Intel CFO: 64-bit ‘won’t be needed on desktop PCs for several more years’

“Sixty-four bit computing won’t be needed on desktop PCs for several more years, according to Pat Gelsinger, chief technology officer at Intel Corp. In a day devoted to the discussion of Intel’s research technologies before the company’s Intel Developer Forum begins here Tuesday, Gelsinger was asked how quickly he envisioned 64-bit computing arriving on the desktop PC,” Mark Hachman reports for eWeek.com.

“‘In terms of the general market need, you don’t need it for several more years,’ Gelsinger said, specifying that he envisioned Intel bringing the technology to market around 2006 or 2007,” Hachman reports. Gelsinger said the advantage of 64-bit computing lies in the processor’s ability to address more than 4GB of memory, the limit for 64-bit machines.”

“Apple Computer Inc. of Cupertino, Calif. in June announced a line of Mac OS X systems based on IBM Corp.’s 64-bit PowerPC 970, dubbed the ‘G5’ by Apple. The systems began shipping in quantity in August,” Hachman reports.

Full article here.

18 Comments

  1. Intel was caught with its pants down. The x86 legacy has caught up with them. Of course they are going to say its not necessary, but riddle me this, why does their architecture support double precision FP if 64-bits is not necessary? I why does MSFT have to jump through hoops in order to support more than 4GB on SQL server systems. Hello.

  2. This is so laughable. Yep, you won’t need 64 bit on the desktop for many years to come. You want to know why? Because we (Intel) won’t be offering it and can’t bring it to you for several more years, that’s why. Just trust us, you won’t need it. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” /> Sheesh, what a joke. FUD at it’s finest.

  3. Even if Intel could come up with – not to mention implement – a 64-bit chip design ASAP, they’d still be waiting for a desktop OS. It’s going to take Redmond at least that long to come out with the Longhorn OS, assuming it will be 64-bit compatible (and it will have to be, considering Panther and the G5.) And regardless of all the recent improvements, Linux is NOT ready for prime-time as your mother’s OS.

  4. Reminds me of Intel saying the G5 is too much speed–more than people need. Which is exactly what they did say!

    And it’s true–few people “need” that much speed today. Many can “use” it though, and more will next year. And the next…

  5. MS does have a “64-bit Windows XP”, but according to themselves…
    “Windows on Windows 64 is a 32-bit Windows subsystem that allows you to run 32 bit applications on 64-bit Windows. Because 32-bit applications run in an emulation mode, Microsoft recommends running 32-bit applications on 32-bit hardware for optimal performance.” (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/faq.asp)
    …because their 32-bit emulation is so slooooow. Not a major selling point!

    AND it apparently suffers from the SAME infestations as its little brother…
    “Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Security Patch: Internet Information Services 5.1 Security Fix” (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&familyid=86f4407e-b9bf-4490-9421-008407578d11)

    In the 2 to 3 years that it will take Intel and Microsoft to begin to release anything close to what Apple has today, they would have struggled through 2 or more years of weekly virii, security patches, and lame excuses WHILE Apple has had 2 years of 64-bit experience, and about to release the G6 and OS 11 utilizing 64-bit codes to produce a user interface unlike anything ever seen before! …or you can have “Longhorn”, the buggy complicated version of XP that has been promised for over 3 years.

    Even MS lovers won’t wait 3 years for the same-ol’-same-ol’ after seeing their Mac counterparts speed into the future (at a lower price).

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.