Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #253386
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.freeware, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.hacker, alt.privacy.anon-server, comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: AMD vs. Intel |
| Date | 2016-01-26 11:24 +0100 |
| Organization | DNLA GmbH |
| Message-ID | <n87hb5$gas$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (20 earlier) <5b8d9ebf10f4b9a34d3ad2db18d21a41@hoi-polloi.org> <n82omj$tc9$1@dont-email.me> <slrnnacb7q.nhu.jedi@nomad.mishnet> <04ebffb39131510818b8dd766c255932@hoi-polloi.org> <20160126020549.6723753b@maxa-pc> |
Cross-posted to 5 groups.
Melzzzzz wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 01:58:33 +0100 > Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> wrote: > >> In article <slrnnacb7q.nhu.jedi@nomad.mishnet> >> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >> > >> > On 2016-01-24, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> > > Anonymous wrote: >> > > >> > >> In article <n7vk8i$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
Back to alt.comp.freeware | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web