|
The Computer Nerds thread ... (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| smokeape |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nell
does anyone know when 64bit OS's and apps are going to become mainstream?
i'm thinking of buying a new PC and at the moment i would go for a dual p4 system, but now i'm considering going for an athlon 64 system to make it future proof.
comments? suggestions? |
Had to quote you to ignore a couple subsequent ones. Bill Gates & Company might release a 64 bit OS this year or maybe not. They were supposed to release it in the fall of 2003 and Athlon pulled the trigger with the release of their 64 bit Athlon. However, Bill decided it wasn't time to release his new OS. What a severe blow to Athlon who touted a chip to run an OS which hadn't been released. In the meantime, Intel had the inside poop obviously and didn't release the chips they have on the shelf. When Bill finally releases the 64 bit system, then Intel will release their stuff and quite simply bury Athlon on the chip market with 4-5 Gig speed off the bat. Anyhow, it will be a giant breakthrough since Windows 95 was the platform that moved us from a 16 bit system to a 32 bit system. There are a few considerations as to why Bill balked with the 64 bit system. First of all, people will buy it and it has to have some backward capabilty, else underpowered computers won't work and it won't sell. He is probably waiting for technology to catch up with the average user so it will work. It's catching up from the fall of 2003 for sure. Chips and chipspeed are increasing dramatically for average computers while top end speeds are more or less stalled with just minor tweeks. When the time is right, like I said before, Intel will release the real McCoy and bury all competition and the plus for top end users will be the quantam leap in technology and speed, while the average users can gain a little more.
In the interim, take a P4 3.2G system or an Athlon 3200+ to float. Remember the Athlon 64 system may or may not run the final 64 bit OS worth a damn.
:D
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| madhattared |
A64 in your desktop
they have a much more efficient pipeline so they're much more efficient the then P4's (This is why Intel won't release another true p4 core again)
dual core processors will be out in the 2nd half of this year however so if you can wait you might want to.
either way i highly perfer amd over intel because amd generally has higher performance / price ratios. more bang for your buck. however in your case both the amd64 and newer "p4's" have 64 bit technology. all u need is a bios update for the intel platform.
btw you're never gonna find a xeon in a laptop. whats the point having all that power if you're going to have a half hour battery life?
centrino's are actually quite nice for laptops though.
as for 64 bit OS's they have been out for years, Linux AIX and Unix. however windows will be out with 64 bit version sometime soon. probably within the first half of this year. |
|
|
| madhattared |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
When Bill finally releases the 64 bit system, then Intel will release their stuff and quite simply bury Athlon on the chip market with 4-5 Gig speed off the bat. Anyhow, it will be a giant breakthrough since Windows 95 was the platform that moved us from a 16 bit system to a 32 bit system. There are a few considerations as to why Bill balked with the 64 bit system. First of all, people will buy it and it has to have some backward capabilty, else underpowered computers won't work and it won't sell. He is probably waiting for technology to catch up with the average user so it will work. It's catching up from the fall of 2003 for sure. Chips and chipspeed are increasing dramatically for average computers while top end speeds are more or less stalled with just minor tweeks. When the time is right, like I said before, Intel will release the real McCoy and bury all competition and the plus for top end users will be the quantam leap in technology and speed, while the average users can gain a little more.
In the interim, take a P4 3.2G system or an Athlon 3200+ to float. Remember the Athlon 64 system may or may not run the final 64 bit OS worth a damn.
|
sorry dude, but first of all you're saying bill magically could have released this 64 bit os a long time ago? the MAIN reason he didn't was that its simply not ready. porting the windows system calls to 64bits is a bitch based on the way they're written. they were ment to be at 32 bits for a good long time not just 10 years. you can download beta versions of the operating system that have been out for a year now but they were still rather shakey. none of the drivers or the support programs are even close to being done for the operating system. so yeah if he could have released it it would have been released and fell flat on its face due to no support for any hardware.
This intel real mccoy simply isn't coming within the next year when a 64 bit os from microsoft is expected. intel has completely thrown out its roadmaps over the last year because it couldn't scale performance past 3.8ghz. intel could not reliably manufacture a processor at 4 ghz because the way a chip scales is that the wire delay would take too many cycles to cross the chip never mind a multitude of other manufacturing issues. intel is currently going to relay on working its chipsets, a bigger cache and DD2 for this year to hope that AMD doesn't open the pefromance gap until they can start producing a hybrid of the p3 and dothan core processor which will support multiple cores on chip. i'm not even sure that this is the mccoy from intel because each core will have share a memory bus. where as the amd core don't due to Hypertransport. the 800lb gorrilla (intel not you smokeape) was effectly caught with its pants down when it was starting to push hyperthreading and AMD decided to push 64 bit and create a false demand for a new architecture. intel is actually repositioning itself as a company because the chip manufacturing market has been going down hill for a while anyway. mobile solutions will be more important in the future and Intel has noticed this. i'm not exactly sure if Amd has. |
|
|
| smokeape |
Bill could've magically released the 64 bit system with flaws mind you (hell he did it with 98, ME, and Win 2k), else where did the Athlon 64 name come from in the first place? This kinda verifies my statement about a premature release from Athlon while Intel offered nothing in respsonse. Chips don't operate by themselves and MB technology is advancing to progress to the higher chip speeds, but also to take advantage of the dual pipeline they can feed off of the new chips. Intel will hit 4G easily when the 64 bit system is released, trust me.
In the meantime, you have to consider the fact that people will buy any new release of a Windows system, and why release it when the average computer won't run it with backward capability? No big profit there for sure and Microsoft doesn't want egg on their face. Thus, the stall is to increase the speed of average computers which can handle the power demands of the new OS and marketability.
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| madhattared |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
Bill could've magically released the 64 bit system with flaws mind you (hell he did it with 98, ME, and Win 2k), else where did the Athlon 64 name come from in the first place? This kinda verifies my statement about a premature release from Athlon while Intel offered nothing in respsonse. [[[smoke]]] |
if you look at the architecture the x86 and x86-64 architectures are in exactly the same instruction format. however instead of just 32 bits the registers are 64 which means that instead of being called eax and ebp they're reax and rebp. the problem is that you have to rewrite the compilers to support this and anywhere from 10 - 50% of your C code. the architecture was not released prematurely. its design began in 2001 and amd has done everything possible to make sure that it can run 32 bit and 64 bit applications right next to eachother. and as for 4 - 5 ghz you will not see it on the current 90 nanometer process. maybe on the 65 nanometer which again isn't due out till mid next year. until then intel pretty much is dead in the water with regards to chip design. |
|
|
| madhattared |
the amd64's are true 64 bit processors. they do have 48 bit addressing which is what most server processors have which allows u to go over the 4g limit of 40 bit addressing. however the only chip that has had 64 bit memory addressing is the Alpha i think. even the itaniums (intel's super chip) has 48bit addressing and not true 64. this doesn't really hinder performance it only says that u can have 4 terabytes of memory. but it doesn't determine whether or not the processor is a true 64bits or not.
and yes the next 18 months of the processor wars are going to be very interesting =) |
|
|
| madhattared |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou looking at it from a business standpoint... 64 is a gimmick to most people. Tho they dont realize it! ;)
|
it really is. the only people that really NEED it are video/multimedia and high end number crunching machines. other then that it really won't make too much of a difference.
past 50 nanometers is def gonna be really tough. this is where sony / IBM cell technology will start to kick in =) |
|
|
| madhattared |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
I ment pure hardware addressin... and I think the Alphas are the only ones that are true 64 (I THINK, dont quote me on that :p) |
yeah i'm pretty sure they are too. anyways its almost 3 am. i need sleep.
peace |
|
|
| smokeape |
Well, seems if you can buy a 3.8G Pentium, then 4 and greater is not that far off by the end of the year.
Click on link
Bet me some beers they won't release a 4G chip by year's end to keep me interested.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| DJAntSmith |
| Computers suck cock! Stoopid Work! |
|
|
| Steve Stephano |
Ok, as there is no computer nerds forum, I though I would ask my question in this thread.
I want to buy a laptop so I wanted your opinion's on 2 that I am eyeing up. Here are the specs:
Laptop 1
Processor - Intel Pentium M 725 Processor
Operating System - Microsoft® Windows XP Home Edition
Memory - 1024MB DDR RAM
Hard Disk - 80GB Hard Disk
Optical 1 - DVD-Rw / CD-Rw Multiformat DVD Burner Drive
Display - 15.4" WXGA+ Ultra-High Resolution TFT Screen (1200 x 800)
Graphics - 128MB ATi Mobility Radeon 9700 Pro (M11) Graphics
Modem - 56k V90 modem
Internet Access - Supanet Internet Access Preloaded
TV Out - TV Out For Large Screen Presentations
Network - 10/100 Ethernet built-in for ADSL router and networking
Wi-Fi - 802.11g Wi-Fi Wireless Adapter
Firewire - 1394 Firewire (Camcorder) Port
Card Reader - Multi-Format Card Reader & Writer
Sound - 2.1 advanced sound system and built-in microphone
Keyboard etc. - Advanced keyboard and Two Button Track Pad
Ports etc. - 3x USB2.0 Ports, 6 Cell Li-Ion Battery & A/C Charger, PCMCIA
Weight; Dimensions - 3.0Kg; 354 x 250 x 32 mm
Laptop 2
Processor - Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz HT Processor (Prescott)
Operating System - Microsoft® Windows XP Home
Memory - 512MB DDR RAM
Hard Disk - 80GB Hard Disk
Optical 1 - DVD-Rw / CD-Rw Multiformat DVD Burner Drive
Display - 17" WXGA Ultra-High Resolution TFT Screen (1400 x 900)
Graphics - 128MB ATi Mobility Radeon 9700 Pro (M11) Graphics
PC-TV System - Mini PC-TV Tuner Fitted
Modem - 56k V90 modem
Internet Access - Supanet Internet Access Preloaded
TV Out - TV Out For Large Screen Presentations
Network - Gigabit LAN Ethernet built-in for ADSL router and networking
Wi-Fi - 802.11b Wi-Fi Wireless Adapter
Firewire - 1394 Firewire (Camcorder) Port
Card Reader - Multi-Format Card Reader & Writer
Sound - 5.1 advanced sound system and built-in microphone
Keyboard etc. - Advanced keyboard and Two Button Track Pad
Ports etc. - 4x USB2.0 Ports, 12 Cell Li-Ion Battery & A/C Charger, PCMCIA
Weight; Dimensions - 4.5Kg; 395 x 285 x 39 mm
Ok, so they are both the same price and I want to know which is the better laptop and if they are good laptops. Don't worry too much about my budget for now and I am not planning to use for gaming, but mostly for my work and music. |
|
|
| MoonMan |
IMO. Laptop 1.
Advantages
-------------------
Its 3.0KG as opposed to Laptop 2 4.00KG
Wi-Fi - 802.11g - more future proof, and better network speed
1GB RAM
The clock speed of the Intel M CPU will only be between 1.50 to 2.10 GHz, but will save ur battery life significantly compaired to the power hungry P4 3.0 within Laptop 2.
Disadvantages
----------------------
15" TFT LCD screen
3 x USB 2.0
2.1 Surround Snd
EDIT: Thats if ur wanting efficientcy and pwr consumption. I would ony buy a laptop these days that had good lasting battery.
For features i would just use a deskop, but if u have'nt got one, then Laptop 2 would suffice.
Hope these pointers help :D |
|
|
|
|
