Torvalds and Intel's 64 bit extensions

[Moose1974]

Today is a good day to be an AMD fan. Linus Torvalds had this to say about Intel's 64bit extensions. Check this out link and this out link.

 

[Jeff7181]

Old news.

 

[Ronin]

Doesn't matter how old it is. Linus knows

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Moose1974
Today is a good day to be an AMD fan. Linus Torvalds had this to say about Intel's 64bit extensions. Check this out link and this out link.

While you are at it, check out this link.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Moose1974
Today is a good day to be an AMD fan. Linus Torvalds had this to say about Intel's 64bit extensions. Check this out link and this out link.

While you are at it, check out this link.

That thread went south fast!!!


I still don't see why any of you champion this guy and then somehow make him the voice for the free tech world...As you can see most ppl don't care who he is, know who he is, or believe anything he is saying is anything but a rant against "The Man".....

PPL need to start looking at INtel and Intel's action in a business sense. Most of the things this moron seems to expect is ridiculous and shows why he wasn't a business major.

 

[pspada]

Thank god Linus is not a business major!!!! If he was, we would not now have the best OS in the world, Linux.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: pspada
Thank god Linus is not a business major!!!! If he was, we would not now have the best OS in the world, Linux.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: pspada
Thank god Linus is not a business major!!!! If he was, we would not now have the best OS in the world, Linux.

I think that is an opinion to be debated by others who understand the OS at all levels. I feel you make that comment for reasons of cost and possibly the same delusions many have of the "evil corporations"....

While that may seem good to many, the fact remains the majority of the world does not operate on that premise. The fact is he is trying to put his rationale and situation as the basis of how things operate. It has blinded him to the fact how things do operate. Intel is simply doing what a business would naturally do. the fact he is ranting about it shows his lack of knowledge in this field.

If he was a business major it would have not necessarily doomed Linux....A person can make money and have a great product. Many ppl do not feel bad about paying for a good working product.

 

[Soulkeeper]

linus works for transmeta (or was working for them last time i checked) i think he has atleast some understanding in this field
linux/apache systems host more websites than any other os right now
i wouldn't accept any less for mine

all i think linus is trying to say is that Intel should have atleast mentioned that they took/licensed the x86-64 technology from AMD (not everything of course)

but yeah everything is opinions here
this thread could turn into a flame war

i have no problems paying for stuff either (300 bucks for winxp is a rip off and so is 1000 bucks for an extreme edition P4)

that's all i need to say

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
all i think linus is trying to say is that Intel should have atleast mentioned that they took/licensed the x86-64 technology from AMD (not everything of course)

So, is it safe to assume that you feel that AMD should "at least mention" EVERYTHING they took/licensed from Intel?

 

[Megatomic]

Wingznut, AMD calls SSE what? SSE... And what did they call SSE2? SSE2... How about MMX? Yep, they called it MMX.

That's going back a few years, I'd call that a pattern.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
Wingznut, AMD calls SSE what? SSE... And what did they call SSE2? SSE2... How about MMX? Yep, they called it MMX.

That's going back a few years, I'd call that a pattern.

Do they call x86-32 "IA32"?

 

[Megatomic]

Honestly, I don't know. Do they?

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
Honestly, I don't know. Do they?

Not that I've ever seen.

Plus, are you sure that "AMD64" isn't a trademark, or pending such?

 

[Soulkeeper]

 

[Duvie]

The point is Intel is calling it correctly x86-64....That is all that needs to be said....

AMD ppl want some sort of "bow down" and "kiss AMD's arse" which just isn't going to happen.....

In my opinion Intel has had this technology for awhile even before AMD released theirs. The fact is Intel made a bad marketing move in the sense that not being out first and the fact that MS had already developed code for the Titanium that AMD by releasing their version has forced INtel to use their implementation. MS has said they will not make a 3rd set.....This in the most part has always been the other way around. NOw I will say I still agree that 64bit is not needed for average desktop PC user, and trust me many of us around here are far from average. I think the business user and workstations are becoming ready. So Intel made the correct move in terms of market mand market need, but have now been forced into this.

I as a business would never give another business credit. I just wouldn't say a thing. Any credit is free publicity for them and for a company that doesn't advertise, that in a few simple words would do more then all of AMD pathetic advertising to date...NO thanks.

Take solice AMD fanboys that you know the true "first to market" company, but don't expect Intel to rub their own nose in it.

Frankly they made the correct move, but sometimes being correct is not always the best move.....

I think INtel realizes more then anything MS will bolster claims about 64bit OS to move their new OS and AMD will bolster claims and in the end you may have technical sound reasons as why ppl don't need it...However ppl can look at 64bit and say that must be better then 32bit....It is the sad truth the name sells itself. Should we even have to explain this to AMD ppl??? MHZ anyone....

 

[Soulkeeper]

geez that's a lot of typing
haha you win !!

 

[Jeff7181]

In my opinion Intel has had this technology for awhile even before AMD released theirs.

Wow... here's some "blind fanboyism" I was referring to in another thread...

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

In my opinion Intel has had this technology for awhile even before AMD released theirs.

Wow... here's some "blind fanboyism" I was referring to in another thread...

Do you think Intel just started working on x86-64 last month?

You do realize it takes years to bring a cpu to market, right?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

In my opinion Intel has had this technology for awhile even before AMD released theirs.

Wow... here's some "blind fanboyism" I was referring to in another thread...

Do you think Intel just started working on x86-64 last month?

You do realize it takes years to bring a cpu to market, right?

Of course... but the statement I quoted makes it seem as if Intel had planned this all along, and AMD just beat them to it by a few months. Of course Intel has been working with x86-64 for a while... but they didn't create "x86_64."

This type of renaming would be like AMD including "SSE^2" in the Athlon-64.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Of course... but the statement I quoted makes it seem as if Intel had planned this all along, and AMD just beat them to it by a few months. Of course Intel has been working with x86-64 for a while... but they didn't create "x86_64."

This type of renaming would be like AMD including "SSE^2" in the Athlon-64.

(As far as I know...) There's no such thing as the underscore nominclature. Even Linus verifies this when he answered the question: "hmm, so the current x86_64 will be changed to x86-64 or will there be x86_64 and x86-64?"

No. The filesystem policy _tends_ to be that dashes and spaces are turned into underscores when used as filenames. Don't ask me why (well, the space part is obvious, since real spaces tend to be a pain to use on the command line, but don't ask me why people tend to conver a dash to an underscore).
So the real name is (and has always been, as far as I can tell) x86-64.

For some reason he's torqued that Intel isn't calling it "AMD64". Which really makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

In my opinion Intel has had this technology for awhile even before AMD released theirs.

Wow... here's some "blind fanboyism" I was referring to in another thread...

LOL!!! I don't think you are stupid but if you think that makes me a blind fanboy you seriously may be that...Until you actually build and own both systems as I do and I would say build more AMDs then I do P4 systems then you may have the right to call me a fanboy....

That statement is exactly as Wingz points out....I made that knowing how long of a time investment it takes to develop a cpu and to have it in current prescotts lets you know this was going to be in place. I will agree the final implementation was likely changed to an AMD standard do to topics I mention here and elsewhere in regards to MS and 64bit OS.....


I did not say they had it first, or thought of it first just that I am sure they were working on it before AMD "released theirs"...Do you know what released means??? I didn't say drew up the idea I said released.....Please learn to read and dont ASSume.....



Wingz I agree on the naming....Even this Linus in his correspondence seems to understand the slight difference in use of dash versus underscore....He wanted it to somehow be called AMD64 in INtels white papers....

 

[Jeff7181]

Either way... the statement I quoted is intended to remove credit from AMD for bringing x86-64 to the market by saying Intel had been developing it for years. That's just ignorant. AMD had also been working with it for years before it's release... so... now the score would be even, except I can go buy an x86-64 AMD processor today, but Intel doesn't offer such a processor yet for whatever reasons.

Next thing you know people are going to be saying AMD's on die memory controller isn't important because Intel considered doing that in the past but either decided not to do it, or just hadn't done it yet.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Either way... the statement I quoted is intended to remove credit from AMD for bringing x86-64 to the market by saying Intel had been developing it for years. That's just ignorant. AMD had also been working with it for years before it's release... so... now the score would be even, except I can go buy an x86-64 AMD processor today, but Intel doesn't offer such a processor yet for whatever reasons.

Next thing you know people are going to be saying AMD's on die memory controller isn't important because Intel considered doing that in the past but either decided not to do it, or just hadn't done it yet.

What a rant!!! you sure seem pretty sure on my intent considering you didn't even write the quote....The intent on the statement was to put a stop to what I felt many are saying and I could be oevrreading them that INtel just copied AMDs 64 bit design...Like somehow they could have done that and implement it in the prescott so fast....That is what I was trying to say. Intel obviously had some of its own inclination of this process and therefore the almightly bow down and pucker up called for by the AMD fans is not called for...

Your last statement is just stupid,.....

 

[Jeff7181]

*EDIT* Forget it... this argument is stupid.