It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Microsoft, Intel: The Time For 64-Bit is Now

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Intel and Microsoft, who, only months ago, were telling the world that 64-bit architecture's time has not yet come, are now saying that such a conversion is imminent. Observers note that the change of heart may be related to the fact that the new operating system, code-named "Longhorn" is nearing completion. Others say gaming and digital photography has become so memory intensive that the current architecture is obsolete.
 



www.internetnews.com
Two of the biggest forces in the IT industry called on developers to begin porting their applications to x86-based 64-bit architectures.

Microsoft and Intel said hardware and software pieces are in place to convert the computing industry away from a 32-bit Wintel ecosystem to a world where all platforms, from servers and workstations through desktop and mobile, can run at nearly twice the speed with a larger address space.

"The message is: Develop for 64-bits now. The transition is underway," Pat Gelsinger, a former CTO at Intel, said during his keynote at the Intel Developer Forum here. Gelsinger also said by the end of the year, about 100 percent of servers Intel ships will come with Intel's EM64T 64-bit addressing.

Jim Allchin, Microsoft vice president, joined Gelsinger on stage with a message to developers that Microsoft would release its first Windows x64 Editions in a month. Microsoft also said it would stand by Intel's latest virtualization technology as well as its I/O Acceleration Technology (I/OAT) in a future version of Windows Longhorn Server.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Well, I bought my first computer just one year ago, knowing full well that the pace of technology would render it obsolete within a short time. However, I, in no way, envisioned this radical a change. What will this mean for me and those like me? At worst, a new computer, I guess. I hope.

Related News Links:
arstechnica.com
en.wikipedia.org
www.xbitlabs.com
www.intel.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
SCI/TECH: Super Chip Unveiled


[edit on 05/3/3 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I welcome the new technology. I just wish there was more responsibility when it comes to computers. They should all be upgradeable for years and years of use and/or the parts can be recycled. Basically what you have with some brands now is disposable computers. Once all the applications and software outgrow your system, you just buy another one, leaving a pile of parts that nobody wants because DOOM 15 doesn't play on it.

But here's a thought as well. Are we going to hit a ceiling with computer technology? Are they going to become so fast, and have so much hard drive space that they really don't need to get any faster, and anyone with $50 can go into Wal-Mart and get a supercomputer, with 1000 terabytes of hard drive space. I can go into Wal-Mart now and get a nice little computer that blows the doors off of computers of a few years ago, for around $500. Shop online an you can get a speedy little computer for around $300. These aren't the cutting edge but they certainly will do quite a few things well.

I can now put few hundred songs on a small USB drive that fits into my pocket. In fact I can put several of these USB drives in my pocket. People can put their entire music collection in their purse. I look at these little gadgets and it's just amazing.

Troy



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Computers have obsolesance built into them. The simple fact is, if you can buy it on the open market, it's ALREADY obsolete. The last big computer purchase period was when everyone thought they had to upgrade for Y2K. Of course that sparked the tech boom which the Clinton Administration had the fortune to cruise through.

Five years. Those Pentium II workstations and Xeon Servers are getting a little bogged down now aren't they? Time for another boom. As soon as the software vendors start requiring it, there won't be any choice but to spend the $$$ and get those new servers.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Hrm, I guess they forgot that 64-Bit has been around for a while thanks to Sun boxes running Solaris on SPARC processors? Or maybe that Linux has had 64-Bit support for a while now? Personally I think its a case of the rest of the industry catchin on to what others have been doing for a while now. Irregardless its good they are pressing for better 64-Bit support, since alot of apps could really benefit from the switch.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by alternateheaven]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Nah Grady you will be fine for at least 24 - 36 months and longer depending on what you use yours for, if its just coming here and pissing off the turdblossom liberals like I do, then you will be fine for longer than that.


I advise all my clients and have been for almost 6 months, to buy only AMD 64 bit processors and motherboards that allow upgrade paths just for this occasion.

If I were to build one today that is exactly what I would do instead of the Intel route I went 18 months ago, still a 2.4 running at 3.02 is not bad for me



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   


I advise all my clients and have been for almost 6 months, to buy only AMD 64 bit processors and motherboards that allow upgrade paths just for this occasion.


Very smart. You should also advise them to take a good look at Open-Source alternatives versus Proprietary Software. There are quite a few appz out there like OpenOffice, which is on the verge of released 2.0(beta is out already, you should check it out to see how it compares to the M$ alternative)

Of course there is also Firefox, but this may not be possible for some companies to do. Like at my fathers Work, all thier servers are currently being upgraded to Linux but the workstations are still Microsoft 2000 pro with IE and lotus notes, it is so integrated into thier structure it would be very expensive to switch over completely, even if it meant no more licencing fees they are very short term oriented ever since they got bought out by an American company.

For any other appz go to sourceforge.net...



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   
The time for 64-bit is NOW. lol lol lollllll what a marketing banter, Microsoft had to wait before those Intel guys finally catched up, forced by the hands of AMD.and their 64 bit technology. From the same Intel corner: Dual core is NOW, AMD did that Yeasterday !

But anyway, its good that other companies know that Microsoft has the supporting platform ready so they can write applications for it...


[edit on 4-3-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   
I agree with ed, as long as there's not some special game or app that requires you to change you should be good for another 3 years at which time you probably would have been ready for another anyway.

I remember when we went 32-bit & I bought a 386-20. By the time there was 32-bit software out it was obsolete & too slow to run it, so I suspect even those who go the 64-bit route today may be buying another by the time there's software that takes advantage of it.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by outsider]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Well, I bought my A64 system a year or so ago.
Have been running 64-bit ever since on Linux


MS and mostly INTEL are a whee bit late and shouldn't have tried to sink AMD for moving to 64-bit.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   
The question is ....

will the early A64 chips still be compatable with new software coming out and will they quickly be considered too slow...

how long until all software is changed over, or will they find a way to run 32 bit and still 16 bit software ...

glad I havn't upgraded yet..



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Yes Intel are very behind in development. All new software will work with current 64bit chips. 64bit is 64bit no matter how you look at it.

Do not worry Netchicken, it will all be backwards compatible.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Sun had a 64 bit SPARC for years. The Mac G5 is also 64 bit. M$FT and Intel are way behind...

[edit on 3/4/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
The question is ....

will the early A64 chips still be compatable with new software coming out and will they quickly be considered too slow...

how long until all software is changed over, or will they find a way to run 32 bit and still 16 bit software ...

glad I havn't upgraded yet..


AMD's A64's are backward compatible and even more, you can actualy run 32-bit OS's on the A64 platform. The performance overhead won't be as big as pure 64-bit OS and CPU, but its still rather noticable.

If I'm not mistaken, up to now, Intel's 64-bit chips have only been 64-bit compatible, Italium CPU's even needed a special version of Windows server OS's.

They are said to have a new 64-bit chip upcomming that will take the route of AMD, by making it fully backward compatible with 32-bit OS's.

Then, the x86-64 architecture, like the x86-32 architecture(which is used in all CPU's from P2's to P4's and Athlons) is a standard developed mainly by IBM, but generaly by input of all the main x86 chipmakers, which would be VIA, AMD, Intel and IBM.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Who cares how many bits it has, 64 bit is still much to sloooooooooooow for me.
I work so fast poor ol windows cant handle all the input i throw at it. So what good is the XXXXbit system if OS sux.

I think my next comp will be PS3



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
avtually ps2 makes a great computer. i heard someone hooked up 3 of them and it worked well as a super computer. you can ever run linux on ps2.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I was allready looking toward a 64 bit system shortly after my Athlon XP system arrived. Sad really to think about letting it go at some point, but when I decide to go 64 bit, this one will get a good home, or it will stay around here for a second computer. 2.1 Ghz computers are still quite capable. This one does the job, and it was cheap. I find a cheap way to go about computers is stay slightly behind the "latest and greatest. " There isn't much difference in a 3.0 Ghz and a top of the line 3.5 Ghz computer (of course similarly configured). It's not necessarily worth tacking on hundreds of dollars, when the real world gain is minimal in relation to the hype.

Troy



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
I find a cheap way to go about computers is stay slightly behind the "latest and greatest. " There isn't much difference in a 3.0 Ghz and a top of the line 3.5 Ghz computer (of course similarly configured). It's not necessarily worth tacking on hundreds of dollars, when the real world gain is minimal in relation to the hype.Troy


I agree and that is why I build my own!



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
I find a cheap way to go about computers is stay slightly behind the "latest and greatest. " There isn't much difference in a 3.0 Ghz and a top of the line 3.5 Ghz computer (of course similarly configured). It's not necessarily worth tacking on hundreds of dollars, when the real world gain is minimal in relation to the hype.Troy



When processor speed was measured in MHz, I held the same opinion, but when I went to buy my computer, and realized that we were now talking GHz, I had to wonder if I needed to rethink that. When I bought my 2.8 GHz machine, it was just behind the 3.0 GHz machines and seemed a good trade off, but these incremental changes are occurring by the billions of Hz a whack. Is .5 GHz really negligible?



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Good call cybertroy...

Unless you are a hard core gamer, there is a huge reality gap between the latest tech and actually what you need for web cruising, word processing, etc.

At work I use a 3.2 ghz machine, and at home, a 460 meghz one. Really for my applications the difference is walking into the kitchen to get a fresh cup of coffee while it boots up.

There is a form of penis envy around computers at present I think, manufactured by the suppliers and sellers of the machinery to keep people upgrading.

Mind you I will upgrade to a A64 eventually as well, having saved thousands of dollars by now by just having the machine I need and not the latest tech.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by cybertroy
I find a cheap way to go about computers is stay slightly behind the "latest and greatest. " There isn't much difference in a 3.0 Ghz and a top of the line 3.5 Ghz computer (of course similarly configured). It's not necessarily worth tacking on hundreds of dollars, when the real world gain is minimal in relation to the hype.Troy



When processor speed was measured in MHz, I held the same opinion, but when I went to buy my computer, and realized that we were now talking GHz, I had to wonder if I needed to rethink that. When I bought my 2.8 GHz machine, it was just behind the 3.0 GHz machines and seemed a good trade off, but these incremental changes are occurring by the billions of Hz a whack. Is .5 GHz really negligible?


Now adays yes it is. Amount of Ram and amount of Video Memory is fairly important maybe even more important that how many gigahertz you have. Better video card means less load on the CPU. Same goes with high frequency Ram(333 MHz and up). If you want to add longevity to your system, you could also look into adding in extra heat sinks to the HD, Ram etc. They are pretty cheap.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join