in some relatively major ways. I don't believe that oracle is activly working on developing Oracle RDB, and I don't believe there is a port in progress to run the latest version of oracle on VMS. If you really want to see how well oracle supports Oracle RDB, try to find it in oracle's technet (http://technet.oracle.com).

    1. Re:Oracle RDB != Oracle by jpetts · · Score: 2

      Digital's relational database (RDB) was sold to oracle hence Oracle RDB

      That's correct. But I was talking about Oracle server, NOT Rdb.

      We used to run Rdb when it was a DEC product, but migrated to Oracle 7 Server when Oracle purchased Rdb as Oracle clearly wanted Rdb dead (their pricing showed that). However, Oracle Server still runs very nicely on Alpha/OpenVMS.

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    2. Re:Oracle RDB != Oracle by mulp · · Score: 1

      The latest version of Oracle database was submitted for release just before the past holiday and it includes a higher percentage of the Oracle software package than has been release for some time. Don't know the status of Oracle RDB but that is also continuing to be developed with increasing interoperability with other Oracle software. The Oracle RDB engineers continue to have close contact with active customers. Oracle is still driven by the profit motive and it knows that the only way to keep the dollars coming in from those VMS customers is to deliver updated product and services to them. Something that DEC, Compaq, and HP have largely ignored and its been reflected in their horrid bottom lines.

  85. Cool - Actual numbers, not just fond memories :-) by billstewart · · Score: 2

    Interesting that both the 1GHz Itanium2 and the 1250 MHz Alpha are similar in speed to the 2800MHz Xeon (a bit slower integer, a good bit faster floating point), with less than half the clock rate.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  86. HP's involvement by John+Bayko · · Score: 2, Informative
    Do you have any evidence that HP was more involved in the design of IA-64 than Intel?
    This is what the Great Microprocessors List has to say about it:
    The design itself came from designers at HP who estimated in 1992 that complexity would prohibit more than 4-way issue PA-RISC designs. Also, HP had just bought Cydrome which had experience in designing VLIW systems, and engineers from VLIW producer Multiflow,. The decision was made that the PA-RISC would be replaced with a VLIW initially called SP-PA (Super Parallel Precision Architecture) or PA-WW (Precision Architecture-Wide Word). Intel, which had started fabricating PA-RISC CPUs for HP, was approached as a development partner to share the cost and increase its popularity.
  87. revenge of the old time deccies.... by mulp · · Score: 1
    marvel was already in the works before the HpaQ merger, and it would really make little sense to take a chip all the way to fab w/o at least running SOME of them to try and recoup some cost.
    Actually, its the "revenge of the old time deccies" - Jesse Lipcon, et al, managed to sell EV7 to the Feds on a contract with sizable penalties for failing to deliver. HP can't afford to not deliver Marvel because they would end up being blacklisted on future contracts. [Jesse resigned soon after.]