AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft - Microsoft Windows ; Hello You can't help to notice the significant change in hardware and software at the moment. A somewhat interesting scenerio is playing out. AMD has its x86-64 architecture, which can run 32-bit applications rather well, and promises to be able ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

  1. AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    Hello

    You can't help to notice the significant change in hardware and software at
    the moment. A somewhat interesting scenerio is playing out.

    AMD has its x86-64 architecture, which can run 32-bit applications rather
    well, and promises to be able to run 64 bit applications, when they come
    out, even better. They have forced Intel to play there hand, and now Intel
    must follow AMD's lead.

    Although Intel currently has there own IA-64 architecture, this is aimed at
    the server market, and from what I have read, if Intel wants to go 64 bit,
    Microsoft wants Intel to get a license to implement AMD x86-64
    architecture. But Intel also has Hyperthreading in there Xeon and Pentium 4
    lines, and will have a more improved version in the Prescott
    core, which may help in multitasking. But like AMD's 64 bit solution, don't
    individual applications need to be written and compiled with the new
    optimizations in mind, in order to gain any benefit?

    This is where it gets interesting. Why doesn't Microsoft have an x86-64
    version ready of Windows XP? Will Linux companies pick up the slack, and
    ban together with AMD to take some of the Windows and Intel market share?
    There are already 64-bit Linux distributions ready. Will open source
    applications be optimized for AMD x86-64? Will proprietary vendors of
    multimedia and photo editing software, optimize there applications for AMD
    x86-64 and port them to Linux? We can only hope.

    E



  2. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    Alucard wrote:

    >
    > Here is the MS/XP64bit site
    > http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/64bit/default.asp
    > Its been available for almost a year to OEMs,via MSDN and usenet warez.
    >


    Thanks for the link, but isn't that the version of Windows XP written and
    compiled for the Itanium. This shows that Microsoft has a 64 bit workstation
    solution, but the workstation must have an Intel Itanium. This will not
    install on x86-64.

    > Competition is good for all. It is good to see AMD pushing Intel harder
    > but
    > it is unlikely that any open source companies will ally with AMD. Why
    > limit their markets?


    I agree the competition is good.

    The way I worded my question may have seemed
    to imply that I was asking if there would be an official alliance between
    AMD and open source. I had in mind a de facto alliance, however temporary,
    for both AMD and open source companies to market there products while Intel
    and Microsoft got around to addressing x86-64. I read Intel may have an
    x86-64 architecture CPU out in 2005, so any work done by open source
    for x86-64 will not go to waste.

    >
    > Adobe already tried a Solaris port of PhotoShop and it did not sell.at
    > all. Unlikely there will be a Linux build especially since PhotoShop runs
    > well under Wine.


    Thats a shame. Maybe Adobe will give it another shot if they see Linux or
    FreeBSD on AMD gaining momentum.

    E




  3. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    E <75475,451@compuserve.com> wrote:
    | Alucard wrote:

    || Adobe already tried a Solaris port of PhotoShop and it did not
    || sell.at all. Unlikely there will be a Linux build especially since
    || PhotoShop runs well under Wine.
    |
    | Thats a shame. Maybe Adobe will give it another shot if they see
    | Linux or FreeBSD on AMD gaining momentum.

    The problem might be that most users of open source Op Systems, like Linux
    and FreeBSD, are used to getting their application software under a similar
    arrangement. There might not be much money to be made from commercial
    applications competing head-on with open-source equivalents like The Gimp.
    Would Microsoft ever do a Linux version of office to face Sun's Star Office
    ? Probably not !
    API bridges, like WINE, enable you to run well written Windoze
    applications under Linux so there's even less incentive.
    Drivers and utility programs are a different matter, though. Quite a
    number of hardware namufacturers are drivers for Linux, BeOS and FreeBSD as
    well as different versions of Windoze. If they didn't, they'd run the risk
    of losing out on a growing market share.
    I don't think there is much profit made out of drivers, though.
    Kevin.




  4. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    E <75475,451@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:...
    > This is where it gets interesting. Why doesn't Microsoft have an x86-64
    > version ready of Windows XP?


    Set your wayback machine to the early-mid-90's and remember that Microsoft
    sold Windows NT for a 64-bit platform (Alpha) before. Rumors have it that
    other RISC platforms were targets back then too. Clearly they have (or
    had) some internal experience with multiple target platforms, even though
    it's not nearly as extensive as the Linux experience.

    Back then the big gotcha was binary-only driver distributions that weren't
    cross-compatible. Microsoft invested a lot of time and money into some
    mitigation schemes, some of which were clever or stupid depending who you
    ask (virtualized 386 on an Alpha handling driver stuff!) but all that
    may have to be re-done... AGAIN. Linux doesn't suffer nearly so much
    from this stupidity (but it does, to some extent, as many manufacturers
    distribute binary-only drivers for Linux. That's not the fault of Linux,
    although many regard binary-only drivers as pure evil.)

    Tim.

  5. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft


    In article ,
    shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) writes:
    |> E <75475,451@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:...
    |>
    |> > This is where it gets interesting. Why doesn't Microsoft have an x86-64
    |> > version ready of Windows XP?
    |>
    |> Set your wayback machine to the early-mid-90's and remember that Microsoft
    |> sold Windows NT for a 64-bit platform (Alpha) before. Rumors have it that
    |> other RISC platforms were targets back then too. Clearly they have (or
    |> had) some internal experience with multiple target platforms, even though
    |> it's not nearly as extensive as the Linux experience.

    Rumours also have it that most of the porting was done by DEC people,
    that little of the coding has been preserved, that none of the other
    projects got off the drawing board (within Microsoft) and that most of
    the Microsoft people who did work on the Alpha have left.

    The real issue is whether the Itanium port has been done competently,
    or by simply spawning off another completely unportable code stream.
    I have not heard any reliable rumours either way.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.

  6. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 06:02:14 -0800, Tim Shoppa wrote:

    > Linux doesn't suffer nearly so much
    > from this stupidity (but it does, to some extent, as many manufacturers
    > distribute binary-only drivers for Linux. That's not the fault of
    > Linux, although many regard binary-only drivers as pure evil.)


    I'll take them. Either that, or have REALLY good, simple, step-by-step,
    never-fail instructions. Since that's usually too difficult for them to
    get right, hell, just compile me the binaries.

    You can't tell me it would take all THAT much manpower for a company
    like ATI to compile their drivers for the half-dozen or so leading Linux
    distributions. If they want their cards to be purchased by Linux users,
    they should be doing it.


  7. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    chrisv wrote:
    > You can't tell me it would take all THAT much manpower for a company
    > like ATI to compile their drivers for the half-dozen or so leading Linux
    > distributions. If they want their cards to be purchased by Linux users,
    > they should be doing it.


    I don't know what problems you'll have with ATI cards and Linux (up to now,
    I've mainly use nVidia cards, and a Matrox card), but if you go to http:/
    www.ati.com/support/faq/linux.html, you'll see that ATI does support Linux,
    and does provide proprietary binary drivers on http://mirror.ati.com
    support/driver.html. ATI also does provide informations to the Linux
    developer community (the DRI project), at least up to the Radeon 9200 (not
    the high-end ones - there, only the binary drivers are available). The
    binary drivers support only the i386 architecture, i.e. those people who
    want a real high-end graphic workstation with an Athlon 64 (or two
    Opterons) will not be able to make use of a high-end ATI card. nVidia on
    the other hand does support AMD64. Since Radeon 9x00 excel at DirectX 9
    benchmarks, while GeForce 5x00 is better at OpenGL benchmarks, it's
    probably better for a Linux user to use nVidia cards, anyway.

    --
    Bernd Paysan
    "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
    http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

  8. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote in message news:...
    > The real issue is whether the Itanium port has been done competently,
    > or by simply spawning off another completely unportable code stream.


    Historically Microsoft *seems* to have always chosen to "spawn off
    an incompatible branch". All their products have to have a unique
    set of features, the concept of having identical functionality across
    different platforms is always broken. (They do seem to have
    some grasp of "core" vs "extra" functionality.)

    I happen to believe that these decisions are usually driven by marketing,
    and not by any technical inability inside Microsoft, although I could be
    wrong. Clearly the lack of uniformity has great costs inside Microsft's
    development and support organizations; I can only assume that somehow
    this is made up for in extra sales. Probably in the same way that
    each toothpaste company now has twenty different variations ("shelf
    space").

    Tim.

  9. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    In article <5IiLb.383$ss.17870@bcandid.telisphere.com>,
    GreyCloud wrote:
    >
    >The porting was by DEC. DEC had to pay for the whole port. Trouble was, NT
    >couldn't compete against OpenVMS and TRU64 UNIX on the Alpha. Not enough
    >features and pretty rough around the edges. DEC dropped developement for
    >M$.


    That is what I heard, but I didn't hear whether Microsoft got the rights
    to the updated source or not, nor did I hear whether Microsoft employees
    were actively involved in the port (whether paid for by DEC or not).

    >M$ let the other vendors do the port of NT to their perspective platforms.
    >When the vendors finally woke up, they dropped NT.


    I heard that few of them got further than an evaluation, too ....

    >> The real issue is whether the Itanium port has been done competently,
    >> or by simply spawning off another completely unportable code stream.
    >> I have not heard any reliable rumours either way.

    >
    >OpenVMS has been ported successfully to the Itanium2 processor as well as
    >TRU-64 UNIX. Whether HP keeps tru-64 unix is another question tho.


    Yes. The official answer to the latter is it won't, of course.

    >When M$ has ported XP to the Itanium2 isn't known here nor have I seen any
    >ads on M$ website about it.


    Yes. I should have used a different tense! The question remains
    relevant, unless Microsoft have cancelled the project, in which case
    I think that Intel's screams would have leaked out :-)


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.

  10. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft


    "Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
    news:btkf5t$o57$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
    snip
    >
    > Yes. I should have used a different tense! The question remains
    > relevant, unless Microsoft have cancelled the project, in which case
    > I think that Intel's screams would have leaked out :-)
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    > Nick Maclaren.


    When I look at the brochure for the x450 and x455, it says "Supports
    Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition "
    These are IA64 boxes. Is that XP?

    del cecchi



  11. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    "GreyCloud" wrote in message
    news:5IiLb.383$ss.17870@bcandid.telisphere.com...
    > The porting was by DEC. DEC had to pay for the whole port. Trouble
    > was, NT couldn't compete against OpenVMS and TRU64 UNIX on the
    > Alpha. Not enough features and pretty rough around the edges.
    > DEC dropped developement for M$. M$ let the other vendors do the
    > port of NT to their perspective platforms. When the vendors finally woke
    > up, they dropped NT.


    Were there any platforms besides i386, Alpha, and MIPS?

    > OpenVMS has been ported successfully to the Itanium2 processor as well as
    > TRU-64 UNIX. Whether HP keeps tru-64 unix is another question tho.


    I don't see why HP would continue supporting Tru64 if they've already got a
    commitment to HP-UX on IA64. Also, HP appears to be putting some level of
    support into Linux and GCC -- at least on IA64. How many different unix
    flavors can a single vendor realistically ship and support?

    > When M$ has ported XP to the Itanium2 isn't known here nor have I
    > seen any ads on M$ website about it.


    Windows Server 2003 has been ported to IA64. Whether XP was ported or not
    is now moot.

    S

    --
    Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
    CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
    K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin




  12. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    "Kevin Lawton" writes:

    > The problem might be that most users of open source Op Systems,
    > like Linux and FreeBSD, are used to getting their application
    > software under a similar arrangement. There might not be much money
    > to be made from commercial applications competing head-on with
    > open-source equivalents like The Gimp. Would Microsoft ever do a
    > Linux version of office to face Sun's Star Office ? Probably not !


    Commercial apps may have features that are not available in
    OSS. GIMP does not have CMYK (?) support which is a must in the
    graphics business. (Supposedly this will be rectified in GIMP 2.0.)

    > Drivers and utility programs are a different matter, though. Quite

    [...]

    Actually there are projects for both Linux and FreeBSD to be able to
    use NDIS Windows drivers. Looks quite promising.

    > I don't think there is much profit made out of drivers, though.


    All the hardware manufacturers have to do is release the
    specifications. I'm sure someone will create a driver for it.

    --
    David Magda , http://www.magda.ca/
    Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
    the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
    under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

  13. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) writes:

    > Set your wayback machine to the early-mid-90's and remember that
    > Microsoft sold Windows NT for a 64-bit platform (Alpha) before.
    > Rumors have it that other RISC platforms were targets back then

    [...]

    Actually it ran on PowerPC and MIPS as well, if I remember
    correctly. This was NT 3.5(1) and maybe 4.0. It's one of the reasons
    why NT has/had a hardware abstraction layer (HAL).

    --
    David Magda , http://www.magda.ca/
    Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
    the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
    under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

  14. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    David Magda wrote:

    > shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) writes:
    >
    >> Set your wayback machine to the early-mid-90's and remember that
    >> Microsoft sold Windows NT for a 64-bit platform (Alpha) before.
    >> Rumors have it that other RISC platforms were targets back then

    > [...]
    >
    > Actually it ran on PowerPC and MIPS as well, if I remember
    > correctly. This was NT 3.5(1) and maybe 4.0. It's one of the reasons
    > why NT has/had a hardware abstraction layer (HAL).
    >


    It did not run under NT4.
    And the Alpha-version ran in 32-bit mode
    --
    Hardware, n.:
    The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.


  15. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:03:13 GMT, "GreyCloud"
    wrote:
    >> The real issue is whether the Itanium port has been done competently,
    >> or by simply spawning off another completely unportable code stream.
    >> I have not heard any reliable rumours either way.

    >
    >OpenVMS has been ported successfully to the Itanium2 processor as well as
    >TRU-64 UNIX. Whether HP keeps tru-64 unix is another question tho.
    >When M$ has ported XP to the Itanium2 isn't known here nor have I seen any
    >ads on M$ website about it.


    WinXP was ported to IA-64 long ago. Here's the webpage for WinXP
    64-bit edition for IA-64:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.asp

    I guess this wasn't really done for the Itanium2 since it predates
    that chip, but it certainly will run with no troubles at all on it.
    More recently MS released Win2003 Server for IA-64.

    FWIW at least in theory WinNT was designed to be very portable. The
    entire system was built with a hardware abstraction layer that was
    supposed to minimize the amount of architecture-specific code. Now,
    I'm not sure just how successful this attempt was, but the basis is
    there. At various times NT was reported to have been running on
    PowerPC and MIPS in addition to the Alpha, i386 and IA-64 instruction
    sets that it was officially released for. Combined with the upcoming
    AMD64 port that makes for a fairly impressive array of architectures,
    though several of them were stillborn.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla 20 yahoo ca

  16. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    chrisv wrote:

    >You can't tell me it would take all THAT much manpower for a company
    >like ATI to compile their drivers for the half-dozen or so leading Linux
    >distributions.


    It does take THAT much manpower and more. ATI hasn't had a stellar
    record by any stretch even while compiling for wintel only and one can
    only expect even lower quality when compiling for 6-10 different
    platforms. nVidia has had an only slightly better record. But there
    are other much smaller manufacturers of hardware which will be buried
    under a load they cannot handle peoperly, so the users of ALL
    platforms do suffer, which will only get worse.

    Competition is usually good but the ideal in hardware/OS level would
    be a standards based black box approach, where, say, both Intel and
    AMD would agree to optimize for performance/price a black box
    processor with predefined standards. Same for OS's. Of course nobody
    would agree to that.


  17. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    Kevin Lawton wrote:


    > I don't think there is much profit made out of drivers, though.
    >


    Except the hardware sales. I chose an epson printer rather than another
    canon (I've owned several) because of the crappy linux support with canon
    products. This cost canon the sale of a $400 photo printer not helping with
    linux drivers for their products!

    --

    Stacey

  18. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    "Del Cecchi" writes:

    > When I look at the brochure for the x450 and x455, it says "Supports
    > Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition "
    > These are IA64 boxes. Is that XP?


    It is XP's successor. Don't you just love vendor version numbering?
    I am especially fond of "HP-UX 11i version 2" (aka HP-UX 11.23).

    Cheers,
    --
    In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
    Remove /-nsp/ for email.

  19. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    In article ,
    Del Cecchi wrote:
    >
    >"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
    >news:btkf5t$o57$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
    >>
    >> Yes. I should have used a different tense! The question remains
    >> relevant, unless Microsoft have cancelled the project, in which case
    >> I think that Intel's screams would have leaked out :-)

    >
    >When I look at the brochure for the x450 and x455, it says "Supports
    >Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition "
    >These are IA64 boxes. Is that XP?


    Dunno. What I meant was that I should have used the present continuous,
    rather than the perfect. It is an ongoing port.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.

  20. Re: AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft

    In comp.arch Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > David Magda wrote:


    >> shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) writes:
    >>
    >>> Set your wayback machine to the early-mid-90's and remember that
    >>> Microsoft sold Windows NT for a 64-bit platform (Alpha) before.
    >>> Rumors have it that other RISC platforms were targets back then

    >> [...]
    >> Actually it ran on PowerPC and MIPS as well, if I remember
    >> correctly. This was NT 3.5(1) and maybe 4.0. It's one of the reasons
    >> why NT has/had a hardware abstraction layer (HAL).

    > It did not run under NT4.
    > And the Alpha-version ran in 32-bit mode


    I have a Finnish-language OEM NT4 CD that contains versions for Alpha,
    i386, MIPS and PPC. By contrast, the service pack 4 CD enclosed in the
    same package supports only the Alpha and i386 versions.

    -a

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast