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: Joe NYC who wrote (103874)	10/28/2003 10:33:29 AM
From: DRBES	Respond to of 275872

re: I don't think Microsoft wants to tie up too many resources in various conversions and parallel development. I believe that, that is precisely what the VOLE said when it denied yamhilL one year ago.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (103874)	10/28/2003 10:46:17 AM
From: TGPTNDR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Joe, Re: < 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.> Well, yes. I should really have asked the inverse question. But if the answer is 99% to 98% the answer to the real point I was trying to make is that there's most likely less work for MSFT to bring out and maintain AMD64 than IA64. Much less. Half as much? I'd guess 1/5th as much(99% to 94%). I'd guess that once the AMD64 compiler optimizations are in place the code path for X86-32 and AMD64 become virtually identical. But I think you're, maybe, more a hands in the guts kind of programmer than I. What do you think? -tgp