Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (96563)	3/3/2000 1:32:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) of 1572099

Eric, What the 386 and 486 ran is not at issue, those designs where the only viable choice. 386 was as good or better 8086/286 (thanks fo higher clock speeds) than 8086/286, 486 was better 8086/286/386 than 8086/286/386. Sledgehammer will be better 8086, 286, 386, ... P3 Coppermine, Athlon than all of those chips, probably on par with Willamette. AMD is not in such a position to dictate the direction of CPU design Intel has been dictating. AMD presents alternatives. More and more often attractive alternative to consumers. nor is Microsoft even giving lip service to it's plans to support a 64 bit AMD design. Have I claimed ever claimed that Microsoft has a 64 bit Sledgehammer OS? I pointed out that Given the 32bit Windows 2000 codebase + 64bit Merced codebase, 64 bit SledgeHammer OS would comperatively be a smaller project. Microsoft always wanted NT/Win2K to be multiplatform (it sounds good in press releases), and SledgeHammer may present an inexpensive way to achieve it. Sledgehammer will be a waste of effort if no OS exists. How so? You havn't presented one coherent argument supporting this opinion. Joe

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next