Monterey Boots on Merced 6
Linux Today is reporting that Monterey is booting on the Merced. The Linux Today story makes it sound as if it booted on an engineering sample, not just a simulator. This makes it the 3rd OS to run on Merced, and it sounds as if Solaris is not far behind. Monterey is the first proprietary Unix to do so, however.
Win64 on IA64 (Score:2)
"We are very pleased with the outstanding progress Microsoft has made on the development of its 64-bit Windows operating system for Intel's Merced processor," said Albert Yu, senior vice president, general manager, Intel's Microprocessor Product Group. "64-bit Windows running on our first IA-64 processor, Merced, will provide a solid foundation for e-business applications when the Merced processor moves into production next year."
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/Aug
Solaris boots on the simulators (Score:1)
Not Surprising... (Score:1)
It would've been a MAJOR embarassment if Intel failed to put instructions through the 1st pass Merced. Especially given the delays that Merced has experienced (wasn't it supposed to be in production systems by late 1998?) Intel's verification department isn't that bad to miss critical flaws like that.
But actually, I don't think boot an OS is a good comprehensive test of the processor.
However, details are really lacking here. For instance, its one thing to single-step the processor during boot. Its a *FAR* different thing to have multiple instructions in the pipeline. Were they able to boot with pipelines enabled?
Was the FPU unit even touched?
Was there external cache in the system?
Did the OS consistantly boot? (no random, unexplained crashes)
Did it boot at the full clock rate?
Tom
Slashdotters faced with hard facts... news @ 11 (Score:1)
Nothing to say? Microsoft HAS a prerelease Win2000/64 running on Merced silicon, suddenly everyone's bloody silent? I haven't seen a new post here in the last hour.
Well okay then, got to keep the momentum going, why not just take a couple of pot shots at... um... SCO for instance. Yeah, I remember mates they have this really weird SVR3 variant which wouldn't boot with my nVidia - SCO SUUUCKS!!!
Come on people, doesn't anyone have anything _intelligent_ to say about this? Could Microsoft just pull this off under our noses?
Sure NT will always be slower and buggier than any other Unix out there, but is it just possible they'll be ready IN TIME, be Y2K compliant, 64-bit with full 32-bit compatibility, better open-standards compliance, good scalability? Why isn't anyone posting some intelligent response to this? Rabbit-in-headlights syndrome?
Monterey boots on Merced (Score:1)