IT Forums - Microsoft lays down the rules about 64-bit

Rthoreau

09-24-2003, 07:37 AM

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67.spam@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message news:<KT2cb.71950$Ch2.71682@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>... AMD introduced the Athlon 64 today, and Microsoft was on hand to intro its 64-bit Windows too. Microsoft said that it will support both Intel and AMD 64-bit, but no more than that. I think what they are referring to when they talk about Intel 64-bit is Itanium, but no other 64-bit that Intel might introduce for the desktop, unless Intel wants to use AMD's 64-bit. On a separate note, HP will introduce A64-based desktops among others. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&ncid=581&e=3&u=/nm/20030923/tc_nm/tech_amd_microsoft_dc http://tinyurl.com/oewd

This sounds good for AMD, if Microsoft forces Intel to use X86-64
extensions then AMD has a really good chance of taking more market
share from Intel. I just wonder when Intel will use 64 bit with the
P4, or will it be available in December?

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!

Rthoreau

Yousuf Khan

09-24-2003, 08:18 AM

"Gnu_Raiz" <rthoreau@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:e8bdb1f0.0309240737.7521a0cd@posting.google.com... This sounds good for AMD, if Microsoft forces Intel to use X86-64 extensions then AMD has a really good chance of taking more market share from Intel. I just wonder when Intel will use 64 bit with the P4, or will it be available in December?

It's not likely that Intel could get a major upgrade like the addition of a
64-bit mode to the Pentium ready in time for December. There's all kinds of
beta testing that would need to be done.
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 Khan

Keith R. Williams

09-24-2003, 05:44 PM

In article <Ftjcb.45001$Lnr1.10761
@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.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

Yousuf Khan

09-24-2003, 08:41 PM

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19dc125d44a77ffa98a6fa@enews.newsguy.com... 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.

We weren't really talking about the realistic case, we were really talking
about the hypothetical case, where Intel does decide to bring out an
x86-compatible 64-bit desktop processor. The more realistic case is that it
would try to pass off a variation of its Itanium architecture as a desktop
processsor rather than some x86 processor.

But I do think eventually Intel will adopt the AMD64 architecture, though it
will be brought to it kicking and screaming. The precedent for it exists,
which was IBM PS/2 vs. the world. Eventually IBM relented on that one,
though it took several technological generations. It never did accept EISA,
but it accepted VESA and PCI which were other successors to the ISA bus.

Yousuf Khan

Judd

09-25-2003, 08:48 AM

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67.spam@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:KT2cb.71950$Ch2.71682@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... AMD introduced the Athlon 64 today, and Microsoft was on hand to intro its 64-bit Windows too. Microsoft said that it will support both Intel and AMD 64-bit, but no more than that. I think what they are referring to when
they talk about Intel 64-bit is Itanium, but no other 64-bit that Intel might introduce for the desktop, unless Intel wants to use AMD's 64-bit. On a separate note, HP will introduce A64-based desktops among others.

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.

Bill Todd

09-25-2003, 09:35 AM

"Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:y%Ecb.54$oD4.29852@news.uswest.net... "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67.spam@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message news:KT2cb.71950$Ch2.71682@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... AMD introduced the Athlon 64 today, and Microsoft was on hand to intro
its 64-bit Windows too. Microsoft said that it will support both Intel and
AMD 64-bit, but no more than that. I think what they are referring to when they talk about Intel 64-bit is Itanium, but no other 64-bit that Intel might introduce for the desktop, unless Intel wants to use AMD's 64-bit. On a separate note, HP will introduce A64-based desktops among others. 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.

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.

- bill

Yousuf Khan

09-25-2003, 01:57 PM

"Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:y%Ecb.54$oD4.29852@news.uswest.net... 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

Carlo Razzeto

09-25-2003, 02:23 PM

"Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:y%Ecb.54$oD4.29852@news.uswest.net... "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67.spam@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message news:KT2cb.71950$Ch2.71682@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.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

Tim Cunnings

09-26-2003, 04:12 AM

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19dc125d44a77ffa98a6fa@enews.newsguy.com... In article <Ftjcb.45001$Lnr1.10761 @news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.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.

Tim

Louis

09-26-2003, 04:37 AM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:42:54 +0930, "Tim Cunnings" <timken@internode.on.net> wrote:
"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:MPG.19dc125d44a77ffa98a6fa@enews.newsguy.com... In article <Ftjcb.45001$Lnr1.10761 @news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.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 beenlong rumoured that Intel has full rights to use the AMD64 ISA, through its reciprocal license agreements with AMD. The inventor of the technologymay 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. -- KeithThey won't admit they were wrong, they will just simply adopt the technologyand then pretend they were the driving force behind this new, great,worthwile innovation. They did this with RAMBUS. While they came close toadmitting they made the wrong call there, they rather just made a big songand dance about DDR, which both AMD and VIA were the main driving forcesbehind developing the technology to use as 'The Standard' for PC systemmemory.

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.

chrisv

09-26-2003, 04:54 AM

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:35:03 -0400, "Bill Todd"
<billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:
The interesting question being, of course, just how Intel would manage toship such a product in volume if Windows didn't support it. Theirexperience with Itanic (even *with* Microsoft support) might make them justa 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 =---

wally

09-26-2003, 07:25 AM

In article <nkc8nvocb3iam1ufccojsq2j0spht8k8v7@4ax.com>, anon@anon.com wrote:Rambus was a superior technology to DDR that has been demolished because manufacturers refused topay 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 newversions 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 imposestandards 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.

Scott Alfter

09-26-2003, 09:28 AM

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

In article <nkc8nvocb3iam1ufccojsq2j0spht8k8v7@4ax.com>,
<anon@anon.com> wrote:Rambus was a superior technology to DDR...

Shut up, Corse.

_/_ Scott Alfter (address in header doesn't receive mail)
/ v \ send email to $firstname@$lastname.us
(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+JViEzivt4QyvRVNkS5vzgCdFHZB
PYOcfbFmqrs9SDZis6twbks=
=qiYt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

chrisv

09-26-2003, 10:02 AM

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 topay 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 newversions 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 imposestandards 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 =---

Louis

09-26-2003, 11:02 AM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:02:37 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> 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 topay 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 newversions 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 imposestandards and their initial products using DDR had serious instability issues.Idiot.

Childish commies you're. Indeed.

Louis

09-26-2003, 11:06 AM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:28:38 GMT, salfter@salfter.dyndns.org (Scott Alfter) wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA1In article <nkc8nvocb3iam1ufccojsq2j0spht8k8v7@4ax.com>, <anon@anon.com> 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.

Louis

09-26-2003, 11:06 AM

Judd

09-26-2003, 11:10 AM

"Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2qSdna_8duV19-6iU-KYjA@comcast.com... "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message news:y%Ecb.54$oD4.29852@news.uswest.net... "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67.spam@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message news:KT2cb.71950$Ch2.71682@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.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.

Judd

09-26-2003, 11:12 AM

"Yousuf Khan" <removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ExJcb.1182$3r1.363@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message news:y%Ecb.54$oD4.29852@news.uswest.net... 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

Tony Hill

09-26-2003, 11:40 AM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:37:45 GMT, anon@anon.com wrote:Rambus was a superior technology to DDR that has been demolished because manufacturers refused topay 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 newversions 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 imposestandards and their initial products using DDR had serious instability issues.

Hmm.. what was that hissing sound following by a quick "flick" noise?
It sounded like someone just lit up a flamethrower :>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Eric Gisin

09-26-2003, 12:09 PM

Windows NT 3.5 was out in 94, and ran on 386DX. NT had over 10% of market at
its peak, that's more than any alternate OS, including all PC *NIX put
together.

"Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:0b0db.652$kb5.25037@news.uswest.net...

| > 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.
|
|

Judd

09-26-2003, 12:54 PM

Good point on NT. I started with 3.1 a year earlier and was very happy to
upgrade to 3.5. NT 3.51 was one of my favorite OS's. Very stable, secure,
and rarely if ever crashed. The GUI wasn't fast but at least the kernel was
semi-small.
I didn't realize that it had 10% of the market. I recall it selling about
600,000 units of 3.5 and that the number was very generous. Did I miss
something? Surely one of Apple's OS's or OS/2 sole more than NT 3.5? Do
you mean all installations of NT including NT 3.5, 3.51, 4.0 put together?
NT 4.0 did much better in the sales dept. but I still don't recall it being
1/10 of Win95. I'll have to do some researcho n this one.

"Eric Gisin" <ericg@indisputable.info> wrote in message
news:bl26ot0esi@enews1.newsguy.com... Windows NT 3.5 was out in 94, and ran on 386DX. NT had over 10% of market
at its peak, that's more than any alternate OS, including all PC *NIX put together. "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message news:0b0db.652$kb5.25037@news.uswest.net... | > 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. | |

Scott Alfter

09-26-2003, 12:58 PM

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

In article <ua39nvoekf1avlf06iru7r52jl315qnvqp@4ax.com>,
<anon@anon.com> wrote:On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:28:38 GMT, salfter@salfter.dyndns.org (ScottAlfter) wrote:In article <nkc8nvocb3iam1ufccojsq2j0spht8k8v7@4ax.com>, <anon@anon.com> wrote:Rambus was a superior technology to DDR...Shut up, Corse.Another childish socialistic anti-Rambus anti-intel no-global style answer...

"Socialistic?" Hardly. I just don't believe that barratry is a valid or
sustainable business model. Rambus learned that lesson the hard way, and
SCO is about to learn it. It is obvious that you aren't in possession of
all the facts of the matter, so I would suggest that you STFU and let the
adults in here continue their discussion in a more rational manner.

* PLONK *

_/_ Scott Alfter (address in header doesn't receive mail)
/ v \ send email to $firstname@$lastname.us
(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/dKh3VgTKos01OwkRAnuaAKDCCqgnDhEsiWByn4hWiamafxjg4ACfTBp+
MctFP3DcZya1z4JmafmKbBs=
=FS83
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

chrisv

09-26-2003, 01:27 PM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:02:38 GMT, anon@anon.com wrote:
Childish commies you're. Indeed.

Said the anonymous troll. The irony.

P.S. You're still an idiot, Corse.

----== 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 =---

Yousuf Khan

09-26-2003, 01:30 PM

"Scott Alfter" <salfter@salfter.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:YL1db.6402$Rd4.2111@fed1read07...Another childish socialistic anti-Rambus anti-intel no-global style
answer... "Socialistic?" Hardly. I just don't believe that barratry is a valid or sustainable business model. Rambus learned that lesson the hard way, and SCO is about to learn it. It is obvious that you aren't in possession of all the facts of the matter, so I would suggest that you STFU and let the adults in here continue their discussion in a more rational manner.

Well, at this point in time, it doesn't look like the socialist countries
are doing all that bad. Still running a surplus. :-)

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan

09-26-2003, 02:21 PM

"Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:tc0db.653$kb5.25040@news.uswest.net... 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.

Exactly right, and AMD is no small-fry when it comes to pumping out in
volume. By the time Intel is ready with a 64-bit desktop, AMD will already
have an established base of tens of millions of units. I will assume that it
will take Intel at least two years, first they will have to tape it out, and
then implement the manufacturing process. It took AMD not too long to tape
it out, but it took them a good while to get the manufacturing right because
of all of the new technology going into it, such as SOI, etc.

From that base of tens of millions, and ignoring the Linux factor, just
looking at Windows users, we can assume *at least* half of them will be
using a 64-bit Windows (it's more likely at least 80% of them will be using
64-bit Windows). That's a pretty broad baseline of entrenched users. (In the
Linux count, it's probably closer to 100% will be using 64-bit Linux,
because it's a more techno-savvy bunch.) The reason we can assume that that
many would be using a 64-bit OS is simply because that's what will come
packaged with their systems; the early adopters who will get a 32-bit
Windows packaged with their systems will likely be upgrading very quickly to
64-bit once it becomes available.

Anyways, Intel has indirectly admitted that it's going to be adopting AMD64,
because during the IDF it basically has said that it plans to introduce
64-bit desktop processors in the 2006-2007 time period "when the base of
64-bit desktop software is there". So who's going to be building that base
of 64-bit desktop software if it isn't AMD? It never mentioned AMD by name,
but it's clear who is the only one besides Intel who is capable of building
it.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan

09-26-2003, 02:21 PM

"Eric Gisin" <ericg@indisputable.info> wrote in message
news:bl26ot0esi@enews1.newsguy.com... Windows NT 3.5 was out in 94, and ran on 386DX. NT had over 10% of market
at its peak, that's more than any alternate OS, including all PC *NIX put together.

And let's not forget that Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc. were also all
available by around 90. And I think NT 3.1 was also available probably by
around 89.

Yousuf Khan

Judd

09-26-2003, 02:38 PM

Anyways, Intel has indirectly admitted that it's going to be adopting
AMD64, because during the IDF it basically has said that it plans to introduce 64-bit desktop processors in the 2006-2007 time period "when the base of 64-bit desktop software is there". So who's going to be building that base of 64-bit desktop software if it isn't AMD? It never mentioned AMD by
name, but it's clear who is the only one besides Intel who is capable of
building it. Yousuf Khan

Good reasoning.

Judd

Louis

09-26-2003, 04:25 PM

Louis

09-26-2003, 04:34 PM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 22:21:41 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in messagenews:tc0db.653$kb5.25040@news.uswest.net... It's all about volume Yousuf. You'll create for the largest marketwhether 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 youcan see why now). All of them will build products for whatever they put outand be the first to do it.Exactly right, and AMD is no small-fry when it comes to pumping out involume. By the time Intel is ready with a 64-bit desktop, AMD will alreadyhave an established base of tens of millions of units. I will assume that itwill take Intel at least two years, first they will have to tape it out, andthen implement the manufacturing process. It took AMD not too long to tapeit out, but it took them a good while to get the manufacturing right becauseof all of the new technology going into it, such as SOI, etc.From that base of tens of millions, and ignoring the Linux factor, justlooking at Windows users, we can assume *at least* half of them will beusing a 64-bit Windows (it's more likely at least 80% of them will be using64-bit Windows). That's a pretty broad baseline of entrenched users. (In theLinux count, it's probably closer to 100% will be using 64-bit Linux,because it's a more techno-savvy bunch.) The reason we can assume that thatmany would be using a 64-bit OS is simply because that's what will comepackaged with their systems; the early adopters who will get a 32-bitWindows packaged with their systems will likely be upgrading very quickly to64-bit once it becomes available.Anyways, Intel has indirectly admitted that it's going to be adopting AMD64,because during the IDF it basically has said that it plans to introduce64-bit desktop processors in the 2006-2007 time period "when the base of64-bit desktop software is there". So who's going to be building that baseof 64-bit desktop software if it isn't AMD? It never mentioned AMD by name,but it's clear who is the only one besides Intel who is capable of buildingit.

Do you really think that Intel has planned to let AMD set the standard and then release their
compatible product to the market ?
1) It would be a suicide and shareholders would be far from happy and the CEO probably fired because
that would cause IA64 to never reach desktop market = read: never reach mass production...
2) It would make Intel look really bad and managers would probably start questioning why having
spent tons of money in R&D over IA64 ...

When they said 2006-2007 for 64bit computing they meant that that was the planned date at that time
for the introduction of IA64 to desktop. They never referenced AMD simply because they meant that
they will be setting the 64bit standard for desktop.

Anyway, if one of the latest article on TheInquirer website will prove to be true in the next few
months then Intel might have the chance to let the users decide what kind of 64bit extension module
they want to buy and use for their Pentium 5..

Louis

09-26-2003, 04:37 PM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:30:33 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Scott Alfter" <salfter@salfter.dyndns.org> wrote in messagenews:YL1db.6402$Rd4.2111@fed1read07...Another childish socialistic anti-Rambus anti-intel no-global styleanswer... "Socialistic?" Hardly. I just don't believe that barratry is a valid or sustainable business model. Rambus learned that lesson the hard way, and SCO is about to learn it. It is obvious that you aren't in possession of all the facts of the matter, so I would suggest that you STFU and let the adults in here continue their discussion in a more rational manner.Well, at this point in time, it doesn't look like the socialist countriesare doing all that bad. Still running a surplus. :-)

Where ? In which world ?
Germany economy (and overall quality of life) under socialistic control has been litterally
destroyed...
Socialistic politicians transformed the EuropeanUnion, the ONU and NATO into anti-USA countries..
and those institutions were invented by the US in first place....
Commies practically infiltrated constitution and economy.

Yousuf Khan

09-26-2003, 05:06 PM

<anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:3gm9nvghflvb6ki575jemkkr6kg5rnfkm0@4ax.com... Do you really think that Intel has planned to let AMD set the standard and
then release their compatible product to the market ?

Sure, why not? AMD can set the initial standard for AMD64, but there is
plenty of opportunity to set other standards after that, such as SSE3 for
example which AMD can in its own turn adopt. The standards are a moving
target.
1) It would be a suicide and shareholders would be far from happy and the
CEO probably fired because that would cause IA64 to never reach desktop market = read: never reach
mass production...

Not at all, there's plenty of business ventures that Intel has entered,
spent lots of money on, and then abandonned because it didn't pan out; in
some cases it even spent money and not even brought out a product,
abandonning it before it was born. And in none of those cases has Intel ever
gone bankrupt or fired their CEO. To name just a few: 3D graphics chipsets,
home networking gear, corporate networking gear, consumer electronics, etc.
Relax it's a big company, it won't go bankrupt because of Itanium.

And besides, I'm sure it can make Itanium pay for itself eventually by being
HP's fab for big-ticket Unix server processors. Itanium doesn't have to come
to mass production.
2) It would make Intel look really bad and managers would probably start
questioning why having spent tons of money in R&D over IA64 ...

Yeah, sure, they'll be a little mad about it, and some heads may roll
(low-level heads, mind you, not executive heads), but Intel will still be
profitable. You gotta spend money to make money, and not all of your spent
money is going to return money. That's just the price of being in business.
When they said 2006-2007 for 64bit computing they meant that that was the
planned date at that time for the introduction of IA64 to desktop. They never referenced AMD simply
because they meant that they will be setting the 64bit standard for desktop.

Sure that's one possible interpretation of it, but they did say that they
were expecting an installed base of 64-bit desktop software to be already
available by then. Since IA64 doesn't play in the desktop game, so where
else is Intel's ready-made desktop software base supposed to be coming from?
UltraSparc? PA-RISC? Alpha? None of those play in the desktop space either.
Anyway, if one of the latest article on TheInquirer website will prove to
be true in the next few months then Intel might have the chance to let the users decide what kind
of 64bit extension module they want to buy and use for their Pentium 5..

It seems highly implausible for Intel come out with a 64-bit extension
without taping it out first months ago.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan

09-26-2003, 05:06 PM

<anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:2qm9nv8ffa380eah33d2pt6q11emgkg0n3@4ax.com... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:30:33 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com> wrote:Well, at this point in time, it doesn't look like the socialist countriesare doing all that bad. Still running a surplus. :-) Where ? In which world ? Germany economy (and overall quality of life) under socialistic control
has been litterally destroyed...

Canada, for one. We've been called socialist by more than one American hack.
:-)

Even the Russians are running a budget surplus right now, believe it or not.

Yousuf Khan

Keith R. Williams

09-26-2003, 06:11 PM

In article <Vlucb.57169$Lnr1.37406
@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com says... "Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:MPG.19dc125d44a77ffa98a6fa@enews.newsguy.com... 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. We weren't really talking about the realistic case, we were really talking about the hypothetical case, where Intel does decide to bring out an x86-compatible 64-bit desktop processor.

Gee, even Howie Dean refuses to talk about "hypotheticals". Why
bother with them if the boss has spoken?
The more realistic case is that it would try to pass off a variation of its Itanium architecture as a desktop processsor rather than some x86 processor.

Fine. Where is the OS and where are are the applications.
....and *DAMMIT* why doesn't my old (looks up at the kidz library)
Quest not work?! No, I don't see this either.
But I do think eventually Intel will adopt the AMD64 architecture, though it will be brought to it kicking and screaming.

I think there is a chance they'll ignore it until they choke!
The precedent for it exists, which was IBM PS/2 vs. the world. Eventually IBM relented on that one, though it took several technological generations. It never did accept EISA, but it accepted VESA and PCI which were other successors to the ISA bus.

This is in no way a similar situation. IBM had good reason to
continue with Microchannel, beyond the PC world. It was designed
for the server world, not crappy PCs. It was denigrated because
the crappy PC world didn't see the real need. PCI was the only
solution that sorta met the requirements placed on Microchannel
many years before.

BTW, it's a good thing IBM *didn't* accept EISA. That thing was
a horrible disaster. Design-by-committee is the only kind thing
one can say about it. It simply didn't work!

IBM accepted PCI because it made some sense. It wasn't like
accepting VAX as the processor architecture. Let's get real
here, Yousuf!

--
Keith

Keith R. Williams

09-26-2003, 06:16 PM

In article <3f742d47$1@duster.adelaide.on.net>,
timken@internode.on.net says... "Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:MPG.19dc125d44a77ffa98a6fa@enews.newsguy.com... In article <Ftjcb.45001$Lnr1.10761 @news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.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.

I thing both you and Youseuf are wrong here. This isn't about
some peripheral technology they "screwed up". This is about the
*core competency* of the parent company. If Intel decides that
FireWire is great stuff, no big deal. OTOH, if Intel buys into
AMD's architecture, who needs Intel? They've lost the
architecture battle. They're instantly an also-ran.

....very different things we're talking about here.

--
Keith

Keith R. Williams

09-26-2003, 06:21 PM

In article <omd8nv01dm3ihphioe87orjrf9dr72045f@4ax.com>,
chrisv@nospam.invalid says... On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:35:03 -0400, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:The interesting question being, of course, just how Intel would manage toship such a product in volume if Windows didn't support it. Theirexperience with Itanic (even *with* Microsoft support) might make them justa 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..."

Billy would laugh. Perhaps take the money, produce shite, but
laugh all the same. I do believe Billy laid out the law years
ago. Intel has had their choice of 64bit Windows, as requested.

--
Keith

Guest

09-26-2003, 06:36 PM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:10:52 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
wrote:

....snip...Itanic? Hell, the 386 proved it. Win95 was out when the P6-Pentiom Procame 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 PentiumPro. That showed you right there who was in charge but MS has had a freeride way too long. It's time for someone to seriously challenge them.
^^^^^^^

Thanks, but no, thanks. From programmer's point of view, it would be
a pain to support. Thank God, Netscape is dead, and the only web
client I need to test for is IE (would be just as happy if Netscape
won, and IE died). IMHO, one of the reasons that impeded the spread
of UNIX was being too many of them - AIX, hp-ux, solaris, ultrix,
linux(es), etc., and each not fully compatible with the others...
I'll take a standard desktop OS over diversity any day. And that's
the reason why I'd hate if Intel decides to go with their own x86-64
not compatible with AMD.

Yousuf Khan

09-26-2003, 07:25 PM

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19debbe158bbbdfb98a705@enews.newsguy.com... In article <Vlucb.57169$Lnr1.37406 @news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com says... We weren't really talking about the realistic case, we were really
talking about the hypothetical case, where Intel does decide to bring out an x86-compatible 64-bit desktop processor. Gee, even Howie Dean refuses to talk about "hypotheticals". Why bother with them if the boss has spoken?

Why not? The current boss has spoken, not sure what the future boss has to
say yet. And perhaps even the current boss will change his mind.
The more realistic case is that it would try to pass off a variation of its Itanium architecture as a
desktop processsor rather than some x86 processor. Fine. Where is the OS and where are are the applications. ...and *DAMMIT* why doesn't my old (looks up at the kidz library) Quest not work?! No, I don't see this either.

Well then we've just run out of all possibilities. If Intel doesn't want to
bring down the IA64 ISA to the desktop, and it won't accept AMD64, then
what's it going to use? These were the only two possibilities. Unless it
decides it really likes PowerPC-64 architecture instead and decides to
standardise on that. At that point, won't all PC users look foolish then?
After years of PC users predicting the demise of the Mac, and the
assimilation of Mac into the x86 sphere, the Mac will have then assimilated
the x86 world instead. (Hey we're talking hypotheticals here.) %^)
But I do think eventually Intel will adopt the AMD64 architecture,
though it will be brought to it kicking and screaming. I think there is a chance they'll ignore it until they choke!

They'll jump ship considerably before they start choking. They've done it
with Rambus vs. DDR (Oh no, that dreaded phrase which launched a thousand
flames!): for example, if Intel were still promoting Rambus as of right this
very moment, then you could say that Intel is sticking with it till they
choke, but they've been a DDR booster for nearly two years now, so they
stopped before they choked.
The precedent for it exists, which was IBM PS/2 vs. the world. Eventually IBM relented on that one, though it took several technological generations. It never did accept
EISA, but it accepted VESA and PCI which were other successors to the ISA bus. This is in no way a similar situation. IBM had good reason to continue with Microchannel, beyond the PC world. It was designed for the server world, not crappy PCs. It was denigrated because the crappy PC world didn't see the real need.

Hmmm, where have we heard something else being described that way too? Oh I
don't know, don't they describe Itanium like that too?
PCI was the only solution that sorta met the requirements placed on Microchannel many years before. BTW, it's a good thing IBM *didn't* accept EISA. That thing was a horrible disaster. Design-by-committee is the only kind thing one can say about it. It simply didn't work!

Ancient history, but there wasn't much that the MCA bus had over the EISA
bus either. Certainly not backward compatibility.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan

09-26-2003, 07:25 PM

"nobody@nowhere.net" <MyGarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0t9nv0h0lmeeitpe1aqtbhemo241dfps3@4ax.com... Thanks, but no, thanks. From programmer's point of view, it would be a pain to support. Thank God, Netscape is dead, and the only web client I need to test for is IE (would be just as happy if Netscape won, and IE died). IMHO, one of the reasons that impeded the spread of UNIX was being too many of them - AIX, hp-ux, solaris, ultrix, linux(es), etc., and each not fully compatible with the others... I'll take a standard desktop OS over diversity any day. And that's the reason why I'd hate if Intel decides to go with their own x86-64 not compatible with AMD.

Actually what impeded Unix was not only too many flavors of it, but also
each flavor was too expensive. Linux still keeps that too many flavors
heritage, but keeps at a nice reasonable price.

Yousuf Khan

Scott Alfter

09-26-2003, 07:51 PM

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

In article <f0t9nv0h0lmeeitpe1aqtbhemo241dfps3@4ax.com>,
nobody@nowhere.net <MyGarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:Thanks, but no, thanks. From programmer's point of view, it would bea pain to support. Thank God, Netscape is dead, and the only webclient I need to test for is IE

So you're one of those morons who thinks that if it works in IE, it's good
enough. Ever hear of standards? Write your webpages to those and you don't
have to care about whether I'm using IE or Mozilla or Lynx or whatever.

_/_ Scott Alfter (address in header doesn't receive mail)
/ v \ send email to $firstname@$lastname.us
(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/dQkpVgTKos01OwkRAoZZAKCirM2MI0oMcBrEd1RNX9jHgXu2jwCgoRj3
v/Zqk8R8ZTcKpcsDFeZLWoM=
=v0xG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Carlo Razzeto

09-26-2003, 08:15 PM

"nobody@nowhere.net" <MyGarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0t9nv0h0lmeeitpe1aqtbhemo241dfps3@4ax.com... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:10:52 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote: ...snip... Thank God, Netscape is dead, and the only web client I need to test for is IE (would be just as happy if Netscape won, and IE died).

I'm not sure the netscape is necessarly dead, but they did something just as
good. They started supporting the standards W3C laid out... And amazingly
enough I wouldn't doubt it if that little idea came from AOL not what was
left of NS. So as long as you don't delve too deeply into CSS you are just
fine writing your web pages for and testing in IE because chances are NS
will support it in pretty much exactly the same way. Of course if you do
decide you love CSS like one of my former employers did and force people to
do your page layouts in CSS then you're in big big trouble... Probably yet
another reason why that company went under and I'm out looking for another
job... Such is life.

Carlo

The little lost angel

09-26-2003, 10:19 PM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:36:40 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
<MyGarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, but no, thanks. From programmer's point of view, it would bea pain to support. Thank God, Netscape is dead, and the only webclient I need to test for is IE (would be just as happy if Netscapewon, and IE died).

Netscape's far from dead, if it is, they wouldn't be bothering still
releasing new versions even at this point. A competent web designer
should not have problem making pages that work in both IE & NS.

I sure hope you test for graceful degradation too or do you demand
that your clients make their clients upgrade to the newest copy of IE
all the time? :P

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

Tony Hill

09-26-2003, 11:12 PM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:12:25 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
wrote:It's all about volume Yousuf. You'll create for the largest market whetheryou want to or not. Intel has the ability to produce large quantities ofmicroprocessors very quickly.

Large volume, yes, quickly? That depends on how you define "quickly".
Even Intel can't just whip something out overnight and expect it to be
supported the next day. Designing a new processor takes time, even if
you are basing it on an existing chip. We're talking a minimum of
months here, and that's assuming that they're nearly finished already
and just haven't bothered telling anyone about it. More likely it'll
be another two years if Intel really starts into the chip design
today.

Ohh, and before someone starts pointing to The Inquirer's claim that
Prescott is a 64-bit chip, I really don't buy that one. Take a look
at the "evidence" they used to back it up and you'll see that it's
REALLY weak. Their new claim about Tejas being a 64-bit chip is based
on even more off-the-wall non-evidence.
They'll support it if they want $$$.

Yes, but not overnight. It takes time for MS to rewrite and retest
their operating systems for a new architecture. Months? Years?
Microsoft has had the AMD64 instruction set for several years now, and
they've had the hardware for over a year. Hardware has been publicly
available for half a year, but still no operating system. The same
was true with IA-64.
Besides, Intel has invested deeply into many of the Linux OS's (and you cansee why now). All of them will build products for whatever they put out andbe the first to do it.

Again, it will happen, but it will take time. Intel would be really
lucky to get 64-bit operating system support for some non-AMD64
extension of x86 within two years time. By the end of 2005, AMD will
have quite a large installed base of AMD64 processors.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Tony Hill

09-26-2003, 11:12 PM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:34:30 GMT, anon@anon.com wrote:On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 22:21:41 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com>wrote:Anyways, Intel has indirectly admitted that it's going to be adopting AMD64,because during the IDF it basically has said that it plans to introduce64-bit desktop processors in the 2006-2007 time period "when the base of64-bit desktop software is there". So who's going to be building that baseof 64-bit desktop software if it isn't AMD? It never mentioned AMD by name,but it's clear who is the only one besides Intel who is capable of buildingit.Do you really think that Intel has planned to let AMD set the standard and then release theircompatible product to the market ?1) It would be a suicide and shareholders would be far from happy and the CEO probably fired becausethat would cause IA64 to never reach desktop market = read: never reach mass production...

It's quickly looking like that will be the case regardless of whether
Intel brings out a 64-bit x86 extension or not.
2) It would make Intel look really bad and managers would probably start questioning why havingspent tons of money in R&D over IA64 ...

"Start questioning"? Uhh, did you miss the past 5 years or missed
shipping dates, poorly received products, lack of software for IA-64
and only a tiny fraction of the market share that was originally
planned? IA-64 is doing VERY poorly and has since it's introduction.
AMD has already shipped almost as many AMD64 chips in 5 months as
Intel has shipped IA-64 chips in 4 years.

Itanium is VERY rapidly looking like it will be very much a niche
processor that will replace PA-RISC as HP's high-end unix server chip.
Sure, IBM, Dell and SGI are all selling Itanium systems as well, but
for Q2 of this year none of them managed to make it to the double
digits for the total number of servers sold. HP currently sells
roughly 98% of all Itanium systems.
When they said 2006-2007 for 64bit computing they meant that that was the planned date at that timefor the introduction of IA64 to desktop. They never referenced AMD simply because they meant thatthey will be setting the 64bit standard for desktop.

AMD64 may end up being Intel's only chance. The Itanium was supposed
to completely own the server market by now and have mostly taken over
the high-end workstations and be pushing down into the desktop world.
It's WELL behind schedule, and it may well never succeed. Even Intel
knows that at some point in time you have to abandon a sinking ship.
Itanium may not have sunk yet, but it's taking on water REAL fast.
Anyway, if one of the latest article on TheInquirer website will prove to be true in the next fewmonths then Intel might have the chance to let the users decide what kind of 64bit extension modulethey want to buy and use for their Pentium 5..

Hehe, I read that one, and I have to say that this is one of the most
off-the-wall predictions that the Inquirer has made to date! It might
happen, I won't rule it out, but geez, they are REALLY stretching
things!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Tony Hill

09-26-2003, 11:12 PM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 22:16:17 -0400, Keith R. Williams
<krw@attglobal.net> wrote: 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.I thing both you and Youseuf are wrong here. This isn't aboutsome peripheral technology they "screwed up". This is about the*core competency* of the parent company. If Intel decides thatFireWire is great stuff, no big deal. OTOH, if Intel buys intoAMD's architecture, who needs Intel? They've lost thearchitecture battle. They're instantly an also-ran....very different things we're talking about here.

Interesting question for you: What do you think the possibilities are
that Intel will release "Intel64" or some such thing, that Intel
claims is entirely their own invention, but it just sorta-kinda
happens to be identical to AMD64?

Intel does have the marketing muscle to push that sort of thing out
into the world and make it look like they set the standard. One needs
only look at how successful "Centrino" is to realize that good
marketing can make up for poor products that are late to market.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Louis

09-27-2003, 02:29 AM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:06:31 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<anon@anon.com> wrote in messagenews:2qm9nv8ffa380eah33d2pt6q11emgkg0n3@4ax.com... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:30:33 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"<removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com> wrote:Well, at this point in time, it doesn't look like the socialist countriesare doing all that bad. Still running a surplus. :-) Where ? In which world ? Germany economy (and overall quality of life) under socialistic controlhas been litterally destroyed...Canada, for one. We've been called socialist by more than one American hack.:-)Even the Russians are running a budget surplus right now, believe it or not.

You must be totally out of mind. Although commies infiltrated their insane stupidity worldwide to
destroy the once-was capitalistc socialistic-less society and economy, well, when you go around
telling people that Russia is rich then you either are out of mind or totally ignorant or what ?
Whatever money Russian have it's only and exclusively thanks to USA economy and workforce. USA
administration since Reagan started giving a lot of money to the Russia born after the demise of the
USSR empire. So go figure where the surplus come from...
And regarding Canada.. the majority of money there comes from the USA as well.. Canada wouldn't be
as rich without the USA and without good economy agreements with it.

Spam Me Please

09-27-2003, 04:47 AM

Get a life any system can get screwed no matter what it is. There are
crooks everywhere bro.

Let's talk about chips not politics. There are news groups setup for
politics so move the discussion over there.

Later
>> "anon" == anon <anon@anon.com> writes:

anon> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:06:31 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
anon> <removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com>
anon> wrote:
<anon@anon.com> wrote in message news:2qm9nv8ffa380eah33d2pt6q11emgkg0n3@4ax.com... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:30:33 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com> wrote: >Well, at this point in time, it doesn't look like the socialist countries >are doing all that bad. Still running a surplus. :-) Where ? In which world ? Germany economy (and overall quality of life) under socialistic control has been litterally destroyed... Canada, for one. We've been called socialist by more than one American hack. :-) Even the Russians are running a budget surplus right now, believe it or not.

anon> You must be totally out of mind. Although commies infiltrated
anon> their insane stupidity worldwide to destroy the once-was
anon> capitalistc socialistic-less society and economy, well, when
anon> you go around telling people that Russia is rich then you
anon> either are out of mind or totally ignorant or what ? Whatever
anon> money Russian have it's only and exclusively thanks to USA
anon> economy and workforce. USA administration since Reagan started
anon> giving a lot of money to the Russia born after the demise of
anon> the USSR empire. So go figure where the surplus come from...
anon> And regarding Canada.. the majority of money there comes from
anon> the USA as well.. Canada wouldn't be as rich without the USA
anon> and without good economy agreements with it.

Yousuf Khan

09-27-2003, 07:49 AM

<anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:pepanvku2cu8f65a3qdspcapd82ls9j3sa@4ax.com... On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:06:31 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com> wrote:Canada, for one. We've been called socialist by more than one American
hack.:-)Even the Russians are running a budget surplus right now, believe it or
not. You must be totally out of mind. Although commies infiltrated their insane
stupidity worldwide to destroy the once-was capitalistc socialistic-less society and economy,
well, when you go around telling people that Russia is rich then you either are out of mind or
totally ignorant or what ? Whatever money Russian have it's only and exclusively thanks to USA
economy and workforce. USA administration since Reagan started giving a lot of money to the Russia
born after the demise of the USSR empire. So go figure where the surplus come from... And regarding Canada.. the majority of money there comes from the USA as
well.. Canada wouldn't be as rich without the USA and without good economy agreements with it.

Looks like I've hit a raw nerve with you, Mr. Anon At Anon, let's see how
far the knife will go. Canada: national debt to GNP is about 40% and
falling; USA: debt to GNP is about 68% and rising. :-)

Yousuf Khan

Louis

09-27-2003, 08:17 AM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:49:03 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<anon@anon.com> wrote in messagenews:pepanvku2cu8f65a3qdspcapd82ls9j3sa@4ax.com... On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:06:31 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"<removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com> wrote:Canada, for one. We've been called socialist by more than one Americanhack.:-)Even the Russians are running a budget surplus right now, believe it ornot. You must be totally out of mind. Although commies infiltrated their insanestupidity worldwide to destroy the once-was capitalistc socialistic-less society and economy,well, when you go around telling people that Russia is rich then you either are out of mind ortotally ignorant or what ? Whatever money Russian have it's only and exclusively thanks to USAeconomy and workforce. USA administration since Reagan started giving a lot of money to the Russiaborn after the demise of the USSR empire. So go figure where the surplus come from... And regarding Canada.. the majority of money there comes from the USA aswell.. Canada wouldn't be as rich without the USA and without good economy agreements with it.Looks like I've hit a raw nerve with you, Mr. Anon At Anon, let's see howfar the knife will go. Canada: national debt to GNP is about 40% andfalling; USA: debt to GNP is about 68% and rising. :-)

No, it looks like you're just an arrogant no-global guy who pushes numbers to make what it says
truth and reality.
If it was for debt/earnings numbers then the EU would be the strongest economy in the world due to
all the fuss that socialistic networks and newspapers always make to push that all the confusion
generated by socialistic governments in the EU and all the money they wasted and stole there had to
look like an advancement of the overall EU economy...
If it was for claimed economy numbers then surely all socialistic/commies governments worldwide
would be and look like the best ones at everything,including economy..
During the Clinton era USA citizens have been cheated and used like fools by the administration that
pushed the "new-economy" thing which was all a fake thing built up with the only purpose to move
money into socialistic friends bank accounts, allow socialistic friends to infiltrate into big
Companies and Corporations where they weren't allowed before (like during the, that was really good
for economy and society, Republican Reagan administration) and overall to cheat on everyone and gain
major power and control over society.
Unfortunately many people still believe that Clinton did something good, the fact is that they
destroyed the US institutions and the last elections proved how cheaters Democrats became, just like
any other socialistic group worldwide.. they all turned into a bunch of commies cheaters that want
to impose the laws and only those that they can make and can give them power and avoid anyone oppose
their control over society. This is commies/dictatorship mentality style along with no-global
terroristic organized groups invading tows worldwide like barbarians.. if I was in charge in any
country where the commies hordes tried to attack I would have killed them all and arrested all the
left scum politicians and supporters of those criminals. It can't be tolerated any longer that the
commies utopia to estabilish a worldwide commies-based dictatorship could take place.

These are the truths that make you commies quite nervous.. and you can only insult and/or kill
people in order to oblige them to shut up or make them look like fools so that no one listens to
them.

Probably if Democrats commies still had control of CIA and FBI I would be dead already just for
saying anything negative against commies and their leaders.... just because you commies really love
democracy that much that you have to oblige everyone "to love" your own "democracy"

Keith R. Williams

09-27-2003, 08:18 AM

In article <ar7db.143728$DZ.29818
@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com says... "Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:MPG.19debbe158bbbdfb98a705@enews.newsguy.com... In article <Vlucb.57169$Lnr1.37406 @news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com says... We weren't really talking about the realistic case, we were really talking about the hypothetical case, where Intel does decide to bring out an x86-compatible 64-bit desktop processor. Gee, even Howie Dean refuses to talk about "hypotheticals". Why bother with them if the boss has spoken? Why not? The current boss has spoken, not sure what the future boss has to say yet. And perhaps even the current boss will change his mind.

The "boss" I'm referring to is BillyG. He won't support more
than one 64bit x86 platform and that's AMD's. Billy will do a
64bit platform for Intel, and that's Itanic's. It not a
hypothetical that Intel is going to do an AMD64 product. The
only question is when.

I don't see Billy being replaced soon, nor anything on the
horizon that will change his mind.
The more realistic case is that it would try to pass off a variation of its Itanium architecture as a desktop processsor rather than some x86 processor. Fine. Where is the OS and where are are the applications. ...and *DAMMIT* why doesn't my old (looks up at the kidz library) Quest not work?! No, I don't see this either. Well then we've just run out of all possibilities. If Intel doesn't want to bring down the IA64 ISA to the desktop, and it won't accept AMD64, then what's it going to use? These were the only two possibilities.

The only other hope (for Intel) was that Itanic's x86 performance
was acceptable (and that still doesn't get us to 64bit). That
doesn't even seem to be a dream anymore. Ho, it's not a
hypothetical. Intel will be forced into AMD64, kicking and
screaming. They simply have to figure out a way to do it, losing
minimum face.

I see AMD64 as a possible industry inflection point. We haven't
had a good one of those in twenty years, or so. ;-)
Unless it decides it really likes PowerPC-64 architecture instead and decides to standardise on that. At that point, won't all PC users look foolish then? After years of PC users predicting the demise of the Mac, and the assimilation of Mac into the x86 sphere, the Mac will have then assimilated the x86 world instead. (Hey we're talking hypotheticals here.) %^)

Maybe you're having a good time... Can I have a hit? ;-)
But I do think eventually Intel will adopt the AMD64 architecture, though it will be brought to it kicking and screaming. I think there is a chance they'll ignore it until they choke! They'll jump ship considerably before they start choking. They've done it with Rambus vs. DDR (Oh no, that dreaded phrase which launched a thousand flames!): for example, if Intel were still promoting Rambus as of right this very moment, then you could say that Intel is sticking with it till they choke, but they've been a DDR booster for nearly two years now, so they stopped before they choked.

DRDRAM is a completely different issue as well. That was a
technology they bought (and backed). Dropping it in favor of DDR
wasn't a major endorsement of a competitor's (who they try to who
they try to publicly ignore) technology, design/architectural
prowess, and *product*.
The precedent for it exists, which was IBM PS/2 vs. the world. Eventually IBM relented on that one, though it took several technological generations. It never did accept EISA, but it accepted VESA and PCI which were other successors to the ISA bus. This is in no way a similar situation. IBM had good reason to continue with Microchannel, beyond the PC world. It was designed for the server world, not crappy PCs. It was denigrated because the crappy PC world didn't see the real need. Hmmm, where have we heard something else being described that way too? Oh I don't know, don't they describe Itanium like that too?

Itanic hasn't lived up to its hype. It's shipped, what in four
digits (I dare say MCA shipped more than four digits ;-), what,
five years after it was supposed to churn everything in its wake
under? IBM got what it really needed out of MCA until the PCI
bus essentially replaced that need. The rest of the industry
suffered along with the ISA bus.
PCI was the only solution that sorta met the requirements placed on Microchannel many years before. BTW, it's a good thing IBM *didn't* accept EISA. That thing was a horrible disaster. Design-by-committee is the only kind thing one can say about it. It simply didn't work! Ancient history, but there wasn't much that the MCA bus had over the EISA bus either. Certainly not backward compatibility.

The difference is that MCA *worked*. EISA was a horrid disaster.
Cards from one company wouldn't work in systems from another.
One of the groups I was tangentially working with (same
department, different project) was designing an EISA bridge.
After something like five re-spins (they kept finding computers
the latest widget wouldn't work in) they figured out it simply
wasn't possible to make a controller that would work in all
systems. The EISA specs were so loose and ill-defined that
different boxes simply worked too differently. EISA was an
unmitigated disaster.

--
Keith

Yousuf Khan

09-27-2003, 09:01 AM

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19df82574067940198a70d@enews.newsguy.com... The "boss" I'm referring to is BillyG. He won't support more than one 64bit x86 platform and that's AMD's. Billy will do a 64bit platform for Intel, and that's Itanic's. It not a hypothetical that Intel is going to do an AMD64 product. The only question is when.

Oh, *that* boss, I was thinking of Craig Barret and Paul Otellini. My fool,
sorry. :-)
Well then we've just run out of all possibilities. If Intel doesn't want
to bring down the IA64 ISA to the desktop, and it won't accept AMD64, then what's it going to use? These were the only two possibilities. The only other hope (for Intel) was that Itanic's x86 performance was acceptable (and that still doesn't get us to 64bit). That doesn't even seem to be a dream anymore. Ho, it's not a hypothetical. Intel will be forced into AMD64, kicking and screaming. They simply have to figure out a way to do it, losing minimum face.

Yeah, it might not look so good if in Intel's next marketing push it has put
in the little fine print at the bottom saying, "AMD64 (TM) is a trademark of
AMD Inc.". :-)

However, Itanium is looking increasingly like the Intel chip that it
produces for HP and its HP-UX Unix. But who knows, maybe they can come up
with a hybrid chip that combines IA32 and IA64 at the hardware level?
Unless it decides it really likes PowerPC-64 architecture instead and decides to standardise on that. At that point, won't all PC users look foolish
then? After years of PC users predicting the demise of the Mac, and the assimilation of Mac into the x86 sphere, the Mac will have then
assimilated the x86 world instead. (Hey we're talking hypotheticals here.) %^) Maybe you're having a good time... Can I have a hit? ;-)

No, get your own! :-)
They'll jump ship considerably before they start choking. They've done
it with Rambus vs. DDR (Oh no, that dreaded phrase which launched a
thousand flames!): for example, if Intel were still promoting Rambus as of right
this very moment, then you could say that Intel is sticking with it till they choke, but they've been a DDR booster for nearly two years now, so they stopped before they choked. DRDRAM is a completely different issue as well. That was a technology they bought (and backed). Dropping it in favor of DDR wasn't a major endorsement of a competitor's (who they try to who they try to publicly ignore) technology, design/architectural prowess, and *product*.

No, they weren't endorsing a competitor's technology, but they were giving
up on their own technology roadmaps under pressure from what essentially are
its supplier companies. And these companies also got a little push from
Intel's competitors, AMD and VIA.
Hmmm, where have we heard something else being described that way too?
Oh I don't know, don't they describe Itanium like that too? Itanic hasn't lived up to its hype. It's shipped, what in four digits (I dare say MCA shipped more than four digits ;-), what, five years after it was supposed to churn everything in its wake under? IBM got what it really needed out of MCA until the PCI bus essentially replaced that need. The rest of the industry suffered along with the ISA bus.

And Intel probably makes more money from selling Itaniums than IBM made from
selling the MCA buses, too. So what?

Regardless, the numbers aren't the point, it's the philosophy that's the
same in both cases. In each case, you had one humongous company telling the
world to go in a certain direction, and the rest of the world resisting, and
the humongous company digging in its heals in response.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan

09-27-2003, 09:58 AM

<anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:eadbnv059e183r7hifdant8dn54a9uruhj@4ax.com...Looks like I've hit a raw nerve with you, Mr. Anon At Anon, let's see howfar the knife will go. Canada: national debt to GNP is about 40% andfalling; USA: debt to GNP is about 68% and rising. :-) No, it looks like you're just an arrogant no-global guy who pushes numbers
to make what it says truth and reality.

Oh, I'm truly sorry to push facts and figures, next time I'll just make
unsubstantiated claims. :-)

Boy, this must be really shaking your neo-conservative world to its
foundations, judging by the big long rambling paragraph you posted below.
Calm down, take the Prozac, and let's get back to your happy place; so
repeat after me, "Rush Limbaugh is the only
one that speaks the truth, Rush Limbaugh is the only one that speaks the
truth". Then click your heals twice (or is that three times, can't ever
remember). %^)
If it was for debt/earnings numbers then the EU would be the strongest
economy in the world due to all the fuss that socialistic networks and newspapers always make to push
that all the confusion generated by socialistic governments in the EU and all the money they
wasted and stole there had to look like an advancement of the overall EU economy... If it was for claimed economy numbers then surely all socialistic/commies
governments worldwide would be and look like the best ones at everything,including economy.. During the Clinton era USA citizens have been cheated and used like fools
by the administration that pushed the "new-economy" thing which was all a fake thing built up with
the only purpose to move money into socialistic friends bank accounts, allow socialistic friends to
infiltrate into big Companies and Corporations where they weren't allowed before (like during
the, that was really good for economy and society, Republican Reagan administration) and overall to
cheat on everyone and gain major power and control over society. Unfortunately many people still believe that Clinton did something good,
the fact is that they destroyed the US institutions and the last elections proved how cheaters
Democrats became, just like any other socialistic group worldwide.. they all turned into a bunch of
commies cheaters that want to impose the laws and only those that they can make and can give them
power and avoid anyone oppose their control over society. This is commies/dictatorship mentality style
along with no-global terroristic organized groups invading tows worldwide like barbarians.. if
I was in charge in any country where the commies hordes tried to attack I would have killed them
all and arrested all the left scum politicians and supporters of those criminals. It can't be
tolerated any longer that the commies utopia to estabilish a worldwide commies-based dictatorship could
take place. These are the truths that make you commies quite nervous.. and you can
only insult and/or kill people in order to oblige them to shut up or make them look like fools so
that no one listens to them. Probably if Democrats commies still had control of CIA and FBI I would be
dead already just for saying anything negative against commies and their leaders.... just
because you commies really love democracy that much that you have to oblige everyone "to love" your own
"democracy"

Louis

09-27-2003, 10:12 AM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:58:52 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<anon@anon.com> wrote in messagenews:eadbnv059e183r7hifdant8dn54a9uruhj@4ax.com...Looks like I've hit a raw nerve with you, Mr. Anon At Anon, let's see howfar the knife will go. Canada: national debt to GNP is about 40% andfalling; USA: debt to GNP is about 68% and rising. :-) No, it looks like you're just an arrogant no-global guy who pushes numbersto make what it says truth and reality.Oh, I'm truly sorry to push facts and figures, next time I'll just makeunsubstantiated claims. :-)Boy, this must be really shaking your neo-conservative world to itsfoundations, judging by the big long rambling paragraph you posted below.Calm down, take the Prozac, and let's get back to your happy place; sorepeat after me, "Rush Limbaugh is the onlyone that speaks the truth, Rush Limbaugh is the only one that speaks thetruth". Then click your heals twice (or is that three times, can't everremember). %^)

The fact is, it's not me getting nervous, although you probably hope I would .. It's not me
insulting here but you. You commies insult others everytime they say something true that irritates
what your leaders put inside your heads.
It's a fact that you can't judge by yourself nor think without your political parties leaders
anything. Whoever tries to think by his/her own it's immediately considered a traitor, a renegade..
that's a fact and history proves this communistic attitude in many countries....
It's a fact that you commies no-global can't accept democracy. Since Bush get elected, even when you
tried your best at cheating and generating votes (something you surely can master like no one else..
cheating "it's a real art" for commies...'68 movements people along with their families
especially...) you started doing anything illegal you could have tried to do and tried to start a
civil-war. That's the way you love democracy.. as long as you can cheat it, cheat on people and
control everyone like slaves then it's good.

Yousuf Khan

09-27-2003, 11:24 AM

<anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:uckbnvcbi4ejevp1hilormp9s74tpm9r23@4ax.com...Oh, I'm truly sorry to push facts and figures, next time I'll just makeunsubstantiated claims. :-)Boy, this must be really shaking your neo-conservative world to itsfoundations, judging by the big long rambling paragraph you posted below.Calm down, take the Prozac, and let's get back to your happy place; sorepeat after me, "Rush Limbaugh is the onlyone that speaks the truth, Rush Limbaugh is the only one that speaks thetruth". Then click your heals twice (or is that three times, can't everremember). %^) The fact is, it's not me getting nervous, although you probably hope I
would .. It's not me insulting here but you. You commies insult others everytime they say
something true that irritates what your leaders put inside your heads.

Heh-heh-heh, I truly like you, Anon At Anon, it hasn't been so easy to set
someone up in a long long time. Thanks for all of the laughs. %^)

Yousuf Khan
It's a fact that you can't judge by yourself nor think without your
political parties leaders anything. Whoever tries to think by his/her own it's immediately
considered a traitor, a renegade.. that's a fact and history proves this communistic attitude in many
countries.... It's a fact that you commies no-global can't accept democracy. Since Bush
get elected, even when you tried your best at cheating and generating votes (something you surely can
master like no one else.. cheating "it's a real art" for commies...'68 movements people along with
their families especially...) you started doing anything illegal you could have tried to
do and tried to start a civil-war. That's the way you love democracy.. as long as you can cheat
it, cheat on people and control everyone like slaves then it's good.

Louis

09-27-2003, 11:53 AM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:24:07 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<anon@anon.com> wrote in messagenews:uckbnvcbi4ejevp1hilormp9s74tpm9r23@4ax.com...Oh, I'm truly sorry to push facts and figures, next time I'll just makeunsubstantiated claims. :-)Boy, this must be really shaking your neo-conservative world to itsfoundations, judging by the big long rambling paragraph you posted below.Calm down, take the Prozac, and let's get back to your happy place; sorepeat after me, "Rush Limbaugh is the onlyone that speaks the truth, Rush Limbaugh is the only one that speaks thetruth". Then click your heals twice (or is that three times, can't everremember). %^) The fact is, it's not me getting nervous, although you probably hope Iwould .. It's not me insulting here but you. You commies insult others everytime they saysomething true that irritates what your leaders put inside your heads.Heh-heh-heh, I truly like you, Anon At Anon, it hasn't been so easy to setsomeone up in a long long time. Thanks for all of the laughs. %^)

It's common practice for commies like you to try to make any right-wing electors look fool like
this.
What's for sure is that socialistic/communistic people are the ones creating racism in first place.
You hate whoever doesn't tell you that you're gods of some sort like you believe to be...
Due to all the confusion that you socialistic/communistic people put on our society and all the
people that get distorted by your insane thoughts and made slave, then I can only be afraid of your
existence because you act like parasytes, you have no clue of what freedom and democracy really are.
Your actions every single day always show this fact clearly,indeed.

Yousuf Khan

09-27-2003, 12:59 PM

<anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:ucqbnv02sqob4he2qmp1gcq2ajli4s7l94@4ax.com...Heh-heh-heh, I truly like you, Anon At Anon, it hasn't been so easy to
setsomeone up in a long long time. Thanks for all of the laughs. %^) It's common practice for commies like you to try to make any right-wing
electors look fool like this.

ROFLMAO, heh-heh, now stop that! You're making this way too easy. We'll
never get out of this hilarity if you keep making it so tempting for me. %^)

Yousuf Khan
What's for sure is that socialistic/communistic people are the ones
creating racism in first place. You hate whoever doesn't tell you that you're gods of some sort like you
believe to be... Due to all the confusion that you socialistic/communistic people put on
our society and all the people that get distorted by your insane thoughts and made slave, then I
can only be afraid of your existence because you act like parasytes, you have no clue of what freedom
and democracy really are. Your actions every single day always show this fact clearly,indeed.

Yousuf Khan

09-27-2003, 12:59 PM

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:17d9f72294202a44d3609676bcc3b291@news.1usenet.com... IBM screwed up with MCA. The technology might have been good, but the execution was bad, and that killed them. If they had offered an MCA to ISA bridge, the bus would have caught on and we might all have PCs using a derivative of the MCA bus now instead of PCI. IBM just got too arrogant and assumed that if they said it was so, everyone would listen and follow blindly.

Exactly, IBM used to say that there was no way to make MCA and ISA
compatible, so stop asking. But PCI, showed them how it's possible to make
ISA a subsystem under the main bus.

Yousuf Khan

Tony Hill

09-27-2003, 01:07 PM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 06:19:08 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:36:40 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"<MyGarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:Thanks, but no, thanks. From programmer's point of view, it would bea pain to support. Thank God, Netscape is dead, and the only webclient I need to test for is IE (would be just as happy if Netscapewon, and IE died).Netscape's far from dead, if it is, they wouldn't be bothering stillreleasing new versions even at this point. A competent web designershould not have problem making pages that work in both IE & NS.

Personally I find modern versions of Netscape (or, more to the point,
Mozilla) to be FAR superior to IE. The only time I ever load up IE is
the odd case where someone made a brain-dead page that won't display
right on Mozilla. Of course, 99% of the time that is because the
webpage has scripts that look for either IE or non-IE browsers, and
display a functional page for IE and a broken page for non-IE browsers
(usually designed for Netscape 4.x, which was BADLY broken).
I sure hope you test for graceful degradation too or do you demandthat your clients make their clients upgrade to the newest copy of IEall the time? :P

I just wish that everyone would code to at least some semblance of
proper standards. If you run a simple webpage through an HTML
verification tool, it's rare to see less than 50 points where pages
fail to meet the specification, and it's certainly not abnormal to see
pages which have 100-200 or more faults in them. Most of these may be
relatively insignificant faults, but they do add up. The fact that
today's browsers can display most webpages at all is a testament to
their quality.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Tony Hill

09-27-2003, 01:07 PM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:18:18 -0400, Keith R. Williams
<krw@attglobal.net> wrote:The "boss" I'm referring to is BillyG. He won't support morethan one 64bit x86 platform and that's AMD's. Billy will do a64bit platform for Intel, and that's Itanic's. It not ahypothetical that Intel is going to do an AMD64 product. Theonly question is when.I don't see Billy being replaced soon, nor anything on thehorizon that will change his mind.

Wait a minute.. hasn't BillyG already been replaced?! Or at least
Steve Ballmer sure likes to think that he's in charge! :>
The only other hope (for Intel) was that Itanic's x86 performancewas acceptable (and that still doesn't get us to 64bit). Thatdoesn't even seem to be a dream anymore. Ho, it's not ahypothetical. Intel will be forced into AMD64, kicking andscreaming. They simply have to figure out a way to do it, losingminimum face.

I'm starting to think that we're going to see Intel's marketing
machine start rolling in a big way. Somehow, someway, they are going
to make the world believe that AMD64 was an Intel invention :>
I see AMD64 as a possible industry inflection point. We haven'thad a good one of those in twenty years, or so. ;-)

Not since IBM got it's butt whooped in the 386 PC market at least!
Hmmm, where have we heard something else being described that way too? Oh I don't know, don't they describe Itanium like that too?Itanic hasn't lived up to its hype. It's shipped, what in fourdigits (I dare say MCA shipped more than four digits ;-), what,

Come now, it's been at least two weeks since they sold their 10,000th
Itanium processor! :> The sad thing is that I'm almost not really
even joking, total Itanium processor sales are in the 10,000 to 20,000
range since it's release in 2001.
five years after it was supposed to churn everything in its wakeunder? IBM got what it really needed out of MCA until the PCIbus essentially replaced that need. The rest of the industrysuffered along with the ISA bus.

IBM screwed up with MCA. The technology might have been good, but the
execution was bad, and that killed them. If they had offered an MCA
to ISA bridge, the bus would have caught on and we might all have PCs
using a derivative of the MCA bus now instead of PCI. IBM just got
too arrogant and assumed that if they said it was so, everyone would
listen and follow blindly.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Tony Hill

09-27-2003, 01:07 PM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:17:24 GMT, anon@anon.com wrote:No, it looks like you're just an arrogant no-global guy who pushes numbers to make what it saystruth and reality.
<drivel snip>Probably if Democrats commies still had control of CIA and FBI I would be dead already just forsaying anything negative against commies and their leaders.... just because you commies really lovedemocracy that much that you have to oblige everyone "to love" your own "democracy"

Wow, you really are a wacko aren't you? Please get back to us when
you get back to reality and when you realize that the "pinko commies"
aren't out to get you.

Please, feel free to take off the tin-foil hat and enjoy the breeze!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Johnno

09-27-2003, 01:43 PM

Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in
news:MPG.19debe1ce929236198a707@enews.newsguy.com:
In article <omd8nv01dm3ihphioe87orjrf9dr72045f@4ax.com>, chrisv@nospam.invalid says... On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:35:03 -0400, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:The interesting question being, of course, just how Intel wouldmanage to ship such a product in volume if Windows didn't supportit. Their experience with Itanic (even *with* Microsoft support)might make them just a bit hesitant to embark on such a venture, forexample. Well, there's always bribery. If Intel goes to M$ and says "here's a $billion if you support our new CPU..." Billy would laugh. Perhaps take the money, produce shite, but laugh all the same. I do believe Billy laid out the law years ago. Intel has had their choice of 64bit Windows, as requested.

How about Intel does it's own Intel86-64 or whatever. It's still binary
compatible with 32bit Windows, but has 64bitness as an extra. A bit like
AMD has done. It performs as well as usual on 32bit windows, so is
competitive with AMD64 on current applications. Intel also gives a lot of
assistance to Linux developers. So Intel still has 80% of the market for
processors, and Linux is the only desktop OS that fully supports them. Now
who's worried?

Carlo Razzeto

09-27-2003, 05:33 PM

"Johnno" <johnno@ihatespam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9403E71CB6ACEjohnnoihatespamcom@62.253.162.114... Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in news:MPG.19debe1ce929236198a707@enews.newsguy.com: In article <omd8nv01dm3ihphioe87orjrf9dr72045f@4ax.com>, chrisv@nospam.invalid says... On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:35:03 -0400, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote: How about Intel does it's own Intel86-64 or whatever. It's still binary compatible with 32bit Windows, but has 64bitness as an extra. A bit like AMD has done. It performs as well as usual on 32bit windows, so is competitive with AMD64 on current applications. Intel also gives a lot of assistance to Linux developers. So Intel still has 80% of the market for processors, and Linux is the only desktop OS that fully supports them. Now who's worried?

Hmmmm.... The most people don't buy computers for the hardware... They buy
computers for the software that runs on the hardware... I'd intel would be
in a very bad postition if they tried something like that.

Carlo

Charles Howse

09-27-2003, 05:38 PM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 22:21:42 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:
"Eric Gisin" <ericg@indisputable.info> wrote in message news:bl26ot0esi@enews1.newsguy.com... Windows NT 3.5 was out in 94, and ran on 386DX. NT had over 10% of market at its peak, that's more than any alternate OS, including all PC *NIX put together. And let's not forget that Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc. were also all available by around 90. And I think NT 3.1 was also available probably by around 89.

Those dates seem a little early. From memory I think they are closer to:

Linux started 91
FreeBSD started 92ish
NetBSD started 93
FreeBSD 1.0 available 93
NT 3.1 released 93
Usable Linux distros 93/94 ?? (subjective)

Corrections welcome :)

Cheers
Anton

Tim Sullivan

09-27-2003, 06:24 PM

salfter@salfter.dyndns.org (Scott Alfter) wrote in message news:<YL1db.6402$Rd4.2111@fed1read07>... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <ua39nvoekf1avlf06iru7r52jl315qnvqp@4ax.com>, <anon@anon.com> wrote:On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:28:38 GMT, salfter@salfter.dyndns.org (ScottAlfter) wrote:In article <nkc8nvocb3iam1ufccojsq2j0spht8k8v7@4ax.com>, <anon@anon.com> wrote:>Rambus was a superior technology to DDR...Shut up, Corse.Another childish socialistic anti-Rambus anti-intel no-global style answer... "Socialistic?" Hardly. I just don't believe that barratry is a valid or sustainable business model. Rambus learned that lesson the hard way, and SCO is about to learn it. It is obvious that you aren't in possession of all the facts of the matter, so I would suggest that you STFU and let the adults in here continue their discussion in a more rational manner. * PLONK *

It's obvious YOU are not in possession of all facts in the matter.
Rambus will be going to an infringement trial against Infineon unless
the Supreme Court overturns the CAFC ruling which cleared Rambus of
fraud. So I would suggest you STFU unless you can explain clearly what
Rambus has done wrong, except to try and enforce it's legally obtained
patents.
_/_ Scott Alfter (address in header doesn't receive mail) / v \ send email to $firstname@$lastname.us (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/dKh3VgTKos01OwkRAnuaAKDCCqgnDhEsiWByn4hWiamafxjg4ACfTBp+ MctFP3DcZya1z4JmafmKbBs= =FS83 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Keith R. Williams

09-27-2003, 06:48 PM

In article <Xns9403E71CB6ACEjohnnoihatespamcom@62.253.162.114>,
johnno@ihatespam.com says... Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in news:MPG.19debe1ce929236198a707@enews.newsguy.com: In article <omd8nv01dm3ihphioe87orjrf9dr72045f@4ax.com>, chrisv@nospam.invalid says... On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:35:03 -0400, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> 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..." Billy would laugh. Perhaps take the money, produce shite, but laugh all the same. I do believe Billy laid out the law years ago. Intel has had their choice of 64bit Windows, as requested. How about Intel does it's own Intel86-64 or whatever. It's still binary compatible with 32bit Windows, but has 64bitness as an extra. A bit like AMD has done. It performs as well as usual on 32bit windows, so is competitive with AMD64 on current applications. Intel also gives a lot of assistance to Linux developers. So Intel still has 80% of the market for processors, and Linux is the only desktop OS that fully supports them. Now who's worried?

Intel is then betting on Linux to kill the Borg. Not a smart
move, considering AMD has the help of the same wannabe Borg-
killer. I don't see the incentive, nor the payback. I don't see
the way out of this for Intel, other than some major meals of
crow. My bet isn't against Intel, but is definitely on AMD.

BTW, I see the next two years (after that...) as being very good
for the chip-makers. AMD has the advantage of timing too.

--
Keith

Keith R. Williams

09-27-2003, 06:59 PM

In article <6Tmdb.102661$Lnr1.58525
@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com says... "Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:17d9f72294202a44d3609676bcc3b291@news.1usenet.com... IBM screwed up with MCA. The technology might have been good, but the execution was bad, and that killed them. If they had offered an MCA to ISA bridge, the bus would have caught on and we might all have PCs using a derivative of the MCA bus now instead of PCI. IBM just got too arrogant and assumed that if they said it was so, everyone would listen and follow blindly. Exactly, IBM used to say that there was no way to make MCA and ISA compatible, so stop asking.

Oh good grief, here we go again. Old wars, same old stale
arguments... Yes, if we'd know the Japaneese were going to
strike 12/7/1941 the whole world might be different. If I'd
known to buy Intel stock in 1971...

The whole point of MCA was TCO. Having an ISA bus anywhere near
the processor nullified the whole TCO advantage. In that sense
there was "no way" to add an ISA bus. Look at the mess M$ got
into when trying to do automatic recognition of ISA cards.
But PCI, showed them how it's possible to make ISA a subsystem under the main bus.

Certainly, though you continue (after *years* discussing this)
to miss the whole point of MCA! Any competent engineer (I see
one in a mirror once in a while), could do (and did) an MCA to
ISA bus bridge, but it would have nullified the entire purpose of
the MCA bus to offer it as a product.

BTW, not all IBM PCs of the era were MCA. The low end were ISA.
Even IBM Marketing knew something.

--
Keith

Felger Carbon

09-27-2003, 07:20 PM

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote: I see AMD64 as a possible industry inflection point. We haven't had a good one of those in twenty years, or so. ;-)

Um. I think the day that the Pentium Pro beat all them haughty RISC
chips was a pretty darn good inflection point, Keith. Lots less than 20
years.

The little lost angel

09-27-2003, 07:58 PM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 21:07:43 GMT, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
I'm starting to think that we're going to see Intel's marketingmachine start rolling in a big way. Somehow, someway, they are goingto make the world believe that AMD64 was an Intel invention :>

Given that I see quite a few people (after studying PC101 and learning
that AMD was the 2nd source) saying that AMD was a subsidiary of Intel
until the 1990s, Intel might just pull THAT one off. :PpPppP

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

The little lost angel

09-27-2003, 08:01 PM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:59:45 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com> wrote:
ROFLMAO, heh-heh, now stop that! You're making this way too easy. We'llnever get out of this hilarity if you keep making it so tempting for me. %^)

Com'on Yousuf, you know it's not a nice thing to bait somebody who
hasn't been taking their meds... :PpPp

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

The little lost angel

09-27-2003, 08:10 PM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 21:07:42 GMT, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
wrote:Personally I find modern versions of Netscape (or, more to the point,Mozilla) to be FAR superior to IE. The only time I ever load up IE isthe odd case where someone made a brain-dead page that won't display

Yesh, I've Mozzy on one and NS7 on the other system, most pages will
work on them. Might be some cosmetic differences, like borders show up
on IE doesn't quite show up on Moz/NS7. But seldom major like in the
past with NS4.x where content goes missing.
I just wish that everyone would code to at least some semblance ofproper standards. If you run a simple webpage through an HTML

I think quite a number of us DO try. But as always, there are also a
large number who insist that IE/MS is the be all and end all and won't
want to spend just a bit more time to ensure compatibility.
verification tool, it's rare to see less than 50 points where pagesfail to meet the specification, and it's certainly not abnormal to seepages which have 100-200 or more faults in them. Most of these may berelatively insignificant faults, but they do add up. The fact thattoday's browsers can display most webpages at all is a testament totheir quality.

True, the other problem though even with running through w3c validator
is that which standard do you want to test up to? Strict?
Transitional? 3.2? 4.0?

Personally, I run the base layout through the validator then
subsequently test on NS/IE. Though since I'm not into fanciful
designs, I usually don't have too much of a problem with the
validator.

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
I