"Intel were not mavericks, they did not have the first 64bit CPU at all."
You misunderstood my point, between the two, not the rest. Both are the two most prevalent home CPU producers such is why i focus on them, yes i grant IBM are way ahead. Sorry you must forgive my closed world view, I only buy from these two or at least have done since leaving Uni and it's bloody Mac's behind. Oh and the reason I think them "mavericks" is because they took us a large leap away from legacy tech, though as i said the market pulled em into line. My personal view of itanium/AMD 64 is similar to my view on the VHS/betamax, it was economics which gave the vhs prominence not it's tech. Likewise, this one should be clear, Windows/OSS, hmmmmm it's not the tech which got windows onn the desktop by default, it's the marketing and now so many millions believe they wanted windows, indeed the marketing and FUD is crucial, for instance my AMD 64 laptop was obviously prebuilt, so I asked the saleswoman, "can I get a discount for not having windows?" Errrr we can't sell you the laptop without windows was the answer. Apparently she also couldn't understand why i didn't want a 32bit os for my 64bit machine, yet it's because it was 64bit that i was buying it! *ah never mind I'm beginning to rant again* I'm just so angry with the fact AMD chruned out 64bit chips claiming the operating systems were in place or would be by launch yet this is not the case afterall luike I note elsewhere even suse which was touted as 64bit ready and used to demonstrate machines is still littered with 32bit, this is why I think Intel were mavericks, they made this use of i386 nigh on impossible by starting afresh. Okay this was a little ahead of the market but it makes sense to me in that it ensures or makes a good stab at it anyway, of 'making' 64bit, 64bit only. Whereas AMD allowed 32bit to live on through backwards compatability.
"The Opteron / Athlon64 is a total success, it was what the mass market wanted, its not an overhyped XP"
Really? No Kidding, I noted the OS as perhaps and arguably my main quibble.
I am sick of promises, promises, promises, that my install platters are for a 64bit os. Only as i said to find them littered with 32bit apps and libs. I mean why the hell need a 64bit os rely on i386 software? Should I really be expected to tolerate this given I bought the discs because they were 64bit? You wouldn't buy a Rolls Royce and be best pleased if you found it had the engine of a mini, would you?
"An Athlon64-3200 is faster than an XP3200"
Well that's what i thought, note here I believe it is, or should be *basic maths for goodness sake* but consider this, Mandy, pig slow for 64bit and can't handle much of the software, Centos in 32bit version takes 19 minutes to do a complete install, 64bit version of same release takes 112 minutes, I kid you not same machine same hardware etc. You telling me Kubuntu is 64bit ready? or Fedora, Suse et al? I have found they can't support the newer features introduced by the AMD 64 and accompanying hardware Oh and not to mention they run 'slower' in 64bit than 32 this applies from install to desktop/server use. So sorry on that count as far as I'm concerned, and i have a AMD 64 laptop, AMD 64 Desktop and dual opteron, the performance is not a leap, rather a tentative step. Accordingly from experience and bitter dissapointment I find the Ath 64 to be a hyped XP. Hyped in that it promises but does not deliver. Which as I pointed out is a shame because I dearly want AMD to do well, no really, I have thought them marvellous since I got my first k6 running at a woeful 150Mhz and thought *wow*.
"Why are you narked with the idea of dual cores, I am really looking forward to these, the AthlonX2's sound great, better performance yet same power usage. Dual cores are one area that should help everyone with using their PC's, again when the software they are using supports it."
That's the rub of it Nordle, "when the software they are using supports it" at present I find no adequate os to consistently support the AMD 64 platform as is. There is fault with all those noted above. Though one thing I must add I do find certain kernels to be awful and exacberate matters. Why? Well probably because as another topic of discussion led to the conclusion that vendors cherry pick the kernel modules! *boggle* Fedora being my most hated for it, with Mandy coming close, though it has a different take on it, by including everything bar the kitchen sink and it errrrr not working! *damn*
So moving to dual core won't be a blessing as the OS *even Windows* just ain't cutting the mustard, they can't support the technology already ushered in by AMD and the attendant potential, so what chance of working dual core?
" AMD have done a great job, especially considering the size of the company in comparison to Intel."
Partially why i want them to do well, as I'm not happy about corporations, though largely because liek i said above my first AMD was a k6 150 and it was notably more capable the intel's offerings.
"64-bit was pitched to the mass market as a marketing ploy, the USP, killer app etc etc"
So it wasn't? " what the mass market wanted" you don't need to market on hype what people are asking for it's an open market, so yes AMD are guilty of a hard sell, and the buyers are suckers, me included I guess.
As it happens I agree the Ath 64 is an advance and does *theoretically excel* but the software doesn't. I too have ran benchmarks in 32/64 bit and each and every time it's only on ram that the 64bit wins. So yeah it may be cooler but it ain't much further ahead. The Itanium I have, is an early model and like I said it wasn't good, but then intel managed to pull their finger out and get some adequate support in place so it picked up. So far AMD's flagship just ain't cruising! Why? because the software simply isn't in place and because as I implied it allows for compatability, which both developers and vendors equate with laziness, re i386 etc *grrrr* Yes I do feel conned i wanted 64bit not 32bit and then some ie hyped XP. So again i would say wait for the market to mature, oh and at risk of repeating myself if the market had demanded it why the heck do we have to wait for it to mature before it works? I do believe AMD sold on promises, afterall consider demonstrations of Ath 64's were running on linus anmely suse yet I personally find suse to be unable to fully support the tech, how tweaked were those boxes i wonder. Come on pull the other one it has bells
Oh one thing as I finish this, I am actually looking into an IBM machine on the power platform, at least i'll get reliable multi core, *multi core in a dual cpu box drooooool* and of course reliable cpu and hardware support.