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."
Linux already supports it...has for over 6 months now
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
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.
A slashdot story where Microsoft are the good guys! What have you done with the real Timothy?! Taco! Help, Taco!!
64-bit Blue Screen of Death!
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.
Was there any doubt that this would happen? Since MS is running on about a 3-5 year Server cycle, the next server release would happen around 2008. I would assume that most high end servers and many workstations would have 64 bit processors by this time. It just makes sense that MS would support the 64 bit processor being released by the 2nd largest processor company.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
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
About time that we hear this news from MS. Now, what about linux?
nah, I don't think MS is going to support Linux.
Best Windows Freeware
.... it will be a while before the software catches up ....
...
Just my $0.02 cents
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
It will be annoying when they do release the opterons and there is no (64bit) software to run on them. Sort of buy a system, install a 32bit os and then a few months later reinstall it.
Also I think many people will be dissapointed with the 32bit performance and AMD might get a bad name for it.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
Beta-version of Windows 2003 is likely to support a developers-only version of Opteron in 32 bit mode, however, only in case M$ 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.
Change the record, grandad zealot!
Windows _has_ moved on since that.
This is no news to me. I remember reading that AMD was delaying their 64-bit processors until next fall, the reason was apparently that they wanted to have a version of Windows to run on it.
It is therefore no surprise that Microsoft announces an appropriate version of Windows in the same time frame!
Microsoft was the primary development partner with AMD on the x86-64 instruction set. What MS wanted, AMD delivered. And it's great! Not like that crappy HP/Intel Itanium fiasco.
From a user's point of view, I wonder if in a couple of years users will have to decide if they want binaries for Intel's 64-bit architecture or AMD's. This as you all know is not a good thing, since it will bring market confussion to users (however, in the server space where these chips are first targeted this is not so big of an issue, specially with technologies like Java). A workaround is for companies to ship versions of their products for both architectures, thus at the very least this represents a burden on developers.
Another posibility I see is that AMD's choice of creating a backwards-compatible x86-64 instructions set will reign supreme over Intel's, and thus force Intel to adopt in AMD's x86-64.
Either way, I see turbulent times ahead...
What do you think the chances are that their main motivation here is that they don't want to be beat to the punch by Linux.
Just imagine if the only 64-Bit servers you could buy were non-MS based...
If you do, you're wrong.
You're no different than the people who type "Lunix."
Learn to enjoy civil discourse.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
2^32 times the addressing space of 32 bit, so goodbye 4 gig limit. And greater speed / precision ratio. Those are the two biggest points.
-Reid
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!
By the time their crappy server OS does get launched, they will be facing an entrenched group of free OSs that have 100% market share.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Although there are Xeon-based servers that support more than 4GB of RAM, it just doesn't handle it very efficiently by having to use windows and page addressing extension (I think that's what PAE expands to) to address anything beyond the 4GB 32-bit memory addressing limit. Xeon's support 36-bit memory addressing.
With the AMD Hammer's handling > 32-bit memory addressing natively and without hacks like PAE, it will definitely help improve high-memory use applications like databases, large rendering jobs (think Unreal II, future movies), or scientific crunch jobs.
Microsoft has committed to the Itanium/Itanium 2 with their initial release of Windows Server 2003. I think Microsoft is already working on getting Exchange Server and SQL Server (both would benefit greatly with non-PAE > 32-bit memory addressing) ported and running on the Itanium/Itanium 2 platform. I haven't heard of any announced release dates or public betas yet.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so original! You make me laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man! I like you jokes! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Today we secretly replaced The Bungi's daily dose of ritalin with methanphedamine. Let's see if he notices the difference.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow... my sides are hurting with that funny, funny quip you just threw down on us like some clever maniacal funny man! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Nope, still as maniacal as ever.
Two reasons. 4gig limit, only 2 can actually be used, this is starting to become a real problem blah de blah de blah.
The more subtle one is that the x86 instruction set is as broken as a broken thing, as we all know, and x86-64 goes some way to fixing that. Particularly in terms of having more registers.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
64 bit instruction set for faster low level functions, faster 64 bit pipes
This is just plain wrong. 64-bit words at the CPU level has no direct effect on instruction speed, unless you make tricky optimizations, like packing 32-bit variables into a single 64-bit register and doing operations on them simultaneously (which, in general, isn't that useful, BTW). Yes, there are a couple places where wider registers could be useful (bulk data transfers, etc) but there really aren't that many. Some people have mentioned higher-precision arithmetic, but IMHO, if you need that, you're using the FPU anyway, and thus have had 64-bit (80-bit internally) precision for some time now.
The main reason the Opteron is a good thing is because 1) it provides MORE registers, allowing the compiler to make smarter register allocations, which can provide drastic performance improvements, and 2) it provides access to a larger address space, meaning you can finally have >4GB of memory without nasty paging hacks. Of these, only the first is really that useful to your average Joe, which is why you're only going to see the Opteron in higher-end workstations and servers for the immediate future... at least, IMHO.
me: dud3 1 g0t 64 b1t CpU!@#!
friend: 0wnz0r!
But really, its all said above. Main thing being the memory access problems which current 32bit systems can have.
/* sig */
Is this the first advertisement where you notice a statement like this? Or do you comment like this for each ad you see? Or perhaps just MS advertisements?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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?
Actually, I believe (2^32)^32 != 2^64
2^64 = 2^(32*2) = 2^32 * 2^32 = (2^32)^2
... but not (2^32)^32
The hardware specific code is contained in the Hardware Abstraction Layer, which is layered under the kernel. Remember that NT has been available for several different architectures in the past. The fact that only IA-32 remains has to do with market realities, not with the design.
Yep, I knew all that...still why was it so much easier to port Linux?
It would still be pretty easy for MS to provide NT for other 32-bit platforms. Now, porting to a 64-bit platform isn't the same thing.
So your theory is that Microsoft has been sitting on it's hands all these years without porting to any of the readily available 64-bit platforms? Including Itanic, which has been around in beta incarnations for several years?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
If you have a real need to address that much memory, you'd be a fool to cheap out and buy inferior hardware like Intel or AMD.
Nonsense. Intel/AMD smoke memory I/O and SPECInt, and in terms of price performance do so in a manner which is breathtaking. Putting a DB on a x86-64 using quality system parts (like, say, a rackmount Compaq (move fast before HP fucks the rackmount Proliants up!)) with large memory makes a lot of sense. If you wanna start doing quad-bank interleaving, 64bit lets you do so with large memory quite nicely. Business computing for the most part only cares about stability, I/O and int performance.
I look forward to 4/8-way smp opteron rigs with quad-channel DDR400 support, featuring 4-16 DIMM slots and multiple 64bit/66mhz PCI, multiple gig-e on hypertransport.
Another chance for leaking Windows code...
NT has been running on AMD64 for more than a year now. There's a difference between porting the kernel and releasing a fully tested product with major application support (Exchange, SQL etc).
So your theory is that Microsoft has been sitting on it's hands all these years without porting to any of the readily available 64-bit platforms? Including Itanic, which has been around in beta incarnations for several years?
Of course not. In fact, there are released Itanium versions of XP and Windows 2000. I heard that before that, there was an internal 64-bit Alpha version of Win2K.
Everyone rails on the x86 instruction set. Yeah it's not pretty, it's not fun, hell it's downright ugly. But what are the top SPECint machines these days? Wanna guess? That means something is ok with x86. Yeah it might be hack-on-hack-on-hack but this collection of hacks seems to be working. (They'd be pretty near the top SPECfp's except for Itanium, everyone else's favorite Intel punching bag -- give me a break it has stellar FP, which is what it was made for!)
More seriously, there are some academic studies around that show that variable-length instructions of the x86 ISA actually are improving performance over fixed-length RISC-style ISAs. Why? Because the instruction density in the cache can be higher, and therefore the I-Cache fill rate doesn't need to be as high. Sure, the I-Decode is a b*tch to design and build, but apparently Intel and AMD are able to run it in about 500ps (~2GHz, or better) in 0.13u and below technology. Not bad, not bad.
64-bit Solitare!
2^32 times the addressing space of 32 bit, so goodbye 4 gig limit.
16 exabytes ought to be enough for anybody.
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..
..now with 16 character addresses!
BRAIN has performed an illegal operation in AMD64 at 0123456789ABCDEF. BRAIN will now terminate.
Windows NT 4.0 shipped (on a single CD) in Alpha, x86, PowerPC and MIPS form.
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?)