[mdlug] [Fwd: Re: [opensuse] 64 bit vrs 32 bit advantages speedetc.]

[Aaron Kulkis]

David Lane wrote:
>  From a neutral perspective Intel wants to sell there chips.  BUT they 
> know how to make their CPU's run faster. 
> 

True.  But releasing a compiler with a deliberately
constructed sabotage (not using ANY vector operations
if a non-Intel chip is discovered, even though there
is a manufacturer-independant way of detecting the
presence of SSE, SSE2 and SSE3 capabilities) is
highly remeniscent of Microsoft doing a deliberate
search for DR-DOS (which was actually MORE stable
than MS-DOS) and issuing warning messages to
scare the consumer.

I completely distrust any company in which part
of their play-book involves hostile ATTACKS on
any competitor's product which I might buy.

Do you remember "Windows ain't done until
Lotus won't run." ???


> Please Note: In Business you HAVE to have a good business model where 
> you have to finance operations. That CAN be done with honesty.
> 

Having your product attack the good working
operation of my legally purchased equipment
from competing vendors is very difficult to
classify as "doing business with honesty"

> Compilers produce executable binary op code.  If I were the Intel 
> Compiler Project Manager I would not let ant one spend any time for AMD 
> CPU's.


Obviously you didn't read the article.

The Intel compiler COMPLETELY IGNORES the
SSE/SSE2/SSE3 capability flags (a standard
which INTEL insisted upon, mind you) in
the event that the on-chip CPU ID string
doesn't match "GenuineIntel".

Nobody asked Intel to go to any lengths
to do extra coding to cater to Intel.  What
was requested was for Intel to remove
malignant code which had NO PURPOSE other
than preventing AMD chips from running
any SSE, SSE2, and SSE3 instructions,
regardless of whether the AMD CPU indicates
(using the Intel standard mechanism) that
it has those capabilities.

Actions like this make me distrust anything
from them.  The whole  "plays well with
others" or not, thing.


> I would however have to find other employment If I were told to 
> "Slow Down" non-Intel CPU's.
> 
> And Yes I will have to read the article.

Well then how could you make the above statements
which completely miss the point of the article,
and instead argue about things that nobody was
even complaining about?

> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Aaron Kulkis <akulkis3 at hotpop.com>
> To: MDLUG's Main discussion list <mdlug at mdlug.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:37:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [mdlug] [Fwd: Re: [opensuse] 64 bit vrs 32 bit advantages 
> speedetc.]
> 
> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>  >> From: David Lane
>  >> I keep thinking about how things change with a 64bit Intel based 
> Linux bow.
>  >
>  > Of course, you also have to look out for sneaky corporations. Intel's 
> compilers
>  > produce deliberately slower code for AMD's 64-bit chips:
>  >
>  >  http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html
> 
> I never trusted Intel much more than MS.
> another nail in the planks across my doors...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug mailing list
> mdlug at mdlug.org <mailto:mdlug at mdlug.org>
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug mailing list
> mdlug at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug