Intel: No Rush to 64-bit Desktop 616
An anonymous reader writes "Advanced Micro Devices and Apple Computer will likely tout that they can deliver 64-bit computing to desktops this year, but Intel is in no hurry. Two of the company's top researchers said that a lack of applications, existing circumstances in the memory market, and the inherent challenges in getting the industry and consumers to migrate to new chips will likely keep Intel from coming out with a 64-bit chip--similar to those found in high-end servers and workstations--for PCs for years."
first 64-bit post (Score:0, Funny)
wow 64 bits
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Just in: Intel drives *INNOVATION* (Score:2, Funny)
So after this AMD is contemplating the release of Hammer and Moto/IBM/Apple are teaming on the next gen macintosh. Both teams are celebrating and letting schedules slip to ensure a good product.
15 minutes later, Intel pulls the rug and releases a consumer level 64 bit cpu. Calling the former press release a premarketing bell weather.
Re:No surprise (Score:0, Funny)
I'm sure the Quake-playing twits will scream bloody murder, but the rest of us won't even notice.
What? no 64btis porcessor for my l33t skllz? WE W4NT TEH MURDER!! KILL KILL KILL!
There. .plan ;)
---
If we want 64bits processors for gaming, we just need to unleash John Carmack and his dreaded
Intel speak (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sorry my ignorance but... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:pc overhaul (Score:1, Funny)
Woah - stop right there...
Re:4 GB is not a lot of memory (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, come on! Don't you want the fun of playing with the 64-bit equivalent of extended and expanded memory? Endless tinkering of autoexec.bat and config.sys! Endless reboots! Doom 3 runs in it's own operating system (the way God intended)!
Bring on the half-ass memory solutions! We should be deep in flavor-country by 2005.
Re:Of course... (Score:4, Funny)
Err... 1500 years, give or take. Never mind.
linux overhaul (Score:4, Funny)
The whole Linux architecture should ideally be replaced. We're still using something designed in the 70s, with lil hacks here and there to make it halfway usable in the current day. Unfortunately, it would be incredibly difficult to do, as the macrokernel system and crusty old ASCII-pipe-based GNU tools would have to be remade. Unix compatibility slows us down from moving forward. Even if everything was replaced, how long till RMS decided it was the work of Satan and began on a further replacement?
Re:4 GB is not a lot of memory (Score:5, Funny)
That ought to be enough for anyone.
<ducks>
Article Back Story (Score:5, Funny)
Um, Hi... this is Intel. We know you *WANT* 64 bit but, um, you dont NEED it. Really, you dont. You believe that? Great! Basically guys, this is the problem, we *screwed the pooch* on this processor. We've spent 10's of billions of dollars on development, it's years behind schedule, it ain't that fast, and the whole thing just sucks right now. So here's what we're gonna do, We're gonna hold back this technology for like ehh, 6, 7, maybe 8 years SO WE HAVE TIME TO RECOUP THE MONEY WE WASTED by selling the chip as an expensive "workstation" CPU. So, expensive high-profit workstations for now, then you can have it later once it sucks (well it already does, but once it sucks more). Other platforms have had 64 processors for a decade now you say? You want mid 90's processor technology in 2003? FUCK YOU, you can't have it, end of discussion!
OH, and expect some dirty tricks, we know AMD is gonna be ready to sell you 64 bit way before us, so, well ... you'll just see ;)
Thanks, Intel
Re:4 GB is not a lot of memory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course... (Score:3, Funny)
Just use vi, instead of emacs.
Ornateness! (Score:2, Funny)
A new standard for applications. Not effective, light weight, maintainable, fast, open source, secure, or easy to use. Ornate!
Dude, that application is ORNATE!
I know that's why I'm going to switch to 64 bit.
Re:4 GB is not a lot of memory (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why I need 500 ZettaBytes (Score:3, Funny)