64-bit processor (backward compatible): Would Apple be a stronger competitor if....?

[Shrek]

Don't you think it would be cool if Motorola released 64-bit PowerPC processors that work well with 32-bit apps way before Intel releases a similiar processor. Motorola and Apple would then be in a good position to compete with Intel. That's because they can say, "Hey, we've got 64-bit systems that are backward compatible with 32-bit applications and Intel doesn't, so everyone let's jump on the 64-bit bandwagon!"

 

[synergy]

Re: 64-bit processor (backward compatible): Would Apple be a stronger competitor if.

Originally posted by Shrek
Don't you think it would be cool if Motorola released 64-bit PowerPC processors that work well with 32-bit apps way before Intel releases a similiar processor. Motorola and Apple would then be in a good position to compete with Intel. That's because they can say, "Hey, we've got 64-bit systems that are backward compatible with 32-bit applications and Intel doesn't, so everyone let's jump on the 64-bit bandwagon!"

If I am not mistaken AMD's new project is a 64bit chip with 32 bit compatibility. You would then just need to migrate to the 64 bit side over time.

 

[arn]

Re: Re: 64-bit processor (backward compatible): Would Apple be a stronger competitor

Originally posted by synergy


If I am not mistaken AMD's new project is a 64bit chip with 32 bit compatibility. You would then just need to migrate to the 64 bit side over time.

From my understanding, Intel was planning to skip the 32-bit compatability part...

see https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/01/20020127070002.shtml

AMD, however, is working on a 32/64bit hybrid.

arn

 

[strider42]

Re: 64-bit processor (backward compatible): Would Apple be a stronger competitor if....?

Originally posted by Shrek
Don't you think it would be cool if Motorola released 64-bit PowerPC processors that work well with 32-bit apps way before Intel releases a similiar processor. Motorola and Apple would then be in a good position to compete with Intel. That's because they can say, "Hey, we've got 64-bit systems that are backward compatible with 32-bit applications and Intel doesn't, so everyone let's jump on the 64-bit bandwagon!"

for a long time now, everything I've read speculating on what would be the G5 from motorola has said thats exactly what they're planning to do.

 

[Shrek]

Re: Re: 64-bit processor (backward compatible): Would Apple be a stronger competitor if....?

Originally posted by strider42
for a long time now, everything I've read speculating on what would be the G5 from motorola has said thats exactly what they're planning to do.

Two thumbs up! b b

 

[topicolo]

What you have to understand is that having 64 bit chips doesn't automatically mean having faster chips. 64bit chips will not be any faster at all if apple doesn't develop a version of OS X that fully utilizes it. The only good use for 64bit chips now is their ability to address waaaay more than the 4gig ram limit of 32 bit processors. Since most people only have 512megs of ram or less, Apple only needs to switch to 64 bit chips before 2006, which is still 4 years away.

 

[Shrek]

Yes, but can't 64-bit processors do more besides support more RAM?

 

[Huked on Fonick]

They have 256bit videocards i think we should have 256bit processors on our mainboard.....Sigh i know there different owell

I Can DREAM

 

[alex_ant]

In that poll...

What's the difference between "maybe," "can't say for sure," and "no one knows?"

64-bit processors are useful for more than addressing more memory. They support 64-bit integers and floats which is a big plus for scientific/technical/engineering/database etc. applications.

 

[jefhatfield]

Re: In that poll...

Originally posted by alex_ant
What's the difference between "maybe," "can't say for sure," and "no one knows?"

64-bit processors are useful for more than addressing more memory. They support 64-bit integers and floats which is a big plus for scientific/technical/engineering/database etc. applications.

that is the main reason IA-64 itanium is really for the server market right now

the seventh generation chips like the athlon and the pentium 4 will stay strong on the pc user side for years to come

and the 32 bit mac processors should stay current, like a poster said, into 2006, or maybe even longer

but if and when we get there, of course a hybrid would make sense

the transition to 64 bit will take time and who knows if it will take in the future?

 

[topicolo]

Re: Re: In that poll...

Originally posted by jefhatfield


that is the main reason IA-64 itanium is really for the server market right now

the seventh generation chips like the athlon and the pentium 4 will stay strong on the pc user side for years to come

and the 32 bit mac processors should stay current, like a poster said, into 2006, or maybe even longer

but if and when we get there, of course a hybrid would make sense

the transition to 64 bit will take time and who knows if it will take in the future?

you mean that guy who posted 4 messages ago? Anyway, for most normal applications, 32 bit processors will be more than enough. Still, it would be prudent to start preparing for the eventual switchover in 4-5 years. Still it would be better for apple to do it later, since apple would be better off spreading their development expenses over 4 years instead of 1 year.

 

[Shrek]

The last thing Apple needs to do is slow things down. If they don't start playing catch up, their screwed. IMO, they just need to learn how to invest their money more wisely; in other words, don't put your money where your heart is, but where your brain is.