[deRusett]

If a Sr wishes to Make this a pole I have no objections at all



Will you be going 64Bit?

are you going because you need 64bit or because you want to jump on the bandwagon?

I will not be going 64bit I don't think we need it yet, We have no reached the end of the 32bit requirements like we had with the format 16bit.

Honestly what reason do you have to go 64bit?

[stool]

Don't see any reason in the forseeable future to do so.

[ZedBias]

Dont mean to steal the thread a lil, but what are the basics of what a 64bit can do to what a 32bit cant.
Just wondering.

Sorry

[deRusett]

The basics, NOTHING

64 can't really do anything 32 can't with the exception of more addressing space, but currently very very very few people need more then the 4Gb of addressing space that 32Bit can give.

[ZedBias]

thank you. . .

[Tecumseh]

I've BEEN 64-bit for years on Big Iron. No big deal. I'll go
64-bit on the desktop when the price makes sense.

[Richard]

Will a 64 bit CPU grace my desktop? Yes. Just not anytime soon.

People seem to have this, "all or nothing" attitude. Like if I don't buy into 64 bit immediately, it will just fall off the face of the earth, or I'll be stricken from some elite club. I won't buy 64 bit for the same reason I don't have an SMP box. -- I don't need it!

64 bit, on the desktop, will have its usefulness...someday. Here's the rub. Not everyone is going to need 64 bit computing at the same time. The transition to 64 bit is likely to take years. Even if there is a strong acceptance by certain enthusiast markets - the trickle down affect takes time.

The only way I see 64 bit computing gaining momentum is when the CPUs are priced at parity with 32 bit counterparts and achieve performance at least on par across the board. Even then it's unlikely that a lot of people will ditch their current computers in favor of something newer. It's going to take literally years before there are even a modicum of applications that require a 64 bit processor (on the desktop.)

[Evil_Eye]

I may be going 64-bit...as soon as people actually bench it's results and weigh it in with 32-bit. To the victor goes my cash.

[Diggrr]

How many years have 32 bit OS's been with us? Do they have it right? Hardly. Not one of us has not been graced with the presence of BSOD's and hardware/driver issues.
I'm not ready for the software makers to start all over again, and struggle with win95 type OS's. That stunk...badly, and hindered the growth of computing.

Sure the speed seams apealing, but since I don't game anymore, there's little reason to abandon what I have right now. I've only really been using my box as my fax machine, internet portal, and a few entertainment uses, and honestly I haven't really stretched the legs on this one yet. It's an xp2100+, and 3000's are out now. I think we've reached the plateau, and there's gonna have to be some "killer apps" to entice any changes. Historically software maker's have failed in producing one, and will probably continue to do so.
Home multimedia was what turned out to be the last one, but that wasn't invented by a major software maker, that was invented by the users, then the vendors finally (slowly, grudgingly) followed suit. With so many fighting for years on end to even produce standards, they couldn't pull this one off if they had to. Even DVD writers that most people do not have yet, are divided, and new laser tech is already threatening to make them obsolete.

[BaldHeadedDork]

Barring a realignment of the planets or a head injury, no. Nothing against AMD. I just can't see the point of moving to 64-bit to run my 32-bit applications in an emulation mode.

I don't see an immediate desktop market for 64-bit processors beyond a minority percentage of the people who post in places like this. What about long-term? Ed from the mothersite asked last Friday when will 64-bit reach critical mass for the desktop market. Here's my answer:

Never.

The installed base of 32-bit systems and evolution of PC devises will choke 64-bit desktops in the cradle. By the time 64-bit has a chance to take over the very idea of a desktop computer is going to be obsolete. Joe Sixpack isn't going to move from his 2003 Dell to a 64-bit version of the same box. The next step for him will look like a Gateway Solo, run like Windows Media Center, and the processor design will be as relevant as chip in your TV or microwave is today.

When I take a step back, the problem with PC's isn't that the 32-bit processor is obsolete. What's obsolete is the IBM AT-clone platform. They take up a lot of space, they are as stylish as a circa 1970 television, and they are a monkey wrench solution in a specialized world. Asthetics aside, they're expensive as hell to operate in a business environment and ridiculously complex. In most companies today you have entire departments that exist only to service and maintain what is a glorified typewriter for most workers.

I think as LCD prices fall we are no more than two years away from fully-intergrated next-generation PC's that address the problems of the market today. You will still have powerhouse systems for specialized applications like CAD or graphics. But most work users will shift to all-in-one units that use locked operating systems and have a built in application suite. Home terminals will have more multimedia features but will be built on the same idea of a fixed OS and specific application use.

If it sounds like a game console, it is. I think that is going to be the model and its going to succeed because it solves problems for everyone. For hardware makers and DellGatewayHP it breaks the gigahertz wars. Instead of selling computers based on processor speed they'll be marketed and priced on screen size and what they can do. Locking the OS puts the upgrade market back on a timeline driven by applications and eliminates many of the sources of instability. It also means a top line computer can be sold with the equivilant of a 2.0GHz Celeron if that's what the applications need to get the job done, which will slow down the physical problems Moore's Law will run into starting in just a few years. Reducing the number of manufacturing options will save DellGatewayHP a boatload of money on manufacturing and procurement. And while not being able to upgrade will be poison for us, having something that can't be upgraded (and therefore screwed up) will be a huge selling point for Joe and the Suits.

I really think we're no more than three years from this shift. If it happens 64-bit-and our ideas about personal computing-become irrelevant.





BHD

[XWRed1]

I think after I upgrade my cpus to a pair of Bartons (I want to exercise my opportunity to upgrade my cpus but keep my board), when I do spring for a new board/cpu combo I think I'm going to try and pick up a pair of Opterons unless Intel's Xeons of Prescott or whatever else at the time is attractive.

Not because I need the address space (although a huge ramdisk would be cool) or do scientific computing, but because x86-64 gives me some extra registers. And because the Hammer boards and infrastructure looks attractive.

[JML]

Originally posted by Diggrr
Even DVD writers that most people do not have yet, are divided, and new laser tech is already threatening to make them obsolete.

Are you referring to the new blue lasers?

I have to disagree about things starting at win95 all over again. I don't think it will be that bad.

I will upgrade to 64bit when I see a reason to, which I don't see now and don't see happening in the near future.

[RoadWarrior]

How many of you went 32 bit before there was a popular O/S or before you owned an O/S that supported it? I know I did, the first fully 32bit program to run on my 486 was Doom under DOS4GW. Okay some peeps had OS/2 before that, but windoze wasn't very 32 bit back then.

I was a 32bit early adopter really because I had an Amiga A1200, I consciously chose a 32bit machine over the 16/32 bit hybrid PCs of the time that didn't have a 32bit OS. I ended up getting one of those too, still before they had a popular 32bit O/S.
I think some hacks and extensions to windows will enable the 64bitters to feel the power of 64 before a full/cheap 64 bit release, they will be like the "386 enhanced mode" in win 3.11 or the DOS4GW dos extenders for games. The type of games that are hitting CPU limits now might well go 64bit before OSes do. It should unlock a whole new world of possibilities for game developers, since with the 64 bit CPUs would come I suppose a wider AGP bus that would probably be as fast as current GPU<>MEM architecture, hence they could plan to spool textures out of main memory and games would become more photo realistic.

Yes there are proggies out there that can make a 3G++ CPU crawl, you just don't use them..... yet.
The ONLY reason I'll be delaying going 64bit really is that my finances might not be ready for me to have an upgrade, or if they are that the price/availability of 64 bit is far enough off still such that I don't want to wait.

Okay so I don't need the power, I will just think it's cool to be able to compress a movie using mp9 format to fit on a floppy disk

Road Warrior

[XWRed1]

I don't think its going to be like Win9x all over again. With Win9x they started with a crummy base OS, this time they aren't.

Games won't be able to go 64bit before the OSes do unless you are still running them under DOS. The way things are now, the games don't have that kind of control to just oust or go around the operating system anymore.

Windows XP for x86-64 has been said by Microsoft to be due in some amount of time, lining up with the Clawhammer release I think. There'll be no need for some lame "hacks and extensions" to Windows like win32s - there'll BE Windows for x86-64.

[deRusett]

>How many of you went 32 bit before there was a popular O/S or
>before you owned an O/S that supported it?

there was a need to go 32 from 16 though, at the moment there is NO need to switch from 32 to 64, the majority of programs will still be 32bit, when we had 16 bit developers were itching for more power and more addressing space

[Diggrr]

Originally posted by XWRed1
I don't think its going to be like Win9x all over again. With Win9x they started with a crummy base OS, this time they aren't.

Sorry, but I really can't agree.
win2k pro is losing files...again, and XP is as bulletproof as a mud puddle...I snapped my cd and threw it away after a dozen or so attempts to keep it running more than 3 days.
The only reason I keep using m$ crap, is that I don't have months required to learn and get Linux running. I use this computer 6 days a week for work.

[Arkaine23]

Yes, where I work we'll be making that transition as soon as its feasible to do so... economy is kinda slumping big-time for us 3rd party chip-designers. We'll need the extra address space when we do get some contracts going again.

At home, it will probably take me awhile to go 64bit. I barely have 1.5GB of ram between my 5 computers as it is now....

[Commander_Kang]

What do you mean by windows 2k is losing files?You've lost me.

Originally posted by Diggrr


Sorry, but I really can't agree.
win2k pro is losing files...again, and XP is as bulletproof as a mud puddle...I snapped my cd and threw it away after a dozen or so attempts to keep it running more than 3 days.
The only reason I keep using m$ crap, is that I don't have months required to learn and get Linux running. I use this computer 6 days a week for work.

[XWRed1]

Originally posted by Diggrr


Sorry, but I really can't agree.
win2k pro is losing files...again, and XP is as bulletproof as a mud puddle...I snapped my cd and threw it away after a dozen or so attempts to keep it running more than 3 days.
The only reason I keep using m$ crap, is that I don't have months required to learn and get Linux running. I use this computer 6 days a week for work.

Sounds like your success with Microsoft is a fringe case. For most people, Win2k and XP work alot better than that. Linux is my main OS (hence x86-64 is zero hassle for me) but I've had no trouble keeping a Win2k or XP install going for several years. No voodoo magic or lame hacks, I just leave them alone and they work.

[Demont]

I don't think "Will you be going 64-bit?" is really a valid question. I mean, as most of the posts here show, nobody really cares about 64-bit itself now, as nobody needs more than 4gb of ram or blah blah many other reasons.

A better question would be "Are you going to buy an Athlon 64/Opteron." It all really comes down to performance and overclockability (and maybe a couple other factors for some). Are you going to not buy an A64 or Opteron because it is 64-bit? No, because its fully backwards compatible. Nobody is going to just say, "No, I've decided I randomly don't like 64-bit processing so I won't buy this cpu" if it is a quality product.

Who really cares if its 64-bit or not, if it gets the job done I'll be buying one, and so will you. Eventually 64-bit processing will become more advantageous and then we will be ready for it.