Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Interesting read about upcoming K9 processors

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 8:19:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20040726PR202.html

This interview with Tyan president Symon Chang provided the following
quotes:

"Around 2006, when the market moves to AMD's next generation of chips, you
will be able to go over 8-way. What I mean is that with eight sockets, and
dual cores, you then have sixteen processors, but with K9, you'll see it go
over that. I think we'll see a significant increase in the amount of
crossbar switches in the CPU. I'm not up on all the minute details, but you'
ll be able to go over 60 processors without adding any external crossbar
chips. We can do all that within the structure that is being currently
created. The crossbar bar chip is the standard in the mainframe business
whether it is for the Xeon, Opteron or other processors. There are a couple
of versions of the crossbar chip today, but I don't think that anyone is
currently using them for anything in the generic market; these solutions are
really only for the mainframe market. Today's mainframe market with
computers from IBM or Sparc will be using up to and over 128 processors,
with chips such as IBM's 390 microprocessor. These machines are starting
around US$1 million."

That's right over 60 processors without any kind of a special chipset
support!!!

Also he had some opinions about Windows XP64:

"Q: Do you think Microsoft's 64-bit OS will come out on time?

Chang: I hope so. There are delays, but I believe it will. Interestingly
enough, a couple of significant things have happened this year; for example,
Intel's Xeon processor with 64-bit extensions is a reaction to the
unexpected popularity of AMD's Opteron, which put Intel under pressure to
provide a similar solution for the OEM market. If Intel had not reacted, it
would have lost out. Their response was to come out with a 64-bit CPU that
is not optimal, but at least they have it, and I would compare that with
what Microsoft is doing now in the realm of the 64-bit operating system."

Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
the times.

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 8:19:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:19:18 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20040726PR202.html
>
>This interview with Tyan president Symon Chang provided the following
>quotes:
>
>"Around 2006, when the market moves to AMD's next generation of chips, you
>will be able to go over 8-way. What I mean is that with eight sockets, and
>dual cores, you then have sixteen processors, but with K9, you'll see it go
>over that. I think we'll see a significant increase in the amount of
>crossbar switches in the CPU. I'm not up on all the minute details, but you'
>ll be able to go over 60 processors without adding any external crossbar
>chips. We can do all that within the structure that is being currently
>created. The crossbar bar chip is the standard in the mainframe business
>whether it is for the Xeon, Opteron or other processors. There are a couple
>of versions of the crossbar chip today, but I don't think that anyone is
>currently using them for anything in the generic market; these solutions are
>really only for the mainframe market. Today's mainframe market with
>computers from IBM or Sparc will be using up to and over 128 processors,
>with chips such as IBM's 390 microprocessor. These machines are starting
>around US$1 million."
>
>That's right over 60 processors without any kind of a special chipset
>support!!!
>
>Also he had some opinions about Windows XP64:
>
>"Q: Do you think Microsoft's 64-bit OS will come out on time?
>
>Chang: I hope so. There are delays, but I believe it will. Interestingly
>enough, a couple of significant things have happened this year; for example,
>Intel's Xeon processor with 64-bit extensions is a reaction to the
>unexpected popularity of AMD's Opteron, which put Intel under pressure to
>provide a similar solution for the OEM market. If Intel had not reacted, it
>would have lost out. Their response was to come out with a 64-bit CPU that
>is not optimal, but at least they have it, and I would compare that with
>what Microsoft is doing now in the realm of the 64-bit operating system."

Hmmm, "not optimal"?? How much can we read into that on top of the
deafening EM64T silence on WWW? As for "unexpected popularity of AMD's
Opteron"... must be a riddle... too difficult for me.:-)

>Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
>build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
>the times.

.... or that we'll get it when Intel is good and ready for us to have it.:-(

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 8:47:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:aD%Mc.1223565$Ar.543541@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Q: Do you think Microsoft's 64-bit OS will come out on time?
>

Are we still supposed to be excited about a 64-bit desktop OS from MS after
all these years? I heard once it was going to be a slam dunk. Guess
not... :-)

Regards,
Dean
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 11:34:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

As always, AMD is good and Intel is bad. Same old spiel. YAWN!


"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:aD%Mc.1223565$Ar.543541@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20040726PR202.html
>
> This interview with Tyan president Symon Chang provided the following
> quotes:
>
> "Around 2006, when the market moves to AMD's next generation of chips, you
> will be able to go over 8-way. What I mean is that with eight sockets, and
> dual cores, you then have sixteen processors, but with K9, you'll see it
go
> over that. I think we'll see a significant increase in the amount of
> crossbar switches in the CPU. I'm not up on all the minute details, but
you'
> ll be able to go over 60 processors without adding any external crossbar
> chips. We can do all that within the structure that is being currently
> created. The crossbar bar chip is the standard in the mainframe business
> whether it is for the Xeon, Opteron or other processors. There are a
couple
> of versions of the crossbar chip today, but I don't think that anyone is
> currently using them for anything in the generic market; these solutions
are
> really only for the mainframe market. Today's mainframe market with
> computers from IBM or Sparc will be using up to and over 128 processors,
> with chips such as IBM's 390 microprocessor. These machines are starting
> around US$1 million."
>
> That's right over 60 processors without any kind of a special chipset
> support!!!
>
> Also he had some opinions about Windows XP64:
>
> "Q: Do you think Microsoft's 64-bit OS will come out on time?
>
> Chang: I hope so. There are delays, but I believe it will. Interestingly
> enough, a couple of significant things have happened this year; for
example,
> Intel's Xeon processor with 64-bit extensions is a reaction to the
> unexpected popularity of AMD's Opteron, which put Intel under pressure to
> provide a similar solution for the OEM market. If Intel had not reacted,
it
> would have lost out. Their response was to come out with a 64-bit CPU that
> is not optimal, but at least they have it, and I would compare that with
> what Microsoft is doing now in the realm of the 64-bit operating system."
>
> Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard
to
> build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
> the times.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
> --
> Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
> Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
>
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 3:06:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
> build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
> the times.
>

Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for Microsoft.

Joe Seigh
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 4:14:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:19:18 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

[SNIP]

>>Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
>>build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
>>the times.
>
>
> ... or that we'll get it when Intel is good and ready for us to have it.:-(

That just means MS loses market & mindshare to other more capable
operating systems.

It also weakens their "Enterprise Class" claims. 64bit Windows has
very few production machine hours compared to Linux (for example).

64 bit Windows is hardly what I would call "Enterprise Ready", but
there are plenty of alternatives that are.

Cheers,
Rupert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 4:40:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.arch Joe Seigh <jseigh_01@xemaps.com> wrote:


> Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
> > build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
> > the times.
> >

> Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for Microsoft.

> Joe Seigh

why do you say that? Maybe there will be particular issues for
applications to make use of all those CPUs but I don't see why it would
be such a big deal for the OS kernel scheduler.

IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 4:51:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <ce2u44$2g4$1@enyo.uwa.edu.au>,
Pleasant Thrip <no@spammmmm.com> writes:
|>
|> why do you say that? Maybe there will be particular issues for
|> applications to make use of all those CPUs but I don't see why it would
|> be such a big deal for the OS kernel scheduler.

Hmm. Do you manage any large CPU-count SMP systems?

|> IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.

No, Joe Seigh is right.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 4:55:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Pleasant Thrip wrote:
>
> In comp.arch Joe Seigh <jseigh_01@xemaps.com> wrote:
>
> > Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > >
> > > Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
> > > build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
> > > the times.
> > >
>
> > Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for Microsoft.
>
> > Joe Seigh
>
> why do you say that? Maybe there will be particular issues for
> applications to make use of all those CPUs but I don't see why it would
> be such a big deal for the OS kernel scheduler.
>
> IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.

Scalability primarily judging from the experience of the other OS vendors.

Joe Seigh
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 7:02:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Pleasant Thrip" <no@spammmmm.com> wrote in message
news:ce2u44$2g4$1@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
> In comp.arch Joe Seigh <jseigh_01@xemaps.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > >
> > > Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that
hard to
> > > build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't
behind
> > > the times.
> > >
>
> > Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for
Microsoft.
>
> > Joe Seigh
>
> why do you say that?

Er, NUMA. Processor affinity in order to leverage local cache contents.
Synchronization mechanisms that scale easily to 4 - 8 processors but fall
flat on their face at 64. Just for a start.

Maybe there will be particular issues for
> applications to make use of all those CPUs but I don't see why it would
> be such a big deal for the OS kernel scheduler.
>
> IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.

Considering that they had a beta 64-bit version out in the field on Alpha 5
years ago, I'd suspect that they had that pretty well under control by now.

- bill
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 7:37:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

>>IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.
>
>
> Considering that they had a beta 64-bit version out in the field on Alpha 5
> years ago, I'd suspect that they had that pretty well under control by now.
>
> - bill

Did they? I thought WinNT on Alpha was really and truly 32 bit, even
though it was on a 64b processor. Besides, they threw all that code out
and made so many thousands of changes since then that there probably
isn't any legacy of Alpha's NT left in XP.

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 8:40:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Alex Johnson" <compuwiz@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ce3mid$54t$1@news01.intel.com...
> >>IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.
> >
> >
> > Considering that they had a beta 64-bit version out in the field on
Alpha 5
> > years ago, I'd suspect that they had that pretty well under control by
now.
> >
> > - bill
>
> Did they?

Yes.

I thought WinNT on Alpha was really and truly 32 bit, even
> though it was on a 64b processor.

The versions that actually shipped were. The field-test version in 1999
that I referred to (being tested concurrently with its 32-bit Alpha
counterpart, until both were canned in August of that year courtesy of Curly
Capellas, bless his incompetent shiny head) was 64 bits.

> Besides, they threw all that code out

Well, not exactly: rumor has it that it's *still* running on Alphas inside
Microsoft (Dave Cutler reportedly isn't a great Itanic fan), and has even
been kept moderately up to date in the interim.

> and made so many thousands of changes since then that there probably
> isn't any legacy of Alpha's NT left in XP.

That would be stupid even for Microsoft: it was the first 64-bit Windows
version they had working, and they continued to use it for 64-bit Windows
development not only until they were able to get usable Itanic systems
(i.e., McKinleys) but significantly thereafter. To suggest that at some
point they then scrapped it and started over is, well, ridiculous.

Since Windows XP code is largely Win2K code underneath, and since 64-bit
Win2K was developed on Alpha, a large percentage of the 64-bit code in
current 64-bit Windows products almost certainly originated with the 64-bit
Alpha version.

- bill
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 10:01:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Rupert Pigott wrote:
> That just means MS loses market & mindshare to other more capable
> operating systems.
>
> It also weakens their "Enterprise Class" claims. 64bit Windows has
> very few production machine hours compared to Linux (for example).
>
> 64 bit Windows is hardly what I would call "Enterprise Ready", but
> there are plenty of alternatives that are.

Microsoft should have just released Windows 64, despite not having enough
optimized drivers for it. There's nothing like a shipping product to drive
driver development.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 10:26:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Judd wrote:
> As always, AMD is good and Intel is bad. Same old spiel. YAWN!

Well, it's good that you recognize it, Judd. :-)

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 10:26:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Pleasant Thrip wrote:
>> Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for
>> Microsoft.
>
>> Joe Seigh
>
> why do you say that? Maybe there will be particular issues for
> applications to make use of all those CPUs but I don't see why it
> would be such a big deal for the OS kernel scheduler.

The scheduler would have to be quite non-trivial for such a large-scale
machine. The scheduler would have to not only take into account the number
of processors involved (that's the easy part), but it will have to take into
account metrics like how much latency there is between processors talking to
each other, how much latency there is in processors talking to various
sections of memory, etc.

For example with the processor-processor latencies, Hypertransport itself
creates a NUMA architecture, a relatively quick NUMA architecture that can
almost be treated as SMP, but NUMA nonetheless. Then if it goes above 4 or 8
processors, a second level of interconnect will need to be introduced which
might make things even slower. So certain groups of processors could talk to
each other at the highest speed, through Hypertransport, those groups would
likely be located on the same system boards. Then processors within each
group would have to talk to processors in other groups through a different
interconnect. So you have at least two levels of NUMA to take into account,
and get the timings right, etc.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 10:26:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:u1cNc.203$t1O1.110@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Judd wrote:
> > As always, AMD is good and Intel is bad. Same old spiel. YAWN!

How can you doubt it? ;-)


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
uce@ftc.gov
Thanks, robots.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 11:31:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Bill Todd wrote:
>> IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.
>
> Considering that they had a beta 64-bit version out in the field on
> Alpha 5 years ago, I'd suspect that they had that pretty well under
> control by now.

They may have had an OS in 64-bit for Alpha 5 years ago, but did they have
any applications or drivers? That seems to be where they're stumbling right
now: on a bit of application support issues, and a lot of driver support
issues.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 11:31:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:j_cNc.346$t1O1.110@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Bill Todd wrote:
> >> IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.
> >
> > Considering that they had a beta 64-bit version out in the field on
> > Alpha 5 years ago, I'd suspect that they had that pretty well under
> > control by now.
>
> They may have had an OS in 64-bit for Alpha 5 years ago, but did they have
> any applications or drivers?

Who cares (at least in the current discussion context)? The point was that
they had the API worked out sufficiently back in 1999 to give it to outside
developers.

- bill
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2004 12:16:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:14:25 +0100, Rupert Pigott
<roo@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:19:18 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>>>Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
>>>build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
>>>the times.
>>
>>
>> ... or that we'll get it when Intel is good and ready for us to have it.:-(
>
>That just means MS loses market & mindshare to other more capable
>operating systems.

True but those people are among the most arrogant on the planet. They
think they can get away with it and maybe they can. There are signs that
AMD64 supply is tightening up and prices are staying relatively high. It's
probable that the bottom line is that M$ figures AMD64 volume can never
reach what they call "volume".

>It also weakens their "Enterprise Class" claims. 64bit Windows has
>very few production machine hours compared to Linux (for example).
>
>64 bit Windows is hardly what I would call "Enterprise Ready", but
>there are plenty of alternatives that are.

Just a couple of months ago, Oracle and IBM announced availability of
Oracle and DB2 x86-64 for Linux - as in you can buy it. As part of the
same announcement, they offered a "development version" for Windows
Server... development because the OS is err, late and itself in
"development"... Beta I suppose. That seems like a pretty strong prod to
me and yet, still, M$ just dawdles along.<shrug>

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2004 9:36:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> news:j_cNc.346$t1O1.110@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> Bill Todd wrote:
>>>> IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.
>>>
>>> Considering that they had a beta 64-bit version out in the field on
>>> Alpha 5 years ago, I'd suspect that they had that pretty well under
>>> control by now.
>>
>> They may have had an OS in 64-bit for Alpha 5 years ago, but did
>> they have any applications or drivers?
>
> Who cares (at least in the current discussion context)? The point
> was that they had the API worked out sufficiently back in 1999 to
> give it to outside developers.

I thought the point was getting a working 64-bit Microsoft system? That
would mean not just the OS, but also the apps and drivers. If it's just the
OS, then Microsoft is already done, the OS is already ready for Opteron. But
Microsoft has said that the only thing holding them back from releasing the
OS is the drivers, and a few apps which might do things and get away with in
the 32-bit OS which they won't be allowed to get away with in 64-bit.

Yousuf Khan
July 27, 2004 10:39:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 05:36:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:
>> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
>> news:j_cNc.346$t1O1.110@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>> Bill Todd wrote:
>>>>> IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.
>>>>
>>>> Considering that they had a beta 64-bit version out in the field on
>>>> Alpha 5 years ago, I'd suspect that they had that pretty well under
>>>> control by now.
>>>
>>> They may have had an OS in 64-bit for Alpha 5 years ago, but did
>>> they have any applications or drivers?
>>
>> Who cares (at least in the current discussion context)? The point
>> was that they had the API worked out sufficiently back in 1999 to
>> give it to outside developers.
>
>I thought the point was getting a working 64-bit Microsoft system? That
>would mean not just the OS, but also the apps and drivers. If it's just the
>OS, then Microsoft is already done, the OS is already ready for Opteron. But
>Microsoft has said that the only thing holding them back from releasing the
>OS is the drivers, and a few apps which might do things and get away with in
>the 32-bit OS which they won't be allowed to get away with in 64-bit.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

It's those darn AOL 64 drivers holding everything up!!! ;P ;P

Hey, is Windows "Longhorn" gonna be for x86-64 CPU?
Ed
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2004 12:32:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:tRlNc.1236553$Ar.1188022@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:
> > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> > news:j_cNc.346$t1O1.110@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> I thought the point was getting a working 64-bit Microsoft system? That
> would mean not just the OS, but also the apps and drivers. If it's just
the
> OS, then Microsoft is already done, the OS is already ready for Opteron.
But
> Microsoft has said that the only thing holding them back from releasing
the
> OS is the drivers, and a few apps which might do things and get away with
in
> the 32-bit OS which they won't be allowed to get away with in 64-bit.

Doesn't Advanced Server 2003 do 64-bit? As in Itanium?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2004 3:36:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:tRlNc.1236553$Ar.1188022@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:
> > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> > news:j_cNc.346$t1O1.110@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >> Bill Todd wrote:
> >>>> IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.
> >>>
> >>> Considering that they had a beta 64-bit version out in the field on
> >>> Alpha 5 years ago, I'd suspect that they had that pretty well under
> >>> control by now.
> >>
> >> They may have had an OS in 64-bit for Alpha 5 years ago, but did
> >> they have any applications or drivers?
> >
> > Who cares (at least in the current discussion context)? The point
> > was that they had the API worked out sufficiently back in 1999 to
> > give it to outside developers.
>
> I thought the point was getting a working 64-bit Microsoft system?

Then you failed to pay attention to the context you were responding to.

- bill
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2004 6:56:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:10gcprfhtfhms09@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Doesn't Advanced Server 2003 do 64-bit? As in Itanium?
>

Of course. But, it isn't a 'desktop OS' and many people don't count
anything Itanium as being real... that gives it two strikes. Since it
doesn't run on Opteron, that makes three. ;-).

Regards,
Dean

>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2004 8:00:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Ed wrote:
> Hey, is Windows "Longhorn" gonna be for x86-64 CPU?
> Ed

Current rumours are that, that's all it's going to be for. You won't be able
to run it on anything less than a 64-bit machine.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2004 8:00:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Judd wrote:
> Doesn't Advanced Server 2003 do 64-bit? As in Itanium?

The number of apps and the number of drivers supported on Opteron is
supposed to be much higher than on Itanium.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2004 9:25:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:m_uNc.24$8Qp.11@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Judd wrote:
> > Doesn't Advanced Server 2003 do 64-bit? As in Itanium?
>
> The number of apps and the number of drivers supported on Opteron is
> supposed to be much higher than on Itanium.
>

Huh? If Windows Server 2003 is running and selling for Itanium, then it
probably has the drivers for the architecture and applications as well. If
you mean 3rd party, then that's a different issue altogether but I'm sure
3rd party high end server vendors do have the drivers. Intel site has a
long list of apps that run on Itanium. Itanium also runs 32-bit software,
but only like a mid level P4.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2004 9:26:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote in message
news:T2uNc.3107$AY5.1930@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message
> news:10gcprfhtfhms09@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Doesn't Advanced Server 2003 do 64-bit? As in Itanium?
> >
>
> Of course. But, it isn't a 'desktop OS' and many people don't count
> anything Itanium as being real... that gives it two strikes. Since it
> doesn't run on Opteron, that makes three. ;-).
>

LOL, I suppose!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2004 10:15:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:en6bg0he7c6rc2paguk1fm6lbjt7ogg1m1@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:14:25 +0100, Rupert Pigott
> <roo@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >George Macdonald wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:19:18 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
> >
> >[SNIP]
> >
>
> True but those people are among the most arrogant on the planet. They
> think they can get away with it and maybe they can. There are signs that
> AMD64 supply is tightening up and prices are staying relatively high.
It's
> probable that the bottom line is that M$ figures AMD64 volume can never
> reach what they call "volume".
>

Interesting, because I was just reading an article from yesterday saying AMD
just dropped the price of the A64 by up to 30% (depending on the model).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/26/amd_prices/
July 28, 2004 2:28:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:47:58 +0000, Dean Kent wrote:

> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> news:aD%Mc.1223565$Ar.543541@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>
>> "Q: Do you think Microsoft's 64-bit OS will come out on time?
>>
>
> Are we still supposed to be excited about a 64-bit desktop OS from MS after
> all these years? I heard once it was going to be a slam dunk. Guess
> not... :-)

A 64bit OS is a slam dunk, though perhaps not from Micro$hit.
Perhaps politics is involved here? Nah Dean, couldn't be!

BTW, 64bit Linux works fine here! It seems Sun is found the light too.
OTOH, Itanic well never see the light, no matter how hard the pundits push.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 5:59:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Judd wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> news:m_uNc.24$8Qp.11@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> Judd wrote:
>>> Doesn't Advanced Server 2003 do 64-bit? As in Itanium?
>>
>> The number of apps and the number of drivers supported on Opteron is
>> supposed to be much higher than on Itanium.
>>
>
> Huh? If Windows Server 2003 is running and selling for Itanium, then
> it probably has the drivers for the architecture and applications as
> well. If you mean 3rd party, then that's a different issue
> altogether but I'm sure 3rd party high end server vendors do have the
> drivers. Intel site has a long list of apps that run on Itanium.
> Itanium also runs 32-bit software, but only like a mid level P4.

Yeah, it's the 3rd party stuff I'm talking about. Opterons are supposed to
run with a wider range of 3rd party devices than Itaniums. Because they are
aimed at such a cost-sensitive sector of the market, you got to expect that
people will try to put their own devices into these systems rather than pay
the exhorbitant vendor prices. Of course when they do that, they also miss
out on all of the vendor pre-testing that goes along with it.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 7:18:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.07.28.02.28.35.456625@att.bizzzz...
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:47:58 +0000, Dean Kent wrote:
>
>
> A 64bit OS is a slam dunk, though perhaps not from Micro$hit.
> Perhaps politics is involved here? Nah Dean, couldn't be!

I don't think so. More likely Windows is a nightmare to code/modify. Some
people like conspiracy theories, however. :-).

>
> BTW, 64bit Linux works fine here! It seems Sun is found the light too.

Linux isn't Windows, and therefore is a completely different argument. Sun
found religion for the same reason most others do... impending death! <g>.

> OTOH, Itanic well never see the light, no matter how hard the pundits
push.

Unlike Power, which will dominate everywhere, right? No politics here!!!
;-).

Regards,
Dean

>
> --
> Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 7:40:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Keith wrote:
> BTW, 64bit Linux works fine here! It seems Sun is found the light
> too. OTOH, Itanic well never see the light, no matter how hard the
> pundits push.

It would be supremely embarrassing to Microsoft if Sun gets Solaris for
Opteron out before Windows.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 7:41:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Keith wrote:
>
>>BTW, 64bit Linux works fine here! It seems Sun is found the light
>>too. OTOH, Itanic well never see the light, no matter how hard the
>>pundits push.
>
>
> It would be supremely embarrassing to Microsoft if Sun gets Solaris for
> Opteron out before Windows.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>

It is apparently ready to ship on their 1,2,and 4-way
Opty servers and W/S that were announced on Monday.
I wonder if Sun had the hardware ready to go for a while
but were waiting on Solaris ?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 7:46:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:ffFNc.68$vIJ.59@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> It would be supremely embarrassing to Microsoft if Sun gets Solaris for
> Opteron out before Windows.

My money is on embarassement...

Regards,
Dean

>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 8:51:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Joe Seigh wrote:
>
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>>Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
>>build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
>>the times.
>>
>
>
> Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for Microsoft.

Yes, since Linux is already NUMA capable 64 CPU is a configuration
option. Still, finding the bandwidth to feed those CPUs is easier if
they have some dedicated RAM (read as: Opteron).

--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 8:54:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Pleasant Thrip wrote:
> In comp.arch Joe Seigh <jseigh_01@xemaps.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>>>Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
>>>build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
>>>the times.
>>>
>
>
>>Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for Microsoft.
>
>
>>Joe Seigh
>
>
> why do you say that? Maybe there will be particular issues for
> applications to make use of all those CPUs but I don't see why it would
> be such a big deal for the OS kernel scheduler.

You don't understand the problem... the o/s needs to make all sorts of
decisions about moving a process to another processor to load balance
vs. cost of moving, etc. It is a nasty problem!
>
> IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.


--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 8:57:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
>>news:j_cNc.346$t1O1.110@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>
>>>Bill Todd wrote:
>>>
>>>>>IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.
>>>>
>>>>Considering that they had a beta 64-bit version out in the field on
>>>>Alpha 5 years ago, I'd suspect that they had that pretty well under
>>>>control by now.
>>>
>>>They may have had an OS in 64-bit for Alpha 5 years ago, but did
>>>they have any applications or drivers?
>>
>>Who cares (at least in the current discussion context)? The point
>>was that they had the API worked out sufficiently back in 1999 to
>>give it to outside developers.
>
>
> I thought the point was getting a working 64-bit Microsoft system? That
> would mean not just the OS, but also the apps and drivers. If it's just the
> OS, then Microsoft is already done, the OS is already ready for Opteron. But
> Microsoft has said that the only thing holding them back from releasing the
> OS is the drivers, and a few apps which might do things and get away with in
> the 32-bit OS which they won't be allowed to get away with in 64-bit.

I've been waiting since Windows 3.1 for a working 32-bit version, don't
ya know?

--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 11:45:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote:

>"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
>news:p an.2004.07.28.02.28.35.456625@att.bizzzz...
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:47:58 +0000, Dean Kent wrote:
>>
>>
>> A 64bit OS is a slam dunk, though perhaps not from Micro$hit.
>> Perhaps politics is involved here? Nah Dean, couldn't be!
>
>I don't think so. More likely Windows is a nightmare to code/modify. Some
>people like conspiracy theories, however. :-).
>
>>
>> BTW, 64bit Linux works fine here! It seems Sun is found the light too.
>
>Linux isn't Windows, and therefore is a completely different argument.

Are you being sarcastic? I'd be amazed if Win32 was not 64-bit clean
from day one. The industry was a lot more mature at that point, and
hopefully learned from the migration of 16- to 32-bit...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 1:10:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> writes:

>> It would be supremely embarrassing to Microsoft if Sun gets Solaris for
>> Opteron out before Windows.

> My money is on embarassement...

I guess it's somewhat embarrassing if Sun ships Opteron servers, and
can't offer Solaris to go with them. Microsoft can still afford to
wait, the vast majority of their market is still Intel and 32 bits.

-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 1:10:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Ketil Malde wrote:

> "Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> writes:
>
>
>>>It would be supremely embarrassing to Microsoft if Sun gets Solaris for
>>>Opteron out before Windows.
>
>
>>My money is on embarassement...
>
>
> I guess it's somewhat embarrassing if Sun ships Opteron servers, and
> can't offer Solaris to go with them. Microsoft can still afford to
> wait, the vast majority of their market is still Intel and 32 bits.
>

I just found a link I'd been looking for:
http://www.sun.com/desktop/workstation/w2100z/
which says that this system ships with Solaris, with
a 64 bit Solaris available "soon".
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 1:46:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.arch Bill Davidsen <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
> Pleasant Thrip wrote:
> > why do you say that? Maybe there will be particular issues for
> > applications to make use of all those CPUs but I don't see why it would
> > be such a big deal for the OS kernel scheduler.

> You don't understand the problem... the o/s needs to make all sorts of
> decisions about moving a process to another processor to load balance
> vs. cost of moving, etc. It is a nasty problem!

Sure it is a nasty problem and I do understand that. But, I'm talking
about the total amount of work for Microsoft here.

How many people do you think would need to be working on the kernel
development for this particular problem as opposed to migrating the
entire Win32 API and attendant APIs such as DirectX to 64-bit? That was
my point. The real world is more than some academic abstraction that
"NUMA is hard" and so on. The real world is about delivering a complete
shrink-wrapped 64-bit Windows XP I can buy.

For those that think the issue was solved with the Itanium/Alpha ports
you obviously aren't Windows programmers nor conversant with the various
APIs.

And if anybody wants to further this discussion, please stick OT. We're
talking _Windows_ here, much as some of you might not like.

> >
> > IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 2:00:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:32:22 -0600, Judd wrote:

> Doesn't Advanced Server 2003 do 64-bit? As in Itanium?

There's also an IA64 version of XP Pro.

Cheers
Anton
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 2:45:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Rob Stow wrote:
>> It would be supremely embarrassing to Microsoft if Sun gets Solaris
>> for Opteron out before Windows.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> It is apparently ready to ship on their 1,2,and 4-way
> Opty servers and W/S that were announced on Monday.
> I wonder if Sun had the hardware ready to go for a while
> but were waiting on Solaris ?

I think it's just the 32-bit Solaris that is shipping right now. I was
referring to the upcoming 64-bit Solaris.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 3:21:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 03:40:59 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>Keith wrote:
>> BTW, 64bit Linux works fine here! It seems Sun is found the light
>> too. OTOH, Itanic well never see the light, no matter how hard the
>> pundits push.
>
>It would be supremely embarrassing to Microsoft if Sun gets Solaris for
>Opteron out before Windows.

Sun currently has 64-bit Solaris for Opteron scheduled for Dec. of
this year. Word so far is that they are pretty much right on schedule
and that the OS is up and running in their labs.

FWIW I don't think the MS delay is simply an issue of drivers.
They've also delayed Win2003 SP1 for apparently the same reason as
their delay of WinXP 64-bit. All of this actually seems to tie back
in to WinXP (32-bit) SP2, which is continuously being pushed back.
All the future OSes are going to be built off the SP2 code-base and
Microsoft seems to be having no end of problems getting this update
out.

For those that aren't familiar with WinXP SP2, it is a pretty
significant change to WinXP (many have referred to it more as "WinXP
Second Edition" rather than just a service pack). Lots of positive
changes with regards to the basic security concept of the system, but
MS seems to be having HUGE problems making it work. Reports from the
recently released "Release Candidate 2" suggest that this is still
definitely beta software (certainly not an actual candidate to be
released). I suspect that until MS gets these sorted out they aren't
going to try to push the other new OSes and service packs out.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 6:03:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:45:16 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>"Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote:
>
>>Linux isn't Windows, and therefore is a completely different argument.

>Are you being sarcastic?

I don't know whether he's being sarcastic...

>I'd be amazed if Win32 was not 64-bit clean
>from day one. The industry was a lot more mature at that point, and
>hopefully learned from the migration of 16- to 32-bit...

....but I hope you are! :p 

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 6:57:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

chrisv wrote:
>
> Are you being sarcastic? I'd be amazed if Win32 was not 64-bit clean
> from day one. The industry was a lot more mature at that point, and
> hopefully learned from the migration of 16- to 32-bit...

Surely if Win32 were 64-bit clean, MS wouldn't have had to ship separate
Win64 headers, which they did, to the general horror of everyone who
expected a 64-bit "long".

Furthermore, at the time of its inception, it was far more important for
Win32 code to be Win16 clean, and I doubt if MS could produce headers
that are clean for all three sizes simultaneously.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 7:11:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.arch Bill Davidsen <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
> Joe Seigh wrote:
> >
> > Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >
> >>Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
> >>build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
> >>the times.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for Microsoft.
>
> Yes, since Linux is already NUMA capable 64 CPU is a configuration
> option. Still, finding the bandwidth to feed those CPUs is easier if
> they have some dedicated RAM (read as: Opteron).
>

The problem is that if Windows claimed 64 bit compat the same way linux did,
everybody would simply laugh and tell them to make up a better joke...

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 7:12:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.arch Bill Davidsen <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
>
> I've been waiting since Windows 3.1 for a working 32-bit version, don't
> ya know?
>

So you are a loser who bashes MS without knowing any actual details about
teh OS?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 7:12:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <1091042650.769734@haldjas.folklore.ee>,
Sander Vesik <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:

>Precicely - and now with WinMe being dead and essentialy superceded
>with WinXP Home, his "I have been waiting for 32bit os since win 3.1"
>simply makes no sense.

It was probably intended to be a joke, which you seem to have missed.

By the way, your quote is wrong, he said "working", which is a fudge
big enough to drive a big opinion through.

Followups reduced.

-- greg
!