Back in the 80’s when the PC world made its change from 16 to 32 bit processors, people were excited. They were probably most excited about what the hot new 32 bit OS (IBM/Microsoft’s OS/2) promised to do on the new 386 class of processors from Intel. But the jump to 32 bits scratched some real itches, like a need for advanced multitasking and vivid graphics. Now that we’re on the cusp of moving to 64 bits, the incentive for making the switch isn’t there. A ZDNet article has more.
People were saying much the same things back then…”What are we going to do with 4 GIGABYTES of address space?” For a desktop, it seemed entirely obscene. Some people even though the address was probably too big and too wasteful. But guess what, here we are. Digital video, immersive 3d gaming, data-center and enterprise computing (which are already 64 bits for at least 5 years now), and 32 bits for the desktop is quickly becoming paltry.
Chips are fast enough. Memories are big enough. For running Windows and word processors and web browsers and games…today. But scientific research, enterprise business, rich media, and best of all (in my mind) powerful development tools, are all in the future.
Oh I must admit that I am very looking forward to 64 bits becoming mainstream.
32 bits addressed a lot of major shortcommings in a 16 bit cpu. It allowed for files, memory,etc. of more than 64 kb. In addition it allowed for native calculations for numbers that are larger than 64,000. It was a revolutionary step in computer and their capabilities. That said, while 64 bit has not been too hyped because of the already ridiculous capabilities of 32 bit cpu’s, once 64 bit cpu’s become the standard, they will quickly revolutionize the computer landscape and make people want to move to 64 bit computers. Besides the obvious increase in capabilities in mathmatical calculations and database manipulations, there will also be many advancements for consumers. It will advance the capabilities of multimedia, math intensive games (ex. 3d games), and picture editing to unimaginable levels. Once out and affordable, there will be a huge momentum for people to go out and buy this stuff. I personally see this as a good time to invest in both Intel and AMD.
apple beat wintel to 64 bits on the desktop. Not a chance that CNET will have kind words for apple now that they’ve taken the lead.
PLUS
Back when you jumped from 16 bit to 32 bit the community consisted of more Geeks. It was only after 32 bit computing and the internet that the mainstream jumped in. The mainstream audience never gets all that excited about technology changes. They also didn’t care so much about analog to digital cell phones or for that matter analog to digital music or videos.
“apple beat wintel to 64 bits on the desktop. Not a chance that CNET will have kind words for apple now that they’ve taken the lead.”
Sorry Ryan, but you just fell for the Apple marketing bubble – Apple was neither first nor fastest creating 64bit desktop PCs…
The Sun Blade 100 and Blade 150 are both affordable 64-bit dekstops (they’re way cheaper than an Apple G5), and they exist for quite a while now.
So what’s the big deal about ‘the first 64-bit desktop’? Although it’s great marketing, it was actually Sun Microsystems who was first, not Apple, or Intel or AMD.
Or what’s the definition of desktop?
“they will quickly revolutionize the computer landscape”
Not “revolutionize”, just “improve”. 64-bit will be useful, but let’s keep the “revolution” talk for things you can see from the other side of the room.
[i]32 bits addressed a lot of major shortcommings in a 16 bit cpu. It allowed for files, memory,etc. of more than 64 kb. In addition it allowed for native calculations for numbers that are larger than 64,000….[i]
I completely agree. The problem now is that people think it will improve system performance – which it does not. A 64-bit processors simply means that it can address more memory – and nothing else.
I remember about 4/5 years ago when the G4 was introduced and Apple used their propangda stating that it was classified as a ‘supercomputer’ and that it was a 128-bit machine. What they didn’t tell you was the that the ‘supercomputer’ benchmarks were based on early 1980 figures and the BUS was 128-bit NOT the processor. I still know people today that think the G4 is 128-bit and don’t understand why the G5 is so great because they think Apple is moving backwards (128bit to 64) instead of really moving forward from 32bit to 64.
Some of the most noteable features of the G5 are not the ‘chip’ itself but the BUS, memory, and adapters that come with it compared to the G4
I’ve been waiting with baited breath for AMD to get their act together and release the Athlon 64/FX. Bring it on, the sooner the better!
Applications are getting more and more demanding and I can see in a few years, probably when MS release Longhorn, (you can guarantee it’ll need more RAM than a field of sheep!) 4Gb of RAM will be close to being standard on most machines.
So what’s the big deal about ‘the first 64-bit desktop’? Although it’s great marketing, it was actually Sun Microsystems who was first, not Apple, or Intel or AMD.
Apple is marketing the G5 as the first 64-bit personal computer, not as the first 64-bit “desktop”
I don’t know the specific dates, but I’m fairly certain the Multia was released before the Ultra 1, and was released a decade before the Blade 100/150, neither of which are actually manufactured by Sun.
I think one of the main advantages of 64-bit computers will be in the area of prebinding, as 4GB of address space isn’t much to work with if you’re trying to map out specific areas for every library on the system.
“The Sun Blade 100 and Blade 150 are both affordable 64-bit dekstops (they’re way cheaper than an Apple G5), and they exist for quite a while now. ”
http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=85825&parentI…
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/710…
i don’t know what you’re smoking or if the sparc chip is the chip to end all chips (never used one) but i can’t see how a Large Sun Blade 150 WorkStation ($3,395.00) is “Why Cheaper” or a better buy compared to a Dual G5 PowerMac ($3,000.00).
The one workstation/desktop application that demands a large address space is video editing. So this will be the application pushing demand for 64 bit systems outside the enterprise IT centre.
At first it will be for professional workstations, but as home video editing gets more popular it will drive a demand for 64-bit home PC’s.
Of course an Apple G5 is a better buy than a blade 150, as the G5 is without doubt faster.
But you can get a basic blade 150 for $1395 (w/o monitor), which qualifies it as a desktop/personal computer. I’m not talking about performance here, but just stating the fact that affordable, 64-bit personal computers aren’t new.
And indeed, there were 64-bit alpha’s earlier, but one could state that those weren’t ‘desktops’ or ‘personal computers’ as they were rather pricey.
But then again, what’s the definition of a desktop/personal computer? Why is a $3000 wintel box a personal computer, and a $1500 Sun not?
1. ALL 32bit apps run on AMD64
2. They run FASTER than on comparatively clocked processors
3. MANY benchmarks are out there that show this (see Anandtech.com)
Paradigm blindness is everywhere (thinking that the only thing we will want computers to do is run windows and word processors) keeps many of the posters from seeing a quite different future. For instance, if you take yourself into the future, do you imagine your grandchildren using a computer? Will they be “typing, clicking” and “mouse-ing” to interact with their computer? Or would it be more reasonable to expect to see them talking, looking and listening to their computers?
Speech recognition, audio/visual faculty and visual projection will all require fast processors and very large amounts of fast memory to hold all those programs and patterns that need to be recognized. 64 bit processors will only just begin to touch on the power that is needed for these requirements – and other yet to be envisioned applications.
For our future computers to be all we will come to expect them to be, a wide data volume, fast memory and fast processors will be required and will be running in parallel. Today we call them clusters, but in the future, processors will be clustered on a single die (some manufactures have put 4 processors on one die already).
If you open your eyes, go into the future and look back, our CRT, keyboard, mouse and floppy disk paradigm will seem ridiculous. It will require a lot of computing power to replace them with human-interaction-type interfaces.
And does anyone really think that their grandchildren will be interacting with their computer via a command line?
Just a few thoughts…
I’ve been eagerly awaiting AMD’s release of the Athlon64, but not just because it is 64-bit. It hosts other new features as well, such as the integrated memory controller and hypertransport bus. Not everyone will be convinced it’s a good move right away, especially since Intel was afraid to make it (for desktop users, Itanium doesn’t apply). But it doesn’t really matter, since your 32-bit software still works. This just opens the door for things to come.
“Sorry Ryan, but you just fell for the Apple marketing bubble – Apple was neither first nor fastest creating 64bit desktop PCs…”
No I did not. They are the first to gain traction on the mas market desktop. I don’t a lot of 64 bit AMDS or intel itaniums out there on mainstream desktops.
I’ve been using 64-bit CPUs almost daily since when the Sun Ultra 1 first came out (mid-1990s). I have yet to use these CPUs in any genuine 64-bit capacity. Sure, the kernel is 64-bit, but every program I run is compiled as a 32-bit application. The simple fact is that 4GB is a very useful amount of space to work within for many many tasks. This isn’t like the days where 64K is a harsh limiting upper bound for any non-trivial task. 32-bits was like moving from a crappy apartment to a 3 bedroom house on a 1/2 acre of land. Not the grandest, but adequate. 64-bits is like moving to a 10,000 acre plantation. Certainly useful to some people, but mainly to a niche where large datasets rule.
Why hasn’t anybody tried installing a source based distribution, like Gentoo on one of these new 64-bits processors? GCC supports the new processors, so everything would be optimised for a 64-bits processor. Shouldn’t that give *much* better performance?
Most people are lazzy and windows users. They don’t like to change while your applications and your Windows doesn’t work in 64-bit hardware.
This is the reason why we have 128-bit CPUs in videogame consoles but we still dreaming with 64-bit CPUs…
But AMD 64-bit processors will break this “chicken-and-egg” effect running your legacy applications, like the 386 did.
For me, a linux user, a 64-bit hardware with the same price will be welcome.
Seems what 64 is long time in here (remember old alpha and sun).
Does anybody knows (links, etc) about some 128 bit processor?
I wish I had a job to afford a 64 bit machine….
I think that the problem is that we don’t know just yet what will come out of 64bit being standard. I personally just see it as more power which will mean better when things begin using it. I have no desire to buy a G5 because nothing actually uses what is there, sparc’s seem more useful being that there are many OS’s and applications that use it, but it’s also expensive and right now lacks the “killer app”. I am very excited to see where developers go when this becomes the standard and have no doubt that will will be very cool
so they they can continue to be locked into m$ ‘standards’ and upgrade cycles? so they can continue the current lack of competition that stunts inovation. i think not.
It looks like very few people are excited about funding Microsoft, and I can’t agree more. Computers suck.
“And does anyone really think that their grandchildren will be interacting with their computer via a command line?”
I hope so. I’ve been doing a lot of Windows Scripting Host development these past few weeks. The fact that I can do most anything from a script (aka batch file, aka command line) is new to me as a Windows guy.
I am jealous of the *NIX people, who have an OS where *everything* is doable from the command line.
P.S.
Mandrake Linux 9.2 RC2 installs it’s boot loader on /dev/hda without asking you if it is okay.
P.S.S.
Mandrake Linux 9.2 RC2 couldn’t start XFree on my machine. Funny, RedHat didn’t have any trouble at all. I guess RC3 might work. Waste of 3 cds.
P.S.S.S.
Does anybody know the username/password for the QNX desktop demo cd? If you boot from the CD it asks you, but I have no idea what to use.
“This is the reason why we have 128-bit CPUs in videogame consoles but we still dreaming with 64-bit CPUs… ”
I think you’ll find that the most a console is is 32 bit or maybe 64 bit. Console manufaturers have a tendancy to use the bigest numbers like bus width cause gamers aren’t going t konew the difference. anyway with consoles it’s the games not the speed that are important.
“P.S.S.S.
Does anybody know the username/password for the QNX desktop demo cd? If you boot from the CD it asks you, but I have no idea what to use.”
I think the username is “root” and there isn’t a password, I’ve never bootted of the disk, I normally install, it asks for a username and it’s always “root” with no pasword so I’d assume that booting of the CD is the same.
Unix was invented in 1969, and the clock ticks once per second. After 68 years (that is year 2037), all 32-bit computers running Unix (and Linux) will come to a screeching halt. This is the Unix equivalent of the Y2K bug, only it’s worse. Switching to 64-bit computers buys us another 4 billion years before we’ll have to worry about it again. Presumably, 4 billion years from now we’ll have 128-bit computers, unless the world is being run by cockroaches.
I’m just dying to get an athlon64. This article is just another idiot tech journalist without no clue whatsoever.
The Sun Blade 100 came out at $1000, at a time when Apple had *NO* 64 bit systems.
Yes, the Apple is faster, and quite nice. But if you compare 64 bit Unix systems from Sun and Apple, Sun came out with one before Apple, and at a lower price.
No I did not. They are the first to gain traction on the mas market desktop. I don’t a lot of 64 bit AMDS or intel itaniums out there on mainstream desktops.
There are about as many 64 bit Intel, AMD and UltraSparc machines out there on “mainstream desktops” as there are G5s – which is to say, not many. Heck, if every machine Apple sold from today was a G5 there still wouldn’t be many out there on “mainstream desktops” for years.
It’s hardly even worth arguing about, there are some pretty easily verifiable facts dealing with the issue:
* There were 64 bit machines around before the G5.
* There were 64 bit machines around before the G5 that people used as everyday desktops (and probably in greater proportions than people will be using G5s as everyday desktops for some time).
* There were 64 bit machines around before the G5 that were a lot cheaper than the G5 is (and still are).
Now, if you want to assert that Apple were the first company whose marketing department branded their 64 bit machine a “personal computer” or “desktop machine”, I’ll concede you probably have a valid point (although it’s even possible Sun beat them to it). Personally, I wouldn’t call G5s “desktop machines” or “personal computers” anymore than I would Xeon or UltraSparc based machines. They’re high-end boxes aimed at professionals and enthusiasts.
The iMac and iBook are Apple’s “desktop” and “personal” machines and up until about two or three months ago the average MacZealot would have argued to the death (or at least a Godwin invocation) that Apple’s top-end machine (the G4) was a *Professional Workstation*, goddamnit, and not a “desktop” or “personal” computer (despite it’s lack of pretty much all features traditionally indicative of “Professional Workstation” class machines, except the pricetag).
These days, they bust their chops trying to tell us Apple’s top end boxes, which are actually starting to resemble traditional “Workstation” class machines for the first time in about a decade, are actually “desktop” or “personal” computers.
The wind changed on that particular stance so fast it took my breath away. I hope the irony here is not lost on the rest of you lot sitting back in the grandstand as well.
The simple fact is, there isn’t going to be a compelling *technical* reason for the vast majority of consumers to move to 64 bit hardware for at least three or four years, and probably closer to ten. It’s entirely possible media hype might move people to start asking for 64 bit hardware – much like it has them asking for 3Ghz powerhouses today for no real reason – but that would be dependent on hardware vendors dropping their prices appropriately to drive their 32 bit products out of the market. Intel, at least, seems not to be doing this. AMD and Apple, on the other hand, look like they are going to – and it will be most interesting to see if the same people abusing intel because they hype their clock speeds are going to abuse AMD and Apple because they hype their 64 bitness (I’m guessing not, because zealotry and hypocrisy sway hand-in-hand in marketing’s wind).
Anyway, back to the original article, the reason there’s not as much enthusiasm for the switchover from 32 to 64 bit as there was from 16 to 32 is simple because there’s much less pressure to do so. Outside of a few very specialised applications, a 64 bit machine offers no advantages over a (generally much cheaper) 32 bit one. This should be plainly obvious to anyone with even a passing interest in computers and their history. In the mid to late 80s people were regularly bumping into the limitations of a 16 bit machine and there was a whole swathe of new software and operating systems promising cool new features like protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking that was only going to be available on 32 bit hardware. In the late 90s and early 00s very few people are bumping into the limitations of 32 bit machines and the upcoming software really isn’t offering any compelling new features (save for a small number of high-end customers).
Nice post drsmithy, and I agree… Until the limits of current 32-bit OSs start to bite in the consumer marketplace, there will be no real demand for 64-bit CPUs for their 64-bit-ness. As AMD/Intel cease production of 32-bit systems and move to 64-bit, then there will be a gradual changeover… until and unless a 64-bit killer-app appears.
I would never pay for a 64 bit computer, they should pay me instead.
“lthough it’s great marketing, it was actually Sun Microsystems who was first, not Apple, or Intel or AMD.”
Um i may be mistaken but Alpha has always been 64-bit and they have been on the desktop for going on 10 years running Windows no less. I do not believe SUN was first.
I think in 5 years you will have no choices between 32 or 64 bits processors, you will find only 64 bits proc.
The price will be same that 32 bits proc now… so it’s only a question of time.
Actually it was MIPS who came out with the first 64bit CPU (1991). Alpha followed shortly afterwards (1992). Then IBM/Motorolas Power(PC) (1994), Sun’s UltraSPARC (1995) and HP PA-RISC (1996).
But the Alpha was the first “Desktop-PC”, (ie. not a Workstation /Server for specific tasks); even running Windows NT (although only a 32bit Version).
Max