[cfgeeks] AHA!

[Kevin Korb]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

IIRC the ia64 (Itanium) was Intel's original 64bit chip design.  It is
its own arch that no other processor uses.  It is backwards compatible
with x86 however it does so using a very slow opcode translation.

AMD then came out with x86_64 which is completely backwards compatible
with x86.  Because of the huge speed difference when running in 32bit
mode it blew the Itanium and Itanium 2 right off the market.  The
difference was so drastic that when Intel came out with the newer Xeon,
Core, and Core2 processors they went with AMD's x86_64 instead of ia64.

So if you are testing for binary compatibility and consider ia64 and
x86_64 to be the same it would be almost like calling a PowerPC and a
SPARC the same thing because they have the same number of bits.

- -- 
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
 	Kevin Korb			Phone:    (407) 252-6853
 	Systems Administrator		Internet:
 	FutureQuest, Inc.		Kevin at FutureQuest.net  (work)
 	Orlando, Florida		kmk at sanitarium.net (personal)
 	Web page:			http://www.sanitarium.net/
 	PGP public key available on web site.
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Kevin Korb wrote:

> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:30:22 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Kevin Korb <kmk at sanitarium.net>
> To: Central Florida Geeks <cfgeeks at mail.cfgeeks.org>
> Subject: Re: [cfgeeks] AHA!
> 
> I don't have any intel 64 bit boxes to test on but the ia64 is itanium
> which is a completely different arch than x86_64.  Binaries are NOT
> compatible between the two.  Though it is a valid test for 64bit if that
> is all you are caring about at the time.
>
> --
> ~ *-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
> 	 Kevin Korb			Phone:    (407) 252-6853
> 	 Systems Administrator		Internet:
> 	 FutureQuest, Inc.		Kevin at FutureQuest.net  (work)
> 	 Orlando, Florida		kmk at sanitarium.net (personal)
> 	 Web page:			http://www.sanitarium.net/
> 	 PGP public key available on web site.
> ~ *-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
>
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Kevin P. Inscoe wrote:
>
>>  Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:25:53 -0400
>>  From: Kevin P. Inscoe <kevin at inscoe.org>
>>  To: cfgeeks at mail.cfgeeks.org
>>  Subject: [cfgeeks] AHA!
>>
>>  http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/win/64bit.html
>>
>>  "Linux users should type the uname command. Depending on the platform, you
>>  may see
>>
>>     [cph at gaylord ~]$ uname -a
>>     Linux gaylord.stata.com 2.6.11-1.27_FC3 #1 Tue May 17 20:24:57 EDT 2005
>>  x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>>
>>     [cph at caddo ~]$ uname -a
>>     Linux caddo.stata.com 2.6.9-5.0.5.EL #1 SMP Fri Apr 8 14:20:58 EDT 2005
>>  ia64 ia64 ia64 GNU/Linux
>>
>>     [cph at tango ~]$ uname -a
>>     Linux tango.stata.com 2.6.10-1.771_FC2smp #1 SMP Mon Mar 28 01:10:51
>>     EST
>>  2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
>>
>>  In the above listing, 'gaylord' (x86_64 GNU/Linux) and 'caddo' (ia64
>>  GNU/Linux) are 64-bit compliant. 'tango' (i386 GNU/Linux) is only a 32-bit
>>  platform."
>>
>>  sooo
>>
>>  uname -m | grep 64. :-)
>> 
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfgeeks mailing list
> cfgeeks at mail.cfgeeks.org
> http://mail.cfgeeks.org/mailman/listinfo/cfgeeks
> ------------ Output from gpg ------------
> gpg:  Signature made Thu Jun 28 16:30:23 2007 EDT using DSA key ID 56D00107
> gpg:  Good signature from "BasketCase <BasketCase at sanitarium.net>"
> gpg:                  aka "Kevin M. Korb <kmk at sanitarium.net>"
> gpg:                  aka "Kevin M. Korb, Systems Administrator 
> gpg:                  <Kevin at FutureQuest.net>"
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGhBvYVKC1jlbQAQcRApfzAJ41QcNNAh5e+TycU9HGhiyw9c+RTwCeI4z6
mFewmeht/CzkKpy0Yco8Ijc=
=7rGQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----