begin oe_protect.scr
spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>> AMD "Virus" is no AMD virus at all
>
>> FUD the second time in two months
>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Well, we hope that our readers will be smart enough to see through the
>> | stupid bomb?s cloud to the truth below: the viruses might affect Windows
>> | AMD64 version, but not because of any chip-level AMD weakness, rather
>> | because the virus is attacking Windows 64-bit x86 version, just not
>> | the Itanium IA64 version.
>
> Um...
> Does the author understand perhaps, that the itanium is a completely
> different architecture? That nothing compiled for amd64 would run on it?
> In the same way anything compiled for PPC wouldn't run on intel
> architecture, or anything compiled for Z80 wouldn't run on 6502?
>
This is a bit strange, isn't it? If we're talking about Word Macro
viruses (remember those?), then it shouldn't matter what the platform
is, on the other hand, if we're talking about 64-bit specific, then
unless there's some really strange bug in MASM-64 (or whatever it's
called!) for some kind of 64-bit type, then it's most unlikely that
Itanium exploits could be transferred to AMD-64.
Are the windows folks having trouble grasping facts about hardware,
like, say, it doesn't all work the same way?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
If you notice that a person is deceiving you, they must not be
deceiving you very well.
|
|
