64 bit AMD pro's and con's ?

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, "steve h."
<ugandasteve2470.DeleteThis@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:
 >
 >Hi,
 > TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
 >purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
 >severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
 >bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?

You're friend doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.

The whole beauty of AMD's 64-bit processors is that they are 100%
software compatible with all existing 32-bit x86 code. They work
perfectly with Win2K server, WinXP, 32-bit Linux. hell, you can even
throw Win9x on one of these systems (though if you did subject
yourself to such torture I would immediately recommend psychiatric
help! :> ).

AMD's Athlon64 and Opteron processors are only 64-bit chips when
they're running a 64-bit OS. If you through a 32-bit operating system
at them they will work just like an AthlonXP or a P4 (only faster).

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ? 

steve h. wrote:
 > Hi,
 > TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not
 > to purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
 > severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
 > bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
 > Steve

That's not even a concern. Everything works with an Athlon 64. The only
concern you really should have is whether Athlon 64 is overkill for your
purposes.

Yousuf Khan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ? 

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
<ugandasteve2470.RemoveThis@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:

 >
 > Hi,
 > TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
 > purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
 > severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
 > bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
 >

Steve

One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.opera.com/m2/" target="_blank">http://www.opera.com/m2/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ? 

steve h. wrote:
 > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
 > <ugandasteve2470.RemoveThis@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:
 >
  >>
  >> Hi,
  >> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
  >> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
  >> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
  >> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
  >>
 >
 > Steve
 >
 > One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
 > because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"

LOL, which OSes ?

Thing is though : if that really *is* a problem it will affect 32 bit
Intel gear too. Look at the various benchmarks and think about it.

The guy is talking out of his arse. Read the reviews of Althon 64s,
people are running 32bit stuff on them just fine. When/if you ever get
a 64bit OS and 64bit apps you can reap some additional benefits such
as more RAM, and perhaps a moderate performance boost too.

AMD's 64bit processors look like the best deal in town as far as I am
concerned.

Cheers,
Rupert<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ? 

Bitstring <opsbhlfdr5o5tenp.DeleteThis@steve267.cfl.rr.com>, from the wonderful
person steve h. <ugandasteve2470.DeleteThis@ugandayahoo.com> said
 >On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
 ><ugandasteve2470.DeleteThis@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:
 >
  >>
  >> Hi,
  >> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
  >> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
  >> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
  >> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
  >>
 >
 > Steve
 >
 >One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
 >because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"

Still running Windows 3.1, is he? That also has problems with Pentiums
(Pentium ONEs) iirc.

The Athlon64 has to be the best bang-for-the-$ (or £, or whatever) at
the moment, even if you just run 32 bits applications and OSs. Intel
have really missed the boat (so far) with their latest 'Prescott' P4s,
and are going to have some catching up to do, now that even =their=
marketeers admit that 'Mhz is not everything'.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ? 

steve h. wrote:
 > One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
 > because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"

What's he running, Windows 95? Windows 3.1? Those OS'es started having
problems running some of fast Pentium-class processors of the distant past
too, such as the 350Mhz AMD K6 and above. Microsoft actually had to bring
out a patch for these processors to allow them to initialize.

You shouldn't have any issues if you're running Windows 2000 or XP or
higher.

Yousuf Khan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ? 

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
 >
 > Bitstring <opsbhlfdr5o5tenp DeleteThis @steve267.cfl.rr.com>, from the wonderful
 > person steve h. <ugandasteve2470 DeleteThis @ugandayahoo.com> said
  > >On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
  > ><ugandasteve2470 DeleteThis @ugandayahoo.com> wrote:
  > >
   > >>
   > >> Hi,
   > >> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
   > >> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
   > >> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
   > >> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
   > >>
  > >
  > > Steve
  > >
  > >One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
  > >because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"
 >
 > Still running Windows 3.1, is he? That also has problems with Pentiums
 > (Pentium ONEs) iirc.
 >
 > The Athlon64 has to be the (or £, or whatever) at
 > the moment, even if you just run 32 bits applications and OSs. Intel
 > have really missed the boat (so far) with their latest 'Prescott' P4s,
 > and are going to have some catching up to do, now that even =their=
 > marketeers admit that 'Mhz is not everything'.

Yes, the Prescott is a 'gas guzzler', but the P4 Northwood with 800 fsb
is still the running. According to CPU tests ( 32 bits) COMPUTER SHOPPER
No 197 July 2004:

P4 2.8C Northwood Athlon XP 3000+ Athlon 64 3000+
3DMArk03 6,413 5,739 6,051
SYSmark2004 157 123 144
Office 140 107 128

A number of other chips were also tested. The P4 2.8C won the 'best buy'
of the bunch, i.e. best bang-for-the-£.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ? 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:25:04 +0100, Rupert Pigott
<roo.DeleteThis@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote:

 >steve h. wrote:
  >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
  >> <ugandasteve2470.DeleteThis@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:
  >>
   >>>
   >>> Hi,
   >>> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
   >>> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
   >>> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
   >>> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
   >>>
  >>
  >> Steve
  >>
  >> One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
  >> because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"
 >
 >LOL, which OSes ?
 >
 >Thing is though : if that really *is* a problem it will affect 32 bit
 >Intel gear too. Look at the various benchmarks and think about it.
 >
 >The guy is talking out of his arse. Read the reviews of Althon 64s,
 >people are running 32bit stuff on them just fine. When/if you ever get
 >a 64bit OS and 64bit apps you can reap some additional benefits such
 >as more RAM, and perhaps a moderate performance boost too.
 >
 >AMD's 64bit processors look like the best deal in town as far as I am
 >concerned.
 >
 >Cheers,
 >Rupert
As funny as it sounds, might be true. I remember something to that
extent happened around 1997 with K6. Its integer unit was too fast
for win95, and the workaround was to boot it up on lower bus (66
instead of 100) and apply the patch to Win95B. AMD even offered free
95B to all 95A owners, IIRC, because 95A could not be patched. M$
fixed it in Win98.
Is the guy still running 95? )))))))))))))))))))))))))))<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ? 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:09:47 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
<mygarbage2000 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
 >On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:25:04 +0100, Rupert Pigott
 ><roo DeleteThis @try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
  >>The guy is talking out of his arse. Read the reviews of Althon 64s,
  >>people are running 32bit stuff on them just fine. When/if you ever get
  >>a 64bit OS and 64bit apps you can reap some additional benefits such
  >>as more RAM, and perhaps a moderate performance boost too.
  >>
  >>AMD's 64bit processors look like the best deal in town as far as I am
  >>concerned.
  >>
 >As funny as it sounds, might be true. I remember something to that
 >extent happened around 1997 with K6. Its integer unit was too fast
 >for win95, and the workaround was to boot it up on lower bus (66
 >instead of 100) and apply the patch to Win95B. AMD even offered free
 >95B to all 95A owners, IIRC, because 95A could not be patched. M$
 >fixed it in Win98.
 >Is the guy still running 95? )))))))))))))))))))))))))))

The issue occurred with K6-2 processors running at 350MHz (or maybe it
was 333MHz, can't remember for sure, either way we're talking
mid-'9, and it was entirely due to inexcusable stupidity on the part
of Microsoft. They put a timing loop in there that EVERYONE knew
would break, and surprise surprise, it did break.

Sadly for AMD, they managed to break it before Intel did (the
particular loop ran MUCH faster on AMD chips, so Intel didn't break
this loop for another couple of years), and as a result, lots of
people blamed AMD.

If the user is running Win95, then yes, something will probably
break... But then again, EVERYTHING is broken is Win95, it wasn't a
very functional operating system at the best of times, and it's been
totally obsolete for about 4 years now. Anyone still running Win95
has got to have rocks for brains!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ? 

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, "steve h."
<ugandasteve2470.DeleteThis@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:

 >
 >Hi,
 > TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
 >purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
 >severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
 >bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
 > Steve


Has your friend ever used/owned a properly built AMD64?

Built 3 AMD64's running WinXP Pro here, not one problem yet.

Ed<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ? 

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20.TakeThisOut@yahoo.ca> wrote:
 > But then again, EVERYTHING is broken is Win95, it wasn't
 > a very functional operating system at the best of times,

Everything? PEBKAC?

 > and it's been totally obsolete for about 4 years now.

Obsolete is a funny word. It usually means "persistant".
No-one talks of the truly obsolete because it gone and forgotten.
1963 Ford Mustang automobiles, FN FAL rifles and IBM model
"M" keyboards are also obsolete. Yet remain highly functional.

MS-Win95 has arguably been dysfunctional from launch depending
on your expectations. Having suffered MS-Win[23] mine were
resignedly low and I wasn't pleasantly surprised. I just
kept chugging along with OS/2, Linux and FreeBSD.

MS-Win95 became indisputably lacking around 1998 when new
computers were routinely shipped with USB which MS-win95
cannot handle -- nohow, noway, never even patched.

 > Anyone still running Win95 has got to have rocks for brains!

Hmmm ... rocks are Silicon dioxide up where you are (Canadian
shield). Isn't that SOI? That sounds like a compliment in csiphc!

MS-Win95 is still suitable for old (pre1998) hardware needing to
run win32 apps and not needing USB, although MS-win98 is less
bad and Linux or *BSD will make much more efficient use of the
hardware currently considered "limited".

FWIW, my personal laptop is still a Compaq Aero (25 MHz 486sx)
and is perfectly functional under Linux (console mode). In many
ways more functional than my locked-down work laptop Compaq Evo
(1 GHz Pentium3) running MS-win2k.

-- Robert<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ? 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <E4QLc.17960$%h5.7557@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
Robert Redelmeier <redelm.TakeThisOut@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
 >Obsolete is a funny word. It usually means "persistant".
 >No-one talks of the truly obsolete because it gone and forgotten.
 >1963 Ford Mustang automobiles, FN FAL rifles and IBM model
 >"M" keyboards are also obsolete. Yet remain highly functional.

Minor nitpick: there's no such thing as a '63 Mustang. They were introduced
halfway through '64. (Hell, I'm not even a F*rd fanboy, and I knew that.)

Agreed on the Model Ms, though...I have a couple of them in front of me
right now, and they whip the llama's *ss.

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://alfter.us/" target="_blank">http://alfter.us/</a> Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

iD8DBQFA//ZDVgTKos01OwkRArg6AJ9JKjTVNdNybZ2bj1mp1xwBapm7ZACg0BNF
xCt53lbYh3hXR6K+aaVNqBs=
=A8Ic
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ? 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:50:42 -0500, Ed <nomail RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

 >Has your friend ever used/owned a properly built AMD64?

I think it's probably more like "has your friend ever used/owned an
AMD64 system" :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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 64 bit AMD pro's and con's ?