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 (85768)	7/25/2002 1:39:37 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: What makes you so sure that Microsoft will release a client version of Windows for x86-64? Microsoft is desperate to get units up, and the only way to do that is to get buyers to replace existing machines. If you've got a 32-bit PC that's fast enough, why in the world would you buy the same thing but clocked a little higher? And many buyers have recently had the experience of replacing an 800 to 1000 mhz PIII with a 1600 to 2000mhz P4 and seen an average performance improvement of zero. But replacing a 32 bit machine with a 64 bit machine? Now you're getting somewhere! That's worth paying to upgrade an existing desktop (for some percentage of buyers). Microsoft knows this.

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (85768)	7/25/2002 1:48:58 AM
From: Monica Detwiler	Respond to of 275872

I believe they've only committed to a version of .NET server. Microsoft is now allowing downloading of the first RC1 (Release Candidate 1) of .NET server. A Windows 64 version is included - but only Itanium is specified as being supported. There is no mention of x86-64 support in the RC1 release. microsoft.com Windows .NET Server Customer Preview Program

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (85768)	7/25/2002 1:55:12 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

wbmw, What makes you so sure that Microsoft will release a client version of Windows for x86-64? Dave Cutler: amd.com I believe they've only committed to a version of .NET server. The next client Windows release isn't until late 2004, and they aren't likely to release anything out of cycle. This is a problem I have posted about several times in the past. I don't have an answer to it. The lack of "vehicle" with which x86-64 can be bundled is a big concern, IMO. On the other hand, if MSFT decides to release it separately, that would be a huge coup for AMD, since there would be a lot of publicity that would go with it. I think you have that backwards. IA-64 is supposed to be a 64-bit ISA without the "baggage" of x86. Of course I meant baggage, or burden of switching to new instruction set, and all the costs that go with that. Also, are you comparing Hammer to the .13u version of Itanium 2, on schedule to be launched around the same time? I don't know where the companies will actually be at which time, but both will be excellent database performers. Not based on your logic. My quote that you took was part of my comment about the pundits talking about 4GB barrier. I think the % of desktop users needing > 4 GB will be tiny, but the media pundits will be talking about it. And it will actually be possible to purchase and install > 4 GB memory at a down to earth price in 2 years or so, which will make it more of an issue. Unlike AMD's 32-bit processors, Intel's can address up to 64GB of memory, and there server products have been capable of >4GB for years already. I believe Athlon K7 can address virtual memory > 4GB, but I don't believe any chipset released so far supports it (and probably never will, with Hammer on the horizon). As far as 32bit processors accessing > 4 GB, it is ugly. Joe