Interesting read about upcoming K9 processors

Keith writes:

Are you saying that M$ ran out of chances? If so, I suggest you short
'em. There is much money to be made if you're right!

Well, they don't seem to be so hot on the 64bit issue, and at this
time many people are seriously considering both 64bit and alternatives
to Windows. I'm a bit puzzled they don't have a 64bit OS out by now.

They're probably struggling to put together Longhorn first, and with
lots of new stuff in there, deadlines will be fragile.

-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

"Ketil Malde" wrote in message
...
Keith writes:

Are you saying that M$ ran out of chances? If so, I suggest you short
'em. There is much money to be made if you're right!

Well, they don't seem to be so hot on the 64bit issue, and at this
time many people are seriously considering both 64bit and alternatives
to Windows. I'm a bit puzzled they don't have a 64bit OS out by now.

They're probably struggling to put together Longhorn first, and with
lots of new stuff in there, deadlines will be fragile.

Well, I think that the effect of 64-bit on the desktop is a bit overrated.
Consider that AMD today enjoys just over 15% of the overall market. When
you consider that they increased their server market share it makes the
desktop share look even more anemic. This is significantly less than what
they had at the peak of K7, and even K6, production. Unlike those, there
has been no mad rush to go with A64. One can always blame MS for that, but
it really begs the question of which comes first, the MPU or the OS... ;-).

It should have been pretty obvious one or two years ago that x86-64 was not
going to be a 'revolution' on the desktop. There are certainly a lot of
vocal supporters, but they obviously represent a relatively small number of
actual users. 64-bit makes a lot more sense in servers, and doesn't MS
already have a 64-bit Windows Server offering for Opteron? I haven't
followed that closely, so I may be mistaken there...


-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

Derek Baker wrote:
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

Links?

As I said -- rumours.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Derek Baker wrote:
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

Links?

As I said -- rumours.

Yousuf Khan

Ones whispered in your ear, as opposed to posted on the net?

--
Derek

Dean Kent wrote:
It should have been pretty obvious one or two years ago that x86-64
was not going to be a 'revolution' on the desktop. There are
certainly a lot of vocal supporters, but they obviously represent a
relatively small number of actual users. 64-bit makes a lot more
sense in servers, and doesn't MS already have a 64-bit Windows Server
offering for Opteron? I haven't followed that closely, so I may be
mistaken there...

Nope, that's been delayed along with 64-bit XP. Really, Windows Server 2003
is nothing more than XP slightly tweaked for server operations.

Yousuf Khan

Derek Baker wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Derek Baker wrote:
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

Links?

As I said -- rumours.

Yousuf Khan

Ones whispered in your ear, as opposed to posted on the net?

No, they were posted on the net, but I can't find them anymore, Google is
just too awash in too many of these rumours to be useful.

Yousuf Khan

"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 00:43:17 -0400, Carlo Razzeto wrote:

My point is that M$ *DOESN't* deal with the average user. OEM's are stuck
dealing with the average user.

--
Keith


Ok... Perhaps I didn't state what I meant very clearly... What I meant by
deal with the average user is create a system which will do all of the
things that the average user thinks it needs to do... If that means run a
badly written application perfectly then that is what Windows has to do.
Even if they aren't dealing with customer directly it's still their
problem....

Carlo

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 16:17:14 -0400, Carlo Razzeto wrote:


"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 00:43:17 -0400, Carlo Razzeto wrote:

My point is that M$ *DOESN't* deal with the average user. OEM's are stuck
dealing with the average user.

--
Keith


Ok... Perhaps I didn't state what I meant very clearly... What I meant by
deal with the average user is create a system which will do all of the
things that the average user thinks it needs to do...

....and if it doesn't, *tough ****!*. That is not servicing the customer.

If that means run a
badly written application perfectly then that is what Windows has to do.

Ok, but Win doesn't have to be designed to crash on a badly written
application.

Even if they aren't dealing with customer directly it's still their
problem....

No it isn't! That's the point. They wash their hands of *all* support.
M$ owns no support, but wants to own your data. It will too, if you keep
apologizing for them.

--
Keith

Did you check WinServ2003's versioned file system? Keeps multiple version of
a file, allowing you to roll back, or fetch an old version.

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
news

Nope, that's been delayed along with 64-bit XP. Really, Windows Server
2003
is nothing more than XP slightly tweaked for server operations.

Yousuf Khan

Alexander Grigoriev wrote:
Did you check WinServ2003's versioned file system? Keeps multiple
version of a file, allowing you to roll back, or fetch an old version.

Is that a feature of the 64-bit WinServ2003 only, or is it available even on
the 32-bit version?

Yousuf Khan