Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP 64-Bit Customer Preview Program
MBCook writes "I just notice that Microsoft has a new Windows XP 64-Bit Customer Preview Program starting today (February 3rd). If you have a AMD Opteron or Athlon64, you can go to the download page to get your copy. It's a pre-release copy that will expire in 360 days (which probably means the final will be out by then). Now Intel just changed their 64-bit plans, and all of a sudden this appears. Speculate away!"
Intel and Microsoft may or may not have a business deal to promote Intel's 64-bit processors. Microsoft wouldn't do this for AMD, because splitting the processor targets would cost Microsoft money. Developing for two processors is more expensive than developing for one. There's no need to delve into anti-corporate mumbo-jumbo to explain this one. It's simple economics, and probably good business from Bill Gates' point of view.
--Guns don't kill people, abortion clinics kill people.
I speculate in a couple days Microsoft will deny this release exists, as they suddenly pull it to give their old cartel partner a chance to catch up and save face.
Consider this:
Microsoft has an evaluation operating system for the Yamhill before Intel actually ships. That doesn't just look like they've been playing patty-cake, but that Intel is running to keep up with AMD. How embarrassing. What's Moore's Law got to say about this? "Every 2 years Intel will get a little further behind where they need to be, by an ever increasing margin until operating systems exists for processors they haven't even designed yet."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
My guess is that the initial rev will, in fact, be slower on 64-bit. Microsofts compilers are new to 64-bitness, and a reasonable amount of memory bandwidth will be wasted on larger ints. On the other hand, in 64-bit mode on the Opteron, there are twice as many GPR's, so it could wind up being faster. My bets are still on slower largely due to immaturity of the platform.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Windows XP 64-Bit Edition is designed to address the most demanding needs of technical workstation users who require large amounts of memory
System Requirements:
PC with an AMD Athlon64 or Opteron processor
256MB RAM
Yeah, I know they're minimum requirements, but it's amusing to think that anyone who needed this OS would actually have to refer to them.
The coolest voice ever.
Micrososft is doing this to keep us distracted away from Linux until Longhorn comes out. Two years is a long time, so we can always expect bits and pieces of "neato" stuff in the meantime.
What?
I don't read too much into this; Microsoft already told Intel that they (Intel) will in fact stay compatible with AMD because they will not be releasing three separate 64-bit editions of their operating systems (Itanium, x86-64, ???).
In this case, I think the monopoly is working for us in preventing Intel from fracturing the market, which I am quite sure they would love to do.
So in this respect, I think Microsoft is just having the usual Microsoft delays. One of the biggest is supporting Read vs ReadExecute memory pages on the x86-64 chips. A Lot of code, including microsoft code (ATL anyone?), breaks the standards and is having to be cleaned up to work.
In addition, Itanium lacked WMP, DirectX, and many other features that customers will NOT do without on Athlon64 systems, meaning even more development time.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
In ANY halfway modern architecture each fetch from memory pulls in a whole row of cache. Which is more than 8 bytes. The fact that more data needs to be moved for small operations to be completed is NOT a benefit.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
No, no: what he meant was that sometimes (quite often, actually) one process or the whole desktop becomes unresponsive, even though almost no CPU time is being used, the hard drive isn't working, no network traffic should be occuring etc. You just have to assume that something is waiting for something, but there is absolutely no indication what it is.
I see such delays almost every day; mostly on Windows (XP and 2000), but occasionaly on Linux too.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
The last time I checked, NT is built on something called a "Hardware Abstraction Layer" that made it relatively painless to port NT from MIPS to x86 and then to PowerPC. (NT was designed on MIPS R4000 machines which themselves were completely designed internally by Microsoft. This effort was deemed necessary to keep the codebase free of x86-specific assumptions and optimizations since portability was a key NT goal.) The hardest part about getting your system to run on a new 64-bit platform is getting drivers to work; generally you need lots of support from hardware vendors to accomplish this feat. Getting the OS itself to compile is the easy part.
But I doubt seriously that Windows NT is "so optimized for the older 32bit platform." The kernel is clearly portable to other architectures, and was in fact developed FIRST on a non-x86 architecture with different properties (page size, Endian-ness, etc). This leads me to believe that it is emphatically not "optimized" specifically for 32-bit x86. If you have evidence otherwise, I would like to see it.
Much more mature? Perhaps you were unaware of Windows XP 64-bit Edition? Sure, it only runs on Itanium, but do you not honestly think that for Microsoft to have released it in early 2003 that they would probably have been working on it and testing it for at least a couple years prior to that? Also, from Microsoft's website, I notice that they have also implemented a 32-bit emulation layer for Itanium called "Windows On Windows 64" (WOW64) that lets the OS run 32-bit X86 code. Does Suse have this capability built-in?
The other issue which I pointed out earlier is the driver situation. You can't really call a product "much more mature" unless its drivers are more mature. I don't see a clear win either way at the moment.