If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
Adorable little Ed Stroglio rant:
Hatching Eggs . . . "Remember x86-64? The stick AMD was supposed to beat Intel to death with? Then Intel got themselves the same stick, and the would-be beaters found something else to talk about. Yes, AMD is doing better now, but not because of x86-64. Indeed, AMD's increased fortunes have come well after Intel switched. Microsoft came out with a Windows XP for x86-64, but the world hasn't exactly stampeded to get it." http://www.overclockers.com/tips00910/ I always thought the reason nobody flocked to XP x64 was because Microsoft delayed and delayed so much to let Intel catch up that people lost interest in it? I mean you know Microsoft was delaying here, even Solaris 10 came out for x64 before Windows did, despite starting work on it 2 years later. Yousuf Khan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
On 1 Feb 2006 11:14:47 -0800, "YKhan" wrote:
Adorable little Ed Stroglio rant: Hatching Eggs . . . "Remember x86-64? The stick AMD was supposed to beat Intel to death with? Then Intel got themselves the same stick, and the would-be beaters found something else to talk about. Yes, AMD is doing better now, but not because of x86-64. Indeed, AMD's increased fortunes have come well after Intel switched. Microsoft came out with a Windows XP for x86-64, but the world hasn't exactly stampeded to get it." http://www.overclockers.com/tips00910/ "How many of you bought CPUs back then at a premium primarily because of x86-64?"?? I got my Athlon64 ~15months ago and I don't recall paying much of a "premium" for it. Hmm, must have been a slow day chez Ed! I always thought the reason nobody flocked to XP x64 was because Microsoft delayed and delayed so much to let Intel catch up that people lost interest in it? I mean you know Microsoft was delaying here, even Solaris 10 came out for x64 before Windows did, despite starting work on it 2 years later. I'm still not 100% sure about that. Its also been suggested that M$ was just somewhat less than competent. They also knew that AMD's supply was not going to carry the market so apply a bit of Parkinson's Law as well and a new-found(?) desire to provide "security" and that accounts for a fair part of it. As Tony has remarked, it *did* take them a while to get WinXP SP2 out the door. -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:19:04 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 11:14:47 -0800, "YKhan" wrote: Adorable little Ed Stroglio rant: Hatching Eggs . . . "Remember x86-64? The stick AMD was supposed to beat Intel to death with? Then Intel got themselves the same stick, and the would-be beaters found something else to talk about. Yes, AMD is doing better now, but not because of x86-64. Indeed, AMD's increased fortunes have come well after Intel switched. Microsoft came out with a Windows XP for x86-64, but the world hasn't exactly stampeded to get it." http://www.overclockers.com/tips00910/ "How many of you bought CPUs back then at a premium primarily because of x86-64?"?? I got my Athlon64 ~15months ago and I don't recall paying much of a "premium" for it. Hmm, must have been a slow day chez Ed! I did. I bought my socket-940 Opterpon about 20months ago and paid a rather large premium for it (including the registered memory). I decided that I was ready for a new system and that since I was still using the (then) four-year-old K6-III I was goign to skip the K7 generation entirely and move on to AMD64. I'll quite likely have this system at least another two years, perhaps far longer. I always thought the reason nobody flocked to XP x64 was because Microsoft delayed and delayed so much to let Intel catch up that people lost interest in it? I mean you know Microsoft was delaying here, even Solaris 10 came out for x64 before Windows did, despite starting work on it 2 years later. I'm still not 100% sure about that. Its also been suggested that M$ was just somewhat less than competent. They also knew that AMD's supply was not going to carry the market so apply a bit of Parkinson's Law as well and a new-found(?) desire to provide "security" and that accounts for a fair part of it. As Tony has remarked, it *did* take them a while to get WinXP SP2 out the door. ....a small part of the reason I moved onto Linux. -- Keith |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
George Macdonald wrote:
I'm still not 100% sure about that. Its also been suggested that M$ was just somewhat less than competent. They also knew that AMD's supply was not going to carry the market so apply a bit of Parkinson's Law as well and a new-found(?) desire to provide "security" and that accounts for a fair part of it. As Tony has remarked, it *did* take them a while to get WinXP SP2 out the door. It's an ironic world we live in, when people find you more acceptable because you're incompetant. There were good reasons for it to delay introduction of SP2, as they were trying to fix a leaky boat. At that time security on Windows seemed like swiss cheese. However, they had x64 finished much earlier, even though they kept releasing release candidates. They were hoping for device drivers to be released, but nobody would release device drivers until Microsoft released the OS. They could've released x64 and still released SP2 for 32-bit. Really the most telling sign that they were delaying was the fact that Sun Microsystems started development work on their Solaris 10 x64 about two years after Microsoft, and still released it six months before Microsoft! One could say that Sun has years of experience with 64-bit operating systems, and Microsoft doesn't. But Microsoft already had 64-bit source code for Windows in their Itanium port, and other than low-level assembly language differences, most of it would be the same between the two architectures, just a recompile away. If Windows x64 had been released near to when AMD had released their hardware, even if AMD didn't sell as many chips as Intel, the fact that a released OS was sitting there it would've been gathering device driver support ready for the time when Intel came on board. By the time Intel was ready with 64-bit, you'd have a mature operating system already with lots of device driver support. And people coming in with Intel would have had much easier time. AMD users could've acted as the beta testers for Intel users. Yousuf Khan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
On 1 Feb 2006 11:14:47 -0800, "YKhan" wrote:
Adorable little Ed Stroglio rant: Hatching Eggs . . . "Remember x86-64? The stick AMD was supposed to beat Intel to death with? Then Intel got themselves the same stick, and the would-be beaters found something else to talk about. Yes, AMD is doing better now, but not because of x86-64. Indeed, AMD's increased fortunes have come well after Intel switched. Microsoft came out with a Windows XP for x86-64, but the world hasn't exactly stampeded to get it." http://www.overclockers.com/tips00910/ I always thought the reason nobody flocked to XP x64 was because Microsoft delayed and delayed so much to let Intel catch up that people lost interest in it? I mean you know Microsoft was delaying here, even Solaris 10 came out for x64 before Windows did, despite starting work on it 2 years later. Yousuf Khan My Opteron system is close to 2 year old, and it never ran a single line of 64 bit code. Back then when I built it, the reason behind it was a dual processor system for just over a half of equal Xeon rig price. Will it ever do 64? Only when there will be demand to do some work that can't possibly be done under 32 bit OS. So far, never heard of any requirement of 64 bit code in the section of software market in which I make a living. NNN |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
EdG wrote in part:
Well .... I didn't buy my two AMD64's for their 64-bit, it was basically icing on the cake, Sorta like the 386s? I consider the uptake of AMD64 to be nothing short of phenomenal in comparison. In a far more entrenched and less geeky market, we have day one OSes and a remarkable amount of support. Even from the known laggard, MS. IIRC the 386 had to wait 5 years for runnable OSes (IIRC, OS/2 v2 and non-beta Linux). Apps followed, and will this time too. The case for 64bit over 32b is less compelling than 32 over 16. So uptake will be somewhat slower in the middle part of the life-cycle curve. But the start has been very quick. -- Robert |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
My Opteron system is close to 2 year old, and it never ran a single line of 64 bit code. Back then when I built it, the reason behind it was a dual processor system for just over a half of equal Xeon rig price. Will it ever do 64? Only when there will be demand to do some work that can't possibly be done under 32 bit OS. So far, never heard of any requirement of 64 bit code in the section of software market in which I make a living. There are still very few softw. that support 64, not to mention _require_ it. I was surprized recently that Half Life II was released in 64 bit version. However I am not going to run and by win xp-64 just because of that. Now if you need to address 8 GB of memory for some purposes (DB server?), 64 bit is the only game in town. Regards, Yevgen |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
Evgenij Barsukov writes:
My Opteron system is close to 2 year old, and it never ran a single line of 64 bit code. Back then when I built it, the reason behind it was a dual processor system for just over a half of equal Xeon rig price. Will it ever do 64? Only when there will be demand to do some work that can't possibly be done under 32 bit OS. So far, never heard of any requirement of 64 bit code in the section of software market in which I make a living. There are still very few softw. that support 64, not to mention _require_ it. I was surprized recently that Half Life II was released in 64 bit version. However I am not going to run and by win xp-64 just because of that. Now if you need to address 8 GB of memory for some purposes (DB server?), 64 bit is the only game in town. Yup. I did some chip-level gatelevel simulations on an 98Mtransistor chip, and just the SDF file with timing information is 8GB. In-memory image size was ~4GB, so I had to go 64bit. Starting the simulation up (annotating timing to all nodes etc) took around 5 minutes on our Sun v20z dual-opty - I gave up trying after I had waited 1 hour on our old SunBlade 1000. Kai -- Kai Harrekilde-Petersen khp(at)harrekilde(dot)dk |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:09:28 -0600, Evgenij Barsukov
wrote: Now if you need to address 8 GB of memory for some purposes (DB server?), 64 bit is the only game in town. I might've lost track of releases, but IIRC Server'03 has not been released for AMD64 yet (I mean production, not betas and previews). SQL Server 2000 (the current corporate work horse) will never go 64 bit. SQL Server 2005, while released, is still exotic. Besides, lacking Windows Server to run on, the 64 bit version may run only as developer edition on WinXP64, and in this environment you hardly ever need more than 4 GB - I've never felt constrained by 1 GB yet, with all multiple instances I'm usually running. Maybe in Solaris/Oracle world you can get advantage of extra memory, but, not being a professional in that area, I can't comment on it. NNN |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
Now if you need to address 8 GB of memory for some purposes (DB
server?), 64 bit is the only game in town. I might've lost track of releases, but IIRC Server'03 has not been released for AMD64 yet (I mean production, not betas and previews). It has actually. I have a full copy sitting next to me. Check MS's website as well, it is no longer in beta. Some people have said that MS just waited till Intel had x86-64 products out, but I rather doubt that's the only reason. Certainly with AMD's volume alone, there was less impetus to do so, but MS does also take a while to port and QA their products. SQL Server 2000 (the current corporate work horse) will never go 64 bit. SQL Server 2005, while released, is still exotic. Besides, lacking Windows Server to run on, the 64 bit version may run only as developer edition on WinXP64, and in this environment you hardly ever need more than 4 GB - I've never felt constrained by 1 GB yet, with all multiple instances I'm usually running. Maybe in Solaris/Oracle world you can get advantage of extra memory, but, not being a professional in that area, I can't comment on it. You can get win64...I don't much about MSSQL, but everything you've said sounds reasonable (won't port 2000, 2005 is still too new). I think people will migrate to '05 if they see rather substantial benefits. DK |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What Happened to the 1905 LCD Monitors? | M and D | Dell Computers | 0 | December 15th 05 04:41 AM |
what happened to onstream? | Andrew Crook | Storage (alternative) | 3 | October 10th 04 10:57 AM |
What happened ? | Nat Sass | Asus Motherboards | 3 | October 6th 04 11:06 AM |
What's happened to BTX | AJ | Intel | 0 | September 20th 04 05:22 AM |
What happened? | Daniel P | Homebuilt PC's | 14 | May 7th 04 07:08 PM |