Originally Posted by Nychold
What a way to put words in my mouth. I did not say "All you fools drop your 32 bit processors." I'm still running a 32 bit processor right now. But, even you admit 64 bits is the future, so why wait for the future? Especially when it costs the same, or in some cases, less than current technology. (I actually saw a DVD player in Walmart for $30, while a VHS player was $70.) The problem is only that people who are upgrading their machines don't opt for better technology when it smacks them in the face. You don't have to throw your 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 EE PC in the junk just because AMD released a 64 bit processor; as I've said before, 64 bits is nothing new. However, if you are looking to upgrade, there's no reason not to get a 64 bit processor. The software will come if more people decide to have support for it. That's all I said, and nothing more.
Well, you said people were idiots for not wanting to buy 64 bit machines and that's why 64 bit processing wasn't here now ...
There are several problems here to the "upgrading"
1. You compare the old and new technology. While that's true when things are in mass production, the Hammers aren't wide spread. When you consider all the processors that are being sold (typically 135 million or so PC processors a year by Intel alone) and AMD's releasing the Hammer shipping less than a million per quarter, the technology isn't exactly what you call wide spread. Even if AMD sold ALL of the Hammers it could possibly make, it would still only dent the surface of total demand assuming the entire market).
2. The majority of people tend to buy low end machines. Here's where you find the "bang for your buck" phenomenom. Much to Intel's chagrin, more than half of their sales are low priced Celerons. And how many people do you see buying <$100 AMD's? A lot of people buy the cheapest machine that will meet their needs. How many times do you see the $500-800 machines advertised on TV vs the $2000 Dell XPS type machines?
3. People aren't necessarily going to be sold until the apps that they use ship. Even then, they still might opt for the 32 bit software due to cost. With 64 bit being a new thing, I'm willing to bet that there will be premiums for both the software and the hardware. Do you think the average Joe would pay $50-100 (guessing) for Office64?
[QOUTE]Quite the contrary actually. And yes, I've written Operating Systems, and designed my own architecture (all theoretical, of course). Yes...the 4 GB barrier is a bunch of horse droppings with a side of cow pizzle. There's a 64 GB limit on the best 32 bit processors out there now. (If you want to know more about that, I suggest www.sandpile.org
). So I won't use that as a defence, but there is a "4 GB" memory barrier. In order to gain 64 GB of memory, a processor hasto change it's page granularity from 4,096 bytes (4 KB) to a full segment (64 KB). Plus, the base address still can't be above 4 GB, so in order to access the additional 60 GB, you can only have one selector, which means no protected mode in the high memory.
EDIT: Err, just about everything in italics is a mistake. Since I've never dealt with a Pentium Pro or above, I never really got a chance to test out CR4.PAE and CR4.PSE. Apparantly, it's a page granularity of 2 MB, and you can use different selectors to allow for 36 bit addressing. Whoops. ^^
Also, with 64 bit processing, large scale, efficient data manipulation is possible, because you're viewing twice the data per register (and AMD64 provides 4 additional general purpose registers, so that's 4 times the manipulative abilities). And let's face it...that's a major plus. Sure, MMX, SSE, and SSE2 are 64 bits (in the last two, 128 bits), but those are special purpose registers, and have very specific instructions to manipulate them. [/quote]
I think a lot more has to do with the extended registers and being able to process more information simultaneously than the bitness of the machine. I should have communicated that earlier.
[quote]And there are still machines out there running today which are 8 bit computers. They're called traffic lights. (Most traffic lights use 8080 processors) And there are still 16 bit processors out there. Hell, there are even 128 and 256 bit processors out there. What's your point?[/QOUTE]
Point is that people aren't going to necessarily buy because it's there.
|The fact of the matter is that no matter how much anyone wants to keep their 32 bit system, it will eventually become harder and harder to find software. My prediction is that new software will be 32 bit for the rest of the year, 32/64 bit for the first 6-8 months of 2005, then 64 bit around the second quarter, with a few holdout companies. It's probably very optimistic, but that's because I'm looking to the future, and trying to get there. I'm not bad mouthing AMD and 64-bit while waiting for the next big thing for 32 bits to come out.
I think we disagree on the timeframe. You're not going to see 64 bit until MS ships XP64, and that just slipped again until next year.
|A few years? Maybe...but let's discuss this. I bought my PC in February of 2002, and aside from a video card upgrade, it's still running today. That's...30 months, 2.5 years. And I'll keep my desktop the same until the beginning of next year, to make it three years (when I'll make it 64 bit). That's...a few, right? If my system were already 64 bit, I could start getting the software when I wanted it, and be ready for the new era, rather than having to buy everything all at once.
No flames. I don't flame people...I flame ideas.
I can see your rationale for your situation. However, for everyone else that are buying systems now, why buy 64 bit now when there's going to be something better when the stuff is actually widespread?
If I were building now, I'd probably build a cheap Northwood or XP system now till things get sorted out. Enough to last thru the time it takes to get things sorted out, but not a slouch in the meantime. That's just me.