Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Bites It On 64-bit Microprocessors
Lots of readers pointed us to this Microsoft.com page that says MS has stopped trying to make NT run on 64-bit Alphas and isn't even going to release any new 32-bit Alpha products. For more info on the subject, check this Netcape Netcenter article and the Ixnay WinNT on Alphastory we ran last Friday. Meanwhile, according to a short blurb in The Register, Intel has finally prototyped Merced in silicon - and it runs Linux fine but won't run Win64 at all. It looks like Microsoft simply can't deal with 64-bit architecture. Please try not to say "I told you so" too loudly to your MS-boosting coworkers, okay? ;-)
That's a benefit for Microsoft and their "key partners.
It will be interesting to see how many of their 'key partners' Microsoft will stab in the back this time. Somehow transitions like this seem to benefit Microsoft much more than any of their partners.
Everyone must buy new apps. Everyone will want to have "64bit clean" systems.
It depends on how long it takes for people to upgrade. If its like the last time that the PC industry went through this (the transition from 286 to 386), it was both good and bad for vendors. It is hard to say at this point if this transition will be easier or harder, and if people on the desktop side will see the upgrade as compelling. On the server side, it is hard to imagine people won't, but they may be resistant to have mismatched client and server hardware. At the time of the 286->386 migration there was a lot smaller entrenched base of existing machines.
It will generate years and years of gluttony; several OS revisions and all-new-everything.
That is certainly what Microsoft would like to see happen. Time will tell if it does.
And then when it's all said-and-done nothing will have changed -- everything will look the same and performance will be back to what you'd expect.
If everything goes as Microsoft plans, this is probably true. However, if things don't go Microsoft's way, who knows.
As many companies as have just spent considerable sums on Y2K related upgrades, etc., it will be interesting to see how receptive they are to paying for upgrades to W2K, let alone to upgrade desktop hardware to 64 bit.
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 386
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows for Workgroups
Windows 95
Windows 95A
Windows 95B
Windows 95 OSR 2
Windows 95 OSR 2.1
Windows 95 OSR 2.5
Windows 98 (8 versions, currently)
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.1 Advanced Server
Windows NT 3.51 Workstation
Windoes NT 3.51 Server
Windows NT 4.0 Workstation
Windows NT 4.0 Server
Windows NT 4.0 Server Enterprise Edition
(Not to mention all the service packs for the above...)
I'm sure I missed some. Does anybody have a canonical list of all the versions of Windows?
I almost did when I wrote my original post, but I didn't want to get too verbose.
My understanding is that BeOS is genuinely a completely new kernel, designed from the ground up for use with multiple processors. I don't think the Be thread/process system owes much to Unix.
Be's window system is brand new and owes nothing to X-Windows. In terms of speed, this is a major advantage - the system definitely has a much crisper, zippier feeling than any other OS. The disadvantage, of course, is that it starts from ground zero in applications - X applications are not compatible without an X compatibility layer (which does exist; I don't know about its performance).
However, I believe Be is posix compliant, and it definitely supports many (but not all) of the usual Gnu utilities. I would guess that porting is not too difficult for non-GUI applications. I believe GTK+ is in beta for Be, and that should make it trivial to port GTK+-based applications.
D
----
Because when push comes to shove, if Compaq wanted to crank out 200,000 desktop machines next quarter, they'd have no problem obtaining 200,000 intel CPUs and motherboards, but no hope of finding that many Alpha CPUs and motherboards.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well, there was a Windows 286 (I still have the box around somewhere), but perhaps you typo'd that for Windows 386. And I'm not sure whether Win95B wasn't just another name for Win95 OSR2. (OBTW, there's also a Win 95C, which added some USB support to Win 95B).
...
Then there are all the beta versions floating around. (I ran W95 beta for about six months after W95 was released, I couln't be bothered doing the upgrade, and besides I was usually booting to Linux instead.)
Then of course there is (or I should say, was) Win NT for Alpha, Win NT for MIPS, Win NT for PowerPC,
-- Alastair
I don't know what the size difference is, but apparently it was enough that Linus figured that ia64 binaries would be slower than ia32 binaries(note: that ia64 and ia32 are completely different instruction sets, it's not just 64 vs 32 bits). We'll see when the chip is released. Also, I'm guessing here, but ia64 binaries will probally take a lot more time to compile because VLIW apparently requires a lot more compiler work.
-matt
Merced is a funny creature. It supports two different instruction sets. One is the x86 (or now ia32) instruction set in use on most PCs today. The other is the ia64 instruction set. ia64 is 64bit, while ia32 is 32bit, but there are a whole slew of other differences. ia64 is also VLIW. I have no clue what this means but apparently it requires quite a bit of compiler voodoo and will result in extremely large binaries. IIRC there is a mode switch involved to go from ia32 to ia64, but I don't remember how long it takes. It's probally very similar to switching from real mode to protected mode on an x86 cpu, which IIRC is very expensive.
-matt
In the press on this topic, Compaq was quoted as saying that only 5% of their Alphas went out as NT systems.
Actually, the figure I saw was 2%.
Furthermore, MS is still using Alpha as the development system for 64-bit W2k; they just apparently won't be polishing it, marketing it, etc.
Now, this seems pretty darn stupid of Compaq to me to discontinue plans to market 64-bit NT. Yeah, yeah, 2%--why bother, right? Thing is, that 2% refers to running a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit CPU. If you were going to the expense of buying an Alpha, why hinder it with an OS that doesn't take advantage of its architecture? Hence the 2% figure makes a lot of sense.
But now that Intel is coming out with a 64-bit chip, well, Microsoft decides that's important enough to warrant a 64-bit OS...and this is the time Compaq chooses to pull the plug on Alpha NT?? Huh???
Especially since, according to all reports, by the time Merced is finally released (Q2 next year? Q3??), the Alpha's going to be walloping it. By the middle of next year, the roadmaps I've seen have the 21264's hitting well over a GHz...I think I've even seen 1.4 tossed around (but it was prolly at The Register, so, grain of salt). More importantly, benchmark roadmaps (these, I remember, were leaked from Compaq, so more salt) have a 1GHz Alpha beating an 800MHz Merced by ~40-50% (SPECint, IIRC).
So what's up???
Two theories. Wait, make that three (er, four):
1. Compaq's stated reason: they want to revitalize Tru64, and support Linux. Plus, no demand for NT Alpha. Possible...but I dunno. Tru64 seems to be a losing battle as a long term strategy; it's faster than Linux on Alphas now, but a few years down the road?? Seems smarter to go the sgi route, let your proprietary UNIX die, and let Linux sell your boxes. As for the lack of demand for 32-bit Alpha, see above. I think once it was 64-bit, people would buy. An appropriately high end Alpha box'd kick the hell out of an 8-way Xeon box on NT, and prolly a 16-Athlon as well.
2. Merced NT doesn't have much in common with Alpha NT, so MS doesn't want to spend time on it. Here, I pretty much have little idea what I'm talking about, but it would make sense to me if programming for a VLIW chip is just too different from programming for anything else. Cause VLIW is waaay different--far more different from existing architectures than CISC is from RISC, at least the way "CISC" and "RISC" chips are made these days. So perhaps the whole, "we're making a 64-bit OS anyways, why not port to Alpha?" idea doesn't actually work. On the other hand, most VLIW issues seem to occur in the compiler...and they're still using Alpha as the development chip for 64-bit W2k. So...
3. Maybe Merced'll be faster than we thought. This is my conspiracy theory of the day, and you have to understand that I've been pretty disappointed by Intel tech lately, so it's taking quite a bit for me to say this. But still...I mean, even if they didn't count on selling many Alphas for NT, don't you think Compaq would love to be able to claim how their much cheaper (and they will be) Alphas kicked the tar out of those new Merceds in a fair fight with the same OS?? (Note: yeah, it wouldn't actually be fair...but it'd sure look that way.) So either Compaq got wind of the fact that Merced won't be slower after all...or perhaps they realized MS wouldn't do what it takes to make the 64-bit Alpha W2k compete with the Merced W2k...or perhaps...
4! Intel paid 'em off!! Ok, this is too fun to pass up. Essentially this goes like, Intel's just spent, what, 3 or 4 years now on a laughingstock of an overpriced chip (yes, I have no doubt that eventually IA64 will be amazing...but not on Merced), and they desperately want to avoid any controlled comparisons. So they politely ask Compaq and MS to stop development on 64-bit NT for Alpha. Besides, Compaq'll be selling their share of Merced boxes, so they've got as much to lose as anyone.
Pretty spooky, huh!!
One of us has misread the articles. From what I've read, Compaq will still happily sell you a fully support Alpha system.
You just have to run Linux on it. Compaq simply performed a cost-benefit analysis on continued support for NT/Alpha under the current terms from Micros~1, and decided it wasn't worth it. (E.g., to cover their costs they would have to raise their prices to the point where people would buy Intel systems, and since that reduced the user base they would have to raise the prices even higher, in a viscious death spiral.)
Had Micros~1 agreed to pick up more of the development and support costs, to develop the market, Compaq might have reversed itself. But Micros~1 has apparently decided to tie its fortune to the Pentium chip. (Not Intel, until they have a working 64-bit system. Pentium.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Goody suggested:
Get someone like the people who make VMWare to get Win9* to run on Alpha and start packaging RedHat on Alpha machines.
VMWare? Why bother? Compaq now owns the original translate-on-the-fly Windows emulator, DEC's excellent FX!32. All others are pale imitations.
The trouble is that DEC had a sever case of craniorectal insertion (I know, I worked with them on two horribly mismanaged Alpha projects.) To this day Compaq tries to charge more for DEC Unix than a high-end workstation hardware costs. They just don't grasp the importance of GIVING AWAY the FX!32 software as the only way to bootstrap their hardware sales.
Tragedy. In the Greek sense.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Hasn't Linux been 64-bit ready for years now?
The idea that they could take Windows 2000 (or any other version of Windows) and simply compile it to work on the 64-bit Alpha, or Merced processors was always going to be a joke.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Microsofts products are too fragmented and they don't have any development roadmap for the future :)
MS hasn't run Win64's source through their Code-Bloat Wizard 2000(tm) yet.
It's that simple.
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
What happened to "NT is extremely portable." In theory, the only hardware specific component is supposed to be HAL.DLL. The rest of the NT code base is supposed to be highly portable C code. By replacing HAL.DLL and recompiling the rest of the system, it was supposed to be possible to port NT to whatever in a matter of weeks. Why did compaq need an NT development team in the first place? Why did NT powerPC collapse when IBM withdrew funding? I refuse to believe that MS doesn't know how to write architecture neutral code - that's just too far fetched. I'm thinking that it's due to lightning storms.
--Shoeboy
The way Microsoft phrase it, it's all Compaq's fault for "terminating Alpha support for current versions of Windows NT". As if Microsoft were helpless in front of Compaq's refusal to let them port their operating system!
Linux, as everyone here knows, ran on Alpha machines (as well as x86 and 68000) long before it could get acknowledgement of its existence from the processor manufacturers, let alone substantial help in making it happen. It was done in the usual way: get the specs of the hardware, and code to them. What is it that's so difficult about this process that Microsoft needs Compaq to hold its hand before it can think about it?
Microsoft don't expect ever to have to act like a software firm. You don't write code for other people's hardware - you graciously allow the hardware manufacturer to write code for you. Compaq have started to smell the independence from this kind of treatment that Linux gives them, and soon Microsoft will find out what that means for them.
Revenge is gonna be so sweet.
--
Xenu loves you!
As for the Merced announcement, I have to plead ignorance. Is this really late enough in the game to signify big trouble for MS? Or is it a normal kind of problem we should be expecting here? (I guess I'm assuming the two aren't mutually exclusive...)
The NT concept of a hardware abstraction layer that marshalled calls to the underlying system was fundamental in making NT stable. This is why NT3.51 was very stable. However, it also made many things slow, most noticably the grraphics side of things. With NT the GUI is not optional, so this poor performance was always noticable. To improve performance, graphics operations were allowed to bypass the HAL in NT4.0. This is why NT4.0 outperforms NT3.51, but is very unstable.
I don't know whether any other userland stuff was allowed direct hardware access, as I quit using NT after 3.51.
Chris Wareham
Remember Access 1.0? Remember Windows 1.0? /*much better than their predecessors*/, so the strategy worked. But I guess you just can't pull that crap with a whole new arch. Especially with Linux on the horizon - it's nice to know that 'the people have voted', and 64 bits on the desktop will be a reality, sans M$.
Products that claimed to work - that sometimes worked - just enough to get a few people to buy into the concept, and fund development of another version. Granted, Access 97 and Windows 4.0 work
Now, about that 'chasing tail-lights' thing...
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
This document somehow leaked out of compaq - darn pesky email ... enjoy the "official" compaq position .. indaba...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxXXXXXXXXXXXX
Here is part of the communication package around Alpha NT.
No more NT4 on Alpha past SP6.
No 32 bit Win2000 on Alpha.
No 64 bit Win2000 on Alpha.
Alpha is purely for Tru64 Unix, OpenVMS and Linux.
Windows NT Alpha Strategy Q & A Version 1 - 25 Aug 99
General Questions:
Q. Exactly what has Compaq changed in its Alpha Windows NT Strategy? What has Compaq announced? Why has Compaq decommitted from Windows NT on Alpha systems?
A. Based on the extremely good scalability of our 4- and 8-way ProLiant servers with 32-bit Windows NT, Compaq believes that this platform can satisfy all market requirements for 32-bit Windows NT. We have therefore been able to simplify our strategy and offerings. Compaq will end 32-bit Windows NT Alpha systems development with V4 SP6, late in 1999, and will not support either 32 or 64-bit Windows 2000 on Alpha systems.
This change will enable us to sharply focus our Alpha strategy and resources on our aggressive plans to grow Tru64 UNIX market share, support our loyal OpenVMS customers, extend our Himalaya range, and drive volumes for Alpha systems with Linux.
Q. What is Compaq's Windows NT strategy going forward?
A. As the leading provider of Windows NT-based platforms and solutions, Compaq is a strong supporter of Windows NT and will remain at the forefront of moving Windows NT into the enterprise as its capabilities continue to mature. We will maintain our leadership role in providing the environment in which Microsoft is developing its 64-bit capable versions of NT as well as our extensive involvement in assuring the best performance and reliability on Microsoft's current and future 32 bit offerings. The only change in strategy is that all of Compaq's efforts on behalf of 32-bit Windows NT will now be built around our industry-leading IA32-based systems. The recent very strong performance results achieved with Compaq's new 8-way ProLiant servers demonstrates that we can meet 100% of the market requirement for 32-bit Windows NT systems with these platforms.
Q. Will Alpha support for 64-bit Windows NT also be discontinued? Why?
A. We will continue partnering aggressively with Microsoft on development of 64-bit Windows NT, utilizing Alpha systems. We do not plan to offer 64-bit Windows 2000 on Alpha systems, and will focus our efforts on offering the very best 64-bit IA32 Windows NT platforms in the market at the time of its introduction.
Q. Is this a sign of Compaq slowly backing away from Alpha?
A. Absolutely not. Alpha still remains a vital component of Compaq's NonStop eBusiness strategy for the enterprise. As evidence of this, the previous commitment to move the NonStop Himalaya and Integrity system architectures to Alpha is intact, as is the recent commitment by the senior management to spend an incremental $100M to further the position of Tru64 UNIX/AlphaServer in the marketplace. There is also strong market interest in Linux running on Alpha, and this will be a major focus for driving volume based on the Alpha architecture. Finally, the Alpha chip roadmap continues advancing, with "shrinks" of the 3rd-generation of Alpha architecture (the 21264), the finalization of the EV7 design, and early design of EV8 technologies all presently underway.
Installed Base Impact Questions:
Q. Am I "dead-ended" with the current investment in my AlphaServer? What options do I have?
A. No. Compaq is putting in place programs and growth paths to satisfy our customers' requirements through this change in plans.
For already installed AlphaServers running Windows NT: In the short term, customers can continue to use their existing systems with current applications and have the option to upgrade to Service Pack 5 and then Service Pack 6. In the long term, customers can continue to use their current systems with Windows NT 4, and will be supported by Compaq Customer Services until at least Q1 CY2001. For future needs (including Windows 2000), customers should take advantage of trade-in programs and migration services to Windows NT or Windows 2000 on ProLiant servers, or to Tru64 UNIX, OpenVMS or Linux on their AlphaServer systems.
For customers considering new AlphaServer systems running Windows NT: Customers can move to ProLiant Servers and run Windows NT 4 or Windows 2000, depending on their requirements.
For each of these circumstances, Compaq will provide attractive programs, upgrades and migration services to fit the individual customer needs. Details on these programs are available from your regional representative.
Q. I bought my Tru64 UNIX or OpenVMS AlphaServer with the promise that it would run Windows NT in the future. What do I do now?
A. Compaq will provide upgrade and trade-in programs to ProLiant Servers for customers who chose to move to Windows NT in the future. Details of these programs are available from your regional representative.
Q. I have an Alpha Windows NT-only DIGITAL Servers (white box), what options do I have?
A. Customers with Alpha Windows NT-only DIGITAL Servers can continue to run Windows NT V4 with support provided up through at least Service Pack 5. For customers who wish to move to Windows 2000, Compaq will provide attractive upgrade and trade-in programs to new ProLiant Servers.
Q. How long will my current Windows NT Alpha system be supported?
A. Our Customer Services organization will continue to support both hardware and software, for the foreseeable future and at least through Q1, 2001. Hardware support will be offered under standard terms & conditions. As a demonstration of this commitment, Compaq Customer Services still supports VAX and PDP technology.
Q. How long will you ship new Alpha systems running Windows NT V4?
A. A specific roadmap that details the last ship dates for each system model is provided in supporting materials.
Q. I have a large investment in Alpha for UNIX, why won't Tru64 UNIX be next to be dropped (when Merced ships)?
A. The market for enterprise servers running UNIX remains a very strong and vital one, and Compaq intends to be a leader within the segments of this market we focus on, in order to service the needs of our enterprise customers. Tru64 UNIX is widely acknowledged to be one of the finest UNIX operating systems in the market. The recent commitment by senior management to spend an incremental $100 million to fortify the position of Tru64 UNIX/AlphaServers in the market is tangible evidence of our intentions.
Q. I am in the middle of Y2K validation and am planning to move to Windows 2000. Why has Compaq dropped Alpha support for Windows NT at this critical time?
A. Customers will continue to be able to run Windows NT Service Pack 4 for Y2K conformance and have the ability to upgrade through Service Pack 6. This will enable customers to run current Alpha systems through CY2000 without impacting their Y2K readiness. As customers begin to move to implement Windows 2000, they have the option to re-deploy their current AlphaServer to run Tru64 UNIX or OpenVMS, add ProLiant Servers running Windows 2000 or take advantage of upgrade and trade-in programs being put in place by Compaq.
Q: How will this decision affect StorageWorks? Will Compaq StorageWorks products continue to support NT on Alpha?
A: The Raid Array 8000 and Enterprise Storage Array 12000 product lines will support 32-bit Windows NT on AlphaServers in FCAL configurations. Customers will have the option to upgrade to Service Pack 5 and then Service Pack 6. Compaq is making beta versions of the FCAL drivers available today and will have a production FCAL driver available for AlphaServers 32-bit Windows NT in October, 1999. This solution will support both clusters and high availability single system configurations. In the long term, customers can continue to use their current systems with Windows NT 4, and will be supported by Compaq Customer Services until at least Q1 CY2001. For future needs (including Windows 2000, support for FC Switched Fabrics, and value-added features such as Data Replication Manager), they can move to ProLiant Servers or consider trade-in programs and migration services to Tru64 UNIX, OpenVMS or Linux.
Q. What will happen with my ISV software licenses as I move to another platform?
We are working closely with key ISVs, for example Oracle and SAP, to assure that there are migration plans in place. Our key ISVs are supportive of this decision and are also committed to taking care of customers in the very best way. More details will be provided as each ISV develops their plans.
Business Questions:
Q. Was Compaq counting on Alpha Windows NT to drive volume?
A. No. There is enough Tru64 UNIX, OpenVMS, Himalaya and Linux business to sustain a competitive Alpha processor for the long term, along with our partners such as Samsung/API.
Q. What is Microsoft's position on this decision? Does this reflect a weakening of the Compaq/Microsoft relationship?
A. Microsoft supports this decision. It in no way reflects a weakening of the Compaq/Microsoft relationship. Compaq is working quite closely with Microsoft in the development of 64-bit Windows NT, in support of our drive to address more demanding enterprise requirements with Windows NT.
Q. How have Samsung and Alpha Processors, Inc. reacted to this decision? What will happen to other OEMs who are developing systems utilizing Windows NT on Alpha?
A. Recognizing the opportunity that exists for Alpha on Linux, Alpha Processor, Inc. has already made all its products available for Linux. Most recently they've been assisting an effort in bringing leading Linux tools and libraries to Alpha. API's and Samsung's resources will continue to support Linux-based solutions. With respect to OEM's who have been utilizing Windows NT on Alpha, API and Samsung are working closely to help those who wish to transition to other platforms. We'd recommend contacting API for further discussion regarding their platform strategies.
Q. What proportion of AlphaServer business is on Windows NT today? Has that fraction been increasing or decreasing?
A. Less than 2% of AlphaServer current business. Tru64 UNIX has become the predominant choice for Alpha systems, with OpenVMS in second position. While Tru64 UNIX and OpenVMS customers have benefited from Alpha's accelerated performance with EV6 technology, 32-bit Windows NT customers needs can be met with the performance and capabilities of the superior performing ProLiant servers.
Q. What proportion of AlphaServer business is on Linux today?
A. Small, but growing very rapidly.
B.
Q. What has been the reaction of ISV's? What about those ISV's who have made significant investments in Alpha/NT?
A. Our key ISVs support this decision. We will be working closely with our ISVs to offer trade-in and migration programs, to take care our mutual customers needs. In addition, Microsoft has committed to support ISVs with all aspects of their 64-bit development program.
Q. What is the impact of this decision on Compaq's workstation business?
A. The decision regarding Windows NT and Windows 2000 affects both AlphaServer systems as well as Alpha-based workstations. Attractive migration and trade-in offers will also be in place to IA32-based Compaq Professional Workstations or to other operating systems on the current platform.
Q. How will this announcement impact Compaq's focus on the ISP market?
A. It does not affect our comprehensive and aggressive focus on the ISP market, addressed with a combination of Tru64 UNIX on AlphaServers and Windows NT on ProLiant servers.
Overall Server and Competitive Positioning Questions
Q. How are Tru64 UNIX AlphaServer solutions for ISPs, ASPs and eBusiness positioned in the market?
A. Compaq Tru64 UNIX AlphaServer solutions are competitively positioned. Unlike any other RISC UNIX platform on the market, solutions delivered on Tru64 UNIX V5.0 AlphaServer systems offer our customers the highest availability with the lowest cost to implement, operate and manage. Additionally, eBusiness applications require the ability to scale to meet the peak demands placed on them. Unlike other UNIX platforms, Compaq's Tru64 UNIX AlphaServers have the power to meet the peak load requirements. Your systems will not slow down during a critical time of network traffic.
Q. Compaq appears to be positioning the ProLiant 8-way server against Sun. Isn't that in conflict with the positioning of Tru64 UNIX AlphaServer solutions?
A. Not at all. Compaq has a stronger set of products than Sun since we have both superior UNIX and Windows NT products, offering the customer more choice! The newly announced ProLiant 8000 and 8500 servers were announced to compete directly against Sun in the ASP and low-end of ISP markets, complemented by Tru64 UNIX for the higher end requirements. Compaq Tru64 UNIX AlphaServer solutions continue to compete effectively against Sun as demonstrated by numerous industry standard benchmarks and with the extremely high levels of availability and scalability.
Q: What are the benchmarks and how do Compaq ProLiant and AlphaServer offerings compare with Sun?
A. As an example, Compaq's AlphaServer DS10 with Tru64 UNIX, featuring 2GB memory and up to 54 GB disks, outperformed Sun's dual- and quad-processor servers running Internet applications at less than half the price on the SPECweb96 benchmark. The AlphaServer DS10 with Tru64 UNIX delivered results of 3404, outperforming both the Sun E450(2963) and the Sun E250 (2625). There are many other examples in other target market segments.
The ProLiant 8000 running Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 on Windows NT 4.0 offered more than double the performance at 30 percent better price:performance than the Sun E450.
Our key strength versus Sun is that no matter which OS our customers chose, either Tru64 UNIX on AlphaServers or Windows NT on ProLiant servers, they can be assured of the best absolute performance as well as price/performance across a range of applications and systems. Sun only has UNIX and cannot offer their customers the Windows NT choice.
Q. Isn't Compaq's strong support of both Windows NT and UNIX solutions confusing to the market?
A. Compaq is committed to solving the full range of business and technical challenges throughout the enterprise. Analyst reports estimate that 90% of all IT environments will be using both UNIX and Windows NT. Compaq, a leader in 64-bit UNIX and the market share leader in Windows NT solutions, is not only committed to offering a broad range of solutions for each operating system, but also to continuing to enhance its leadership position in UNIX/Windows NT interoperability. Compaq allows its customers to take advantage of both systems - without two support and development staffs, and a host of cross-platform application issues.
Workstation Alpha NT Strategy
Q: Why did Compaq decide to discontinue Windows NT on the Alpha workstation platforms?
A: Compaq re-evaluated the Windows NT strategy for workstations because of vastly improved graphics capabilities on Compaq AP and SP Professional Workstations and limited Windows NT sales on the Alpha workstations.
Q: How does this announcement effect Alpha Windows NT customers?
A: Compaq continues to ship and support Windows NT version 4.0 (Service Pack 3) on current Alpha workstation platforms (DPW500a, 600a, and XP1000/500MHz).
Compaq will qualify, release, and support Microsoft Service Pack 5 and Service Pack 6 for current Alpha workstation products (DPW500a, 600a, and XP1000/500MHz).
Q: How will this announcement effect Alpha workstation products?
A: Compaq will not support Windows NT or Windows 2000 on future Alpha products.
Platform upgrades and future Alpha workstations will support Tru64 UNIX, OpenVMS, and certified Linux operating systems.
Q: Will Compaq support 64-bit Windows NT on the Alpha workstation platforms?
A: There are no plans to deploy or support 64-bit Windows NT on Alpha workstations.
Q: How does this announcement effect Tru64 UNIX, OpenVMS, and Linux Alpha customers?
A: This announcement does not directly affect Tru64 UNIX, OpenVMS, or Linux Alpha workstation customers. We expect to re-deploy certain resources from Windows NT to these operating systems in order to provide a higher level of support there.
Q: How does this announcement effect Compaq Intel workstations?
A: This announcement does not affect Compaq AP and SP Professional Workstation customers.
Q: What is the migration path for Windows NT Alpha workstation customers?
A: Compaq will work with customers to help them migrate to the optimum AP or SP Professional Workstation or to one of the other operating systems supported on Alpha.
Q: What does this decision mean for Windows NT Alpha workstation OEM customers?
A: Compaq will work with OEM customers on an individual basis to determine how best to meet their short and long term needs. This can include OEM specific last buy dates and technical support for hardware and/or software migration plans.
No glitches in Debian when you get round the really confusing documentation, and pretty much everything I use compiles great and seem to work fine. WM, Gimp, PDL, LaTeX...
So why am I complaining? Well, if you try some of the logo scripts-fu on both the alpha and a PIII-550, the speed difference is not that noticeable at all.
The real test would be to do a povbench on both machines... but I got some errors half way thru the rendering on the alpha!
When alphalinux gets a descent compiler (I'm just blaming compaq here, the gcc team is doing a great job no matter what!)... well, that's going to be a different story, but compaq will never allow Linux take shares of Tru64 or whatever the name is... (OSF)
I'll check bladeenc with compaq's enhanced mathlib... that should be a pretty good test, but until then, I'm not convinced.
---
"Hasta la victoria siempre!" El Comandante
Compaq had said that they would support NT for Alpha64. This sounds like MS is saying, "Oh yeah? Drop Alpha32 and kiss Alpha64 goodbye!".
It's interesting to see this in the light of yesterday's "Interview with Original NT OS/2" developers, which stressed the importance of platform independence and portability. With this announcement (correct me if I'm wrong), MS has finally gone from 4 platforms (PPC/MIPS/Alpha/x86) to 1 (x86).
You mean "Trade in your new Huffy for a Ross"?
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
No irony at all actually. NT is still highly portable. It runs on 486, pentium, pentium pro, pentium II and K-6 chips. What more portability could you ask for ;-)
--Shoeboy
What I can't understand is why Compaq can't get behind the Alpha and drive it home. It's superior over Intel architecture. Compaq could say "Screw you, M$ AND Intel" and have Alphas on every desktop. Get someone like the people who make VMWare to get Win9* to run on Alpha and start packaging RedHat on Alpha machines. Hell, they bought Digital and Tandem. If they knew how to integrate this vast wealth of knowledge together, they could kick ass, but apparently someone at Compaq just doesn't want to do it.
:-)
M$ will get NT working on 64 bits, but obviously they've got egg on their face. So much for portability. This is certainly going to drain resources. How many versions of Windows will M$ be supporting now ?
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
It looks like they are heading on the out. I think that they just pissed off one to many companies, and now these compaines are seeing Linux as a way to circumvent Microsoft.
Rather than rewrite their OS, they can use Linux on there hardware. (Linux runs on Mac, Alphas, INtel, Sparc, etc. It make more sense to have one operating system that runs on many cpu's than many operating systems that run on many cpu's.
Most Linux software on Linux/Intel will run on Linux/Alpha, with just a recompile, or on Linux PPC. And it will run faster than Java, unless you compile Java to OS native code.
How will Linux eventually affect Java development? In 5 years some Linux hybred OS may be the new OS. But a hybred of Linux and what? (so far SGI is adding to the Linux melting pot).
Only 'flamers' flame!
BTW, what happened to all the Astroturfers that were posting yesterday about how the Compaq decision was of little importance, because 64-bit NT Alpha development was going strong?
Whaddya think, everyone? Exit Cutler? Or is Merced going to keep him happy?
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I'm no NT expert, but this is confused.
What happened is that up to NT 3.51 inclusive, the Win32 subsystem was a completely separate process, as were the OS/2 and POSIX subsystems. In NT4, the Win32 subsystem was migrated into the kernel (in Linux speak; in NT it's the Executive, the Kernel is a very low level layer just above the HAL). There are rumours that this was resisted by key people on the NT team, but there was a strong push to improve GUI performance; there are also rumours that this is the reason for NT4 being less stable than NT 3.5x.
Certainly I never had a crash on NT 3.5x and have had many on NT4, but YMMV. On some configurations, NT does not really crash much (e.g. my Linux workstation on top of VMware!).
As for the HAL originally hiding all hardware - this is not true, otherwise why would device drivers be necessary? I think the HAL abstracts basic resources such as CPU, memory, bus, etc, but many other resources require drivers.
I'm not hugely surprised by Linux doing better on IA-64, since Linux has been 64-bit for some time and has worked out a lot of generic 64-bitness bugs, whereas Win64 is still alpha.
And what would be thy problem with the horse-drawn cart, Englishman? It is not a tool of the Devil, like the forsaken-by-God products of Microsoft!
dictated to me by an Amish moderator
As long as he wants to "kill Unix", I don't think there's any other company out there who needs him. The only non-Unix operating system I know of in development is Be, and I don't think he'd like the Gassee co-existance philosophy. After reading 'Showstopper', I can almost hear him scream "Coexistance is for wimps!"
Of course the good news is that he's pretty rich now from Microsoft stock options, so he could always retire. But what then? I don't see him sitting around playing golf.
D
----
1. Compaq is probably not selling enough Tru64 or Linux systems to justify continued Alpha production. If Compaq was making lots of money, they might make some sort of daring move to push Unix/Linux on their systems. But since they're trying to cut costs they'll have to drop the Alpha.
2. Microsoft could easily continue Alpha development. Windows on Alpha is of strategic importance when dealing with Intel, so MS is shooting themselves in the foot by letting it die.
3. Microsoft isn't stupid. They're quite aware of points 1 & 2.
Conclusion: Compaq must have done something to really piss off Microsoft. Maybe those NT engineers Compaq layed off were really important to Microsoft for some reason. Perhaps Compaq is about to make some sort of big Linux announcement. Maybe Compaq pulled out of a product tying deal. Who knows. Whatever it was, Microsoft now feels that it must retaliate against Compaq even though it will hurt Microsoft on another front.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Regarding this article: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/server/beta/hall/ 99Aug04.asp (posted on Aug 25 on Slashdot.org) The original developers are bragging about how good their design and plan was (for NT).. They say: "It cost us a lot to keep portability alive, but we did, and that has made it easy for us to respond to things like Merced," he says, referring to the 64-bit chip from Intel. Well obviously they didn't make it that easy.. ;)
Also, VMware isn't going to help Win95 run on alpha -- it relies on having a native CPU.
--
Now, Microsoft being what they are, I'd bet Compaq knows they're indirectly funding Microsoft's entry into IA-64. Compaq pays the freight to pave the way from 32 to 64 bits. Then Microsoft does their own IA-64 port, cuts Compaq out of the revenue stream, and undermines their Alpha market.
Standard Operating Proceedure.
I'm glad to see someone wising up to Microsoft's business practices enough to make rational decisions. Microsoft will play along until its time for someone to get rich, then the one that gets rich will be Microsoft.
Yeah, they are falling apart:
That isn't what I said, exactly. While Microsoft is rolling in cash, it is primarily due to their control of OS preloads of Windows 98 and sales of Office. NT isn't responsible for their huge profits because it not only hasn't sold in huge quantities, it has cost them huge amounts in development and advertising. NT has failed to light a fire under the industry. It slowed, but failed to kill Novell. Novell looks resurgeant. It has failed to kill UNIX. UNIX growth continues. It has failed to slow acceptance of Linux. Linux is growing at a much faster rate than NT, despite the huge inequity of resources spent on promotion of NT versus that spent on promotion of Linux. Heck, NT has failed to even completely kill oS/2, despite IBM's best efforts at helping them out there.
Lets get some realism here....
The reality is that a lot of once large and once prosperous companies that relied on their own proprietary OSes have seen those products dry up and either ended up dead (like Prime (PrimeOS) for example), becoming a UNIX vendor (like HP (MPE), DEC (VMS), etc) or basically exiting the hardware/OS business altogether (Unisys).
Its easy to predict the status quo when a company is prosperous, but that can turn around quickly. If you had told people in 1980 that Digital Research would be a tiny, forgotten subsidiary of a company whos major product was a distribution of a free UNIX clone, they would have told you that you were insane.