Quick question ia64 vs amd 32/64

[Peter Wemm]

Jim Brown wrote:
> * David O'Brien <obrien at FreeBSD.org> [2003-05-15 21:40]:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:56:09PM -0400, Michael J. Pelletier wrote:
> > > 1) Which architecture is currently supported more Intel or AMD?
> > 
> > Intel IA-64
> > 
> > > 2) Which architecture will be maturely supported first by FreeBSD?
> > 
> > IMHO, AMD64.  Note I am biased though.  Today more committers have AMD64
> > boxes than IA-64, much less 6 mo. from now.  The AMD64 platform has a
> > much more common i386 architecture and can share i386's packages.
> > 
> > 
> > > In your option which architecture is better and why?
> > 
> > AMD64, but again I'm strongly biased and this question should be taken to
> > chat at freebsd.org
> >  
> > -- 
> > -- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)
>
> You're probably better off getting infrom from Gartner or 
> Giga.  They track stuff like that...

They probably dont track FreeBSD kernel stability on the two respective
platforms.  The FreeBSD/amd64 is way more robust than FreeBSD/ia64 at
the moment.  This is probably because it is a far less complicated
system to target and we can lean directly on the i386 code.

Anyway, FreeBSD/amd64 hasn't been released yet so its a bit academic until
then.  But it is coming along at a very nice pace and there'll probably
be an unofficial 5.1 ISO of it.

Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter at wemm.org; peter at FreeBSD.org; peter at yahoo-inc.com
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5