Intel: No rush to 64-bit desktop
I don't know if anyone has picked up on this gem yet, but I just thought that a bunch of you would be interested to know that it's pretty much what some of us have surmised... Intel won't be headed to a 64-bit desktop processor until at least the end of the decade; they cite many problems -- many that we've already examined. However, the do mention AMD's offering, but the article also notes that it's unlikely that Microsoft (i.e., Windows) will be available for the AMD systems, making it very difficult for AMD if there is no operating system to run or even worse -- no applications. That said, it looks like the Wintelon world is in a bit of a bind. This article lays out Intel's plans:
<a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-985432.html"; target="_blank">Intel: No rush to 64-bit Desktops</a>
Any thoughts now that it seems *official* ?
--
Ed M.
<a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-985432.html"; target="_blank">Intel: No rush to 64-bit Desktops</a>
Any thoughts now that it seems *official* ?
--
Ed M.
Comments
If Apple plays this right and can have a stable 64-bit version of Mac OS X ready to go with the 64-bit Power PC 970 based Macs, we might see ourselves back in the ballgame.
also intel has no incentive if longhorn isn't 64bit (which i think it is, is this correct?)...and MS has no reason to make 64bit if intel doesn't have a 64bit chip. also how are programmers going to make software for a OS that doesn't support 64bit and a chip that doesn't exist
haha i know it wont, and they do plan to come out with stuff but wouldn't it be sexy to see this drive MS to the ground...intel with it wouldn't be bad but i dont have anythign against intel besides their dirty methods to get fast chips
<strong>Well it's definitely very interesting and we might see Apple trying to push out an all 64-bit line as soon as it can to gain some market share.
If Apple plays this right and can have a stable 64-bit version of Mac OS X ready to go with the 64-bit Power PC 970 based Macs, we might see ourselves back in the ballgame.
This is an amazing opportunity ...
At best, Wintel has to hold off on killer apps for anything but a slow, expensive or incompatible workstation market for a few more years (I seriously doubt a decade), while Apple merily thumb noses them with a solid 64 bit PowerMac in 6months (and an iMac in another 18) ... while scraping off the cream of Audio and Video content creators (opinion makers) into their PowerPC neck of the woods.
At worst, Apple gets to force Wintel's hand into slapping together a typical half-assed "me too" solution ... which will make users dream of the stability and usability of the Mac's "true" 64bit solution.
This is a lot like the 640k barrier of a decade past ... there's no doubt Wintel can spend their way thru it ... what matters is how well Apple takes advantage of this (no doubt temporary), ahem, "Window".
<strong>... what matters is how well Apple takes advantage of this (no doubt temporary), ahem, "Window"...</strong><hr></blockquote>
haha i like that
I'm not saying it's going to happen, but introducing the "next great thing" is a slow economy, and to a market that believes in "I gotta have Windows at home since that is what I use at work" is going to be somewhat of an uphill battle, even if there is no competitive offering from either Intel or AMD.
<a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7951"; target="_blank">No 64-bit support for Opteron in Windows 2003 Server RTM</a>. Only 64-bit support for Itaniums.
The people these desktop 64 bit chips would most effect in my opinion would be Sun and SGI and their 64 bit workstations. Both companies have systems with substantial benefits in other areas of their computers though.
First of all it should be obvious that the marketing boys will have a field day with this one. The consumer market is already used to hearing that XX-bits is way better than YY-bits -- the game console market has been doing it since the Sega Genesis arrived on the scene 10 years ago.
Second, Unix and 64-bit are like bread and butter. This will make a real impact in the academic & scientific markets. Sun had better start worrying, what with both IBM and Apple shouldering up to the bar with their upcoming POWER/PowerPC server solutions.
Third, just because most applications don't benefit from 64-bit doesn't mean that there isn't some killer app out there lurking, just waiting for a platform that can drive it. I'd love to get my hands on one of these 970s and take it out for a run just to see what interesting possibilities might be found in a VMX-equipped 64-bit dual-FPU desktop processor. I'm sure there are more than a few others like me out there...
Fourth, of course Intel is saying there is no need for a 64-bit solution on the desktop any time soon. What else are they going to say? "64-bit is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but we don't have any products to compete in the market with"?? Yeah right. Intel's pants are down around their ankles and they're covering their a$$ while they figure out what to do about it.
Microsoft will have to offer 2 completely different versions of Windows and make sure that they are compatible between Windows platforms? Developers will have to code drivers and applications for two different Windows platforms? Users will somehow be lead to believe that there will be 100% compatibility between those two different Windows platforms? I doubt it... More upgrade marketing, more enduser confusion. Not to mention that Microsoft has not officially pledged support for AMDs 64-bit chips. I forward your attention to "Cowards" post. Seeing a 64-bit Windows desktop probably *won't* happen until around the end of the decade.
--
Ed M.
<strong>I'm a big fan of saying that most users won't need 64-bit applications, but that's very different than saying that Apple won't benefit from having a 64-bit solution.
[snipped...].</strong><hr></blockquote>
well said indeed. what a world we are living in. when industry moved from 16-bit to 32-bit, noise was that we don't need it while others said if we could have it why not?
i bet steve j. loves this 64-bit transition and he would preach its advantages on the stage wearing his turtle neck sweater since from that moment on the mystic around MHZ will not be relevant anymore.
<strong>
Intel's pants are down around their ankles and they're covering their a$$ while they figure out what to do about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
... shhhhhhh, don't tell OSXGeek, but guess where we hid the left-handed screw driver!
Will the 970, 64 bit chip speed up OSX? (Not that it is sluggish on the newer Power Macs, I hear.)
But does OSX have an affinity for a 64 bit processor? More so than a modified Windows XP would for AMDs 64 bitter?
In any case, it will help gain Apple much needed attention. Just as OSX is maturing. Could be a great synergy. State of the art chip and operating system.
<strong>Novice question:
Will the 970, 64 bit chip speed up OSX? (Not that it is sluggish on the newer Power Macs, I hear.)
But does OSX have an affinity for a 64 bit processor? More so than a modified Windows XP would for AMDs 64 bitter?
In any case, it will help gain Apple much needed attention. Just as OSX is maturing. Could be a great synergy. State of the art chip and operating system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not particularly. The 970 will do a great job with OSX, but there isn't some kind of magic affinity between OSX and 64-bitness.
But once Apple released OS X with some 64-bit optimized code, it'll fly. My bets are that that will be 10.3, released when the first 970s are announced.
<strong>...force Wintel's hand into slapping together a typical half-assed "me too" solution ... which will make users dream of the stability and usability of the Mac's "true" 64bit solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And that is exactly what they will do. Time and time again... Only this time the playing field is different. OS X and the iApps has created interest from the PC world and most people have become aware of Microsoft's bull and pain ... all that together with Linux being on the scene and going 64 bit as well makes for an interesting game in the making.
<strong>Novice question:
Will the 970, 64 bit chip speed up OSX? (Not that it is sluggish on the newer Power Macs, I hear.)
But does OSX have an affinity for a 64 bit processor? More so than a modified Windows XP would for AMDs 64 bitter?
In any case, it will help gain Apple much needed attention. Just as OSX is maturing. Could be a great synergy. State of the art chip and operating system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
64-bit chip could speedup and slow osx depending how 970 is implemented. to speed up you need better stuff such as parallel instruction computing, branching prediction, and other comtemporary techniques which were not used in traditional 32-bit chip design. let us leave more tech aside. as to slowing cpu, if one uses the same technologies on 32-bit on 64-bit, then things will be slowed down.
let us assume 970 has all of the above, one more thing, as steve j. likes to say, is a smarter compiler. my sense is that the devices, like cpu or asic chip, are dumber and dumber and brain is shift from hardware to software because the speed of chip is so fast that any holding on any part in hardware will have signal integrity problems. well, another direct benefit for chip design is to save million transistors
as you can see, if os x is running on a modern architecured cpu, let us say 64-bit, and taking all the advantages it could offer, of course os x will run faster than that on 32-bit. the same token on window xp, yes, if xp is running on 64-bit too, it will catch the wagon and run faster.
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: anakin1992 ]</p>
<strong>I agree with Intel on this one there really isn't much need for 64 bit computing at least in the desktop market and the market isn't that huge. This article does seem to suggest if they can't go 64 bit with an Itanium based architecture they don't want to go though.
The people these desktop 64 bit chips would most effect in my opinion would be Sun and SGI and their 64 bit workstations. Both companies have systems with substantial benefits in other areas of their computers though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
if 64-bit transition likes that on 32-bit from 16-bit, it would not be worth a bit. but current state of the art chip design technologies could be used in 64-bit chip. then why not? if companies can product better designed processor and use them on new powerful system at such low price, i think consumers would like it.
missing out of this bandwagon, later intel might cry for it like apple is crying for mhz debacle.