By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), August 31, 2007 7:53 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 8/31/07 wrote:
---------------------------
>Mr. Camel (a@b.c) on 8/31/07 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>CSI *is* the system architecture. And anyway, I thought the point of it was to
>>have a common system architecture for both Xeon and Itanium. So, when you say "the
>>system architectures are too different" (your quote corrected >for proper English) I don't quite know what you mean.
>
>CSI for x86 and CSI for Itanium are different. I made that quite clear in the
>article. They share a lot, but there are some differences.
>
>DK
"Different non-comparable system architecture" mentioned in my post above are Tigeton vs Beckton. I hoped that it was clear from the context but Mr. Camel still managed to misunderstand :(
Beckton vs Tukwilla while different are obviously similar enough to be compared in the simple terms.
---------------------------
>Mr. Camel (a@b.c) on 8/31/07 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>CSI *is* the system architecture. And anyway, I thought the point of it was to
>>have a common system architecture for both Xeon and Itanium. So, when you say "the
>>system architectures are too different" (your quote corrected >for proper English) I don't quite know what you mean.
>
>CSI for x86 and CSI for Itanium are different. I made that quite clear in the
>article. They share a lot, but there are some differences.
>
>DK
"Different non-comparable system architecture" mentioned in my post above are Tigeton vs Beckton. I hoped that it was clear from the context but Mr. Camel still managed to misunderstand :(
Beckton vs Tukwilla while different are obviously similar enough to be compared in the simple terms.