Intel: No Rush to 64-bit Desktop

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."

Comments

Intel speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: We aren't done yet.

Re:4 GB is not a lot of memory

[JWhitlock]

Right now 4 GB of memory might be enough. But switching to 64 bit when we are already hitting the wall is not an option. The point with going to 64 bits now is that we can add memory past 4 GB without the headaches of moving to a new platform, since the transition is already done.

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.

linux overhaul

[kahei]

the whole pc architecture should ideally be replaced. we're still using something designed in the 80's, with lil hacks here and there to make it work in this current day. unfortunatly, it would be incredibly difficult to do, as all software and hardware would have to be remade. backward compatibilty slows us down from moving forward. even if everything was replaced, how long till it would be obsolete and need a further replacement?

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

[mmol_6453]

64 bits will let you address 18 * 10e18 bytes of memory, or 18 mega-tera-bytes.

That ought to be enough for anyone.

<ducks>

Article Back Story

[Monkelectric]

This isn't really about memory ... allow me to [specu/trans]late what the article really said:

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

[carpe_noctem]

Yeah, seriously. By the time Intel's 64-bit chip is out, Duke Nukem Forever just might be released.