Microsoft lays down the rules about 64-bit

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:42:54 +0930, "Tim Cunnings" wrote:


"Keith R. Williams" wrote in message
...
In article Ftjcb.45001$Lnr1.10761
@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com,
says...

snip

I think the next few months will be intresting because AMD will get
more traction and people will start to port applications to AMD 64.
If game developers start to make 64 bit applications it might be too
little to late for Intel. The longer Intel waits the better it is for
AMD!

Not necessarily, just because AMD invents the technology, and if Intel
decides to adopt the technology, there's no guarantee most people would
flock to the AMD products as opposed to the Intel products. It's been
long
rumoured that Intel has full rights to use the AMD64 ISA, through its
reciprocal license agreements with AMD. The inventor of the technology
may
not necessarily have the largest marketshare for that technology.

Yousuf, please reread what you've written! Intel is about as
likely to admit it was wrong (and adopt AMD's architecture) as
Howie Dean is to support George Bush! Corporate culture and
arrogance simply won't allow such admissions of inferiority.

--
Keith

They won't admit they were wrong, they will just simply adopt the technology
and then pretend they were the driving force behind this new, great,
worthwile innovation. They did this with RAMBUS. While they came close to
admitting they made the wrong call there, they rather just made a big song
and dance about DDR, which both AMD and VIA were the main driving forces
behind developing the technology to use as 'The Standard' for PC system
memory.

Rambus was a superior technology to DDR that has been demolished because manufacturers refused to
pay royalties... That's the whole truth behind it.
Rambus was way more efficient than the first DDR releases and if it was adopted as planned then new
versions would have provided has with much better performance than DDR and probably upcoming DDR2/3.
Unfortunately RDRAM it's history and nothing else. Intel had to move to DDR and now DDR2/3.
If it wasn't for Intel DDR wouldn't have become a real standard anyway, VIA and AMD can't impose
standards and their initial products using DDR had serious instability issues.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:35:03 -0400, "Bill Todd"
wrote:

The interesting question being, of course, just how Intel would manage to
ship such a product in volume if Windows didn't support it. Their
experience with Itanic (even *with* Microsoft support) might make them just
a bit hesitant to embark on such a venture, for example.

Well, there's always bribery. If Intel goes to M$ and says "here's a
$billion if you support our new CPU..."



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article , wrote:

Rambus was a superior technology to DDR that has been demolished because
manufacturers refused to
pay royalties... That's the whole truth behind it.
Rambus was way more efficient than the first DDR releases and if it was adopted
as planned then new
versions would have provided has with much better performance than DDR and
probably upcoming DDR2/3.
Unfortunately RDRAM it's history and nothing else. Intel had to move to DDR and
now DDR2/3.
If it wasn't for Intel DDR wouldn't have become a real standard anyway, VIA and
AMD can't impose
standards and their initial products using DDR had serious instability issues.

Total bunk

RDRAM simply did not offer the performance increment to match the
price increment. If it was as cheap or cheaper than DDR it'd
have made it in the market place royalties or not.

--wally.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article ,
wrote:
Rambus was a superior technology to DDR...

Shut up, Corse.

_/_ Scott Alfter (address in header doesn't receive mail)
/ v \ send email to
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ pkill -9 /bin/laden What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Linux)

iD8DBQE/dHdFVgTKos01OwkRAumcAKDakcxr+JViEzivt4QyvRVNkS5vzg CdFHZB
PYOcfbFmqrs9SDZis6twbks=
=qiYt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:37:45 GMT, John Corse wrote:

Rambus was a superior technology to DDR that has been demolished because manufacturers refused to
pay royalties... That's the whole truth behind it.

No, that's NOT the "whole truth", Corse.

Rambus was way more efficient than the first DDR releases and if it was adopted as planned then new
versions would have provided has with much better performance than DDR and probably upcoming DDR2/3.
Unfortunately RDRAM it's history and nothing else. Intel had to move to DDR and now DDR2/3.
If it wasn't for Intel DDR wouldn't have become a real standard anyway, VIA and AMD can't impose
standards and their initial products using DDR had serious instability issues.

Idiot.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:02:37 -0500, chrisv wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:37:45 GMT, John Corse wrote:

Rambus was a superior technology to DDR that has been demolished because manufacturers refused to
pay royalties... That's the whole truth behind it.

No, that's NOT the "whole truth", Corse.

Rambus was way more efficient than the first DDR releases and if it was adopted as planned then new
versions would have provided has with much better performance than DDR and probably upcoming DDR2/3.
Unfortunately RDRAM it's history and nothing else. Intel had to move to DDR and now DDR2/3.
If it wasn't for Intel DDR wouldn't have become a real standard anyway, VIA and AMD can't impose
standards and their initial products using DDR had serious instability issues.

Idiot.

Childish commies you're. Indeed.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:28:38 GMT, (Scott Alfter) wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article ,
wrote:
Rambus was a superior technology to DDR...

Shut up, Corse.


Another childish socialistic anti-Rambus anti-intel no-global style answer...

You can just insult whoever doesn't tell you what you want to hear.

There have been some articles on the 'net explaining that Rambus was superior to DDR anyway and if
R&D continued and manufacturers put the money to let it advance then it would have deliver much
higher performance than upcoming DDR2/3.
No one will ever know for sure, obviously, but first DDR versions were a lot slower and less
efficient than RDRAM.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:28:38 GMT, (Scott Alfter) wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article ,
wrote:
Rambus was a superior technology to DDR...

Shut up, Corse.


Another childish socialistic anti-Rambus anti-intel no-global style answer...

You can just insult whoever doesn't tell you what you want to hear.

There have been some articles on the 'net explaining that Rambus was superior to DDR anyway and if
R&D continued and manufacturers put the money to let it advance then it would have deliver much
higher performance than upcoming DDR2/3.
No one will ever know for sure, obviously, but first DDR versions were a lot slower and less
efficient than RDRAM.

"Carlo Razzeto" wrote in message
...

"Judd" wrote in message
...

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
I will laugh if MS makes this rule and Intel comes out with a 64-bit X86
extension of it's OWN flavor. They could trounce Intel with that
announcement or lay the ground work for a new company to FINALLY take
hold
of a new operating system frontier. If Intel ships something like that
in
volume, MS may have no choice BUT to support it or allow potential
customers
to move over to a new platform. Linux may have enough strength by then
to
make it a compelling alternative on the desktop and not just the server.
I would love to see MS fall on it's face on this one. They have no
right
to
say what people can or cannot develop. That would be like Intel telling
them how to develop DirectX or Windows in general.

Honestly, I think Itanic proves that Intel does not control the CPU market
like they thought they did. Even with MS support they couldn't get the
processors to move as Bill pointed out. The fact of the matter is Intel
doesn't control the PC platform does, Microsoft does....

Carlo

Itanic? Hell, the 386 proved it. Win95 was out when the P6-Pentiom Pro
came out (that's how long it took them to get a mainstream 32-bit OS out)
and it still wasn't fully 32-bit which killed the performance of the Pentium
Pro. That showed you right there who was in charge but MS has had a free
ride way too long. It's time for someone to seriously challenge them.

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in
message . rogers.com...
"Judd" wrote in message
...
I will laugh if MS makes this rule and Intel comes out with a 64-bit X86
extension of it's OWN flavor.

It won't happen overnight, it takes quite a bit of testing before you can
introduce a new architecture. So far there is no evidence that Intel has
even started such a project. Yamhill seems to have lost out in the
internal
Intel power struggle.

They could trounce Intel with that
announcement or lay the ground work for a new company to FINALLY take
hold
of a new operating system frontier. If Intel ships something like that
in
volume, MS may have no choice BUT to support it or allow potential
customers
to move over to a new platform. Linux may have enough strength by then
to
make it a compelling alternative on the desktop and not just the server.

Well, Linux could come out with any flavor of their operating system
fairly
quickly, and in fact they may have been helped by the effort to port to
AMD64, so a port to "INT64" would be fairly easy since it's likely to be
fairly similar. But those in the Linux community too might just shrug and
say, what's the point, we already got AMD64. In this case, the Linux
community may not be too far off of Microsoft's point of view, where they
say there's no point in doing two ports to what should be the same
architecture.

Also, it looks like Microsoft is already anticipating that Intel will
eventually be using AMD64, because they have banned the use of
x87/MMX/3DNow
instructions when operating in 64-bit mode under Windows. That will make
Intel's entry supremely simple, as they will not support 3DNow ever. I
don't
see any other reason for banning these instruction sets when they are
still
supported under 64-bit mode otherwise.

Yousuf Khan

It's all about volume Yousuf. You'll create for the largest market whether
you want to or not. Intel has the ability to produce large quantities of
microprocessors very quickly. They'll support it if they want $$$.
Besides, Intel has invested deeply into many of the Linux OS's (and you can
see why now). All of them will build products for whatever they put out and
be the first to do it.

Judd