only certain Linux distros can use AMD 64 bit processor

MS Opens up XP 64 Beta
Pedro Hernandez Feb 04 2004

AMD's desktop 64-bit CPU has already begun to appear in PCs from
several computer makers. Despite the processors' prowess at running
32-bit operating systems and applications, only certain Linux distros
could make full use of the chip's 64-bit potential.

Now thanks to Microsoft, early adopters of AMD's Athlon64 and Opteron
can run a beta version of XP 64 was previously only available to
members of MSDN.

http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/n...cle.php/3308591

Daeron <doug_mentohl@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> only certain Linux distros could make
> full use of the chip's 64-bit potential.

This is misleading even if literally true.

A new kernel is required by _any_ OS before new CPU features
can be safely used. The OS has to be aware of the new features
/registers to be able to save & restore them on task switches,
or to schedule their use. This applies for SMP, SSE2, SMT
and now x32-64.

With Linux or *BSD, this new kernel is extremely simple to
install. Just download upgraded kernel source, configure,
compile and install. With MS-Win*, y0ou have to wait until
MS releases and upgrades to their kernel, and hope the licence
terms are not onerous.

kernel != distro .

Yes, every Linux distro and *BSD release installs some sort
of default kernel. I can't recall ever using it for longer
than it too to compile a custom kernel. ISTR that linking
a custom kernel was part of the Tru64 install.

-- Robert

Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote :

> and hope the licence
> terms are not onerous.

allready too late, MOLP acceptance means you will pay them whenever
they tell you "bend over boy"


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://kiti.pulse.pdi.net/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:K8aVb.20299

> A new kernel is required by _any_ OS before new CPU features
> can be safely used. The OS has to be aware of the new features
> /registers to be able to save & restore them on task switches,
> or to schedule their use. This applies for SMP, SSE2, SMT
> and now x32-64.
>
> With Linux or *BSD, this new kernel is extremely simple to
> install.

Maybe this is true, but it's also true that Linux and BSD can't really do
anything useful in the mainstream besides, you are advertising this **** in
the wrong newsgroup. Take this **** somewhere else.

That's pretty mean ;-)).

Whatever

>>>>> "Tharato" == Tharato Romano <tharatt@nipon.net> writes:

Tharato> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in
Tharato> message news:K8aVb.20299

>> A new kernel is required by _any_ OS before new CPU features can
>> be safely used. The OS has to be aware of the new features
>> /registers to be able to save & restore them on task switches, or
>> to schedule their use. This applies for SMP, SSE2, SMT and now
>> x32-64.
>>
>> With Linux or *BSD, this new kernel is extremely simple to
>> install.

Tharato> Maybe this is true, but it's also true that Linux and BSD
Tharato> can't really do anything useful in the mainstream besides,
Tharato> you are advertising this **** in the wrong newsgroup. Take
Tharato> this **** somewhere else.

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:30:02 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>Daeron <doug_mentohl@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> only certain Linux distros could make
>> full use of the chip's 64-bit potential.
>
>This is misleading even if literally true.
>
>A new kernel is required by _any_ OS before new CPU features
>can be safely used. The OS has to be aware of the new features
>/registers to be able to save & restore them on task switches,
>or to schedule their use. This applies for SMP, SSE2, SMT
>and now x32-64.
>
>With Linux or *BSD, this new kernel is extremely simple to
>install. Just download upgraded kernel source, configure,
>compile and install. With MS-Win*, y0ou have to wait until
>MS releases and upgrades to their kernel, and hope the licence
>terms are not onerous.
>
>kernel != distro .

MUCH more than the kernel is required, at least if you want it to be
halfway useful as a 64-bit processor. Sure, you COULD just throw a
64-bit kernel on a 32-bit machine, but you wouldn't be able to run any
dynamically linked 64-bit applications (pretty much all applications
beyond "Hello world" are dynamically linked these days).

AMD64 introduced a rather new problem to Linux and *BSD; it's a
bi-arch system. The Athlon64 and Opteron support both AMD64 code and
IA32 code natively, and while there have been a few other processors
that could do this natively (UltraSparc and Itanium jump to mind
here), usually the Linux folk haven't bothered supporting the "legacy"
architecture. With the Athlon64 and Opteron, they do.

What this means, in terms of Linux, is that to get a fully functional
AMD64 system you need two sets of libraries, one compiled for AMD64
and one compiled for IA32. You also need a kernel and a bit of glue
to get this all working together. Linux now supports this fairly
well, but it took a little while to get there. If you look at many of
the distributions out there you'll find that they started out as
64-bit only for the AMD64 platform for just this reason.


So, while it is theoretically possible to role your own AMD64 port
from an existing IA32 port, it's not a very easy task, especially if
you want to make it a bi-arch (AMD64/IA32) port. Since there are
still some common apps that aren't 64-bit clean (eg KDE) and some
fairly important binary-only packages that aren't available for AMD64
yet (eg a Java JRE until about 3 days ago), a bi-arch port is a REAL
good thing to have.

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

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:26:44 GMT) it happened "Tharato Romano"
<tharatt@nipon.net> wrote in <ECdVb.13816$cc.1873@fe3.columbus.rr.com>:

>
>"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
>news:K8aVb.20299
>
>> A new kernel is required by _any_ OS before new CPU features
>> can be safely used. The OS has to be aware of the new features
>> /registers to be able to save & restore them on task switches,
>> or to schedule their use. This applies for SMP, SSE2, SMT
>> and now x32-64.
>>
>> With Linux or *BSD, this new kernel is extremely simple to
>> install.
>
>Maybe this is true, but it's also true that Linux and BSD can't really do
>anything useful in the mainstream besides, you are advertising this **** in
>the wrong newsgroup. Take this **** somewhere else.
Poor guy, you must be the one who was locked up for 10 years in MS
building forced to program 16 bit apps on cola and pizza (cold pizza),
while the rest of the world was busy installing Linux.
No you won't get you pay check from MS, as now they are giving away
their soft free, and no money coming in.
Try to get them to make a window in that room at least so you can see the
penguins playing.
Q

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:d28f5bc332daa4f805f6439699d6cec1@news.1usenet.com...
>
> AMD64 introduced a rather new problem to Linux and *BSD; it's a
> bi-arch system. The Athlon64 and Opteron support both AMD64 code
and
> IA32 code natively, and while there have been a few other processors
> that could do this natively (UltraSparc and Itanium jump to mind
> here), usually the Linux folk haven't bothered supporting the
"legacy"
> architecture. With the Athlon64 and Opteron, they do.

My K6-2/450 boots in 286 mode, with 64K segments. To get into 386
mode, there's a lot of thrashing around, including doing things with
the A20 line etc. Since I mostly run Win98SE, I assume that Win98
also boots in 286 mode.

Are you telling me that AMD64 CPUs are **not** _tri-arch_ chips? 286
mode, 386 mode, and AMD64 mode, with booting always starting in 286
mode?

Felger Carbon
Who is honestly confused

"Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote in message
news:V2vVb.16325$F23.2484@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> My K6-2/450 boots in 286 mode, with 64K segments. To get into 386
> mode, there's a lot of thrashing around, including doing things with
> the A20 line etc. Since I mostly run Win98SE, I assume that Win98
> also boots in 286 mode.

I don't think anything after Windows 3.1 booted in anything less than 386
mode.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote in message
> news:V2vVb.16325$F23.2484@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > My K6-2/450 boots in 286 mode, with 64K segments. To get into 386
> > mode, there's a lot of thrashing around, including doing things with
> > the A20 line etc. Since I mostly run Win98SE, I assume that Win98
> > also boots in 286 mode.
>
> I don't think anything after Windows 3.1 booted in anything less than 386
> mode.

It still has to start in real mode. _EVERYTHING_ on a standard-BIOS PC
starts in real mode.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer