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: Petz who wrote (72558)	2/27/2002 3:18:46 AM
From: ptanner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Petz, re: "The comment by Fred Weber that a Hammer processor running 32 bit applications on a 64 bit OS (i.e., SuSe Linux) will run slightly faster than a Hammer processor running 32 bit applications on a 32 bit OS (e.g., Windows XP or 2000). This means that Windows users have an incentive to switch to Linux until Microsoft corrects the situation." Um. Was the comment that 32-bit Windows apps would run faster on 64-bit Linux OS? Otherwise, I think applications would continue to limit any additional interest in making the transition. I think it is great that the performance of 32-bit apps is enhanced at all while in a 64-bit OS and agree that having non-MS 64-bit OS will encourage MS on WinXPx86-64 but the cost for shifting apps is too large for most users. Are many power hungry apps available in Linux versions or have Linux equivalents? I am still nursing an interest in exploring Linux... and a Hammer system would seem to be ideal but this would be for personal use and not business. Well, the business may need to acquire one so I can explore the potential. <g> -PT

To: Petz who wrote (72558)	2/27/2002 1:29:40 PM
From: Neil Booth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Yes, Microsoft is supporting Hammer, but we're unhappy with their schedule and expect that functional 64-bit Linux will speed it up. I'm certain this is the case. I'm equally certain that INTC is the reason that Microsoft is remaining mum. INTC cut a deal with them, when Bill wanted something bad [EDIT: err, like disabled hyperthreading], that MSFT doesn't announce they're supporting it until it is on sale. That way developers have maximum uncertainty. Neil.