Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Intel

Microsoft Drops Windows XP for Itanium 422

Posted by CowboyNeal from the calling-it-quits dept.
MBCook writes "According to an article on The Register, Microsoft has canceled the version of Windows XP for Intel's Itanium processor. They will continue to sell Windows Server 2003 for the Itanium in the high-end server market, but 'For the mainstream server and workstation markets, however, we believe we can best serve our customers needs with Windows Server 2003 Standard x64 Edition, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, respectively.' So much for Itainum workstations running Windows, but then again the article notes that no major vendors actually sell Itanium workstations anymore."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Drops Windows XP for Itanium More

Microsoft Drops Windows XP for Itanium

Comments Filter:

  • Time to shop Ebay! (Score:5, Funny)

    by xtermin8 ( 719661 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @05:59PM (#11282043)
    Sound like its a good time to snag some bargain boxen!

  • Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xNoLaNx ( 653172 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @05:59PM (#11282046)
    Everyone is lowering or entirely dropping their level of support for the Itanium, and now with Intel's interest moving to a better 64-bit system, this is good for everyone except maybe Intel and those who bought Itanium's.

    • Re:Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fatgav ( 555629 )
      Who said anything about a better system. I would prefer an Itanium than my x86-64 box. Only thing is incompatibilities and cost. The actual technology is far superior. Another Betamax is what it is. Long live marketing.

      • So not another Betamax (Score:3, Interesting)

        by hayden ( 9724 )
        Betamax was the better technology beaten by better marketing.

        Itanium was the in-the-future-better-technology-if-compilers-catc h -up -and-everybody-ports-all-their-software-to-it ... maybe, that pretty much killed itself. The Register have been calling it the Itanic from pretty much day one. They are now entitled to a "I told you so".

        Itanic was a good research project that they made the mistake of telling the marketing people about. It is very much like Intel's new Socket format (with the pins on the mot

  • Talk About Bleedin' Obvious (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:00PM (#11282059)
    MS 1: No one is selling Itanium based desktops or workstations, only servers
    MS 2: Indeed
    MS 1: Why are we trying to make a version of Windows XP for it then?
    MS 2: Because ... err ... wait, that's stupid
    MS 1: Indeed, let's not bother with that
    MS 2: Cool.
    MS 1: Don't want to piss off Intel though, let's pretend that we'll keep Server 2003 running on Itanium and that we support it
    MS 2: hehe yeah

    • Re:Talk About Bleedin' Obvious (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:55PM (#11282706)
      INTEL 1: Did MS say they would continue supporting Itanium on W2K3?
      INTEL 2: Yes
      INTEL 1: Did you believe them?
      INTEL 2: No.
      INTEL 1: Shit. What's Plan B again?
      INTEL 2: Keep fooling the public until we can find a way out of this mess.
      INTEL 1: Plan B it is.
    • I didn't know Beavis and Butthead worked for Microsoft.
    • The thing is microsoft only ever had a half-assed version for itanic, lacking many of the features of the x86 version and having virtually no apps available to run it, either from microsoft or third parties...
      Therefore, noone bought it.. because noone had ported software to it..
      Noone ported software to it because noone bought it..

      The only people who made use of them, are running opensource software on them, which is easy to port yourself if it hasn't been done already.. And plenty of people have motive to

  • Quite old news but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MegaManXcalibur ( 829621 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:01PM (#11282076)
    Although this is old news I will say this move does make sense for Microsoft. The Itanium is a server based processor, Windows XP is a consumer and workstation based operating system. This move doesn't seem too horribly suprising.

    • The Itanium is a server based processor, Windows XP is a consumer and workstation based operating system. This move doesn't seem too horribly suprising.

      I think it is. Itanium workstations aren't much use without an OS. Considering how much an Itanium processor costs, I'd be mad as hell at Microsoft. Imagine soaking up the $700 price difference between XP Pro and WS2003 just to have access to a supported OS with regular patches.

      Ah well, eventually IT managers will learn the meaning of "vendorlock".

  • One more giant.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NitroWolf ( 72977 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:03PM (#11282099)
    Just one more giant ram into the hind end of Intel. Man, they took a beating last year, and here we are only 6 days into 2005, and Intel is shaping up to be the industry punching bag.

    I hate to jump on the underdog bandwagon, but given the high price of Intel processors over the past couple decades, I'm glad to see it finally catching up to them, and in spades no less.

    The sad thing is that AMD seems to be heading down the Intel road now and in another decade or two AMD will just be where Intel is now... offering overpriced processors, and we'll be rooting for whoever is eyeing AMD's chops at that point.

    Why can't any company come in, clean up with good products at cheap prices and STAY THAT WAY? Why do they all have to get greedy in the end? This phenomenon is not constrained to the CPU market, of course, we see it every single day.

    • Re:One more giant.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BagOBones ( 574735 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:08PM (#11282148)
      Because unless your processor is as fast or faster than the other guy you are not going to sell many.. Think Transmeta.

      AMD has been neck in neck with intel for a long time and their pricing was killing them.. They now have a high quality product that people respect and will pay more for. So they are finally making money..

      Still note that the price to performance award is still AMDs.
    • It is a function of being a publicly held company. Investors demand ever increasing profits and often only care about the short term effects of how you get those profits.

      • Re:One more giant.... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by 1000101 ( 584896 )
        This is a crock of shit. CEO's, CFO's, etc. all have to have long-term investment strategies or the board won't even keep them around. It's not all about "right here, right now" in the corporate world. Most of the companies who have had that type of strategy are long gone (i.e. many dot com's).
      • It is a function of being a publicly held company.

        Bingo. The quarter-to-quarter mentality is a product of this myopia, which has been called the Cult of Shareholder Value [smh.com.au].

    • The thing is Intel are making the right moves in other areas. For example some Intel CPUs might suck slightly compared to their AMD counterparts, but they have much better chipsets. While everyone is sitting around twiddling their thumbs for PCI Express to appear for AMD (since it is a very desirable feature), it has been available for Intel CPU boards for ages. Also, some Intel chips don't suck, e.g. Pentium M, which is why Intel are kicking the crap out of all and sundry in the notebook arena.
      • pci express and pentium m arent enough to recover intel from the massive multibillion dollar flop known as itanic.
        • It will be interesting if you end up eating those words, or at least end up being wrong. Itanium 2 is a very good preformer.

        • Re:One more giant.... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by kesuki ( 321456 )
          So intel lost billions on the itanic. Big deal. Intel has billions in cash reserves even now as we speak... recover? AMD doesn't even Have a cash reserve. Intel doesn't need to 'recover' from the flop that was itanic, they need to recover from maketing/HR decisions that have left them leaderless and without a plan going forward. Intel can have more cash reserves than anyone, but without a plan going forward they're just going to be some ATARI waiting to be replaced by NINTENDO. Note: I am not an Intel
    • The sad thing is that AMD seems to be heading down the Intel road now and in another decade or two AMD will just be where Intel is now... offering overpriced processors, and we'll be rooting for whoever is eyeing AMD's chops at that point.

      Yeah, you know what? This is called competition, and it's the way a healthy market is supposed to work. Hopefully we will see Microsoft realize this too someday.
    • Companies are often started for other reasons, however when they become big, public and faceless, greed is the motivating factor. That's why monopoly prevention is as important. Capatalism works to leverege corperations greed against each other to benefit consumers. Only works if there's more than one player, however.

    • Re:One more giant.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GlassHeart ( 579618 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @07:41PM (#11283103) Journal
      Why can't any company come in, clean up with good products at cheap prices and STAY THAT WAY?

      The answer lies in the eventual need to compete in the stock market for capital. To be competitive, you have to offer your immoral investors better returns than other companies. The reason I call them immoral is because, by and large, the stock market investors do not consider any other metric except money.

      Thus, once you begin to need capital - which is inevitable if you want to grow - you have to play the game of maximizing profit. This is the insatiable greed you are talking about. In many industries, there's basically no way of getting the kind of money you need to compete without going public.

      • Re:One more giant.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by metamatic ( 202216 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @09:35PM (#11284116) Homepage Journal
        To be competitive, you have to offer your immoral investors better returns than other companies. The reason I call them immoral is because, by and large, the stock market investors do not consider any other metric except money.

        Technically that makes them 'amoral', not 'immoral'. Some specific things they do may be immoral, but they do so because their motivations are amoral.

  • I thought the title said: (Score:4, Funny)

    by dduardo ( 592868 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:03PM (#11282102)
    Microsoft was dropping Windows XP Period.
    • Unfortunatly, Microsoft have removed any dates from the name of XP. Back in the old days, MS would have to replace an operating system because "it sounded old", this new one, however, may last longer than you or I.

    • Re:I thought the title said: (Score:5, Funny)

      by krbvroc1 ( 725200 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:44PM (#11282575)
      Microsoft was dropping Windows XP Period.

      Yes, it seems the XP Period version of Windows targeted to females was not selling. MS tried the new Windows with Wings packaging but the odd box size met resistance from retailers who didn't want to waste already cramped shelf space. The 28 day calander application was just too buggy.

      The whole situation is just a bloody mess.


  • I've been holding off on purchasing a system for years. Initially it sounded like Itinium (sp) would be the 64 bit standard. Hopefully there will be some type of 64 bit standard as there is a great need for 64 bit work stations. I am in the CAD/CAM business and ever since the demize of the Alpha we have been waiting on a good cheap 64 bit windows based platform.

    • Re:Why it doesn't pay to be a fringe shopper. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:15PM (#11282235)
      Hopefully there will be some type of 64 bit standard as there is a great need for 64 bit work stations. I am in the CAD/CAM business and ever since the demize of the Alpha we have been waiting on a good cheap 64 bit windows based platform.

      There is a 64-bit standard: x86-64 (used in Athlon 64 and Opteron). There's another one too: G5.

      But why does it need to be Windows-based? Maybe you should be pushing your vendors to provide support for other OSes, such as Linux, which runs on all these 64-bit architectures.
      • Maybe because the software they want to run is only available for Windows? In which case x86-64 is the right choice.
        • Maybe because the software they want to run is only available for Windows?

          I realize that; that's why I suggested putting pressure on them to provide versions for other OSes.

          Vendor-customer relationships are not a one-way street, though many people these days seem to think they are.
      • Maybe you should be pushing your vendors to provide support for other OSes, such as Linux, which runs on all these 64-bit architectures.
        ...with support that won't be dropped at the snap of Bill Gates' fingers because Architecture 'X' didn't sell double-digit millions of units one year.
      • You have to remember that in many pro fields, the software is limited to a few, or even single platform. Also it's not as simple as "find an alternative" often one simply doesn't exist. A half assed, kinda working but missing half the features, thing won't cut it, has to be all there. Sometimes, something you consider to be just trivial will be make or break.

        We run into this with engineering apps all the time. They'll demand specific enviroments (as in OS, version, access privlidges, etc) that aren't what

      • Well

        a.) Typical CAD mfg are Autodesk, Microstation etc. Most CAD operators only know these systems on a windows platform. As an employer it's easier to buy software which is mainstream that employees already know. Instead of training employees.

        Something is only a standard when it is widely adopted. x86-64 to my knowledge only runs in 64 bit mode for *Unix OS's. I see no point in buying a 64 bit processor if i'm going to run it in 32 bit mode.

        • Re:Why it doesn't pay to be a fringe shopper. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:56PM (#11282719)
          a.) Typical CAD mfg are Autodesk, Microstation etc. Most CAD operators only know these systems on a windows platform. As an employer it's easier to buy software which is mainstream that employees already know. Instead of training employees.

          I realize that most CAD programs only run in Windows currently, which I why I suggested customers should put pressure on these vendors to support other platforms. It won't happen immediately, but if enough customers complain, it might. It's happened before for certain applications.

          As for training employees, there's no training necessary. If they know CAD program X on Windows, they can use it on Linux too. It's not that different at the user level. The engineers where I work seem to have little trouble picking up GNOME or KDE on the systems here, even though they've never seen it before. No company ever complains about having to retrain employees for Office 2003 vs. Office XP, but this is always brought up for Linux for some reason, even though the difference is about as great.

  • Itanic hits Iceberg. News at 11. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RealAlaskan ( 576404 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:05PM (#11282115) Homepage Journal
    I have an NT4 disk which will install on Alpha, MIPS and IA86. After that version, Intel dropped support for Alpha and MIPS, and look what happened to them.

    I don't think this is a good sign for the Itanic, but I don't think anyone will be surprised. This may not be the end of the line for it, though. MS has only dropped their workstation version, not their server version.

    The really interesting question is: will Linux be able to carry Itanic, now that MS is starting to leave it behind?

  • riiiighht.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RelliK ( 4466 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:05PM (#11282119)
    And where the fuck is windows x86-64 edition?
    • You can download it from MSDN if you want a beta (you don't even have to be a subscriber), and it's near release.
      • ...and it's near release.

        Close for how many years now? It almost competes with Duke Nukem Forever in that department and MS object file system.

        Well, some things just can't help them self, and so they become eternal
      • It's been near release for months... the last beta I tried couldn't run anything much more sophisticated than Notepad. I got the impression they were gimping it until the Intel version of amd64 got some kind of foothold.

        Still, thay're at RC1 now so maybe its improved a little.

      • Re:riiiighht.... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jarlsberg ( 643324 )
        I think part of the problem is drivers. I have an Athlon 64 and are running the beta Windows XP 64 bit edition (dual booting with the 32 bit Windows XP) and while it seems to work all right, there are very few drivers for the platform. FI. my Matrox Parhelia is not supported, which means no dual/triple screen support and a screen update that *crawls*. There are lots of other devices that doesn't work as well + quite a few 32 bit programs that won't install.
    • It's in Microsoft's hands being delayed so their buddies over at intel have time to finish knocking off a copy of AMD's instruction set.

  • Not too big of a surprise... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Omniscientist ( 806841 ) * <(matt) (at) (badecho.com)> on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:06PM (#11282128) Homepage
    Wasn't the Itanium project dropped as a whole? As far as I knew some important partners working with Intel pulled out and Itanium's were going to stop being produced.

    • Re:Not too big of a surprise... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:18PM (#11282275)
      Totally wrong. HP pulled out of Itanium development, and Intel bought their part of the development team.

      For some reason, Intel and HP have been working together all this time in developing the Itanium, ever since Compaq bought DEC (maker of the Alpha), and then HP bought Compaq. Suddenly, HP has brightened up and realized they don't need to help their vendor develop their processor, so now Intel is taking it all over, and HP will concentrate on making systems that use the processor. At least, that's the spin Intel puts on it.

      According to Intel, Itanium production is still going forward with no plans to decrease it.
    • HP is dropping Workstations, which is what I think yo are talking about. Considering that Intel's Itanic (well, this is coming from the Reg, we should use their word) partner is dropping the "volume" machine from their order sheets (volume being very relative here) it kind of says Itanic will be niche only from now on.

      This will effectively kill Itanic. You need some volume to make it worthwhile to provide tools. You also need a "low price" (low price also being relative) machine to develop on (I don't t

  • Dropping Windows... (Score:3, Funny)

    by BossMC ( 696762 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:18PM (#11282271) Homepage
    ..is always sucky, because they make a damn mess, and have sharp edges.

  • When will Intel write down entire Itanium project? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:20PM (#11282299)
    Its got to happen at some point, this project has been a complete business failure for Intel...regardless of the pet project clusters and supercomputer projects, the number of shipped units is only a tiny tiny percentage of Intel's vision for this project, although I am sure many here will attempt to justify Itanium as a niche product.

  • I hope this doesn't affect their supercomputer OS. (Score:4, Funny)

    by yorkpaddy ( 830859 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:25PM (#11282361)
    I have been dying for their supercomputer OS. Microsoft considers supercomputer OS [entmag.com]. I really hope MS doesn't ditch that OS too. I have been speccing itanium clusters and they seem to fit my needs. I also can't wait for .Net to come to Itanium, I'm sure MS will write the best optimizing compiler.
  • There is still a fairly solid market for Itaniums. HP will move HPUX and MPE customers (and Tru64 too?) gradually to the platform. Having Intel made processors (as opposed to PA-RISC and Alpha) means that servers can be cheaper and HP can get out of the Microprocessor development business. It may not be everything that HP and Intel hoped for, but it will still give some fairly solid life to the processor.
    • You talk as if these customers are witless dolts who will throw money at whatever the vendor sends their way. I disagree. At these price points the buyers know the market, know what technologies have been End-of-life'd, know the trends etc.

      I highly doubt any of them will be throwing good money at Itanium, and they will probably just drop HP if they feel they can't get better options.

  • Remember to keep the radio on (Score:4, Funny)

    by LordRPI ( 583454 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:36PM (#11282474)
    This just seems to be another iceberg to hit the Itanic.

  • I simply don't understand everyone's enthusiasm! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @08:33PM (#11283620) Homepage
    Come on, folks, you bash x86 architecture (and rigtfully so) and then you turn around and bash Intel for trying to break away from this architecture and do something wildly different and superior. Their only failure was that they haven't "bet the farm" on Itanium. If they did, we'd be running EPIC-architecture 64 bit systems by now. As things stand, the only two viable desktop choices are IBM/Motorola Power architecture (that's 64 bit from the ground up) and this old tired x86 architecture with 64-bit extensions duct taped to its side.

    • Re:I simply don't understand everyone's enthusiasm (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Junta ( 36770 ) on Friday January 07, 2005 @01:02AM (#11285246)
      To be fair, PPC64 is not pure 64-bit from the ground up, it too is 64bit extensions to a 32-bit architecture (the processors commonly known as the G3 and G4 were only 32-bit, for example, and the exact same binary MacOSX runs on G5). This is made painfully aware by a lot of linux distros on PPC64, where if you fail to explicitly install the 64bit development utilities (or specify to use them at compile time), you'll end up with PPC32 binaries by default, which aside from linking into 64bit code or trying to do it as a kernel module, you'd never know the difference without running file against it. It is very much similar to the x86_64 to x86 relationship, with the nice distinction that it did start life as a 32-bit platform and only has legacy dating back to then, unlike x86_64 which continues legacy from the intel 8-bit computing days, which means a lot more strange quirks that no longer are optimal.

      As far as Intel trying to 'bet the farm' to move the world to IA64, I can guarantee it wouldn't have worked no matter how hard Intel tried. Assume hypothetically that Intel had completely ditched x86 and stopped development and production of IA32 chips. At the time Itanium was ready, AMD had already established itself as a pretty viable solution, not as well respected in business, but certainly on the radar. Now when faced with replacement/upgrade of hardware solutions, companies see the poster-child they've grown up to love, Intel, unable to run their existing applications, and therefore a huge cost to migrate in terms of development. Meanwhile, the suboptimal AMD offers fresh, fast x86 processors. Intel's reputation at that point wasn't enough to offset the huge cost of a platform shift. I remember PentiumPro facing harsh criticism and some market problems due to it's slower execution of 16-bit code, and that was when AMD and Cyrix had pretty equal, small, low-budget marketshare.

      Besides, Itanium wasn't exactly pure gold. It had strong points (good High Performance Computing mainly), it had weak points (not good at general workstation use, high volume servers, essentially uses that involve widely varying, unpredictable execution paths).

  • To bad because of comparison to G5 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kurt555gs ( 309278 ) <kurt555gs@ovi.cBLUEom minus berry> on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:01PM (#11284632) Homepage
    It really is to bad that there arent any more Itanic workstations to price compare to the new G5 iMac.

    I get tired of seeing that Macs are more than Dell or HP, when in fact if you price out either Itanium work stations (this is only fair) aganst the G5 iMac, well ..... the Apple is a whole lot cheaper.

    Apples to Oranges?

    Cheers

Slashdot Top Deals

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Close