Win64 trial available

[Ruel Smith (Big Daddy)]

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.

Prescott isn't 64 bit, but it has some 64 bit extensions that are turned off
in the current socket form. When socket T ships, supposedly, they'll turn
on those 64 bit extensions within Prescott. The chip itself is a 32 bit
chip. This supposedly came from Intel themselves.

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.

I'd like to see AMD take a nice bite out of Intel...

--
Big Daddy Ruel Smith

My SuSE Linux machine uptime:
10:07pm up 2 days 22:39, 2 users, load average: 0.22, 0.21, 0.35

My Windows XP machine uptime:
Something less...

 

[Ruel Smith (Big Daddy)]

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.

Honestly, I'd rather certain companies, like Creative, NOT make drivers and
let open source do it. Their Windows drivers suck!



--
Big Daddy Ruel Smith

My SuSE Linux machine uptime:
10:15pm up 2 days 22:46, 2 users, load average: 0.12, 0.13, 0.25

My Windows XP machine uptime:
Something less...

 

[somebody]

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!

Actually: - Sorry.
(Stupid unnecessary post by me. I suppose Matt pissed me off.)

ancra

 

[Matt]

Maybe you're one of Lintlers SA troopers checking I think "right"?

Ha ha. Lintler. Very funny. I didn't think that any MS fans felt so
threatened.

Now how about giving some of the details of that "real bad scenario"
wherein Intel begins to ignore MS, and Intel machines begin to come with
linux installed.

 

[Matt]

You're not making any sense at all.

Linux shipping on Intel machines equals Intel giving MS the finger back.

Now please explain the real bad scenario.

 

[somebody]

Ha ha. Lintler. Very funny. I didn't think that any MS fans felt so
threatened.

The intention is for it to be descriptive of certain peoples
behaviour.

ancra

 

[somebody]

Linux shipping on Intel machines equals Intel giving MS the finger back.

That's not the case at all.
But people devoured by religious sects can't see or relate to reality.

Now please explain the real bad scenario.

Intel won't sell any hypothetical '86-X with linux. They will use its
32-bit compatibility and current 32-bit Windows and apps to sell it.
Then the gamble would be, that they'll get the lion share of the
market. Then MS and application developers can't ignore it.
Applications will concentrate on Intel '86-X. And '86-64 and AMD with
it, will be snuffed out sooner than you can say "****ed again".

Then Intel can resume its advance on making ram, chipsets, mobos and
interfaces entirely proprietary. A longtime project that was so
untimely twarted again and again by AMDs slotA, socketA, EV6 fsb and
DDR.

Now run along to some comp.os.advocacy group and indulge yourself in
your linux war.

ancra

 

[Matt]

?
Why is that a tragedy?

If MS hadn't so soon approach a monopoly position, we might have had
technically-better choices.

You would have to know something about the design of Unix and Linux.

 

[Matt]

The intention is for it to be descriptive of certain peoples
behaviour.

ancra

Poor analogy.

 

[Matt]

That's not the case at all.
But people devoured by religious sects can't see or relate to reality.




Intel won't sell any hypothetical '86-X with linux. They will use its
32-bit compatibility and current 32-bit Windows and apps to sell it.
Then the gamble would be, that they'll get the lion share of the
market. Then MS and application developers can't ignore it.
Applications will concentrate on Intel '86-X. And '86-64 and AMD with
it, will be snuffed out sooner than you can say "****ed again".

Then Intel can resume its advance on making ram, chipsets, mobos and
interfaces entirely proprietary. A longtime project that was so
untimely twarted again and again by AMDs slotA, socketA, EV6 fsb and
DDR.

Now run along to some comp.os.advocacy group and indulge yourself in
your linux war.

ancra

I was able to gather that you oppose hardware monopoly.

 

[Stacey]

That's not the case at all.
But people devoured by religious sects can't see or relate to reality.

Like being an AMD zealot?

Intel won't sell any hypothetical '86-X with linux. They will use its
32-bit compatibility and current 32-bit Windows and apps to sell it.
Then the gamble would be, that they'll get the lion share of the
market. Then MS and application developers can't ignore it.
Applications will concentrate on Intel '86-X. And '86-64 and AMD with
it, will be snuffed out sooner than you can say "****ed again".

Clueless. Nothing needs to change for intel to run on 32 bit windows. If AMD
64 doesn't outperform intels solution (and remain stable...) then it
doesn't deserve to not be snuffed out. Or should we have affirmative action
for AMD, like less sales tax?


I guess you haven't noticed Intel going to bat with IBM against SCO etc
etc.. They see the hand writting on the wall and it doesn't involve MS.

 

[Percy Björklund]

I was able to gather that you oppose hardware monopoly.

Good response.

ancra

 

[somebody]

If MS hadn't so soon approach a monopoly position,
we might have had technically-better choices.

(Shit! - Now I'm doing exactly what I intended to avoid. :-( )

? For what? (There were always technically better choices.
MS Xenix, Mac, Amiga, Atari STOS, Next. I don't really blame Next,
they entered too late, had as much chance as a snowball in hell. MS
very wisely dropped Xenix in order to take care of their current
existing customers instead. But the rest: All of them proprietary.
None of them were interested in developing and evolving their product.
None of them were interested in selling cheap to many. Sorry, I think
the market shopped at the right place, for the right reasons. You
really think we would have been better off today, if those who
couldn't, wouldn't compete, didn't have MS to contend with?)

An OS for what?
IBM would have a proprietary PS2, PS3 on the market. There would
probably be the Mac and maybe some other.
The open standard PC as we know it today, with all its immense
development on IDE-hds, networking, dram, graphics and cpus, from a
wide variety of competing manufacturers, wouldn't exist. Because there
wouldn't have been any "IBM compatible" OS available. Neither would
IBM have had any use for DR or their crude OS, past the initial PC.
That was their plan all along. Without Bill, it would have worked too.

"technically-better choices"
That is not much of a concern for me anyway.
Things that matters are the features and power that the OS brings to
the user and apps. And another thing: sticking to your users. MS have
done a marvelous job of bringing their initial DOS customers and
everybody picked up along the way, to the modern PC. Whereas every
single other player on the market (except Linux, of course) has
abandoned their customers and tried selling some completely new
product. That's the sole real reason for MS dominance today. They
never abandoned their market, regardless technical difficulties and
obsolensce. Even if a state of monopoly is reason for concern, I find
no reason to lament that it's MS, or the way they conquered the PC.
Bloody well done actually.

You would have to know something about the design of Unix and Linux.

- Aah! And you think I don't?
Well, I'm not terribly impressed. I've seen a couple of _really_
advanced concepts for OS, so unix & linux have a decidedly old
fashioned flavor for me. There are no really valid
"technically_better" -reasons for abandoning Windows in favor of
Linux. Windows is moving, evolving. State of technology seem like a
poor reason to me.
That doesn't mean I'm saying there aren't any reasons to choose Linux.

ancra

 

[somebody]

?? 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.

I would be fully ok, with paying $60 - $100 for a license.
So I do agree, MS pricing policy is becoming increasingly irritating.
There are voices in MS that argue that MS should charge more (despite
healthy margins of profit). And that the product/products should be
structured in tiers, with steeply increasing fees, for each level of
features. These people came from the mainframe industry. That is where
they got their business model. I think it suits MS poorly, and is
contrary to what has made MS successful. Still, I think that is what
we're seeing. Same kind of scheming that always stopped Unix from
becoming truly successful, and the reason Linux is devouring that
entire industry. Serves them right.
I wouldn't rule out that personal greed has something to do with it.
These people came into the game late, and haven't done the big
earnings on stock. Now they're looking for outrageous earnings, to
boost their stock options and bonuses.

ancra

 

[somebody]

Like being an AMD zealot?


Clueless. Nothing needs to change for intel to run on 32 bit windows.

Why should there be a need? I get this feeling there's something you
don't understand?

If AMD
64 doesn't outperform intels solution (and remain stable...) then it
doesn't deserve to not be snuffed out.

Performance has nothing to do with it. If it had, both Intel and the
PC would have been dead and gone ages ago.

Or should we have affirmative action for AMD, like less sales tax?

That's just silly. The contenders play the market. Just because the
means are gray enough, not to be recognizable as illegal, doesn't mean
every scenario is in the interest of the consumers.

I guess you haven't noticed Intel going to bat with IBM against SCO etc
etc.. They see the hand writting on the wall and it doesn't involve MS.

So irrelevant. Why do you even bring it up?
But you're wrong, Intel's plans involves MS. They're perfectly aware
that every other tier of computing, can and probably will be conquered
from below, from a wider base. MS are still very secure in the big
consumer sector. I frankly can't see that change, in any close future,
either.
If intel's '86 ISA 64 extension isn't compatible with AMD '86-64, then
they're gambling on getting MS on their wagon anyway. And if they
don't, they're temporarily ****ed, until they can get a '86-64 out of
the door. No way Linux is going to change that.

ancra

 

[Stacey]

Why should there be a need? I get this feeling there's something you
don't understand?

Then how is this a "slap in intels face" or some conspiracy to squash AMD?

Performance has nothing to do with it. If it had, both Intel and the
PC would have been dead and gone ages ago.

The voice of a true zealot. People buy performance, at least I do. I use AMD
or Intel whichever is on top at the time I'm buying stuff.

So irrelevant. Why do you even bring it up?

Because it shows Intel realizes Linux is an important market?

But you're wrong, Intel's plans involves MS.

And obviously Linux as well. You think Intel won any brownie point with MS
backing IBM while MS is backing SCO's attack against Linux? Didn't see AMD
offering any help against SCO did ya?

 

[Stacey]

I would be fully ok, with paying $60 - $100 for a license.
So I do agree, MS pricing policy is becoming increasingly irritating.
There are voices in MS that argue that MS should charge more (despite
healthy margins of profit).

And they will. The only thing that will stop them from charging $500 a seat
just for the OS is an alternative. How much does an MS seat cost by the
time you include enough software to actually do something right now?

 

[Matt]

None of them were interested in developing and evolving their product.
None of them were interested in selling cheap to many.

Well if that was true, and it seems that it probably was, then that was
an element of the tragedy resulting in the hordes and everybody else
using inferior product for decades.

"technically-better choices"
That is not much of a concern for me anyway.
Things that matters are the features and power that the OS brings to
the user and apps.

Technical considerations include features and power.

Even if we are only talking about technically-better internals, poor
internal designs would lead to retarded development.

Really when you have a specification as simple and lean as that of say
Posix, there are not many different ways to implement it.

- Aah! And you think I don't?

Such knowledge would be necessary, not sufficient. Maybe it's just that
you don't understand the importance of the design issues.

There are no really valid
"technically_better" -reasons for abandoning Windows in favor of
Linux.

Uh huh. See http://www.theregister.com/content/56/33226.html for instance.

 

[somebody]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:



Then how is this a "slap in intels face" or some conspiracy to squash AMD?

Ah, now this explains things. Why we're having this funny discussion.
There never was any "slap in intel's face". The fact that you see it
that way, and your generally benevolent view of Intel, and your
positive picture of an all conquering alliance between Intel and your
beloved Linux, is maybe severely tinting everything I say, in your
eyes.
Neither is there a conspiracy, though you seem to view the fact that
there isn't one, as "slap in intel's face"?

But Intel certainly maneuvers to "squash AMD". And I would view both
the rumored desire for a different 64-bit '86, and any eventual
release of such, as an element of that plan. And so, I'm confident,
should any intelligent person.

The voice of a true zealot. People buy performance, at least I do. I use AMD
or Intel whichever is on top at the time I'm buying stuff.

Rather the ears and eyes of a true zealot. I said "ages ago". AMD
wasn't even around ages ago.
Look, - the PC, as in "IBM-PC-compatible", crushed all competition,
and became the world standard. And it was definitely, one of the
lowest performing personal computer systems on the market. And Intel's
cpus were the slowest, crudest, ugliest existing. So performance is a
very minor reason for a system's success. Only good thing about this,
is that we got a standard.
If Intel introduces a, non '86-64, 64-bit '86 ISA, we won't have the
standard PC anymore. Is it this, you fail to understand? We will have
two different computer systems in competition to become the new market
hegemony.
From Highlander: There can only be one. And there will be only one
64-bit ISA.
Intel can take a defeat in its stride, they'll just make their next
chip '86-64. But AMD would go down with '86-64. And that would
certainly be Intel's sole motive for doing it, if they do it.

Because it shows Intel realizes Linux is an important market?

They're not blind deaf and stupid. So what? What has that got to do
with anything?
It was the Linux zealot, you, that brought Linux into this. Reacting
like Pavlov's dog, on the mere mentioning of MS and Windows.

Only way that concerns my argument, is that if you don't realize MS is
the crucial pivotal part of this, you're not seeing things clearly.
This is certainly not a MS vs Linux argument. (I'm having that in a
different branchoff).

And obviously Linux as well. You think Intel won any brownie point with MS
backing IBM while MS is backing SCO's attack against Linux? Didn't see AMD
offering any help against SCO did ya?

Yea. So what? Why do you think you're having that discussion with me?
Because you want to? Because I'm not a MS hater?
(JAD's point is indeed brought home.)

ancra

 

[somebody]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

Well if that was true, and it seems that it probably was, then that was
an element of the tragedy resulting in the hordes and everybody else
using inferior product for decades.

Oh, yes. I never said things went the best way possible. They rarely
do. But it went pretty well, and I'm quite happy about that we now
have open standards.

Technical considerations include features and power.

Even if we are only talking about technically-better internals, poor
internal designs would lead to retarded development.

Yes, but is that even remotely significant, in relation to how market
standards affect development? Specifically retarding? - No! Of course
not!
So the plan for how to evolve the market standards, is much, much more
important.

Such knowledge would be necessary, not sufficient. Maybe it's just that
you don't understand the importance of the design issues.

Well, I think it's you that haven't reached full understanding about
what matters and why.
My guess is. right now, you're full of righteous zeal and passion
about some technology you think is so clever and beautiful, and how
much better the world would be in every way, if everybody embraced it
like you do? Been there, done that. It's a tired old story.

I think I also understand that it's far more important to keep the
wagon trail moving, than picking the 'best possible way'. There is no
'best way', because there is no destination.

I've seen things, that makes it hard for me to become excited about
Linux. Only truly exciting thing about it, is that the source is open.
Now _that_ IS interesting! And I'm very curious to see where that will
go.

I'm not anti Linux. The thing is, I don't hate MS. And I appreciate
Windows. And I appreciate what has happened during the PC's evolution.
I definitely appreciate that Bill got IBM by the balls. And Linux
wouldn't even exist without all that.

Uh huh. See http://www.theregister.com/content/56/33226.html for instance.

Ha, you're serious?
This minor configuration issue, will be solved within a couple of
years.
I don't quite see what this has to do with "technically_better", but
never mind.

However, I would certainly agree with that it's more impractical to
work, with an account lacking admin rights, on Windows. I'd have to
blame application writers for a lot of that though.
And sure, that is one of very few things that irritates me in
WindowsXP.

ancra