Linked by Nicholas Blachford on Wed 9th Jul 2003 16:43 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y This article started life when I was asked to write a comparison of x86 and PowerPC CPUs for work. We produce PowerPC based systems and are often asked why we use PowerPC CPUs instead of x86 so a comparison is rather useful. While I have had an interest in CPUs for quite some time but I have never explored this issue in any detail so writing the document proved an interesting exercise. I thought my conclusions would be of interest to OSNews readers so I've done more research and written this new, rather more detailed article. This article is concerned with the technical differences between the families not the market differences.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE;Bad Athemeus!
by Encia on Sun 13th Jul 2003 10:36 UTC

>Read my original post: " Microsoft has no plans to >develop a 64-bit DESKTOP OS" (All caps added for >emphasis).
Win2K3 runs DirectX 9 games pretty well...
Itís code base is actually similar i.e. one could transfer some of Win2K3ís .msc applications and run it on WinXP (due to NT 5.x code base).

Win2K3ís is a full Windows XP desktop OS with advance server features. These features can be turned off.

>Everyone knows about the 64-bit Server version
So you think Linux is a desktop OS?

The main difference between Win2K3 (a.k.a NT5.2) and WinXP (a.k.a NT5.1) is itís Internet related services and the number of usable processors.

>but there is no Windows desktop version!
How could you know this?

Refer to "http://www.betanews.com/article.php3?sid=1048903653" for Windows XP 64bit (for Intel's Itanium 2(IA-64) processor).

Refer to "http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2003/0506/winhec1.htm" (In Japanese) for Windows XP 64bit (AMD's AMD64/X86-64).

Focus on "http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2003/0506/winhec03.jpg". This picture shows a beta version of Windows XP AMD64/X86-64 running UT2003.

Try again...