RE: [BULK] RE: 64 bit Windows... -- MIDRANGE-L

Sorry Phil, I almost spilt my coffee when you suggested that MS/Intel
was trying to maintain "as much backward compatibility as possible."

Per the original article "Most 32-bit programs that engage the operating
system at a low level just won't run under XP64.  Users upgrading an
existing 64-bit system to XP64 will also have to beware hardware
driver-compatibility problems."  "Some programs, particularly low-level
system utilities and drivers, just aren't compatible." and "XP64 finally
eliminates support for 16-bit programs entirely. They just won't run."  

Additionally "existing high-end applications written for Microsoft's
Itanium-specific Windows Server 2003 (64-bit, right?) aren't
cross-compatible."  

I'm pretty sure that backward compatability wasn't the holdup...

Regards,
 
Scott Ingvaldson
iSeries System Administrator
GuideOne Insurance Group

-----Original Message-----
date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:13:51 -0500
from: "Hall, Philip" <phall@xxxxxxxx>
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