Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (60506)	10/26/2001 2:46:29 PM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

>Software is notorious for lagging hardware by a huge margin. It took over ten years before the 32-bit extensions introduced by the 386 became mainstream.< Wrong! The 386 first shipped in a PC in 1985, the first mainstream 32-bit applications shipped in 1992. This is only seven years from introduction to a significant level of support. Of course, UNIX with 32-bit UNIX applications was a significant force in the 386 market well before 32-bit applications were available in the mainstream. Essentially the 386 served as a development platform for the 486 in the UNIX market, while serving as a development platform for the Pentium in the mainstream consumer market. I anticipate Hammer to serve a similar role. One advantage that the 386 has that Hammer will not is that virtual86 mode provided a significant boost in utility over the 286, even without 32-bit applications. But one advantage that Hammer will have over 386 is that, while Intel's 386 was significantly more expensive than AMD's 286, AMD's Hammer will be significantly less expensive than Intel's P4.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (60506)	10/26/2001 2:53:42 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Ten re: But I'm sure that's all Intel's fault, and AMD can "walk on water" by comparison. your arguments are in favor or against ia64? Seems like your arguments are against any revolutionary changes and in favor evolutionary changes. Did amd pay you off? Regards -Albert

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (60506)	10/26/2001 3:13:16 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Dear Tench: Re: "It took over ten years before the 32-bit extensions introduced by the 386 became mainstream." For windows maybe, but I was running 32 bit code on a 386 in 1986. Yes, it was being used as a server and the OS was Unix System V. You must have forgotten how many x86 programmers were relieved when we could simply set all of the segment registers to the same address and no longer need to worry about any other model than small. UNIX was already 32 bit long before PCs became mainstream. Pete