OT: was: Re: 32 or 64??

[Odd]

Gilles Gravier wrote:
> 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.

Then we are in agreement. :-)

-- 
Odd