Re: New RDBMS implementation

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when "Anthony W. Youngman" <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk> would write:
> In message <pan.2004.05.06.13.13.14.742614_at_dutra.fastmail.fm>, Leandro
> Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm> writes
>>> But this is the raison d'etre the .Net framework. The 64 bit "revolution"
>>> is near.
>>
>> You've been reading too much press releases. 64 bits have
>>been around for a decade. MS had MS WNT for the Alpha and killed it
>>before enabling 64 bits in it. MS waited until now to have 64 bits
>>products again so they could do it with no porting at all. That is
>>the real reason why Opteron is going to kill Itanium, and why inferior
>>Itanium is being hyped over UltraSPARC or PowerPC.
>
> And don't forget. AMD64 is here NOW!
>
> There are relying on a quick release of Windows-64bit to help them get
> one over Intel. But MS have so far delayed the release of that Windows
> twice. What's the betting the delays will continue?
>
> When the history books are written, what's the betting that they say
> AMD *should* have won this time, but were crucified by Microsoft who
> gave Intel too much time to catch up.

Of course, for some of us, the answer is _who cares_?

AMD64 systems are nice and fast running in 32 bit mode, which means they can be sold as nice-performing boxes running "legacy" operating systems.

We have a couple at the office that are playing as "fast, cheap Intel-like servers."

And we'll shortly be getting an Opteron box with lots of GB of memory that will almost certainly play better, whether with Linux or FreeBSD, than the Xeon boxes that can only _pretend_ to have more than 2GB of RAM. I could care less if Microsoft _ever_ supports it; there are lots of people already buying this hardware.

-- 
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('_at_'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','cbbrowne.com').
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html
Honuphrius  is a  concupiscent   exservicemajor who  makes   dishonest
propositions to all.