When's XP 64 coming out to buy?

[Macro2]

I want it so I can encode movies and music nearly twice as fast.
Maybe some games will run faster if they use the 64 bit extensions...

Then again, Intel says I don't need it until they say so. Yeah, that's it...Intel rules the world.

Bada boom

 

[Macro2]

I want it so I can encode movies and music nearly twice as fast.
Maybe some games will run faster if they use the 64 bit extensions...

Then again, Intel says I don't need it until they say so. Yeah, that's it...Intel rules the world.

Bada boom

 

[zogg]

64bit XP is coming.....be patient...I know the truth.....I use it daily. Get your $1000 FX51 Procs.....and wait... 🙂

I'll wait untill those 1000 dollar processors go down to $200.00-$300.00 bucks

thank you very much

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: zogg

64bit XP is coming.....be patient...I know the truth.....I use it daily. Get your $1000 FX51 Procs.....and wait... 🙂

I'll wait untill those 1000 dollar processors go down to $200.00-$300.00 bucks

thank you very much

Well I'll wait till they get down to 50-100 bucks.

 

[zogg]

youll be waitin a long time bro

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: zogg
youll be waitin a long time bro

probably, but I don't mind. The more of a fad the 64bits get, the cheaper the rest of the 32-bit cpus get.

I think my 1700+ amd and 2400+ will last me a good long time. 🙂

 

[Macro2]

They all said no one needs the 32 bit Pentium Pro when the Pentium Classic was out, too...because of no apps. And the Pentium Pro actually ran 16 bit apps slower than the current Pentium of the day and at lower clock.

Well, the Pentium pro evoled into the Pentium II and III and the rest is history.

Mac

 

[Nothinman]

The original Pentium was 32-bit already.

And can you name even 1 app that you use that needs >2G VM space?

 

[zogg]

Didn't Bill Gates say at one time "nobody should ever need more then 50k of ram" or something like that.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: zogg
Didn't Bill Gates say at one time "nobody should ever need more then 50k of ram" or something like that.

It was 605k of RAM and I don't think he phrased it quite the same as every one remembered it, but good luck finding a actual quote. 😛

The way I figure it 64bits now is a good thing. I mean do you realy want apps that NEED 4 gigs of RAM before you release a new computer archatecture?

I figure that the apps will begin to use more and more animations, video and high quality icons and stuff. 3-d desktops, that realy are 3-d and stupid stuff like that. etc etc.

Also it would be nice to use a centralized server for households and stuff. Have a dual or quad opteron box in your basements and time share the cpu time out to your neighbors to save money or something. Instead of having a bunch of computers, you centralize your resources and use remote devices to use it over high-speed connections.

Like tablets. It doesn't make sense to carry around a full-power cpu, harddrive, batteries to support it and then make it run a full-fledged OS on it's own. To me thats just kinda stupid and expensive. Stick a nice GPU chip in it, a cheap pda-style chip in it and link it to your PC-mainframe. Same thing with all your older computers, entertainment center, playstations, whatever. Same thing with PDA's and laptops.

No harddrive and a small cpu blah blah blah you could have battery operated terminals that would last 32 hours before recharges and have 10x the cpu power aviable then would be economicly reasonable otherwise, and practicly infinate drive space compared to what we have now.

Especially with those OLED displays and electronic paper stuff, you could have a laptop/tablet/pda thing that could be bought for 50-100 dollars and weigh around a pound or less.

 

[jhu]

The original Pentium was 32-bit already.

And can you name even 1 app that you use that needs >2G VM space?

i'd say a 64-bit edition of maya or 3d studio max would be a lot faster on huge projects.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: jhu
The original Pentium was 32-bit already.

And can you name even 1 app that you use that needs >2G VM space?

i'd say a 64-bit edition of maya or 3d studio max would be a lot faster on huge projects.

That's what linux clusters/rendering farms are for. 😉

 

[Nothinman]

It was 605k of RAM

Try 640k.

i'd say a 64-bit edition of maya or 3d studio max would be a lot faster on huge projects.

Maya has been on unix for a long time, it's been 64-bit for years and as drag said render farms are a better/more scalable solution. I'm not saying there aren't valid uses for that huge VM address space, but the number of things that will make real use of it are very slim. Most people will get the exact same benefits from getting one of those P4EE chips with 2M cache because the cache will make more of a difference than the 64-bit address space.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: jhu
The original Pentium was 32-bit already.

And can you name even 1 app that you use that needs >2G VM space?

i'd say a 64-bit edition of maya or 3d studio max would be a lot faster on huge projects.

That's what linux clusters/rendering farms are for. 😉

And what would be the cost of one of those rendering farms?

BTW... isn't Mac's Panther OS just a 32-bit OS with extensions to allow up to 8 GB of RAM??? I thought I read that somewhere.

 

[drag]

Rendering farms are as expensive as you feel like spending on them. Some people have a dozen machines, some people have hundreds.

I could probably build you a rendering farm of maybe 3-4 low-end PC's for the price of one High-end 64bit machine.

Still running linux on a render farm is a hell-ov-a-lot cheaper then any other solution out there.

Which is in reality big unix iron is the only other real solution. Windows on 64-bit computers don't even enter into the equation.

It will still be a while (another year? not much longer now till they have 64bit-based rendering farms) before 64bit proccessors go down to the $ per performance you can get out of a equal amount of money spent on 32 bit proccessors.

Anyways when making movies like the hulk or LOTR, you only want the best don't you?

 

[Socio]

WindowsXP 64 bit addition has been out, However you can only get it in OEM form when you buy a itainum based system or at MSDN download if you are a member.

WindowsXP 64bit edition

This is the last thing I heard about WindowsXP 64bit edition for AMD:

WindowsXP 64bit edition for AMD

and this:

First look at Windows64bit for AMD

 

[drag]

Ya this thread is a bit OLD. 😉

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: drag
Ya this thread is a bit OLD. 😉

No, this is a bit old.

 

[SoulAssassin]

Originally posted by: zogg
Didn't Bill Gates say at one time "nobody should ever need more then 50k of ram" or something like that.

No, he didn't.

Here's an excerpt from a recent column.

Excerpted from: CAREER OPPORTUNITIES IN COMPUTING -- AND MORE (1/19)

<http://nytsyn.com/live/Gates/019_011996_094929_4351.html>

By BILL GATES
c.1996 Bloomberg Business News

[...]
QUESTION: I read in a newspaper that in 1981 you said, ``640K of memory should be enough for anybody.'' What did you mean when you said this?

ANSWER: I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time.

The need for memory increases as computers get more potent and software gets more powerful. In fact, every couple of years the amount of memory address space needed to run whatever software is mainstream at the time just about doubles. This is well-known.

When IBM introduced its PC in 1981, many people attacked Microsoft for its role. These critics said that 8-bit computers, which had 64K of address space, would last forever. They said we were wastefully throwing out great 8-bit programming by moving the world toward 16-bit computers.

We at Microsoft disagreed. We knew that even 16-bit computers, which had 640K of available address space, would be adequate for only four or five years. (The IBM PC had 1 megabyte of logical address space. But 384K of this was assigned to special purposes, leaving 640K of memory available. That's where the now-infamous ``640K barrier'' came from.)

A few years later, Microsoft was a big fan of Intel's 386 microprocessor chip, which gave computers a 32-bit address space.

Modern operating systems can now take advantage of that seemingly vast potential memory. But even 32 bits of address space won't prove adequate as time goes on.

Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again. --------------------------------- end excerpt ---------------------------------

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I'm getting tired of people asking for 64-bit CPUs without knowing why they want it.

Im sure you ran a 32 bit processor with DOS or Windows 3.1 at some point......

 

[Nothinman]

Im sure you ran a 32 bit processor with DOS or Windows 3.1 at some point......

Actually no, my first computer was a P133 with Win95.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Im sure you ran a 32 bit processor with DOS or Windows 3.1 at some point......

Actually no, my first computer was a P133 with Win95.

You need a history lesson then. Every time there's a major change in technology like this there are people who question it's usefulness and there are people who understand that while it may not be necessary today, or tomorrow, or even next month, it will eventually be necessary and since hardware must advance ahead of software, we're headed in the right direction.

 

[Nothinman]

You need a history lesson then

No, I don't.

Every time there's a major change in technology like this there are people who question it's usefulness and there are people who understand that while it may not be necessary today, or tomorrow, or even next month, it will eventually be necessary and since hardware must advance ahead of software, we're headed in the right direction.

I'm not saying it won't ever be necessary, I know it's necessary in certain places right now even. Oracle isn't preferred to be run on Sparc64, Alpha, PA-RISC, etc machines over Intel for no reason, it actually makes use of that huge VM address space. But most apps won't ever need the current available 32-bit address space, let alone one that's 40 or 64 bits.

A lot of people are looking at getting a 64-bit system because they think it'll be 2x as fast as a 32-bit one and they're going to be severely disappointed. Athlon64s are generally faster than Athlons but it's not because they're 64-bit.