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: kapkan4u who wrote (69035)	1/26/2002 2:19:34 AM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

If Hammer does hit that Spec score 1300 on 32 bit code who cares about 64 bit at this moment. ITANIC seems to be floating in quicksand. M.

To: kapkan4u who wrote (69035)	1/26/2002 3:05:47 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

It took over 15 years for i386 to get to 32 bits. Looks like Microsoft gets to play the kingmaker But back then there wasn't an alternative before Windows 95 that ran 32 bit code. Linux is a real threat to Microsoft, especially for server applications, which truthfully are 90% of the applications that really need 64 bits. AMD can still say truthfully that the Hammer processes everything internally in 64 bit chunks, i.e., it does 64 bit processing, even under Windows 98. EDIT - help me recall this. Windows 386 and Windows 3.1 really only used the "virtual 8086" mode of the 386/486/Pentium. Correct? IBM's OS/2 beat Windows 95 to market and had a true 32 bit API, but I don't think it ever had nearly as many applications written for it as Linux does now. Petz

To: kapkan4u who wrote (69035)	1/26/2002 3:37:27 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

RE:"There is plenty of time for Intel to become the spoiler. It took over 15 years for i386 to get to 32 bits. Looks like Microsoft gets to play the kingmaker" Yep Jim

To: kapkan4u who wrote (69035)	1/26/2002 6:16:42 AM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Only a tiny fraction of Hammers will be used in 64 bits by the end of 2004. There is plenty of time for Intel to become the spoiler. It took over 15 years for i386 to get to 32 bits. Looks like Microsoft gets to play the kingmaker. Microsoft certainly has some influence, but at the end of the day, they have to support whatever Intel releases. If AMD had a bigger market share, things might be different, but they don't.

To: kapkan4u who wrote (69035)	1/26/2002 4:25:09 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Kap: Sorry! It took less than a year for i386s to run a 32 bit UNIX system. I was running on Xenix 386 based version within a year of its release. Thus 32 bit server and workstation apps were within 1 to 2 years after release and worked extremely well. That it took Microsoft 15 years to duplicate this feat says more about Microsoft than anything else. All of the current x86 UNIX flavors will be running x86-64 in 64 bit mode within 6 months of release since they can not let Linux have that kind of competitive advantage. MS will be forced to follow suit, if they have any chance of keeping what enterprise level market share they have (same competitive disadvantages will force them as well (their exorbitant prices and conditions will push customers away from them even faster with dire short and long term consequences)). Conversion to 64 bit will be in less time than any before because of healthy competition and the fact the piecemeal method is assured. First OSes, then larger MUMT apps, then utilities and finally games and other consumer type software. That tiny fraction you assume will be much larger than you think! At least 10+ million Linux users will convert as soon as they have the hardware to do it (it comes naturally). I know of dozens of businesses that will follow just as fast. Pete