RealTechNews.com - Independent Tech

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Next Windows skips Itanium
"The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant said this week that Windows Server 2003 Compute Cluster Edition will not run on servers built around the Itanium 2 chip from Intel. Instead, the software--a version of the company's flagship operating system for clusters containing up to 128 processors--will run on 32-bit/64-bit server chips from Advanced Micro Devices and Intel."

That's the story that's being generally reported around the Internet. In Michael Kanellos' version, he goes on to say: "The decision not to support Itanium 2 is the latest slap in the face for the chip family that 10 years ago threatened to take over the world. Last month, Hewlett-Packard terminated its line of Itanium 2 workstations.

Hyperbole aside, age has probably dulled my brain. After Intel admitting earlier this year that Itanium sales were pooping, do you think maybe something else might be up? I say this only because of that nagging sentence fragment: "will run on 32-bit/64-bit server chips from Advanced Micro Devices and Intel." See my problem? Intel doesn't have any 32/64 bit CPUs... yet. Might the real story here be that Intel will be replacing its Itanium line with (or at least subordinating it to) a new ilk of Intel 32/64 bit CPUs?

Kanellos is a darn fine reporter but I can't keep from yelling, "Help me, Mr, Wizard!!"
# Permalink Posted at 9:41 PM 1 comments Email this Link

Comments on this Item:

I suspect this means that Windows Server 2003 Compute Cluster Edition supports the IA-32 and x86-64 architectures - in other words, Intel's current 32-bit lineup and AMD's 32-bit and 64-bit chips. I believe Intel has already announced that they will be producing 64-bit CPU's that are compatible with AMD's x86-64 architecture.

This announcement is interesting in another way. The IA-64 (Itanium) line has been established in the very high end of the server space, and with HP's workstation line terminated, I'm not sure how it will move down into the mainstream. There is a danger for Microsoft here, and a danger for Intel.

The danger for Intel is that the IA-64 may not move downmarket, as AMD's x86-64 architecture gains acceptance. As Bill points out, there are already signs that this is happening. The IA-64 performs well with native code, but it's IA-32 emulation mode is slow. Intel needs a large enough IA-64 installed base that the major software vendors (like Microsoft, Rad Hat, and Oracle) will produce software for it. Otherwise, the IA-64 will become increasingly marginalized as the rest of the world goes with AMD's x86-64. This could effectively swap Intel's and AMD's roles as CPU-makers, placing AMD in the position of setting the architecture and standards, leaving Intel to play catch-up and produce products compatible with someone else's architecture.

I suspect Microsoft's strategy with this version of Windows Server is to provide an upward migration path for current customers running on IA-32 and x86-64 systems to move up to larger clusters. This is roughly the same strategy they've used since the Windows NT days to compete against Sun, SGI, HP, and other proprietary UNIX servers. The danger for Microsoft is that Linux is currently the operating system of choice for IA-64 cluster computing. Since Linux clustering is also available on x86-64 and IA-32, as cluster computing moves downmarket, it is likely that new installations will be modeled on existing successful IA-64/Linux configurations. This could make Microsoft a minority player in what is likely to be an important market segment.

# posted by D.J.Wildstar 5:11 AM

Post a Comment