“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.
Can you say FUD?!?
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.
And Bill Gates at one time said 64K was all the memory we would ever need.
Sounds like poor ole’ Pat won’t be needed in the boardroom in 2006.
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.
Gimme a break! You can bet that if they had been the first to produce a 64-bit desktop, they would be shouting it from the mountaintops!
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.
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…
I wonder if Intel officials need to visit the restroom and vomit after each interview. What’s the rate of Prozac sales among Intel executives?
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).
This is a major coup for Apple, in my opinion. Not only will Apple continue to evolve one of the most secure OS’es available on server, desktop and laptop computers as Microsoft struggles with its next OS iteration. But Apple apparently also has several years to mature its 64-bit computing systems (both H/W and S/W) before Wintel can attempt to compete. In addition, the evolution of the G5 and the planned release of the G6 should keep Apple highly competitive in the price/performance battle.
Intel lost the 64-bit race to the desktop and they’re trying to reason with it now. They’re such fools and since the Itanic is still too expensive to place into a commodity PeeCee, you wont see 64-bit solutions coming from Intel anytime soon. AMD will be the next, with Athlon 64!
I’d like to see an Apple ad that consisted of Gelsinger’s “won’t be needed” line, followed by a pause, followed by the words “You just keep telling yourself that.” Pause. “PowerMac G5. 64-bit. Now.”
I wonder if Intel advocates will start talking about ‘The Bit Myth’, in the same way that Apple fans talk about “The Megahertz Myth” …
Crap! now we will all have to forget 64 bit computing cause Intel says so, well heres a message from the world of MacHeads “EAT ME BOZO”.
Translation: We will have 64bit computing when our Pimp Microsoft says we can!
Must be sad for Intel to wake up and realize that they are Microsoft’s Bitch!
if intel actually releases 64 bit processors they will claim that their 64 bit processors are amazing and no one has done it before, just like centrino, they make a big hype about something that has been around for years
make wintels even farther behind?
no skin off my back
32 bit? Ha! that’s such ancient technology.