Interesting read about upcoming K9 processors

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 03:40:59 GMT, "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.

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

Sander Vesik wrote:
In comp.arch Bill Davidsen 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?


No, he sounds like someone who has tried them all
and doesn't feel they are good enough to be labelled
as "working".

For crapware like Win 3.x, Win9x, and WinMe he's got a
point, but I would disagree with him on NT4 and W2K.

Rob Stow wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

In comp.arch Bill Davidsen 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?


No, he sounds like someone who has tried them all
and doesn't feel they are good enough to be labelled
as "working".

For crapware like Win 3.x, Win9x, and WinMe he's got a
point, but I would disagree with him on NT4 and W2K.

I have to agree with him on NT4, specifically file shares across long
and unreliable links. Bad idea to do, but it sucks that you have to
reboot the --ing file server to make it drop the stale locks when the
connection breaks. For some reason I never saw NT 3.51 have that same
problem... Did they ever fix that little doozey ? I lived with that
bug for 4 years all told at various PPOEs. I particular resented the
one where I lost a ton of sleep fixing batches that blew up because
the dipsticks in Hong Kong lacked the "expertise" to set up a FTP
server.

"Enterprise Ready", my arse.

Cheers,
Rupert

In comp.arch Ketil Malde wrote:
"Dean Kent" 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 though Solaris 9 something was an option on the Opterons?


-kzm

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In comp.arch Pleasant Thrip wrote:

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.


Well... I would imaghine it depends a lot on how throughout work they want
to make of it. With teh IL32P64 model they are using, almost no extra work
might be needed for an initial api and lilbrary conversion.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In comp.arch Rob Stow wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:
In comp.arch Bill Davidsen 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?


No, he sounds like someone who has tried them all
and doesn't feel they are good enough to be labelled
as "working".

For crapware like Win 3.x, Win9x, and WinMe he's got a
point, but I would disagree with him on NT4 and W2K.

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.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Tony Hill" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 03:40:59 GMT, "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.

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.


Kinda curious where you found the reports on SP2 RC2.
Have three systems running it, with zero problems.

I'd like to read the reports so I can tell what problems
to look for and test.

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:15:24 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto"
wrote:


"George Macdonald" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:14:25 +0100, Rupert Pigott
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:19:18 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
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/

That readjustment, which also included raised prices for a cpuple of
models, was on Monday and I'm going by prices paid for recent "shopping".
The price *has* been holding quite well for AMD64 CPUs compared with their
historical curves and even Intel's - even at the old higher prices, they
were definitely in quite tight supply.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:34:59 +0000, Hank Oredson wrote:

Kinda curious where you found the reports on SP2 RC2. Have three systems
running it, with zero problems.

I think he meant the problems MS have making it work - wider issues than
most people will come across. If there weren't any problems it would've
been released many months ago.

Cheers
Anton

Tony Hill wrote:
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.

I'd never heard of that until now. Doing a Yahoo search only revealed a few
articles from 2003 (too old now to be really useful), and some Sun articles
being suitably vague ("real soon now"). You got something to link to?

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.

It's possible that the NX protected pages are breaking more apps than
initially thought.

Yousuf Khan