Interesting read about upcoming K9 processors

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yousuf Khan
  • Start date Start date
Keith said:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 00:43:17 -0400, Carlo Razzeto wrote:

My point is that M$ *DOESN't* deal with the average user. OEM's are stuck
dealing with the average user.
Click to expand...

Ok... Perhaps I didn't state what I meant very clearly... What I meant by
deal with the average user is create a system which will do all of the
things that the average user thinks it needs to do... If that means run a
badly written application perfectly then that is what Windows has to do.
Even if they aren't dealing with customer directly it's still their
problem....

Carlo
 
Ok... Perhaps I didn't state what I meant very clearly... What I meant by
deal with the average user is create a system which will do all of the
things that the average user thinks it needs to do...
Click to expand...

....and if it doesn't, *tough shit!*. That is not servicing the customer.
If that means run a
badly written application perfectly then that is what Windows has to do.
Click to expand...

Ok, but Win doesn't have to be designed to crash on a badly written
application.
Even if they aren't dealing with customer directly it's still their
problem....
Click to expand...

No it isn't! That's the point. They wash their hands of *all* support.
M$ owns no support, but wants to own your data. It will too, if you keep
apologizing for them.
 
Did you check WinServ2003's versioned file system? Keeps multiple version of
a file, allowing you to roll back, or fetch an old version.
 
Alexander said:
Did you check WinServ2003's versioned file system? Keeps multiple
version of a file, allowing you to roll back, or fetch an old version.
Click to expand...

Is that a feature of the 64-bit WinServ2003 only, or is it available even on
the 32-bit version?

Yousuf Khan
 
Ok... Perhaps I didn't state what I meant very clearly... What I meant by
deal with the average user is create a system which will do all of the
things that the average user thinks it needs to do...
Click to expand...

Windows *DEFINITELY* does not do this!
If that means run a
badly written application perfectly then that is what Windows has to do.
Even if they aren't dealing with customer directly it's still their
problem....
Click to expand...

It's not really their problem and they don't really have a solution.
There are lots of old, badly written applications that just won't run
at all in WinXP... and MS doesn't really care.

And Microsoft's solution to this? "Call your OEM". Seriously. MS
support is essentially non-existent, and when you've got a monopoly
and don't have to worry about support, it doesn't much matter what you
do.
 
So you're belief is that it's somehow *harder* for the hardware vendor
to write a 64b driver (for Win) than a freebie programmer (Linux),
perhaps working without a complete set of specifications? 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...

At some point, even MS's weight is not enough - they can't forbid people
selling crappy hardware accompanied by crappy drivers, can they? As long
as it's cheap and does _something_ apparently useful, people will buy it
and don't care about quality. Hey, that hole was dug in part by Microsoft
itself - its customers are so accustomed to things crashing right and left
that apportioning the blame is a game nobody plays any longer, at least in
the consumer domain.

Given what I've heard over the years about the quality of hardware sold
with PCs, I have no doubt that the software is even worse and that a lot
of vendors, having got their 32-bit driver running only barely, are quite
unable (and probably even unwilling) to supply a 64-bit version.

Jan
 
Even if they aren't dealing with customer directly it's still their
No it isn't! That's the point. They wash their hands of *all* support.
Click to expand...

Have you watched Pat Gelsinger's talk at Standford? At one point he mentions
going to the developer of MS Flight Simulator and begging for a change in some
peculiarity of the VM implementation, because he wanted to change it in the
next chip, but some version of MS FS relied on it to work. He was immensely
relieved at being told that code relying on that feature was no longer in
current version of MS FS, so he could go ahead with making the change.

And this was for a non-architected detail of implementation.

Microsoft has a _HUGE_ backward-compatibility problem. Sometimes, they
can give reasons such as "security!" for breaking something.

Jan
 
Available in the released 32 bit version.

Yousuf Khan said:
Is that a feature of the 64-bit WinServ2003 only, or is it available even on
the 32-bit version?

Yousuf Khan
Click to expand...
 
What you mean by the "Unless of "course"..."?
Click to expand...

Would it have made more sense if he spelled it "Corse"?

It probably won't unless you were reading c.s.i.p.h.c a year or two ago.

Google for it if curious.

Cheers
Anton
 
Would it have made more sense if he spelled it "Corse"?
Click to expand...

It would have, but I forgot the spelling (Even a PAN spelling-checker
wouldn't have helped). The upper-case 'C' was a tip to the .chips folks.
It probably won't unless you were reading c.s.i.p.h.c a year or two ago.
Click to expand...

I didn't notice that it was cross-posted from
here to oblivion. Sorry folks. The story is too long...
 
Have you watched Pat Gelsinger's talk at Standford? At one point he mentions
going to the developer of MS Flight Simulator and begging for a change in some
peculiarity of the VM implementation, because he wanted to change it in the
next chip, but some version of MS FS relied on it to work. He was immensely
relieved at being told that code relying on that feature was no longer in
current version of MS FS, so he could go ahead with making the change.
Click to expand...

The only PG talks I've seen are at the IDF's (and I haven't been to one
since #4). That said, why is one relieved that one no longer needs to
support last years hot software? I have an MS simulator around here
somewhere that I would certainly become annoyed if it was broken by
hardware. ...though I'm not sure who I'd be most annoyed at. M$ for
using unarchitected "feechurs" or Intel for breaking (promised) backward
compatability.

....choices, choices... ;-)
And this was for a non-architected detail of implementation.
Click to expand...

Amazing. Didn't M$ buy FS from the dude at UIUC, some years back?
Perhaps it was som of his hardware tricks?
Microsoft has a _HUGE_ backward-compatibility problem. Sometimes, they
can give reasons such as "security!" for breaking something.
Click to expand...

....like security? ;-) Face it, they don't care squat about security.
 
At some point, even MS's weight is not enough - they can't forbid people
selling crappy hardware accompanied by crappy drivers, can they?
Click to expand...

Than *CAN* forbid them from using the "designed for WinBlows" logo. THey
*can* forbid them from using their logos and trade/service marks. Yes,
they can shut them down.
As long
as it's cheap and does _something_ apparently useful, people will buy it
and don't care about quality.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about M$ or vendors now? ;-)
Hey, that hole was dug in part by
Microsoft itself - its customers are so accustomed to things crashing
right and left that apportioning the blame is a game nobody plays any
longer, at least in the consumer domain.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. M$ has more power over the hardware industry than you admit.
Given what I've heard over the years about the quality of hardware sold
with PCs, I have no doubt that the software is even worse and that a lot
of vendors, having got their 32-bit driver running only barely, are
quite unable (and probably even unwilling) to supply a 64-bit version.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of Microsoft's quality labs? Branding/advertizing
partnerships? PCxxxx specifications? Are you really pretending that M$
doesn't have a choke-hold on the PC business? Get real! They set the
specifications and everyone follows, even the "workstations" and "servers".
 
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.
Click to expand...

Which is *exactly* my point. I'm running SuSE 9.1, though I never
intended to buy another M$ OS.
They're probably struggling to put together Longhorn first, and with
lots of new stuff in there, deadlines will be fragile.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile Linux gets the (insider, at least) press? BTW, I think you're
right, I just cannot understand it. There is something wrapped in
yesterday's newspaper here.
 
I have an MS simulator around here
somewhere that I would certainly become annoyed if it was broken by
hardware. ...though I'm not sure who I'd be most annoyed at. M$ for
using unarchitected "feechurs" or Intel for breaking (promised) backward
compatability.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point: that backward compatibility wasn't promised by
Intel, but Microsoft's market position and the market's de facto demand
for backward compatibility at all costs was so strong that a minor
implementation detail of a new chip needed Microsoft's go-ahead.
....like security? ;-) Face it, they don't care squat about security.
Click to expand...

If Microsoft is good at anything, it's marketing. And that's why they now
care about security.

Jan
 
Than *CAN* forbid them from using the "designed for WinBlows" logo.
THey *can* forbid them from using their logos and trade/service marks.
Click to expand...

Sure enough.
Yes, they can shut them down.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. That would only be the consequence if the market cared about
"designed for Windows". Nobody - at least hereabouts - does in the consumer
market, at least.
Have you ever heard of Microsoft's quality labs? Branding/advertizing
partnerships? PCxxxx specifications? Are you really pretending that M$
doesn't have a choke-hold on the PC business? Get real! They set the
specifications and everyone follows, even the "workstations" and "servers".
Click to expand...

So that's why ISA devices are still somewhat supported, and all that other
legacy crap? How big is the success of the legacy-free PC Microsoft and
Intel tried to push?

Let's just agree that we live in different universes.

Jan
 
Meanwhile Linux gets the (insider, at least) press? BTW, I think you're
right, I just cannot understand it. There is something wrapped in
yesterday's newspaper here.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Intel seems to be surprisingly weak in marketing their
whatchamacallit 64bit extensions - are they still trying to push IA64
for the server market? And is MS part of that, by providing Windows
64 for IA64, but not AMD64?

What kind of stranglehold could Intel have over Microsoft anyway? Did
they promise to stop supporting Linux or something? I can't really
find a reasonable conspiracy theory here.

So I guess the explanation is the one given by Homer Simpson: "It's
because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything."

-kzm

PS: Any recent figures for "datacenter" IA64 vs Opteron servers, and the
percentage running Windows 64?
 
I don't know. Intel seems to be surprisingly weak in marketing their
whatchamacallit 64bit extensions - are they still trying to push IA64
for the server market?
Click to expand...

Definitely! At least publicly Intel is STRONGLY saying that IA64 is
the one true path for the future, customers be damned!
And is MS part of that, by providing Windows
64 for IA64, but not AMD64?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I think you hit on the correct answer a bit further
along...
What kind of stranglehold could Intel have over Microsoft anyway? Did
they promise to stop supporting Linux or something? I can't really
find a reasonable conspiracy theory here.
Click to expand...

I don't think any conspiracy theory is needed...
So I guess the explanation is the one given by Homer Simpson: "It's
because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything."
Click to expand...

Now you've got it!

Actually it all seems to tie back in to the fact that MS decided to
push all their future OSes back until they get WinXP SP2 out, and that
seems to be taking forever! Each time SP2 gets pushed back everything
else gets pushed back behind it.
PS: Any recent figures for "datacenter" IA64 vs Opteron servers, and the
percentage running Windows 64?
Click to expand...

I suspect that the figures are probably measured in single-digit units
for both, so they probably aren't all that meaningful. IA64 seems to
be either small (1-4P servers) or big iron from HP (running HP-UX or
Linux) or SGI (running Linux). Opterons, on the other hand, are all
1-4P servers and therefore wouldn't really fall into the "datacenter"
category.. at least assuming you define "datacenter" in a similar way
to how MS defines it.
 
Back
Top