OT: was: Re: 32 or 64??

[Gilles Gravier]

Hi!

On 02/02/2010 21:13, Odd wrote:
> 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.
>
>   
Cool down. I'm not trying to agress you.

Just pointing out a strategy here.

Virtualization makes more sense on servers than on desktops. There are
certainly cases justifying virtualisation on the desktop (developers in
particular, use this to test cross-complied code). But no need to have
that on every desktop processor. So you were right (I am repeating
myself here, in case you didn't notice first time) and I was wrong in
saying "all Intel processors". Just so that you don't quote me on that
"all Intel processors" since I agree with you, not ALL.

Gilles.