Howdy!

"JK" wrote in message
...
Good post! The Intel supporters seem to be cluless. Will they be
advising those with a 32 bit processor to upgrade to Intel's 64
bit processors early next year when 64 bit Windows is released?

a) Intel's been shipping a 64 bit processor. Sales stink. Because
it stinks for 32bit software (the place AMD outdid Intel)

b) 64bit Windows has been available since 2001 - for the Itanium
(Intel's 64 bit processor). Doesn't work with the AMD 64 extensions.

c) Intel has shot itself in the foot, true enough. No need to lie
or tell falsehoods about it ... better to just tell the truth.

RwP

c) Intel has shot itself in the foot, true enough. No need to lie
or tell falsehoods about it ... better to just tell the truth.


why? because they are waiting for a sensible amount of useable
software to actually spark the sales of 64 bit tech....instead of the
1 in 100,000 hobbyists using betas of OS's or running 32bit stuff.
Bout time AMD took 'point' take a few shots to the head, instead
of Intel. This whole thing reminds me of HDTV....


"Ralph Wade Phillips" wrote in message
...
Howdy!

"JK" wrote in message
...
Good post! The Intel supporters seem to be cluless. Will they be
advising those with a 32 bit processor to upgrade to Intel's 64
bit processors early next year when 64 bit Windows is released?

a) Intel's been shipping a 64 bit processor. Sales stink.
Because
it stinks for 32bit software (the place AMD outdid Intel)

b) 64bit Windows has been available since 2001 - for the
Itanium
(Intel's 64 bit processor). Doesn't work with the AMD 64
extensions.


RwP

JAD wrote:

c) Intel has shot itself in the foot, true enough. No need to lie
or tell falsehoods about it ... better to just tell the truth.

why? because they are waiting for a sensible amount of useable
software to actually spark the sales of 64 bit tech...

The beauty of AMD's X86-64 is that the Athlon 64 and Opteron
are great performers running 32 bit software. The idea of this is
to get a large installed base of 64 bit processors, so that software
makers will have an incentive to write 64 bit software for it.

.instead of the
1 in 100,000 hobbyists using betas of OS's or running 32bit stuff.
Bout time AMD took 'point' take a few shots to the head, instead
of Intel. This whole thing reminds me of HDTV....



AMD has made 64 bit processors affordable for average people with
prices starting at under $150, and systems with an Athlon 64 starting
at under $800(without a monitor).



"Ralph Wade Phillips" wrote in message
...
Howdy!

"JK" wrote in message
...
Good post! The Intel supporters seem to be cluless. Will they be
advising those with a 32 bit processor to upgrade to Intel's 64
bit processors early next year when 64 bit Windows is released?

a) Intel's been shipping a 64 bit processor. Sales stink.
Because
it stinks for 32bit software (the place AMD outdid Intel)

b) 64bit Windows has been available since 2001 - for the
Itanium
(Intel's 64 bit processor). Doesn't work with the AMD 64
extensions.


RwP

Well you may be able to buy a new CPU everytime a new flavour comes
out, but
I would be looking for at least 3 years out of a new purchase - and
even
then I just move the older one onto the home network. It's called
future
proofing - if you are buying a new chip NOW and don't want to pay
silly
money for a 64-bit only Intel which would be pretty useless anyway
with
todays software.




well DUH that's why I'm saying 'use what you have' and wait for the
real 64bit software to be out. Then if you want to do this with an AMD
go for it, but do you think by then that Intel will have leaked and
dropped unto the market their next scheme, then somewhere down the
line AMD drops a bomb, then Intel then AMD then Intel then amd....with
the stock market teetering on the brink, do you think this stuff is
decided by a bunch of high schoolers on a class project? Hype hype
hype, and god knows that without that 1 in 100,000(completely
fictitious) doing their testing for them (FOR FREE, or should I say
for a profit, reminds me of buying a tee-shirt with a company's logo
on it), we would be paying more and waiting even longer for
tech/software to catch up to one another.


"GTS" wrote in message
...

"JAD" wrote in message
...
Tell me, are you just really trying to use up what time you have
before Intel releases its 64 line? Or is it you believe that Intel
won't enter the market? R&D costs a bunch, letting amd 'Take the
point' for once, is IMO, good marketing strategy( let alone the
increased practicality in waiting for 64bit software). Let them
get
wounded. ! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....?


"GTS" wrote in message
...

SNIP
Who cares if the Intel chips are faster in some benchmarks? The
results are
so close, but the AMD's can run 64-bit software, which the
Intel's
cannot.
Many are already running 64-bit software - either Linux or beta
Windows64.
Why buy a chip that only supports 32bit, for the same price as
one
that does
32&64 well.
Also Windows XP SP2 has enhanced AV capabilities with the AMD64
chips...

JAD wrote:

Well you may be able to buy a new CPU everytime a new flavour comes
out, but
I would be looking for at least 3 years out of a new purchase - and
even
then I just move the older one onto the home network. It's called
future
proofing - if you are buying a new chip NOW and don't want to pay
silly
money for a 64-bit only Intel which would be pretty useless anyway
with
todays software.


well DUH that's why I'm saying 'use what you have' and wait for the
real 64bit software to be out.

Why do that when an Athlon 64 3000+ is so inexpensive(only around
$150 for a socket 754 one) and such a great performer running 32
bit software. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 makes sense for many people
even if they don't plan on ever upgrading to 64 bit software.

Then if you want to do this with an AMD
go for it, but do you think by then that Intel will have leaked and
dropped unto the market their next scheme, then somewhere down the
line AMD drops a bomb, then Intel then AMD then Intel then amd....with
the stock market teetering on the brink, do you think this stuff is
decided by a bunch of high schoolers on a class project? Hype hype
hype, and god knows that without that 1 in 100,000(completely
fictitious) doing their testing for them (FOR FREE, or should I say
for a profit, reminds me of buying a tee-shirt with a company's logo
on it), we would be paying more and waiting even longer for
tech/software to catch up to one another.

"GTS" wrote in message
...

"JAD" wrote in message
...
Tell me, are you just really trying to use up what time you have
before Intel releases its 64 line? Or is it you believe that Intel
won't enter the market? R&D costs a bunch, letting amd 'Take the
point' for once, is IMO, good marketing strategy( let alone the
increased practicality in waiting for 64bit software). Let them
get
wounded. ! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....?


"GTS" wrote in message
...

SNIP
Who cares if the Intel chips are faster in some benchmarks? The
results are
so close, but the AMD's can run 64-bit software, which the
Intel's
cannot.
Many are already running 64-bit software - either Linux or beta
Windows64.
Why buy a chip that only supports 32bit, for the same price as
one
that does
32&64 well.
Also Windows XP SP2 has enhanced AV capabilities with the AMD64
chips...

Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never happen!


yeah LOL reminds me of HDTV...........get it? just now and its been
drummed for 10 years


! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....?

Most people buy computers to last 2 to 5 years.

what does that have to do with that statement?

Do you think that 64bit will still be thought of as NEW in 3 years?
You guys are saying that the price of the 64 bit chips will remain the
same for three years? So buy NOW with limited stuff to do, except test
for filthy rich companies, limited amounts of everything else, at a
higher price, OR wait until the prices fall and there is mainstream
everything to go with it?





"Matt" wrote in message
...
JAD wrote:


Now let's see ... if a 64-bit system costs no more than a 32-bit
system
... which should I buy ... hmmm ... I just don't know ... let me get
back to you on that ...

Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never happen!

JAD wrote:

Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never happen!

Very funny. Large amounts of 64 bit X86-64 software is in development
now.




yeah LOL reminds me of HDTV...........get it? just now and its been
drummed for 10 years

HDTV sets are finally about to become affordable for the average person.
Some are predicting 32" lcd tv prices dropping to as low as $1,200 within
2005. While $1,200 would still be considered a high price for a television

by many people, it is still affordable for large numbers of people, while
around $4,000 is totally out of the question for most people.



! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....?

That will probably change within 6-9 months with the release of the
64 bit version of Windows XP. My opinion on this is that Microsoft
probably
delayed 64 bit Windows XP to give them enough time to port many
applications to 64 bit. The Windows 64 bit introduction will imo be much
more successful if there is plenty of 64 bit software available to go
along with it.



Most people buy computers to last 2 to 5 years.

what does that have to do with that statement?

Do you think that 64bit will still be thought of as NEW in 3 years?
You guys are saying that the price of the 64 bit chips will remain the
same for three years? So buy NOW with limited stuff to do

There is plenty of 32 bit bit software that runs great on an Athlon 64 or
Opteron.
The Athlon 64 is already inexpensive. An Athlon 64(socket 754) at around
$150
is around the same price as a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz which is only 32 bits.

, except test
for filthy rich companies, limited amounts of everything else, at a
higher price, OR wait until the prices fall and there is mainstream
everything to go with it?

"Matt" wrote in message
...
JAD wrote:


Now let's see ... if a 64-bit system costs no more than a 32-bit
system
... which should I buy ... hmmm ... I just don't know ... let me get
back to you on that ...

Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never happen!

OK so what if the price is so low you can't resist now......LOL it
will only go down, and the headaches decreased. MB variety INCREASED -
SOFTWARE availability INCREASED
Huge players in the worlds economy don't make huge mistakes. You may
think you have the whole story ha ha jokes on Intel/AMD which ever
the flavor of the moment but we only hear what is released. Things
are done for a reason.......64bit.......why not a completely NEW
platform,,,,,dare I say 128bit? or something completely unlike
anything before? Do you think Usenet people have all the inside, hell
no. Its our opinions and speculations. Even Intel/AMD employees don't
have all the info on any given project.

Obviously there are reasons to build NEW and paying high for the
bragging rights of 64bit. Without quoting prices its fair to say that
an athalon32 would be cheaper still and scream out 32bit processing,
so bang for the buck = using 64bit to run 32bit at a high price.
instead of a reasonable Intel or Athalon to do the same thing. Then 2
years from now you update your MB and CPU. In the box you have. MAYBE
even find a board that has dual processor support (64or32bit)...... I
can get outrageous too...........


"JK" wrote in message
...


JAD wrote:

Well you may be able to buy a new CPU everytime a new flavour
comes
out, but
I would be looking for at least 3 years out of a new purchase -
and
even
then I just move the older one onto the home network. It's
called
future
proofing - if you are buying a new chip NOW and don't want to
pay
silly
money for a 64-bit only Intel which would be pretty useless
anyway
with
todays software.


well DUH that's why I'm saying 'use what you have' and wait for
the
real 64bit software to be out.

Why do that when an Athlon 64 3000+ is so inexpensive(only around
$150 for a socket 754 one) and such a great performer running 32
bit software. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 makes sense for many people
even if they don't plan on ever upgrading to 64 bit software.

Then if you want to do this with an AMD
go for it, but do you think by then that Intel will have leaked
and
dropped unto the market their next scheme, then somewhere down the
line AMD drops a bomb, then Intel then AMD then Intel then
amd....with
the stock market teetering on the brink, do you think this stuff
is
decided by a bunch of high schoolers on a class project? Hype hype
hype, and god knows that without that 1 in 100,000(completely
fictitious) doing their testing for them (FOR FREE, or should I
say
for a profit, reminds me of buying a tee-shirt with a company's
logo
on it), we would be paying more and waiting even longer for
tech/software to catch up to one another.

"GTS" wrote in message
...

"JAD" wrote in message
...
Tell me, are you just really trying to use up what time you
have
before Intel releases its 64 line? Or is it you believe that
Intel
won't enter the market? R&D costs a bunch, letting amd 'Take
the
point' for once, is IMO, good marketing strategy( let alone
the
increased practicality in waiting for 64bit software). Let
them
get
wounded. ! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....?


"GTS" wrote in message
...

SNIP
Who cares if the Intel chips are faster in some benchmarks?
The
results are
so close, but the AMD's can run 64-bit software, which the
Intel's
cannot.
Many are already running 64-bit software - either Linux or
beta
Windows64.
Why buy a chip that only supports 32bit, for the same price
as
one
that does
32&64 well.
Also Windows XP SP2 has enhanced AV capabilities with the
AMD64
chips...

LOL your very selective on what you chose to comment on...


That will probably change within 6-9 months with the release of the
64 bit version of Windows XP. My opinion on this is that Microsoft
probably
delayed 64 bit Windows XP to give them enough time to port many
applications to 64 bit. The Windows 64 bit introduction will imo be
much
more successful if there is plenty of 64 bit software available to
go
along with it.


Hey YO!!!! anybody in there....that is merely AN OS,, whoopee so
what? play 64 bit solitaire? type a 64 bit letter?


"JK" wrote in message
...


JAD wrote:

Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never
happen!

Very funny. Large amounts of 64 bit X86-64 software is in
development
now.




yeah LOL reminds me of HDTV...........get it? just now and its
been
drummed for 10 years

HDTV sets are finally about to become affordable for the average
person.
Some are predicting 32" lcd tv prices dropping to as low as $1,200
within
2005. While $1,200 would still be considered a high price for a
television

by many people, it is still affordable for large numbers of people,
while
around $4,000 is totally out of the question for most people.



! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....?

That will probably change within 6-9 months with the release of the
64 bit version of Windows XP. My opinion on this is that Microsoft
probably
delayed 64 bit Windows XP to give them enough time to port many
applications to 64 bit. The Windows 64 bit introduction will imo be
much
more successful if there is plenty of 64 bit software available to
go
along with it.



Most people buy computers to last 2 to 5 years.

what does that have to do with that statement?

Do you think that 64bit will still be thought of as NEW in 3
years?
You guys are saying that the price of the 64 bit chips will remain
the
same for three years? So buy NOW with limited stuff to do

There is plenty of 32 bit bit software that runs great on an Athlon
64 or
Opteron.
The Athlon 64 is already inexpensive. An Athlon 64(socket 754) at
around
$150
is around the same price as a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz which is only 32
bits.

, except test
for filthy rich companies, limited amounts of everything else, at
a
higher price, OR wait until the prices fall and there is
mainstream
everything to go with it?

"Matt" wrote in message
...
JAD wrote:


Now let's see ... if a 64-bit system costs no more than a 32-bit
system
... which should I buy ... hmmm ... I just don't know ... let me
get
back to you on that ...

Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never
happen!

JAD wrote:

OK so what if the price is so low you can't resist now......LOL it
will only go down, and the headaches decreased. MB variety INCREASED -
SOFTWARE availability INCREASED
Huge players in the worlds economy don't make huge mistakes. You may
think you have the whole story ha ha jokes on Intel/AMD which ever
the flavor of the moment but we only hear what is released. Things
are done for a reason.......64bit.......why not a completely NEW
platform,,,,,dare I say 128bit? or something completely unlike
anything before? Do you think Usenet people have all the inside, hell
no. Its our opinions and speculations. Even Intel/AMD employees don't
have all the info on any given project.

Obviously there are reasons to build NEW and paying high for the
bragging rights of 64bit. Without quoting prices its fair to say that
an athalon32 would be cheaper still and scream out 32bit processing,

Not for demanding applications such as games, Photoshop, CAD, etc.
The Athlon 64 chips are faster than the 32 bit Athlon XP chips
at running 32 bit software not because of the 64 bit ability, but because

of the integrated memory controller(s), SSE2, and other refinements.
Look at these Doom 3 benchmarks for example.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7


so bang for the buck = using 64bit to run 32bit at a high price.

The price on the Athlon 64 3000+(socket 754) is quite low. Only around
$55 more than an Athlon XP3000+(okay, the socket 754 motherboard
is around $20-25 more than one for an Athlon XP).

The Athlon 64 3000+ outperforms an Athlon XP3000+ even at Business
Winstone 2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6

and by a much larger margin in more processor intensive software.



An Athlon 64 3000+(socket 754) is very close in price to a 32 bit Pentium
4 2.8 ghz,
so this nonsense about paying a high premium for a 64 bit processor
doesn't make much sense.


instead of a reasonable Intel or Athalon to do the same thing. Then 2
years from now you update your MB and CPU. In the box you have. MAYBE
even find a board that has dual processor support (64or32bit)...... I
can get outrageous too...........

"JK" wrote in message
...


JAD wrote:

Well you may be able to buy a new CPU everytime a new flavour
comes
out, but
I would be looking for at least 3 years out of a new purchase -
and
even
then I just move the older one onto the home network. It's
called
future
proofing - if you are buying a new chip NOW and don't want to
pay
silly
money for a 64-bit only Intel which would be pretty useless
anyway
with
todays software.


well DUH that's why I'm saying 'use what you have' and wait for
the
real 64bit software to be out.

Why do that when an Athlon 64 3000+ is so inexpensive(only around
$150 for a socket 754 one) and such a great performer running 32
bit software. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 makes sense for many people
even if they don't plan on ever upgrading to 64 bit software.

Then if you want to do this with an AMD
go for it, but do you think by then that Intel will have leaked
and
dropped unto the market their next scheme, then somewhere down the
line AMD drops a bomb, then Intel then AMD then Intel then
amd....with
the stock market teetering on the brink, do you think this stuff
is
decided by a bunch of high schoolers on a class project? Hype hype
hype, and god knows that without that 1 in 100,000(completely
fictitious) doing their testing for them (FOR FREE, or should I
say
for a profit, reminds me of buying a tee-shirt with a company's
logo
on it), we would be paying more and waiting even longer for
tech/software to catch up to one another.

"GTS" wrote in message
...

"JAD" wrote in message
...
Tell me, are you just really trying to use up what time you
have
before Intel releases its 64 line? Or is it you believe that
Intel
won't enter the market? R&D costs a bunch, letting amd 'Take
the
point' for once, is IMO, good marketing strategy( let alone
the
increased practicality in waiting for 64bit software). Let
them
get
wounded. ! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....?


"GTS" wrote in message
...

SNIP
Who cares if the Intel chips are faster in some benchmarks?
The
results are
so close, but the AMD's can run 64-bit software, which the
Intel's
cannot.
Many are already running 64-bit software - either Linux or
beta
Windows64.
Why buy a chip that only supports 32bit, for the same price
as
one
that does
32&64 well.
Also Windows XP SP2 has enhanced AV capabilities with the
AMD64
chips...