Intel Signals 64-Bit Offering May Be on Horizon

  • Thread starter Thread starter zalzon
  • Start date Start date
Z

zalzon

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?
 
Howdy!

zalzon said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

RwP
 
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.

RwP
Click to expand...

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.

ancra
 
Howdy!

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:49:30 -0600, "Ralph Wade Phillips"


Itanium has been out longer than 3 years, I think?
Click to expand...

It has. Machines have been available for over 3 years.
I wouldn't characterize it as a 64-bit "offering", though.
Click to expand...

It's 64 bit. They're offering it.
Have you checked the prices?
Click to expand...

Err - that makes no difference to the bus size of the processor.
Just to how well it sells <B-)
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.
Click to expand...

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 ...

RwP
 
Howdy!



Depends on the code. Stuff coded from the getgo for the Itanium
seems to scream.
Click to expand...

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

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.)

ancra
 
...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?
Click to expand...

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.
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.
Click to expand...

Or Sun dumps Solaris, uses it's own Java Desktop Linux, cuts the prices of
their hardware, and makes a huge comeback...
(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.)
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you missed part of my point then. I said "'86-Epic". Not
"Epic".
Or Sun dumps Solaris, uses it's own Java Desktop Linux, cuts the prices of
their hardware, and makes a huge comeback...
Click to expand...

Err... They've got no reasons to dump Solaris, but otherwise, aren't
they already doing all that?
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...
Click to expand...

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_
licensed!

ancra
 
Back
Top