Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:57:17 +1100 From: Patryk Zadarnowski <patrykz@ilion.eu.org> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: Steve Ames <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64bit OS? Message-ID: <200002172257.JAA22484@mycenae.ilion.eu.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:42:40 -0800." <200002172242.OAA80983@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Patryk Zadarnowski wrote: > > FreeBSD when that happens. In the meantime, the only alternative would be to > > convince Intel to give someone their IA-64 SimOS, but there's an extermely > > slim chance of that happening (from talking to someone on the IA-64 team.) > > > > An alternative to IA-64 is the alpha processor. Last time > I checked, FreeBSD ran just peachy on a 64-bit processor. ;-) > Check out Cmpaq's test drive program. I don't know... I'm still to get it to boot on mine (NetBSD runs fine, but for some bizzare reason, FreeBSD insists on a serial console ;) Anyway, alphas are boring compared to Itanium. What else can you say about a chip with 3MB of L3 cache on the die, a four clock cycle latency to carry the signal from one end of the chip to the other, and the main design limitation being the US power supplies? :) Not to mention the fact that Intel isn't even planning to release any single-cpu system.... Pat. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200002172257.JAA22484>