Replies to post #21118 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[P2O I'm from MO]

yourbankruptcy:

It seems that intel would find a problem with intel people
working on the Linux 64-bit distribution for AMD64, wouldn't
they? There are documented change logs for changes and re-compile's
of the Linux kernel to address issues with the AMD64 implementation
that indicate the submitter's name (and usually the domain from
which is was submitted). I provided a link to just such a
change log a few days ago with Len Brown and Amir Noam who
submitted changes from the intel.com domain.

I find that highly unlikely if intel's implementation was not
at least compatible with the AMD64 implementation. It may be a
super-set but there is no public evidence of that as of this time.

[HailMary]

Petz, I'm 99% sure that Intel variant of 64 bit P4 will not be AMD64 compatible. Why should they? They can afford not to be.

Microsoft. It all comes down to them. If Microsoft had agreed behind closed doors long ago to support another instruction set, then that is what Intel would have done. Rumors say Microsoft told Intel they wouldn't support an additional instruction set. Sure Intel can whip up Linux support very easily, but MSFT still holds a lot of cards. Does anyone think a new instruction set would fly without MSFT support? We may all hate MSFT, but the reality for now is they have the biggest OS market share.

Intel also probably believes they can outdo AMD on their x86-64 implementation in the long run, and over time (5 years down the road), people will probably believe x86-64 was an Intel creation if Intel manages to stay ahead in market share and performance. They can also play off the momentum x86-64 has already built (OS, drivers, etc.), and have a product to market sooner.