Torvalds and Intel's 64 bit extensions

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
*EDIT* Forget it... this argument is stupid.

It's no use arguing with faith like that Jeff.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Megatomic

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
*EDIT* Forget it... this argument is stupid.

It's no use arguing with faith like that Jeff.

I don't see how it can be an argument.....He is assumming what my intent was versus the person who wrote it, me.... He read it wrong and I am setting him straight....No argument at all.

He concedes Intel was obviously working on or had a version he just assummed my meaning incorrectly....


Everyday I am reminded why I am starting to spend more time elsewhere...You ppl are really something else....

 

[Megatomic]

Duvie, before you relegate me to the mindless AMD fanboy faction, check out this link.

I happen to like both platforms. :beer:

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
Duvie, before you relegate me to the mindless AMD fanboy faction, check out this link.

I happen to like both platforms. :beer:

On the same hand look at me the same way.....Over the last 6 months I built and recommended to my family and friends 5 AMD systems. I built an AMD box for my CAD workstation at work. I wanted an AMD laptop back in JULY but could not find a decent OEM maker who sold one with a high enough speed and the upgrades of other components I wanted. I settled for a Centrino.

In most threads I recommended as many Bartons and A64's as I have P4's. If a person has same uses of multimedia and mulitasking I share my experiences and my opinions and I am blasted for it by ppl who do not even have p4 systems to talk from experience. I see them spread FUD and make blanket statements and when I respond to correct them with hard data and experience I am relegated as a fanboy and zealot.

 

[pspada]

I'm a fanboi, for sure - to whomever is going to provide me with the best price/performance ratio when I buy. For years now I've been using AMD chips because of this, but the second Intel has a chip at a lower price that provides the same performance, I'm in. And the same goes for every other component in the system, with one exception: hard drives. There I look for the best track record for lasting, especially since they are pretty much just comodity items these days, and cost much the same across brands.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Linus Torvalds is the Timothy Leary of the tech world IMHO. Now, there's no need for all the labeling going on in this thread, particularly given the normal behavior of the members involved in this debate :brokenheart: I've seen all of you dispassionately approach questions and topics here but it looks like this one has really polarized even some of the more mature and logical. To me at least there is no need for any of you to defend yourselves against the label fanboy given your "track records" here, they speak well for each of you

My belief is that AMD has no one to blame for the potential ramifications but themselves. They dropped the ball yet again! Had they undertaken the expense and effort of launching and maintaining a media blitz heralding their 64bit products there would be no ill feelings over Intel choosing to simply call it x86-64 since most would already equate it with AMD. That would make any subsequent release of Intel 64bit desktop CPUs appear to be simply anteing up to stay in the hand instead of being poised to make it appear they are leading the way once again. Intel hasn't really stole AMD's thunder, AMD has failed to strike, subsequently there is no thunder since it is the product of the strike's discharge AMD could still do a great job of damage control and turn Intel's own statements to it's advantage but this would require a marketing strategy AMD evidently still isn't capable of :disgust:

 

[Duvie]

I agree....

1) Intel's actions are those actions of any rationale business in a competitive market....

2) AMD failure to have an advertising strategy only allows Intel to jump on the bandwagon later in the game and still appear as if they are the leaders...AMD's own fault

3) Intel has had 64bit technology but chose not to implement it to date due to marketing demand. Whether AMD thought of it first is irrelevant, but the fact is INtel did not jst get this since AMD released theirs to the market for INtel to backwards design...


These all should be fairly easy to agree upon.....

The only fact that seems to remain is that the AMD user base is "pissed" they wont get the accolades they deserve to forcing this technology into the market earlier then inevitable. However it goes back to number 2 and being AMD's lack of a marketing strategy to make sure this they got the glory....

 

[Ronin]

*watches the lean to the left*

One, that 'Linus' person is an absolute pioneer.
Two, the Itanium was an abysmal failure, and it took Intel over 2 years to realize it
Three, AMD development for the 64bit CPU has been in process for some time, and gaming performance aside, performs damn well on a 64bit OS
Four, you presume this is all a marketing ploy between MS and AMD, and that's not it. EVERYTHING is about marketing (and then sales).

These are my comments, and I won't respond to any arguments for or against them. This thread has already annoyed the heck outta me, but I couldn't just stand by any longer.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Ronin
*watches the lean to the left*

One, that 'Linus' person is an absolute pioneer.
Two, the Itanium was an abysmal failure, and it took Intel over 2 years to realize it
Three, AMD development for the 64bit CPU has been in process for some time, and gaming performance aside, performs damn well on a 64bit OS
Four, you presume this is all a marketing ploy between MS and AMD, and that's not it. EVERYTHING is about marketing (and then sales).

These are my comments, and I won't respond to any arguments for or against them. This thread has already annoyed the heck outta me, but I couldn't just stand by any longer.

FOUR??? who said anything about a "ploy" between AMD and MS??? I didn't say that..... It is perfectly reasonable on Microsoft's part not to want to write a 3rd set of code for their 64bit OS....AMD getting to the gate first has secured they set the code...

Maybe another INtel mistake was believeing when they came to market with a 64bit code for x86, MS would bend over backwards for them.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Ronin
*watches the lean to the left*

One, that 'Linus' person is an absolute pioneer.
Two, the Itanium was an abysmal failure, and it took Intel over 2 years to realize it
Three, AMD development for the 64bit CPU has been in process for some time, and gaming performance aside, performs damn well on a 64bit OS
Four, you presume this is all a marketing ploy between MS and AMD, and that's not it. EVERYTHING is about marketing (and then sales).

These are my comments, and I won't respond to any arguments for or against them. This thread has already annoyed the heck outta me, but I couldn't just stand by any longer.

One... Yes, he is. However, that doesn't make his yearning for Intel to use the term "AMD64" any more rational.
Two... How do you define "failure"? How much integration into the high end server market would you expect after a couple of years, to be considered not a failure?
Three... Yes, AMD has been developing x86-64 and Hammer for quite a few years. How you can come to the conclusion of how well it performs on a 64-bit OS is beyond me.
Four... I'm not even sure what you are talking about.


The fact that you make such strong (inaccurate) statements, and then refuse to acknowledge any rebuttal, speaks volumes about the quality of your statements.