George said:
Well yeah the "more named registers" is a big part of it but for the usual
shallow press coverage, there are other ways to get the message across.
like: finally we have a desktop PC which is worthy of the term computer;
internally it's just like a *real* computer; we can finally leave behind
the legacy of a hand calculator ISA; software can be made more efficient;
compilers can produce better code... etc. etc.
You are, as always, so much more sensible than I am. I suspect, though,
that there are people in the business with a mainframe heritage who
twitch at the thought that anything built on an x86 could ever be
regarded as a "real" computer.
To pick but one issue of many, the fact that x86 doesn't virtualize has
started to bother me. I'm afraid of getting myself into the mess of the
parallel thread about the NX bit, but I'm beginning to wonder if
anything short of a complete hardware sandbox should ever be regarded as
a plausibly secure solution to any enterprise application that faces a
network.
In the sense of being something that is worthy to displace boxes with
the reassuring IBM logo on them, x86-64 is only slightly less screwy
than x86, and not any more safe, as far as I can tell. For producing
efficient code, it is probably a significant win. For enterprise
applications, though, I wonder if the reduced likelihood of bugs by
virtue of having a flat address space isn't the biggest win of all.
Hmm, probably better for Gartner to be quoted than some other analyst
"house"?
Have you been quoted by such writers? Apparently there are
journos who read Usenet - one of them contacted me recently by e-mail for
my "opinion". What I said/wrote got lifted out of context, mangled and
didn't really say what I wanted at all.<shrug>
I get e-mail from lurkers with a serious agenda, although I'll sidestep
saying just who. Have I been quoted? Don't know.
I wouldn't want to leave the impression that I have a low opinion of
Gartner; Gartner is one of the few places I would consider paying for
research.
The quality of talent that's out there is so hopelessly nonuniform, and
trying to discover and to convey accurate, journalist-quality
information to an audience that lacks the preparation sounds like a
nearly impossible problem.
While we're on the subject, you might want to google up and read the
_New_York_Times_ article "There's a Sucker Born in Every Medial
Prefrontal Cortex," which can be found online in any number of
locations. I consider myself reasonably advanced just to recognize that
there is a technology of persuasion that has gone well beyond
_The_Hidden_Persuaders_ and that it matters, even to technologists.
Even as I discuss these things, though, I have to keep in mind that I,
too, have a medial prefrontal cortex.
If you can find yourself a niche there, good luck to you. I assume you are
aware of the dangers of dealing with them - sewing up your pockets won't do
it.;-)
Oh, heaven forfend. Just another example of my being what I regard as
realistic: what is Microsoft _really_ up to, and what's the best way to
prosper given the ongoing reality of Microsoft dominance. I wouldn't go
at it with anything less than the resources of the Cornell Theory
Center, which has already gotten on the gravy train.
I wandered past the William H. Gates building (and the Stata Center) at
MIT yesterday. MIT is finally putting up buildings that are worthy of
its prestigious architecture department. Too bad about the name above
the door. Richard Stallman is so displeased that he's said he's moving
out, although he's blaming it on the security system they've chosen.
The Microsoft legacy is going to be everywhere. We might as well try to
get used to it.
RM
