Slashdot Mirror
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."
Wouldn't it make more sense to put that 64 on the server, with XXGB of RAM, and push the display to the clients? X-terms, Terminal Services, whatever? Then, what, you've got 64 bit apps on the server, and a 32 bit clients, and no worry about memory usage.
Put identity in the browser.
Didn't Apple manage to get their (admittedly smaller) user base to switch to a better processor?
Intel's argument against 64-bit computing seems to be an advertisement for the x86-64 concept. The article didn't mention gaming, but surely the gamer market will be a major early-adopter base. It sounds like preemptive marketing to me.
As for memory, the article, and presumably intel, don't seem to account for the ever-increasing memory footprint of Microsoft's operating system (or for the GNOME stuff on our favorite OS), and so are perhaps too dismissive of the need for a >4GB desktop. As we all know all too well, one can never have too much memory or disk space, and applications and data will always grow to expand to the limits of both.
Personally, I'm holding off on any new hardware for my endeavors until I see what AMD releases, though I would settle for a Power5-based desktop...
Intel didn't want to make the jump to 32 bit, so they introduced "segment registers". They tried to convince people that this was actually a good thing, that it would make software better. Of course, we know better: segment registers were a mess. Software is complex enough than to have to deal with that. That's why we ended up with 32 bit flat address spaces.
64 bit address spaces are as radical a change from 32 bit as 32 bit was from 16 bit. Right now, we can't reliably memory map files anymore because many files are bigger than 2 or 4 Gbytes. Kernel developers are furiously moving around chunks of address space in order to squeeze out another hundred megabytes here or there.
With flat 64 bit address spaces, we can finally address all disk space on a machine uniformly. We can memory map files. We don't have to worry about our stack running into our heap anymore. Yes, many of those 64 bit words will only be filled "up to" 32 bits. But that's a small price to pay for a greatly simplified software architecture; it simply isn't worth it repeating the same mistake Intel made with the x86 series by trying to actually use segment registers. And code that actually works with a lot of data can do what we already do with 16 bit data on 32 bit processors: pack it.
Even if having 4G of memory standard is a few years off yet, we need 64 bit address spaces. If AMD manages to release the Athlon 64 at prices comparable to 32 bit chips, they will sell like hotcakes because they are fast; but even more worrisome for Intel, an entirely new generation of software may be built on the Athlon 64, and Intel will have no chips to run it on. If AMD wins this gamble, the payoff is potentially huge.
I know amount of addressable memory is quite high, but isn't all the memory currently accessed via a bus thus sharing memory bandwidth?
;)
That is true, but the memory bus can be made wider, and that won't affect the adressing scheme. Take nVidia's nForce, it uses 2 DIMM slots in paralell to double the memory bandwidth (although the processor bus must be fast enough to use the bandwidth).
The bandwidth issue scales much more easily than the fact that 32 bits is 4 GB of addressable memory, no matter what. (OK, you can do a extended-memory-kludge, but that's beside the point
.: Max Romantschuk
Bill Gates claims that he never said 640K was enough memory. His denial appeared in an interview in the New York Review of Books. In fact, he says that he believed the opposite. (The slashdot audience can decide on his veracity.) Below is a quote from the article "He's Got Mail" by James Fallows:
One quote from Gates became infamous as a symbol of the company's arrogant attitude about such limits. It concerned how much memory, measured in kilobytes or "K," should be built into a personal computer. Gates is supposed to have said, "640K should be enough for anyone." The remark became the industry's equivalent of "Let them eat cake" because it seemed to combine lordly condescension with a lack of interest in operational details. After all, today's ordinary home computers have one hundred times as much memory as the industry's leader was calling "enough."
It appears that it was Marie Thérèse, not Marie Antoinette, who greeted news that the people lacked bread with qu'ils mangent de la brioche. (The phrase was cited in Rousseau's Confessions, published when Marie Antoinette was thirteen years old and still living in Austria.) And it now appears that Bill Gates never said anything about getting along with 640K. One Sunday afternoon I asked a friend in Seattle who knows Gates whether the quote was accurate or apocryphal. Late that night, to my amazement, I found a long e-mail from Gates in my inbox, laying out painstakingly the reasons why he had always believed the opposite of what the notorious quote implied. His main point was that the 640K limit in early PCs was imposed by the design of processing chips, not Gates's software, and he'd been pushing to raise the limit as hard and as often as he could. Yet despite Gates's convincing denial, the quote is unlikely to die. It's too convenient an expression of the computer industry's sense that no one can be sure what will happen next.
Click here to read the full article.