Talk:IA-64
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The reference to "EFI" in instruction set is technically incorrect. EFI is a specification that governs a replacement for system BIOS it applies to any architecture, not IPF in particular. The code that supplements an IPF processor is call the PAL/SAL for Processor Abstraction Layer/System Abstraction Layer. I will change this shortly if nobody objects. --Metadynamics 23:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to mention AMD's version of the 64-bit architecture? Specifically how AMD will not follow the lead of Intel, and will instead extend the x86 based design into 64 bits. --seav 21:50, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
- Possibly as a competitor. It's hard to write much about it while the battle is running hot. - David Gerard 11:16, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
This article is largely redundant with Itanium - is there actually a difference anyone outside Intel marketing cares about? Should one be folded into the other? - David Gerard 11:16, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Unless anyone strenuously objects (and is willing to work to differentiate the two articles effectively), I'll be merging this with Itanium in a few days - David Gerard 18:16, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Merger with Itanium article
Did this IA-64 article ever get merged into the Itanium article?
- Per the discussion in the talk page for Itanium, this should not be merged as it applies to the IA64 architecture, not the Itanium product as sold by Intel. If anything the Itanium and Itanium2 pages should be merged, even though they are generationally distict they are logically continuous.--Metadynamics 23:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] IA-64 and Apple
Is this also the same instruction set that Apple Computer will port into? If yes, it should be in the article.
Answer: No, it is not.
[edit] IA-32 Execution Layer
Perhaps the developments around the IA-32 Execution Layer could be added to the part regarding IA-32 Support?
Testing 123
[edit] Isn't IA-64 dead?
I thought Intel had given up on IA-64 and switched to making x86-64 go faster. If that's true, it should be reflected in this article. (sorry, I don't have a reference at hand) --Alvestrand 22:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- No they have not, as of Feb 2007. Please see Itanium 2. The fact that apparently everybody in the industry thinks that they should just give it up does not mean that they have given it up. See Intel iAPX 432 for the last time this happened. - Arch dude 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Needs more sources
I think this article needs more sources. Whole sections do not cite a single source. New guy 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for comment: consolidated article
I have attempted to write a consolidated article, capturing all the important stuff from Itanium, Itanium 2, and IA-64, with the intent of replacing the three with one article named Itanium.
The proposed article is in my workspace. Please review and comment. (Comments on the proposed article's talk page, please.)
In addition to simplification and consolidation, I have attempted to add citations wherever I could, and I have removed some material that I could not find citations for. The article is basically a complete rewrite, but almost everything in it is from the original articles, with two major exceptions:
- The material on the architecture is considerably more detailed and focused on architecture.
- I added a timeline, moved many statements to the timeline, and added material to it.
The form of the citations still needs work, and we need still more citations. We are still missing a lot of history from the timeline,(mostly 1994-1997) and we are missing a paragraph in the "History" section abou tthe period from 2002 to present.However, this is material that is not present in the current articles either.
Thanks.-Arch dude 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: Colleagues, the WP:MERGE guideline is that a proposed merge can be completed after a two-week discussion period if consensus is reached, or after a four-week period if no comments are received. So far, there are no comments. I intend to perform the merger on or about 16 april if there are still no comments by then , but I would really prefer to have someone review the proposed new article. -Arch dude 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
