Microsoft Corp. today announced at the Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco that its Windows OS for 64-bit extended systems will be fully compatible with Intel Corp.’s newly announced processors with 64-bit extension technology. The 64-bit extended systems versions of Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP provide customers with the versatility to run both 32-bit and 64-bit applications, enabling them to move to 64-bit computing at their own pace while preserving their current investment in 32-bit apps.
Windows Fully Compatible With New Intel 64-Bit Extension CPUs
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Gee, I wonder why the 64-bit version of Windows was delayed…. strange that they seem to have full support for Intel’s barely announced future chip. Of course, there couldn’t have been any collusion between to monopolistic companies over the release and future support of Windows product that supports a decidedly non-Intel processor. After all that would be downright unethical…
Yes I considered the same thing, although in a corporate market and consumer market where lots of people buy Intel just “because” there’s no reason that Microsoft wouldn’t want to support it right away.
Another thing is that Intel is making their product compatible with AMD’s Athlon 64’s so now that Microsoft has the foundation layed down for the Athlon 64 and Opteron’s, announcing support for the new Intel 64bit Extended processor is just plain logical.
Just a few thoughts.
Nothing is just what it looks like in this world, even when sometimes we are almost sure.
Support for both Intel and AMD processors will speed the porting of existing 64-bit Microsoft applications most importantly 64-bit SQL Server. More memory and more CPU horse power for PC servers narrows he gap between 64-bit Unix database servers and Windows. This is awesome!
strange that they seem to have full support for Intel’s barely announced future chip.
Intel’s 64-bit x86 will most likely be compatible with AMD’s x86-64, so it would be stranger if Windows didn’t support it.
And by the way Windows Server 2003 was chosen as the best server OS by osnews itself (am i correct Eugenia?) and Mr. Anonymous (IP: —.webone.com.au) have you ever heard of Small Business Server?? Way to go baby, SBS rocks…
So now we know what the delay was all about. We shouldn’t be surprised. To be honest, this makes me hate the cosy little Microsoft / Intel duopoly even more, though in itself it’s a good thing. It does mean that the AMD64 architecture is going to be *huge*, and will gradually take over as a replacement for x86/32-bit machines. It will also accelerate the threat to SPARC and other big-iron 64-bit architectures.
Anyway, roll on AMD64, and kudos to AMD for turning the tables after 30 years. Intel making compatible chips could be *bad* news for AMD’s marketshare, but it’s one hell of a technological coup!
Bad Design – short term benefits – bigger sales – AMD
Bad Design – Easy to use at first – bigger sales – Microsoft
Good Design – Hard to use at first – Unix – Not so successful
Good Design – Not so well performing for x86 centric apps – Itanium – Failure
No wonder software industry is a mess….
Quite simply if you were Intel and were spending billions on development: Wouldn’t you make sure MS was going to support your chip?
Small wonder AMD, Intel, and others, develope processors in cooperation with Microsoft. It would be a financial disaster not to do so. There is a huge difference between colusion and common sense.
Consider a hardware vendor spending a ton of cash to develope a new high-end video card, only to release a driver specific to Lindows. While this might be cool for the Lindows crowd, it would prove a fatal finacial choice for the vendor.
Since when exactly is Intel a monopolistic company like Microsoft? MS practically owns the desktop market (save the 6% or so), but I see enough AMD machines around me… Are there any numbers on AMD/Intel marketshares??
Anyway, back to topic: I don’t see why people are so “surprised”… Of course Windows was going to be compatible with Intel’s new processor… Makes perfect sense to me so I don’t see any problems.
Bad Design – short term benefits – bigger sales – AMD
Bad Design – Easy to use at first – bigger sales – Microsoft
See a pattern here?
@ Smartpatrol (IP: —.kuwait.army.mil)
>> Support for both Intel and AMD processors will speed the
>> porting of existing 64-bit Microsoft applications most
>> importantly 64-bit SQL Server. More memory and more CPU
>> horse power for PC servers narrows he gap between 64-bit
>> Unix database servers and Windows. This is awesome!
@ Anonymous (IP: —.webone.com.au)
>> Oracle is expensive and i feel SQL can now compete quite
>> well with oracle, so SQL server will be my choice.
I see a different picture:
I see free OSes and free SQL running on those hardware, for most common uses Free SQL servers are fine, within time (1/2 years) they will be good too for not-so-common uses too.
Let’s see the options:
Debian Based Distro + MySQL/Postgres = Free, Performance Good
Windows 2k/2k3 + SQL Server = Expensive, Performance Good, maybe with better features…
Let’s review:
Hmmm…. on one hand Free and good enough… on the other Good and on some situations better but expensive and very expensive depending of those special conditions…
What I will do?
My friend I’m talking about what the people out there is doing with SQL servers, the last company I was working for has around 11 SQL servers, 2 of them MS, 3 from another company, and 6 MySQL which includes their main production server farm.
Considering they have been a MS shop for years, and that there was 0 knowledge about IT on the company this is very significative of what might happen on the inmediate future.
And yes this is happening everywere.
There is what a particular piece of software can do, and there is what the common people needs.
Did I mention that MS doesn’t have a stake on the big boys? You know, the ones which have “special requirements”. And did I mention that those “big boys” are just a minority of the market?
Do they have support for stored procedures yet? Foreign keys?
Nice kiddie toy, but not a serious product (yeah, yeah, 5.0 will change all that….what year is this?).
You people are actually BITCHING, because Microsoft have _refused_ to release an OS which supports AMD’s x86-64 architecture _ONLY_?
So hang on, it’s okay for MS to force people into one thing and one thing alone… when it’s the thing that you fanboys love?
Jesus, what a bunch of hippocrits.
What you describe is not “happening everywhere”, MySQL is simply NOT an enterprise level SQL Server, Postgres is quite a bit better, but I would still not class it as an Enterprise Level Server. I’m not saying these products AREN’T good, or that they will never become enterprise level solutions, just that TODAY they are not.
The main reason this is happening is Open Source zealotry in system admins, and corporate fat cats copulating at the idea of free as in beer.
Microsoft doesn’t have MUCH of a stake with the “big guys”, but it’s getting there. The “big guys” aren’t the majority of the market no, but on average as a single customer one of them would spend infinately more on a solution than a regular consumer would.
kill itanium! yes! This will slow the growth. HP will think twice before killing the alpha
I think PostgreSQL is mid-range enterprise quality..but work needs to be done.. major work.. However, I think Oracle and Sybase and others are better. Why would anyone want to run MS SQL anyway, I hate it and its too expensive. Postgres all the way
You proved you are just LAME.
I see.
And i am going to answer in your tone only. What makes you believe that a person will like to put his life in Linux’s hands?
I don’t believe I mentioned Linux.
Do you have any reason to write such a meaningless post and make me write one too to get your lame a$$ kicked.
I don’t have an a$$, whatever that is.
Linux with 1000 distros and bunch of small companies future of whom is unknown, is not a better choice. I will be much more happy to use SQL than any free database on linux anyday.
Good for you.
Oracle is expensive and i feel SQL can now compete quite well with oracle, so SQL server will be my choice.
Whatever rings your bell.
And by the way Windows Server 2003 was chosen as the best server OS by osnews itself (am i correct Eugenia?) and Mr. Anonymous (IP: —.webone.com.au) have you ever heard of Small Business Server?? Way to go baby, SBS rocks…
That’s nice.
Well thank you for your comments sir. You are very intelligent and eloquent. Your arguments are meaningful and well reasoned, while on the other hand I have simply proven myself LAME by virtue of your assertion. I obviously cannot defend myself against intellectual might, so I yield to you.
it does seem “surprising” that MS waits until Intel anounced the 64 bit extensions! That said, the X86 cross license agreement between AMD & Intel works both ways…so intel can legally implement X86-64 instructions if they so plese. As far as MS Support goes, there are probably only superficial differences between the AMD & intel implementations anyway..so tit is smart to consider both in any released package.
As for why it took almost a YEAR for the Opteron support though…that is a bit “fishy”…considering OSS had commercial support from before release of the chips!
I think this shows there was some screwing of AMD going on. AMD had anounced their 64 bit plan long ago, and gave groups like MS lots of time to make the port. They then had to delay there launch for the native version of windows. And even then it was still beta and is to this day. Yet Intels plans come out and it looks like it will be running on it in no time. Now granted if intel is using AMDs x86-64 spec fully then the two ports will come out the same time and all will be fine. If not that is pretty darn fishy. AMD would have had a huge jump on intel with the 64 bit plans. But that plan got destroyed by MS dragging their feet. Yet Intel can turn around and decide AMD was right and boom all it good for Intel. I’d like to think nothing is up here and don’t go for conspiracys but as is this seams very messed up.
I’d have to agree with your setiment at at least the emontional level. MS has essentially “played favorites” in the whole 64 bit thing pure and simple.
If small Linux distros like SuSe could have packaged product ready to go at Opteron launch over a year ago, why couldn’t MS? After all, when the chip came out MS said that the OS was comming “real soon now”! …and they just happen to set an offical date when Intel gets around to having an equivenant. That’s “Kingmaking” by using their monoploy to essentially “choose” the winner in another competitive market. They essentially killed AMDs hard work and advancements by stalling on the compatible OS…with plenty of notice. Note that MS has supported AMD before out of the gate with things like 3DNOW in DirectX as soon as the chips hit the shelves! It’s not unprecetened or “favoritism” for MS to support a new tech in partner with another company when it’s first released…often they are well-paid for marketing and techinical considerations!!
I’d almost suspect MS of stalling because AMD made HEAVY use of OSS testers in developing and supporting the 64-bit chips. AND they allowed the linux distros to have “offical” support first. Of course most certianly AMD made every effort to deal with MS fairly….of course MS doesn’t really deal in “fairness” do they??? Treating MS “fair” is probably what got AMD in the mess anyway!
There aren’t two ports. This is the same situation as we have today with 32-bit Windows. The OS works with both CPUs because they share the same instruction set. Whereas AMD was the one that had to be Intel-compatible in order to run current software, Intel is now making AMD64-compatible hardware in order to run AMD64 software.
The support is basically automatic except for any SSE3 support MS may add. AMD-64 Linux distros should automatically support the Intel CPU as well.
I can’t help but wonder what “changes” Intel has made so that their processor “broadly” supports AMD64. Microsoft has been sitting on their hands with 64-bit version of Windows for the AMD64 for quite a while, they must support 64 bit extensions for Intel in the new Windows XP 64-bit version. I can imagine how upsetting it will be for AMD to have a version of Windows that fully supports an instruction set that supersedes their own. It will make Intel look good and AMD look bad… but I guess that is OK, after all Microsoft didn’t want to release an operating system that made AMD look good on its own merits. After all if the Intel chip supported the AMD64 bit instruction set, then Microsoft could have released it far before now and Intel would have worked just fine when they released their compatible chip. They could have released an SP1 that supported the 64 bit specific extensions on the new Intel chip. Something is wrotten in Denmark…
You’re all a bunch of pandy-snat gribble fixes!
Is that the technical term?
re “Bad Design – short term benefits – bigger sales – AMD ”
uh bad design is an INTEL strength — look at 90nm prescott. amd’s opteron are well designed for x86.
Folks, I used to work at AMD about 3 former lives ago. Here’s how this works: Microsoft wants hardware to be free to that software can still be worth something (ignoring FLOSS for a moment). Microsoft and Intel don’t have a cozy relationship. They have a hot/cold one. The fact is, they both know they need each other, and they both know that the other would like to knock off the other. Microsoft had the upper hand in this battle for a long time. One of the reasons that AMD is still in business is through Microsoft’s support. AMD and Intel have a full patent cross licensing agreement, the result of many years of bitter legal battles (actually, the legal battles were mostly about microcode copyright, but that’s another story). Anyway, Microsoft will do whatever it can to keep both Intel and AMD running roughly down the same path. There are two motivations for this: (1) It sucks to support lots of variety in the market. It just raises cost and doesn’t lead to much more incremental sales. That’s why Microsoft killed off the Alpha and PPC versions of Windows years ago. (2) Having AMD and Intel in competition means lower prices, which helps sell more PCs with Windows on them, and faster innovation, which means your PC is more rapidly outdated, which also helps sell more PCs with Windows on them.
I’m virtually positive (no inside info, tho) that Microsoft has been stalling on Windows 64 for AMD64 while they were beating Intel up in the back room, basically saying, “We’ll be cutting support for Itanic. What are you going to do? And BTW, don’t get too creative here. Just copy AMD64 so we only have one code base to support.”
The same thing happened a few years ago when Intel came out with the original MMX instructions. Bill made a call to Andy Grove at the time and basically said, “We’ll only support MMX if you license the instruction set to AMD.”
And so the balance of power is maintained…
Gee, I wonder why the 64-bit version of Windows was delayed…. strange that they seem to have full support for Intel’s barely announced future chip.
Uh, not when you stop to think for a few seconds and realise it’s got “full support” because intel’s extensions are the same as AMD’s.
Of course, there couldn’t have been any collusion between to monopolistic companies over the release and future support of Windows product that supports a decidedly non-Intel processor. After all that would be downright unethical…
There’s no love lost between intel and Microsoft.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft favoring Intel, or hating AMD. Microsoft needs them to be on ‘equal ground’ in order to help preserve their (MS’s) monopoly.
If either one of the big chipmakers really kicks the other’s ass, then Microsotft has to deal with one big hardware monopoly, and Microsoft’s dealings will not be quite so much in their own favor as they are now with two weaker chip makers. Basically they’d have less too work with.
guys, MS is just being practical. after all, will AMD64 rule the world? like it or not, software development is expensive. and driver development, too. if they will just restrict themselves to a 64-bit AMD64 version, that wouldn’t be too wise for them. not to mention that they should also support 64-bit itanium. now since intel comes here with 64-bit extensions, their (potential) market grows bigger and it makes more sense for them to create even these differing versions of software.
“That’s why Microsoft killed off the Alpha and PPC versions of Windows years ago.”
Maybe it was because 99% of sales went to i386 implmentation.
“The same thing happened a few years ago when Intel came out with the original MMX instructions. Bill made a call to Andy Grove at the time and basically said, “We’ll only support MMX if you license the instruction set to AMD”
Do you have evidence of this?
You pretty much agreed or restated everything that I said. You went a little more in depth into the whole relationship between Intel and AMD though.
With the current path MS is on towards .NET, the work needed to support multiple CPU platforms decreases signifigantly. They have a 32-bit x86 emulation layer to use if they wanted to provide compatability on non-x86 platforms (already do for Windows XP 64 for Itanium). .NET apps only need a runtime and compiler for the specific platform. The apps themselves would automatically compile at runtime, using any CPU-specific optimizations supported by the compiler. Other than that, only a few platform-specific OS components need to be changed.
Intel could’ve provided a low-cost version of Itanium since MS already has software that uses that instruction set released. MS would have to finish porting all of the software/services from 32-bit XP that aren’t included with Windows 64-bit for Itanium, but there would be a good business case to do so (and XP would be the last OS where they’d need to do this since Longhorn userland is managed code). Speaking of Itanium, I doubt it is going away. I think it’ll stay at the high end, but eventually come down in price, or have lower-priced versions (though no average desktop-level pricing for a while).
Compaq layed off many of the Alpha engineers that helped with Windows 2000 for Alpha. Without Compaq supporting it, and citing they didn’t think it would account for many sales since most Alpha owners ran UNIX, and because they were scaling back on the Alpha in general, MS didn’t have a good business case to release it themselves. The same went for PPC, MIPS, and other platforms with diminishing userbases/not much demand for Windows on those platforms. Had the userbase and continued CPU vendor focus been there, the ports likely would still be there.
Here’s the PR for dropping PPC:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Feb97/PowerPr.asp
MIPS:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1996/Oct96/MIPSPR.asp
Couldn’t find Alpha, but News.com and various others covered it.
BTW, if anyone wants to read up on the extensions, here’s a link:
http://developer.intel.com/technology/64bitextensions/index.htm
On AMDZone forums, they say that the extensions are the same as AMDs (except with no reference to AMD), but with SSE 3, and without NX support.
Gee, I wonder why the 64-bit version of Windows was delayed…. strange that they seem to have full support for Intel’s barely announced future chip.
Well lets think here for a second. MS already has been hard at work making a 64-bit version of XP for the Opteron/Athlon64.
Is it possible that Intel’s approach to 64-bit extensions is so much like AMD’s that Windows XP64 is already compatible ?
I’m not asking you to use your brain here because that seems beyond you for the most part.
Isn’t it possible that Windows 64 bit was delayed to incorporate SSE3 and make certain that a situation didn’t occur where AMD64 was running without a competitive answer from Intel. I am sure you are right, why would Intel pressure Microsoft to delay the release of their Operating System that was originally scheduled to be released over a year ago and written specifically for AMD64? When is the last time you saw an evaluation version of an operating system that wasn’t even released under such a large public preview?
Thank you for proving my own point, there is absolutely no reason for a delay of the operating system aside from Intel coercing Microsoft to delay the product until their Prescott with 64 bit “extensions” is released…probably in return for Intel matching the AMD64 instruction set so that there new OS will work with the Intel’s x86 processor… tit for tat…
You don’t think that AMD would have benefitted greatly from businesses running Windows XP 64-bit uncontested?
XP for 64-bit Extended Systems hasn’t been released yet because it shares a schedule with Service Pack 2 (just as Windows Server 2003 for 64-bit Extended Systems shares its release with Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1). If MS wanted to mitigate security issues with SP 2, why would they release a non-SP2 based OS now, then have to worry about adding the same fixes to it later? Besides this, past releases of Windows have always been based on the most current source, and MS does more than a simple recompile to support new systems. Why change that now?
Then their’s the lack of driver support many complain about. What’s the use of MS shipping the OS and major OEMs selling it to average users without adequate driver support? People will probably wonder why their new computer plays games slower than their old one unless the systems ship with NVIDIA hardware (last I checked, ATI didn’t have 64-bit drivers ready). Anyone that really wants to use the OS can try the public preview version, but as I stated above, many of those that try it complain about driver support.