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 : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HerbVic who wrote (33958)	7/14/2002 9:23:59 PM
From: Robert Salasidis	Respond to of 213177

No there are no compatibility problems. However, if an application is not multithreaded, then thre will be no benefit from the extra processor.

To: HerbVic who wrote (33958)	7/14/2002 11:38:22 PM
From: Artslaw	Respond to of 213177

I thought there were compatibility issues with the Xeons and legacy applications. Is this a misconception? I think you are confusing Xeon with Itanium 2. The former is a 32-bit microprocessor geared toward transaction servers (the are effectively P4s w/larger caches, multithreading, etc). The later is a 64-bit microprocessor geared toward compute servers. Don't know what the compatibility issues are supposed to be, but there was some noise from AMD saying its 64-bit Hammer platform would be better because it could run the old 32-bit binaries. Although there would be some benefits to being able to run some old 32-bit software during a transition time, the whole reason for buying a 64-bit microprocessor is to address a larger memory space (i.e. 2^64 bits). I want all my applications to be recompiled for 64-bit! It's sort of like buying a DVD player and using it only to play audio CDs! It'll work fine, but it wouldn't be the wisest use of your resource. The funny thing is, I've never heard Intel comment on this. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but I guess they learned how to respond appropriately after their FDIV deal. :) Steve