OT: was: Re: 32 or 64??

[Odd]

Gilles Gravier wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On 02/02/2010 20:29, Odd wrote:
>> Gilles Gravier wrote:
>>   
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> On 02/02/2010 19:33, Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
>>>     
>>>> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 11:55 -0500, Rashkae wrote:
>>>>       
>>>>> I couldn't help but notice recently, much to my cost, that Intel is 
>>>>> removing Virtualization extensions on all their current socket 775 
>>>>> CPU's.. (how are the i5 and i7 faring?).  The only reason I can think 
>>>>> for this move is to prevent the low end cpus from competing with the 
>>>>> workstation/server market, since these cpu's are now more than fast 
>>>>> enough for many workloads to be simply io bound.
>>>>>         
>>>> I would not surprise me that Intel would do this sort of thing. They are
>>>> very clever at maintaining their profit margin.
>>>>       
>>> FUD. All Intel processors (well... Celerons don't really qualify, here)
>>> support VT-X.
>>>     
>> Not true. Here are some non-Celerons
>> that do not support VT-x:
>>
>> Core Duo: T2050  / T2250  / T2300E  / T2450
>> Core Duo 2: E4300  / E4400  / E4500  / E4600  / E4700
>> Core 2 Quad: Q8200  / Q8200S
>>
>> As I've said repeatedly, you can all get your facts straight
>> by going to this page:
>>
>> http://ark.intel.com/VTList.aspx
> 
> You're right. But they are desktop processors.

They sure are. What's your point? You never mentioned that
"all Intel processors" shouldn't include desktop processors,
so I fail to see the relevance.

-- 
Odd