Intel Signals 64-Bit Offering May Be on Horizon

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by zalzon, Jan 30, 2004.

  1. zalzon

    zalzon Guest

    Now who will be buying pentium EEs and Prescotts knowing that 32 bits
    will go the way of the dinasaurs soon? How about a 1000+ dollar 32
    bit laptop?
    zalzon, Jan 30, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Howdy!

    1) People who don't need 64bit computing.

    2) "64-bit offering may be on horizon". Hmpfh. I suppose the
    Itanium is just absolutely non-existent? Even though it's been WAY outsold
    by the Opteron, it's been out for at least three years now.

    Ralph Wade Phillips, Feb 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. zalzon

    zalzon Guest

    Itanium is 50,000 dollars. I"m talking about the desktop.
    zalzon, Feb 5, 2004
  4. zalzon

    somebody Guest

    Itanium has been out longer than 3 years, I think?
    I wouldn't characterize it as a 64-bit "offering", though.
    Have you checked the prices?
    On top of that, it seems very difficult to compile software optimized
    enough, to have it actually run slightly faster than your run of the
    mill desktop.

    somebody, Feb 6, 2004
  5. Howdy!

    It has. Machines have been available for over 3 years.
    It's 64 bit. They're offering it.
    Err - that makes no difference to the bus size of the processor.
    Just to how well it sells <B-)
    Depends on the code. Stuff coded from the getgo for the Itanium
    seems to scream. Code ported from IA32 seems to make the USER scream <B-)

    It's way overpriced and not backwards compatible. Come to think of
    it, that COULD be the rear horizon that's being talked about ...

    Ralph Wade Phillips, Feb 7, 2004
  6. zalzon

    somebody Guest

    No, frankly I can't see that, at all. It may be suitable for some very
    specific tasks, but current iterations have fundamental problems with
    I/O. And the entire concept the Itanium was based on, has proved to be
    a miss. Branch predication is no hit, because branch prediction has
    proven itself to _NOT_ become the bottleneck of future cpus, the way
    Intel figured it. IBM/Motorola, Sun and AMD got it right. Intel/HP
    missed. End of story.
    They're stuck with the Epic ISA, and maybe not much wrong with that,
    but they are building new cpus for it. No doubt they will pretend
    they're improved/reengineered, cheaper Itaniums, and to some parts I
    suppose they will be. But technical emphasis is going to be different.
    Yes, I speculate in something like that, sometimes too.
    I've got a relative that works for Intel with the Itanium. I have
    utterly failed squeezing any info out of him. I'm sure he's signed
    tons of non-disclosure forms. He's shut like a clam.

    ....But, - He's rather confident and smug!
    That worries me. I just have to wonder why. Here's a guess: Intel is
    not doing a '86-64 cpu. They're doing a "small", "simple", but fast,
    semiconventional '86-Epic CPU. How's that for a guess?

    They get massive market adoption of Epic, kills AMD (and Moore's law
    for desktops) in just a few years, since Windows64 software will be
    Epic rather than '86-64. Kills Sun in about a decade, due to massive
    software dominance. And becomes the rulers of the world and can
    dispatch IBM within a some decades.
    And along on that road they will also make renewed attempts to make
    the desktop PC entirely proprietary. Probably succeed too.

    (Lots of people, particularly Linux users, figure MS is the enemy.
    Well, Steven Jobs and Apple once figured IBM was the enemy...
    There's some kind of interesting symmetry here, regarding using others
    hardware/software platforms to gain real monopoly.)

    somebody, Feb 8, 2004
  7. Somehow, I think that leaving behind the apps you've paid for already would
    be a huge stumbling block for the adaptation of anything other than x86-64.
    Supposedly, Tejas will be 64 bit next year. From what I read, Intel has
    x86-64 in the works, but it's incompatible with AMD. With AMD's market
    lead, this could be a mistake.
    Or Sun dumps Solaris, uses it's own Java Desktop Linux, cuts the prices of
    their hardware, and makes a huge comeback...
    But Microslop _IS_ the enemy. Ever read those EULAs? You have fewer rights
    with the software you paid your own hard earned money for (and too much of
    it) than Murders have after they've been sentenced to death row...

    Big Daddy Ruel Smith

    My SuSE Linux machine uptime:
    2:01pm up 14:32, 2 users, load average: 0.16, 0.14, 0.09

    My Windows XP machine uptime:
    Something less...
    Ruel Smith (Big Daddy), Feb 8, 2004
  8. zalzon

    somebody Guest

    Ah, but you missed part of my point then. I said "'86-Epic". Not
    Err... They've got no reasons to dump Solaris, but otherwise, aren't
    they already doing all that?
    MS is not my enemy. I'm kinda reluctant to do this, but if we can do
    it without too much religious zeal:
    Yes, I read EULAs. I fastread/skip a good part of the *bla, bla*, but
    I read them, yes. I don't generally take offense at EULAs. Does that
    surprise you?
    And I think MS EULAs are fairly reasonable.
    I don't know what rights you think MS should have included for your
    some 100 bucks? This is not a MS specific issue. You don't acquire any
    property rights whatsoever, with GPL or any other license either.

    There's an interesting parallel with SCO here. When they licensed the
    GPL, they obviously fell prey to some similar thinking, that some
    Linux zealot mistakenly also seem to embrace. Just because they
    figured it was "free" (of cost), and because they got the source, they
    seem to have thought that they could use the code any way they wanted,
    as part of their property! Or alternatively phrased, claim
    intellectual property ownership over code containing GPL licensed
    code. Obviously, some idiot heads at SCO weren't to bright on
    copyright law, and bought into the media pop myth of Linux as
    something *FREE* for grabs. And now the damn losers are crying in
    Washington. For laws to make it legal for them to keep what they
    thought they could steal. I'll dance on their graves.

    That's the really hilarious thing about SCO contortions. Even if they
    had a case, (which they certainly doesn't seem to have, meaning there
    isn't any SCO-owned unix in Linux, IBM's or anyone's). The f*****s
    _STILL_ don't have any case, because it's covered by the GPL, _they_

    somebody, Feb 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.