On May 9, 5:40*pm, hpuxrac <johnbhur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On May 9, 7:14*pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > > > But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
> > > > disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
> > > > hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
> > > > fork specifically for db needs. *Do you not think these are legitimate
> > > > advocacy issues?
>
> snip
>
> > > Do you have something specific to backup the "Intel hardware sucks" line?
>
> > I am pretty sure he must be referring to x86. His arguments sound like
> > coming from the old RISC vs. CISC dichotomy era, which is long gone.
>
> Hard to guess when Joel makes such a broad statement. ... he seems to
> be combining some thought about the size of the linux kernel and
> ancillary software getting larger combined with a shot against intel.

Pretty accurate.

>
> I did my best at my place to keep amd in the race but at the time of
> the purchase decision they just weren't a factor at that time. *Things
> change and continue to change ... unless one gives a specific set of
> benchmark results at a point in time this just sounds "not so
> relevant" imho.

Ramon got it right. It's not long gone for me, as I'm currently
transitioning from risc to Itanium on hp-ux (not my decision, and the
only testing is management half-listening to salespeople then doing
what is cheapest. They are going heavily into Xeon for the non-Oracle
stuff, and using vmware to run multiple XP clients on mission critical
operations. Random lockups, "unable to load profile" and some bizarro
registry issues are the result.). I do respect your actual testing,
though, and secretly hope I'm wrong.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
That darn Moscone center: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/t...encevirus.html