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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Monica Detwiler who wrote (159998)	2/24/2002 10:26:23 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: And any 64 bit code, by definition has to be written from scratch to run on AMDs Hammer - just as IA64 code needs to be rewritten from scratch. Ahhh, but the legion of 32-bit applications that companies have spent millions of dollars buying and developing won't run on Intel's 64-bit solution - but they will run on AMD's 64-bit solution. And these company's installed base of 32-bit apps will run faster on AMD's 64-bit systems than they will on AMD's or Intel's 32-bit systems. And, AMD's 64-bit solution will run 64-bit apps too, in the cases where 64-bit apps make sense. But 95% of the time, for 95% of applications, 32-bits are plenty. Intel makes you re-write, or re-buy all your existing 32-bit applications, or give up entirely and forever the chance of running any 64-bit applications without buying more new hardware. AMD makes it easy, makes it inexpensive, and makes the transition reliable and smooth - run your old apps or your new apps on the same hardware, if one of the new apps needs a little more debugging, you can easily revert to the old applications on the same hardware. With Intel's approach it isn't do or die, it's do or you're dead. But hey, it's easier for Intel that way, even if it does put their customer's businesses at risk. Intel doesn't care, they don't have to (so far!).