Interesting read about upcoming K9 processors

"Dean Kent" wrote in message
m...
"Judd" wrote in message
...

Doesn't Advanced Server 2003 do 64-bit? As in Itanium?


Of course. But, it isn't a 'desktop OS' and many people don't count
anything Itanium as being real... that gives it two strikes. Since it
doesn't run on Opteron, that makes three. ;-).


LOL, I suppose!

Judd wrote:
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
ers.com...
Judd wrote:
Doesn't Advanced Server 2003 do 64-bit? As in Itanium?

The number of apps and the number of drivers supported on Opteron is
supposed to be much higher than on Itanium.


Huh? If Windows Server 2003 is running and selling for Itanium, then
it probably has the drivers for the architecture and applications as
well. If you mean 3rd party, then that's a different issue
altogether but I'm sure 3rd party high end server vendors do have the
drivers. Intel site has a long list of apps that run on Itanium.
Itanium also runs 32-bit software, but only like a mid level P4.

Yeah, it's the 3rd party stuff I'm talking about. Opterons are supposed to
run with a wider range of 3rd party devices than Itaniums. Because they are
aimed at such a cost-sensitive sector of the market, you got to expect that
people will try to put their own devices into these systems rather than pay
the exhorbitant vendor prices. Of course when they do that, they also miss
out on all of the vendor pre-testing that goes along with it.

Yousuf Khan

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 07:34:34 -0600, Judd wrote:

As always, AMD is good and Intel is bad. Same old spiel. YAWN!

Sure, when Intel tries to twist the market (i.e. consumer) to their
benefit and there is an alternative with a consumer-friendly alternative,
you bet Intel is *BAD*! To think otherwise is simply stupid. Unless of
"Course"...

BTW, top-posters suck!

--
Keith

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:47:58 +0000, Dean Kent wrote:

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

"Q: Do you think Microsoft's 64-bit OS will come out on time?


Are we still supposed to be excited about a 64-bit desktop OS from MS after
all these years? I heard once it was going to be a slam dunk. Guess
not... :-)

A 64bit OS is a slam dunk, though perhaps not from Micro$hit.
Perhaps politics is involved here? Nah Dean, couldn't be!

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.

--
Keith

"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 04:47:58 +0000, Dean Kent wrote:


A 64bit OS is a slam dunk, though perhaps not from Micro$hit.
Perhaps politics is involved here? Nah Dean, couldn't be!

I don't think so. More likely Windows is a nightmare to code/modify. Some
people like conspiracy theories, however. :-).


BTW, 64bit Linux works fine here! It seems Sun is found the light too.

Linux isn't Windows, and therefore is a completely different argument. Sun
found religion for the same reason most others do... impending death! g.

OTOH, Itanic well never see the light, no matter how hard the pundits
push.

Unlike Power, which will dominate everywhere, right? No politics here!!!
;-).

Regards,
Dean


--
Keith

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.

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
ers.com...

It would be supremely embarrassing to Microsoft if Sun gets Solaris for
Opteron out before Windows.

My money is on embarassement...

Regards,
Dean


Yousuf Khan

Joe Seigh wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
the times.



Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for Microsoft.

Yes, since Linux is already NUMA capable 64 CPU is a configuration
option. Still, finding the bandwidth to feed those CPUs is easier if
they have some dedicated RAM (read as: Opteron).

--
bill davidsen )
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

Pleasant Thrip wrote:
In comp.arch Joe Seigh wrote:



Yousuf Khan wrote:

Doesn't sound like Chang believes that Microsoft is trying all that hard to
build a 64-bit OS. It's getting something out to show that it isn't behind
the times.



Going to 64 bits will be trivial compared to going to 64 way for Microsoft.


Joe Seigh


why do you say that? Maybe there will be particular issues for
applications to make use of all those CPUs but I don't see why it would
be such a big deal for the OS kernel scheduler.

You don't understand the problem... the o/s needs to make all sorts of
decisions about moving a process to another processor to load balance
vs. cost of moving, etc. It is a nasty problem!

IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.


--
bill davidsen )
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Bill Todd wrote:

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...

Bill Todd wrote:

IMHO, 64-bits is much harder considering the Win32 API.

Considering that they had a beta 64-bit version out in the field on
Alpha 5 years ago, I'd suspect that they had that pretty well under
control by now.

They may have had an OS in 64-bit for Alpha 5 years ago, but did
they have any applications or drivers?

Who cares (at least in the current discussion context)? The point
was that they had the API worked out sufficiently back in 1999 to
give it to outside developers.


I thought the point was getting a working 64-bit Microsoft system? That
would mean not just the OS, but also the apps and drivers. If it's just the
OS, then Microsoft is already done, the OS is already ready for Opteron. But
Microsoft has said that the only thing holding them back from releasing the
OS is the drivers, and a few apps which might do things and get away with in
the 32-bit OS which they won't be allowed to get away with in 64-bit.

I've been waiting since Windows 3.1 for a working 32-bit version, don't
ya know?

--
bill davidsen )
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com