From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Feb 17 14:57:51 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mycenae.ilion.eu.org (mycenae.ilion.eu.org [203.35.206.129]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B76937B514 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:57:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from patrykz@ilion.eu.org) Received: from mycenae.ilion.eu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mycenae.ilion.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22484; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:57:19 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from patrykz@mycenae.ilion.eu.org) Message-Id: <200002172257.JAA22484@mycenae.ilion.eu.org> To: Steve Kargl Cc: Steve Ames , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64bit OS? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:42:40 -0800." <200002172242.OAA80983@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:57:17 +1100 From: Patryk Zadarnowski Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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