Replies to post #49793 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[mmoy]

> People I know that beta test Windows XP 64 tell me it still
> crashes too much.

I suspect that they have driver issues. I find Windows 64 to be
more stable than the 32-bit versions.

[wbmw]

Re: Yes and no. Since Intels only 64bit enabled chip is based on P4 architecture, the Prescott...and that core has run into a thermal brick wall it behooves Intel to stall 64 bit Windows until they can add it to the Pentium M core which is the future for them. Intel walks a fine, tenuous line but they still control a lot of standards. People I know that beta test Windows XP 64 tell me it still crashes too much.

So does this mean that Intel is responsible for the crashes in an attempt to stall the launch of Windows 64?

Stupid question, but either Windows 64 is delayed because of Intel, or because Microsoft has not yet made it stable, but you can't have it both ways.

[Jules2]

Posted by: Techman
In reply to: aleph0 who wrote msg# 49787
Date:12/27/2004 4:34:47 PM
Post #of 49795

Ref:"Intel's EM64T. Is this a "serious" competitor to AMD64?"

Yes and no. Since Intels only 64bit enabled chip is based on P4 architecture, the Prescott...and that core has run into a thermal brick wall it behooves Intel to stall 64 bit Windows until they can add it to the Pentium M core which is the future for them. Intel walks a fine, tenuous line but they still control a lot of standards.

People I know that beta test Windows XP 64 tell me it still crashes too much.

I'v been running Win XP Pro x64 edition beta for a few monthes now.
It has not crashed once.
I dont know who you know, etc, etc.
I do know a good OS when I run across one.
It's like investing,101,DD.

The guy next door saw Elmo, he flew over his house in one of those UFO's. Take it to the bank???

Regards

Jules