Still, Don't you find it interesting that MS was able to come up with
a 64 bit implimentation of Windows that happens to only run on
Itanium?
No, no I don't. Furthermore, I don't see why anyone SHOULD find it at
all abnormal that Windows for IA64 arrived before Windows for AMD64.
The Itanium was released three years ago and the instruction set was
documented long before then. AMD64 hasn't even been here a year.
What's more, Windows for IA64 was late as well! When the Itanium came
out (3 years late), it was still 6-9 months before Microsoft had a
final version of Windows for it. The first systems shipped either
with Linux or with a beta version of WinXP. Sound familiar?
This is very true but you know you are being obtuse if you think that
is what is driving this.
Intel ( AMD ) and especially MS don't give a wet fart about server
security because if they did they would have had at least 10 years to
fix the problem. They only care about money and security wasn't part
of the deal.
Of course all they care about is money, they're a company! But the
fact of the matter is that security problems are costing Microsoft,
Intel and AMD sales, people are choosing IBM AIX and Sun Solaris
instead of Intel/AMD on Windows because of security problems.
Security problems cost money, and money talks.
Of course there is the other issue I mentioned about MS wanting to
bring the media companies onto their side as well and drive sales that
way. It's a two-pronged strategy that MS is bundling together in one.
Microsoft talks all about the security aspects of it publicly and
doesn't say much about the DRM stuff, while the /. hordes yell and
scream about DRM and totally ignore the security aspect of it (all the
while yelling and screaming about MS' poor security track record).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33729.html
MS to intro hardware-linked security for AMD64, Itanium, future CPUs
By John Lettice
Good god that article is TERRIBLE! Even by The Registers standards
it's bad! They even managed to get a clueless (or possibly just
incorrect) quote to back up their own cluelessness.
"The 32-bit version of Windows currently leverages the NX processor
feature, as defined by the AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual." So
actually, it's not being introduced to the mass market with SP2 - it's
here already for AMD64 platforms."
If they had bothered to do a good 10 seconds worth of research they
would have discovered that the NX bit is NOT SUPPORTED IN 32-BIT MODE!
AMD publishes complete documentation for their AMD64 instruction set
and they flat out state:
"No Execute (NX) Bit. Bit 63. This bit is present in the translation
table entries defined for PAE paging, with the exception that the
legacy-mode PDPE does not contain this bit. This bit is not supported
by non-PAE paging."
I like how they complain about how the NX bit doesn't seem to be a
must-have for Linux... Yet again, 10 seconds worth of research
probably would have told them that it's already used in Linux for
AMD64! I believe that it's turned off by default because some poor
written programs break, but it's certainly in there.
If I find it later there is an article on AMD's site that states that
NX IS for DRM...It's a sales pitch for corp types that was link
public.
Please do, I'd be interested in seeing how they managed that, because
there is NO WAY to get any sort or DRM using this feature. At the
very best it might be of a tiny bit of help in making existing DRM a
tiny bit trickier to break, but that would be trivial to get around.
I would highly recommend that you read AMD's documentation on what
this bit does. You can find it at page 175 of Volume 2 of their AMD64
Programming Guides (System Programming). Here's a link to the pdf:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/24593.pdf