Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 00:32:39 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>Robert Myers wrote:
>> I'd be very surprised if Intel didn't regard Microsoft's x86-64
>> decision as a declaration of war. That is to say, Microsoft already
>> _has_ optimized its code for AMD.
>
>Why would it be offended? In the end, it saved Intel a lot of money
>having to adopt AMD's instruction set, instead of trying to develop its
>own from scratch. And Microsoft waited to release Windows until Intel
>was ready to release its own chips.
>
>And of course Microsoft has already optimized for AMD, who else were
>they going to optimize for? It was there 1.5 years before Intel, and
>much longer if you count pre-production chips which it would absolutely
>have given to Microsoft first. Hell, even Microsoft's programming header
>files call the platform "AMD64". Linux headers are actually more kind
>towards Intel by calling the platform by the more generic "x86-64".
>
Did you miss the episode of Intel trying to get Microsoft to implement
Windows for an incompatible Intel 64-bit x86 extension?
We seem to be off into speculation about what nice people do in a nice
world. Intel is unhappy with Microsoft over Microsoft's 64-bit
decisions, and it doesn't make the slightest difference to Intel's
attitude toward Microsoft what Linux calls x86-64.
>>>Also MSFT has even greater cash reserves than INTC, and
>>>can use some of it to help AMD increase production.
>>
>>
>> That would and should produce a shareholder revolt at Microsoft.
>
>Sort of like the shareholder revolt that happened after Microsoft gave
>cash infusions to Apple and Corel when they were looking shakey?
>
Intel spent that money in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that it
*is* a predatory monopoly.
<snip>
>> All the feathers are already ruffled. There is simply no way that
>> Gates cannot be taking a dark view of the Intel-Apple deal, and Intel
>> is already furious over 64-bit decisions (x86/Itanium) by Microsoft.
>> The only question is where the bodies lie when the shooting stops.
>
>Intel has nobody to blame but itself for its Itanium failures. As for
>x64, it had nothing of its own, so it was likely going to use AMD's
>stuff anyways.
>
The only reason Intel implemented x86-64 and not some proprietary
variant is because Gates left them no choice. Whether Intel has only
itself to blame or not for itanium failures doesn't matter. Intel
can't be happy at Microsoft decisions to support x86-64 and not
Itanium.
RM
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 00:32:39 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>Robert Myers wrote:
>> I'd be very surprised if Intel didn't regard Microsoft's x86-64
>> decision as a declaration of war. That is to say, Microsoft already
>> _has_ optimized its code for AMD.
>
>Why would it be offended? In the end, it saved Intel a lot of money
>having to adopt AMD's instruction set, instead of trying to develop its
>own from scratch. And Microsoft waited to release Windows until Intel
>was ready to release its own chips.
>
>And of course Microsoft has already optimized for AMD, who else were
>they going to optimize for? It was there 1.5 years before Intel, and
>much longer if you count pre-production chips which it would absolutely
>have given to Microsoft first. Hell, even Microsoft's programming header
>files call the platform "AMD64". Linux headers are actually more kind
>towards Intel by calling the platform by the more generic "x86-64".
>
Did you miss the episode of Intel trying to get Microsoft to implement
Windows for an incompatible Intel 64-bit x86 extension?
We seem to be off into speculation about what nice people do in a nice
world. Intel is unhappy with Microsoft over Microsoft's 64-bit
decisions, and it doesn't make the slightest difference to Intel's
attitude toward Microsoft what Linux calls x86-64.
>>>Also MSFT has even greater cash reserves than INTC, and
>>>can use some of it to help AMD increase production.
>>
>>
>> That would and should produce a shareholder revolt at Microsoft.
>
>Sort of like the shareholder revolt that happened after Microsoft gave
>cash infusions to Apple and Corel when they were looking shakey?
>
Intel spent that money in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that it
*is* a predatory monopoly.
<snip>
>> All the feathers are already ruffled. There is simply no way that
>> Gates cannot be taking a dark view of the Intel-Apple deal, and Intel
>> is already furious over 64-bit decisions (x86/Itanium) by Microsoft.
>> The only question is where the bodies lie when the shooting stops.
>
>Intel has nobody to blame but itself for its Itanium failures. As for
>x64, it had nothing of its own, so it was likely going to use AMD's
>stuff anyways.
>
The only reason Intel implemented x86-64 and not some proprietary
variant is because Gates left them no choice. Whether Intel has only
itself to blame or not for itanium failures doesn't matter. Intel
can't be happy at Microsoft decisions to support x86-64 and not
Itanium.
RM
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram