24-Apr-2024 03:14 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Rant] HP bound to quit PA-RISC CPU lineANN.lu
Posted on 30-Aug-2001 06:25 GMT by Christian Kemp17 comments
View flat
View list
Solar (BAUD) wrote: The PIV message posted earlier initiated some interesting comments, so I think this one can be just as interesting: HP dropping PA-RISC in favour of IA64 by 2004. From www.heise.de:
"Continuing development of the RISC CPUs keeps getting more and more difficult and expensive, while Itanium is just beginning it´s lifetime cycle", Brown [Market Communications Manager HP] backs up the HP decission. Moreover, so Brown, Itanium systems will get cheaper simply because of higher production numbers, as opposed to house-made PA-RISCs.
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1m0ns00n29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
HP bound to quit PA-RISC CPU line : Comment 2 of 17ANN.lu
Posted by Solar (BAUD) on 29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (m0ns00n):
Amithlon? Naa... It´s an "intermediate", just like UAE is but for a slightly different target market. It´s about running the "Classic" stuff until the "new" stuff finally becomes available. (And no, I don´t think native x86 plugins should be supported by Amithlon, because developers might lose their focus on OS 4/5 and instead create yet another spin-off. A real fast 68k emulation should be enough until OS 5.)
OS development is done on the OS 4/5 road. Amithlon cannot go there, and I think that´s A Good Thing (tm) because people won´t be lured into seeing Amithlon as a seperate development.
What troubles me, though, is the lack of any clear commitment from Amiga Inc. regarding a hardware independant, PPC/x86 supporting, desktop OS 5. They keep telling about the AmigaDE running everywhere, and AmigaOS 4/5 being the perfect host, but I want to replace Windows and Linux on my box with AmigaOS, and while Gary said this would be possible a while back, he´s a little more hesistant today.
Ah, well.
Jump...
#3 priest
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 3priest29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 4Ben Hermans/Hyperion29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 5Solar (BAUD)29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 6Gothic29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 7Karl Hamilton29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 8m0ns00n29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 9Amifan29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 10Solar (BAUD)29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 11Solar (BAUD)29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 12Nick29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 13Anonymous30-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 14Solar (BAUD)30-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 15Solar (BAUD)30-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 16Tronman31-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 17Anonymous31-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Back to Top