Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Commits to Using Opteron
the_1000th_Monkey writes "According these articles at The Inquirer, Infoworld, and The Register Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 will support AMD's 64-bit Opteron processor. Beta releases can be expected in the middle of this year. Here is MS's official press release."
About time that we hear this news from MS. Now, what about linux?
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
And does this make AMD part of the Axis of Evil now?
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Amazing...even will have a version for the full 64bit (not using the 32bit compatability...much)
I can't find any information if Win2k3 has support for Intels Itanium 64bit processor...You'd think it would considering MS and Intel spend every night in bed together
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
Beta-version of Windows 2003 is likely to support a developers-only version of Opteron in 32 bit mode, however, only in case M$ does not discontinue the whole Windows 2003 product line. Sorry.
with Sun now supporting the Opteron, lending more legitimacy, it was only a matter of time before Microsoft jumped on the bandwagon.
then again, Microsoft could have been holding on to their press release, and Sun could have jumped on the bandwagon, releasing their press release early in order to beat out Microsoft.
either way, it really should be a simple matter for Microsoft to support this chip. it is backwards compatible, and they have had 64 bit for quite a while, so the heavy work is already done.
If I read the interview at ZDNet correctly, the Opteron can due both 32-bit addressing or 64-bit addressing.
To quote directly: One product feature "is the integration of the memory controller onto the microprocessor silicon, which of course is a good thing for memory latency, and hence a very good thing for performance."
32-bit applications will also get this feature, meaning that they should see improvements as well. It's not exclusive to the 64-bit apps. Both should due well on this architecture.
Well, I may just be cynical but whats something MS would be pushing for with hardware and something thats key to their plans to the point they'd kiss another comapanies ass for? It can be summed up with one word. Paladium. (Or whatever the hell it's called. I could care less. If I can't use a PC without it asking someone else "Is it ok for them to do this?" then its time I go all-Apple. I'm impressed with my Powerbook G4 and their desktops are getting more affordable...)
Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
I'm not that familiar with any MS products, but when I was talking to HP about buying an Itanium, they were saying how HPUX and Linux ran fine on the Itaniums and that they were "waiting for MS to get their act together". To which I assumend that XP did not run well on the Itaniums.
Why is it that they won't support existing 64bit technologies (Itanium, Alpha's back in the day), but their gung ho for yet another x86 hack?
Don't look now, but Apple's got you by the throat in that department. They won't even give the specs to allow a minor competitor like BeOS run on your Mac. Why would they let Microsoft on?
Remember the 68k->PPC changeover at Apple when they used to ship fat binaries, those with code for both PPC and 68K?
Why wouldn't this be an option? Or maybe that weird dynamic recompilation stuff that the Alphas had for running x86 stuff in emulation?
No, the Pentium series cannot address 2^36 bytes of memory.
The sequence is:
effective address -> segmentation -> linear address -> paging -> physical memory.
PAE uses the paging mechanism to allow banking of physical memory. The maximum size of the linear address space is still 2^32 bytes (4GB).
The bottleneck is the limited address SPACE, not the amount of physical memory. What 64 bit addressing does for you is remove the limit on allocating space for files & data.
Forget physical memory, its not important. Thanks to locality you can efficiently cover a lot of address space with 1GB or less of physical memory. You can see this if you increase your windows memory from 256->512->1024 MB. There is little benefit. Paging physical memory in is really quite efficient.
On the other hand the poor old VMM gets really slow if its trying to squeeze everything into 4GB of address space.
I can't wait for the current crop of fast 32 bit parts to flood eBay for pennies on the dollar, when the 'early adopters' start stumbling onto the new platform.
If that hardware lasts long enough to be resellable. The MBAs have intruded into the design labs at most companies, and if something lasts long enough to actually 'become obsolete' it means the design team needs to be punished for overdesigning the product.
I know a few companies that are moving forward with plans to use opteron or release opteron-based systems that have been until now 100% intel camps. In one case, I know the company *tried* to embrace itanum first, but found to market rather cold to the thought. A few years ago, the market would have folowed intel anywhere with respect to the future/replacement of the x86 family. AMD has really done a top notch job here. For one, the price is such that system makers can enjoy a decent margin, something they haven't been able to do for a loong time with intel based systems. From a technical perspective, it is the logical next step, the power of 64 bit computing without the detriment of lack of legacy. Legacy has left us with some bad things, but it is vital for organizations and companies that cannot afford an intrusive migration. Plus, a lot of the legacy from 386 days no longer necessitates much of an impact to new development as it does with 32 bit systems. Intel dropped the ball. If the market wanted 64-bit computing without caring about compatibility, there is already Alpha, PA-RISC, Sparc, Power4, MIPS, and others. Windows was *not* the reason, the price was. Now with AMD maintaining compatibility and providing the product at a reasonable price target, they will be really hard to beat.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The key to this whole issue is .Net, and the CLR.
.NET implementations such as Mono, in order to put a CLR on the Opteron, MS will need an operating system to support it. I'm using "operating system" in the pure sense, as in the stuff that provides hardware access (kernel and drivers), not the GUI with a web-browser definition they used with the DoJ.
That's fine for applications. However, the trick will lie with porting the O/S itself. You know, the stuff that the CLR depends on!
MS will NOT be distributing a version of the CLR for *BSD or Linux.. I guaran-damn-tee it! Excepting other non-MS
The nice thing is, just as Windows 3.1 on the i386 had all the 16-bit thunks for calling 32-bit DLLs in "enhanced mode," MS can take their time transitioning from 32 to 64-bit mode. Once the main kernel and the libraries it depends on are 64-bits, then the apps that NEED 64 bits will work. They can take their time porting the MMC, Notepad, and all the remaining utilities to the CLR. After all, why should notepad.exe be 64-bits?!
THAT is why the Opteron will be a smashing success. Backwards compatibility; just like the i386..
Which brings me to another point. What happens to buses and whatnot with the x86-64? Has AMD been quietly working away on a 64-bit replacement to AGP? Will we get rid of special graphics buses and go to a next-generation bus standard all round? Or will there be a collection of compatibility hacks to make it all work with existing graphics cards. Anybody care to speculate? :)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)