SI
SI
discoversearch

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: TGPTNDR who wrote (103827)10/28/2003 1:30:21 AM
From: rudedogRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 275872
 
The point was that Intel, if they want, can do advance work on MSFT OS level code for a 64 bit X86 extended chip and no one but Intel would know. Sure, the on-site guys are working Itanic. But Intel has a pipe for that code tree and plenty of folks who understand X86.

I am a little concerned about the complacency around how much time AMD would have before Intel could field a product. If Intel determined to do a superset of AMD64, OS software would not be much of a barrier, despite the claims of some folks here.



To: TGPTNDR who wrote (103827)10/28/2003 10:28:48 AM
From: Joe NYCRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 275872
 
TGP,

What percentage of source code in common would you expect of IA64 to AMD64 as opposed to X86-32 to AMD64?

I think the goal is to have as much source code in the kernel and drivers based on the same code. The rest, not performance critical code, will move to .NET, which is almost be definition all common.

I don't think Microsoft wants to tie up too many resources in various conversions and parallel development.

Joe


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News