• X86S

    From fusion@21:1/616 to All on Thu Apr 18 19:09:15 2024
    We spoke here previously about DOS support after 2038.. it would seem we have another potential enemy in the form of a proposal from Intel :)

    https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/envisionin g-future-simplified-architecture.html

    There was a thread about this on the os2world forum as well if anyone wants to check that out (don't have the url offhand..)

    Essentially, all legacy 16-bit support would be removed from the hardware itself, as well as some of the 32-bit support (no Windows 7 or 10 32-bit,
    OS/2 nor ArcaOS). VirtualBox & others would no longer virtualize any of these either (i.e. No VBox Win7 BBS with DOS support, proxmox Windows guest, etc)

    Seemingly the available options would be Windows 64-bit with the NTVDMx64 (which DM mentioned breaks stuff now) or DOSBox/PCEm/etc type emulators.

    tbh the outcome/timeframe and solutions are about the same as the 2038 one (i doubt you're going to break every piece of hardware you have until then and be forced to get an X86S machine either) but i thought it was interesting still :)

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (21:1/616)
  • From Nightfox@21:1/137 to fusion on Thu Apr 18 16:54:59 2024
    Re: X86S
    By: fusion to All on Thu Apr 18 2024 07:09 pm

    There was a thread about this on the os2world forum as well if anyone wants to check that out (don't have the url offhand..)

    Essentially, all legacy 16-bit support would be removed from the hardware itself, as well as some of the 32-bit support (no Windows 7 or 10 32-bit, OS/2 nor ArcaOS). VirtualBox & others would no longer virtualize any of these either (i.e. No VBox Win7 BBS with DOS support, proxmox Windows guest, etc)

    Seemingly the available options would be Windows 64-bit with the NTVDMx64 (which DM mentioned breaks stuff now) or DOSBox/PCEm/etc type emulators.

    That would be a bummer about not being able to natively run operating systems like OS/2 or ArcaOS etc. anymore, but maybe at least a 64-bit version of ArcaOS could be made.

    I'm currently using dosemu2 in Linux to run DOS doors, so hopefully that and similar mechanisms would continue to work.

    I suppose this was bound to happen at some point. In some ways, I think we users of x86 architecture have been lucky that at least some amount of backwards compatibility has continued this long. There are some computer platforms (such as Mac) that have swapped their hardware architecture more than once, with official backwards compatibility (via emulation) only lasting a limited time.

    Nightfox
    --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
    * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
  • From mary4@21:1/166 to fusion on Fri Apr 19 10:59:47 2024
    https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/envis g-future-simplified-architecture.html

    i will skin who ever thought this is a good idea alive! >:(

    --mary4 (Victoria Crenshaw) the 286 enthusiast

    ... 640K ought to be enough for anybody. -Bill Gates, 1981.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Datanet BBS | telnet://datanetbbs.net:23 (21:1/166)
  • From claw@21:1/210 to fusion on Fri Apr 19 07:51:08 2024
    What about linux? Wouldn't that still offer the same options?

    |23|04Dr|16|12Claw
    |16|14Sysop |12Noverdu |14BBS |20|15Radio|10@|14HTTP://Noverdu.com:88
    |16|10 Standard ports for SSH/Telnet |04 WEB|14@|12HTTP://noverdu.com:808 |20|15Global Chat, Global Messaging and Games! |16|10Ditch the Unsocial Media

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Noverdu BBS (21:1/210)
  • From tenser@21:1/101 to mary4 on Sat Apr 20 00:49:47 2024
    On 19 Apr 2024 at 10:59a, mary4 pondered and said...

    https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/ g-future-simplified-architecture.html

    i will skin who ever thought this is a good idea alive! >:(

    It's actually a pretty good idea if they intend to keep
    x86 relevant for new product development for much longer.
    It costs Intel an enormous amount in validation to do a
    new microarchitecture; much of that comes from the intrinsic
    complexity of keeping 16-bit support around.

    It really doesn't change that much for modern operating
    systems; the boot sequence changes, and it's not clear to
    me how you set up the initial page tables for starting the
    BSP (they seem to defer that to some hidden core prior to
    x86 coming out of reset), but the updated SIPI stuff is
    kind of nice.

    32-bit mode remains for userspace applications, so it won't
    affect much software written in the last 30 years for real
    operating systems.

    The solution for DOS etc is to run it under a full-system
    emulator.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)
  • From fusion@21:1/616 to claw on Fri Apr 19 09:49:05 2024
    On 19 Apr 2024, claw said the following...

    What about linux? Wouldn't that still offer the same options?

    i didn't look before but according to the dosemu wiki it uses the hardware- assisted virtualization as well, so it might no longer work.

    but basically: any software that uses 16-bit or 32-bit hardware virtualization (in a way that would allow running a 32-bit OS from the sound of it) would no longer function

    so any combination of linux running virtualbox running windows 32-bit, windows 7 32-bit native running the built-in dos vdm, potentially linux running dosemu as mentioned above, windows 64-bit running virtualbox running os/2 running a dos bbs.. those types of combos would be dead on this proposed architecture.

    it's just a proposal though. i think AMD broke some of this stuff on early ryzen cpus and people complained so we're not the only ones using it still..

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (21:1/616)
  • From mary4@21:1/166 to tenser on Sat Apr 20 00:58:39 2024
    It's actually a pretty good idea if they intend to keep
    x86 relevant for new product development for much longer.
    It costs Intel an enormous amount in validation to do a
    new microarchitecture; much of that comes from the intrinsic
    complexity of keeping 16-bit support around.

    It really doesn't change that much for modern operating
    systems; the boot sequence changes, and it's not clear to
    me how you set up the initial page tables for starting the
    BSP (they seem to defer that to some hidden core prior to
    x86 coming out of reset), but the updated SIPI stuff is
    kind of nice.

    32-bit mode remains for userspace applications, so it won't
    affect much software written in the last 30 years for real
    operating systems.

    The solution for DOS etc is to run it under a full-system
    emulator.

    ;_; this means if this rolls out then the X86 to me is dead and the original PC line dies with it....

    --mary4 (Victoria Crenshaw) the 286 enthusiast

    ... Help! I can't find the "ANY" key.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Datanet BBS | telnet://datanetbbs.net:23 (21:1/166)
  • From mary4@21:1/166 to fusion on Sat Apr 20 01:00:32 2024
    it's just a proposal though. i think AMD broke some of this stuff on
    early ryzen cpus and people complained so we're not the only ones using
    it still..
    i use retro shit all the time though.

    --mary4 (Victoria Crenshaw) the 286 enthusiast

    ... DOS=HIGH? I knew it was on something...

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Datanet BBS | telnet://datanetbbs.net:23 (21:1/166)
  • From Gamgee@21:2/138 to claw on Fri Apr 19 10:23:00 2024
    claw wrote to fusion <=-

    What about linux? Wouldn't that still offer the same options?

    Same options as...... what?

    You didn't quote anything, so nobody knows what you're asking about.



    ... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
    === MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
    * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (21:2/138)
  • From tenser@21:1/101 to mary4 on Sat Apr 20 03:43:43 2024
    On 20 Apr 2024 at 12:58a, mary4 pondered and said...

    ;_; this means if this rolls out then the X86 to me is dead and the original PC line dies with it....

    Yeah, but the amount of stuff that's virtualized and/or
    emulated to give software the impression that it's still
    running on something that looks vaguely like an IBM PC
    is astounding. Simply put, the PC hasn't been a real
    "PC" for a few decades now.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@21:4/122 to fusion on Fri Apr 19 06:35:00 2024
    fusion wrote to All <=-

    Essentially, all legacy 16-bit support would be removed from the
    hardware itself, as well as some of the 32-bit support (no Windows 7 or
    10 32-bit, OS/2 nor ArcaOS). VirtualBox & others would no longer virtualize any of these either (i.e. No VBox Win7 BBS with DOS support, proxmox Windows guest, etc)

    Since Marketing is Evil, I'd venture that they'd come up with:

    1. A Mainstream line with 16-bit support removed at the same price point
    as we're paying now.

    2. An Intel Legacy(tm) line of processors, identical to what we can buy
    now, except in limited quantities and *much* more expensive.

    I wanted to go into marketing, but they found out my parents were
    warm-blooded.



    ... What wouldn't you do?
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.52
    * Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@21:4/122 to Nightfox on Fri Apr 19 06:45:00 2024
    Nightfox wrote to fusion <=-

    I suppose this was bound to happen at some point. In some ways, I
    think we users of x86 architecture have been lucky that at least some amount of backwards compatibility has continued this long. There are
    some computer platforms (such as Mac) that have swapped their hardware architecture more than once, with official backwards compatibility (via emulation) only lasting a limited time.

    Northern Telecom was a PBX and network manufacturer back in the day -
    their marketing department called their PBXes "evergreen technology",
    and it's the only time I can recall where it wasn't just a platitude.

    They started off creating proprietary PBX chips and hardware in the mid
    1970s. The original cabinets were full-height jobs that ran 4 digital
    phones or copper trunks per card.

    The CPUs were proprietary chips, designed by Nortel. They increased the
    power of the CPUs and the density of the chips until cabinets could hold
    many more times the phones, and the CPUs could keep up with it.

    Nortel moved to Motorola chips, and ported the OS over to run on bare
    metal. Later, they moved to Intel chips running VXWorks, and ported the
    OS over to VxWorks.

    You could take a single-density cabinet from 1975 and plug it into a
    2000s Intel-based PBX. Run an antique phone alongside a SIP phone and
    have them both conference in over a VOIP trunk.

    I worked on a late 1970s Nortel SL1 PBX and one of the last Nortel
    CS1000 PBXes from the late 2000s, and the programming was the same.





    ... Which parts can be grouped?
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.52
    * Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)
  • From mary4@21:1/166 to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat Apr 20 08:16:34 2024
    Since Marketing is Evil, I'd venture that they'd come up with:

    1. A Mainstream line with 16-bit support removed at the same price point as we're paying now.

    2. An Intel Legacy(tm) line of processors, identical to what we can buy now, except in limited quantities and *much* more expensive.

    I wanted to go into marketing, but they found out my parents were warm-blooded.



    i think they would definately do this

    --mary4 (Victoria Crenshaw) the 286 enthusiast

    ... System halted - Press all keys at once to continue

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Datanet BBS | telnet://datanetbbs.net:23 (21:1/166)
  • From Digital Man to fusion on Mon Apr 22 20:29:04 2024
    Re: X86S
    By: fusion to All on Thu Apr 18 2024 07:09 pm

    We spoke here previously about DOS support after 2038.. it would seem we have another potential enemy in the form of a proposal from Intel :)

    https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/envisio nin g-future-simplified-architecture.html

    Funny how they refer to it as "Intel 64 mode" when AMD actually invented it.
    --
    digital man (rob)

    Steven Wright quote #13:
    How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?
    Norco, CA WX: 56.5°F, 91.0% humidity, 3 mph W wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
  • From tenser@21:1/101 to Digital Man on Wed Apr 24 01:16:58 2024
    On 22 Apr 2024 at 08:29p, Digital Man pondered and said...

    Funny how they refer to it as "Intel 64 mode" when AMD actually invented it. --

    I actually blame DEC. If they hadn't let most of their Alpha
    team decamp for AMD, the world would be very different today.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)
  • From Nightfox@21:1/137 to Digital Man on Tue Apr 23 09:38:33 2024
    Re: X86S
    By: Digital Man to fusion on Mon Apr 22 2024 08:29 pm

    https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/envisi
    o nin g-future-simplified-architecture.html

    Funny how they refer to it as "Intel 64 mode" when AMD actually invented it.

    I've seen it refered to as "AMD64" fairly often, and sometimes I've seen people confused about whether something built for AMD64 will run on an Intel system. Even some people I worked with at Intel were sometimes confused about that (sometimes we'd download Linux ISOs to install on some of our test systems, and they were often labeled as x86 or AMD64).

    Nightfox
    --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
    * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
  • From Digital Man to Nightfox on Tue Apr 23 11:24:24 2024
    Re: X86S
    By: Nightfox to Digital Man on Tue Apr 23 2024 09:38 am

    Re: X86S
    By: Digital Man to fusion on Mon Apr 22 2024 08:29 pm

    https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/envisi
    o nin g-future-simplified-architecture.html

    Funny how they refer to it as "Intel 64 mode" when AMD actually invented it.

    I've seen it refered to as "AMD64" fairly often, and sometimes I've seen people confused about whether something built for AMD64 will run on an Intel system. Even some people I worked with at Intel were sometimes confused about that (sometimes we'd download Linux ISOs to install on some of our test systems, and they were often labeled as x86 or AMD64).

    Yeah, that's because AMD did it first and Intel followed. FreeBSD (at least) still refers to the x86_64 architecture as "amd64" everywhere. I prefer just to refer to it as "x64" and certainly never "Intel 64" - that would just be misattribution (though the base archicture/instruction set was definitely created by Intel). But Intel had its go with the Itanium (IA64) architecture, which flopped, so if they want to claim invention/ownership of a 64-bit PC/server architecture, they should claim that one.
    --
    digital man (rob)

    Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #87:
    UART = Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter
    Norco, CA WX: 62.0°F, 75.0% humidity, 5 mph NW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
  • From Nightfox@21:1/137 to Digital Man on Tue Apr 23 12:51:36 2024
    Re: X86S
    By: Digital Man to Nightfox on Tue Apr 23 2024 11:24 am

    of our test systems, and they were often labeled as x86 or AMD64).

    Yeah, that's because AMD did it first and Intel followed. FreeBSD (at least) still refers to the x86_64 architecture as "amd64" everywhere. I prefer just to refer to it as "x64" and certainly never "Intel 64" - that

    Yep. I also prefer to call it x64 (or x86_64).

    was definitely created by Intel). But Intel had its go with the Itanium (IA64) architecture, which flopped, so if they want to claim invention/ownership of a 64-bit PC/server architecture, they should claim that one.

    Yeah, I remember hearing about the Itanium.

    Nightfox
    --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
    * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
  • From Spectre@21:3/101 to Digital Man on Wed Apr 24 12:09:00 2024
    Yeah, that's because AMD did it first and Intel followed. FreeBSD (at least) still refers to the x86_64 architecture as "amd64" everywhere. I prefer just to refer to it as "x64" and certainly never "Intel 64" - that would just be misattribution (though the base archicture/instruction set was definitely created by Intel). But Intel had its go with the Itanium (IA64) architecture, which flopped, so if they want to claim

    Was going to point out as I started reading, the Itanium arrived first, I
    don't remember seeing it for anything other than server class hardware, and everything had to be re-written/compiled for it. Where as AMD64 was more an extension for X32 and was backwardly compatible.

    Spec


    *** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]
    --- SuperBBS v1.17-3 (Eval)
    * Origin: Good Luck and drive offensively! (21:3/101)
  • From Nightfox@21:1/137 to Spectre on Wed Apr 24 09:46:08 2024
    Re: X86S
    By: Spectre to Digital Man on Wed Apr 24 2024 12:09 pm

    Was going to point out as I started reading, the Itanium arrived first, I don't remember seeing it for anything other than server class hardware, and everything had to be re-written/compiled for it. Where as AMD64 was more an extension for X32 and was backwardly compatible.

    I know I'm just being pedantic, but the 32-bit mode is called x86, not x32. I think the name comes from Intel's early processor, the 8086.

    Nightfox
    --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
    * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
  • From tenser@21:1/101 to Spectre on Thu Apr 25 07:46:41 2024
    On 24 Apr 2024 at 12:09p, Spectre pondered and said...

    Was going to point out as I started reading, the Itanium arrived first, I don't remember seeing it for anything other than server class hardware, and everything had to be re-written/compiled for it. Where as AMD64 was more an extension for X32 and was backwardly compatible.

    The big problem with Itanium is that it was predicated
    on having really, really smart compilers that could do
    the instruction scheduling (it was VLIW). Those never
    materialized, so it never lived up to its performance
    potential.

    AMD led quite the coup with x86_64. What happened there
    was that Digital Equipment Corporation was in its death
    throes, and they hemorrhaged some of their best Alpha
    designers (Alpha, at the time, was the fastest microprocessor
    in the world) to AMD. At the time, Intel was pushing
    Itanium hard, and refused to entertain the idea of a
    64-bit x86. This extraordinarily talented team, now at
    AMD, didn't want to futz about with an also-ran x86 clone,
    so they came up with x86_64. It was fast, supported a
    large virtual address space (x86 had had PAE for several
    years by then, so they already had a large physical address
    space), and retained compatibility with 32-bit x86
    applications.

    That was kind of what the OEMs all wanted, which meant that
    the desktop market and low-end servers all went x86_64, and
    Itanium was relegated to the high-end, where it only had
    marginal market penetration. Eventually, x86_64 took over
    there, too (at least by volume), in part thanks to the
    hyperscalars paving the way for large-scale x86 deployment
    in server environments.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)
  • From Nightfox@21:1/137 to tenser on Wed Apr 24 12:55:02 2024
    Re: Re: X86S
    By: tenser to Spectre on Thu Apr 25 2024 07:46 am

    AMD led quite the coup with x86_64. What happened there was that Digital Equipment Corporation was in its death throes, and they hemorrhaged some of their best Alpha designers (Alpha, at the time, was the fastest microprocessor in the world) to AMD. At the time, Intel was pushing Itanium hard, and refused to entertain the idea of a 64-bit x86. This extraordinarily talented team, now at AMD, didn't want to futz about with an also-ran x86 clone, so they came up with x86_64. It was fast, supported a large virtual address space (x86 had had PAE for several years by then, so they already had a large physical address space), and retained compatibility with 32-bit x86 applications.

    That was kind of what the OEMs all wanted, which meant that the desktop market and low-end servers all went x86_64, and Itanium was relegated to the high-end, where it only had marginal market penetration. Eventually, x86_64 took over there, too (at least by volume), in part thanks to the hyperscalars paving the way for large-scale x86 deployment in server environments.

    I think it's interesting that it happened that way. I think moving forward while maintaining backward compatibility has been an advantage with x86 processors.

    Apple seems to have the opposite strategy, where they have no problem swapping out the processor in their Mac lineup to something entirely different. They've done that several times in the history of the Mac. I've done some software development work on an M1 Mac not too long ago, and one of the frustrations was having to use its x86 emulation sometimes to do some builds, as there were some 3rd-party software libraries that were still only supporting x86 and didn't support M1 yet.

    Nightfox
    --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
    * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
  • From tenser@21:1/101 to Nightfox on Thu Apr 25 07:54:12 2024
    On 24 Apr 2024 at 09:46a, Nightfox pondered and said...

    Was going to point out as I started reading, the Itanium arrived firs don't remember seeing it for anything other than server class hardwar and everything had to be re-written/compiled for it. Where as AMD64 more an extension for X32 and was backwardly compatible.

    I know I'm just being pedantic, but the 32-bit mode is called x86, not x32. I think the name comes from Intel's early processor, the 8086.

    If you _really_ want to be pedantic about it, Intel calls the
    32-bit environment "IA-32e compatibility mode". :-D At least,
    when running a real OS that actually understands modern hardware.
    The architecture was called IA-32 starting with the 80386.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)
  • From tenser@21:1/101 to Nightfox on Thu Apr 25 08:00:51 2024
    On 24 Apr 2024 at 12:55p, Nightfox pondered and said...

    I think it's interesting that it happened that way. I think moving forward while maintaining backward compatibility has been an advantage with x86 processors.

    It's been a blessing and a curse. They've been able to
    retain compatibility with truly ancient software, and that's
    no small feat. But the architecture is atrociously complex
    as a result. Most of the time no one has to care, but OS
    people do, and there's some seriously annoying vestiges of
    bad ideas that you can't get away from (someone explain to
    me, please, why I still have to care about the TSS is 64-bit
    mode. It's just a table of stack pointers; stuff 'em in
    MSRs).

    Apple seems to have the opposite strategy, where they have no problem swapping out the processor in their Mac lineup to something entirely different. They've done that several times in the history of the Mac. I've done some software development work on an M1 Mac not too long ago, and one of the frustrations was having to use its x86 emulation
    sometimes to do some builds, as there were some 3rd-party software libraries that were still only supporting x86 and didn't support M1 yet.

    By my count, the Mac is on its 4th hardware architecture (68k,
    PowerPC, x86, and now ARM).

    Their observation, and it's not a bad one, is that it doesn't
    matter all _that_ much: once you've got decent binary translation
    support in place for the transition, very few people are writing
    assembly language directly anymore; you can just recompile for a
    new ISA and go with that. Of course, issues like you described
    are irritating for software developers, most that's an edge case.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)
  • From Spectre@21:3/101 to Nightfox on Thu Apr 25 06:56:00 2024
    I know I'm just being pedantic, but the 32-bit mode is called x86, not x32. I think the name comes from Intel's early processor, the 8086.

    Thou art correct... bit of a brain fart, but can't edit stuff here once its posted.

    Spec


    *** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]
    --- SuperBBS v1.17-3 (Eval)
    * Origin: Good Luck and drive offensively! (21:3/101)
  • From AKAcastor@21:1/162 to Tenser on Wed Apr 24 13:58:24 2024
    By my count, the Mac is on its 4th hardware architecture (68k,
    PowerPC, x86, and now ARM).
    Their observation, and it's not a bad one, is that it doesn't
    matter all _that_ much: once you've got decent binary translation
    support in place for the transition, very few people are writing
    assembly language directly anymore; you can just recompile for a
    new ISA and go with that. Of course, issues like you described
    are irritating for software developers, most that's an edge case.

    I've been thinking about this too since I got an ARM Macbook - there's been some hassles (running non-ARM virtual machines), but in the big picture the problems haven't been the worst. And from past transitions we've seen that we get over these changes quickly, when it comes to the long term.

    Right now the hassle is running some recent-but-not-current x86 software, but it's been quite a while since most of us were concerned with the switch from PowerPC. Or the switch from 68k before that. Between the emulation provided by Apple, and the march of time, we've seen an architecture change is survivable.

    Anyway, even without a switch to a totally different architecture, we still generally end up needing compatibility layers to run very old software on new machines. (for any platform)

    I think it's a bit of the same idea that led to the removal of floppy disk drives from Apple computers, before many people were ready to let them go. But now when I look back, I think it's more strange how long mostly-unused floppy disk drives kept being installed in PCs. (used maybe for a driver install, because PCs weren't forced to move on to a better standard, because the floppy drives stuck around.)


    Chris/akacastor

    --- Maximus 3.01
    * Origin: Another Millennium - Canada - another.tel (21:1/162)
  • From Nightfox@21:1/137 to AKAcastor on Wed Apr 24 14:35:40 2024
    Re: Re: X86S
    By: AKAcastor to Tenser on Wed Apr 24 2024 01:58 pm

    I think it's a bit of the same idea that led to the removal of floppy disk drives from Apple computers, before many people were ready to let them go. But now when I look back, I think it's more strange how long mostly-unused floppy disk drives kept being installed in PCs. (used maybe for a driver install, because PCs weren't forced to move on to a better standard, because the floppy drives stuck around.)

    I'm not a big fan of things being removed before their usefulness has passed. Now that I actually stopped using floppy disks years ago, I'm fine with my PC not having a floppy drive.

    Nightfox
    --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
    * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
  • From geos_one@21:1/999 to fusion on Thu Apr 25 15:19:07 2024
    i think this would result in somthing like th old days into cpu pcie cards or so where the 16-32 bit part would run in think.

    ... Belohnung fuer eine gut gemachte Arbeit: Mehr Arbeit.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Disconnected by Peer BBS (21:1/999)
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@21:4/122 to tenser on Thu Apr 25 06:56:00 2024
    tenser wrote to Spectre <=-

    That was kind of what the OEMs all wanted, which meant that
    the desktop market and low-end servers all went x86_64, and
    Itanium was relegated to the high-end, where it only had
    marginal market penetration. Eventually, x86_64 took over
    there, too (at least by volume), in part thanks to the
    hyperscalars paving the way for large-scale x86 deployment
    in server environments.

    It seems lots of people underestimated the power of lots of cheap Intel
    boxes. Central Computers in San Francisco was my idea of an auto-scaling
    group - traffic increases on the web site? I could call them and get a
    server built in 24 hours. They were 4 blocks away.

    The year before we'd been running Sun for both the database and front-end
    of a web site using some Netscap web server - the following year the
    front-end was all cheap white boxes running Apache on Linux.





    ... Walk without rhythm and you won't attact the worm.
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.52
    * Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)
  • From tenser@21:1/101 to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Apr 26 06:06:25 2024
    On 25 Apr 2024 at 06:56a, poindexter FORTRAN pondered and said...

    tenser wrote to Spectre <=-

    That was kind of what the OEMs all wanted, which meant that
    the desktop market and low-end servers all went x86_64, and
    Itanium was relegated to the high-end, where it only had
    marginal market penetration. Eventually, x86_64 took over
    there, too (at least by volume), in part thanks to the
    hyperscalars paving the way for large-scale x86 deployment
    in server environments.

    It seems lots of people underestimated the power of lots of cheap Intel boxes. Central Computers in San Francisco was my idea of an auto-scaling group - traffic increases on the web site? I could call them and get a server built in 24 hours. They were 4 blocks away.

    The year before we'd been running Sun for both the database and front-end of a web site using some Netscap web server - the following year the front-end was all cheap white boxes running Apache on Linux.

    100% this. Google started out going down that road, but
    then the need to scale hit them in the pocketbook and they
    realized that they could scale _horizontally_ by buying
    lots and lots of cheap, shitty computers and putting them
    into racks themselves. You didn't _need_ a big Sun Ultra
    Enterprise E10k machine with all sorts of redundancies baked
    in, and for the pricetag of that one box, you could buy 10x
    more in raw compute capacity in cheap PCs. You also didn't
    need a super expensive Oracle database to run it all. And
    if one of those machines crashes? Oh well, you've got 999
    more that'll keep running. Eventually someone will wander
    through the data center and reboot the ones that crashed.

    Of course, it helped that search is an embarrassingly parallel
    problem. And nowadays Google datacenter machines are marvels
    of modern engineering that you can't buy on the open market
    (but you can buy similar machines from Oxide!).

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)
  • From krull@21:1/158 to Nightfox on Wed May 1 19:41:20 2024
    I'm not a big fan of things being removed before their usefulness has passed. Now that I actually stopped using floppy disks years ago, I'm
    fine with my PC not having a floppy drive.


    Hmmm Even though I "like"floppies, older computers - Hey even my "home server"is probably 20 years old already, and "main desktop"is over 12... - It's prpbbaly more than 15 years I don't use a flopp disk. Even USB drives, to be real, I havent used for about 4 years... except when I want to install/reinstall OS on some of those machines and older laptops I have here...
    even on those machines I really ddidnt need the floppies anymore...



    [ ]
    Krull

    ... Confucius say: "Man who runs behind car gets exhausted"

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (21:1/158)
  • From niter3@21:1/199 to krull on Wed May 1 14:58:10 2024
    Hmmm Even though I "like"floppies, older computers - Hey even my "home server"is probably 20 years old already, and "main desktop"is over 12...
    - It's prpbbaly more than 15 years I don't use a flopp disk. Even USB

    What kind of machines?

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Clutch BBS * telnet://clutchbbs.com (21:1/199)
  • From Nightfox@21:1/137 to krull on Wed May 1 12:24:44 2024
    Re: Re: X86S
    By: krull to Nightfox on Wed May 01 2024 07:41 pm

    I'm not a big fan of things being removed before their usefulness has
    passed. Now that I actually stopped using floppy disks years ago, I'm
    fine with my PC not having a floppy drive.

    Hmmm Even though I "like"floppies, older computers - Hey even my "home server"is probably 20 years old already, and "main desktop"is over 12... - It's prpbbaly more than 15 years I don't use a flopp disk. Even USB drives, to be real, I havent used for about 4 years... except when I want to install/reinstall OS on some of those machines and older laptops I have here... even on those machines I really ddidnt need the floppies anymore...

    Yeah, even if you have an older PC, I wouldn't really expect to use floppy disks if those computers can use newer things.

    Nightfox
    --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
    * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
  • From Roon@21:4/148 to krull on Wed May 1 21:28:45 2024
    Hello krull,

    01 May 24 19:41, you wrote to Nightfox:

    I'm not a big fan of things being removed before their usefulness
    has passed. Now that I actually stopped using floppy disks years
    ago, I'm fine with my PC not having a floppy drive.

    Hmmm Even though I "like"floppies, older computers - Hey even my
    "home server"is probably 20 years old already, and "main desktop"is
    over 12... - It's prpbbaly more than 15 years I don't use a flopp
    disk. Even USB drives, to be real, I havent used for about 4 years... except when I want to install/reinstall OS on some of those machines
    and older laptops I have here... even on those machines I really
    ddidnt need the floppies anymore...

    i've set up a local tftp for network install/memtest possibility, so if its not a windows machine, i don't have to use usb drives for that purpose :)

    Regards,
    --
    dp

    telnet://bbs.roonsbbs.hu:1212 <<=-

    ... Uptime: 4d 1h 13m 31s
    --- GoldED/2 1.1.4.7+EMX
    * Origin: Roon's BBS - Budapest, HUNGARY (21:4/148)
  • From krull@21:1/158 to niter3 on Sat May 4 02:42:30 2024
    What kind of machines?


    ah let's rephrase to "older PCs"... have an AMD Athlon X2, an FX-8350 (or any number close to that, I just forgot), and some damn old notebooks - a celeron, a AMD E-350... wierd stuff :)

    [ ]
    krull

    ... Light year: 1/3 less calories than your regular year

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (21:1/158)
  • From mary4@21:1/166 to krull on Sat May 4 23:39:26 2024
    Hmmm Even though I "like"floppies, older computers - Hey even my "home server"is probably 20 years old already, and "main desktop"is over 12...
    - It's prpbbaly more than 15 years I don't use a flopp disk. Even USB drives, to be real, I havent used for about 4 years... except when I
    want to install/reinstall OS on some of those machines and older
    laptops I have here... even on those machines I really ddidnt need the floppies anymore...

    floppies are a novity now. having them means your retro! like me!

    --mary4 (Victoria Crenshaw) the 286 enthusiast

    ... Error, no Keyboard - Press F1 to Continue.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Datanet BBS | telnet://datanetbbs.net:23 (21:1/166)
  • From Spectre@21:3/101 to krull on Sun May 5 11:09:00 2024
    ah let's rephrase to "older PCs"... have an AMD Athlon X2, an FX-8350 (or

    I ended up retiring my FX-8xxx it was a great box, but it was prone to overheating, and it drank electrickery like it was going out of fashion :/
    Went back to a core2 Quad after that.

    Spec


    *** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]
    --- SuperBBS v1.17-3 (Eval)
    * Origin: Good Luck and drive offensively! (21:3/101)
  • From krull@21:1/158 to mary4 on Wed May 8 13:26:51 2024
    floppies are a novity now. having them means your retro! like me!


    Oh, that's true. I have many, just don't use. LOL
    I remember some kind of music netlabel.. "Pionierska", I guess, they used to sell music floppies... :)

    [ ]
    Krull

    ... I wish life had a scroll-back buffer.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (21:1/158)
  • From mary4@21:1/166 to krull on Sun May 12 02:00:09 2024
    Oh, that's true. I have many, just don't use. LOL
    I remember some kind of music netlabel.. "Pionierska", I guess, they
    used to sell music floppies... :)

    :DDDDDDDDDDDD yay! <3 thats PEAK COOL!!!! <3

    --mary4 (Victoria Crenshaw) the 286 enthusiast

    ... Redundant book title: DOS For Dummies

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Datanet BBS | telnet://datanetbbs.net:23 (21:1/166)