Slashdot Mirror
Itanium Will Only Be Partly Supported by Longhorn
ver.sicher.ungsvergleich writes "Although stopping short of pulling the plug entirely on Itanium, MS has said that Longhorn will only be able to work for a limited number of higher-end jobs. On the positive side, Microsoft does see a future for the chip, but that 'big iron' slot is not exactly what Chipzilla envisioned as Itanium's future."
Longhorn will run three types of higher-end tasks on Itanium including databases, custom jobs and CRM. However it will not be able to do fax server, Windows Media Services, Windows SharePoint Services, file and print servers, and others.
Looks like Vista Home Edition to me.
When were the software makers first allowed to abnormally cut features based on arbitrary critera? It's a real shame.
gtkaml.org
Yeah, there are a lot of reasons. These are a few that come to mind: The Itanium was/is incredibly expensive. Too many programmers are incredibly lazy and would have to do more work. Compilers took a little while to get up to speed with IA64. Linux was the only platform that ran on it natively at release.
I would've preferred IA64 to the AMD hybrid. I also hate the stupidity that is the x86 architecture and would love to see it die. Then again, I'd also love to see IDE/SATA die and have the industry come up with a better standard; we could call it SCSI. It's be nice to use standard bus interfaces, too. We could drop PCIe and use PCI-X, instead, and be compatible with all our old PCI and PCI-X cards.
The x86 world seems to always choose the wrong answer when presented with a problem.
What can you do, though. "x86: the worst of *all* worlds."
Thank you for the clarification. I agree, calling it Mac OS X Intel is far clearer. And it doesn't make you look like a complete cock.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I seem to recall Microsoft making the same announcement that Longhorn will not fully support the 486 when the 486 came out.
Anyway, I'm sure that the Itanium will be obsolete by the time Longhorn comes out. . .