Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

strange claims about software compatibility...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2001 8:00:10 PM

I was e-mailing someone about how they should reccomend a few AMD processor-based systems, and he replied:
"Hi Aaron,

In my 12 Years in this business I have come across many software packages that don't run under AMD. I would rather get CPUs from Intel, I don't recommend Celeron either. If you want a "real" computer an Intel Pentium III or the new P 4 is my suggestion. AMD is still paying Intel for the patents that are a large part of the AMD cpu. So why go to the Knock-off brand. Computers have enough problems, dealing with CPU problems is "more" avoidable with Intel."
I of course replied to him, but this is what he says now:

"Sure here is an example, I'm not making this stuff up...Check out Bugnet.com...you will have to pay them to see the full database, but you will see many software programs that had/have problems with AMD.

The AMDk6-2 would not run Windows 95

http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/k623d/win95_update_k6.h..."
Isn't this garbage? No one now would go out and buy a K6-2. You's all get Duron's instead!

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ast15 on 05/31/01 04:23 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2001 8:28:56 PM

Here he is again:

"I'm not trashing them but you may notice in Bugnet there are quite a few example of current software that has problems with AMD. People ask my opinion, I have seen many more problems with AMD than Intel. The Windows 95 is an example that people are still running into today. That problem will cost people time and money into trying to solve a problem with Windows 95 that is caused by AMD. It's like Coke and Pepsi. JD & Pepsi is just not as good as Coke."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2001 8:40:12 PM

>Check out Bugnet.com

I just searched for "Athlon" on that site.
Got three hits.
One mentioned Athlon incedentally, the problem was not related to the CPU type.

The second sounded like some sort of misconfiguration. No attribution was made to the CPU type.

The third had some tips for improving DirectX performance with AMD based systems and also referenced a patch for potential problems between Win2K and AMD systems.

So, one solved problem listed. Searching on "Thunderbird" turned up nothing, searching on "Duron" turned up one of the previous links for Athlon.

I'm not saying there aren't compatbility issues. There may be. But if your friend wants to keep using that line, he should get a better reference.

BTW: The link you gave was for a K6-2. Hardly a state of the art processor. And the problem had a fix.



In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2001 8:46:06 PM

This was one of Windows 95's many bugs, not a AMD issue.
As <A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q192/8..." target="_new">this article</A> says, "Note that this problem is due to limitations of the software algorithms, and is not indicative of a problem with the processor itself, which is functioning properly."
I don't know of any incompatibility with any software or hardware. The known issues are problems with third party hardware, and NEVER an AMD issue, just cases of hardware incompatible with Windows. AMD is 100% IBM compatible as are Intel CPU's, and the problems that people experience with AMD, can also be experienced just as readily with Intel CPU's.
Also, AMD is not a "knock off" brand. In matched competition their latest products performance is great, beating Intel hands down. That person also mentioned Celeron as an inferior product (which it is) but it is also manufactured by Intel. You mentioned Duron, and yes why not just buy it instead? The Duron is the K6-2s succesor, and the little brother to the Athlon.


One final note:I had that windows 95 problem with a K6-2 400, and Microsoft gave me a free copy of windows 98, solving my prob!



Aklein

It's raining outside, and my lawn has grown a foot overnight!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2001 8:46:53 PM

I know, I tried all of the AMD processors, and couldn't get many hits. I know, I'll ask him which company had to recall all of it's 1.13 GHz processors. I keep telling him that no one uses the K6-2 anymore, and if they do, they use Win98.
June 1, 2001 4:01:30 AM

the only software I've found that won't run on any available processor(assuming its fast enough) were MMX required beta hacked programs.
a video player that will play Playstation vids on a PC required MMX.
hacked versions of bleem! only work with certain processors.
write something fully compatible with anything past the 386 and you will have no problems running it on any processor.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
June 1, 2001 6:32:59 AM

I have been using Intel exclusively until last year. Now I use a Duron at home and an Athlon at work, running Win98 and ME respectively, plus all kind of software. Never experience any problem. Don't get fooled by typical FUD spread by Intel spin doctors. AMD offerings are 100% compatible x86, just as Intel's.

That is not to say there may not be bugs in e.g. chipsets or MB bios when they first come out, but those problems are not related to CPU and certainly not unique to AMD. Just think about all the fiasco related to Intel i820. If you got a PIII a year ago but you didn't want to pay 5x memory price so you got an MTH. Before Intel admitted the MTH problem and made the recall, I bet you would wonder if PIII is the most unstable and incompatible processor ever (or maybe like many of us wrongly pointing fingers at OS/software bugs instead).

**Spin all you want, but we the paying consumers will have the final word**
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2001 6:47:00 AM

There was nothing wrong with the K6, K6-2 or K6III. If it runs on Intel it runs on AMD, only better and for less money. That guy you're talking to doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2001 7:36:34 AM

"The AMDk6-2 would not run Windows 95
http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/k623d/win95_update_k6.h..."

If I recall correctly, the problem only occured on K6-6 cpu's of 300 Mhz or more. I seem to recall the problem was that this cpu executed a certain loop too fast, giving a timing error that crashed windows 95. Hardly something you can blame AMD for, but simply bad coding from MS.

This being said, I wonder if this same error would occur on very fast P4 or Athlon, and if not.. why ? Or was the bug something totally different ?

---- Owner of the only Dell computer with a AMD chip
June 1, 2001 5:16:12 PM

I have been telling this forum this for about a year now, I have posted many links and cited many applications. Yet all the AMD lemmings try to discredit me and call me names, basicly getting ugly over anything against AMD.

Well there you have it an official AMD webpage with the facts. no matter how you twist it AMD has software and hardware incompatabilities.

Most of the AMD lemmings here are gamers, and do not actually use anything professional. so they will base thier flame on well my AMD runs Q3 great your full of [-peep-], FFF fabricated fugger facts and crap like that. AMD lemmings cannot post a link proving me wrong, nor can they come up with valid arguement. they will attempt to point out spelling errors like that will make the difference in the validity of my post.

Well AMD lemmings, Im gonna shove this [-peep-] in your face every chance I get now because you deserve it.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2001 5:50:25 PM

>Well there you have it an official AMD webpage with the
>facts. no matter how you twist it AMD has software and
>hardware incompatabilities.

That problem was for K6-2 CPUs with speeds > 300 MHz. And the problem had a fix.

If you have legitimate information (not "a friend of a friend of mine said his brother's son's friend's cousin couldn't run application X on his TBird") on software compatibility problems with current AMD CPU's, please post it.

I don't deny that they may exist, so let's get a feel for the scope of the problem.



In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
June 1, 2001 6:32:40 PM

Did you read that link?

"Please note that this patch will not resolve issues associated with any other versions of Windows 95 other than the OEM SR2 version"

"When you are starting Windows 95 OSR2, OSR2.1, or OSR2.5 on a computer with an AMD-K6-2 processor running at speeds of 350 MHz and above, you may receive one of the following error messages:

Device IOS failed to initialize.
Windows Protection Error.
You must reboot your computer. "

From my own personal experiance, I have run across hundreds of applications and hardware with AMD incompatability issues. 22 years in this field, that is longer than some of you have been alive.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2001 7:16:25 PM

>Did you read that link?

Yes, I read that link.
I'm not interested in problems with obsolete processors.

>"Please note that this patch will not resolve issues
>associated with any other versions of Windows 95 other
>than the OEM SR2 version"

But I've seen no evidence that there are problems with "any other versions of Windows 95 other than the OEM SR2 version"

>"When you are starting Windows 95 OSR2, OSR2.1, or OSR2.5
>on a computer with an AMD-K6-2 processor running at speeds
>of 350 MHz and above, you may receive one of the following
>error messages:

Keep reading to the part where it tells you how to fix it.

>From my own personal experiance, I have run across
>hundreds of applications and hardware with AMD
>incompatability issues.

<i>Hundreds!</i>
Wow! Then you should have no problem providing evidence for say, 10 unresolved problems? And I'm only concerned with current AMD CPUs (Athlon, Duron).

I don't doubt that there may be some incompatibilities. But I haven't seen evidence that it is a serious problem.



<i>Cognite Tute</i>
(Think for Yourself)
June 1, 2001 7:24:31 PM

you almost had me for a minute there...
funny how you forgot to quote
"This observation is caused by a software timing loop that is sensitive to processor frequency, and is not a processor erratum. This DOES NOT occur with Windows 98 or Windows NT®. AMD has worked closely with Microsoft to enable a publicly available solution which is available below."
I'm no lemming, I use both, sell both and recommend both. You just like to bitch. you have 22 years experience, AMD has been in the processor biz since when? the 486?
been there, done that. 22 years says nothing more than my 10 years, seeing as we have both been here since AMD started making x86 processors...

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
June 1, 2001 10:14:32 PM

Don't take clowns like FUGGER too seriously. Although I am just a newbie here, I learned very quickly that his bias is so deep rooted and his memory is so selective that there is no chance to have a rational discussion with him. He obviously enjoys antagonizing people. If you want to have a REAL discussion with him, you will just get frustrated. You cannot learn anything really useful from him since his posts are full of misinformation and half-truths, and no matter what you say you certainly are not going to convert him into a genuine poster. The truth is even a newbie like me would not take those clowns too seriously.

**Spin all you want, but we the paying consumers will have the final word**
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2001 11:08:15 PM

The incompatabilities are mostly due to a configuration problem in the VIA southbridge (ALL versions) found on most AMD motherboards.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine
June 2, 2001 3:45:04 AM

I've been here for awhile, I know he's full of smurf, I don't care.
I think his 22 years of experience is in life maybe, not computers.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2001 4:35:16 AM

FUGGER, you omitted the most important paragraph on that page:

"This observation is caused by a software timing loop that is sensitive to processor frequency, and is not a processor erratum. This DOES NOT occur with Windows 98 or Windows NT®. AMD has worked closely with Microsoft to enable a publicly available solution which is available below"

So if you're trying to imply that this ancient issue proves there are problems with AMD processors it is, like all of your lame posts, useless. In fact I have never seen you provide one single piece of evidence to support all of your drivel about AMD incompatabilities. Like another poster in this thread said, all you provide is a lot of "a friend of a friend of mine said his brother's son's friend's cousin couldn't run application X on his TBird". I challenge you to once back up your comments with some concrete proof that AMD processors have incompatability issues. It'll be along wait I'm sure..........
June 2, 2001 11:30:10 AM

Fugger, cows spend 22 years in the field, it doesn't mean they know dick about computers

-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2001 8:26:16 PM

Know whats funny? Microsoft will even give you a free copy of '98 if you have this problem, so its a nonexistant issue.

Aklein

It's raining outside, and my lawn has grown a foot overnight!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2001 10:22:31 PM

"This observation is caused by a software timing loop that is sensitive to processor frequency, and is not a processor erratum. This DOES NOT occur with Windows 98 or Windows NT®. AMD has worked closely with Microsoft to enable a publicly available solution which is available below"

I wasnt very far from the truth then. How about this Fugger: AMD made the chip so damn fast, the loop executed too fast on the K6-2.. MS did a piss poor job, by creating a "FOR x=1 to 100.000; NEXT X " - kind of of software delay.
Hardly something to blame AMD for..

Are you gonna compain about your P4 that it isnt "compatible" because your old DOS games run much too fast on them ?

---- Owner of the only Dell computer with a AMD chip
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2001 2:32:07 PM

Here's an interesting bit on software compatibility.
In the Anandtech article on the 760MP (Wow!), a dual PIII was the only configuration to fail their <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1483&p=15" target="_new">photoshop benchmark</A>.

I'm still waiting for Fugger to provide some details on the <i>hundreds</i> of incompatibilities he's encountered with AMD.

<i>Cognite Tute</i>
(Think for Yourself)
June 5, 2001 4:43:20 PM

<b>
Quote:
I'm still waiting for Fugger to provide some details on the hundreds of incompatibilities he's encountered with AMD.</b>


Don't hold your breath!

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
June 5, 2001 9:59:20 PM

Both of you hold your breath please! I have pointed out too many to keep list for gimps like you, do yourself a favor and quit asking for something im not going to give you. You are too damn lazy to click the seach button and fill in keywords.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2001 11:04:33 PM

>Both of you hold your breath please! I have pointed out
>too many to keep list for gimps like you, do yourself a
>favor and quit asking for something im not going to give
>you. You are too damn lazy to click the seach button and
>fill in keywords.

TRANSLATION: <i>"I shot my mouth off & can't come up with anything."</i>

I just searched the forums back a year for "AMD incompatible" and looked for your posts. The only thing I found was a vague reference to the SupraExpress 56i.

I searched on google & deja and didn't come up with anything in the first page or so of hits. Besides, you're the one claiming the <b>hundreds</b> of incompatibilities (and HSF lifetimes < 2yrs, kernel compiles of < 2 minutes on a 486, etc.), so it's up to you to find them. Not me.

Put up or shut up please.


<i>Cognite Tute</i>
(Think for Yourself)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2001 11:50:03 PM

Please convince me... Intel used to be my favorite processor. I thought they could kill AMD and Cyrix. Now I am not sure with the P4 I have heard many compadability issuse because it is not baswards compatable and it can become really slow on some systems. Please conveince me that Intel is a better Chip instead of AMD. I would like web links and proof.

joeyman101
June 6, 2001 1:08:46 AM

Thanks for showing us how incompetant you are ergeorge.

Make up a better lie like "my fingers are broken" or "Im blind" but to say "I searched and didn't come up with anything" is BS.

Kudos to you for find the supra express, that kinda blows your "I didnt find anything" theory.

So shut your mouth, and run some more keywords. since you got nothing better to do anyway.

Here this one is good for a laugh,
http://ask.amd.com:80/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?St=98,...(1499)

next you will blame it o the motherboard! Whitch is almost always the case since AMD does not have a real chipset yet. GG AMD!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2001 1:25:16 AM

Fugger, it's not my responsibility to prove your claims. I spent a few minutes searching and came up with nothing. With you experience (<b>hundreds</b> of incompatibilities...) it should be easy for you to list 10 off the top of your head.

As for the Supra Express. All I found was you vague reference to an unspecified problem. No references. So that hardly counts.

As for you <A HREF="http://ask.amd.com:80/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?St=98,...(1499)" target="_new">link</A> ... what kind of sorry joke is that? It seems to be a page partway through a troubleshooting guide reccomending that, whatever problems you entered that got you here, you problem may be an incompatible MB. That's pretty sad if that's the best you can do out of "hundreds" of personnally experienced incompatibilities.

You can't even come up with <b><i>one</i></b>. Not even a trivial one.

I don't doubt that there might be a few, hell Anandtech even showed us one with the dual PIII today. Software incompatibilites do exist, even with Intel products.

Just admist that you were lying when you said you had experienced hundreds of software incompatibility problems with AMD chips.


<i>Cognite Tute</i>
(Think for Yourself)
June 6, 2001 2:25:02 AM

go stand in the corner!

<font color=red>Amd or Intel? Who cares?? Not me...</font color=red>
June 6, 2001 8:27:06 AM

Quote:
I have pointed out too many to keep list for gimps like you, do yourself a favor and quit asking for something im not going to give you.


Is that the best you can come up with?

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2001 8:44:46 AM

Two things have been proven in this forum:

1. Amd units fry alot quicker and easier than Intel units.
Everyone knows, everyone reads the posts.

2. Amd units encounter alot more problems than Intels, blame it on the software, hardware, chipset or whatever...still won't get rid of the problem.

Bwahhahahahehehehehehahahaahhaheehehe.....waaahahahahe

"Cock-a-doodle-do" is what I say to my girl when I wake her UP in the morning!!
June 6, 2001 10:45:25 AM

And this helps FUGGER's case...how? Perhaps you should go do some research and dig up examples of AMD incompatibilities. FUGGER's generally looking like an ass right now (what else is new?); you would do well to help out your fellow Intel junkie.

Oh, btw, FUGGER, I just did ergeorge's search for myself and came up with similar results. He tells us almost exactly what he did to search, so if, as you claim, he didn't actually search hard enough, perhaps you could tell us where he went wrong?

Or, since you <i>do</i> carry the burden of proof, do the search yourself and post credible evidence. You think a defense attorney should have to scour far and wide for information <i>incriminating</i> his/her client? You apparently haven't learned how the world works yet...

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
June 6, 2001 11:16:49 AM

I have 2 times seen sth. that might (under certain cirumstances) be called "incompability" with AMD processors. Linux kernel 2.2.16 (and probably some older ones) detected athlon/duron processors as P3's and got kernel panic when trying to disable it's serial nr (then again, it's fixed since 2.2.17 and the older ones worked too if you told them do not to try to disable P3's "spy inside" feature). BTW when P4 got out, it wasn't compatible enough to work with ANY linux kernel. The other case I have seen was old Creative Labs software MIDI synth that probably looked for "GenuineIntel" and "Pentium" inside CPU and refused to work with AMD/Cyrix/etc processors saying "you need at least P90 to use this software". I know it's not AMD's fault that guys form CL don't know how to program but I think those "incompabilities" I mentioned are making FUGGER and others like him happy ;) 
June 6, 2001 11:45:01 AM

Ja, I remember the original P4+Linux problem. :wink: When I asked about it on majordomo@vger.kernel.org, I got told that Intel had simply not publicized proper info for the kernel developers, and a Linux kernel would get a bit surprised at seeing an "i886" (as I believe the CPU was designated).

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
June 6, 2001 1:43:34 PM

Love the link you sent. What was the purpose of it? Please show us the way great one show us why we will have problems with amd.

96.3 % of Statistics are made up.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2001 2:17:57 PM

I didn't know that about 2.2.16
I remember that it was rushed out because there was some security bug. The time between 2.2.15 and 2.2.16 was something like a week, because I was waiting on some NFS fixes that eventually got pushed back to 2.2.17.

I think the P4 problem had to do with something stupid that Microsoft did with their CPU ID code. The next available code (in binary) didn't work for MS, so Intel accomodated them. The Linux developers assumed the logical progression. I don't remember the details though.

The CL MIDI bit is interesting, if old.


<i>Cognite Tute</i>
(Think for Yourself)
June 6, 2001 2:32:23 PM

I didn't have that problem with 2.2.16 (because I ran Slackware, hint hint :wink: ). 2.2.16 stock source could <i>not</i> have that problem--2.2.16 stock didn't even know (or care) about CPUs beyond the Pentium Pro! The problem was in someone's patch to 2.2.16, which most distributions would apply to their kernels for the sake of supporting "cool new technology."

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2001 3:00:12 PM

"I'll ask him which company had to recall all of it's 1.13 GHz processors."

must be intel, amd would just let its customers keep the buggy [-peep-]. amd750 chipset
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2001 3:11:39 PM

Intel has the same problem discribed in that link. If I try to install a P3 1000 socket 370 in a mobo that only supports up to 700 Mhz, it won't work! DUH! (oh yes, that was the problem described by your link, if you had taken the time to read it you would know)

Aklein

It's raining outside, and my lawn has grown a foot overnight!
June 6, 2001 3:53:40 PM

I don't what all the hoopla is all about but as far as I
know, my AMD box runs all of my apps/games just fine.

Oracle 8i EE/personal, SQL Server 7, Visual Studio 6.0
+ my games all work just fine for me

Intel Components, AMD Components... all made in Taiwan!
June 6, 2001 4:08:11 PM

Buggy how? Sure, the chipset had a rather lackluster feature set, but it was hardly buggy. The only broken part of it that I heard of was the Super Bypass feature (which was generally disabled by default anyways, and bumped benchmark scores all of 2% when enabled).

Its problems handling GeForce cards can't really be blamed on the chipset; the GeForce was released after the AMD750 reference design was finalized, and it drew an amount of power unprecedented in the realm of mainstream graphics boards. Its massive power draw was what caused the "incompatibility."

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
July 10, 2001 4:47:30 AM

Quote:
I have been telling this forum this for about a year now, I have posted many links and cited many applications.


Where are the links?

<font color=red>Yeah, I took a crap on your lawn. Whatcha gonna do about it?</font color=red>
!