RE: [BULK] RE: 64 bit Windows...

Opteron and Athlon 64 recently celebrated their 2 year anniversary.
64-bit x86 support with excellent backwards compatibility has existed
for some time.  AMD even has mobile/low power 64-bit CPUs that are used
in notebook PCs from HP and others.  

Intel is not the technology leader in this case; they were caught with
their pants down and essentially had to adopt AMD's extensions into
their chips.  AMD will also beat Intel to market with dual-core 64-bit
chips, which are expected late 2nd to 3rd quarter this year.

John A. Jones, CISSP
Americas Information Security Officer
Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc.
V: +1-630-455-2787  F: +1-312-601-1782
john.jones@xxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hall, Philip
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:14 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: [BULK] RE: 64 bit Windows...

> I was not pointing out any inaccuracy per se, only contrasting this 
> with our own experiences with 64-bit conversion in which every program

> with observable source was automagically converted to the 64-bit 
> architecture.

That I can agree with.

> Does it not seem ironic that this "mainstream operating system" is 
> just testing the 64-bit waters nearly 10 years after the iSeries?

Not ironic. 

Firstly, Microsoft themselves have been at the mercy of Intel (and Intel
know it) waiting for Intel to pull their finger out and actual create a
64 bit processor that, and here's the key part, much like IBM did with
the AS/400 maintains as much backward compatibility as possible.
However, to IBM's credit for the AS/400 they had the foresight to create
the MI/IMPI/TIMI abstraction layer(s).

Looking back at Intel's past, in respect to the PC chips, they moved
from 4 to 8 to 16 to 32 bit processors (and by the way maintained very
good backward compatibility while doing so) but then effectively choose
the 'milk the market by making it go faster' business plan and stuck at
32-bit. Microsoft could have jump ship to a different chip manufacture
(and you can use Google to see many rumours of this) but probably not a
good business move. 

Also, this new chip from Intel had to be cheap (relatively) for market
uptake. We all know and are aware how much IBM charges us (and the
pSeries people too) for the honour of using their super-fantastic PPC
based chips. Plus IBM has many, many divisions that also help fund their
research.

So, given that Microsoft/Intel have a much larger install base to try
and provide backward compatibility to - and I doubt that they will get
100%, but neither did IBM - plus a market that doesn't really see itself
as the 'funding party' for the new technology it's not too surprising or
that much of a stretch to see why they are perceivably only just getting
around to the 64-bit world.

--phil 


--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.




This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only.  If you have 
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then 
delete it.  If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, 
disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission.  
We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software 
viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment 
to this message.  We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by 
software viruses.  The information contained in this communication may be 
confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are 
the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic 
messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect.