Prescott may have hidden 64-bit functionality

GP2 · 2003-09-21, 15:53

Rumor has it that Prescott has 64-bit functionality, which Intel is keeping quiet about for the time being because they're still hoping Itanium sales will pick up.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11668

It's not clear though if these will be the same as the AMD64 extensions, or something incompatible.

[Edit: Slashdot also discussed this]

Dresdenboy · 2003-09-21, 16:53

Look at http://chip-architect.com/ for some more examinations. "Yamhill" is the code name for Intel's 64bit extensions.

SalemTheCat100 · 2003-09-24, 06:53

Check this link: http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030923/tech_...crosoft_2.html

Quote:
"Our operating system (windows64) will run as long as (Intel) doesn't change the instruction set" from their existing 64-bit Itanium chip architecture, he said. "We will release versions of desktop operating systems for both Intel and AMD," assuming Intel eventually develops a 64-bit desktop processor.

Prescott will not be an IA64 processor.

So whatever is in that extra chip area will forever remain hidden.

Intel will not have a desktop 64 bit any time soon.

SALEM

QuintLeo · 2003-09-24, 20:00

Microsoft also announced at some later point that they might be supporting up to 5 (yes, FIVE) different 64-bit CPU types with Windows.

While Yamhill "as a name" might be dead, it would appear (and it only makes SENSE) that Intel still is keeping the possibility of a 64-bit desktop CPU alive - but is hesitant to actually release a 64-bit x86 CPU 'cause it would KILL any chance of Itanium getting anywhere in significant numbers. Intel has lotsa money to throw around, but the investment they've made in Itamium is a LOT even by their standards....

SalemTheCat100 · 2003-09-25, 01:33

Quote:

Originally posted by QuintLeo
Microsoft also announced at some later point that they might be supporting up to 5 (yes, FIVE) different 64-bit CPU types with Windows.

While Yamhill "as a name" might be dead, it would appear (and it only makes SENSE) that Intel still is keeping the possibility of a 64-bit desktop CPU alive - but is hesitant to actually release a 64-bit x86 CPU 'cause it would KILL any chance of Itanium getting anywhere in significant numbers. Intel has lotsa money to throw around, but the investment they've made in Itamium is a LOT even by their standards....

I supplied a current link that quotes Microsoft directly stating that they will only support Intel on the IA64 instruction set.

The Prescott is not a IA64 processor, therfore no 64bit OS support from Microsoft.

Please supply a valid Microsoft link (forum or BB speculation links not allowed) where they are quoted as supporting five 64bit OS's.

SALEM

NookieN · 2003-09-25, 05:50

Quote:

Originally posted by SalemTheCat100
I supplied a current link that quotes Microsoft directly stating that they will only support Intel on the IA64 instruction set.

You know, a quote printed in biz.yahoo.com doesn't exactly etch Microsoft's position in stone. After all, Intel has said many times that Prescott will not be a 64-bit chip, so if they ever did release a 64-bit version it would be a more significant reversal than Microsoft making an OS for it.

SalemTheCat100 · 2003-09-25, 14:50

Quote:

Originally posted by NookieN
You know, a quote printed in biz.yahoo.com doesn't exactly etch Microsoft's position in stone. After all, Intel has said many times that Prescott will not be a 64-bit chip, so if they ever did release a 64-bit version it would be a more significant reversal than Microsoft making an OS for it.

Try reading it AGAIN. The quote is from Chris Jones, corporate vice president for the Windows client division at Microsoft.

Quote:

Chris Jones, corporate vice president for the Windows client division at Microsoft (NasdaqNM:MSFT - News), said the system would be able to run on 64-bit chips from both AMD (NYSE:AMD - News) and Intel. (NasdaqNM:INTC - News), on both server computers and desktops.

But Jones said in an interview before AMD's Athlon 64 launch that it would not be difficult to fine-tune a version of Windows for Intel's architecture.

"Our operating system will run as long as (Intel) doesn't change the instruction set" from their existing 64-bit Itanium chip architecture, he said. "We will release versions of desktop operating systems for both Intel and AMD," assuming Intel eventually develops a 64-bit desktop processor.

End of discussion.

Microsoft will not release desktop 64bit OS for intel unless intel uses the AMD64 instructions or their own IA64 instructions.

This thread is titled about Prescott's 64bit hidden goodies. It doesn't even matter if they are 64bit extensions as they will never see the light of day as Microsoft WILL NOT RELEASE an OS for it.

By the time Windows 64-bit edition is released early next year Microsoft will have spent two years on it. They will not do that again. intel made a mistake in thinging they can bully everyone to their way of thinking.

SALEM

GP2 · 2003-09-25, 19:03

Salem,

In the high-tech world, nothing is ever cast in stone.

Intel's commitment to Itanium exactly mirrors Microsoft's commitment to OS/2 way back when: years of development effort and a ton of money spent, not just by them but by large corporate customers who committed to the new system and would be severely displeased by a change of course... and guess what, Microsoft ditched OS/2, came out with NT, left IBM holding the bag and the corporate customers in the lurch.

It's not a question of if Intel puts Itanium on the slow road to oblivion, it's just a question of how to time the announcement. Itanium will never go big-time for exactly all the same reasons that Alpha and other RISC chips never went big-time, and merely having Intel's brand on the thing changes nothing.

Intel is coming out with "Intel x86-64" in some shape or form, sooner rather than later. You can bet the farm on that.

The only question is, do they exactly copy AMD64 (which they can, since they have a cross-license) or do they try to play games by introducing trivial incompatibilities (a few different bits in the opcodes) that would prevent the same 64-bit executables from running but would present no new technical challenges to a compiler writer or application developer.

You are correct that Microsoft has always been the dominant partner in "Wintel", so they can rap Intel's knuckles and tell them to cut out the nonsense. Or they can just shrug, produce two trivially different 64-bit OSs for OEMs to preinstall, and let the marketplace decide. It would be a marketing rather than a technical issue for them: two sets of packaging and boxes. But they've dealt with multiple packaging before (WinNT originally had Alpha and MIPS versions, WinXP comes in Home and Pro versions) so it's not exactly insurmountable.

I'm rooting for AMD myself, they're the underdog, they bet the company and they deserve to pull it off. But don't count Intel out just yet. They're not stupid or insanely stubborn. Whatever they come up with, they'll position themselves to be competitive.

SalemTheCat100 · 2003-09-25, 20:34

Quote:

Originally posted by GP2
In the high-tech world, nothing is ever cast in stone.

Intel is coming out with "Intel x86-64" in some shape or form, sooner rather than later. You can bet the farm on that.

intel will have a 64 bit desktop processor but it will be later than sooner. Haven't you read intel's press releases? intel has said there is no need for 64bits on the desktop until 2005.

Quote:

The only question is, do they exactly copy AMD64 (which they can, since they have a cross-license) or do they try to play games by introducing trivial incompatibilities (a few different bits in the opcodes) that would prevent the same 64-bit executables from running but would present no new technical challenges to a compiler writer or application developer.

I would love for them to CLONE the AMD64 instruction set.

If intel purposely add incompatibilities then those same compiler writer or application developer would release their software WITHOUT using those instructions as they would want their software available to the WHOLE market.

Quote:

You are correct that Microsoft has always been the dominant partner in "Wintel", so they can rap Intel's knuckles and tell them to cut out the nonsense.

Which they have done on more than once already.

Quote:

Or they can just shrug, produce two trivially different 64-bit OSs for OEMs to preinstall, and let the marketplace decide.

64-bit Windows OS is NOT trivial. Two years in development at Microsoft. Thats why they have publicly stated that intel either uses AMD64 or IA64. That is intels only choice.

Salem

QuintLeo · 2003-09-25, 21:05

Chris Jones, corporate vice president for the Windows client division at Microsoft (NasdaqN:MSFT - News), said the system would be able to run on 64-bit chips from both AMD (NYSE:AMD - News) and Intel. (NasdaqNM:INTC - News), on both server computers and desktops.

But Jones said in an interview before AMD's Athlon 64 launch that it would not be difficult to fine-tune a version of Windows for Intel's architecture.

"Our operating system will run as long as (Intel) doesn't change the instruction set" from their existing 64-bit Itanium chip architecture, he said. "We will release versions of desktop operating systems for both Intel and AMD," assuming Intel eventually develops a 64-bit desktop processor.

Note - he did NOT preclude writing or "fine-tuning" an Intel non-IA64 version of Windows in there. What he appears to have specified - with fine hair-splitting and normal Microsoft obfuscation - is that the CURRENT Windows64 project will run on IA64 and AMD64 instruction sets.

That second paragraph seems to be the key.

Additionally, Microsoft has a LONG history of changing their corporate mind - consider the history of OS/2 for a PRIME example....

GP2 · 2003-09-25, 22:08

Quote:

Originally posted by SalemTheCat100
Haven't you read intel's press releases? intel has said there is no need for 64bits on the desktop until 2005.

Are you old enough to remember Microsoft and OS/2? Lo these many years ago... I can't remember the exact year.

It was The Wall Street Journal that broke the story that Microsoft would ditch OS/2 and part company with IBM. And of course, Microsoft furiously denied it. Everyone straight up to Bill Gates swore up and down that it wasn't so. I'm sure they issued a press release or two. Except just a few weeks later, it turned out to be true.

If I had enough time to waste, I'd poke around in the Google Usenet newsgroups archives and come up with exact dates and quotes.

Intel's press releases will continue to proclaim that there's no need for 64 bits on the desktop, right up until they issue a press release about their 64-bit solution for the desktop.

Corporate information is officially released on a precise schedule: if an announcement is scheduled for Wednesday, then if a reporter asks you about a rumor on Tuesday (one day before) you issue a routine denial. And you do this even if the source of the rumor was your own deliberate leak. That's the way the corporate PR game is played.

Quote:

64-bit Windows OS is NOT trivial. Two years in development at Microsoft. Thats why they have publicly stated that intel either uses AMD64 or IA64. That is intels only choice.

Except they have a third choice: AMD64 with just enough tiny changes to break compatibility. Embrace, extend, and extinguish. It's a game Microsoft itself knows well.

Yes, the initial effort to create a 64-bit Windows is not trivial. However once you have a 64-bit Windows for AMD64, it would be trivial extra effort to port it to a trivially-modified Intellified version of AMD64. In an extreme case maybe you wouldn't even have to recompile, just run some kind of binary search-and-replace script over all your executables.

Microsoft would probably require some kind of cash incentive to make it worth its while to go along with this. But Intel has been happy to throw around cash in the past, to OEMs for the "Intel Inside" campaign for instance.

It's just a scenario. I'm not predicting it or anticipating it, just pointing out that things aren't as either-or as you might wish.

2003-09-21, 15:53	#1
GP2 Sep 2003 5·11·47 Posts	Prescott may have hidden 64-bit functionality Rumor has it that Prescott has 64-bit functionality, which Intel is keeping quiet about for the time being because they're still hoping Itanium sales will pick up. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11668 It's not clear though if these will be the same as the AMD64 extensions, or something incompatible. [Edit: Slashdot also discussed this] Last fiddled with by GP2 on 2003-09-21 at 15:57

2003-09-24, 06:53	#3
SalemTheCat100 Oct 2002 2×13 Posts	Yamhill is DEAD Check this link: http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030923/tech_...crosoft_2.html Quote: "Our operating system (windows64) will run as long as (Intel) doesn't change the instruction set" from their existing 64-bit Itanium chip architecture, he said. "We will release versions of desktop operating systems for both Intel and AMD," assuming Intel eventually develops a 64-bit desktop processor. Prescott will not be an IA64 processor. So whatever is in that extra chip area will forever remain hidden. Intel will not have a desktop 64 bit any time soon. SALEM

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
hidden quotes	ramgeis	PrimeNet	2	2017-08-28 20:23
Concept of Dashed Lines Indicating Hidden Geometry	a1call	Lounge	2	2017-05-22 03:18
Find out the six different types of words hidden in the picture!	Raman	Puzzles	4	2016-09-28 14:36
Hidden processor usage	seba2122	Prime Sierpinski Project	2	2015-07-27 21:04
New server data functionality	Complex33	Data	4	2003-10-04 00:05

2003-09-21, 16:53	#2
Dresdenboy Apr 2003 Berlin, Germany 19² Posts	Look at http://chip-architect.com/ for some more examinations. "Yamhill" is the code name for Intel's 64bit extensions.

2003-09-24, 20:00	#4
QuintLeo Oct 2002 Lost in the hills of Iowa 1C0₁₆ Posts	Microsoft also announced at some later point that they might be supporting up to 5 (yes, FIVE) different 64-bit CPU types with Windows. While Yamhill "as a name" might be dead, it would appear (and it only makes SENSE) that Intel still is keeping the possibility of a 64-bit desktop CPU alive - but is hesitant to actually release a 64-bit x86 CPU 'cause it would KILL any chance of Itanium getting anywhere in significant numbers. Intel has lotsa money to throw around, but the investment they've made in Itamium is a LOT even by their standards....

2003-09-25, 19:03	#8
GP2 Sep 2003 5·11·47 Posts	Salem, In the high-tech world, nothing is ever cast in stone. Intel's commitment to Itanium exactly mirrors Microsoft's commitment to OS/2 way back when: years of development effort and a ton of money spent, not just by them but by large corporate customers who committed to the new system and would be severely displeased by a change of course... and guess what, Microsoft ditched OS/2, came out with NT, left IBM holding the bag and the corporate customers in the lurch. It's not a question of if Intel puts Itanium on the slow road to oblivion, it's just a question of how to time the announcement. Itanium will never go big-time for exactly all the same reasons that Alpha and other RISC chips never went big-time, and merely having Intel's brand on the thing changes nothing. Intel is coming out with "Intel x86-64" in some shape or form, sooner rather than later. You can bet the farm on that. The only question is, do they exactly copy AMD64 (which they can, since they have a cross-license) or do they try to play games by introducing trivial incompatibilities (a few different bits in the opcodes) that would prevent the same 64-bit executables from running but would present no new technical challenges to a compiler writer or application developer. You are correct that Microsoft has always been the dominant partner in "Wintel", so they can rap Intel's knuckles and tell them to cut out the nonsense. Or they can just shrug, produce two trivially different 64-bit OSs for OEMs to preinstall, and let the marketplace decide. It would be a marketing rather than a technical issue for them: two sets of packaging and boxes. But they've dealt with multiple packaging before (WinNT originally had Alpha and MIPS versions, WinXP comes in Home and Pro versions) so it's not exactly insurmountable. I'm rooting for AMD myself, they're the underdog, they bet the company and they deserve to pull it off. But don't count Intel out just yet. They're not stupid or insanely stubborn. Whatever they come up with, they'll position themselves to be competitive.

2003-09-25, 21:05	#10
QuintLeo Oct 2002 Lost in the hills of Iowa 111000000₂ Posts	Chris Jones, corporate vice president for the Windows client division at Microsoft (NasdaqN:MSFT - News), said the system would be able to run on 64-bit chips from both AMD (NYSE:AMD - News) and Intel. (NasdaqNM:INTC - News), on both server computers and desktops. But Jones said in an interview before AMD's Athlon 64 launch that it would not be difficult to fine-tune a version of Windows for Intel's architecture. "Our operating system will run as long as (Intel) doesn't change the instruction set" from their existing 64-bit Itanium chip architecture, he said. "We will release versions of desktop operating systems for both Intel and AMD," assuming Intel eventually develops a 64-bit desktop processor. Note - he did NOT preclude writing or "fine-tuning" an Intel non-IA64 version of Windows in there. What he appears to have specified - with fine hair-splitting and normal Microsoft obfuscation - is that the CURRENT Windows64 project will run on IA64 and AMD64 instruction sets. That second paragraph seems to be the key. Additionally, Microsoft has a LONG history of changing their corporate mind - consider the history of OS/2 for a PRIME example....