"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> writes:
>>What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
>>Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.
>
> Did you mean "without Intel"?
I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
instead of by AMD.
Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement over
the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).
-Miles
--
80% of success is just showing up. --Woody Allen
In article <buotzhme1jv.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com>, miles.bader@necel.com says...
> "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> writes:
> >>What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
> >>Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.
> >
> > Did you mean "without Intel"?
>
> I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
> chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
> instead of by AMD.
What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.
> Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement over
> the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).
Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> writes:
>> I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
>> chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
>> instead of by AMD.
>
> What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.
"greater chance"
Not necessarily a _good_ chance, but it's the only way I can make sense
of the grandparent poster's ranting...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:32:54 +0900, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
>Not necessarily a _good_ chance, but it's the only way I can make sense
>of the grandparent poster's ranting...
Don't try to make sense of something containing none of it whatsoever.
In article <871w4po8rd.fsf@catnip.gol.com>, miles@gnu.org says...
> krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> writes:
> >> I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
> >> chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
> >> instead of by AMD.
> >
> > What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.
>
> "greater chance"
>
> Not necessarily a _good_ chance, but it's the only way I can make sense
> of the grandparent poster's ranting...
> In article <buotzhme1jv.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com>,
> miles.bader@necel.com says...
>> "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >>What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
>> >>Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.
>> >
>> > Did you mean "without Intel"?
>>
>> I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
>> chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
>> instead of by AMD.
>
> What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.
>
>> Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement over
>> the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).
>
> Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.
Funny, that's not how I recall it. Intel dropped their x86-64 bit plans
after trying to push it onto Microsoft, and Microsoft telling them to
shove off. I think this link will get more to the truth.
"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.2280254b5e8cf802989b64@news.individual.ne t...
> In article <buotzhme1jv.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com>,
> miles.bader@necel.com says...
>> "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >>What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
>> >>Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.
>> >
>> > Did you mean "without Intel"?
>>
>> I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
>> chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
>> instead of by AMD.
>
> What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.
>
>> Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement over
>> the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).
>
> Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.
They did, but was told by MS to dump it & use AMD64 code
MS did not want to make 2 ver. of Windows.
Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> writes:
>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:18:24 -0400, krw wrote:
>
>> In article <buotzhme1jv.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com>,
>> miles.bader@necel.com says...
>>> "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> >>What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
>>> >>Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.
>>> >
>>> > Did you mean "without Intel"?
>>>
>>> I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
>>> chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
>>> instead of by AMD.
>>
>> What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.
>>
>>> Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement over
>>> the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).
>>
>> Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.
>
>Funny, that's not how I recall it. Intel dropped their x86-64 bit plans
>after trying to push it onto Microsoft, and Microsoft telling them to
>shove off. I think this link will get more to the truth.
From a history perspective, the P7 circa 1996 was to be the 64-bit follow-on
to the ia32 architecture. Then Intel shifted gears and joined with HP
to merge the P7 with some stuff at HP, producing Itanium. Itanium _was_
intel's 64-bit story (with the 32-bit x86 support in the processor). However,
Merced was late and slow and AMD did x86_64 and Intel was forced to include
it.
In article <KFzRj.12788$Rk6.2453@trnddc07>, w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net says...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:18:24 -0400, krw wrote:
>
> > In article <buotzhme1jv.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com>,
> > miles.bader@necel.com says...
> >> "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> >>What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
> >> >>Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.
> >> >
> >> > Did you mean "without Intel"?
> >>
> >> I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
> >> chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
> >> instead of by AMD.
> >
> > What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.
> >
> >> Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement over
> >> the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).
> >
> > Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.
>
> Funny, that's not how I recall it. Intel dropped their x86-64 bit plans
> after trying to push it onto Microsoft, and Microsoft telling them to
> shove off. I think this link will get more to the truth.
Only after it was clear that AMD64 was going to happen whatever
Intel did, did Intel try to get in front of the train (to derail
it). M$ didn't see that in their interest either.
In article <fv7970$21ii$1@otis.netspace.net.au>, gazac@netspace.net.au says...
> "krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2280254b5e8cf802989b64@news.individual.ne t...
> > In article <buotzhme1jv.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com>,
> > miles.bader@necel.com says...
> >> "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> >>What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
> >> >>Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.
> >> >
> >> > Did you mean "without Intel"?
> >>
> >> I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
> >> chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other architecture,
> >> instead of by AMD.
> >
> > What architecture? You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.
> >
> >> Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement over
> >> the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).
> >
> > Intel did too, but had no interest in pushing it forward to product.
>
> They did, but was told by MS to dump it & use AMD64 code
> MS did not want to make 2 ver. of Windows.
Re: AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ? 
Linear Mode
