S
Stacey
Not at all. I hope MS does give Intel the finger and Intel machines all
start shipping with Linux.
Not at all. I hope MS does give Intel the finger and Intel machines all
start shipping with Linux.
R
Ruel Smith (Big Daddy)
Not at all. I hope MS does give Intel the finger and Intel machines all
start shipping with Linux.
I hope that BIOS manufacturers give MS the finger an NOT build BIOS's like
MS wants them to to prevent worm/virus/trojan attacks. I'm too afraid that
the boards will be tied to Windows somehow.
Also, I'm highly considering a cheap AMD64 board for a Linux box build. I
hope AMD/Via/nVidia all keep supporting Linux.
--
Big Daddy Ruel Smith
My SuSE Linux machine uptime:
5:55pm up 18:26, 2 users, load average: 0.06, 0.16, 0.17
My Windows XP machine uptime:
Something less...
M
Matt
Stacey said:
Well, as I understand it, Mandrake is or was better about new hardware
than other distros.
The CDs that came with my Dell Dimension 4500 are marked 'May 2001', and
the computer has an 845-something in it. I believe it was in the first
quarter of 2003 that RH first made rpm's of patched kernels. I believe
these were non-standard patches, meaning that they were not officially
blessed by Linus or whoever does the blessing. For a long time there
were no patches, then they circulated in obscurity (mid 2002) and were
mentioned on Intel's website, then they made it into some distros (late
2002 for Mandrake? ca. March 2003 for RH kernel updates, starting with
2.4.18-24), then they made it into official Linux kernels when the chips
had been out for close to two years. Audio drivers for that chipset
were also very late. I wonder how many 845s were sold in the first two
years. (keywords: Intel, 845, 82801DB, ICH4, DMA, IDE, Alan Cox,
kernel, patch, hdparm)
Have I convinced you of anything?
I would be amazed if Intel couldn't have made money by paying somebody
to get good 845 drivers into the kernel right off the bat. It won't be
long before somebody at Intel gets a clue and starts to make some things
happen (or maybe somebody already has).
S
somebody
My impression is that Tejas is something completely different than
Willamette/Northwood/Prescott. And I agree, if it isn't a 64-bit CPU,
then something is seriously screwed at Intel, and everybody needs to
sell stock as quickly as possible.
I don't believe that Prescott is 64-bit however. I think those
speculations lack credibility. So of course Prescott is incompatible
with Windows64XP. As are all 32-bit cpus.
If Tejas 64-bit technology isn't compatible with AMD'86-64, then it
represents an effort to use market dominance, to force MS to do what
they've already refused to do: Kill off AMD.
I think MS's position is that there is only room for one mainstream
desktop 64-bit Windows platform. And I don't mean OS. I mean platform
as for native code.
This could be interesting. The fog is going to lift soon enough. Intel
is supposed to show some "compatibility technology" in February.
ancra
S
somebody
(e-mail address removed) wrote:
Not at all. I hope MS does give Intel the finger and Intel machines all
start shipping with Linux.
That's a real bad scenario to hope for. You haven't thought this
through. Let's hope Intel goes '86-64 instead.
ancra
M
Matt
So MS giving Intel the finger is no problem, but Intel giving the finger
back is part of "a real bad scenario". Maybe it's bad because you are
afraid of Linux? Please explain.
J
JAD
would you nuxers please get off the 'poor picked on, misunderstood OS' scenario. Your moving into the 'bullying' of users to xinux,
as Ms has supposedly done to the masses.
as Ms has supposedly done to the masses.
M
Matt
Maybe you are thinking of what happens when major CPU makers have
different instruction sets.
Around 1980, Zilog put out the Z80, which expanded the Intel 8080
instruction set. The Z80 did very well for some years (used in many
popular computers: the Timex/Sinclair, Kaypro, and Xerox at least). But
Zilog is no longer a player. I don't know whether Intel's 8086 and
later chips ever adopted the extra Z80 instructions, and I don't know
whether any of that was a factor in Zilog's decline. We definitely
wouldn't want AMD to fizzle out. I guess some people at AMD are more
aware of the issues than me.
Before that though, Motorola built the 32-bit 68000 chip, which in '84
ended up in the Macintosh. I understand that had the 68000 not been
buggy in its early versions, it would have been used by IBM and would
have knocked out Intel.
The worst tragedy from those days is probably Digital Research (the CP/M
maker) snubbing the IBM people when they came to visit, which is why we
are stuck with BG and MS. That would be roughly a case of OS people
giving computer makers the finger.
Please expound on the scenario you mention.
S
Stacey
Matt said:
Not really, RH was/is always behind in supporting hardware. I never buy
bleeding edge hardware so I'd never notice this sort of thing. The early
845 chipsets were poor performers
and I'm using a 865 chipset/ATI 9800pro and have no problems using linux with it.
They are getting MUCH better but yes hardware makers need to get involved or
they are going to lose my bussiness.
S
Stacey
JAD said:
Who are you refering to? Oh yea top posting isn't confusing. BTW didn't
-outlook- start people doing that stupid crap too? LOSER...
S
Stacey
Why?
B
BarryNL
I think MS has decided to commit to 64bit x86 - which, lets face it,
they pretty much had to. These AMD64s (and more importantly Opterons)
are selling well and MS can't leave Linux as the only game in town. The
big question seems to be, will Tejas be compatible with AMD64?
Personally I think it would be a big gamble for Intel if it wasn't -
they will then be in the position of having to wait for MS to develop a
version of XP64 for their processor while AMD has a 64 bit processor and
compatible OS already in the market.
B
BarryNL
Stacey said:Matt wrote:
Not really, RH was/is always behind in supporting hardware. I never buy
bleeding edge hardware so I'd never notice this sort of thing. The early
845 chipsets were poor performers
pro and have no problems using linux with it.
Just to be picky, it's not that RH was behind in supporting hardware,
the problem has always been manufacturer support for Linux. Pre-XP
Windows had very little built-in hardware support and pre-Win2000
virtually none. Try installing Win98 for example and see how much
hardware actually works without manufacturer supplied drivers.
M
Matt
BarryNL said:
Right---until now the free-software developers have taken much of the
burden of writing drivers. But the hardware makers are in the best
position to write drivers, and they are the ones who will get the most
benefit from delivering good drivers. Nvidia has great Linux drivers
(BTW their founders and leaders have Unix backgrounds) and they must be
getting most of the linux video market. Their drivers are closed
source, and I don't have a problem with that. Even if they are losing a
little money now on linux drivers, pretty soon they will be making a lot
of money from them. When linux reaches 2%-5% of the market, that is way
too big of an edge to ignore.
S
somebody
You're not making any sense at all.
You figure MS should waste a lot of their own money, and kill off AMD,
just because Intel wants them too?
- You figure Intel gotta be right someway? Because MS is always wrong
and evil?
Maybe you're one of Lintlers SA troopers checking I think "right"?
Well I don't.
ancra
S
somebody
?
Why is that a tragedy?
Rethorical question:
You'd prefer having the choice between an IBM for $7600 and an Apple
for $8100?
Obviously you wouldn't, so you must nurture some real funny illusions
about why the lazy hippies at DR, who couldn't even be bothered to do
a '86 version of CP/M, would be preferrable to Bill & co, as IBM's
initial partner.
ancra
S
somebody
- Wow, how mature! :-(
I think you've just proved JAD's point.
ancra
S
somebody
Do you want to see the desktop PC split up? End of competition, just a
single race to the finish line, with one proprietary winner?
MS is always 'wrong', even when they're right, huh?
As long as MS feathers gets ruffled, it's worth anything, huh?
ancra
S
Stacey
Why wouldn't linux work on an MS/AMD platform too? It works on plenty of
platforms windows doesn't.
?? All I see now is MS taking a larger and larger portion of the price of a
machine. If Intel focuses on linux that's just going to -increase-
competition.
S
Stacey
What by top posting? Who was he even talking to?
All I see is someone too lazy to change the -stupid- default setting in OE
and then argue it's better that way? Of course someone who is too lazy to
change the default setting in the newsreader to what it's should to be (a
dozen years of usenet before these lazy top posters.) is going to be a MS
zealot.
BTW have you actualy read some of his posts lately? Mature? LOL!