PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft delays AMD64



Beamtracer
11-04-2003, 03:56 AM
For those interested in the developments in the microprocessor world, have a read of this article from the British IT magazine, The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/33748.html

To sum up, Microsoft has delayed the release of its 64-bit operating system for AMD's new processors. Without the support of Microsoft, AMD's processors will be hobbled and only work in 32-bit mode.

Win64 (for AMD) was originally supposed to be released in 2003. Then it was moved to "Q1 2004". Now Microsoft has pushed the release date back to the "second half of 2004." It may slip even further.

AMD is the only processor manufacturer to dare take on Intel and bring competition into the marketplace. AMD's processors were to bring 64-bit processing to mainstream Windows users. Now their hopes must be dashed, as their lead time over Intel in this area has been slashed.

TyVole
11-04-2003, 04:59 AM
There's always 64-bit Linux . . .

hrgiger
11-04-2003, 06:46 AM
AMD doesn't seem that upset about it.

Red_Oddity
11-04-2003, 07:13 AM
Still, these new AMDs performs really well, even under Win 32bit

SLAYER
11-04-2003, 08:28 AM
Now that this CPU has been out for awhile, pick up any new magazine testing it against a P4 3.2 and they will show it blowing the P4 away in 32 bit mode. The lack of 64 windows is no big deal since this chip is optimized to be an ***-kicker with 32 and work with 64 when it is here.

AMD is not being sad about it and slipping to INTEL and on the contrary INTEL is scared right now and is still going to be forced by Microsoft to use its coding that it bases off of the AMD.

In INTELS panic they are releasing the P4 Extreme Edition in the next few weeks which is just a spruced up 3.2 for around $950!

KillMe
11-04-2003, 10:14 AM
i been considering a new workstation based on the opterons

nto sure how this should affeact my descision or not though

there aren't any apps that support 64 bit yet so does it make any difference that the operating system doesn't yet either?

but then if i wait for some apps and the operating system to catch up with the hardware wont my hardware be out of date by then?

all that said a daul opteron box is about the fastest workstation availble right now so how much extra am i paying for the 64bit tech which i'm not getting to use?

ah so many questions

ah well perhaps i shall buy a dune buggy instead - and stick with my current machine

cresshead
11-04-2003, 10:43 AM
as a bit of a dumbo about cpu's..what is the opertron running at compared to a G5 mac or a P4xeon?

how much faster are they in rendering out scenes with raytracing and Gi/rediosity?

i'm still pushing polys round on a dual450 pII SGI, Dell P3 700mhz and a sony celeron 600 laptop....

yeah i know, pick yourself up n stop laughing!

at least i have a choice of sloooooow pc's

steve g

:rolleyes:

Exper
11-04-2003, 10:48 AM
Come on AMD... and... crush Intel down! :D

Bye.

KillMe
11-04-2003, 10:52 AM
well dont knwo the specifics but a top of the line opteron is basically on the same orderas the athlon 64 fx51 which as a single chip gave the the dual 2ghx g5 an asswhipping so i would expect the top of the line dual opteron to be pretty much twice as fast maybe more than the g5 as for the xeon dual xeon is suppost to be a tiny bit quicker than the dual g5

but thats all hmm circumstanial evidence =) dont have any acaul benchmark tests to give you

robewil
11-04-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
For those interested in the developments in the microprocessor world, have a read of this article from the British IT magazine,...
Why do you care Beam? Aren't you a Macintosh guy? If a PC person posted an "Apple delays Cougar OS" thread, I shudder to think of the lashing that individual would get.:)

hrgiger
11-04-2003, 12:51 PM
He just hates microsoft. He takes every opportutnity to point out any negative news about microsoft that he can. Not sure why...

anieves
11-04-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by robewil
Why do you care Beam? Aren't you a Macintosh guy? If a PC person posted an "Apple delays Cougar OS" thread, I shudder to think of the lashing that individual would get.:)

gimme a break, here we go again....
just becasue he is a "Mac guy" doesn't mean he shouldn't care about the marketplace.

Beamtracer
11-04-2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by robewil
Why do you care Beam? I take an interest in the development of processors. I like AMD. I think they're brave. I hope they succeed.

It's amazing that AMD can produce a product that can rival or beat what Intel has, yet AMD does it on a fraction of the budget of Intel. I think they have some talented engineers working at AMD.

Even if you are an Intel fan, you still need AMD to keep the industry balanced.


Originally posted by KillMe
there aren't any apps that support 64 bit yet so does it make any difference that the operating system doesn't yet either?
This is my point. There aren't any apps yet because no one will write 64-bit apps before the operating system exists. You've got to have the OS first.

64-bit Windows would have been the major selling point for AMD. It is a clear advantage over Intel, as Intel doesn't yet have a desktop 64-bit processor (Itanium is not for the home). AMD would have been first to bring this feature to mainstream Windows users, but now that advantage is lost. It has been set back a year or more.

I think it's sad that a brilliant processor design cannot operate at its full capacity because another company controls the industry and won't give them the OS they need in a timely manner.

AMD is publicly putting on a brave face. I'd love to be a "fly on the wall" and listen to some of the private phone conversations between AMD and Microsoft right now.

hrgiger
11-04-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
I
This is my point. There aren't any apps yet because no one will write 64-bit apps before the operating system exists. You've got to have the OS first.



I have to agree with you on this one. The same thing is happening in the automotive industry and is the reason we're still driving gasoline powered cars. We can build a hydrogen car now, several manufacturers have protoypes, but you can't build cars until there are gas stations to fill them and nobody is going to build those gas stations until there are cars to support them. But eventually, someone has to take the leap.
It doesn't matter that Apple put out the 64 bit first, rather, just the fact that it was done is the important part. I think once users really start to see the advantages of 64 bit computing, it'll light a fire under anyone's a$s who isn't pushing to manufacture the 64 bit chips. I think it should be noted though that people really in demand for the 64 bit architecture, 3D users included are most likely still a minority and not enough yet to really get the industry jazzed about it. I'm sure that the majority of Microsofts current customer base, doesn't even have a need or have a clue what 64 bit computing is good for. Just give it a little bit of time and let the frontiers test the waters...

robewil
11-04-2003, 02:03 PM
I agree with you HrGiger. It is not the 3D community that pushes the envelope and encourages development. Ironically, it is the gaming industry. Fortunately, 3D users reap the benefits of this since they are related. Look at what inexpensive gaming-oriented video cards have done.

When there is enough demand for 64 bit games, everything will fall into place for 64 bit computing.

mattclary
11-04-2003, 02:28 PM
I agree with Beam's frustration here, however, I'm not too worried about it as the AMD chips are still holding their own in the 32bit realm. This was part of AMDs plan, these chips are here to bridge the gap.

hrgiger
11-04-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by robewil
Ironically, it is the gaming industry. Fortunately, 3D users reap the benefits of this since they are related. Look at what inexpensive gaming-oriented video cards have done.

When there is enough demand for 64 bit games, everything will fall into place for 64 bit computing.

Very True Rob.

cresshead
11-04-2003, 02:46 PM
looks as though AMD knew that their may be trouble with win64 so had the foresight to make it a hybrid chip that can on one hand lead the way in peformance in the windows o/s and also take advantage of it's 64bit for other o/s's like linux...it'll be treadin on the toes of where the itanium sells right now but with the advantage that it can operate in 2 environments...like beamtracer say's we all need the like's of amd even if we use intel cpu's ourselves [i do]...without amd i would seriously doubt we'd have a P4 running at 3.2gig for sale right now....amd pushed intel with the athlon and duron...

competition is good for all concerned...even apple have responded to the likes of optron and itanium with their G5 chip which is based on a ibm server chip..they still need to get it to run at a similar speed to the AMD and make the o/s a true 64bit o/s on apple...that'llcome with time and apps that can use it like renderman for apple and apps like M*Y*, L*X and i hope lightwave8 being compiled for 64 bit o/s....

i can actually see me getting an apple pc once they start to ship with a mouse with more than one button as standard [had to add a funny joke in their somewhere!!]

steve g

js33
11-04-2003, 05:52 PM
Well perhaps Apple should take a cue from Microsoft and not release an OS before it's ready.

It's a crashfest on Pather right now. Lightwave doesn't work, crashes when you try to do anything in the graph editor, FCP express crashes when I try to save to the Pixlet codec, Firewire drives are being erased due to some bug, I just hope there aren't any crashes in DVSP which is what I use the Mac for.

Cheers,
JS

SLAYER
11-04-2003, 06:35 PM
I think the Athlon 64 and Athlon FX should for now just be considered new CPUs without concerning about 32 or 64 bit. As it is right now the FX is the best in performing with 32 bit apps so who cares about its 64 bit performance? 32 bit now and some 64 bit games that will be coming in 2004 so just think of that as a bonus.

Simply put, just think of this as the best CPU available that will run 64 when it is here? What is the confusion or problem with that? Common sense to me.

Also we should note that AMD has already stated that the Athlon 64 3200+ is the replacement for the Athlon XP and that the athlon 64 FX-51 is just the first of its new high-end chip series. Next will be the FX-53 or something which I believe will already have a different socket than the 51! By the time 64 bit apps are more mainstream this will probably be a mid level chip.

CaptainKirk
11-04-2003, 08:22 PM
I see js33 beat me to it, but I'll repeat it anyway.

Apple is notorious for selling unfinished beta OSs for $100+

Panther is just the latest debacle. Please , I ve really had enough of Mac users bitching and lying about everything and how stable their systems are. Panther is less stable than windows 98 was.
Lightwave is unusable on new G5s, half of the other apps are crashing like crazy. People have had their entire drives erased and valuable data lost because of Apple. They should be sued and put out of business for that. Now I see what 64 bit optimized means to Apple.

What's the point of a 64bit OS anyway when there are no 64 bit apps. I'd rather MSoft waited if it meant a finished product instead of Apple like scam.

AMD is the best choice right now even for 32 bit apps.

Wasn't Beamtracer the guy who recently posted ridiculous statements how DFX+ which comes bundled with Lightwave was an useless application. Can you be more ridiculous than making statements like that. Then when I point it out, they ban me from the Mac forum. And they always blame NewTek for everything even when 100 other applications are screwed up by Apple's OS.

Dude, the reason you guys didn't get a deal like PC users did ( LW and DFX+ ) is because they don't make DFX+ for Macs and that is because like a lot of other reputable companies eyeon doesn't give a rat's *** about your inferior platform or want to deal with a guy like Jobs. NewTek would be smart to abandon it too after what apple did with Panther. Then you guys can all go to Maya ( but you still won't be able to use top of the line version unless you buy a PC ), and after that you'll realize you should either buy a PC or stick to making family movies and albums with iPhoto and iMove because at the end of the day, that is the only thing a Mac is good for.

Beamtracer
11-04-2003, 10:59 PM
Woah! What a post. Rather amusing, though.

For those unfamiliar, CaptainKirk (aka Panini) has been banned previously from the Lightwave forum once or twice before under various aliases.

I hadn't mentioned the Mac in this thread until now, but I'll just answer one of your assertions in that long tirade:


Originally posted by CaptainKirk
Lightwave is unusable on new G5s I've got Lightwave, and it's running on one of the latest fast G5s. I'm running MacOS 10.2.7. Lightwave has been very stable, and very very fast on the G5. It has never crashed on me once.

If you're referring to Apple's Panther OS, released only a few days ago, Newtek has said that they are working closely with Apple to optimize Lightwave 8 for this new OS. So I'll upgrade my OS to Panther in a few weeks when Newtek releases LW8.


Back to the topic of AMD... I think AMD makes great processors. I've said that many times before. I guess the tirade of anti-Mac abuse must be because I don't think that Microsoft is giving AMD as much support as they deserve.

The move to 64-bit computing can potentially benefit Windows users more than Mac users. This is because AMD64 (x86-64) uses a modified instruction set that brings more benefits than just "64-bitness." If MS writes a 64-bit OS specifically for AMD64 it will unlock these new features to the benefit of Windows users.

I was disappointed to hear that Microsoft will be delaying this OS for possibly another year.

js33
11-04-2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer

The move to 64-bit computing can potentially benefit Windows users more than Mac users. This is because AMD64 (x86-64) uses a modified instruction set that brings more benefits than just "64-bitness." If MS writes a 64-bit OS specifically for AMD64 it will unlock these new features to the benefit of Windows users.

I was disappointed to hear that Microsoft will be delaying this OS for possibly another year.

Yes it is unfortunate that they delayed it but can only result in a better product when it is released. Hopefully there will be more apps and hardware ready for 64 bit by then.

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
11-05-2003, 02:38 AM
Delaying the OS won't mean there's a greater range of apps ready when its released. Nobody can write the apps until they get the OS!!!

I'll probably get another tirade of abuse for this next comment...

MS already had a version of Windows for Itanium out for some time. Therefore, Windows is already 64-bit clean.

I can't see the technical reasons for the delay. Windows is 64-bit ready. The hard work has already been done. AMD's processors are an advancement on the original x86 architecture, but it's not a total rewrite. It shouldn't be that difficult.

I wonder if it could be a business decision to delay this operating system, rather than a technical one.

Sure, AMD's processors are performing well in 32-bit mode. But in the 64-bit world they had a lead time over Intel of at least a year. They needed this lead time to gain market share.

Look, if Intel's market share went from 90% down to 70%, they'd still be going strong, but it would be better for all users as there'd be a competitor to keep them moving.

js33
11-05-2003, 05:01 AM
I'm sure developers get prereleases of 64 bit windows so they can start migrating their apps to it. They don't have to wait for it to be released to the public to start.

I don't think the delay has anything to do with Intel because MS already told them they weren't going to make a 3rd version of it for a possible new 64 bit instruction set from Intel.

As you mentioned they already have Windows 64 for Itanium and now 64 bit for the extended x86 instructions for AMD.

Intel has already licensed the AMD extensions for the desktop.

Cheers,
JS

mrunion
11-05-2003, 05:46 AM
FWIW, Not only developers but those subscribed to universal MSDN subscriptions usually get pre-released versions of OS/software/apps that MS is working on.

I'm positive that certain developers/companies get software even before the MSDN subscriptions are getting it, but it's true that software can be developed and ready when a new OS ships.

sketchyjay
11-05-2003, 07:28 AM
Beam: Just because it was setup to use a 64 bit chip does not mean it will work right with a hybrid 32/64 bit chip. The OS has to make sure it will use the right bit size otherwise you may have some parts running 32 bit size chunks and others 64 bit.

Then again they may be adding in new features of the AMD 64bit chip instruction set.

Jay

Thalaxis
11-05-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
I don't think that Microsoft is giving AMD as much support as they deserve.


I totally agree with you there.



I was disappointed to hear that Microsoft will be delaying this OS for possibly another year.

If you go and have a look at Gabe Newell's statements about
AMD64, I think you'll agree that this is likely to generate quite a
bit of backlash for MS.

To spare anyone who's not seen it the trouble of looking:
He is one of the lead developers of Half Life 2 at Valve. He said
that they saw some rather impressive improvements in
performance from porting to AMD64.

Thalaxis
11-05-2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by sketchyjay
Beam: Just because it was setup to use a 64 bit chip does not mean it will work right with a hybrid 32/64 bit chip. The OS has to make sure it will use the right bit size otherwise you may have some parts running 32 bit size chunks and others 64 bit.


You're right, but they already have that working (slowly, since
Itanium2's x86 hardware performance sucks ***) on Itanium2.

So you'd think that they'd have gotten it figured out by now.

On the other hand, there are betas out in the field, and the
people who've tried the beta on their Hammer boxen have been
quite positive about their experiences with it.

Of course, the drivers are still for the most part 32-bit, which is
probably a bit of a problem :/

WizCraker
11-05-2003, 05:26 PM
Figures a MAC person had to post something like this. Can't you people just drop the .... subject of the AMD64 is dead because of Microsoft.

Thalaxis
11-05-2003, 05:41 PM
No one here said that AMD64 is dead.

Beamtracer
11-05-2003, 07:17 PM
Linux is already operating in 64-bit mode on the Opteron. The open source community seemed to be very fast getting this together. I wonder if Linux64 for AMD activates the extra speed enhancements that AMD added to the x86-64 instruction set? I guess it must.

What about Lightwave's Linux render engine? Is it 32-bit? If that is the case, then maybe a 64-bit renderer is needed to take advantage of these new systems. I think it would be relatively easy for Newtek to create a 64-bit Linux renderer if the need arose.

In response to WizCraker... yeah, I do my Lightwave work on an Apple G5. I also think that a render box consisting of Opteron64 + Linux has its merits. Two different approaches to UNIX. Both are good.

Thalaxis
11-05-2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Linux is already operating in 64-bit mode on the Opteron. The open source community seemed to be very fast getting this together. I wonder if Linux64 for AMD activates the extra speed enhancements that AMD added to the x86-64 instruction set? I guess it must.


I think they've got it down in the integer department; the Opteron
cleans the Xeon's clock in that arena. And the Java benchmarks
show some stellar performance on the Opteron.

But floating point... I think the best shipping compiler for FP
performance on the Opteron is still Intel's, which isn't 64-bit, and
which therefore doesn't use the extra registers and such.

I don't think PGI has released their AMD64 optimizing compiler
yet, and I'm pretty sure that Microsoft's is also still in beta.



What about Lightwave's Linux render engine? Is it 32-bit? If that is the case, then maybe a 64-bit renderer is needed to take advantage of these new systems. I think it would be relatively easy for Newtek to create a 64-bit Linux renderer if the need arose.


As far as I know, LW's renderer uses dynamic precision.

On the G5, there is no difference in programming models for
32-bit and 64-bit code; you just get access to less memory. It
doesn't work that way on an Opteron; when you run 32-bit code
on an Opteron, it's just an Athlon with a fast memory subsystem
and a steroid injection.



In response to WizCraker... yeah, I do my Lightwave work on an Apple G5. I also think that a render box consisting of Opteron64 + Linux has its merits. Two different approaches to UNIX. Both are good.

Odds are, WindowsXP64 will show better performance in FP than
Linux will on the Opteron, because of the level of effort that will
get dedicated to optimizing the compilers. MS will most likely not
support Linux at all, and they'll probably put more effort and
talent into it than anyone else can afford to, since it's a great
opportunity for them to attack the Linux server market, and start
working their way up to the enterpise market.

If the feedback WinXP64 has been getting is any indication,
stability won't be a problem, once the drivers are solidified.

hopicus
11-06-2003, 04:15 AM
I see js33 beat me to it, but I'll repeat it anyway.

Apple is notorious for selling unfinished beta OSs for $100+

Panther is just the latest debacle. Please , I ve really had enough of Mac users bitching and lying about everything and how stable their systems are. Panther is less stable than windows 98 was.
Lightwave is unusable on new G5s, half of the other apps are crashing like crazy. People have had their entire drives erased and valuable data lost because of Apple. They should be sued and put out of business for that. Now I see what 64 bit optimized means to Apple.

What's the point of a 64bit OS anyway when there are no 64 bit apps. I'd rather MSoft waited if it meant a finished product instead of Apple like scam.

AMD is the best choice right now even for 32 bit apps.

Wasn't Beamtracer the guy who recently posted ridiculous statements how DFX+ which comes bundled with Lightwave was an useless application. Can you be more ridiculous than making statements like that. Then when I point it out, they ban me from the Mac forum. And they always blame NewTek for everything even when 100 other applications are screwed up by Apple's OS.

Dude, the reason you guys didn't get a deal like PC users did ( LW and DFX+ ) is because they don't make DFX+ for Macs and that is because like a lot of other reputable companies eyeon doesn't give a rat's *** about your inferior platform or want to deal with a guy like Jobs. NewTek would be smart to abandon it too after what apple did with Panther. Then you guys can all go to Maya ( but you still won't be able to use top of the line version unless you buy a PC ), and after that you'll realize you should either buy a PC or stick to making family movies and albums with iPhoto and iMove because at the end of the day, that is the only thing a Mac is good for.

Well Sure, when your actually able to release a new os on a fairlly yearly basis,[ when did they push longhorn back to again? ] your bound to have some software and hardware incompatibities, some of which serious... personally, i think, brand new releases of any os should only be used by those who are up for the potential pain of it all...I dont plan on upgrading to panther until they release 10.3.1 or whatever... until then, im pretty happy with 10.2.8... [ p.s. the longhorn, comment was placed in this post to annoy this captain kirk punk... and what a punk... all other pc / windows users please ignore it...]

hopicus
11-06-2003, 04:34 AM
What's the point of a 64bit OS anyway when there are no 64 bit apps. I'd rather MSoft waited if it meant a finished product instead of Apple like scam.

Chicken or the Egg? Chicken or the Egg? one or the other has to come first... and in this case, im quite sure it has to be the OS... the other way around is just to stupid for me to even try to understand... head hurt...

Red_Oddity
11-06-2003, 06:36 AM
Excactly...eventhough i don't like Apple's OS that much, you have to give them credit for having the balls to release an OS like OSX...it is Mac OS, and it so many way's it isn't...

The first thing Apple users did was moan and ***** that they hated the new OS, missed their OS9 features (labels, Apple pulldown menu, drag and drop programs from anywhere to anywhere...for the first time they really had to 'think different'...lol...)...and look at them now...One big happy crowd (not counting the Panther LW crowd though:D )...finally a serious OS with serious business potential...sure it took 3 years...but look at how long it took for Win 3.11 to get to Win2K...

An OS sometimes has to pushed on you and updates and innovation sometimes have to be forced on the users before they really see the real benefit it wields...and wielding it did...just put OS 9.2 and OS 10.2 next to each other...

etc...you get my point...back to work folks...

*edit* i can't believe i typed OS 9.6 there...some Mac user

CaptainKirk
11-06-2003, 07:57 PM
Well, Beamtracer is obviously and ignorant lying SOB.
Either flat out lying or not being careful about checking your facts before accusing people of something like that?

Now he is making statements that I was banned from these forums before and caught peddling pirated software on CG forum.

First of all I have never, ever registered or posted anything on CG forums ( probably visited that site 3 times in the past year ). But I guess if you can claim that any Mac beats all Pentiums, you can catch nonexisting CG forum members doing just about anything you want them to do.

Second, I was only banned once from the Mac forum here. And I was simply replying to that other ignorant SOB who works for Apple and is trying to further his cause. If NewTek, which I always defend aginst SOBs like you guys wants to ban me again for being rude, oh well, that's the way it goes. I'll be banned for the second time. Still doesn't change the facts you guys are just making stuff up like there's no tomorrow.

Lightwave is great, if it doesn't work on a MAC, blame Apple , not NewTek.

toby
11-07-2003, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by CaptainKirk
Second, I was only banned once from the Mac forum here. I was simply replying to that other ignorant SOB who works for Apple and is trying to further his cause.
[/B]

"Simply replying", with "ignorant SOB".
Maybe being banned a few times will teach you that stating your opinion does not require you to act like a jerk.



Lightwave is great, if it doesn't work on a MAC, blame Apple , not NewTek.

Hold the system manufacturer completely responsible for every piece of software written for it? MS wouldn't last 2 minutes!

js33
11-07-2003, 02:03 AM
Actually in all fairness I've never had an MS update mess up my programs at all. Usually they work better.

I think Apple is just rushing OS updates out too fast to make a quick buck these days.

They are having more problems right now with Panther than they've had with all the other OSX updates combined.

I hope they get it sorted out soon.

Cheers,
JS

toby
11-07-2003, 02:28 AM
Jesus JS, you're blind to anything but the chance to put Windows over OSX. "I've never had a crash of any kind ever and I haven't restarted my machine in 10 years" What a load.

Now you even make up opportunities. If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I was not putting down Windows, only lots of buggy software that's been written for it.

For you, again, I'll spell it out. Saying that a software developer has less responsibility for it's software than the platform that it's written for is absurd - which is what Capt. Kirk said.

"I think Apple is just rushing OS updates out too fast to make a quick buck these days."

150 new features and 64 bit support for the new machines for $130.00, free on new computers, and you think it's just for a quick buck?

js33
11-07-2003, 03:13 AM
Hey Toby,

Nice to hear from you. :rolleyes:

I'm not making up opportunities. Plenty exist without having to make anything up.

I'm not putting Windows over OSX. I like and use OSX as well.
It's just that it's a crash fest right now because Apple didn't test it very well. There are plenty of problems besides Lightwave on it right now. The major one being Panther erasing firewire drives.
I know the drive makers have released a patch for the FW 800 but not until after a lot of people lost data. There is still a problem with some FW400 hard drives. I won't go into any others as they are on the web.

I still think Apple is rushing these updates out the door.

There are too many problems with Panther right now to blame all the app developers.

Cheers,
JS

hrgiger
11-07-2003, 06:28 AM
Wow, another mac vs. pc debate. None of us could have seen that coming...:rolleyes:

TSpyrison
11-07-2003, 07:25 AM
This PC vs Mac thing is getting a little tiring.
If you have a Mac, use it and be happy with it.
If you have a PC, use it and be happy with it.
But im sooo tired if these damn arguments….

Quit arguing, and start rendering. Or go start an ant farm or something…

Exper
11-07-2003, 07:30 AM
Returning to this Thread after some days...
confirms me about...
another Mac vs. PC one! :(

Really sad and old habit!

Bye.

Thalaxis
11-07-2003, 08:12 AM
So much for Beam's attempt to start a discussion... and it could
have been an interesting discussion; I was hoping to hear some
news about NewTek's 64-bit plans, as I was rather curious about
a few things... like whether they're planning to support both
AMD64 and IPF (it seems to me that the G5 is a given).

But AMD64 vs IPF is getting to be an interesting subject now,
since WinXP64 is already shipping for IPF, and the new Deerfield
processors are priced at the upper ends of the workstation range.

js33
11-07-2003, 03:20 PM
Hi Thalaxis,

I would like to hear about Newtek's 64 bit plans but they aren't saying much these days. We can't even get a feature list for LW 8 which is due to ship within the next 50 days or so.

Cheers,
JS

Thalaxis
11-07-2003, 03:28 PM
js33 --

Yup. They're probably rather busy with the LW8 release right now,
but they are also probably trying to keep things quiet so that they
don't shoot themselves in the foot (announce features that they
don't end up having time to make stable, for example).

But Proton has been doing a good job of teasing people, so I
guess that's something :)

BTW, when are you going to visit us DC 'Wavers? I figure that if
you decide to show up, the 'Wavers here will start coming out of
the woodwork like termites or something. It would be a refreshing
change from the "3D=Maya" mentality you get in the DoD's back
yar -- er, DC. :)

(No joke... I once mentioned non-Maya graphics to the local
SIGGRAPH chapter coordinator, and her response was "True, we
are interested in 2D stuff like Flash also" (not an exact quote)).

js33
11-07-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
js33 --

BTW, when are you going to visit us DC 'Wavers? I figure that if
you decide to show up, the 'Wavers here will start coming out of
the woodwork like termites or something. It would be a refreshing
change from the "3D=Maya" mentality you get in the DoD's back
yar -- er, DC. :)


When am I going to visit the DV wavers?

You must mean Lee as I don't do seminars.

Cheers,
JS

Thalaxis
11-07-2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by js33
When am I going to visit the DV wavers?

You must mean Lee as I don't do seminars.

Cheers,
JS

Oops -- I meant to direct that to Proton... sorry :/

(I got careless with editing.)

js33
11-07-2003, 03:57 PM
Hehehehe.

I knew you didn't mean me but wasn't sure who you meant.

Proton does get around alot these days so maybe he'll make it up there soon.

Cheers,
JS

CaptainKirk
11-07-2003, 05:27 PM
And how exactly do you want me to reply when somebody lies and accuses me of being caught peddling illegal software?

People making those accusations should be the ones banned because that is much worse than calling somebody a lying SOB ( and I only did it after they lied about me ).

And some of these guys do the same thing with everything else including these Mac vs PC posts. They post lies either on purpose or simply don't bother to check if what they are posting is true.

Beamtracer
11-07-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
I was hoping to hear some
news about NewTek's 64-bit plans, as I was rather curious about
a few things... like whether they're planning to support both
AMD64 and IPF (it seems to me that the G5 is a given).

But AMD64 vs IPF is getting to be an interesting subject now
Most people know that Lightwave used to run on the 64-bit Digital Alpha processor.

However, did you know that some time ago Newtek created a 64-bit version of Lightwave and had it running on an Itanium processor under Windows? Not many people were aware of that.

I believe that Newtek felt there was no market for Itanium to release this version publicly. Itanium speeds have been poor, and very few Itanium systems have been sold. Basically Itanium has been a failure. However... AMD64 is a different matter.

I'm sure that Newtek would be watching the AMD64 situation very closely. Lightwave's 64-bit-clean code makes it easier to port Lightwave to AMD64. It's just that they need Microsoft to provide the OS first.

Thalaxis
11-07-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer

Most people know that Lightwave used to run on the 64-bit Digital Alpha processor.


One thing I've always wondered is whether or not it was a 64-bit
version, or a 32-bit version.



However, did you know that some time ago Newtek created a 64-bit version of Lightwave and had it running on an Itanium processor under Windows? Not many people were aware of that.


I remember seeing the press release... but nothing since.



I believe that Newtek felt there was no market for Itanium to release this version publicly. Itanium speeds have been poor, and very few Itanium systems have been sold. Basically Itanium has been a failure. However... AMD64 is a different matter.


Ok, time for a reality check.

The Itanium2 isn't a failure, it's actually selling pretty well. The
major OEMs selling them include IBM, SGI, HP... and will soon
include just about everyone else in the server business also. The
Itanium2 has proven itself to be the best floating-point machine
on the market today.

Of course, 32-bit code on the Itanium is another story altogether.



I'm sure that Newtek would be watching the AMD64 situation very closely. Lightwave's 64-bit-clean code makes it easier to port Lightwave to AMD64. It's just that they need Microsoft to provide the OS first.

It's going to be an interesting year...

SLAYER
11-07-2003, 07:56 PM
This makes for an interesting read and shows that AMD is prepping up to hopefully kick some ***. GO AMD!!!
also make reference that the windows 64 slide is no major set back and is somewhat expected.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/07/HNamdplant_1.html

js33
11-07-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis

Ok, time for a reality check.

The Itanium2 isn't a failure, it's actually selling pretty well. The
major OEMs selling them include IBM, SGI, HP... and will soon
include just about everyone else in the server business also. The
Itanium2 has proven itself to be the best floating-point machine
on the market today.

Of course, 32-bit code on the Itanium is another story altogether.



It's going to be an interesting year...

Benchmarks I've seen show the Itanium 2 having twice the FP speed as the fastest Opteron. I guess it is twice as fast or faster than the G5 as well.
But at this time they are still expensive and kind of out of the consumer price scale. Well they are server chips after all but the server stuff finds it's way to the desktop eventually.

Cheers,
JS

Karmacop
11-07-2003, 08:34 PM
Lightwave on the alpha wouldn't have been 64bit as NT for the alpha wasn't 64 bit. Lightwave also run under SunOS and Irix though, so they could have been 64 bit ..

Beamtracer
11-07-2003, 08:49 PM
Quote from Arnie Cachelin, former Lightwave 3D developer/coder, December 30, 2002:

"NewTek actually showed a 64-bit LW 6 running in Itanium machines a couple years ago, when people thought there would be a 64-bit OS as well as hardware available. The fact that the codebase is "64-bit clean" means that if a market for Win64 applications somehow emerged, a version of LW for it would be ready. It is not clear that Win64 will be viable for some time, and aside from removing memory limits, it is not clear how much advantage would be gained from running that way."

Thalaxis
11-07-2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by js33
But at this time they are still expensive and kind of out of the consumer price scale. Well they are server chips after all but the server stuff finds it's way to the desktop eventually.


Deerfield is priced at $750 (1 GHz) and $1200 (1.4 GHz).

Beamtracer --

Thanks for finding and posting that quote! It seems that NewTek
is ahead of the game a little bit here.

It also sounds like they could be ready to go with an Itanium
version almost instantly.

I hope that the AMD64 compilers from MS and PGI perform well!

js33
11-08-2003, 04:23 AM
Yes the Deerfield is the first cost effective version but I think all the costs associated with building an Itanium machine at this point are quite a bit higher than a P4 or AMD system. I've heard that the motherboards for Itaniums are rather expensive.

I hope you can prove me wrong.

Cheers,
JS

Thalaxis
11-08-2003, 08:28 AM
It's too early yet. The Deerfield won't be able to ramp as quickly
as the Opteron on the desktop, because of the software
situation.

Itanium has unbelievable amounts of backing, but it's almost ALL
Linux, and even the few workstations that are showing up are
aimed mainly at software devlopers who are writing software
for the large-scale enterprise and HPC setups.

Beamtracer
11-09-2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Karmacop
Lightwave on the alpha wouldn't have been 64bit as NT for the alpha wasn't 64 bit. Lightwave also run under SunOS and Irix though, so they could have been 64 bit ..
Karmacop, I think you're right. WinNT running on the Alpha processor was only 32-bit.

Regarding Lightwave on Itanium: I think Newtek could release a version almost immediately if they chose. There just isn't the demand. Hands up everyone who's got an Itanium machine and is looking for a version of Lightwave to run on it! Hmmm, nobody answered. I also disagree with the idea that Itanium is fast. I think you'd get better performance (and value for money) out of an Opteron or IBM970.

Speaking of the Opteron and IBM970, I'd like to see a 64-bit Linux Screamernet that could run on those processors.

js33
11-09-2003, 09:13 PM
Beam,

Benchmarks show the Itanium as having twice the FP performance of the fastest Opteron and that would apply to the G5 as well. Value well I guess the jury is still out on that one.

Cheers,
JS

Thalaxis
11-09-2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer

I also disagree with the idea that Itanium is fast. I think you'd get better performance (and value for money) out of an Opteron or IBM970.


Disagreeing with reality won't change anything.

Of course, if you're talking about integer math, then yes the
Opteron is the leader. But in floating point, Itanium2 has a rather
large lead at present, at least in the real world in its current
incarnation.

Beamtracer
11-10-2003, 01:34 PM
IBM is apparently about to release servers running the IBM970 processor, the same processor that is powering Apple's new G5.

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/ibmblade.html

IBM's new boxes will run Linux OS. If I understand correctly, Newtek's Lightwave renderer for Linux will only work on Intel x86 hardware.

I'm not a coder, but I can't see that it would be a major port to get the renderer working on this processor. Although it is already working on Apple machines, I think some "relatively" minor tweaks to the Linux renderer would get it running on IBM's new boxes. Probably the byte order would be different on IBM's machines (big endian to little endian).

Thalaxis
11-10-2003, 02:11 PM
That's true, that shouldn't be too hard a port, since the OS and
tools have already been ported.

It should be largely a recompile + test + optimize deal, since the
API's would also be the same.

Beamtracer
11-14-2003, 09:07 AM
The Register speculates that AMD may concentrate on processor design, and let IBM fabricate its chips.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/33992.html
Lately, AMD has been partnering more with IBM and sharing technology.

AMD needs a new fabrication plant, either its own or IBM's, to begin manufacturing 90 nano-meter chip designs. When they reach 90nm, it makes it feasible to go to dual core processors... 2 or more processors in one unit.

IBM is already producing dual core units. AMD has stated they will. It puts more pressure on application developers (eg Lightwave) to make their programs multithreaded, to enable them to take advantage of 2 processors. It's the way of the future.

Thalaxis
11-14-2003, 09:25 AM
It'll be like HT but with more oomph :)

Though CMP has more overhead in terms of transistor budget,
die size, and power consumption than SMT (aka HT if you're Intel),
it also delivers more performance, so from the customer's point of
view, it's a superior solution. And AMD planned for it; they have a
dual-ported integrated NorthBridge for a reason :)

Also, I think that a lot of the effort in supporting HT will translate
directly into considerable gains with minimal additional effort from
CMP.

Whether or not IBM will be a fab partner for AMD is an open
question. There is a possibility that AMD's agreement with Intel
does not permit outsourcing their processor fabrication, but it's
not clear (it has not been disclosed in detail by either party).

In other words, other than that IBM and AMD are working
together, it's very... fuzzy. :confused:

Adding to the fuzz is uncertainty about what the status of the
AMD/Fujistu joint venture, and the AMD/UMC partnership, both of
which could result in another fab for AMD. And then there's the
possibility of expansion at AMD's Dresden fab, and the possibility
that IBM could be hired to fab K7 variants while Dresden moves to
only K8 production...

Lightwolf
11-17-2003, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
AMD needs a new fabrication plant, either its own or IBM's, to begin manufacturing 90 nano-meter chip designs.
AMD has just today announced that they will build another plant next to Fab30 in Dresden, Germany. Fab30 is supposedly on the verge of 90nm chips, they (90nm Opterons) should appear this
year (and were shown at the latest microprocessor forum).

Cheers,
Mike

Beamtracer
11-18-2003, 01:29 PM
Yes, it's interesting news that AMD will create another fabrication plant in Dresden. There was some speculation that AMD would use an IBM fab instead, which didn't eventuate.

Also newsworthy is that both IBM and Sun Microsystems have announced Opteron based systems...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/34056.html
(Interesting read about the fate of Itanium)

IBM will be running Linux on Opteron. Sun Microsystems will be running it's Linux and Java environments on Opteron.

Tell me this... How did 64-bit Linux developers get it running on Opteron so quickly? How did Sun get it's 64-bit Java environment running on Opteron so quickly? Why is Microsoft incapable of getting 64-bit Windows running on Opteron for another year?

What other explanation could there be for Microsoft's delay, except that they are artificially trying to use their monopoly to benefit Intel at the expense of AMD?

Thalaxis
11-18-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Yes, it's interesting news that AMD will create another fabrication plant in Dresden. There was some speculation that AMD would use an IBM fab instead, which didn't eventuate.


There is still the possibility that AMD could lease out fab space at
IBM... since IBM's fabs are rather underutilized, and AMD is
severely capacity constrained right now.



Also newsworthy is that both IBM and Sun Microsystems have announced Opteron based systems...


That Sun announcement is HUGE for AMD... and it's not just about
Opteron based systems, either. It sounds like it could lead to
Opterons getting a major kick-start on breaking into the higher
end of the enterprise market, which is currently the primary
target market for the Itanium.



http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/34056.html
(Interesting read about the fate of Itanium)


While interesting, it's largely bogus. It requires igoring little things
like reality. After all, IBM is deploying a massive Itanium-based
supercomputing cluster as well.



Tell me this... How did 64-bit Linux developers get it running on Opteron so quickly? How did Sun get it's 64-bit Java environment running on Opteron so quickly? Why is Microsoft incapable of getting 64-bit Windows running on Opteron for another year?


AMD had Opteron in the hands of Linux developers by this time a
year ago. It wasn't quick, it was pre-emptive. AMD's future is
hanging on the success of Opteron, so a 64-bit OS at launch was
critical for them.

The MS delay is most likely related to two things:
They didn't jump on board right away
They have upped the ante a bit for the 32-bit compatibility layer.



What other explanation could there be for Microsoft's delay, except that they are artificially trying to use their monopoly to benefit Intel at the expense of AMD?

Crappy QA process? :)
937 developers living primarily on caffeine tripping over each other
and blowing up half the code while the other half is getting fixed?

I'm being a little harsher than MS deserves, in that they have
improved their QA, but still... not long ago, that was a pretty
accurate description of their "process".

Beamtracer
12-12-2003, 03:18 AM
Latest news, Microsoft's next operating system 'Longhorn' may be delayed until 2008, according to the Gartner group.

Story from InformationWeek:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=16700197

2008?

2008!!!

Should they change the name of it from 'Longhorn' to 'Longwait'?

Longhorn is going to introduce features such as Mac-like transparent windowing. But what impact will this delay have on AMD, who need the OS to enable 64-bit processing?

Quote from Bill Gates, October 2003:
"Apart from Photoshop, I can't think of desktop applications where you would need more than 4 gigabytes of physical memory"
Quote from The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33397.html)

Obviously 3D is not a priority for Mr Gates. I'd like to see him try to load a hi-res NASA earth map into Lightwave (or any other 3D app) on WinXP.

Lightwolf
12-12-2003, 03:37 AM
Obviously 3D is not a priority for Mr Gates. I'd like to see him try to load a hi-res NASA earth map into Lightwave (or any other 3D app) on WinXP.

Been there, done that (12 GB) ;)

Cheers,
Mike

BeeVee
12-12-2003, 03:38 AM
Remember this is the same Bill Gates that said that 640K should be enough for anyone... :)

B

Aegis
12-12-2003, 03:41 AM
But what impact will this delay have on AMD, who need the OS to enable 64-bit processing?

Umm... I guess they'll just have to use WinXP 64-bit instead? Longhorn was never scheduled to be the 64-bit jump for Windows - WinXP64 has been in development for a while now and will be the first Microsoft OS to support AMD64.

Delays in Longhorn's release schedule are unlikely to impact Windows users as Microsoft have already stated that they'll be adding functionality to XP through Service Packs - XP has proven itself to be pretty robust and a worthy successor to Win2k - I'm quite happy to have XP as an OS for my PC(s) for the forseeable future.

Microsoft probably wants/needs Longhorn to be revolutionary (rather than evolutionary as XP is) and for the time being there's little evidence of that in the leaked Longhorn builds - I guess there's a lot more work to be done... In the meantime, XP works just fine.

Incidentally, has anyone maxxed out their PC with 4gigs of RAM? I'd be interested to know how well it performs... supposedly programs can access up to 3gigs with Windows using the rest - how stable is it?

mattclary
12-12-2003, 05:52 AM
Hell, for all we know, MS is delaying it because they decided to WRITE it in 64 bit.

But, yeah, Aegis is right, Longhorn isn't the 64bit OS everyone is waiting on.

3DBob
12-12-2003, 07:04 AM
I remember only too well what microsoft can do to a 64 bit architecture by delays and cancellations. I have DEC Alpha AXP 21164A based machines that cost £30,000 in 1998 and were awesome at the time for rendering in lightwave and lightscape and photoshop. The software stopped practically instantly when M$ withdrew support.

My machines now prop up magazines - would make great webservers.

They are still awesome with the ability to take 16GB of ram on board (and address it all for a single application - 32bit can only allocate 2GB) Memory bus is 256bit wide!! and no splitting of leading and falling edge (DDR QDR) so stable as hell. In fact - I've just taked myself into making one my new file server.....

I recon they're just reducing the development effort to see which way the wind blows - I fear they may cause no wind to blow by doing this.

Bob

Thalaxis
12-12-2003, 07:16 AM
I think the delays in XP64 derived from another source entirely,
actually.

Think about MS' situation for a moment; it's definitely not in their
best interests to waffle on 64-bit support, and it's even less in
their best interests to hose it up.

XP64 Sp2 (the one that will support AMD64) will have an entirely
new Windows on Windows 32 implementation. Of course, on the
K8 platform, it will be largely native and only provide data
translation services between 32-bit software and 64-bit services
(like drivers), but on Itanium it's a total x86 emulation.

I think that is a large part of the hold-up, and 64-bit drivers are
probably another part.

There was a bit of press recently indicating that it might actually
hit the streets in the first half of 2004... but we'll see.

Beamtracer
12-12-2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
There was a bit of press recently indicating that it might actually
hit the streets in the first half of 2004... but we'll see.
I think any speculation of a 2004 Longhorn release can be hosed down.

Take this quote from Bill Gates recently:
"Longhorn could be 2005 or 2006. This release is going to be driven by technology, not by a release date. Which probably means it is going to be late."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33397.html


Originally posted by 3DBob
DEC Alpha AXP 21164A based machines [...] are still awesome with the ability to take 16GB of ram on board (and address it all for a single application - 32bit can only allocate 2GB)
Hi 3DBob. Yeah, it's interesting about 32-bit apps and RAM. In theory they should be able to access 4GB of RAM. In practice they can usually only access 2GB of RAM. Not sure why.

Thalaxis
12-13-2003, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
I think any speculation of a 2004 Longhorn release can be hosed down.


I wasn't talking about Longhorn. I was talking about XP64.



Hi 3DBob. Yeah, it's interesting about 32-bit apps and RAM. In theory they should be able to access 4GB of RAM. In practice they can usually only access 2GB of RAM. Not sure why.

Because Windows NT/2k/XP by default reserve 2 GB for the
kernel. In PAE mode, I think each process can get up to 4 GB if
there's enough memory installed (I think the current max for PAE
mode on Xeons is 16 GB). It's a bit of a hack on Xeon, though;
I've heard that the resultant performance hit is around 30%.
(Ouch.)