I can offer a quick synopsis that 64bit will be the main stay for at
least 8 years after intel introduces it's chip to the market.
The first 32bit intel processor was introduced around '88 -89'.
the 486. It wasn't really fully utilized for 5 years. (I know Unix
used it correctly, and OS/2 too, I'm not a Mac person so no knowledge
there (anyway different chip)) Legacy programming and OS's dictate the
speed of use and embracing of new architecture. I think it mainly had
to deal with the OS DOS was designed for 8bit originally and then
extended through creative programming.
I'm in the process of changing over into Oracle and GUI is still
16bit. Legacy code.
With the introduction of the 64bit chip, you'll receive some increase
in processing speed due to data throughput. The other area which right
now looks a lot more promising in speed breakthroughs is in chip
manufacturing. Mainly replacing AL with CU. Lower resistance, which
produces less heat, which enables a higher density of transistors.
Corporate America will not switch over unless it's economically viable
for them to switch. Meaning that they do nothing until it becomes
clear that if they don't switch they'll lose money or due to the sheer
size of the company no wholesale conversion is possible only working
units will be slowly converted. Meaning that backwards compatibility
is a must. So that throws out any radical shift in OS design making
full utilization of the chip architecture.
I'm not ruling out 128bit chips. High end machines will always be out
there and ahead of the marketplace. The Alpha has been out for awhile
now, but how many alpha machines do you see sitting on desktops in
your basic office.
>
> On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Bojan Antonovic wrote:
>
> [...schnipp...]
> >
> > My conjuncture is: there is no need for 128 bit instruction code, so 64 bit
> > inst. code will be the final one. FPU register will stay to use 64 bit, and
> > for the other one I can`t say nothing. The main part of speeding up
> > processors will be done be using multiple processors.
>
> Why do you believe there will be no 128bit processors? Isn't "more data
> at a time" always better?
>
> I agree with you that advances in multiprocessing are needed and will be
> beneficial, but in the race for a better desktop machine, SMP does little
> to help.
>
> Without more info on the technical reasons behind your conjecture, I am
> willing to bet that at least one of the non-intel chip manufacturers
> announces a 128bit chip, if only to gain some attention.
>
> ---
> William Stuart ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> "Don't rush me sonny. You rush a miracle man you get rotten miracles."
> --Miracle Max, "The Princess Bride"
>
>
>
