According to a CRN article, Intel has “has made good on its vow last year to rewrite its product road map to focus on dual-core and multicore processors.” In addition to imagining chips aimed at mobile, lightweight, and other boutique applications, the processor giant also (with MIcrosoft’s backing) reiterated its commitment to move desktop processors to 64 bit with all possible haste.
Hmm… so not much new stuff on the Itanium side?
I’m guessing 2005 will be a good year in 64 bit CPUs.
One word. Finally!
No… finally Intel is in with AMD on 64 bit on the desktop.
I feel that M$ was waiting for Intel to catch up before releasing Win 64xp.
AMD, Intel’s arch-nemesis, is focusing on multi-core and hardcore processing…
I feel that M$ was waiting for Intel to catch up before releasing Win 64xp.
The transition for Windows users will take a few years beyond that, at a minimum. The main benifits are for specific types of apps. The 32 to 64 bit conversion won’t be as traumatic as the 8/16 to 32 bit transition was since the changes do not involve structural/api changes beyond bit length.
That said, Apple and the associated apps took a while to be converted for OSX & 64 bit. The transition for Linux was fairly quick since all of the core OS and most of the supporting libraries and applications were already ported in part or in whole to 64bit hardware years ago. (Some hardware that Linux runs on does not have a 32 bit mode.)
because there really is no need for 64 bit end user desktop apps at this time.
as long as the OS makes it possible for an application to do 64 bit integer math and 64 bit memory addressing, then I see no reason for a fully 64 bit OS.
“That said, Apple and the associated apps took a while to be converted for OSX & 64 bit.”
You speak of this in the past tense, but it’s something that hasn’t happened yet.
At least as far as hardware goes. Granted, most people won’t give a rat’s ass about 64-bit processing, but before long they won’t be able to get anything else.
If one wanted to see conspiracies they could see it as a tactic between Microsoft and the chipmakers. Saturate the market for new computers with 64-bit options, then just stop releasing Windows patches for 32-bit computers.
At least as far as hardware goes. Granted, most people won’t give a rat’s ass about 64-bit processing, but before long they won’t be able to get anything else.
Agreed on the hardware. People will get 64bit because there will be few other options and because they think it’s faster. On the software side, though, it won’t be unless the app is tuned for it and performs tasks that will benifit from it.
As for software, Linux already support it…so I’ll be happy with the upgrade. The only potential gotcha are the 32bit game binaries I’d still like to play from the now defunct Loki.
[Apple] You speak of this in the past tense, but it’s something that hasn’t happened yet.
You’re right. While some apps were converted to handle enhanced math functions, though I thought that Apple had already taken care of OSX itself quite a while ago. They didn’t. That’s the next release (comming soon?).
“That’s the next release”
Actually, that’s unclear at the moment.
the link is broken.
the article one
Seems to work fine…?
I think what people fail to grasp is that the initial buzz of 64bit computing, wasn’t because of what Intel was doing, its because of the work AMD has done, and how they’ve been able to squeeze massive amounts of performance out of their new line of processors – thats the attraction to AMD64/Opteron range, not necessarily the 64bitness – the 64bitness is merely the icing on the cake.
As for Intels little advance, the underlying fact is this; AMD has one architecturally, the only thing holding AMD back are the Intel wh*res in corporations who can’t justify the extra costs associated with buying an Intel based machine, but continue to buy it because ‘thats what everyone else does”. As they say, it isn’t necessarily the superior technology that wins.
“because there really is no need for 64 bit end user desktop apps at this time.
as long as the OS makes it possible for an application to do 64 bit integer math and 64 bit memory addressing, then I see no reason for a fully 64 bit OS.
It’s not about need, it’s about moving forward. Developers will only start making their application 64 bit and multi-core aware once there is enough market for it, the more people start using these CPUs from both Intel and AMD, the better. We won’t move forward if we keep on saying, “oh there’s no need for this.”
You hit the nail on the head, Mojo. I’m sick and tired of people telling that I don’t need 64-bit, I don’t need extra processing power…HELLO! I f*cking need it! Each and every transaction that I can squeeze in a precious second is more profit for the company…so we need 64-bit, and we need it NOW!
snip:
the only thing holding AMD back are the Intel wh*res in corporations who can’t justify the extra costs associated with buying an Intel based machine, but continue to buy it because ‘thats what everyone else does”. As they say, it isn’t necessarily the superior technology that wins.
/snip
Yes, and if only OS/2 had been promoted to win over win32… All of the supposed stability and robustness of win2000/winxp could have been had back in the pre-win95 days. The snobbishness of ms and intel fanatics is astounding, as if there are no other hardware or software companies besides them.
“It’s not about need, it’s about moving forward. Developers will only start making their application 64 bit and multi-core aware once there is enough market for it, the more people start using these CPUs from both Intel and AMD, the better. We won’t move forward if we keep on saying, “oh there’s no need for this.” ”
So what are those things that we can ONLY do in 64 bit?
Yes, and if only OS/2 had been promoted to win over win32… All of the supposed stability and robustness of win2000/winxp could have been had back in the pre-win95 days. The snobbishness of ms and intel fanatics is astounding, as if there are no other hardware or software companies besides them.
In around 1998, a column writer in a PC magazine (hes a prominant consumer advocate in his real occupation) wrote an open letter to IBM to start giving away OS/2 Warp for free, provide free development tools for third parties, and charge for technical support.
Imagine if IBM did do that, or atleast sold it off to a third party completely, where by this was done. Imagine where we would be now; one things for sure, I wouldn’t be using this Mac right now, I’d be a happy OS/2 customer.
With that being said, however, Apple made the worst move when they dropped SVR2 in favour of what we see as Mac Classic. Imagine had they kept with UNIX core, and kept moving the GUI forward, they would have something that could have competed with Windows without too much effort (MacOS Classic made NT4 half decent).
as too much memory or too much GHz/MIPS (or BIPS).
we all know that software adjusts to the average computing capacity of available hardware.
I dont think he was trying to troll with that one. He was quoting a stupid article I remember seeing a few years ago. Have a look here and marvel at the sheer ignorance of the author….Ohhhhhhhh, ahhhhhh! Actually now that I read it again it really saddens me. In a perfect world, a boob like the author wouldnt be allowed within 10 feet of a computer without proper supervision.
http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
That article you’ve quoted is actually a spoof. Did you try to follow the links? If you did, you’ll know the site can’t be serious. I thought it was hilarious. Have fun reading it 🙂
There is a very noticeable increase in speed on a Linux 64-bit distro.
But, just about everything in the distro is recompiled to 64-bits.
It will take some time for Windows 64-bit applications to become common.
I’m waiting for the Duo-64s.
My next processor will be AMD unless…. the new IBM Chip is really as good as it sounds.