Slashdot Mirror
X86-64 Simulator - now available (Linux only)
Well, as the title says - the AMD X86-64 simulator is shipping (for Linux only - for now). You can go here and read the details. It is called SimNow!. Unfortunately, the kernel 64 bit port is not done yet, but hey, you got a nice simulated machine to play with! It's available as RPM for RedHat 6.2 and SuSE 6.4. NOTE: - you'll need PLENTY of RAM to operate this simulator! (384MB RAM is minimum) and disk space - 4 GB! So think before you download this beast!
Believe me, although it is impractical speed wise, I dearly wish Linux had a VMWare like product that attempted to EMULATE the microprocessor rather than attempting to run it in native mode. Apart from speed, there are cool things you can do with an emulated system, even if it is slow.
http://www.bochs.com/ - x86 CPU emulator
-matt
In theory I believe NT separates the architecture specific stuff into HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer?) and should be easier to port. (I don't use NT, I never have, this is just from what I have read).
But the real trick is stuff that creeps in, especially sign extending and byte ordering. It's real easy to assume chars are always signed or unsigned, what MAXINT is, and byte order. No matter how hard you try, these assumptions creep into the code. With a monster like NT 2000, any port is going to be a real nightmare. Either you review every line of code with regards to sign extending and byte ordering, or you swat bugs as they show up. Neither is foolproof. Both are a real pain in the posterior.
Linux has been thru this phase, so it gets easier with additional platforms.
--
Infuriate left and right
Just the other day, I was browsing developer.intel.com, and found that HP was giving away an IA-64 development kit (including simulator), also for Linux. The URL is: http://developer.intel.com/design/ia-64/linux.htm. Also, SGI is giving away their Pro64 Linux tool suite, apparently GCC & friends with SGI enahancements for IA-64: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/Pro64/. Now I'm no IA-64 enthusiast, but the thought of extending x86 junk to 64-bits is just... chilling.
"Just because they don't port to every architecture under the sun, doesn't mean that MS can't do it."
Take it from someone who knows: If you haven't actually done the port, you haven't caught all the issues.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Ultimately Intel obviously dont want Windoze ported to anything else since that's a threat to their dominance.
And Microsoft probably dont want to develop windows concurrently on 10 different architectures (think of the cost!) and so it suits them fine to stick with x86.
AMD however have shaken things up a little since their sledgehammer will keep MS on the x86 platform and leave intel somewhere else...
You heard something, but it is wrong. Yes, there is (or rather was) a port of NT to Alpha. But it was not, repeat *not*, 64 bit. It did not use the Alpha platform to its full potential, so it was kinda useless. You are correct that DEC ported it to Alpha, not Microsoft, and, when Compaq decided that they will no longer port Microsoft's software for free, Microsoft cut all support for NT on Alpha and made it sound like it was Compaq's fault. Incidentally, same happened with other NT ports. e.g. SGI ported NT to MIPS.
Now that Microsoft cut all ports, there is only one platform Windows 2000 runs on - x86. And it doesn't look like this will change any time soon.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Ah, somebody is reading too much into this. RPM works on several other distros too, is AMD in bed with all of them too? (The slut!) I just think they released RPM for two reasons
A) RPM is the most common format for "mainstream" Linux.
B) RedHat is the most common "mainstream" distro.
They have no intention (and nobody really expects them to) to support every bloody distro out there. If you are 'leet enough to use a different distro, then you can figure out how to have alien convert it.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Uhm...you must have missed when AMD licensed the x86 core from Intel. When AMD started making the K5 (or was it K6?) Intel sued, saying that AMD was stealing their microcode. AMD wound up "winning", and was allowed to use the microcode. They've been since playing mostly catch-up with Intel in terms of things like MMX, but extending the chipset with stuff like 3D instruction set. This while mess then got turned into the Athlon.
BTW, how is AMD not compatible? Because they don't support the complete instruction set of the PIII?
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
You hit the nail right on the head -- Sledgehammer is a no pain-little gain upgrade for most people, where the "feature" is that you can run Windows 9x forever and have nice optimised "64-bit" video drivers and other bits here and there to improve your Quake numbers.
Meanwhile your nice "64-bit" chip is still cranking 16-bit code part of the time. AFAIK, Microsoft has not promised a native Sledgehammer port of Windows, nor has anyone promised application support. Meaning that "64-bit" here is more of a marketing feature (much like MMX and 3DNow) than anything else. Which makes sense because by-in-large AMDs channel seems to be consumer/home boxes.
Intel is taking a different marketing tact -- targetting Merced at people who need both 64-bit and some i386 compatiblity and are willing to pay thorugh the nose for it. Merced users will have the 4GB Ought To Be Enough For Anyone problem solved. The problem is that there have been many better 64-bit solutions out there for years, for those who really needed 64-bit, and meanwhile the 32-bit chips are scaling quite well.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
This is *really* an odd message, Archvile. I would expect a little better.
All of AMD's chips have been VERY good for compatibility; they've put a lot of energy into that. There have been flaws, a couple of the older ones being TERRIBLE, but the rarity of those flaws is almost incredible. Intel itself does worse.
And the AMD processor architecture is different from the P6 and 7 architecture. You're talking out of your hat to claim otherwise. The design is different.
-Billy
NT USED to be architecture neutral. Recently though, they gave up the Alpha port (which was really the only port still production quality) and is now more or less x86 only.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
"I'm completely fed up with this [windowing system]. I don't see why we need [windowing systems] with 8 diff modes of operation so they can be [source] compatible with software from the 80's. Why can't people make a move to [modern] arc in the PC industry w/o having to have everything be compatible. Can't the major companies who only distribute binaries afford to dist a [BeOS app_server version], a [Berlin version], and another new arch? XFree86, Xig, MetroX, should just give up on this crappy [windowing system] argh."
;)
I just answered your own question
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
If only they had a 32-bit x86 simulator that ran on 64-bit machines, Micorsoft could finally port Windows to 64-bit platforms!
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I gotta try this one out. ;)
run a x86-64 emu, install linux on it
run VMWare, install windows
and start a gameboy emulator
this way i get the exact gameboy speed =)
Before you email me, remember: "There is no god!"
SimNow!.... sounds like something else by Maxis
Isn't Win NT 5 (ooops, I mean Win 2000) architecture neutral like Linux? Just because they don't port to every architecture under the sun, doesn't mean that MS can't do it.
What I think this means is that the x86-64 architecture could extend the life of the Win 9X lineage (Win 95, Win 98, Win 98 SE, Win ME). This would enable people who aren't successfully coerced by MS's attempts to migrate to Win 2000 to continue paying for upgrades to the Win 9X codebase -- but recompiled for better hardware. The IA-64 couldn't support the descendants of Win 9x. I suppose this means that x86-64 could breathe another hundred years of life into the Win 9x codebase.
For Win 2000, I think MS could support IA-64 as well as x86-64.
If MS were to throw a lot of support behind x86-64 and little support behind IA-64, then it would seem to be in Intel's best interest to really get behind Linux in order for there to be some universe of software that they can sell IA-64 hardware into.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
If you're dealing with small virtual drive images (which I imagine you are, having stored them on CD) you can do exactly the same Save..Muck..Restore.. process using Linux on the native hardware and forgetting the virtual machine..
/dev/hda1.
Create a 640 meg HD partition as
Install Linux on hda2+.
Install Windows9x on hda1, reboot Linux using a boot disk, and restore LILO.
dd if=/dev/hda1 of=/diskimages/windows98SE.image bs=1M count=640.
Wipe hda1 with random data or zero fill it before installing the next OS.
To reinstall a image, simply boot Linux, dd if=/diskimages/windows98SE.image of=/dev/hda1 bs=1M count=640.
Presto! Native speed, native hardware, and you can use all of the great Unixy tools on the images to do snapshot diffs, binary diffs, etc..
.sig: Now legally binding!
Don't forget that the other reason that x86 will not die is that the dominant OS (Windoze) is not ported to other architectures, not to mention any of the Windoze programs that people want to use. If MS ported their stuff to other platforms, and Windoze software companies did as well, then there would be a mechanism for the obsolescence of x86. But as long as MS is tied to x86, it will live as long as MS does. And that looks like a depressingly long time to me.
Most of the people cannot even try it! it requires 384MB RAM (minimum!), 4GB Disk space and a good 700+Mhz Processor
So think, before you download this beast..
Hetz (Heunique)
while this is a neat idea and all, does this really have any true value of application? I guess what I'm asking is, what are most people going to get out of this, besides a huge kernel and a sudden hunger for RAM? Is this supposed to be for people that want to code for X86-64 to get a head start? If so, is it really wise to base coding for a 64 bit chip on what happens in a 64 bit simulator on a 32 bit processor?
"I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
Most of the people cannot even try it! it requires 384MB RAM (minimum!), 4GB Disk space and a good 700+Mhz Processor
Wow, what a coincidence! The exact same minimum requirements as Windows ME!
--
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
I use emulators for certian kinds of work, and believe me, speed is about the furthest thing from my mind.
The easiest to understand example is Virtual PC for Power Macintosh. It emulates the hardware of a PC. That is, the microprocessor, an emulated S3 Trio 64 video card, an emulated DEC 21041 ethernet controller on IRQ 11, etc. This is all emulated. Macintosh has no idea of what an IRQ is. It's all just a software simulation. Like simulating the Enterprise Bridge on the holodeck of a Romulan ship.
Execution speed is not great. But that is not my primary interest. The things you can do with, or to, an emulated system are amazing. Since the entire hard disk of the emulated PC is just a file on the Macintosh, I can make a before and after snapshot of the entire hard drive (including unused sectors) from before and after the installation of some program. Since the Mac is capable of mounting the file as a virtual drive (sorta loopback filesystem) I can then analyze exactly what files were altered on the hard drive. I can make before and after registry dumps. I keep CD-ROM's with pre-burned images of virgin installs of all my un-favorite OS's, such as Win 95, Win 95 SP1, Win 95 OSR2, Win 98, Win 98 SE, Win NT 4, etc., etc., etc. I can restore a virgin install of a Virtual PC hard drive from a CD-ROM in under 4 minutes. I can tinker with the DLL's and registry with impunity. After all, I'm not screwing up a real machine that will take hours to reinstall -- it's just a simulation that can be reset back to virgin status in under 4 minutes.
Believe me, although it is impractical speed wise, I dearly wish Linux had a VMWare like product that attempted to EMULATE the microprocessor rather than attempting to run it in native mode. Apart from speed, there are cool things you can do with an emulated system, even if it is slow.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The IA64 prototype Dell showed off last week was running an early Windows port. Couldn't tell you how well it works though.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Are you serious?
A while ago. I started reading Slashdot when it was pretty young, probably one or two months old. I would have a lower user number but I didn't bother getting a user ID for the first week or two that they were available. But alot of people could say that as well.
I was searching for the Linux Web Watcher (couldn't remember the name of the site) when I stumbled upon Slashdot.
AMD's choice to add 64-bit instructions to the existing 32-bit set opens up some possibilities. While we in the Linux universe don't particularly consider an architecture jump to be something radical (since we have a hardware-agnostic compiler and kernel, as well as source code to most of the important apps), consider what this could mean to Microsoft. All that legacy 32-bit code, all that downloadable Active-X content that is so architecture dependent ... it'll probably run on AMD's x86-64 architecture without having to jump the chip into an emulation mode. They can just retarget their compiler for x86-64, do a build of the existing system, and optimize in a few places. All existing apps run natively because the 32-bit instructions aren't running emulated.
Put it all together and you've got a good reason for Microsoft to suddenly declare that IA-64 is a train wreck waiting to happen, and x86-64 is going to be the 64-bit architecture supported by Windows. AMD instantly becomes the king of the CPU market while Intel spends another five years retooling.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!