Originally posted by ddtlm
IRQs are a non-issue. Time for you to move onto something new.
IRQs are not a non-issue; today there are IRQ issues. Especially on those SFF PCs that companies seem to like, like the ones from HP/Compaq. Shipped from the factory they are fine; try to add one or two PCI cards, especially some a few years old and viola, IRQ problems.
Who cares? I'm calling it Apple's open firmware cause Sun is irrelevant.
Really, they are the same thing.
I guess this is an attack on interchangable components?
In the PC world, compatibility is not in their vocabulary. Each company likes to do things their way and virtually everything in a PC is all based upon specifications and not standards. ATA/133 and USB are two perfect examples. Maxtor and Agere decided to extend ATA from 100 to 133. Most of the big players in the PC world are on the USB committee, which there are compatibility problems with USB. Why, because its a loose spec. They have used three different controller chips, plus add all the operating systems in, you have too many to do a through test. The PC world looks at the present and not the future, its this lack of planning that causes them problems.
I worked as a PC tech of about 1.5 years prior to getting a real programming job, never messed with IRQ's. I assume this is because I was dealing with modern hardware. I continue to build my own machines and machines for others, pretty much being the PC hardware guru amoung anyone that I know. I've encountered quite a few problems over the years but I have never had problems with IRQs.
Some vendors and specific systems are even worse. Modern hardware has more of a problem then the older hardware. Name another system that uses IRQs? If its so great, why arent others?
This is supposed to refute my claim about work per clock?
If it isnt out yet, its a mute point. You are comparing their yet to be released chip to already released chips that most have been out for several years.
They seem to be shipping, and in any case you hardly have room to poke holes in Intel's shipping dates when Sun has legendary delays of their own.
I never said the USIII was on time.
SPEC exists for the Itanium, and it looks quite good.
There are very few test results. Ask anyone that has tried to buy a Itanium2 system from HP; you can order it, just dont expect a ship date.
I use Suns at work and I have no idea why anyone would volentarily use one as a desktop. Linux is a far better choice for Unixy stuff, with OSX and Windows taking everything else.
Linux is nothing. It is just a compilation of the various flavors of UNIX. Plus, you are comparing a platform to an OS. Sun has their platform plus Solaris. Linux is just an OS; you still need a platform to put it on.
If you have to ask why a company would use Sun, you obviously dont see the whole picture.
It is quite well known, and the software support is steadily building as Intel pushes onward.
Once they get software support, they also need to get customers to accept it. Sun continues to sell their systems at a brisk pace.
If you dont have the software that a company want today, why would they buy your platform?
Onward with their revolutionary design (EPIC) that was invented and failed in the 70s?
Well first, I'm glad to see you reference SPEC because that is exactly the field where Itanium2 likes to play. Next step is for you to compare your $11000 Sun desktop to a system based on an Intel chip costing more than $175. Also note that the 2.4ghz P4 was released in April 2002, almost a year ago. While a year-old Sun might be exactly the same as a brand-new Sun, that is not the case for PCs where technology is noticably progressing. It is good to see that you included the XeonMP 2.0 though, thats a new chip, but it is still closely related to common desktop chips.
The 2.4GHz XEON processor was released not to long ago. Try again; I posted the link to a press release on Intel.com that specifically said when the chip was announced.
It was the choice of Intel to take a desktop chip, make a few changes to it and call it a server chip. They made the choice; they must live with it.
What does cost have to do with it? Sun sells a 2-way server and the PC companies do as well. Since Itanium servers are hard to come by and may not have the software one wants, a comparison between those two is totally legitimate.
No, you didn't.
Yes but was the US3 1.015 actually shipping a year ago? I see Sun has 1.05ghz US3's now, quite the improvment!
The 1.015 was released shortly after the 1.05GHz.
So comparing year-old PCs to Suns which are essentially identical to brand-new top-end $16000 desktops is fair?
Lets see, I also included two servers with the same number of processors. If Intel wants to use desktop processors in a server, then so be it. They all followed the same rules; there are no rules.
Venture outside your safe multiprocessor haven and you'll see some different SPEC numbers compared to those modern chips, or alternatively, we can bring in some Itanium2 iron which should defeat any US3.
Sun makes most of their money in the servers, most of which are multiprocessor machines. So Sun does multiprocessor machines better then what Intel and its clients can do.
So you bring up that I am comparing an older CPU to a newer one, and now YOU want to do the same thing.
Sun doesnt need the fastest CPU to win; they didnt when they became #1 in the UNIX market years ago. The US IV and then the V will close the gap.
And now this thread has deteriorated into you defending Sun. Noone here cares about Sun.
I used Sun as an example. You are defending Intel.
