Whatever happened to x86-64?

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 03:36:08 +0000, Alexander Grigoriev wrote:


"Henry Nettles" noone@nowhere wrote in message
...

Looking back on it all now, it still seems to me that the PS/2 was the
biggest fiasco of the entire computer revolution. I used OS/2 for a
while, and I still think OS/2 was better than Windows 95. But the
PS/2, now that was a fiasco from beginning to end.

Their legacy is only in "PS/2" mouse interface and keyboard connectors.

Yeah, no one really needed bullet-proof desktops and plug-n-play.
Reliability? Who wants that?!

--
Keith

"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:17:04 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:06:45 -0600, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:


"George Macdonald" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:10:29 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

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.

There *were* the 386 DOS Extenders and Desqview386 which was a very
solid
multitasking environment, long before Windows 3.0 came along or was
even
worth looking at. With a coupla nudges here & there, things could
have
turned out very differently. In the corporate market, the IBM/M$
"promise"
of OS/2 V1 had a serious effect in slowing down 32-bit Protected
Mode
uptake.

I'm sure we still have the "notices" from our big clients warning us
of
the
requirements for OS/2 V1 versions of our software to fit their
scheduled
transition; fortunately we ignored them... never happened. I'd
attended
the OS/2 V1 dog 'n' pony show in NYC and I was not impressed...
though
it
did take some serious "discussions" with our guys "out in the
trenches"
to
stay away from it. Besides, Phar Lap's DOS Extender was so simple
and
DesqView386 was no effort at all - it just worked.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

I'm sure you recall that OS/2 was supposed to do all that stuff while
running on a 286 PC/AT.

Yeah well that was the big mistake. Back then even Intel took the
stance
that the 386 was only for those "who really needed it" - they thought
the
same with 486... and even had a slew of 386 support chips still in the
pipeline when 486 came out.

It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight. 90% of the
systems
being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge. ...forgetting
that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most, know that IBM
is
all about protecting customer's investments. These systems weren't
$400
Dells.

Sure, I understood why they did it. But it was late apparently and also
gave microsoft a perfect way to (call it what you will) IBM with Windows
.. And there was a story that OS/2 had a lot of 286 assembler in it and
so didn't move to 386 readily. And IBM's pay more to get more regardless
of whether cost was more pricing policy didn't help matters.

I watched it all with a sort of sick fascination, like watching a train
wreck in slow motion. Ben Rosen and his buddies should have sent roses
and chocolate to Akers on Valentine's day.

del cecchi

snip
--
Keith

YKhanwrote:
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

Yes, good article and that's the reason I never made the switch. I'm
still using my XP-3200 400. It still has quite a bit of wow factor.
When I upgrade, what I'm upgrading too, has to wow me from what I'm
leaving. I've not seen anything since my 3200 that has.

But I do disagree with the author. AMD's Athlon 64 was a large factor
in it's success today. Why? Because the market finally saw Intel for
what it was. Obsolete, and the talk started. As AMD kept going,
Intel had to play catch up without any new innovation of their own.
As they caught up, AMD just left them in the dust again. And again.
Once AMD earned "gaming" rights, the writing was on the
wall. Gaming is what moves the industry and why innovation happens
at all.

But, that Intel negative talk, started by the 64, automatically means
more market share to AMD; anyway you slice or dice it. Now, AMD has
taken on Intel in a full scale frontal assault. From servers to
notebooks to lawsuits; they're not considered fringe anymore and they
are looked at as the market leader of tech. Not because of size, not
because of sales; because of innovation. It is now seen to be the
only one that has it. That in turn, means even more marketshare.
AMD being viable began with the Athlon Thunderbird. The 64 made them
clearly the innovator, Windows or not. And the result? Intel just
missed it numbers. I've been predicting just this sort of thing for
a few years now. Get used to it you Intel lovers out there.

All that said; I never fell for the 64 hype. Especially with no
Windows available to properly run it. And, in all fairness, Windows
64 bit right now, leaves plenty to want. Especially in the area of
available drivers. Most, still don't have those. What's the point?
That's why there's no stampede to it. I remember all the problems XP
caused when it first came out. Drivers were the issue then as well.
Will Vista have a full assortment of drivers available to it? I doubt
it. If it does, then why doesn't XP 64 have them now?

Today, the only real difference between the XP-3200 and the Athlon 64
is a small increase in 32 bit performance due to the onboard memory
bus. That's hardly wowing.

My next upgrade will be to dual core, AFTER Vista comes out, and
hopefully, AFTER someone starts writing a lot of 64 bit software
code. Although, to be fair, dual core has much more wow impact now,
then 64 does. And look at the headstart 64 had.

The XP-3200 was the last great thing to come down the pike.
Everything else, has, and will continue to be, "waiting for the
eggs to hatch." I'm still waiting... Luckily, I didn't waste
three complete platforms in the wait.

And, my "ancient" 3200 has no problem running a full McAfee
scan, and me working on other things at the same time.

The only wow factor I've seen come out of the PC business, for quite
some time, is video. SLI has it. It's a sad state of affairs when
Nvidia is the only one delivering wow factor that's significant and
tangable for every day use.

Their software engineers seem to keep up without a problem. What
makes them different? Whatever it is, they sure smoked the hell out
of ATI. Cross Fire, like the new Intel dual core, isn't even close.

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:48:32 -0500, Keith wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:17:04 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:06:45 -0600, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:


"George Macdonald" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:10:29 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

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.

There *were* the 386 DOS Extenders and Desqview386 which was a very
solid
multitasking environment, long before Windows 3.0 came along or was
even
worth looking at. With a coupla nudges here & there, things could have
turned out very differently. In the corporate market, the IBM/M$
"promise"
of OS/2 V1 had a serious effect in slowing down 32-bit Protected Mode
uptake.

I'm sure we still have the "notices" from our big clients warning us of
the
requirements for OS/2 V1 versions of our software to fit their
scheduled
transition; fortunately we ignored them... never happened. I'd
attended
the OS/2 V1 dog 'n' pony show in NYC and I was not impressed... though
it
did take some serious "discussions" with our guys "out in the trenches"
to
stay away from it. Besides, Phar Lap's DOS Extender was so simple and
DesqView386 was no effort at all - it just worked.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

I'm sure you recall that OS/2 was supposed to do all that stuff while
running on a 286 PC/AT.

Yeah well that was the big mistake. Back then even Intel took the stance
that the 386 was only for those "who really needed it" - they thought the
same with 486... and even had a slew of 386 support chips still in the
pipeline when 486 came out.

It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight.

Depends on your perspective - I'm sure I could be classed as biased but it
was a monumental mistake from my POV. The IBM/M$ "future operating system"
was first announced in the same year as 80386 - to me building a new
operating system which ignored the revolutionary aspects of the new CPU was
nuts.

90% of the systems
being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge. ...forgetting
that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most, know that IBM is
all about protecting customer's investments. These systems weren't $400
Dells.

In 1988, which was about OS/2 V1's delivery timeframe, were 286 systems
really still commanding 90% of the general market? I don't recall but it
had no interest at all for me... 3 years after the arrival of 80386.

But "all that stuff" I mentioned included the 32-bit flat memory model -
that was the killer for doing real computing on a desktop. A lot of
mainframe code got converted to Phar Lap's DOS Extender.

Wunnerful, but that's hardly the point.

Again, perspective. For people who felt hog-tied by the segmented memory
model it was a big deal.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:26:37 -0600, Del Cecchi wrote:


"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:17:04 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:06:45 -0600, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:


"George Macdonald" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:10:29 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

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.

There *were* the 386 DOS Extenders and Desqview386 which was a very
solid
multitasking environment, long before Windows 3.0 came along or was
even
worth looking at. With a coupla nudges here & there, things could
have
turned out very differently. In the corporate market, the IBM/M$
"promise"
of OS/2 V1 had a serious effect in slowing down 32-bit Protected
Mode
uptake.

I'm sure we still have the "notices" from our big clients warning us
of
the
requirements for OS/2 V1 versions of our software to fit their
scheduled
transition; fortunately we ignored them... never happened. I'd
attended
the OS/2 V1 dog 'n' pony show in NYC and I was not impressed...
though
it
did take some serious "discussions" with our guys "out in the
trenches"
to
stay away from it. Besides, Phar Lap's DOS Extender was so simple
and
DesqView386 was no effort at all - it just worked.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

I'm sure you recall that OS/2 was supposed to do all that stuff while
running on a 286 PC/AT.

Yeah well that was the big mistake. Back then even Intel took the
stance
that the 386 was only for those "who really needed it" - they thought
the
same with 486... and even had a slew of 386 support chips still in the
pipeline when 486 came out.

It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight. 90% of the
systems
being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge. ...forgetting
that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most, know that IBM
is
all about protecting customer's investments. These systems weren't
$400
Dells.

Sure, I understood why they did it. But it was late apparently and also
gave microsoft a perfect way to (call it what you will) IBM with Windows
.

The 286/386 decision with OS/2 V1 had nothing to do with Windows
winning the desktop. Windows won with Win3.11 (which was still 286)
and Win95 because IBM folded their tent on OS/2 V3. Even OS/2 V1.3 was a
better DOS than DOS.

And there was a story that OS/2 had a lot of 286 assembler in it and
so didn't move to 386 readily.

Um, 286 code runs perfectly well on 386s. Warp crushed Windows
technically, but where was the mindshare? Remember the commercials that
promised to make us all "wobbly in the knees"? No, I don't either.

And IBM's pay more to get more regardless
of whether cost was more pricing policy didn't help matters.

Remember what the 'B' stands for. The purpose of the PS/2 was to bring
some sense to the PC. PS/2s and OS/2 had working plug-n-play. How long
did it take M$ to catch up.

I watched it all with a sort of sick fascination, like watching a
train wreck in slow motion.

Perhaps, but the problem wasn't supporting 286s with OS/2 V1.0 nor the
PS/2 itself.

Ben Rosen and his buddies should have sent roses and chocolate to Akers
on Valentine's day.

I'd have suggested something else...

--
Keith

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:31:25 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:48:32 -0500, Keith wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:17:04 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:06:45 -0600, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:


"George Macdonald" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:10:29 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

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.

There *were* the 386 DOS Extenders and Desqview386 which was a very
solid
multitasking environment, long before Windows 3.0 came along or was
even
worth looking at. With a coupla nudges here & there, things could have
turned out very differently. In the corporate market, the IBM/M$
"promise"
of OS/2 V1 had a serious effect in slowing down 32-bit Protected Mode
uptake.

I'm sure we still have the "notices" from our big clients warning us of
the
requirements for OS/2 V1 versions of our software to fit their
scheduled
transition; fortunately we ignored them... never happened. I'd
attended
the OS/2 V1 dog 'n' pony show in NYC and I was not impressed... though
it
did take some serious "discussions" with our guys "out in the trenches"
to
stay away from it. Besides, Phar Lap's DOS Extender was so simple and
DesqView386 was no effort at all - it just worked.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

I'm sure you recall that OS/2 was supposed to do all that stuff while
running on a 286 PC/AT.

Yeah well that was the big mistake. Back then even Intel took the stance
that the 386 was only for those "who really needed it" - they thought the
same with 486... and even had a slew of 386 support chips still in the
pipeline when 486 came out.

It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight.

Depends on your perspective - I'm sure I could be classed as biased but it
was a monumental mistake from my POV. The IBM/M$ "future operating system"
was first announced in the same year as 80386 - to me building a new
operating system which ignored the revolutionary aspects of the new CPU was
nuts.

....and abandon customers who bought systems last year and a large
fraction of the systems to be shipped this year and next? That's not how
International *BUSINESS* Machines operated. Do note that Warp3 shipped
with full 386 capability long before Windows 95. There was no comparison
between the two.

90% of the systems
being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge. ...forgetting
that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most, know that IBM is
all about protecting customer's investments. These systems weren't $400
Dells.

In 1988, which was about OS/2 V1's delivery timeframe, were 286 systems
really still commanding 90% of the general market?

Yes. The 386s were expensive, and IIRC not avalilable in large
quantities.

I don't recall but it had no interest at all for me... 3 years after
the arrival of 80386.

Three years? Were 386s available in 1984? OS/2 V1 was released in April
of 1987.

But "all that stuff" I mentioned included the 32-bit flat memory model
- that was the killer for doing real computing on a desktop. A lot of
mainframe code got converted to Phar Lap's DOS Extender.

Wunnerful, but that's hardly the point.

Again, perspective. For people who felt hog-tied by the segmented
memory model it was a big deal.

So, you thought Windows was somehow better, in 1987? OS/2 V2 was
released in 1992 and supported the 386 fully.

--
Keith

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:04:33 -0500, Keith wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:31:25 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:48:32 -0500, Keith wrote:

It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight.

Depends on your perspective - I'm sure I could be classed as biased but it
was a monumental mistake from my POV. The IBM/M$ "future operating system"
was first announced in the same year as 80386 - to me building a new
operating system which ignored the revolutionary aspects of the new CPU was
nuts.

...and abandon customers who bought systems last year and a large
fraction of the systems to be shipped this year and next? That's not how
International *BUSINESS* Machines operated. Do note that Warp3 shipped
with full 386 capability long before Windows 95. There was no comparison
between the two.

Hmm, it may have been IBM's intention to "impose" a replacement of DOS by
OS/2 on all the existing systems in their large corporate customers; in
fact from what we heard from large customers that seemed to be
indicated.... but that's not how the PC market worked back then. Even now
not many people change OS from that delivered with the machine.

90% of the systems
being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge. ...forgetting
that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most, know that IBM is
all about protecting customer's investments. These systems weren't $400
Dells.

In 1988, which was about OS/2 V1's delivery timeframe, were 286 systems
really still commanding 90% of the general market?

Yes. The 386s were expensive, and IIRC not avalilable in large
quantities.

I had no trouble getting them - in fact even early versions of 386 with the
"16-bit only" and paging bugs.:-)

I don't recall but it had no interest at all for me... 3 years after
the arrival of 80386.

Three years? Were 386s available in 1984? OS/2 V1 was released in April
of 1987.

Well it was announced in April '87 - don't recall actual general
availability but after attending the tech conference (nice mug they handed
out... still have it) in NYC we had no interest anyway.

But "all that stuff" I mentioned included the 32-bit flat memory model
- that was the killer for doing real computing on a desktop. A lot of
mainframe code got converted to Phar Lap's DOS Extender.

Wunnerful, but that's hardly the point.

Again, perspective. For people who felt hog-tied by the segmented
memory model it was a big deal.

So, you thought Windows was somehow better, in 1987? OS/2 V2 was
released in 1992 and supported the 386 fully.

No, in fact we had unopened Windows boxes lying around at the time - no
interest at all, since it didn't know anything of 386 Protected Mode. The
Phar Lap 32-bit code ran just fine under DesqView386.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:17:09 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:04:33 -0500, Keith wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:31:25 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:48:32 -0500, Keith wrote:

It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight.

Depends on your perspective - I'm sure I could be classed as biased but it
was a monumental mistake from my POV. The IBM/M$ "future operating system"
was first announced in the same year as 80386 - to me building a new
operating system which ignored the revolutionary aspects of the new CPU was
nuts.

...and abandon customers who bought systems last year and a large
fraction of the systems to be shipped this year and next? That's not how
International *BUSINESS* Machines operated. Do note that Warp3 shipped
with full 386 capability long before Windows 95. There was no comparison
between the two.

Hmm, it may have been IBM's intention to "impose" a replacement of DOS by
OS/2 on all the existing systems in their large corporate customers; in
fact from what we heard from large customers that seemed to be
indicated.... but that's not how the PC market worked back then. Even now
not many people change OS from that delivered with the machine.

You are correct, but *applications* that were developed for yesterday's
machine *must* work on todays. That wass the point of "better DOS than
DOS". Indeed OS/2 V1.3 (which M$ had nothing to do with, like DOS7) was
better DOS than DOS. Warp3 was better Windows than Windows, until API
shifting.

90% of the systems
being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge.
...forgetting that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most,
know that IBM is all about protecting customer's investments. These
systems weren't $400 Dells.

In 1988, which was about OS/2 V1's delivery timeframe, were 286
systems really still commanding 90% of the general market?

Yes. The 386s were expensive, and IIRC not avalilable in large
quantities.

I had no trouble getting them - in fact even early versions of 386 with
the "16-bit only" and paging bugs.:-)

Of course *you* didn't. Try buying a hundred thousand of 'em to satisy
your customers (then give them the bill).

I don't recall but it had no interest at all for me... 3 years after
the arrival of 80386.

Three years? Were 386s available in 1984? OS/2 V1 was released in
April of 1987.

Well it was announced in April '87 - don't recall actual general
availability but after attending the tech conference (nice mug they
handed out... still have it) in NYC we had no interest anyway.

Sheesh! It was available on its release date. Are you telling be that
you couldn't get a copy for *three* years? Perhaps your last phrase says
it all. Tell me, were you happy with Win95?

But "all that stuff" I mentioned included the 32-bit flat memory
model - that was the killer for doing real computing on a desktop. A
lot of mainframe code got converted to Phar Lap's DOS Extender.

Wunnerful, but that's hardly the point.

Again, perspective. For people who felt hog-tied by the segmented
memory model it was a big deal.

So, you thought Windows was somehow better, in 1987? OS/2 V2 was
released in 1992 and supported the 386 fully.

No, in fact we had unopened Windows boxes lying around at the time - no
interest at all, since it didn't know anything of 386 Protected Mode.
The Phar Lap 32-bit code ran just fine under DesqView386.

So did OS/2, though you had already decided that you weren't interested.
*THAT* was OS/2's problem. No one cared that it was elegant and just
*worked*. IBM didn't care enough that the let it die from neglect. Too
bad, Billy won by default. Too bad indeed.

--
Keith

They shot themselves in a foot with their proprietary MCI bus. Good or bad
it was, MCI is dead and PS2 mices and KB are being quietly replaced by USB.

"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 03:36:08 +0000, Alexander Grigoriev wrote:


"Henry Nettles" noone@nowhere wrote in message
...

Looking back on it all now, it still seems to me that the PS/2 was the
biggest fiasco of the entire computer revolution. I used OS/2 for a
while, and I still think OS/2 was better than Windows 95. But the
PS/2, now that was a fiasco from beginning to end.

Their legacy is only in "PS/2" mouse interface and keyboard connectors.

Yeah, no one really needed bullet-proof desktops and plug-n-play.
Reliability? Who wants that?!

--
Keith

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 05:01:16 +0000, Alexander Grigoriev wrote:

They shot themselves in a foot with their proprietary MCI bus. Good or bad
it was, MCI is dead and PS2 mices and KB are being quietly replaced by USB.

MCA was a good thing, considering IBM's customers (remember, MCI PnP
worked) and how poorly ISA worked. The politics of MCA weren't what most
people think. MCA was openly licensed and for small money. Control was
what the anti-MCA thing was all about. MCA had it all over every other
attempt at a bus until PCI (controlled by Intel, which was somehow a good
thing). Even PCI had severe growing pains.

PS/2 mouses and keyboards have been around for 20 years and will be around
for a good while yet. That's not so bad, given how technology moves. Not
that PS/2 ports were much to write home about anyway (just a form factor
change from the AT keyboard connector taht's a quarter century old). I'd
rather not go to USB for such things (what gain?). USB is just too
complicated for such a simple thing as a mechanical human interface.
I'll keep my Model-Ms, thanks anyway.

--
Keith