AMD 64 webcast

[Eric Gill]

Then you meant "you" instead of "we", didn't you?

Of course, I'm really sure you really didn't mean to massively
offtopic crosspost, either - right?

No,

You mean, "yes."

It was a rhetorical question which I was answering myself.

You do not need usenet to talk to yourself.

That's a hint.

Maybe
you should grasp the english language?

Maybe you should stop "grasping" yourself.

As for it being offtopic and crossposted, not really as Nvidia are
pushing this technology along with Ati for their gfx cards, so not off
topic at all.

Only if you are so ****ing stupid you missed the "videocards" in the
groups names. Oh - wait. You did!

BTW - learn to use your newsreader. I realize both you and it are
retarded, but even Micorsoft Slaveware has an adequate quote feature.

 

[Brian Jones]

Theres loads out already, Asus make them, gigabyte make them etc etc (and
no, I am not getting confused with opterons which are an entirely different
socket!). They have also already been benchmarked and there is no difference
whatsoever to the current 32 bit cpus, indeed the Intel P4 (despite the crap
on the amd website with "their" benchmarks) 3.2ghz beats it hands
down.....heres a link to the benchmarks, certainly not worth paying the
£500+ for the cpu's anyway, ridiculous prices, and for what? 1mb of cache,
whoopee :s
Can't find the link, but it's a french site....

It's a new item, it's going to be expensive at first because of that
and the development costs to AMD. Stop being a luddite. If we all
thought like you then we would have stopped buying new PC's and just
stuck with the C64.

 

[scott s.]

Of course, due to microsoft being a slouch, it took until 1995 with
win95 before 32-bit computingstarted to get into its own in the PC
universe

It was provided in OS/2 well before that. Now if you meant Microsoft
universe rther than PC universe...

scott s.
..

 

[Lenny]

It was provided in OS/2 well before that. Now if you meant Microsoft
universe rther than PC universe...

I know that, but except in the eyes of OS/2 fanbois (now THAT'S a weird concept), since WHEN exactly was OS/2 ever a mainstream OS? I could have mentioned UNIX or such as well if I just wanted the first example of a 32-bit OS on x86, but I was actually talking IN GENERAL; as what people actually used to USE, you know?

Face it dude, it was M$ that more or less made 32-bit computing happen on PCs. Of course, it was them who held it back for years too with their shitty win3.x versions, but that's a different story.

 

[J.Clarke]

It was provided in OS/2 well before that. Now if you meant Microsoft
universe rther than PC universe...

It was provided even earlier than that. AT&T shipped SVR3 for the '386
in 1986, about 6 years before OS/2 2.0.

 

[J.Clarke]

I know that, but except in the eyes of OS/2 fanbois (now THAT'S a
weird concept), since WHEN exactly was OS/2 ever a mainstream OS? I
could have mentioned UNIX or such as well if I just wanted the first
example of a 32-bit OS on x86, but I was actually talking IN GENERAL;
as what people actually used to USE, you know?

I used to USE Unix on the '386. I also USED OS/2. As for whether OS/2
was ever mainstream, I got OS/2 2.0 and Warp 3 and 4 off the shelf at
Electronics Boutique. At the time OS/2 was a pretty good gaming
platform.

Face it dude, it was M$ that more or less made 32-bit computing happen
on PCs. Of course, it was them who held it back for years too with
their shitty win3.x versions, but that's a different story.

Nope. It was Intel made it happen. Once the '386 shipped, a 32-bit OS
for PCs was inevitable. It's just that Microsoft won the marketing
battle. If they hadn't, Digital Research, IBM, AT&T, SCO, NeXT, and
some kid named Torvalds all had products that could have filled the
void. And those are only the ones I can think of off the top of my
head.

 

[Lenny]

but I was actually talking IN GENERAL;

I used to USE Unix on the '386. I also USED OS/2.

Yea, you and about fifteen other guys did. Like I said, I was talking IN GENERAL, and IN GENERAL you found M$ OSes installed on people's and companies' boxes then just as you do today (servers being the exception, but back then x86 didn't have a big percent of the server market anyway; M$ is probably proportionally much bigger today than it was back then even with the Torvalds competition...)

As for whether OS/2
was ever mainstream, I got OS/2 2.0 and Warp 3 and 4 off the shelf at
Electronics Boutique.

.....And the rest of the boxes stood there collecting dust.

At the time OS/2 was a pretty good gaming platform.

Only because of its actually pretty good virtual DOS machine emulation.

Nope. It was Intel made it happen.

Uhhh... No. Not really. You see, hardware won't do diddly squat without software driving it. That's the whole crux I'm trying to explain here.

Once the '386 shipped, a 32-bit OS for PCs was inevitable.

Then why didn't the 32-bit revolution happen until win95, huh? By then 486es were already getting somewhat long in the tooth!

M$ was at least as much a dominating force then as it is now, and pretty much dictated single-handedly what was going to happen.

It's just that Microsoft won the marketing
battle. If they hadn't, Digital Research, IBM, AT&T, SCO, NeXT, and
some kid named Torvalds all had products that could have filled the
void.

Umm, yeah, right. And if Santa Claus had existed he'd come climbing down people's chimneys and hand out presents at christmas. You see, M$ DID win the marketing battle. 32-bit computing did NOT become mainstream until they made it so!

I never denied there wasn't 32-bit options BEFORE then (and even better 32-bit options too actually as win9x was a poorly concepted hybrid in some regards), but it WAS the trigger that opened the flood-gates. OS/2, Unix etc all had pitiful marketshares in comparison, most people didn't even know these choices existed, or if they did they often couldn't use them due to shitty software support for them.

Are we done with this discussion now?

 

[J.Clarke]

Yea, you and about fifteen other guys did.

Actually there were about a hundred people on it in that one office
alone.

Like I said, I was talking
IN GENERAL, and IN GENERAL you found M$ OSes installed on people's and
companies' boxes then just as you do today (servers being the
exception, but back then x86 didn't have a big percent of the server
market anyway; M$ is probably proportionally much bigger today than it
was back then even with the Torvalds competition...)


....And the rest of the boxes stood there collecting dust.

Well, actually they had trouble keeping it on the shelf--I finally had
to have them reserve a copy for me.

Only because of its actually pretty good virtual DOS machine
emulation.

And because there was at least one decent game that was available _only_
for OS/2.

Uhhh... No. Not really. You see, hardware won't do diddly squat
without software driving it. That's the whole crux I'm trying to
explain here.

Well, your explanation is falling flat. A 32-bit OS can't do anything
without a 32-bit processor, but a 32-bit processor can do just fine with
a 16-bit OS. And once there was a large enough installed base of 32-bit
processors then it became worthwhile to develop one.

Then why didn't the 32-bit revolution happen until win95, huh? By then
486es were already getting somewhat long in the tooth!

Because Microsoft has the slowest development team in the universe?

Do you seriously believe that if the earth had opened up and swallowed
Microsoft that there would be no 32-bit OS on the market right now?

M$ was at least as much a dominating force then as it is now, and
pretty much dictated single-handedly what was going to happen.


Umm, yeah, right. And if Santa Claus had existed he'd come climbing
down people's chimneys and hand out presents at christmas. You see, M$
DID win the marketing battle. 32-bit computing did NOT become
mainstream until they made it so!

Well, actually "32-bit computing" was "mainstream" about 6 months after
the 386 shipped, when Quarterdeck started shipping all the QEMM they
could produce and apps started shipping that used Phar Lap Run/386. A
lot of games used that long before Windows 95 shipped.

Again, do you honestly believe that if Microsoft had never existed you
would still be using a 16-bit OS?

I never denied there wasn't 32-bit options BEFORE then (and even
better 32-bit options too actually as win9x was a poorly concepted
hybrid in some regards), but it WAS the trigger that opened the
flood-gates. OS/2, Unix etc all had pitiful marketshares in
comparison, most people didn't even know these choices existed, or if
they did they often couldn't use them due to shitty software support
for them.

Well, actually, until Microsoft came out with Win32 OS/2 did fine
running existing DOS and Windows apps, and Unix could run DOS apps and
even some Windows apps just fine.

Are we done with this discussion now?

Up to you.

 

[Lenny]

Actually there were about a hundred people on it in that one office
alone.

Maybe I should have added a smiley for the slow thinkers of the class.

Well, actually they had trouble keeping it on the shelf--I finally had
to have them reserve a copy for me.

So that's why IBM dumped OS/2 YEARS ago, because it SOLD so exceptionally well they simply couldn't keep up with demand? Dude, you can't be serious. OS/2 was a disaster sales-wise, M$ wiped the floor with those guys. Billy Goat had the inferior solution, and did indeed pledge far-reaching support for OS/2, but then turned around and stabbed big blue in the back and cornered the market for itself.

You know it, and I know it.

And because there was at least one decent game that was available _only_
for OS/2.

Oh, that game must have sold so well, because I HAVE NEVER EVEN HEARD OF IT.

You know, one game does not a gaming platform make.

Well, your explanation is falling flat.

No it isn't, you're just not thinking things through properly. LOOK man:

386-class chips were getting obsolete by that point in time, and 486es common. Pentium chips were out in force, PPro was being readied (and would perform abysmally, but that's a different story). 32-bit revolution still hasn't happened DESPITE hardware being there to make it happen. Why? Microsoft is holding back software development. The world is literally made to wait for win95 to get readied.

Explanation makes perfect sense. Hell, you even agreed with me just a few lines down, look:

Because Microsoft has the slowest development team in the universe?

EXACTLY! You even confirm my thesis! ROFL, see, that wasn't so hard now was it? Anyway, I don't really think MS was just plain slow as much as they were slow ON PURPOSE. It didn't make sense for them to rush ahead, they already had the world market with win3.x, they could afford to take their own good time with win95.

Do you seriously believe that if the earth had opened up and swallowed
Microsoft that there would be no 32-bit OS on the market right now?

Uhm, dude, I never said that. Hell, I even pointed out the existence of 32-bit UNIXes before win95 early on in the thread, but rightfully also added they were fringe OSes, and not mainstream. In fact, it's just as fringe today one could say.

Try to not put words in people's mouths when you debate with them okies?

Well, actually "32-bit computing" was "mainstream" about 6 months after
the 386 shipped, when Quarterdeck started shipping all the QEMM they
could produce and apps started shipping that used Phar Lap Run/386. A
lot of games used that long before Windows 95 shipped.

One little difference though (which isn't so little really)... Games aren't OSes, pal.

Well, actually, until Microsoft came out with Win32 OS/2 did fine
running existing DOS and Windows apps

....Except neither DOS apps nor win3.x apps are 32-bit. So that OS/2 and UNIX could run them is hardly a victory for early pre-win95 32-bit computing.

Like I said: face it. M$ for better - and mostly - worse made 32-bit happen in the PC marketspace. That they were the instrumental force in making sure it didn't happen until THEY made it happen is beside the point because they DID make it happen. Fact. Period. End Of Story.

I'm not singing the praise of Billy Goat and Steve "monkeyboy" Ballmer, I'm stating a truth. Without M$, 32-bit would have happened years earlier, but they were there so it really took that long.

 

[J.Clarke]

Maybe I should have added a smiley for the slow thinkers of the class.




So that's why IBM dumped OS/2 YEARS ago,

Don't look now, but IBM is still selling OS/2. There was a new service
pack released a few months ago.

because it SOLD so
exceptionally well they simply couldn't keep up with demand? Dude, you
can't be serious. OS/2 was a disaster sales-wise, M$ wiped the floor
with those guys. Billy Goat had the inferior solution, and did indeed
pledge far-reaching support for OS/2, but then turned around and
stabbed big blue in the back and cornered the market for itself.

I'm quite serious. Why do you think that Microsoft rushed Windows 95
into the market? Because they had no competition?

You know it, and I know it.



Oh, that game must have sold so well, because I HAVE NEVER EVEN HEARD
OF IT.

Pity. Finally after many years there is a Windows version.

You know, one game does not a gaming platform make.

Nonetheless it worked better for games than Windows did for a long time,
just as Windows 98 still is used by some hardcore gamers because it will
run things that XP won't.

No it isn't, you're just not thinking things through properly. LOOK
man:

386-class chips were getting obsolete by that point in time,

By WHAT "point in time"?

and 486es
common. Pentium chips were out in force, PPro was being readied (and
would perform abysmally, but that's a different story). 32-bit
revolution still hasn't happened DESPITE hardware being there to make
it happen. Why? Microsoft is holding back software development. The
world is literally made to wait for win95 to get readied.

Explanation makes perfect sense. Hell, you even agreed with me just a
few lines down, look:



EXACTLY! You even confirm my thesis! ROFL, see, that wasn't so hard
now was it? Anyway, I don't really think MS was just plain slow as
much as they were slow ON PURPOSE. It didn't make sense for them to
rush ahead, they already had the world market with win3.x, they could
afford to take their own good time with win95.


Uhm, dude, I never said that. Hell, I even pointed out the existence
of 32-bit UNIXes before win95 early on in the thread, but rightfully
also added they were fringe OSes, and not mainstream. In fact, it's
just as fringe today one could say.

Try to not put words in people's mouths when you debate with them
okies?

Unix is hardly a "fringe OS".

One little difference though (which isn't so little really)... Games
aren't OSes, pal.

So what? 32-bit code is 32-bit code. And I am not your "pal".

...Except neither DOS apps nor win3.x apps are 32-bit. So that OS/2
and UNIX could run them is hardly a victory for early pre-win95 32-bit
computing.

Nope, they weren't 32-bit. Neither was most of the code that was run on
Windows 95. You're floundering around.

Like I said: face it. M$ for better - and mostly - worse made 32-bit
happen in the PC marketspace. That they were the instrumental force in
making sure it didn't happen until THEY made it happen is beside the
point because they DID make it happen. Fact. Period. End Of Story.

Nope, if Intel had not produced 32 bit processor then there would never
have been a 32-bit Windows. But if Microsoft had never produced a
32-bit Windows there would still be a mainstream 32-bit OS.

I'm not singing the praise of Billy Goat and Steve "monkeyboy"
Ballmer, I'm stating a truth. Without M$, 32-bit would have happened
years earlier, but they were there so it really took that long.

So how would 32-bit "have happened years earlier without Microsoft"?
You can't have it both ways, either Microsoft made it happen or
something earlier than Windows 95 made it happen. If without Microsoft
it "would have happened years earlier" then one of the products which
went to market years before Windows 95 must be what made it happen".

 

[Lenny]

Don't look now, but IBM is still selling OS/2. There was a new service
pack released a few months ago.

Yea, but when was the last time the thing was actually UPDATED, man? There's no further development being done on the thing and you know it. M$ is still patching their win9x OSes (well, they do with winme anyway), but they're not developing them anymore. Same thing.

I'm quite serious. Why do you think that Microsoft rushed Windows 95
into the market? Because they had no competition?

Rushed? Did they? Windows 3.x came...uh...some time in '91, I think. Win95 came some four years later. I fail to see how that constitutes 'rushing'.

Finally after many years there is a Windows version.

So, are you gonna tell me which game it is?

Nonetheless it worked better for games than Windows did for a long time

It had better DOS support than windos95, yes. We know that, but it still wasn't a *gaming* OS. I know of no person who ran OS/2 for the sole purpose of being able to game on his PC. Gamers had win95 and DOS in a dual-boot setup until DOS became more or less obsolete.

just as Windows 98 still is used by some hardcore gamers because it will
run things that XP won't.

I'm sure that's the case. I have only tried three games on XP so far and lo and behold, all of them ran!

By WHAT "point in time"?

The time when win95 was released, obviously.

Unix is hardly a "fringe OS".

Sure it is, compared to windows, and especially in a non-server marketplace.

So what? 32-bit code is 32-bit code.

But it's not *OS* code, which is what this discussion was about. Dos4GW and its likes runs outside even DOS. Besides, most PCs weren't used for gaming back then anyway, and I'm doubtful that's the case even today.

And I am not your "pal".

Oooh, sorry! Did I *touch* you inappropriately or something?
Geez, had you run out of your favorite breakfast cereal this morning or why all this grumpyness?

Relax, it was just a figure of speech, didn't mean to imply we were GAY LOVERS or anything! Sheeesh!

Nope, they weren't 32-bit. Neither was most of the code that was run on
Windows 95. You're floundering around.

Sorry, but win95 *apps* are 32-bit. Parts of the win9x infrastructure are 16-bit either due to lazyness or incompetence from M$ or for compatibility reasons with win3.x (M$ apparantly never heard of virtual machines so they made win3.x apps run in the same framework as win32 apps), but that's not the same thing. There's no 16-bit code in the applications themselves, so I'm not floundering at all.

I'm sure you'd be hard-pressed trying to find a single person not admitting win9x overall is a 32-bit OS, despite the archaic 16-bit remnants in some aspects of it (kernel, bits of the gui mainly I believe).

Nope, if Intel had not produced 32 bit processor then there would never
have been a 32-bit Windows. But if Microsoft had never produced a
32-bit Windows there would still be a mainstream 32-bit OS.

Repeat: M$ was there. M$ held back progress by their very presence and market influence, M$ were the ones introducing 32-bit computing to the masses in the PC arena. How can you argue against this when it is so obvious it is true!

So how would 32-bit "have happened years earlier without Microsoft"?
You can't have it both ways, either Microsoft made it happen or
something earlier than Windows 95 made it happen.

Wtf are you talking about? There's no both ways here. M$ was here. I just stated if they hadn't, it would obviously have happened sooner, by whom is hard to tell. Speculating it would have been IBM with OS/2 is futile since OS/2 was created as a response to M$'s win3 OS and wouldn't have existed if M$ hadn't been there, but someone would have done it (assuming the PC became the dominating influence it is today without M$ being there). However, like I have said repeatedly, there IS no both ways!

Unless we're talking about some weird twilight zone episode, it is an established fact M$ is the dominating influence today in just about all aspects of the PC arena, and that was just as true back in 95 as well. I don't even understand why you argue about this, you look like some bizarre Don Quijote figure fighting windmills.

If without Microsoft

it "would have happened years earlier" then one of the products which
went to market years before Windows 95 must be what made it happen".

Not neccessarily. See paragraph above.

 

[J.Clarke]

Yea, but when was the last time the thing was actually UPDATED, man?

When they issued the most recent service pack, silly.

There's no further development being done on the thing and you know
it. M$ is still patching their win9x OSes (well, they do with winme
anyway), but they're not developing them anymore. Same thing.


Rushed? Did they? Windows 3.x came...uh...some time in '91, I think.
Win95 came some four years later. I fail to see how that constitutes
'rushing'.

It wasn't a "finished" product.

So, are you gonna tell me which game it is?


It had better DOS support than windos95, yes. We know that, but it
still wasn't a *gaming* OS. I know of no person who ran OS/2 for the
sole purpose of being able to game on his PC. Gamers had win95 and DOS
in a dual-boot setup until DOS became more or less obsolete.

Uh, they had Win95 and DOS _after_ Win95 shipped. But OS/2 was around
long before Win95.

I'm sure that's the case. I have only tried three games on XP so far
and lo and behold, all of them ran!



The time when win95 was released, obviously.

And your point is?

Sure it is, compared to windows, and especially in a non-server
marketplace.


But it's not *OS* code, which is what this discussion was about.

That's odd, I thought the discussion was about when and why 32-bit
computing took off in the PC market.

Dos4GW and its likes runs outside even DOS. Besides, most PCs weren't
used for gaming back then anyway, and I'm doubtful that's the case
even today.

I think you may be surprised. I've never seen a PC that didn't have
some kind of game installed on it.

Oooh, sorry! Did I *touch* you inappropriately or something?
Geez, had you run out of your favorite breakfast cereal this morning
or why all this grumpyness?

Relax, it was just a figure of speech, didn't mean to imply we were
GAY LOVERS or anything! Sheeesh!


Sorry, but win95 *apps* are 32-bit.

Gee, do tell. You mean that edlin somehow magically becomes 32-bit
because you run it on Windows 95? Win32 apps are 32-bit but there were
precious few of _those_ when Windows 95 shipped.

Parts of the win9x infrastructure
are 16-bit either due to lazyness or incompetence from M$ or for
compatibility reasons with win3.x (M$ apparantly never heard of
virtual machines so they made win3.x apps run in the same framework as
win32 apps), but that's not the same thing. There's no 16-bit code in
the applications themselves, so I'm not floundering at all.

Well, actually you are. Are you suggesting that the only applications
ever run on Windows 95 were Win32 applications written specifically for
that OS?

I'm sure you'd be hard-pressed trying to find a single person not
admitting win9x overall is a 32-bit OS, despite the archaic 16-bit
remnants in some aspects of it (kernel, bits of the gui mainly I
believe).
So?


Repeat: M$ was there. M$ held back progress by their very presence and
market influence, M$ were the ones introducing 32-bit computing to the
masses in the PC arena. How can you argue against this when it is so
obvious it is true!

M$ "held back progress"? How did they do that, pray tell? Did they go
around hiring hits on programmers or something?

Wtf are you talking about? There's no both ways here. M$ was here. I
just stated if they hadn't, it would obviously have happened sooner,
by whom is hard to tell.

You're making no sense at all here. Either the product that would "make
it happen" shipped before Windows 95 or it didn't ship before Windows
95. That is a matter of historical record. If no product shipped prior
to Windows 95 "made it happen" then it is difficult to support the claim
that such a product would "make it happen before Windows 95".

Speculating it would have been IBM with OS/2
is futile since OS/2 was created as a response to M$'s win3 OS and
wouldn't have existed if M$ hadn't been there, but someone would have
done it (assuming the PC became the dominating influence it is today
without M$ being there). However, like I have said repeatedly, there
IS no both ways!

Uh, OS/2 was created _prior_ to Windows 3.x and was a joint project of
IBM and Microsoft, up until Microsoft decided to go their own way with
32-bit computing.

Unless we're talking about some weird twilight zone episode, it is an
established fact M$ is the dominating influence today in just about
all aspects of the PC arena, and that was just as true back in 95 as
well. I don't even understand why you argue about this, you look like
some bizarre Don Quijote figure fighting windmills.

And if Intel, AMD, and Via got together and decided to drop the x86
architecture and go to something else, how long do you think Microsoft
would be around?

If without Microsoft

Not neccessarily. See paragraph above.

I see your paragraph, what about it?