Prescott with 64-bit extensions coming in June

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Judd wrote:
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/05/13/HNprescott_1.html
>
> So what's all expected for Q3 now?
> - 64-bit extensions
> - 1066 MHz Bus
> - 3.73 MHz Prescott/Dothan?
> - Grantsdale/Alderwood chipset with PCI Express
>
> How about on-board Firewire 800 and SATA-II?
>
> Still no XP2...

That's funny, according to the article:

<quote>
Prescott supports the NX (no execute) feature that will prevent worms and
viruses from executing dangerous code through the exploitation of buffer
overflows, Otellini said during a Webcast of the event. Advanced Micro
Devices Inc.'s Athlon 64 and Opteron processors also come with this feature,
which requires software support from Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP Service
Pack 2 expected later this year.
</quote>

As of the original release of the EM64T documentation, Intel didn't yet
support the NX bit. That was one of the most glaring ommisions from an
otherwise perfect copy job of the AMD64 specs. Has this oversight now been
corrected, or is the article writer just assuming things here?

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:ykVoc.22695$mP11.1408@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Judd wrote:
> > http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/05/13/HNprescott_1.html
> >
> > So what's all expected for Q3 now?
> > - 64-bit extensions
> > - 1066 MHz Bus
> > - 3.73 MHz Prescott/Dothan?
> > - Grantsdale/Alderwood chipset with PCI Express
> >
> > How about on-board Firewire 800 and SATA-II?
> >
> > Still no XP2...
>
> That's funny, according to the article:
>
> <quote>
> Prescott supports the NX (no execute) feature that will prevent worms and
> viruses from executing dangerous code through the exploitation of buffer
> overflows, Otellini said during a Webcast of the event. Advanced Micro
> Devices Inc.'s Athlon 64 and Opteron processors also come with this
feature,
> which requires software support from Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP Service
> Pack 2 expected later this year.
> </quote>
>
> As of the original release of the EM64T documentation, Intel didn't yet
> support the NX bit. That was one of the most glaring ommisions from an
> otherwise perfect copy job of the AMD64 specs. Has this oversight now been
> corrected, or is the article writer just assuming things here?
>

I was hoping you saw that. I assumed Otellini told them it supported NX and
that, yes, the new Prescott steppings would support the addition (couldn't
have been that difficult to implement). I assume Intel doesn't want to get
bullet pointed out on a feature that analyst and ragazines would promote as
the next best thing since sliced bread. They've already given in this far.
Still, there seems to be a rather large number of near future offerings from
Intel that really weren't expected at this point. This might be a much more
interesting year for PCs than previously anticipated.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Judd wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
>> As of the original release of the EM64T documentation, Intel didn't
>> yet support the NX bit. That was one of the most glaring ommisions
>> from an otherwise perfect copy job of the AMD64 specs. Has this
>> oversight now been corrected, or is the article writer just assuming
>> things here?
>>
>
> I was hoping you saw that. I assumed Otellini told them it supported
> NX and that, yes, the new Prescott steppings would support the
> addition (couldn't have been that difficult to implement). I assume
> Intel doesn't want to get bullet pointed out on a feature that
> analyst and ragazines would promote as the next best thing since
> sliced bread. They've already given in this far. Still, there seems
> to be a rather large number of near future offerings from Intel that
> really weren't expected at this point. This might be a much more
> interesting year for PCs than previously anticipated.

Yeah, it can't be that difficult to implement. Just wonder if Intel's
documentation writers have updated their PDF's yet. I'm going to have to
maintain a CVS repository of Intel PDFs at this rate. :)

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:JiWoc.22854$mP11.18537@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Judd wrote:
> Yeah, it can't be that difficult to implement. Just wonder if Intel's
> documentation writers have updated their PDF's yet. I'm going to have to
> maintain a CVS repository of Intel PDFs at this rate. :)
>
> Yousuf Khan

Are you sure that will help? Having delt with CVS quite a bit at work I know
how easy it is to make things a mess in CVS, especially when you need to
start branching as much as you would with Intels road maps as of late.

Carlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> As of the original release of the EM64T documentation, Intel didn't yet
> support the NX bit. That was one of the most glaring ommisions from an
> otherwise perfect copy job of the AMD64 specs. Has this oversight now been
> corrected, or is the article writer just assuming things here?

My understanding (I am not near to this at all) is that the feature was
always there but not adequately validated. Harken back to the
Willamette and Northwood and Hyperthreading. Intel does put in optional
features it wants and if they can't be tested by the deadline, "ship it
anyway, we want a product on the market." In the next stepping they'll
have had time to test thoroughly and will enable it. Remember the other
thread: "Intel follows the margin"

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Judd wrote:

> So what's all expected for Q3 now?
> - 64-bit extensions
> - 1066 MHz Bus
> - 3.73 MHz Prescott/Dothan?

How can you even think that Dothan would scale to > 3 GHz in 2004?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Judd wrote:

> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> As of the original release of the EM64T documentation, Intel
>> didn't yet support the NX bit. That was one of the most glaring
>> ommisions from an otherwise perfect copy job of the AMD64 specs.
>> Has this oversight now been corrected, or is the article writer
>> just assuming things here?
>
> I was hoping you saw that. I assumed Otellini told them it
> supported NX and that, yes, the new Prescott steppings would
> support the addition (couldn't have been that difficult to
> implement). I assume Intel doesn't want to get bullet pointed out
> on a feature that analyst and ragazines would promote as the next
> best thing since sliced bread. They've already given in this far.

Apparently, the OpenBSD crew was given IA32e processors to play with,
which did not include the NX bit.

http://www.openbsd.org/35.html

Note: The upcoming Intel "ia32e" AMD64-compatible cpus have
also been tested, and work, even though they lack the NX bit.

As you say, maybe it's been corrected with a new core stepping.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Alex Johnson <compuwiz@acm.org> wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> As of the original release of the EM64T documentation, Intel didn't
>> yet support the NX bit. That was one of the most glaring ommisions
>> from an otherwise perfect copy job of the AMD64 specs. Has this
>> oversight now been corrected, or is the article writer just assuming
>> things here?
>
> My understanding (I am not near to this at all) is that the feature
> was always there but not adequately validated. Harken back to the
> Willamette and Northwood and Hyperthreading. Intel does put in
> optional features it wants and if they can't be tested by the
> deadline, "ship it anyway, we want a product on the market." In the
> next stepping they'll have had time to test thoroughly and will
> enable it. Remember the other thread: "Intel follows the margin"

Yeah, but the whole EM64T stuff is not validated yet. It's an announcement
about a future product that hasn't come out yet, and until recently they
hadn't even put out an official date of arrival yet.

What's the point in shipping something that is half-finished, when the
fully-finished thing (AMD's product) already exists? It's like saying buy
our car, even though it doesn't have windshield wipers. Sure it will work
fine most of the time, except on the odd days when it rains.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:mxepc.9715$0qd.6428@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Judd <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:
> > http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/05/13/HNprescott_1.html
> >
> > So what's all expected for Q3 now?
> > - 3.73 MHz Prescott/Dothan?
>
> Oh, and no, Dothan obviously wouldn't run at 3.73 Ghz, but it might touch
> 2.2 Ghz by Q3.
>

So one would think, but recall the article I posted earlier about a 3.73
Prescott CPU with a Dothan core? My guess is that the article is wrong and
it's not Dothan, but it did raise an eyebrow :)
 

Eric

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,373
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Judd wrote:
>> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/05/13/HNprescott_1.html
>>
>> So what's all expected for Q3 now?
>> - 64-bit extensions
>> - 1066 MHz Bus
>> - 3.73 MHz Prescott/Dothan?
>> - Grantsdale/Alderwood chipset with PCI Express
>>
>> How about on-board Firewire 800 and SATA-II?
>>
>> Still no XP2...
>
> That's funny, according to the article:
>
> <quote>
> Prescott supports the NX (no execute) feature that will prevent worms and
> viruses from executing dangerous code through the exploitation of buffer
> overflows, Otellini said during a Webcast of the event. Advanced Micro
> Devices Inc.'s Athlon 64 and Opteron processors also come with this
> feature, which requires software support from Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP
> Service Pack 2 expected later this year.
> </quote>
>
> As of the original release of the EM64T documentation, Intel didn't yet
> support the NX bit. That was one of the most glaring ommisions from an
> otherwise perfect copy job of the AMD64 specs. Has this oversight now been
> corrected, or is the article writer just assuming things here?
>
> Yousuf Khan

So, do you mean to say that Intel & AMD are fixing Windows' Virus problems
in the CPU hardware? I thought AMD and Intel were smarter than that. This
reminds me of Compaq's attempt to fix an application bug by modifying their
BIOS.
Eric
 

Eric

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,373
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Judd wrote:
>> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/05/13/HNprescott_1.html
>>
>> So what's all expected for Q3 now?
>> - 64-bit extensions
>> - 1066 MHz Bus
>> - 3.73 MHz Prescott/Dothan?
>> - Grantsdale/Alderwood chipset with PCI Express
>>
>> How about on-board Firewire 800 and SATA-II?
>>
>> Still no XP2...
>
> That's funny, according to the article:
>
> <quote>
> Prescott supports the NX (no execute) feature that will prevent worms and
> viruses from executing dangerous code through the exploitation of buffer
> overflows, Otellini said during a Webcast of the event. Advanced Micro
> Devices Inc.'s Athlon 64 and Opteron processors also come with this
> feature, which requires software support from Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP
> Service Pack 2 expected later this year.
> </quote>
>
> As of the original release of the EM64T documentation, Intel didn't yet
> support the NX bit. That was one of the most glaring ommisions from an
> otherwise perfect copy job of the AMD64 specs. Has this oversight now been
> corrected, or is the article writer just assuming things here?
>
> Yousuf Khan
After reading up on the NX bit I have this thought: Isnt that what
segmentation is for? Cripe, start using Data segments and the buffer
overflows will just fault.
Eric
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Judd <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> news:mxepc.9715$0qd.6428@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> Judd <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/05/13/HNprescott_1.html
>>>
>>> So what's all expected for Q3 now?
>>> - 3.73 MHz Prescott/Dothan?
>>
>> Oh, and no, Dothan obviously wouldn't run at 3.73 Ghz, but it might
>> touch
>> 2.2 Ghz by Q3.
>>
>
> So one would think, but recall the article I posted earlier about a
> 3.73 Prescott CPU with a Dothan core? My guess is that the article
> is wrong and it's not Dothan, but it did raise an eyebrow :)

Which article? The one in the link above doesn't mention anything about the
Dothan.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Eric <nospam@email.com> wrote:
>> That's funny, according to the article:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Prescott supports the NX (no execute) feature that will prevent
>> worms and viruses from executing dangerous code through the
>> exploitation of buffer overflows, Otellini said during a Webcast of
>> the event. Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s Athlon 64 and Opteron
>> processors also come with this feature, which requires software
>> support from Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP Service Pack 2 expected
>> later this year. </quote>
>>
>> As of the original release of the EM64T documentation, Intel didn't
>> yet support the NX bit. That was one of the most glaring ommisions
>> from an otherwise perfect copy job of the AMD64 specs. Has this
>> oversight now been corrected, or is the article writer just assuming
>> things here?
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> So, do you mean to say that Intel & AMD are fixing Windows' Virus
> problems in the CPU hardware? I thought AMD and Intel were smarter
> than that. This reminds me of Compaq's attempt to fix an application
> bug by modifying their BIOS.
> Eric

Well, we're not exactly sure about Intel yet, but AMD is attempting to
nullify one of the more common methods worms use against Windows. It's a
relatively easy solution too, mostly transparent to the applications
software; they just mark certain memory pages as data-only, code cannot be
executed from those pages. That way if a buffer overflow exploit is employed
against that program, the malicious code inserted sits in non-executable
memory and goes nowhere.

When Intel copied AMD's 64-bit specifications, it is assumed that they
copied an older version of that spec, and that some of the more recent
features that AMD put in, didn't get put in by Intel. The NX (no execute)
bit in the page table was one of the ones not mentioned in Intel's
documentation.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Eric <nospam@email.com> wrote:
> After reading up on the NX bit I have this thought: Isnt that what
> segmentation is for? Cripe, start using Data segments and the buffer
> overflows will just fault.
> Eric

Yeah, that was my original thought too, but for some reason segmentation has
gotten a nasty reputation from its Real mode days, and OS companies from the
beginning of the 32-bit era couldn't wait to stop using it, despite the fact
that it had all of those advantages. Hell it could've even delayed the
introduction of 64-bit computing another couple of years, if applications
started to use multiple 4GB data segments. But that's only for historical
interest now, segmentation has been removed from 64-bit mode.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Carlo Razzeto <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
>> Yeah, it can't be that difficult to implement. Just wonder if Intel's
>> documentation writers have updated their PDF's yet. I'm going to
>> have to maintain a CVS repository of Intel PDFs at this rate. :)
>
> Are you sure that will help? Having delt with CVS quite a bit at work
> I know how easy it is to make things a mess in CVS, especially when
> you need to start branching as much as you would with Intels road
> maps as of late.

I just downloaded those EM64T PDFs again -- they are exactly the same PDFs
as the ones they released in February. They even still call them IA32E
inside. So the PDFs haven't be updated. (Of course, that's not entirely
surprising, documentation lags behind implementation in most places I've
worked too.) :)

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:6vspc.28302$0qd.5215@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> I just downloaded those EM64T PDFs again -- they are exactly the same PDFs
> as the ones they released in February. They even still call them IA32E
> inside. So the PDFs haven't be updated. (Of course, that's not entirely
> surprising, documentation lags behind implementation in most places I've
> worked too.) :)
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>

You mean you actually had documentation at the places you worked? Must be
nice, where I am it's do this project and figure out where you need to pull
the data from on your own. Very annoying, getting easier since I've been
with this company for a few months now, I'm actually getting familiar with
some of their DBs, but it's still just a huge mess. Very fustrating
experience.

Carlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:33:32 GMT, Eric <nospam@email.com> wrote:
>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> <quote>
>> Prescott supports the NX (no execute) feature that will prevent worms and
>> viruses from executing dangerous code through the exploitation of buffer
>> overflows, Otellini said during a Webcast of the event. Advanced Micro
>> Devices Inc.'s Athlon 64 and Opteron processors also come with this
>> feature, which requires software support from Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP
>> Service Pack 2 expected later this year.
>> </quote>
>>
>> As of the original release of the EM64T documentation, Intel didn't yet
>> support the NX bit. That was one of the most glaring ommisions from an
>> otherwise perfect copy job of the AMD64 specs. Has this oversight now been
>> corrected, or is the article writer just assuming things here?
>
>So, do you mean to say that Intel & AMD are fixing Windows' Virus problems
>in the CPU hardware? I thought AMD and Intel were smarter than that. This
>reminds me of Compaq's attempt to fix an application bug by modifying their
>BIOS.

It's not exactly that, it's more adding in a feature to the processor
that SHOULD have been there ages ago. Such functionality is common in
many non-x86 chips, but was implemented in a rather bass-ackwards way
in current x86 chips.

It's not going to fix the Windows virus problem. In fact, it won't
affect actual *virus* programs at all, though it should really help
with *worm* programs, the difference between the two is often lost in
the mainstream media these days. It offers Microsoft (and others)
another tool to try and mitigate (though not eliminate) security
risks.

FWIW while it is popular to attack Microsoft for their rather, umm..
questionable decisions regarding security, they do seem to have seen
the light of day. Take a look at WinXP SP2 sometime, and you'll see
that they are making a LOT of changes that should significantly
improve security. I'm not just talking about patching bugs here or
anything, this is a fundamental change in philosophy.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:59:40 -0400, Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>It's not going to fix the Windows virus problem. In fact, it won't
>affect actual *virus* programs at all, though it should really help
>with *worm* programs, the difference between the two is often lost in
>the mainstream media these days.

When was the last virus anyway? All that they seem to be making these
days are worms and trojans.

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <40a80d95.113417125@news.pacific.net.sg>, a?n?g?e?
l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com says...
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:59:40 -0400, Tony Hill
> <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> >It's not going to fix the Windows virus problem. In fact, it won't
> >affect actual *virus* programs at all, though it should really help
> >with *worm* programs, the difference between the two is often lost in
> >the mainstream media these days.
>
> When was the last virus anyway?

A week ago. It played hell with the network at work.

> All that they seem to be making these
> days are worms and trojans.

Education (and eliminating M$ software) can help much here.
NOthing helps if the OS allows free access to everything.

--
KEith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Judd wrote:

> Try reading what I wrote again please. I CLEARLY said "almost nothing "...
> as in not nothing but hardly the large installed base of the 32-bit
> applications. Meaning, few consumers are going to jump on it for the sole
> reason of it being 64-bit.

Oh come on, you know how consumers behave a lot better than
that paragraph indicates. Consumers will buy 64 bit simply
because that it the latest buzzword. Their understanding,
or lack thereof, of what "64 bit" is all about is irrelevant.

Its just like when consumers started switching to Windows from
DOS even though there were no decent Windows apps yet. All
they understood was that "GUI" was the coming thing and they
wanted to jump on the bandwagon before it was fully assembled.
(And they drove me nuts because the all felt they had to
demonstrate to me that they knew it was supposed to be pronounced
"gwee" for some stupid reason or another. I resolutely stuck
with saying G.U.I.)

The most important equation in marketing is
consumer = lemming
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Take a look at WinXP SP2 sometime, and you'll see
>that they are making a LOT of changes that should significantly
>improve security. I'm not just talking about patching bugs here or
>anything, this is a fundamental change in philosophy.

Are they stopping the stupid practice of hiding file extensions by
default?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Rob Stow" <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote in message
news:10ahdv89cjmhi06@corp.supernews.com...
> Judd wrote:
>
> > Try reading what I wrote again please. I CLEARLY said "almost nothing
"...
> > as in not nothing but hardly the large installed base of the 32-bit
> > applications. Meaning, few consumers are going to jump on it for the
sole
> > reason of it being 64-bit.
>
> Oh come on, you know how consumers behave a lot better than
> that paragraph indicates. Consumers will buy 64 bit simply
> because that it the latest buzzword. Their understanding,
> or lack thereof, of what "64 bit" is all about is irrelevant.
>
> Its just like when consumers started switching to Windows from
> DOS even though there were no decent Windows apps yet. All
> they understood was that "GUI" was the coming thing and they
> wanted to jump on the bandwagon before it was fully assembled.
> (And they drove me nuts because the all felt they had to
> demonstrate to me that they knew it was supposed to be pronounced
> "gwee" for some stupid reason or another. I resolutely stuck
> with saying G.U.I.)
>
> The most important equation in marketing is
> consumer = lemming

You are no different than George. Reread what I said. The WHOLE thing.
You'll notice that I agree with you. They'll buy it because it's the
latest, but not JUST FOR 64-bit because little exists for 64-bit. It's more
marketing than useful is my point.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:34:12 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

>> When was the last virus anyway?
>
>A week ago. It played hell with the network at work.

What was it? Sasser? Sorry, I've not been paying much attention to
viruses for years... :ppPpP

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
 
Status
Not open for further replies.