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: wanna_bmw who wrote (73468)	3/5/2002 4:49:18 PM
From: porn_start878	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Max, I take that evidence with a grain of salt, simply because information in header files does not an operating system make. But if AMD is correct in including WIN64 as a supported 64-bit OS for Hammer, then why hasn't Microsoft announced this? Wouldn't it make sense for Microsoft to include developers in on new OS releases? It's what they've done for every OS in the past.... Well, I don't consider it an evidence yet (Mike does). But to answer your questions, why didn't Intel announce Yahmill to developpers? The answer would also answer to your questions. Microsoft has plenty of money, and AMD probably sent them a group of engineers for free. They are paranoid and can't afford having nothing to backup if Itanium fails. All this also makes me wonder if the impossible wouldn't be happenning : Yahmill being Hammer compatible. Asus shipped white boxes before they became arguably AMD's best supporter. Microsoft wants (or wanted) to avoid engaging themselves publicly to support hammer in case its a flop. Supporting/debugging costs aren't offset easily if the OS doesn't sell well. But at the rate IA64 is selling, they may start to wonder if they have chosen the right horse. Max