Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #252702 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-19 01:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-01-30 10:03 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.freeware
Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-19 01:50 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 16:17 +0800
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-01-19 16:04 +0700
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:11 +0800
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-19 06:27 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 20:55 +0800
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-19 22:55 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-19 15:10 -0700
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-20 03:30 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-20 09:32 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-20 15:05 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-20 15:57 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads G. Morgan <sealteam6@osama-is-dead.net> - 2016-01-31 00:28 -0600
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-31 02:24 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-20 23:47 +0100
AMD vs. Intel vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-01-20 23:21 +0000
Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 06:48 -0600
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-21 19:30 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 14:51 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-21 21:18 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 17:30 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 20:42 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-22 07:15 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-22 08:48 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:24 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-22 23:34 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-23 01:58 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-23 01:47 +0000
Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-23 11:24 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-23 10:23 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-23 18:37 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:23 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-24 23:23 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-25 05:04 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-25 07:49 -0600
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:06 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:05 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-26 08:02 +0000
Re: AMD vs. Intel Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-24 19:06 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-24 16:14 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-24 15:38 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-24 15:59 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:25 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-25 08:11 -0600
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 10:55 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:07 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-26 01:58 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-26 02:05 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-26 11:24 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:17 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-27 21:58 +0000
Re: AMD vs. Intel Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-26 19:55 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-23 06:20 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-22 10:13 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-22 11:57 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:27 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 09:37 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-23 10:28 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-24 06:21 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:29 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-23 13:06 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:36 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 06:59 -0600
Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:30 -0700
Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 07:25 -0600
Re: AMD vs. Intel Flasherly <Flasherly@live.com> - 2016-01-21 15:10 -0500
Re: AMD vs. Intel Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-21 21:23 +0100
Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 17:40 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-21 10:40 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-01-21 12:16 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:26 -0600
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:31 -0600
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-21 23:42 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 13:08 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-21 22:31 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-20 20:29 +0000
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-20 11:53 -0700
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-20 20:59 +0000
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-20 14:29 -0700
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-21 05:44 +0000
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 14:17 -0700
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-22 04:31 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 20:44 -0700
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-22 08:35 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-23 06:13 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-23 10:03 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-23 15:39 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-24 05:06 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-24 10:39 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-25 00:22 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-19 05:09 -0500
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-30 08:07 +0000
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-19 22:16 +0100
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Euclides Zoto <euclides_zoto@optimum.net> - 2016-01-18 18:20 -0800
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-30 08:07 +0000
Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-30 10:03 +0100
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 15:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <5b8d9ebf10f4b9a34d3ad2db18d21a41@hoi-polloi.org> |
| In reply to | #253175 |
In article <n7vk8i$mun$1@dont-email.me> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > > Anonymous wrote: > > > In article <n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> > > Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> > > wrote: > >> > >> GreyCloud wrote: > >> > >> > On 01/21/16 23:15, Anonymous wrote: > >> >> In article<n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> > >> >> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: > >> >>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 > >> >>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too > >> >>>>>> expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to > >> >>>>>> prominence and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be > >> >>>>>> noticed by the marketplace. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now > >> >>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. > >> >>>> > >> >>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for > >> >>> servers. > >> >> > >> >> Ran NT4 on PPC for a bit, a long time ago. Ran Windows 2000 > >> >> Server RC2 on Alpha, then Compaq and MS shelved it. > >> >> > >> > That's the part I could never figure out why they shelved it. > >> > >> Because they all were 32bits only, even on 64bit chips. > >> And MS was way too incompetent to change that. They even needed several > >> years to get 64bits on Intel/AMD CPUs after linux ran already full bore > >> from the start. I am quite certain that the freely available source of > >> linux helped MS a lot to get it to run 64 bits in windows, although even > >> now it is quite shitty compared to linux > > > > Why do you neckbeard geek linux tweakers have to lie like that? > > Is it a Bill Clinton tiny penis thing? > > > > Linux was originally i386 only, 32 bits. Intel was the holdup > > on 64 bit OS implementations for MS. That is why MS went with > > "x64 AMD" builds because of flawed Intel chips. > > Idiot. > Linux ran on AMD64 chips month before the first CPU left the fab. Really? How did it do that? Since there were no capable CPUs yet? > AMD actually worked with Suse to iron out the last bugs out of the chips, so > linux was full 64 bits *years* before MS had a (very badly) working version What have you been smoking pal? You linux weirdos love to make the big claims, but most of them are in the Bill Clinton category of truth and facts. You expect to give linux credibility by citing Novell? A technically bigoted and short-sighted company who failed to capitalize on the greatest market opportunity in the history of communications? You know what happens to people who spend their lives hating on MS Windows? See Novell and their former employees. Yes I can bag on them, I was an original CNE until I saw the light M$$$$. AMD released the spec in 2000, there were no CPUs on the street capable of running x64 AMD until 2003. How is it "linux" was able to run something that didn't exist "for years"? > for XP. Even *now* windows runs 64bits not as seamlessly as linux has done > from the start Lol. I'll put my VMS servers up against any Linux or Windows servers and beat the pants off them day in and day out. > > > You guys like > > to bash MS, but you have to write your unix code "around" some > > of the same problems Windows developers do, all because of > > Intel's crappy designs. > > You should try to buy some clue. Or get a brain transplant. I hear that > cockroach brains are quite cheap these days, and it would get you a nice > enhancement of your IQ VMS, for smart people who like to work during the day and sleep at night.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 15:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n82omj$tc9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253254 |
Anonymous wrote: > In article <n7vk8i$mun$1@dont-email.me> > Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> > wrote: >> >> Anonymous wrote: >> >> > In article <n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> >> > Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> GreyCloud wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 01/21/16 23:15, Anonymous wrote: >> >> >> In article<n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> >> >> >> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: >> >> >>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 >> >> >>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes >> >> >>>>>> too expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to >> >> >>>>>> prominence and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be >> >> >>>>>> noticed by the marketplace. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now >> >> >>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for >> >> >>> servers. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ran NT4 on PPC for a bit, a long time ago. Ran Windows 2000 >> >> >> Server RC2 on Alpha, then Compaq and MS shelved it. >> >> >> >> >> > That's the part I could never figure out why they shelved it. >> >> >> >> Because they all were 32bits only, even on 64bit chips. >> >> And MS was way too incompetent to change that. They even needed >> >> several years to get 64bits on Intel/AMD CPUs after linux ran already >> >> full bore from the start. I am quite certain that the freely available >> >> source of linux helped MS a lot to get it to run 64 bits in windows, >> >> although even now it is quite shitty compared to linux >> > >> > Why do you neckbeard geek linux tweakers have to lie like that? >> > Is it a Bill Clinton tiny penis thing? >> > >> > Linux was originally i386 only, 32 bits. Intel was the holdup >> > on 64 bit OS implementations for MS. That is why MS went with >> > "x64 AMD" builds because of flawed Intel chips. >> >> Idiot. >> Linux ran on AMD64 chips month before the first CPU left the fab. > > Really? How did it do that? Since there were no capable CPUs > yet? Easy. I already said that AMD worked with Suse. Suse used a hardware emulator provided by AMD. They wrote the software and tested it, and reported back bugs they found. >> AMD actually worked with Suse to iron out the last bugs out of the chips, >> so linux was full 64 bits *years* before MS had a (very badly) working >> version > > What have you been smoking pal? You linux weirdos love to make > the big claims, but most of them are in the Bill Clinton > category of truth and facts. Just check the release dates of 64bit linux and those of windows. Windows was years later. And worked *very* badly compared to linux, even though linux had a headstart and should have told them something how to do it correctly. MS in their incredible stupidity thought that they know better. They didn't
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 10:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n8318n$2u4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253255 |
On 01/24/16 07:59, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Anonymous wrote: > >> In article<n7vk8i$mun$1@dont-email.me> >> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >> wrote: >>> >>> Anonymous wrote: >>> >>>> In article<n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> >>>> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> GreyCloud wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 01/21/16 23:15, Anonymous wrote: >>>>>>> In article<n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 >>>>>>>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes >>>>>>>>>>> too expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to >>>>>>>>>>> prominence and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be >>>>>>>>>>> noticed by the marketplace. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now >>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for >>>>>>>> servers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ran NT4 on PPC for a bit, a long time ago. Ran Windows 2000 >>>>>>> Server RC2 on Alpha, then Compaq and MS shelved it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> That's the part I could never figure out why they shelved it. >>>>> >>>>> Because they all were 32bits only, even on 64bit chips. >>>>> And MS was way too incompetent to change that. They even needed >>>>> several years to get 64bits on Intel/AMD CPUs after linux ran already >>>>> full bore from the start. I am quite certain that the freely available >>>>> source of linux helped MS a lot to get it to run 64 bits in windows, >>>>> although even now it is quite shitty compared to linux >>>> >>>> Why do you neckbeard geek linux tweakers have to lie like that? >>>> Is it a Bill Clinton tiny penis thing? >>>> >>>> Linux was originally i386 only, 32 bits. Intel was the holdup >>>> on 64 bit OS implementations for MS. That is why MS went with >>>> "x64 AMD" builds because of flawed Intel chips. >>> >>> Idiot. >>> Linux ran on AMD64 chips month before the first CPU left the fab. >> >> Really? How did it do that? Since there were no capable CPUs >> yet? > > Easy. I already said that AMD worked with Suse. > Suse used a hardware emulator provided by AMD. They wrote the software and > tested it, and reported back bugs they found. > Yet no proof of your claim. Sounds like you're just full of hot air, as usual. >>> AMD actually worked with Suse to iron out the last bugs out of the chips, >>> so linux was full 64 bits *years* before MS had a (very badly) working >>> version >> >> What have you been smoking pal? You linux weirdos love to make >> the big claims, but most of them are in the Bill Clinton >> category of truth and facts. > > Just check the release dates of 64bit linux and those of windows. > Windows was years later. And worked *very* badly compared to linux, even > though linux had a headstart and should have told them something how to do > it correctly. MS in their incredible stupidity thought that they know > better. They didn't > The only stupidity seems to be between your two ears, koldtard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 08:11 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <slrnnacb7q.nhu.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #253255 |
On 2016-01-24, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > Anonymous wrote: > >> In article <n7vk8i$mun$1@dont-email.me> >> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >> wrote: >>> >>> Anonymous wrote: >>> >>> > In article <n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> >>> > Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> GreyCloud wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > On 01/21/16 23:15, Anonymous wrote: >>> >> >> In article<n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> >>> >> >> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: >>> >> >>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> >> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 >>> >> >>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes >>> >> >>>>>> too expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to >>> >> >>>>>> prominence and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be >>> >> >>>>>> noticed by the marketplace. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now >>> >> >>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for >>> >> >>> servers. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Ran NT4 on PPC for a bit, a long time ago. Ran Windows 2000 >>> >> >> Server RC2 on Alpha, then Compaq and MS shelved it. >>> >> >> >>> >> > That's the part I could never figure out why they shelved it. >>> >> >>> >> Because they all were 32bits only, even on 64bit chips. >>> >> And MS was way too incompetent to change that. They even needed >>> >> several years to get 64bits on Intel/AMD CPUs after linux ran already >>> >> full bore from the start. I am quite certain that the freely available >>> >> source of linux helped MS a lot to get it to run 64 bits in windows, >>> >> although even now it is quite shitty compared to linux >>> > >>> > Why do you neckbeard geek linux tweakers have to lie like that? >>> > Is it a Bill Clinton tiny penis thing? >>> > >>> > Linux was originally i386 only, 32 bits. Intel was the holdup >>> > on 64 bit OS implementations for MS. That is why MS went with >>> > "x64 AMD" builds because of flawed Intel chips. >>> >>> Idiot. >>> Linux ran on AMD64 chips month before the first CPU left the fab. >> >> Really? How did it do that? Since there were no capable CPUs >> yet? > > Easy. I already said that AMD worked with Suse. > Suse used a hardware emulator provided by AMD. They wrote the software and > tested it, and reported back bugs they found. None of this is terribly shocking to anyone with a computer science background. [deletia]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 10:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n85gd0$ibu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253329 |
On 2016-01-25 9:11 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2016-01-24, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> Anonymous wrote: >> >>> In article <n7vk8i$mun$1@dont-email.me> >>> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Anonymous wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> >>>>> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> GreyCloud wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 01/21/16 23:15, Anonymous wrote: >>>>>>>> In article<n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>>> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 >>>>>>>>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes >>>>>>>>>>>> too expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to >>>>>>>>>>>> prominence and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be >>>>>>>>>>>> noticed by the marketplace. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now >>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for >>>>>>>>> servers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ran NT4 on PPC for a bit, a long time ago. Ran Windows 2000 >>>>>>>> Server RC2 on Alpha, then Compaq and MS shelved it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's the part I could never figure out why they shelved it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because they all were 32bits only, even on 64bit chips. >>>>>> And MS was way too incompetent to change that. They even needed >>>>>> several years to get 64bits on Intel/AMD CPUs after linux ran already >>>>>> full bore from the start. I am quite certain that the freely available >>>>>> source of linux helped MS a lot to get it to run 64 bits in windows, >>>>>> although even now it is quite shitty compared to linux >>>>> >>>>> Why do you neckbeard geek linux tweakers have to lie like that? >>>>> Is it a Bill Clinton tiny penis thing? >>>>> >>>>> Linux was originally i386 only, 32 bits. Intel was the holdup >>>>> on 64 bit OS implementations for MS. That is why MS went with >>>>> "x64 AMD" builds because of flawed Intel chips. >>>> >>>> Idiot. >>>> Linux ran on AMD64 chips month before the first CPU left the fab. >>> >>> Really? How did it do that? Since there were no capable CPUs >>> yet? >> >> Easy. I already said that AMD worked with Suse. >> Suse used a hardware emulator provided by AMD. They wrote the software and >> tested it, and reported back bugs they found. > > None of this is terribly shocking to anyone with a computer science background. I know that you an idiot, but can you look into why your posts have a screwed-up time on them? Either your newsgroup provider isn't working properly or you were too much of a dumbass to properly configure the time on your machine. I'm leaning toward the latter. -- Slimer EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Conservative Party of Canada, Mozilla & PETA supporter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 11:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n85o4h$htt$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253329 |
On 01/25/16 07:11, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2016-01-24, Peter Köhlmann<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> Anonymous wrote: >> >>> In article<n7vk8i$mun$1@dont-email.me> >>> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Anonymous wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article<n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> >>>>> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> GreyCloud wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 01/21/16 23:15, Anonymous wrote: >>>>>>>> In article<n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>>> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 >>>>>>>>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes >>>>>>>>>>>> too expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to >>>>>>>>>>>> prominence and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be >>>>>>>>>>>> noticed by the marketplace. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now >>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for >>>>>>>>> servers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ran NT4 on PPC for a bit, a long time ago. Ran Windows 2000 >>>>>>>> Server RC2 on Alpha, then Compaq and MS shelved it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's the part I could never figure out why they shelved it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because they all were 32bits only, even on 64bit chips. >>>>>> And MS was way too incompetent to change that. They even needed >>>>>> several years to get 64bits on Intel/AMD CPUs after linux ran already >>>>>> full bore from the start. I am quite certain that the freely available >>>>>> source of linux helped MS a lot to get it to run 64 bits in windows, >>>>>> although even now it is quite shitty compared to linux >>>>> >>>>> Why do you neckbeard geek linux tweakers have to lie like that? >>>>> Is it a Bill Clinton tiny penis thing? >>>>> >>>>> Linux was originally i386 only, 32 bits. Intel was the holdup >>>>> on 64 bit OS implementations for MS. That is why MS went with >>>>> "x64 AMD" builds because of flawed Intel chips. >>>> >>>> Idiot. >>>> Linux ran on AMD64 chips month before the first CPU left the fab. >>> >>> Really? How did it do that? Since there were no capable CPUs >>> yet? >> >> Easy. I already said that AMD worked with Suse. >> Suse used a hardware emulator provided by AMD. They wrote the software and >> tested it, and reported back bugs they found. > > None of this is terribly shocking to anyone with a computer science background. > > [deletia] But no one can show any substantiated proof that this indeed was the case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 01:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <04ebffb39131510818b8dd766c255932@hoi-polloi.org> |
| In reply to | #253329 |
In article <slrnnacb7q.nhu.jedi@nomad.mishnet> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: > > On 2016-01-24, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > > Anonymous wrote: > > > >> In article <n7vk8i$mun$1@dont-email.me> > >> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Anonymous wrote: > >>> > >>> > In article <n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> > >>> > Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> GreyCloud wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> > On 01/21/16 23:15, Anonymous wrote: > >>> >> >> In article<n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> > >>> >> >> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: > >>> >> >>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >>> >> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 > >>> >> >>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes > >>> >> >>>>>> too expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to > >>> >> >>>>>> prominence and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be > >>> >> >>>>>> noticed by the marketplace. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... > >>> >> >>>> > >>> >> >>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now > >>> >> >>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. > >>> >> >>>> > >>> >> >>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for > >>> >> >>> servers. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Ran NT4 on PPC for a bit, a long time ago. Ran Windows 2000 > >>> >> >> Server RC2 on Alpha, then Compaq and MS shelved it. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > That's the part I could never figure out why they shelved it. > >>> >> > >>> >> Because they all were 32bits only, even on 64bit chips. > >>> >> And MS was way too incompetent to change that. They even needed > >>> >> several years to get 64bits on Intel/AMD CPUs after linux ran already > >>> >> full bore from the start. I am quite certain that the freely available > >>> >> source of linux helped MS a lot to get it to run 64 bits in windows, > >>> >> although even now it is quite shitty compared to linux > >>> > > >>> > Why do you neckbeard geek linux tweakers have to lie like that? > >>> > Is it a Bill Clinton tiny penis thing? > >>> > > >>> > Linux was originally i386 only, 32 bits. Intel was the holdup > >>> > on 64 bit OS implementations for MS. That is why MS went with > >>> > "x64 AMD" builds because of flawed Intel chips. > >>> > >>> Idiot. > >>> Linux ran on AMD64 chips month before the first CPU left the fab. > >> > >> Really? How did it do that? Since there were no capable CPUs > >> yet? > > > > Easy. I already said that AMD worked with Suse. > > Suse used a hardware emulator provided by AMD. They wrote the software and > > tested it, and reported back bugs they found. > > None of this is terribly shocking to anyone with a computer science background. He still lied, and that's the crux of it. "Oringinally SUSE provided one product (Simply known as S.u.S.e Linux), which was released about three times a year and was available for the x86 platform only." None of this is terribly shocking to someone who is literate first.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 02:05 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <20160126020549.6723753b@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #253367 |
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 01:58:33 +0100 Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> wrote: > In article <slrnnacb7q.nhu.jedi@nomad.mishnet> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: > > > > On 2016-01-24, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > > > Anonymous wrote: > > > > > >> In article <n7vk8i$mun$1@dont-email.me> > > >> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Anonymous wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > In article <n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> > > >>> > Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> >> > > >>> >> GreyCloud wrote: > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On 01/21/16 23:15, Anonymous wrote: > > >>> >> >> In article<n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> > > >>> >> >> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: > > >>> >> >>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > >>> >> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 > > >>> >> >>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > >>> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if > > >>> >> >>>>>> x86-64 becomes too expensive to buy into, PowerPC > > >>> >> >>>>>> platforms might return to prominence and computers > > >>> >> >>>>>> such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the > > >>> >> >>>>>> marketplace. > > >>> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... > > >>> >> >>>> > > >>> >> >>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well > > >>> >> >>>> right now doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. > > >>> >> >>>> > > >>> >> >>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them > > >>> >> >>> soley for servers. > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> Ran NT4 on PPC for a bit, a long time ago. Ran Windows > > >>> >> >> 2000 Server RC2 on Alpha, then Compaq and MS shelved it. > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> > That's the part I could never figure out why they shelved > > >>> >> > it. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Because they all were 32bits only, even on 64bit chips. > > >>> >> And MS was way too incompetent to change that. They even > > >>> >> needed several years to get 64bits on Intel/AMD CPUs after > > >>> >> linux ran already full bore from the start. I am quite > > >>> >> certain that the freely available source of linux helped MS > > >>> >> a lot to get it to run 64 bits in windows, although even now > > >>> >> it is quite shitty compared to linux > > >>> > > > >>> > Why do you neckbeard geek linux tweakers have to lie like > > >>> > that? Is it a Bill Clinton tiny penis thing? > > >>> > > > >>> > Linux was originally i386 only, 32 bits. Intel was the holdup > > >>> > on 64 bit OS implementations for MS. That is why MS went with > > >>> > "x64 AMD" builds because of flawed Intel chips. > > >>> > > >>> Idiot. > > >>> Linux ran on AMD64 chips month before the first CPU left the > > >>> fab. > > >> > > >> Really? How did it do that? Since there were no capable CPUs > > >> yet? > > > > > > Easy. I already said that AMD worked with Suse. > > > Suse used a hardware emulator provided by AMD. They wrote the > > > software and tested it, and reported back bugs they found. > > > > None of this is terribly shocking to anyone with a computer > > science background. > > He still lied, and that's the crux of it. > > "Oringinally SUSE provided one product (Simply known as S.u.S.e > Linux), which was released about three times a year and was > available for the x86 platform only." > > None of this is terribly shocking to someone who is literate > first. > Supporting X86-64 is kernel thing, not distro thing... Perhaps SUSE was first distribution to provide x86-64 platform...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 11:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n87hb5$gas$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253368 |
Melzzzzz wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 01:58:33 +0100 > Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> wrote: > >> In article <slrnnacb7q.nhu.jedi@nomad.mishnet> >> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >> > >> > On 2016-01-24, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> > > Anonymous wrote: >> > > >> > >> In article <n7vk8i$mun$1@dont-email.me> >> > >> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >> > >> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> Anonymous wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> > In article <n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> >> > >>> > Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >> > >>> > wrote: >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> GreyCloud wrote: >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > On 01/21/16 23:15, Anonymous wrote: >> > >>> >> >> In article<n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> >> > >>> >> >> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >> > >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: >> > >>> >> >>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> > >>> >> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 >> > >>> >> >>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> > >>> >> >>>>> >> > >>> >> >>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if >> > >>> >> >>>>>> x86-64 becomes too expensive to buy into, PowerPC >> > >>> >> >>>>>> platforms might return to prominence and computers >> > >>> >> >>>>>> such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the >> > >>> >> >>>>>> marketplace. >> > >>> >> >>>>> >> > >>> >> >>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... >> > >>> >> >>>> >> > >>> >> >>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well >> > >>> >> >>>> right now doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. >> > >>> >> >>>> >> > >>> >> >>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them >> > >>> >> >>> soley for servers. >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> Ran NT4 on PPC for a bit, a long time ago. Ran Windows >> > >>> >> >> 2000 Server RC2 on Alpha, then Compaq and MS shelved it. >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > That's the part I could never figure out why they shelved >> > >>> >> > it. >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> Because they all were 32bits only, even on 64bit chips. >> > >>> >> And MS was way too incompetent to change that. They even >> > >>> >> needed several years to get 64bits on Intel/AMD CPUs after >> > >>> >> linux ran already full bore from the start. I am quite >> > >>> >> certain that the freely available source of linux helped MS >> > >>> >> a lot to get it to run 64 bits in windows, although even now >> > >>> >> it is quite shitty compared to linux >> > >>> > >> > >>> > Why do you neckbeard geek linux tweakers have to lie like >> > >>> > that? Is it a Bill Clinton tiny penis thing? >> > >>> > >> > >>> > Linux was originally i386 only, 32 bits. Intel was the holdup >> > >>> > on 64 bit OS implementations for MS. That is why MS went with >> > >>> > "x64 AMD" builds because of flawed Intel chips. >> > >>> >> > >>> Idiot. >> > >>> Linux ran on AMD64 chips month before the first CPU left the >> > >>> fab. >> > >> >> > >> Really? How did it do that? Since there were no capable CPUs >> > >> yet? >> > > >> > > Easy. I already said that AMD worked with Suse. >> > > Suse used a hardware emulator provided by AMD. They wrote the >> > > software and tested it, and reported back bugs they found. >> > >> > None of this is terribly shocking to anyone with a computer >> > science background. >> >> He still lied, and that's the crux of it. >> >> "Oringinally SUSE provided one product (Simply known as S.u.S.e >> Linux), which was released about three times a year and was >> available for the x86 platform only." >> >> None of this is terribly shocking to someone who is literate >> first. >> > > Supporting X86-64 is kernel thing, not distro thing... Perhaps SUSE was > first distribution to provide x86-64 platform... It was, because they were the ones porting the sources to x86-64 Version 9.0 of Suse linux came out on Oct. 15 2003 and had full 64bit support Support for the AMD64 was earlyer though, it started in 2001 with the original specs, which were changed slightly later until the release of the processor in April 2003 Quote from the Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Linux ---------------------- Linux was the first operating system kernel to run the x86-64 architecture in long mode, starting with the 2.4 version in 2001 (preceding the hardware's availability).[59][60] Linux also provides backward compatibility for running 32-bit executables. This permits programs to be recompiled into long mode while retaining the use of 32-bit programs. Several Linux distributions currently ship with x86-64-native kernels and userlands. ----------------------- The first windows versions to support x86-64 (extremely badly) came out in 2005 (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition). Hardware support (drivers) was not nearly as complete as in linux (it was in fact nearly ipossible to get 64bit drivers for those for the vast majority of hardware), and seamless support of both 64bit and 32bit programs was (and still is) not as good as in linux The anonymous coward is still dumber than bread, as he is completely unable to look up easily to find dates. Not surprising, plants like GreyClot are unable too. Incidentally, both are windows users, and both bring the combined windows users IQ down to 43
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 12:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n8b4vn$8jr$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253386 |
On 01/26/16 03:24, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Melzzzzz wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 01:58:33 +0100 >> Anonymous<anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> wrote: >> >>> In article<slrnnacb7q.nhu.jedi@nomad.mishnet> >>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2016-01-24, Peter Köhlmann<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>>>> Anonymous wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article<n7vk8i$mun$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anonymous wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In article<n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>>> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> GreyCloud wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 01/21/16 23:15, Anonymous wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article<n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>>>>>> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x86-64 becomes too expensive to buy into, PowerPC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platforms might return to prominence and computers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marketplace. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well >>>>>>>>>>>>> right now doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them >>>>>>>>>>>> soley for servers. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ran NT4 on PPC for a bit, a long time ago. Ran Windows >>>>>>>>>>> 2000 Server RC2 on Alpha, then Compaq and MS shelved it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's the part I could never figure out why they shelved >>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because they all were 32bits only, even on 64bit chips. >>>>>>>>> And MS was way too incompetent to change that. They even >>>>>>>>> needed several years to get 64bits on Intel/AMD CPUs after >>>>>>>>> linux ran already full bore from the start. I am quite >>>>>>>>> certain that the freely available source of linux helped MS >>>>>>>>> a lot to get it to run 64 bits in windows, although even now >>>>>>>>> it is quite shitty compared to linux >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do you neckbeard geek linux tweakers have to lie like >>>>>>>> that? Is it a Bill Clinton tiny penis thing? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Linux was originally i386 only, 32 bits. Intel was the holdup >>>>>>>> on 64 bit OS implementations for MS. That is why MS went with >>>>>>>> "x64 AMD" builds because of flawed Intel chips. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot. >>>>>>> Linux ran on AMD64 chips month before the first CPU left the >>>>>>> fab. >>>>>> >>>>>> Really? How did it do that? Since there were no capable CPUs >>>>>> yet? >>>>> >>>>> Easy. I already said that AMD worked with Suse. >>>>> Suse used a hardware emulator provided by AMD. They wrote the >>>>> software and tested it, and reported back bugs they found. >>>> >>>> None of this is terribly shocking to anyone with a computer >>>> science background. >>> >>> He still lied, and that's the crux of it. >>> >>> "Oringinally SUSE provided one product (Simply known as S.u.S.e >>> Linux), which was released about three times a year and was >>> available for the x86 platform only." >>> >>> None of this is terribly shocking to someone who is literate >>> first. >>> >> >> Supporting X86-64 is kernel thing, not distro thing... Perhaps SUSE was >> first distribution to provide x86-64 platform... > > It was, because they were the ones porting the sources to x86-64 > > Version 9.0 of Suse linux came out on Oct. 15 2003 and had full 64bit > support > > Support for the AMD64 was earlyer though, it started in 2001 with the > original specs, which were changed slightly later until the release of the > processor in April 2003 > > > Quote from the Wiki: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Linux > ---------------------- > Linux was the first operating system kernel to run the x86-64 architecture > in long mode, starting with the 2.4 version in 2001 (preceding the > hardware's availability).[59][60] Linux also provides backward compatibility > for running 32-bit executables. This permits programs to be recompiled into > long mode while retaining the use of 32-bit programs. Several Linux > distributions currently ship with x86-64-native kernels and userlands. > ----------------------- > > > The first windows versions to support x86-64 (extremely badly) came out in > 2005 (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 x64 > Edition). Hardware support (drivers) was not nearly as complete as in linux > (it was in fact nearly ipossible to get 64bit drivers for those for the vast > majority of hardware), and seamless support of both 64bit and 32bit programs > was (and still is) not as good as in linux > > > The anonymous coward is still dumber than bread, as he is completely unable > to look up easily to find dates. Not surprising, plants like GreyClot are > unable too. Incidentally, both are windows users, and both bring the > combined windows users IQ down to 43 > > So, after jabbing you in the ass with a pitchfork to get you to provide proof of your claim and it took you a couple of days to find this info? LMAOF!!! The only dimbulb in here seems to be you, koldturd. And it looks like the lights are on, but nobody is home. LOL!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 21:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <4d18f68ffcdd6e6bc0702886798f4790@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #253386 |
In article <n8b4vn$8jr$4@dont-email.me> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > > On 01/26/16 03:24, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > > Melzzzzz wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 01:58:33 +0100 > >> Anonymous<anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> wrote: > >> > >>> In article<slrnnacb7q.nhu.jedi@nomad.mishnet> > >>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 2016-01-24, Peter Köhlmann<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >>>>> Anonymous wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> In article<n7vk8i$mun$1@dont-email.me> > >>>>>> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Anonymous wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In article<n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> > >>>>>>>> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> GreyCloud wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 01/21/16 23:15, Anonymous wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> In article<n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> > >>>>>>>>>>> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x86-64 becomes too expensive to buy into, PowerPC > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platforms might return to prominence and computers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marketplace. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well > >>>>>>>>>>>>> right now doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them > >>>>>>>>>>>> soley for servers. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ran NT4 on PPC for a bit, a long time ago. Ran Windows > >>>>>>>>>>> 2000 Server RC2 on Alpha, then Compaq and MS shelved it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That's the part I could never figure out why they shelved > >>>>>>>>>> it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Because they all were 32bits only, even on 64bit chips. > >>>>>>>>> And MS was way too incompetent to change that. They even > >>>>>>>>> needed several years to get 64bits on Intel/AMD CPUs after > >>>>>>>>> linux ran already full bore from the start. I am quite > >>>>>>>>> certain that the freely available source of linux helped MS > >>>>>>>>> a lot to get it to run 64 bits in windows, although even now > >>>>>>>>> it is quite shitty compared to linux > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Why do you neckbeard geek linux tweakers have to lie like > >>>>>>>> that? Is it a Bill Clinton tiny penis thing? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Linux was originally i386 only, 32 bits. Intel was the holdup > >>>>>>>> on 64 bit OS implementations for MS. That is why MS went with > >>>>>>>> "x64 AMD" builds because of flawed Intel chips. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Idiot. > >>>>>>> Linux ran on AMD64 chips month before the first CPU left the > >>>>>>> fab. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Really? How did it do that? Since there were no capable CPUs > >>>>>> yet? > >>>>> > >>>>> Easy. I already said that AMD worked with Suse. > >>>>> Suse used a hardware emulator provided by AMD. They wrote the > >>>>> software and tested it, and reported back bugs they found. > >>>> > >>>> None of this is terribly shocking to anyone with a computer > >>>> science background. > >>> > >>> He still lied, and that's the crux of it. > >>> > >>> "Oringinally SUSE provided one product (Simply known as S.u.S.e > >>> Linux), which was released about three times a year and was > >>> available for the x86 platform only." > >>> > >>> None of this is terribly shocking to someone who is literate > >>> first. > >>> > >> > >> Supporting X86-64 is kernel thing, not distro thing... Perhaps SUSE was > >> first distribution to provide x86-64 platform... > > > > It was, because they were the ones porting the sources to x86-64 > > > > Version 9.0 of Suse linux came out on Oct. 15 2003 and had full 64bit > > support > > > > Support for the AMD64 was earlyer though, it started in 2001 with the > > original specs, which were changed slightly later until the release of the > > processor in April 2003 > > > > > > Quote from the Wiki: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Linux > > ---------------------- > > Linux was the first operating system kernel to run the x86-64 architecture > > in long mode, starting with the 2.4 version in 2001 (preceding the > > hardware's availability).[59][60] Linux also provides backward compatibility > > for running 32-bit executables. This permits programs to be recompiled into > > long mode while retaining the use of 32-bit programs. Several Linux > > distributions currently ship with x86-64-native kernels and userlands. > > ----------------------- > > > > > > The first windows versions to support x86-64 (extremely badly) came out in > > 2005 (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 x64 > > Edition). Hardware support (drivers) was not nearly as complete as in linux > > (it was in fact nearly ipossible to get 64bit drivers for those for the vast > > majority of hardware), and seamless support of both 64bit and 32bit programs > > was (and still is) not as good as in linux > > > > > > The anonymous coward is still dumber than bread, as he is completely unable > > to look up easily to find dates. Not surprising, plants like GreyClot are > > unable too. Incidentally, both are windows users, and both bring the > > combined windows users IQ down to 43 > > > > > So, after jabbing you in the ass with a pitchfork to get you to provide > proof of your claim and it took you a couple of days to find this info? > > LMAOF!!! > > The only dimbulb in here seems to be you, koldturd. And it looks like > the lights are on, but nobody is home. LOL!!!! And it was still wrong. "Originally SUSE provided one product (Simply known as S.u.S.e Linux), which was released about three times a year and was available for the x86 platform only." Petard claimed SUSE came out the door 64bit capable. It wasn't. Done beating this donkey.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 19:55 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <28262041cc99c3a28737248c7a76ac41@anemone.mooo.com> |
| In reply to | #253368 |
In article <n87hb5$gas$1@dont-email.me> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > > Melzzzzz wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 01:58:33 +0100 > > Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> wrote: > > > >> In article <slrnnacb7q.nhu.jedi@nomad.mishnet> > >> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: > >> > > >> > On 2016-01-24, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >> > > Anonymous wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> In article <n7vk8i$mun$1@dont-email.me> > >> > >> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Anonymous wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > In article <n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> > >> > >>> > Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> > >> > >>> > wrote: > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> GreyCloud wrote: > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > On 01/21/16 23:15, Anonymous wrote: > >> > >>> >> >> In article<n7s8b2$lrs$1@dont-email.me> > >> > >>> >> >> GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >> > >>> >> >>> > >> > >>> >> >>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: > >> > >>> >> >>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> > >>> >> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 > >> > >>> >> >>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> > >>> >> >>>>> > >> > >>> >> >>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if > >> > >>> >> >>>>>> x86-64 becomes too expensive to buy into, PowerPC > >> > >>> >> >>>>>> platforms might return to prominence and computers > >> > >>> >> >>>>>> such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the > >> > >>> >> >>>>>> marketplace. > >> > >>> >> >>>>> > >> > >>> >> >>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... > >> > >>> >> >>>> > >> > >>> >> >>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well > >> > >>> >> >>>> right now doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. > >> > >>> >> >>>> > >> > >>> >> >>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them > >> > >>> >> >>> soley for servers. > >> > >>> >> >> > >> > >>> >> >> Ran NT4 on PPC for a bit, a long time ago. Ran Windows > >> > >>> >> >> 2000 Server RC2 on Alpha, then Compaq and MS shelved it. > >> > >>> >> >> > >> > >>> >> > That's the part I could never figure out why they shelved > >> > >>> >> > it. > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> Because they all were 32bits only, even on 64bit chips. > >> > >>> >> And MS was way too incompetent to change that. They even > >> > >>> >> needed several years to get 64bits on Intel/AMD CPUs after > >> > >>> >> linux ran already full bore from the start. I am quite > >> > >>> >> certain that the freely available source of linux helped MS > >> > >>> >> a lot to get it to run 64 bits in windows, although even now > >> > >>> >> it is quite shitty compared to linux > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > Why do you neckbeard geek linux tweakers have to lie like > >> > >>> > that? Is it a Bill Clinton tiny penis thing? > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > Linux was originally i386 only, 32 bits. Intel was the holdup > >> > >>> > on 64 bit OS implementations for MS. That is why MS went with > >> > >>> > "x64 AMD" builds because of flawed Intel chips. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Idiot. > >> > >>> Linux ran on AMD64 chips month before the first CPU left the > >> > >>> fab. > >> > >> > >> > >> Really? How did it do that? Since there were no capable CPUs > >> > >> yet? > >> > > > >> > > Easy. I already said that AMD worked with Suse. > >> > > Suse used a hardware emulator provided by AMD. They wrote the > >> > > software and tested it, and reported back bugs they found. > >> > > >> > None of this is terribly shocking to anyone with a computer > >> > science background. > >> > >> He still lied, and that's the crux of it. > >> > >> "Oringinally SUSE provided one product (Simply known as S.u.S.e > >> Linux), which was released about three times a year and was > >> available for the x86 platform only." > >> > >> None of this is terribly shocking to someone who is literate > >> first. > >> > > > > Supporting X86-64 is kernel thing, not distro thing... Perhaps SUSE was > > first distribution to provide x86-64 platform... > > It was, because they were the ones porting the sources to x86-64 > > Version 9.0 of Suse linux came out on Oct. 15 2003 and had full 64bit > support > > Support for the AMD64 was earlyer though, it started in 2001 with the > original specs, which were changed slightly later until the release of the > processor in April 2003 > > > Quote from the Wiki: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Linux > ---------------------- > Linux was the first operating system kernel to run the x86-64 architecture > in long mode, starting with the 2.4 version in 2001 (preceding the > hardware's availability).[59][60] Linux also provides backward compatibility > for running 32-bit executables. This permits programs to be recompiled into > long mode while retaining the use of 32-bit programs. Several Linux > distributions currently ship with x86-64-native kernels and userlands. > ----------------------- > > > The first windows versions to support x86-64 (extremely badly) came out in > 2005 (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 x64 > Edition). Hardware support (drivers) was not nearly as complete as in linux > (it was in fact nearly ipossible to get 64bit drivers for those for the vast > majority of hardware), and seamless support of both 64bit and 32bit programs > was (and still is) not as good as in linux Lol! Yeah that's why enterprises run 64 bit Windows servers for their SQL servers instead of linux. > The anonymous coward is still dumber than bread, as he is completely unable > to look up easily to find dates. Not surprising, plants like GreyClot are > unable too. Incidentally, both are windows users, and both bring the > combined windows users IQ down to 43 "Oringinally SUSE provided one product (Simply known as S.u.S.e Linux), which was released about three times a year and was available for the x86 platform only."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 06:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <f2cdea5cb5f74336cdfd58904f42953a@anemone.mooo.com> |
| In reply to | #253145 |
In article <n7uak3$13v$1@dont-email.me> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > > linux getta byte, getta byte, getta byte byte byte.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 10:13 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n7tgpn$ljv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253038 |
On 2016-01-21 10:42 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: >> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 >>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too >>>> expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to prominence >>>> and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the >>>> marketplace. >>> >>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... >> >> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now >> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. >> > The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for servers. I can imagine. However, a response to x64 becoming much more expensive COULD be to settle for other platforms. Intel making its chips inaccessible to regular people because of high prices could result in a company like IBM slashing the prices of their RISC processors and the people behind AmigaOne and MorphOS taking advantage to sell machines which can do everything that you would want to do at a fraction of the price a Windows x64 set-up would cost you. I'm not saying that it WILL happen, I'm saying that it COULD happen. -- Slimer EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Mozilla & PETA supporter "Everything seems to work fine, except that occasionally everything freezes." - Another one of GNU/Linux's many victims "Sound wasn't even a gauranteed thing on a PC in the 90s." - Linux apologist JEDIDIAH explaining why sound never worked/works right in Linux
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 11:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n7tmt7$ftk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253080 |
Slimer wrote:
> On 2016-01-21 10:42 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote:
>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500
>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too
>>>>> expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to prominence
>>>>> and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the
>>>>> marketplace.
>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC...
>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now
>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist.
>>>
>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for servers.
>
> I can imagine. However, a response to x64 becoming much more expensive
> COULD be to settle for other platforms. Intel making its chips
> inaccessible to regular people because of high prices could result in a
> company like IBM slashing the prices of their RISC processors and the
> people behind AmigaOne and MorphOS taking advantage to sell machines
> which can do everything that you would want to do at a fraction of the
> price a Windows x64 set-up would cost you. I'm not saying that it WILL
> happen, I'm saying that it COULD happen.
I don't think you have any idea at all, what's going on.
IBM got rid of its fab. Now, do you think that will change
what kind of a company they are ? Where are your cheap
RISC processors going to come from now ? If they (eventually)
use an outside fab, their chips, ounce for ounce, will cost
the same as everyone else.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/20/investing/ibm-sale-earnings/index.html
You may not believe it, but IBM likes "high-margin" projects,
and selling you cheap RISC chips is simply not in their genes.
If you want *anything* from IBM, you will pay dearly for it.
*******
Owning a fab (as Intel does) is like "drug addiction".
Each time the fab needs a $2 billion to $5 billion overhaul,
something has to pay for that. So rather than Intel
producing "whizzy technology because its fun", instead
they're slaves to a balance sheet, struggling to pay
for their next drug fix. If there is even a slight
disturbance in sales volume, it can spell disaster
for their "whole machine". These businesses are
precarious, and getting more so as time passes.
With the Dramurai, the game was "fixed", as some
memory manufacturing companies (companies running their
own 12" wafer lines) were being propped up by money provided
by national governments. However, during the last price dip,
one of the companies got out of the business. So even national
governments don't have deep enough pockets to interfere in the
market forever.
For me, the biggest fear from a strategic point of view,
is not having fabs on our own soil. I think you can understand
why that might be important. But no matter how
important it might be, someone has to pay for
those. And as long as business controls them,
they'll "move freely over the surface of the
planet". Economic forces will determine winners
and losers. TSMC, providing services for multiple
fabless companies, seeks to even out its chip load,
by dealing with multiple designs at the same time.
Unlike an Intel fab that (as far as I know) handles
only Intel business at the moment.
IBM entertained supplying chips to third parties.
They made chips for us. We had their silicon library on
disk, and I could look at the performance characteristics
of their chip tech. But, they couldn't even out their
supply bumps, even by trying "to be their own TSMC".
So if anything, you end up suspecting that there is
just no good business in owning a fab. Being a drug
addict, sucks.
In some cases, the chip fab movement is literal.
Like the chip manufacturing plant that they
put on a barge and moved from North America
to Ireland. I checked one day with a supplier,
to see if I could get a certain chip, and
I was told "those are out of stock for the
next 46 weeks - the chip plant is on a barge somewhere,
out on the ocean". So in some cases, chip plants
actually do move, lock, stock and barrel. For the
life of me, I couldn't figure out how a "barge"
was the best way to do that. Shurely they could have
Fedexed the thing, and had it overnight :-)
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 15:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n7ua94$t4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253080 |
On 01/22/16 08:13, Slimer wrote: > On 2016-01-21 10:42 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: >>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 >>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> >>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too >>>>> expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to prominence >>>>> and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the >>>>> marketplace. >>>> >>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... >>> >>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now >>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. >>> >> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for servers. > > I can imagine. However, a response to x64 becoming much more expensive > COULD be to settle for other platforms. Intel making its chips > inaccessible to regular people because of high prices could result in a > company like IBM slashing the prices of their RISC processors and the > people behind AmigaOne and MorphOS taking advantage to sell machines > which can do everything that you would want to do at a fraction of the > price a Windows x64 set-up would cost you. I'm not saying that it WILL > happen, I'm saying that it COULD happen. > > They should. The markets, at least to me, are getting rather boring. If I was the chairman of the board at IBM, I'd have fired the idiot that didn't try to cut the power consumption on the PowerPC line. That would've kept IBM in contention with Intel and kept their profits up, which as I understand it now is falling. Their single core G5 at the time did pretty good as one core, and I could only imagine what an 8 core G5 with low power consumption could've done for the market.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 09:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n8032p$b4a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253143 |
On 2016-01-22 5:27 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 01/22/16 08:13, Slimer wrote: >> On 2016-01-21 10:42 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: >>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 >>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too >>>>>> expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to prominence >>>>>> and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the >>>>>> marketplace. >>>>> >>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... >>>> >>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now >>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. >>>> >>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for >>> servers. >> >> I can imagine. However, a response to x64 becoming much more expensive >> COULD be to settle for other platforms. Intel making its chips >> inaccessible to regular people because of high prices could result in a >> company like IBM slashing the prices of their RISC processors and the >> people behind AmigaOne and MorphOS taking advantage to sell machines >> which can do everything that you would want to do at a fraction of the >> price a Windows x64 set-up would cost you. I'm not saying that it WILL >> happen, I'm saying that it COULD happen. >> >> > They should. The markets, at least to me, are getting rather boring. > If I was the chairman of the board at IBM, I'd have fired the idiot that > didn't try to cut the power consumption on the PowerPC line. That > would've kept IBM in contention with Intel and kept their profits up, > which as I understand it now is falling. Their single core G5 at the > time did pretty good as one core, and I could only imagine what an 8 > core G5 with low power consumption could've done for the market. It all depends on whether IBM is interested in getting back in the game which made them a household name or whether they want to continue to deny that they are essentially dying and that it is just a matter of time before they are forgotten entirely. Intel WILL get arrogant and WILL make mistakes which WILL alienate customers. Those customers MIGHT go to AMD and pay for less expensive processors (I know that's what *I* did for a time) but they might also be ready for an entirely different experience without GNU/Linux or Windows. It would just be nice to see IBM try to take advantage of the arrogance to sell a new platform (debatably a better platform) with an entirely different operating environment. It's unlikely, but it's fairly exciting to consider. -- Slimer EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Conservative Party of Canada, Mozilla & PETA supporter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 10:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n80d4f$ia1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253192 |
On 01/23/16 07:37, Slimer wrote: > On 2016-01-22 5:27 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> On 01/22/16 08:13, Slimer wrote: >>> On 2016-01-21 10:42 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: >>>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 >>>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too >>>>>>> expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to prominence >>>>>>> and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the >>>>>>> marketplace. >>>>>> >>>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... >>>>> >>>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now >>>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. >>>>> >>>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for >>>> servers. >>> >>> I can imagine. However, a response to x64 becoming much more expensive >>> COULD be to settle for other platforms. Intel making its chips >>> inaccessible to regular people because of high prices could result in a >>> company like IBM slashing the prices of their RISC processors and the >>> people behind AmigaOne and MorphOS taking advantage to sell machines >>> which can do everything that you would want to do at a fraction of the >>> price a Windows x64 set-up would cost you. I'm not saying that it WILL >>> happen, I'm saying that it COULD happen. >>> >>> >> They should. The markets, at least to me, are getting rather boring. >> If I was the chairman of the board at IBM, I'd have fired the idiot that >> didn't try to cut the power consumption on the PowerPC line. That >> would've kept IBM in contention with Intel and kept their profits up, >> which as I understand it now is falling. Their single core G5 at the >> time did pretty good as one core, and I could only imagine what an 8 >> core G5 with low power consumption could've done for the market. > > It all depends on whether IBM is interested in getting back in the game > which made them a household name or whether they want to continue to > deny that they are essentially dying and that it is just a matter of > time before they are forgotten entirely. Intel WILL get arrogant and > WILL make mistakes which WILL alienate customers. Those customers MIGHT > go to AMD and pay for less expensive processors (I know that's what *I* > did for a time) but they might also be ready for an entirely different > experience without GNU/Linux or Windows. It would just be nice to see > IBM try to take advantage of the arrogance to sell a new platform > (debatably a better platform) with an entirely different operating > environment. It's unlikely, but it's fairly exciting to consider. > If IBM doesn't wake up and realize just how close to the precipice they are, then it will be only a matter of time for their demise. They're already losing money. Their first attempt was to ditch Linux. As I've said before, Linux branding is the kiss of death to a product line. I don't know what IBM thinks they can do with going to Apple and buying their machines, after they arrogantly ignored Steve Jobs recommendation to lower the power consumption of their cpus. AMD can get out of the doldrums if they utilized some of the design paradigms of the DEC Alpha team used. After all, when DEC was around the Alphas were on top.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 06:21 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <dc952f5d02586c5fc15b196074fc4e16@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #253204 |
In article <n80d4f$ia1$1@dont-email.me> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > > On 01/23/16 07:37, Slimer wrote: > > On 2016-01-22 5:27 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > >> On 01/22/16 08:13, Slimer wrote: > >>> On 2016-01-21 10:42 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > >>>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: > >>>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 > >>>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too > >>>>>>> expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to prominence > >>>>>>> and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the > >>>>>>> marketplace. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... > >>>>> > >>>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now > >>>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. > >>>>> > >>>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for > >>>> servers. > >>> > >>> I can imagine. However, a response to x64 becoming much more expensive > >>> COULD be to settle for other platforms. Intel making its chips > >>> inaccessible to regular people because of high prices could result in a > >>> company like IBM slashing the prices of their RISC processors and the > >>> people behind AmigaOne and MorphOS taking advantage to sell machines > >>> which can do everything that you would want to do at a fraction of the > >>> price a Windows x64 set-up would cost you. I'm not saying that it WILL > >>> happen, I'm saying that it COULD happen. > >>> > >>> > >> They should. The markets, at least to me, are getting rather boring. > >> If I was the chairman of the board at IBM, I'd have fired the idiot that > >> didn't try to cut the power consumption on the PowerPC line. That > >> would've kept IBM in contention with Intel and kept their profits up, > >> which as I understand it now is falling. Their single core G5 at the > >> time did pretty good as one core, and I could only imagine what an 8 > >> core G5 with low power consumption could've done for the market. > > > > It all depends on whether IBM is interested in getting back in the game > > which made them a household name or whether they want to continue to > > deny that they are essentially dying and that it is just a matter of > > time before they are forgotten entirely. Intel WILL get arrogant and > > WILL make mistakes which WILL alienate customers. Those customers MIGHT > > go to AMD and pay for less expensive processors (I know that's what *I* > > did for a time) but they might also be ready for an entirely different > > experience without GNU/Linux or Windows. It would just be nice to see > > IBM try to take advantage of the arrogance to sell a new platform > > (debatably a better platform) with an entirely different operating > > environment. It's unlikely, but it's fairly exciting to consider. > > > If IBM doesn't wake up and realize just how close to the precipice they > are, then it will be only a matter of time for their demise. They're > already losing money. Their first attempt was to ditch Linux. As I've > said before, Linux branding is the kiss of death to a product line. IBM's arrogance is a heavy cross to drag around. The major stupid thing they did was engage India to do development and support as a cost cutting measure. More like a throat cutting measure. India had to turn around and engage Americans to support IBM's India folly - on IBM's dime. Customers HATE India support with a passion. Really hate them. Won't even talk to them, let the company computing resources take a total shit and lose data kind of hate. > I don't know what IBM thinks they can do with going to Apple and buying > their machines, after they arrogantly ignored Steve Jobs recommendation > to lower the power consumption of their cpus. IBM is still inventing water cooled technology to compete in markets where a generic Intel box has 48 cores. We can easily put ten of those in a rack and have 480 cores at our disposal - without water involved. > AMD can get out of the doldrums if they utilized some of the design > paradigms of the DEC Alpha team used. After all, when DEC was around > the Alphas were on top. AMD did. They used EV6, then in a stroke of genius, dumped it for NUMA.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 10:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Message-ID | <n831gr$4mt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #253231 |
On 01/23/16 22:21, Nomen Nescio wrote: > In article<n80d4f$ia1$1@dont-email.me> > GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >> >> On 01/23/16 07:37, Slimer wrote: >>> On 2016-01-22 5:27 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>>> On 01/22/16 08:13, Slimer wrote: >>>>> On 2016-01-21 10:42 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>>>>> On 01/21/16 15:30, Slimer wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-01-21 3:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500 >>>>>>>> Slimer<.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too >>>>>>>>> expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to prominence >>>>>>>>> and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the >>>>>>>>> marketplace. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ARM is big contender not PowerPC... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dude, it doesn't matter. Just because ARM is doing well right now >>>>>>> doesn't mean that PowerPC ceased to exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>> The PowerPC series is at G7 level now and IBM uses them soley for >>>>>> servers. >>>>> >>>>> I can imagine. However, a response to x64 becoming much more expensive >>>>> COULD be to settle for other platforms. Intel making its chips >>>>> inaccessible to regular people because of high prices could result in a >>>>> company like IBM slashing the prices of their RISC processors and the >>>>> people behind AmigaOne and MorphOS taking advantage to sell machines >>>>> which can do everything that you would want to do at a fraction of the >>>>> price a Windows x64 set-up would cost you. I'm not saying that it WILL >>>>> happen, I'm saying that it COULD happen. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> They should. The markets, at least to me, are getting rather boring. >>>> If I was the chairman of the board at IBM, I'd have fired the idiot that >>>> didn't try to cut the power consumption on the PowerPC line. That >>>> would've kept IBM in contention with Intel and kept their profits up, >>>> which as I understand it now is falling. Their single core G5 at the >>>> time did pretty good as one core, and I could only imagine what an 8 >>>> core G5 with low power consumption could've done for the market. >>> >>> It all depends on whether IBM is interested in getting back in the game >>> which made them a household name or whether they want to continue to >>> deny that they are essentially dying and that it is just a matter of >>> time before they are forgotten entirely. Intel WILL get arrogant and >>> WILL make mistakes which WILL alienate customers. Those customers MIGHT >>> go to AMD and pay for less expensive processors (I know that's what *I* >>> did for a time) but they might also be ready for an entirely different >>> experience without GNU/Linux or Windows. It would just be nice to see >>> IBM try to take advantage of the arrogance to sell a new platform >>> (debatably a better platform) with an entirely different operating >>> environment. It's unlikely, but it's fairly exciting to consider. >>> >> If IBM doesn't wake up and realize just how close to the precipice they >> are, then it will be only a matter of time for their demise. They're >> already losing money. Their first attempt was to ditch Linux. As I've >> said before, Linux branding is the kiss of death to a product line. > > IBM's arrogance is a heavy cross to drag around. The major > stupid thing they did was engage India to do development and > support as a cost cutting measure. More like a throat cutting > measure. India had to turn around and engage Americans to > support IBM's India folly - on IBM's dime. > As I've said before, if I were the CEO I'd fire some really stupid people and go looking for some smart people and pay the price. It would be worth it to them. > Customers HATE India support with a passion. Really hate them. > Won't even talk to them, let the company computing resources > take a total shit and lose data kind of hate. > I got some really stupid support from HP from some indian over there over an HP printer. All he thought the solution was is to clean the print heads, when the problem was very dark color photo prints. Eventually HP fixed their software, but it took a good year for them to wake up to the fact that it was their software that was messed up. >> I don't know what IBM thinks they can do with going to Apple and buying >> their machines, after they arrogantly ignored Steve Jobs recommendation >> to lower the power consumption of their cpus. > > IBM is still inventing water cooled technology to compete in > markets where a generic Intel box has 48 cores. We can easily > put ten of those in a rack and have 480 cores at our disposal - > without water involved. > >> AMD can get out of the doldrums if they utilized some of the design >> paradigms of the DEC Alpha team used. After all, when DEC was around >> the Alphas were on top. > > AMD did. They used EV6, then in a stroke of genius, dumped it > for NUMA. > I haven't heard that part.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.freeware
csiph-web