From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Aug 27 17:44: 0 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp02.teb1.iconnet.net (smtp02.teb1.iconnet.net [209.3.218.43])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B58B714EC0; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from babkin@bellatlantic.net)
Received: from bellatlantic.net (client-117-198.bellatlantic.net [151.198.117.198])
	by smtp02.teb1.iconnet.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA05389;
	Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:41:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <37C7312B.EE446A5C@bellatlantic.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:45:31 -0400
From: Sergey Babkin <babkin@bellatlantic.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-980222-SNAP i386)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG,
	kdrobnac@mission.mvnc.edu
Subject: Re: Intel Merced FreeBSD???
References: <199908271229.IAA35280@lakes.dignus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Thomas David Rivers wrote:

>   Microsoft needs a "business quality" version of Windows,
>  which it claims is Windows/2000.   That version of Windows
>  could benefit from a 64-bit port, if for marketing only; but
>  I don't think it would result in the volume of sales Intel
>  is looking for.

A funny thing is that Microsoft is porting essentially a
32-bit version of Windows to Merced. All the programs for
Windows that want to use 64-bit support will have to be
modified because the MS compiler defines both int and long
as 32-bit. On the other hand the Unix compilers (at least 
UnixWare and as far as I understood that's the common Unix
convention) provide a mode with 64-bit longs that gives
certain degree of 64-bit awareness just by recompiling.
 
>   And - let me add - Intel has been down this path before
>  (the i860) - and didn't see the success it wanted (although
>  the i860 is popping up in some interesting places now...)

Merced can run the x86 code. Not as fast as the native code
but I guess comparable to the Pentiums.
 
>   I suppose what this "rant" is all about is that I'm not
>  convinced Merced is the "chip of the future" that we all
>  need to be worried about.   I'm taking a "wait-and-see"
>  attitude.  [Also, since Microsoft has been working
>  closely with Intel regarding Merced for several years
>  now, and has yet to do anything `serious' - I believe
>  they are taking the same "wait-and-see" approach.  Likely
>  while telling Intel otherwise.]

SCO and IBM with their Monterey-64 project are considering
Merced quite seriously. Actually, as far as I know, for 
Monterey-64 the availability of the Merceds seems to be 
the limiting factor now.

-SB


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message