Windows XP 64-bit supports more than AMD64?

[eden]

<A HREF="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1276837,00.asp?kc=EWTH102099TX1K0100487" target="_new">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1276837,00.asp?kc=EWTH102099TX1K0100487</A>
I found it interesting when they didn't mention it strictly supports AMD64. It loosely bases itself on it, and on other 64-bit "Extended systems".
Anybody wanna take a wild guess Intel is in there and that they're likely using x86-64 or a derivative? If not IA64?

No second OS needed I guess.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:

 

[Crashman]

64-bit extensions could easily be standardized, so...who knows what future processors will have them.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[c0d1f1ed]

a86-64 vs. i86-64

That would be interesting. Well, not for AMD, because they will certainly loose that battle. It's like 3DNow!. When it was first released, it was quite popular. But then Intel introduced the much superiour SSE and AMD had to back off. Only much later AMD was able to licence SSE and include it on the Athlon XP processors. So now 3DNow! is really a waste of silicon and instruction encodings...

 

[eden]

It'd be interesting to see how Intel does that. Yes they do have superior programmer labs there, especially with how powerful the C++ compiler is.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:

 

[Guest]

" It loosely bases itself on it"

LMAO.. it is strictly based on AMD64. MS is just keeping the door open to intel, and they *want* intel to support the same ISA. Calling it AMD64 would make that nearly impossible, calling it "extended systems" could allow intel to adopt AMD64, call Intel64 or something, and get over it.

MS has gone on record many times saying the do not want to support another 64 bit extention to x86; they may eventually do so nevertheless, but only if intel pays them enough, and then it won't be *this/ OS that is going to run on it. Plain simple. An OS is much to closely tied to the instruction set to "base it loosely" on it. this 64 bit XP versions supports every single CPU mode AMD64 offers, uses the extended registers, everything.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[slvr_phoenix]

MS already supports Itanium in other Windows, so why not in this one too? I mean it'd be silly to have the code already an not use it...

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>

 

[endyen]

Because Intel would be pi$$ed. Anything that makes A64 (including supporting progs) more viable, is a pain in Intel's side. They want the 32-64 bit thing to go away, and take Amd's cash with it.

Redmember its Intel's way or the hiway.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by endyen on 09/25/03 02:41 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

Assuming intel has a 64 bit x86 extention ready, and assuming (big assumption !) MS would have some code 'ready', that still doesnt mean it makes sense to MS to release it, or even announce it. Having two incompatible 64 bit x86 architectures would mean 2 more OS's to support, patch, develop, maintain. That IS a major pain if it can be avoided. You do know MS internally used Windows 2000 on alpha workstations, don't you ? Win2k for Aplha exists, but it was never released, as it was too expensive to support for a too small market. They dropped it, just like they dropped MIPS and PowerPC even though they had the code 'ready'.

If intel want MS to support yet another architecture, they are gonig to have pay big $$$. And even that may not be enough, as it would be a minor disaster for MS to have 3 different, incompatible x86 codebases not only for their OS, but for all their other software as well.. not to mention 3rd party ISV's that would have to start maintaining 3 different codebases. No one wants that.

Personally, I think if intel is ever forced into a 64 bit x86 product (which they REALLY do not want), it will be compatible with AMD64. Of course they will give it another name, maybe even extend it a little further, sort of AMD64+, but I doubt it will be something incompatible. Either that, or intel is going to try a major miracle by driving Itanium down to the high end desktop market.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =