Re: Confused about 64-bit architectures.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 03:03:18PM -0500, dan-martins@rogers.com wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 05:42:30AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 06:55:39PM +0000, Adam Funk wrote:
> > > It gives the information -- but not in a dumbed-down enough format for
> > > me. For example, nowhere on that page is the word "Xeon" mentioned,
> > > so if I bought a Xeon computer, for example, I wouldn't know from that
> > > page alone to install AMD64.
> >
> > And that's a good thing, since the one has little to do with the other.
>
I can possibly see why the comment above was made: though I don't agree
with flamewars :)
Intel marketing hasn't helped Intel or the market here :) 386/486/Pentium
we could understand. AMD pushed 64 bit to market: Intel pushed slightly
later. They then produced, in turn, 64 bit capable Xeons and 64 bit
capable Pentium D's. [EM64T is the magic bit here]
I ordered several AMD 64 bit workstations for work the other day,
a dual Xeon and a Pentium (for code that has to be _Intel_ compatible and for
code that has to be _Intel_ compatible and 32 bit) only to be told by the
vendor "Oh no, we don't stock 32 bit any more - all our stuff is 64 bit capable now"
"Xeon" up till a fairly short while ago was 32 bit, as was "Pentium" :now it's
64 bit (but that re-use of established brand names for two different processor
families doesn't tell anybody that "EM64T" is pretty much equal to "capable of
running AMD64 code natively in 64 bit mode" :) )
So "Xeon" alone says nothing and, in fact, to the uneducated eye, might be
taken at face value as 32 bit hence, potentially, "the one has little to
do with the other".
> How is this comment of use to anyone? You need to get off your high-horse Mark. I don't think i have ever seen a usefull
> comment from you on any subject.
>
Please try and be civil on-list: if you must get exasperated or annoyed
try and keep flamage off list because it provokes longer and longer
replies :)
Andy
Reply to: