Interesting read about upcoming K9 processors

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yousuf Khan
  • Start date Start date
Yes, I
believe it's amazing that Linux has prospered so well. This seems to
support my contention that M$ isn't trying as hard as it perhaps could.
Click to expand...

One could make the same statement about a number of software companies.
Pehraps you have not worked in a huge corporate environment where politics
dominates... ;-). <== just in case winky not noticed.

Regards,
Dean
 
Keith said:
I surely *hope* M$'s architects learned something from OS/2 days. NT was
a complete re-write and one would suspect that they learned a few lessons
along the way.
Click to expand...

Hope springs eternal!

Then reality hits. <grin>

Regards,
Dean
 
Define "support"? Linux has the advantage that it is still not for the
average home user so they lose compaibility with old apps and old hardware
and not care because the people running 64big Linux on AMD64 won't care.
Windows on the other hand doesn't that advantage. If they don't have at
least 95% support for everything XP supports at launch it's a real issue for
Microsoft.
Click to expand...

Ok, now define "Windows support". Hint; it doesn't exist. They off-load
any little "support" to their OEM's. Amazing, really!
 
One could make the same statement about a number of software companies.
Pehraps you have not worked in a huge corporate environment where politics
dominates... ;-). <== just in case winky not noticed.
Click to expand...

Well, I have noticed that sometimes people get mixed messages (like
"we should move to Linux", while "IE is the corporate standard" comes out
the other side of the mouth). It's a good thing I've earned my wings!

Yes, I got the winkie. ;-)
 
Carlo Razzeto's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
body were:
Define "support"? Linux has the advantage that it is still not for the
average home user so they lose compaibility with old apps and old hardware
and not care because the people running 64big Linux on AMD64 won't care.
Click to expand...

I dont know of any hardware not being supported in the newer 64bit stuff,
but one reason why they dont care is because the vast majority (99% of all
linux software) can be recompiled for running on 64bit systems. Debian's
pool has been already mostly ported over. Windows can't do that, because
damn near everything is closed source.
 
What I was comparing was an MS developer who has no driver yet (since
the 32-bit driver was supplied as binary by the hardware vendor) to a
Linux developer who has a working 32-bit Linux driver. In this case I
think the Linux developer has the easier time.
Click to expand...

I don't buy it. MS isn't developing drivers. One woule *hope* their
IHV's are tasked with developing such things. The IHV's certainly have
more information than any independent Linux developer.
As for your comparison, the hardware vendor may also have a hard time
(they probably have no know-how for 64-bit ports, and probably often a
culture that makes this difficult).
Click to expand...

If they have no driver developers then they *should* die an ugly death.
There is too much competition around today to let the stupid survive.
Get real, one doesn't just shovel hardware onto the market without
drivers. OTOH, perhaps Linux developers are their own worst enemies?
Not sure what you mean with "them",
Click to expand...

I thought it was clear that we were talking about apps here.
but if you are thinking about the
system calls, with a 64-bit kernel you have to convert at some point.
Click to expand...

No you really don't. THe processors are happy in both modes. Certainly
the legacy has to go away at some point, but that's *years* away.
Or do you suggest completely partitioning the machine in a 32-bit part
with a 32-bit kernel and a 64-bit part with a 64-bit kernel, without
sharing any resources?
Click to expand...

Why is it a big deal? A 32bit app can live in it's own 32bit
effective-world inside a 64bit OS. It's not rocket-surgery here.
That would be very hard (you probably want to at
least share the CPU), and not very practical (no file sharing between
32-bit and 64-bit apps).
Click to expand...

You have no imagination. The OS handles the hardware. The application
calls the OS. Where's the beef? This has been done for *decades*. It's
called "virtualization". Apparently it works quite well with AMD64 too.
 
Keith said:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:30:18 -0400, Carlo Razzeto wrote:
Ok, now define "Windows support". Hint; it doesn't exist. They off-load
any little "support" to their OEM's. Amazing, really!
Click to expand...

Customer service? If that's what you mean it sucks all around no matter what
you choose so who cares? My point is Linux doesn't have to worry about being
a functional desktop system because most people don't use it that way, and
those who do know enough to build a system that will meet their needs and
how to get everything they need working up and running. MS has to deal with
the average user.

Carlo
 
Hellmark said:
I dont know of any hardware not being supported in the newer 64bit stuff,
but one reason why they dont care is because the vast majority (99% of all
linux software) can be recompiled for running on 64bit systems. Debian's
pool has been already mostly ported over. Windows can't do that, because
damn near everything is closed source.
Click to expand...

Eh... That's not really a hold up for Microsoft... Frankly I'm really not a
big believer that Open Source inherently provides any such advantage... It
doesn't really matter that MS doesn't know how Quicken implemented Quick
Books, all they need to know is how the 32bit Windows API works and make the
64bit WoW interface work like that. I do realize that in real life things
aren't that easy, but I'm not convinced that open source makes that aspect
of porting an operating system any easier... The same principle will applied
to Linux... Well written 32bit code that uses the standard system libraries
should work.

Carlo
 
Carlo Razzeto said:
My point is Linux doesn't have to worry about being
a functional desktop system because most people don't use it that way,
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "Linux", as an OS doesn't worry about
things, but the most popular Linux distros all support Linux being
used as a functional desktop system (Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake), and
vendors are starting to sell Linux desktops into certain niche
application areas such as call centers (Sun, IBM, others). Linux is
also sold on very-low-end desktops (Linspire).

All of these organizations worry about Linux being a functional
desktop system.

Followups reduced to a group I read.

-- greg
 
Carlo Razzeto's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
body were:
Eh... That's not really a hold up for Microsoft... Frankly I'm really not a
big believer that Open Source inherently provides any such advantage... It
doesn't really matter that MS doesn't know how Quicken implemented Quick
Books, all they need to know is how the 32bit Windows API works and make the
64bit WoW interface work like that. I do realize that in real life things
aren't that easy, but I'm not convinced that open source makes that aspect
of porting an operating system any easier... The same principle will applied
to Linux... Well written 32bit code that uses the standard system libraries
should work.
Click to expand...

making it run another API, flawlessly, is a pain in the ass at times.
Linux did take the easy route, and just recompile everything. It's far
easier to recompile than it is to make a setup that runs both
 
Hellmark said:
making it run another API, flawlessly, is a pain in the ass at times.
Linux did take the easy route, and just recompile everything. It's far
easier to recompile than it is to make a setup that runs both
Click to expand...

I don't know which "Linux" you mean, but most x86_64 Linux distros,
for example, do provide complete support for 32-bit apps. It's
sometimes the case that apps are faster that way, other times they
aren't 64-bit clean. The first is probably more common than the
second in the Linux world.

Followups reduced.

-- greg
 
Yeah, but I think this still show that they are starting to ramp up. What
this price adjustment shows me is that they are ready to take A64 into the
main stream market (by this I mean the mid-range pc market of course). Prior
to this price adjustment even the "low end" A64's were considered to be
parts reserved for highend/enthusiest boxes... Now the prices are low enough
that just last friday I got around to buying an A64 3000+ and a fairly nice
Chaintech board to go with it.
Click to expand...

I've built two A64/3200+ systems recently - different cores but the price
had not changed at all in 6 weeks or so... until last weekend... and very
little before that. Those are 754 systems and certainly in the affordable
bracket, not in the high-end or enthusiast by any means - I generally look
for a CPU which is <$300... "mid-range PC" to me. IMO those adjustments
were just the next phase in the segmentation of marketing according to
current production of mbrds and production/uptake of CPUs. Basically this
accomodates socket 939 which is what is ramping up - mbrds are just
starting to appear. IOW it's the changeover to dual channel mainstream
CPUs.

I'm not sure what AMD's fab arrangements are here but I think they are
going to get into a tight supply situation before Dresden II comes
on-stream... late 2005? It'll be interesting to see how much "mileage"
they get out of the Lance/TdF success - they certainly got quite a wide
exposure there to what I believe is an "informed" audience. Other than
being in a state of total disarray:-), I'm not sure what the hell Intel is
up to with their reticence on x86-64 but I'm sure they're hoping that the
tight supply on A64 will contain it until they are "ready".

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
Customer service? If that's what you mean it sucks all around no matter what
you choose so who cares? My point is Linux doesn't have to worry about being
a functional desktop system because most people don't use it that way, and
those who do know enough to build a system that will meet their needs and
how to get everything they need working up and running. MS has to deal with
the average user.
Click to expand...

My point is that M$ *DOESN't* deal with the average user. OEM's are stuck
dealing with the average user.
 
Keith said:
Are you saying that M$ ran out of chances? If so, I suggest you short
'em. There is much money to be made if you're right!
Click to expand...

Well, they don't seem to be so hot on the 64bit issue, and at this
time many people are seriously considering both 64bit and alternatives
to Windows. I'm a bit puzzled they don't have a 64bit OS out by now.

They're probably struggling to put together Longhorn first, and with
lots of new stuff in there, deadlines will be fragile.

-kzm
 
Ketil Malde said:
Well, they don't seem to be so hot on the 64bit issue, and at this
time many people are seriously considering both 64bit and alternatives
to Windows. I'm a bit puzzled they don't have a 64bit OS out by now.

They're probably struggling to put together Longhorn first, and with
lots of new stuff in there, deadlines will be fragile.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that the effect of 64-bit on the desktop is a bit overrated.
Consider that AMD today enjoys just over 15% of the overall market. When
you consider that they increased their server market share it makes the
desktop share look even more anemic. This is significantly less than what
they had at the peak of K7, and even K6, production. Unlike those, there
has been no mad rush to go with A64. One can always blame MS for that, but
it really begs the question of which comes first, the MPU or the OS... ;-).

It should have been pretty obvious one or two years ago that x86-64 was not
going to be a 'revolution' on the desktop. There are certainly a lot of
vocal supporters, but they obviously represent a relatively small number of
actual users. 64-bit makes a lot more sense in servers, and doesn't MS
already have a 64-bit Windows Server offering for Opteron? I haven't
followed that closely, so I may be mistaken there...
 
Dean said:
It should have been pretty obvious one or two years ago that x86-64
was not going to be a 'revolution' on the desktop. There are
certainly a lot of vocal supporters, but they obviously represent a
relatively small number of actual users. 64-bit makes a lot more
sense in servers, and doesn't MS already have a 64-bit Windows Server
offering for Opteron? I haven't followed that closely, so I may be
mistaken there...
Click to expand...

Nope, that's been delayed along with 64-bit XP. Really, Windows Server 2003
is nothing more than XP slightly tweaked for server operations.

Yousuf Khan
 
Derek said:
Ones whispered in your ear, as opposed to posted on the net? :)
Click to expand...

No, they were posted on the net, but I can't find them anymore, Google is
just too awash in too many of these rumours to be useful.

Yousuf Khan
 
Back
Top