Crusher
15-06-2002, 11:05
Bem, só agora reparei nisto, mas tá porreiro... :D
http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2002/05/020521_Intel_Subverts/020521_Intel_Subverts.htm
Sources attending Seattle’s WinHEC 2002 maintained that Microsoft has successfully pressured Goliath chipmaker Intel Corporation into adopting archrival AMD’s new 64-bit chip language.
Wow I'm so surprised that you heard this at a Windows conference held in Seattle. Truly earthshattering news there dude.
> [Microsoft] expressed a clear preference for Advanced Micro Devices’ x86-64 instruction set over Intel’s competing IA-64.
Well no shit moron, because x86-64 is essentially the same instruction set, that was the whole point of "developing" it. Microsoft is too lazy to learn Intel's new set so they simply call it inferior. Classic Microsoft FUD.
> Furthermore, the OS developer advised Intel to comply with x86-64 if the Santa Clara, California-based chipmaker desired ongoing 64-bit support.
And I'm sure they are shaking in their boots too. I don't know if it ever occurred to you, but Microsoft is not the only developer in the world. Not only that, but if Microsoft wants to limit the range of hardware that their software can run on, well then they should go right ahead, profits be damned.
> x86-64 is a straightforward yet much more powerful evolution of the existing 32-bit x86 instruction set.
How's that exactly? It's based on a twenty year old architecture. To be honest, I don't WANT a chip that is binary compatible with early 80's hardware. I'm ready for the future. You and MS obviously are stuck in the distant past. BTW I have an old 256kb ISA vga card if you want it, it should run great in your Hammer system.
> Intel’s adoption of AMD’s x86-64 serves as a resounding victory for the much smaller MPU designer.
Why do you report this as if it's already happened? This is absolutely HORRIBLE journalism, you should be ashamed for producing such propogandist sensationalism.
> AMD is widely viewed as the superior innovator.
Oh I see, so AMD doubles the instruction size of their core and that's innovation, yet Intel's ground-up 64-bit design isn't? WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM???
> In fact, AMD has been awarded ... a total of 1,090 patents in 2001, ... Intel trailed with only 811
If you believe that US patents mean anything then you are truly lacking brain cells. Besides that I don't see 1090 vs 811 to be a significant difference, especially considering AMD would patent the brown chips coming out of their asses if they thought they could make a buck.
> Intel is expected to make a formal announcement of its x86-64 support, code-named “Yamhill,” in June or July during a face-saving presentation delivered with Microsoft.
I'll believe it when I see it, until then why don't you act like a real reporter and report the facts, not your own clearly biased opinions.
PS. So why aren't you working at Tom's anymore? I can't seem to be able to find any of your old articles on that site.... hmmmmm....
http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2002/05/020521_Intel_Subverts/020521_Intel_Subverts.htm
Sources attending Seattle’s WinHEC 2002 maintained that Microsoft has successfully pressured Goliath chipmaker Intel Corporation into adopting archrival AMD’s new 64-bit chip language.
Wow I'm so surprised that you heard this at a Windows conference held in Seattle. Truly earthshattering news there dude.
> [Microsoft] expressed a clear preference for Advanced Micro Devices’ x86-64 instruction set over Intel’s competing IA-64.
Well no shit moron, because x86-64 is essentially the same instruction set, that was the whole point of "developing" it. Microsoft is too lazy to learn Intel's new set so they simply call it inferior. Classic Microsoft FUD.
> Furthermore, the OS developer advised Intel to comply with x86-64 if the Santa Clara, California-based chipmaker desired ongoing 64-bit support.
And I'm sure they are shaking in their boots too. I don't know if it ever occurred to you, but Microsoft is not the only developer in the world. Not only that, but if Microsoft wants to limit the range of hardware that their software can run on, well then they should go right ahead, profits be damned.
> x86-64 is a straightforward yet much more powerful evolution of the existing 32-bit x86 instruction set.
How's that exactly? It's based on a twenty year old architecture. To be honest, I don't WANT a chip that is binary compatible with early 80's hardware. I'm ready for the future. You and MS obviously are stuck in the distant past. BTW I have an old 256kb ISA vga card if you want it, it should run great in your Hammer system.
> Intel’s adoption of AMD’s x86-64 serves as a resounding victory for the much smaller MPU designer.
Why do you report this as if it's already happened? This is absolutely HORRIBLE journalism, you should be ashamed for producing such propogandist sensationalism.
> AMD is widely viewed as the superior innovator.
Oh I see, so AMD doubles the instruction size of their core and that's innovation, yet Intel's ground-up 64-bit design isn't? WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM???
> In fact, AMD has been awarded ... a total of 1,090 patents in 2001, ... Intel trailed with only 811
If you believe that US patents mean anything then you are truly lacking brain cells. Besides that I don't see 1090 vs 811 to be a significant difference, especially considering AMD would patent the brown chips coming out of their asses if they thought they could make a buck.
> Intel is expected to make a formal announcement of its x86-64 support, code-named “Yamhill,” in June or July during a face-saving presentation delivered with Microsoft.
I'll believe it when I see it, until then why don't you act like a real reporter and report the facts, not your own clearly biased opinions.
PS. So why aren't you working at Tom's anymore? I can't seem to be able to find any of your old articles on that site.... hmmmmm....