Interesting read about upcoming K9 processors

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Tim Shoppa wrote:

DEC C V6.0-001 (which was rather current as of late 1998) under Alpha VMS 7.2:

I remember now (and have just got a colleague to check). Yes, VMS
uses that model, but Tru64 uses the normal I32LP64 one. As far as I
know, the sum total of C compilers on systems that anyone normal has
ever heard of that use IL32LLP64 is two, and both of those are relics
(i.e. I believe that Microsoft's future direction is I32LP64).

When was "long long" invented? It isn't part of C90, but
seems to have been implemented in many compilers. I don't
believe that it existed yet when Alpha came out, though.

It seems to me that as both 16 bit (early x86) and 32 bit
(Sun and VAX for example) machines got popular, and networking
software needed types for 16 bit and 32 bit data that short
and long were the popular standard types. (If int had been
32 bits from the beginning, that wouldn't have been a problem.)

I'm not really trying to defend those choices. Just pointing out that
similar choices were made over a decade ago. And that I kinda understand
why those choices were made (I was porting hundreds of thousands of lines
of C code written in the "all the world's a VAX" mode, and the defaults
made sense to *me*!) But I agree that they are not the most natural
choices if you know the whole world's moving (or in my case, has moved)
to 64 bit CPU's and OS's.

Alpha first came out around 1993 or so, and I don't believe that
long long existed yet. It seems to me, then, that there wasn't
much of a choice. Also, making long 64 bits reminds people that
it is a 64 bit architecture.

Oh, I am not arguing with DEC's VMS choice - not at all - what I am
referring to is the decision to break all of the working C90 code
to support an essentially unused option. And the fact that the
claim that it was necessary to do so to avoid breaking existing
code was the CONVERSE of the truth.

-- glen

"Keith" wrote in message
news

I surely *hope* M$'s architects learned something from OS/2 days. NT was
a complete re-write and one would suspect that they learned a few lessons
along the way.

Hope springs eternal!

Then reality hits. grin

Regards,
Dean


--
Keith

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:30:18 -0400, Carlo Razzeto wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:14:06 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

"Russell Wallace" wrote in message
...

I agree with the others here. Force the issue by eliminating those who
won't convert. It seems Linux has done a reasonable job of supporting
AMD64 *without* all the resources M$ can bring to bare.

SNIP
--
Keith

Define "support"? Linux has the advantage that it is still not for the
average home user so they lose compaibility with old apps and old hardware
and not care because the people running 64big Linux on AMD64 won't care.
Windows on the other hand doesn't that advantage. If they don't have at
least 95% support for everything XP supports at launch it's a real issue for
Microsoft.

Ok, now define "Windows support". Hint; it doesn't exist. They off-load
any little "support" to their OEM's. Amazing, really!


--
Keith

Carlo Razzeto's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
body we
Define "support"? Linux has the advantage that it is still not for the
average home user so they lose compaibility with old apps and old hardware
and not care because the people running 64big Linux on AMD64 won't care.

I dont know of any hardware not being supported in the newer 64bit stuff,
but one reason why they dont care is because the vast majority (99% of all
linux software) can be recompiled for running on 64bit systems. Debian's
pool has been already mostly ported over. Windows can't do that, because
damn near everything is closed source.

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:45:44 +0000, Dean Kent wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
news

I surely *hope* M$'s architects learned something from OS/2 days. NT was
a complete re-write and one would suspect that they learned a few lessons
along the way.

Hope springs eternal!

Let's put it this way; one only get's so many chances at life.

Then reality hits. grin

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!

--
Keith

"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:30:18 -0400, Carlo Razzeto wrote:
Ok, now define "Windows support". Hint; it doesn't exist. They off-load
any little "support" to their OEM's. Amazing, really!


--
Keith

Customer service? If that's what you mean it sucks all around no matter what
you choose so who cares? My point is Linux doesn't have to worry about being
a functional desktop system because most people don't use it that way, and
those who do know enough to build a system that will meet their needs and
how to get everything they need working up and running. MS has to deal with
the average user.

Carlo

"Hellmark" wrote in message
newsan.2004.08.01.01.38.20.999232@swbell.****SPA M.net...
I dont know of any hardware not being supported in the newer 64bit stuff,
but one reason why they dont care is because the vast majority (99% of all
linux software) can be recompiled for running on 64bit systems. Debian's
pool has been already mostly ported over. Windows can't do that, because
damn near everything is closed source.

Eh... That's not really a hold up for Microsoft... Frankly I'm really not a
big believer that Open Source inherently provides any such advantage... It
doesn't really matter that MS doesn't know how Quicken implemented Quick
Books, all they need to know is how the 32bit Windows API works and make the
64bit WoW interface work like that. I do realize that in real life things
aren't that easy, but I'm not convinced that open source makes that aspect
of porting an operating system any easier... The same principle will applied
to Linux... Well written 32bit code that uses the standard system libraries
should work.

Carlo

Carlo Razzeto's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
body we
"Hellmark" wrote in message
newsan.2004.08.01.01.38.20.999232@swbell.****SPA M.net...
I dont know of any hardware not being supported in the newer 64bit stuff,
but one reason why they dont care is because the vast majority (99% of all
linux software) can be recompiled for running on 64bit systems. Debian's
pool has been already mostly ported over. Windows can't do that, because
damn near everything is closed source.

Eh... That's not really a hold up for Microsoft... Frankly I'm really not a
big believer that Open Source inherently provides any such advantage... It
doesn't really matter that MS doesn't know how Quicken implemented Quick
Books, all they need to know is how the 32bit Windows API works and make the
64bit WoW interface work like that. I do realize that in real life things
aren't that easy, but I'm not convinced that open source makes that aspect
of porting an operating system any easier... The same principle will applied
to Linux... Well written 32bit code that uses the standard system libraries
should work.

making it run another API, flawlessly, is a pain in the ass at times.
Linux did take the easy route, and just recompile everything. It's far
easier to recompile than it is to make a setup that runs both

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 13:41:57 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto"
wrote:

"George Macdonald" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:15:24 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto"
wrote:


SNIP
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.

Yeah, but I think this still show that they are starting to ramp up. What
this price adjustment shows me is that they are ready to take A64 into the
main stream market (by this I mean the mid-range pc market of course). Prior
to this price adjustment even the "low end" A64's were considered to be
parts reserved for highend/enthusiest boxes... Now the prices are low enough
that just last friday I got around to buying an A64 3000+ and a fairly nice
Chaintech board to go with it.

I've built two A64/3200+ systems recently - different cores but the price
had not changed at all in 6 weeks or so... until last weekend... and very
little before that. Those are 754 systems and certainly in the affordable
bracket, not in the high-end or enthusiast by any means - I generally look
for a CPU which is $300... "mid-range PC" to me. IMO those adjustments
were just the next phase in the segmentation of marketing according to
current production of mbrds and production/uptake of CPUs. Basically this
accomodates socket 939 which is what is ramping up - mbrds are just
starting to appear. IOW it's the changeover to dual channel mainstream
CPUs.

I'm not sure what AMD's fab arrangements are here but I think they are
going to get into a tight supply situation before Dresden II comes
on-stream... late 2005? It'll be interesting to see how much "mileage"
they get out of the Lance/TdF success - they certainly got quite a wide
exposure there to what I believe is an "informed" audience. Other than
being in a state of total disarray:-), I'm not sure what the hell Intel is
up to with their reticence on x86-64 but I'm sure they're hoping that the
tight supply on A64 will contain it until they are "ready".

Rgds, George Macdonald

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

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 00:43:17 -0400, Carlo Razzeto wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:30:18 -0400, Carlo Razzeto wrote:
Ok, now define "Windows support". Hint; it doesn't exist. They off-load
any little "support" to their OEM's. Amazing, really!


--
Keith

Customer service? If that's what you mean it sucks all around no matter what
you choose so who cares? My point is Linux doesn't have to worry about being
a functional desktop system because most people don't use it that way, and
those who do know enough to build a system that will meet their needs and
how to get everything they need working up and running. MS has to deal with
the average user.

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

--
Keith