Hi,
TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
Steve
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

steve h. wrote:
>
> Hi,
> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
> Steve

Your friend is woefully ignorant.

The AMD64 processors all work perfectly well with every
32 bit version of Windows - specifically including XP
and W2K. Ditto for every 32 bit x86 version of Linux.
For most people, an Opteron or Athlon64 is *the* best
processor for running one of those OSes. I have even
tried ye olde MS-DOS 5.0 and it works just fine.

steve h. wrote:
> Hi,
> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not
> to purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
> Steve

That's not even a concern. Everything works with an Athlon 64. The only
concern you really should have is whether Athlon 64 is overkill for your
purposes.

Yousuf Khan

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, "steve h."
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Hi,
> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
>purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
>severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
>bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?

You're friend doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.

The whole beauty of AMD's 64-bit processors is that they are 100%
software compatible with all existing 32-bit x86 code. They work
perfectly with Win2K server, WinXP, 32-bit Linux. hell, you can even
throw Win9x on one of these systems (though if you did subject
yourself to such torture I would immediately recommend psychiatric
help! :> ).

AMD's Athlon64 and Opteron processors are only 64-bit chips when
they're running a 64-bit OS. If you through a 32-bit operating system
at them they will work just like an AthlonXP or a P4 (only faster).

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> Hi,
> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
>

Steve

One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

steve h. wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
>> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
>> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
>> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
>>
>
> Steve
>
> One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
> because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"

LOL, which OSes ?

Thing is though : if that really *is* a problem it will affect 32 bit
Intel gear too. Look at the various benchmarks and think about it.

The guy is talking out of his arse. Read the reviews of Althon 64s,
people are running 32bit stuff on them just fine. When/if you ever get
a 64bit OS and 64bit apps you can reap some additional benefits such
as more RAM, and perhaps a moderate performance boost too.

AMD's 64bit processors look like the best deal in town as far as I am
concerned.

Cheers,
Rupert

Bitstring <(E-Mail Removed)>, from the wonderful
person steve h. <(E-Mail Removed)> said
>On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
>> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
>> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
>> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
>>
>
> Steve
>
>One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
>because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"

Still running Windows 3.1, is he? That also has problems with Pentiums
(Pentium ONEs) iirc.

The Athlon64 has to be the best bang-for-the-$ (or £, or whatever) at
the moment, even if you just run 32 bits applications and OSs. Intel
have really missed the boat (so far) with their latest 'Prescott' P4s,
and are going to have some catching up to do, now that even =their=
marketeers admit that 'Mhz is not everything'.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

steve h. wrote:
> One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
> because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"

What's he running, Windows 95? Windows 3.1? Those OS'es started having
problems running some of fast Pentium-class processors of the distant past
too, such as the 350Mhz AMD K6 and above. Microsoft actually had to bring
out a patch for these processors to allow them to initialize.

You shouldn't have any issues if you're running Windows 2000 or XP or
higher.

Yousuf Khan

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>
> Bitstring <(E-Mail Removed)>, from the wonderful
> person steve h. <(E-Mail Removed)> said
> >On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
> ><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
> >> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
> >> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
> >> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
> >>
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
> >because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"
>
> Still running Windows 3.1, is he? That also has problems with Pentiums
> (Pentium ONEs) iirc.
>
> The Athlon64 has to be the (or £, or whatever) at
> the moment, even if you just run 32 bits applications and OSs. Intel
> have really missed the boat (so far) with their latest 'Prescott' P4s,
> and are going to have some catching up to do, now that even =their=
> marketeers admit that 'Mhz is not everything'.

Yes, the Prescott is a 'gas guzzler', but the P4 Northwood with 800 fsb
is still the running. According to CPU tests ( 32 bits) COMPUTER SHOPPER
No 197 July 2004:

P4 2.8C Northwood Athlon XP 3000+ Athlon 64 3000+
3DMArk03 6,413 5,739 6,051
SYSmark2004 157 123 144
Office 140 107 128

A number of other chips were also tested. The P4 2.8C won the 'best buy'
of the bunch, i.e. best bang-for-the-£.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:25:04 +0100, Rupert Pigott
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>steve h. wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
>>> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
>>> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
>>> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
>>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
>> because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"
>
>LOL, which OSes ?
>
>Thing is though : if that really *is* a problem it will affect 32 bit
>Intel gear too. Look at the various benchmarks and think about it.
>
>The guy is talking out of his arse. Read the reviews of Althon 64s,
>people are running 32bit stuff on them just fine. When/if you ever get
>a 64bit OS and 64bit apps you can reap some additional benefits such
>as more RAM, and perhaps a moderate performance boost too.
>
>AMD's 64bit processors look like the best deal in town as far as I am
>concerned.
>
>Cheers,
>Rupert
As funny as it sounds, might be true. I remember something to that
extent happened around 1997 with K6. Its integer unit was too fast
for win95, and the workaround was to boot it up on lower bus (66
instead of 100) and apply the patch to Win95B. AMD even offered free
95B to all 95A owners, IIRC, because 95A could not be patched. M$
fixed it in Win98.
Is the guy still running 95? ;-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))