Thomas David Rivers wrote:
> Microsoft needs a "business quality" version of Windows,
> which it claims is Windows/2000. That version of Windows
> could benefit from a 64-bit port, if for marketing only; but
> I don't think it would result in the volume of sales Intel
> is looking for.
A funny thing is that Microsoft is porting essentially a
32-bit version of Windows to Merced. All the programs for
Windows that want to use 64-bit support will have to be
modified because the MS compiler defines both int and long
as 32-bit. On the other hand the Unix compilers (at least
UnixWare and as far as I understood that's the common Unix
convention) provide a mode with 64-bit longs that gives
certain degree of 64-bit awareness just by recompiling.
> And - let me add - Intel has been down this path before
> (the i860) - and didn't see the success it wanted (although
> the i860 is popping up in some interesting places now...)
Merced can run the x86 code. Not as fast as the native code
but I guess comparable to the Pentiums.
> I suppose what this "rant" is all about is that I'm not
> convinced Merced is the "chip of the future" that we all
> need to be worried about. I'm taking a "wait-and-see"
> attitude. [Also, since Microsoft has been working
> closely with Intel regarding Merced for several years
> now, and has yet to do anything `serious' - I believe
> they are taking the same "wait-and-see" approach. Likely
> while telling Intel otherwise.]
SCO and IBM with their Monterey-64 project are considering
Merced quite seriously. Actually, as far as I know, for
Monterey-64 the availability of the Merceds seems to be
the limiting factor now.
-SB
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
