tecate,
You know that just doesn't cut it, by the time 64bits is REALLY needed, most of these people who bought AMD machines will need a new one - for speed, or graphics, or something. If Intel had pushed this on the public there would be daily if not hourly reports on the Inqurer about how Intel is a bully.
I don't know what you mean, and the little I can discern is off base.
Let's look at the 16bit -> 32 bit transition. Did Intel disable 32 bit from 386, 486 chips etc. pending Microsoft or someone else writing OSs and applications for them?
No. Intel released these chips, and over time (long time) software developers developped the entire 32 bit infrastructure. During this long transition, people who wanted to use 32 bit tools used them, others used them later, as the 32 bit support (or features of 386 processor) trickled in to more popular tools such as pre-Win95 versions of Windows.
During this time, processors without 32 bit capability fell off the face of the Earth, The world moved to 386, then to 486 etc. Seeking out a 286 when 486 was available because you don't "REALLY" need it 32 bit would, at the very least, be puzzling.
What I find interesting is the lengths the people on this board will go to defend even the most idiotic statements of Intel executives.
Of course Intel executives say these things not because they are true, but because what they say suits Intel better. Which makes me wonder if you are just such an enthusiastic supporter of Intel party line or if you are so clueless that you buy it.
Intel still has a problem with 64 bitness. They now have a chip that supports it, but it is a turd. The gem of a chip that Intel has does not support AMD64 yet, and most likely will not support it for between 1 and 2 years.
So in the meantime, Intel strategy is to polish the turd and to confuse everyone about 64 bitness.
Anyway, there is a big difference in how Intel approached 16->32 bit transition that invalidates everything Intel and Intel supporters say about 32->64 bit transition.
One might at this point wonder: Why is Intel acting differently this time around, during this transition?
The reason is that during the past transitions, Intel was in charge of x86 instruction set. The blunder was to seek to completely monopolize computing with Itanium instruction set, and to sacrifice the leadership of x86 to achieve the monopoly.
Looking at the bleeding of market cap year after year of the duration of this Itanium venture, I would say that it was a mistake. Maybe by now, Otellini also thinks it was a mistake. But he is about to take helm while the Queen Mary 2 is still moving in the wrong direction. In order not to cause panic, he is not going to say to the passengers they are going wrong way. He is going to (or already is) genly turn the ship to the right direction. He will hedge, lie, mislead until Intel has either 64 bit in Yonah or Merom / Conroe. Only then he will say "full steam ahead".
That's where it's at. When you or your son "REALLY" need 64 bit is irrelevant. If you REALLY needed it yesterday (and it was true), Intel would just lie and say that you did not need it.
Joe
