Re: Intel says no to 64-bit until MS Longhorn arrives?

In article <>,
lid says...
> Gary L. <> wrote:
>
> >On 26 Mar 2004 06:09:03 -0800, (Black
> >Jack) wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...325151223.html
> >>
> >>I wonder if Microsoft would be willing to delay 64-bit Windows that
> >>long to accomodate Intel? Longhorn isn't expected now till something
> >>like 2007, but Microsoft can get 64-bit out with the current Windows
> >>XP.
> >
> >I saw no mention in the article that 64-bit Intel processors would not
> >be available until Longhorn shipped. What it said was that the 64-bit
> >feature would be disabled for general retail desktop CPUs until there
> >was sufficient support available in terms of software and device
> >drivers. Presumably when Windows XP-64 ships (perhaps later this
> >year), the support will be available and PC manufacturers will want
> >64-bit enabled P4 CPUs.
>
> Well what's the point of disabling the feature at the chip level?

Marketing? Perhaps it's not tested so they can't guarantee that
function/compatibility? They're not selling the feature and
there is a significant risk of not "getting it right", so it
makes sense not to market the feature until it is well tested
(and there is a market).

--
Keith

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 21:58:10 -0500, KR Williams <> wrote:
>In article <>,
> says...
>> Gary L. <> wrote:
>> >I saw no mention in the article that 64-bit Intel processors would not
>> >be available until Longhorn shipped. What it said was that the 64-bit
>> >feature would be disabled for general retail desktop CPUs until there
>> >was sufficient support available in terms of software and device
>> >drivers. Presumably when Windows XP-64 ships (perhaps later this
>> >year), the support will be available and PC manufacturers will want
>> >64-bit enabled P4 CPUs.
>>
>> Well what's the point of disabling the feature at the chip level?
>
>Marketing? Perhaps it's not tested so they can't guarantee that
>function/compatibility? They're not selling the feature and
>there is a significant risk of not "getting it right", so it
>makes sense not to market the feature until it is well tested
>(and there is a market).

The problem with that theory is that Intel WILL be selling 64-bit
chips using the same core as the Prescott, but only in the form of
Xeon chips for workstations and servers. In fact, the original
article mentioned that they would even sell *actual* P4 processors,
but only if they were strictly being sold into servers.

So this means that Intel DOES need to get it right, they will need to
guarantee compatibility, but they won't see any benefit from that
compatibility on the desktop.

I really don't quite understand this move on Intel's part if it does
pan out as they claim. It would seem to give AMD a real marketing
edge for the next two+ years, even if it doesn't translate to that
important of a performance edge.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 10:40:19 -0400, Tony Hill <>
wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 21:58:10 -0500, KR Williams <> wrote:
>>In article <>,
>> says...
>>> Gary L. <> wrote:
>>> >I saw no mention in the article that 64-bit Intel processors would not
>>> >be available until Longhorn shipped. What it said was that the 64-bit
>>> >feature would be disabled for general retail desktop CPUs until there
>>> >was sufficient support available in terms of software and device
>>> >drivers. Presumably when Windows XP-64 ships (perhaps later this
>>> >year), the support will be available and PC manufacturers will want
>>> >64-bit enabled P4 CPUs.
>>>
>>> Well what's the point of disabling the feature at the chip level?
>>
>>Marketing? Perhaps it's not tested so they can't guarantee that
>>function/compatibility? They're not selling the feature and
>>there is a significant risk of not "getting it right", so it
>>makes sense not to market the feature until it is well tested
>>(and there is a market).
>
>The problem with that theory is that Intel WILL be selling 64-bit
>chips using the same core as the Prescott, but only in the form of
>Xeon chips for workstations and servers. In fact, the original
>article mentioned that they would even sell *actual* P4 processors,
>but only if they were strictly being sold into servers.

Do you know if Granstdale and/or Alderwood chipsets will support >32-bit
FSB addresses? I can't find any info/rumors on this but obviously that's
one key to where Intel will position EMT64 for the next year or so of
desktop. Obviously i875 doesn't have this capability according to
datasheets.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??