So... uh anyone remember 64 bit?

[belvdr]

i don't know about windows xp, but i think 2000 could execute 32-bit x86 programs due to emulation. i think intel wrote an emulation layer. additionally, the original itanium had an x86 execution mode so they could run windows directly. i don't know about the current itanium2.

Windows 2000 is a 32-bit only operating system, so it could obviously run 32-bit programs, but not through emulation. Maybe you're thinking 16-bit?

I misspoke, as it was the Itanium2 I was referring to.

 

[Airforce]

As said, when I last checked, which was at least a year ago

Ah, it must have still been in beta or something then. It was released last April to manufacturers.

 

[jhu]

Windows 2000 is a 32-bit only operating system, so it could obviously run 32-bit programs, but not through emulation. Maybe you're thinking 16-bit?

I misspoke, as it was the Itanium2 I was referring to.

this was in regards to windows xp64 on itanium. windows has been 64-bit since 2000 on the itanium. on itanium, the x86 programs usually run through software emulation because the hardware emulation layer has even poorer performance even on the itanium2

 

[ChrisA]

Intels floating point is all 64 bit

So unless you need to do mathematical operations on longs, then you really don't need 64 bit.

I'm pretty sure the floating point units in Intel chips do thier work on 64 bit floating point data. Internally they are much wider than 64. Well, at least this is how it's been since the days of the 386. Notice that the MMX stuff operates on eight 8-bit integers and uses the FP registers.

Intel chips like to Xeon are only "psuedo 64 bits" in the a t processor can access more RAM but user level process run in 32bit addressspce.

From a C programmers point of view on the current Xeon the sizeof() a pointer is 32.

 

[jhu]

I'm pretty sure the floating point units in Intel chips do thier work on 64 bit floating point data. Internally they are much wider than 64. Well, at least this is how it's been since the days of the 386. Notice that the MMX stuff operates on eight 8-bit integers and uses the FP registers.

actually, it's 80-bit floating point.

Intel chips like to Xeon are only "psuedo 64 bits" in the a t processor can access more RAM but user level process run in 32bit addressspce.

that's only true for chips using pae. xeons that support emt64 are true 64-bit processors.

 

[CubaTBird]

i say...

ibooks go intel this april/may..

new powermacs with intel proc's at wwdc..

...and mac mini goes intel in late august just in time for back to school

 

[CubaTBird]

what about when apple said this?

http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/snail.html

irony...

 

[cnakeitaro]

what about when apple said this?

http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/snail.html

irony...

not like it was a lie >.>
apple had to switch, IBM was being lazy with the PPC processor line

 

[QCassidy352]

i say...

ibooks go intel this april/may..

new powermacs with intel proc's at wwdc..

...and mac mini goes intel in late august just in time for back to school

I disagree... i think the mini will go intel at the same time as the ibook (they are likely to use the same processor - the single core yonah) while the powermac will stay with the G5 for a while and be the last to switch. Reasons being that 1) the dual core G5s (and especially the quad) are still extraordinarily good machines, probably as good or better than anything that intel can do yet, and 2) pro users/powermac owners probably don't want to deal with a lot of rosetta emulation, so the powermacs won't go intel until almost everything is universal

 

[kzg]

Pae

Well the chip may not have 64-bit instructions. But the core duo supports the PAE (Physical Address Extension) so we are not limited to 4GB of RAM but 32GB because PAE gives you 36-bit addressing.

 

[Abulia]

I disagree... i think the mini will go intel at the same time as the ibook (they are likely to use the same processor - the single core yonah) while the powermac will stay with the G5 for a while and be the last to switch. Reasons being that 1) the dual core G5s (and especially the quad) are still extraordinarily good machines, probably as good or better than anything that intel can do yet, and 2) pro users/powermac owners probably don't want to deal with a lot of rosetta emulation, so the powermacs won't go intel until almost everything is universal

I agree with everything you said and would add the following:

Since the PMs had a recent revision, Apple could be sitting on some inventory for some time. They'll want to clear out as much as possible.

The desktop line is the most profitable for Apple, so they'll want to save something for the Q4/Q1 financials, such as the Intel model.

Add on the aforementioned problem of not having a chip for it yet and I think we'll see the PMs dead last, just before the end of the calendar year (so Steve can keep his word).

 

[jhu]

Well the chip may not have 64-bit instructions. But the core duo supports the PAE (Physical Address Extension) so we are not limited to 4GB of RAM but 32GB because PAE gives you 36-bit addressing.

except no one really uses pae